Spirit and Word: Dual Testimony in Paul, John and Luke 9780567670090, 9780567670113, 9780567670106

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
1. Introduction
2. Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power
I. The gospel comes to Corinth: 1 Corinthians 2.4– 5
II. The gospel comes to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians 1.4– 5
III. Note on Romans 15.18– 19
IV. Note on 2 Corinthians 6.6– 7
3. Two Metaphors
I. Letter writing: 2 Corinthians 3.3
II. Priestly service: Romans 15.16
4. Knowing God
I. God’s love: Romans 5.5– 8
II. God’s glory: 2 Corinthians 4.6
III. The love of Christ: Ephesians 3.16– 19
5. Transformation, Worship and Warfare
I. Transformation: 2 Corinthians 3.18
II. Worship: Ephesians 5.18– 19
III. Warfare: Ephesians 6.17
6. Revelation and Interpretation
I. Getting it: 1 Corinthians 2.10– 16
II. Unveiling: 2 Corinthians 3.6, 12– 17
III. Criteria: 1 Corinthians 12.3 and 14.37
IV. Note on Romans 15.4–5 and 13
V. Note on 1 Corinthians 14.5, 13, 26– 28
7. Two Witnesses to Jesus
8. Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete
I. Guidance and instruction, part 1: John 14.25– 26
II. Guidance and instruction, part 2: John 16.12– 15
9. Jesus’s Words and the Life– Giving Action of the Spirit
I. Life: John 6.63
II. Birth: John 3.1– 15
III. Worship: John 4.23– 24
10. The Spirit and the From- The-Beginning Message
I. The ‘we’ group and the ‘from the beginning’ message: 1 John 1.1–4, 5; 2.7, 24; 3.11; 4.6, 14
II. Dual witness and discernment: 1 John 2.18– 27
III. Dual witness and discernment revisited: 1 John 4.1– 6
IV. Dual witness and assurance: 1 John 3.23– 24; 4.13– 15
V. Water, blood, and Spirit: 1 John 5.6–8
11. Apostles and Spirit
I. An explicit formulation: Acts 5.32
II. A carefully designed structure: Acts 1– 2
III. A two- pronged argument: Acts 15.1– 35
12. Individual Features and Common Ground
I. Dual testimony in Paul
II. Dual testimony in John
III. Dual testimony in Luke
IV. Common features
13. Developments and Antecedents
I. From Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ
II. From Synoptic saying to Johannine theology?
III. Antecedents
IV. Messiah, Spirit, and gospel
14. The New Testament and Contemporary Issues
Bibliography
Index of Authors
Index of References

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

565 formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

Spirit and Word Dual Testimony in Paul, John and Luke

Timothy Wiarda

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Timothy Wiarda, 2017 Timothy Wiarda has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. vii constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7009-0 PB: 978-0-5676-8266-6 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7010-6 A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 565 Typeset by Newgen Knowledge Works Pvt Ltd Printed and bound in Great Britain To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C ONTENTS Acknowledgements  Abbreviations  1. INTRODUCTION  2. GOSPEL PREACHING AND THE SPIRIT’S POWER  I. II. III. IV.

The gospel comes to Corinth: 1 Corinthians 2.4–5  The gospel comes to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians 1.4–5  Note on Romans 15.18–19  Note on 2 Corinthians 6.6–7 

3. TWO METAPHORS  I. Letter writing: 2 Corinthians 3.3  II. Priestly service: Romans 15.16

4. KNOWING GOD  I. God’s love: Romans 5.5–8  II. God’s glory: 2 Corinthians 4.6  III. The love of Christ: Ephesians 3.16–19 

5. TRANSFORMATION, WORSHIP AND WARFARE  I. Transformation: 2 Corinthians 3.18  II. Worship: Ephesians 5.18–19  III. Warfare: Ephesians 6.17 

6. REVELATION AND INTERPRETATION  I. II. III. IV. V.

Getting it: 1 Corinthians 2.10–16  Unveiling: 2 Corinthians 3.6, 12–17  Criteria: 1 Corinthians 12.3 and 14.37  Note on Romans 15.4–5 and 13  Note on 1 Corinthians 14.5, 13, 26–28 

vii viii 1 9 9 18 25 27 29 29 35 41 41 46 53 59 59 67 74 81 81 89 95 101 102

7. TWO WITNESSES TO JESUS 

105

8. JESUS’S WORDS AND THE TEACHING OF THE PARACLETE 

121 121 136

I. Guidance and instruction, part 1: John 14.25–26  II. Guidance and instruction, part 2: John 16.12–15 

9. JESUS’S WORDS AND THE LIFE–GIVING ACTION OF THE SPIRIT  I. Life: John 6.63  II. Birth: John 3.1–15  III. Worship: John 4.23–24 

141 141 149 157

vi

Contents

10. THE SPIRIT AND THE FROM-THE-BEGINNING MESSAGE  I. The ‘we’ group and the ‘from the beginning’ message: 1 John 1.1–4, 5; 2.7, 24; 3.11; 4.6, 14  II. Dual witness and discernment: 1 John 2.18–27  III. Dual witness and discernment revisited: 1 John 4.1–6  IV. Dual witness and assurance: 1 John 3.23–24; 4.13–15  V. Water, blood, and Spirit: 1 John 5.6–8 

11. APOSTLES AND SPIRIT  I. An explicit formulation: Acts 5.32  II. A carefully designed structure: Acts 1–2  III. A two-pronged argument: Acts 15.1–35 

12. INDIVIDUAL FEATURES AND COMMON GROUND  I. Dual testimony in Paul  II. Dual testimony in John  III. Dual testimony in Luke  IV. Common features 

13. DEVELOPMENTS AND ANTECEDENTS  I. From Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ  II. From Synoptic saying to Johannine theology?  III. Antecedents  IV. Messiah, Spirit, and gospel 

167 167 172 178 182 184 189 189 197 201 207 207 213 217 219 221 221 226 230 236

14. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES 

239

Bibliography  Index of Authors  Index of References 

245 255 259

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express appreciation to the many people who helped me at various stages in this project. First, I wish to thank Drs Jeff Iorg and Michael Martin, together with the trustees of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (GGBTS, now Gateway Seminary), for granting a generous sabbatical leave that gave me time to complete much of my research and writing. I must also thank Dr Peter Williams and the staff at Tyndale House, Cambridge, for the opportunity to spend several very enjoyable and profitable months there during the summer and fall of 2012. I especially want to thank Simon Sykes for his assistance with library resources. Among those who provided valuable feedback, advice or specialist information, I want to acknowledge Prof. Steve Walton and my GGBTS colleagues Gary Arbino, Chris Chun, Rick Durst and Paul Wegner. I  also want to thank the staff at the GGBTS Library for their efficient and friendly help with all kinds of requests, often going a second mile to help me get the materials I needed. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Gracia, for her invaluable encouragement and practical assistance all along the way.

A BBREVIATIONS 1 Clem 1 En. 1QH 1QpHab 1QS ANTC Ap. Const. AYBC BBB BDAG BECNT BETL BibSac BNTC BTS BWANT BZNW CBET CBNTS CBQ Cher. CNT DCH ÉBib EDNT EKKNT Epict. ESV FTS HNT HTKNT JBL JETS JPS JSNTSup JSPSS LD Lev. Rab. Lives LXX

1 Clement 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch Hymns Habakkuk Pesher Community Rule Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Apostolic Constitutions Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries Bonner Biblische Beitrage Danker, Frederick, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bibliotheca Sacra Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Tools and Studies Beiträge zur Wissenschaft zum Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly De cherubim Commentaire du Nouveau Testament David Cline, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Études bibliques Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament The Discourses of Epictetus English Standard Version Frankfurter Theologische Studien Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Lectio Divina Leviticus Rabbah Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers Septuagint

Abbreviations MBI Mut. Nom. NASB NICNT NIGTC NIV NovT NovTSup NRSV NTD NTL NTS PNTC RNT SBB SEA SKKNT SNTSMS Somn. SP Spec. Leg. SSEJC T. Jud. TDNT ThHK ThKNT TL TNC Virt. Vit. Mos. War WMANT WUNT ZBNT ZECNT ZNW

ix

Methods in Biblical Interpretation De mutatione nominum New Americal Standard Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library New Testament Studies Pillar New Testament Commentary Regensburger Neues Testament Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar: Neues Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series De somniis Sacra Pagina De specialibus legibus Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Testament of Judah Theology Dictionary of the New Testament Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testament Commentaries De virtutibus De vita Mosis The Jewish War Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Aten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zurcher Bibelkommentare: Neues Testament Zondervan Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

1 I NTRODUCTION

New Testament (NT) writers frequently depict the Holy Spirit acting in conjunction with humanly given communication about Jesus. Sometimes they explicitly highlight this combination of elements, and at other times they simply embed it in their discourse in ways that quietly reveal their underlying sense that the work of the Spirit and words spoken by or about Jesus belong together. This NT proclivity for associating the Spirit’s action with the message of or about Jesus has relevance for contemporary theology, hermeneutics and church practice, because Christians who wish to understand how the Holy Spirit works in relation to their present-day preaching, teaching, reading and hearing of the word of God will naturally look to the NT for direction. But given its widespread presence in the NT, this pattern of dual action or dual testimony also carries interest from a historical perspective. The present volume seeks to analyze this motif, clarify its features, classify its forms, measure its extent and importance, compare its manifestations in three NT authors and consider how and when they bring it into play. To get an initial sense of the dual-testimony pattern and the interpretive challenges it presents we can briefly glance at the two NT passages that express it most neatly and explicitly. Consider first Jn 15.26–27. In the context of his farewell discourse Jesus tells his disciples, ‘When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that comes from the Father, he will testify concerning me; and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.’ Here we find a statement about the Holy Spirit, identified as the Paraclete (Helper, Advocate) and the Spirit of truth, set alongside a statement about the disciples. The Spirit is said to bear witness, but the disciples also bear witness. The Spirit’s witness focuses on Jesus and so does that of the disciples, grounded as it is in their having been with him ‘from the beginning’. So there are two witnessing agents (one of them a group) and two witnessing activities, but each focuses on one and the same object. These statements about bearing witness seem simple and straightforward. Things get more complicated, however, when we seek to define their meaning more sharply. It is fairly clear how the disciples will testify: they will speak and write (21.24) about Jesus. But what forms will the Spirit’s witness-bearing take? And how exactly does the Sprit’s action relate to that of the disciples? These questions have generated a number of different answers. In fact, it is possible to list at least

2

Spirit and Word

nine interpretations of Jn 15.26–27, several of which are fairly well represented in scholarly literature. Let me run through all nine as a way of introducing issues that will recur throughout our investigation of the Spirit–word relationship. First, a number of interpreters see the Spirit’s testimony in this passage as internal witness in the hearts and minds of those who hear the disciples’ preaching about Jesus. In this view, the Spirit’s testimony accompanies the preaching of the disciples yet must be distinguished from it. The Spirit opens people’s hearts and convinces them the disciples’ message is true; this activity is part and parcel of the Spirit’s work of giving people new life through faith in Jesus. Second, many scholars favour a reference to the Spirit’s work of teaching, reminding or otherwise encouraging the disciples so that they can, in turn, bear  witness to the world. The primary basis for this view lies in Jn 14.26 and 16.13–15, passages which depict the Spirit-Paraclete giving the disciples a deeper understanding of Jesus. In this view, the Spirit’s witnessing activity functions as a kind of preliminary, behind-the-scenes work that prepares the disciples to carry out their activity of witness. Third, a variation of the previous interpretation would be to think of the Spirit’s work not so much as teaching but as empowering the disciples to bear witness. One problem with this interpretation, however, is that the theme of the Spirit empowering the disciples’ witness is more prominent in Acts than in the Gospel of John. Fourth, many scholars see a connection between Jn 15.26–27 and Mark 13.9– 11 or the traditions lying behind it. The Mark passage depicts the Holy Spirit speaking through the disciples in an act of direct and immediate inspiration – a kind of dual speaking in which the Spirit takes over or supernaturally enhances the disciples’ normal thought processes. Might the formulation in John 15 express a similar concept of immediate inspiration? Few if any interpreters seem to think so, despite other parallels they may draw between the Synoptic passage and Jn 15.26–27. This is probably because the Fourth Gospel typically portrays human witness as being based on personal observation and experience, not simply on charismatic inspiration. Fifth, a number of interpreters speak of the Spirit bearing witness in a way that completely overlaps with and is practically indistinguishable from the witnessbearing of the disciples. This view differs from the direct-inspiration model in that it allows full place for the disciples’ own observation- and memory-based testimony. The Spirit is understood to bear witness in and through this fully human testimony. This interpretation also differs from the witness-in-the-heart view in that it does not see Jn 15.26–27 referring to an internal work of the Spirit as distinguishable from the external speaking of the disciples. To describe the Spirit’s witness as practically indistinguishable from that of the disciples seems a rather abstract notion, but it must be acknowledged that a conceptual parallel can be found in Johannine passages that speak of Jesus’s words and deeds being one and the same with those of the Father. Sixth, a rare though occasionally found view is that the Spirit’s witnessing activity consists of producing works of power that confirm the truth about Jesus.

Introduction

3

Most would judge this form of Spirit-witness more in harmony with the book of Acts than the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, John does contain references to miracles that bear witness to Jesus (5.36; 10.25), and it is interesting to observe that in the passage leading up to 15.26–27 Jesus specifically alludes to the evidence provided by his miracles (15.24). Jesus also says his disciples will do greater works than he (14.12) – presumably because they have received the Holy Spirit (20.22). Seventh, a similar but even less likely suggestion would be to see the Spirit’s witness as coming in the form of gifts and perceivable manifestations in those who receive the Spirit through faith in Christ. Although this type of Spirit-given witness is described in Acts, to see it in Jn 15.26–27 would require us to introduce themes not found elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. Eighth, hardly any commentator endorses the idea that this passage refers to the Spirit bearing testimony to Jesus in a way that is unconnected to the spoken or written witness of the original disciples, such as by giving later believers new revelations or independent spiritual impressions. Nevertheless, some readers of Jn 15.26–27 might wonder whether the Spirit’s witnessing action is necessarily bound to that of the first disciples. In the history of the church there have certainly been those who have viewed the original witness given by Jesus’s followers and the ongoing revelatory work of the Spirit as two quite independent lines of testimony. Finally, it is possible to understand this passage as referring to a range of activities that includes more than one of the options listed above. Partly because of the text’s own lack of specificity and partly because of the richness of the Gospel’s overall portrayal of the Spirit, many have thought it best to take Jesus’s words about the Spirit bearing witness as a general reference to a multifaceted role. For example, when John Calvin (the most outstanding advocate of the doctrine of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) comments on this text, he speaks first of the Spirit testifying to and strengthening the disciples (the second view listed above), then of the apostles becoming ‘organs of the Holy Spirit’ (the fourth or fifth view), then of the Spirit sealing the minds and hearts of those who hear the preaching (the first view).1 So there are a number of different ways to explain the logic of the dual testimony depicted in Jn 15.26–27. Not all are equally viable, but each is worth noting. Some models that do not fit this passage well may nevertheless emerge as strong possibilities when we turn to other NT texts. Consider next a Lukan passage, Acts 5.32. In a scene in which the apostles are brought before the Sanhedrin, Peter tells the assembled council, ‘We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him.’ Here, as in Jn 15.26–27, we find reference to two witnesses: Peter and his fellow apostles (considered as a group) and the Holy Spirit. The ‘things’ to which the apostles and the Spirit bear witness concern Jesus’s death, resurrection, exaltation and giving of repentance and forgiveness. Within the developing narrative of

1. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Pringle, 2 vols (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 2.130–31.

4

Spirit and Word

Acts the description of the apostles as ‘witnesses’ must refer primarily to their public preaching about Jesus – though it would of course also include reference to the testimony they give in the immediate scene as they stand before the ruling authorities. But what does it mean to describe the Spirit as a witness, and how does the witnessing action of the Spirit relate to that of the apostles? Here, as in the case of Jn 15.26–27, competing proposals emerge. While a longer list of options could be given, one that would repeat most of the possibilities we have noted in connection with Jn 15.26–27, I will simply summarize the three general approaches most commonly taken by recent scholars. First, a number of interpreters find the key to understanding Acts 5.32 in the prominent Lukan theme of the Spirit empowering the human witnesses to Jesus (Lk. 24.48–49; Acts 1.8; etc.). According to this approach, the Spirit can be called a witness because the Spirit is present with the apostles and enables them to be witnesses. Some who adopt this line of interpretation include the additional thought that the Spirit teaches the human witnesses what to say. This latter suggestion draws on passages like Lk. 12.11–12, which contains a promise that the Spirit will teach Jesus’s disciples what to say when they are brought before rulers (which seems especially appropriate given the setting of Peter’s statement in Acts  5.32), and perhaps also on those passages in Acts that portray the Spirit speaking through the Old Testament (OT) or Christian prophets (1.16; 4.25; 18.28; 20.23; 21.11; 28.25) or giving discernment to disciples (15.28). Second, many scholars interpret Acts 5.32 as a reference to the Spirit effecting miraculous signs and healings, thus attesting the truth of the message about Jesus. According to Peter’s Pentecost sermon, one effect of the outpouring of the Spirit would be ‘signs on the earth below’ (2.19). Furthermore, it was the apostles’ performance of miracles and healings that led crowds to listen to their preaching and provoked the Sanhedrin to call the apostles to account, the occasion that forms the setting for 5.32. A close cousin of this interpretation stresses the witnessbearing effect of the gifts and manifestations that were evident in those who received the Spirit through belief in Christ. Visible and audible effects of the Spirit’s infilling draw an interested crowd at Pentecost (2.2–6), and Peter says these phenomena confirm his message about Jesus (2.33). The confirmatory effect of such Spiritwrought manifestations is highlighted again in the Cornelius narrative (10.44–48; 11.15–18; cf. 15.8) and implied in the account of the Samaritan believers’ reception of the Spirit (8.17). Third, a less popular view, but one that is nevertheless represented by some interpreters, holds that Acts 5.32 refers to the Spirit’s direct witness in the hearts of those who hear the apostles proclaim Jesus. This kind of internal witness is not as prominent in Acts as themes relating to signs, manifestations and empowering, but certain passages do hint at it. For instance, the Lord is said to open Lydia’s heart to pay attention to Paul’s message (16.14), which probably implies a work of the Holy Spirit. Stephen links the image of a hardened, uncircumcised heart to the act of resisting the Holy Spirit (7.51). We should probably also see an implied picture of the Spirit bearing internal witness in the account of Peter’s Pentecost sermon, where 3,000 of Peter’s audience are described as being ‘stabbed in their

Introduction

5

hearts’ upon hearing his message (2.37). Inasmuch as Luke portrays the Pentecost events in their totality as dominated by the presence and activity of the Spirit, this internal stabbing is best seen as part of the Spirit’s work as well. The pattern of dual testimony or dual action appears in some thirty passages in the writings of Paul, John and Luke. Not all of these texts express the correlative activities of the Spirit and human witnesses to Jesus as explicitly or with such obvious parallelism as Jn 15.26–27 and Acts 5.32, but they do exhibit a very similar structure of thought. To define this pattern of thought more precisely, these passages portray the Holy Spirit communicating, transforming or performing some other action in close association either with the teaching and revealing activity of Jesus himself, the teaching and preaching of his followers or the testimony given in the Scriptures. On the one hand, this motif highlights the importance of a message about God and Jesus given in human words and historical deeds and communicated through normal human channels. On the other hand, it calls attention to an accompanying action of the Spirit. In the chapters that follow, we will examine the most important passages in Paul, John and Luke that display this conjunction of ideas.2 Our task is made more interesting by the fact that, in a surprising number of cases, the interpretation of these dual-testimony/dual-agency passages is anything but straightforward. Our survey of Jn 15.26–27 and Acts 5.32 has already revealed the kinds of questions that come up. We encounter similar issues in passages like 1 Thess. 1.4–5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5. When Paul says his preaching came ‘with power and with the Holy Spirit and with much conviction’, or with ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’, is he talking about miraculous signs, the Spirit’s convictiongiving work in Paul the preacher or the Spirit’s convincing work in the hearts and minds of his hearers? Other passages raise further questions. When Paul says, ‘God has revealed these things to us through the Spirit’ (1 Cor. 2.10), does ‘us’ refer to all believers or only to Paul and his fellow apostles? When he says, ‘We have received the Spirit from God that we might know the things given to us by God’ (1 Cor. 2.12), does he refer to a Spirit-given capacity to intellectually understand teaching about Jesus or a Spirit-given inward readiness to embrace this teaching? When Paul says, ‘The letter kills but the Spirit gives life’ (2 Cor. 3.6), does he refer to a work of the Spirit that brings interpretive freedom to letter-bound readers of Scripture or one that emancipates sin-enslaved adherents of the Law? What does Jesus mean when he tells the Samaritan woman that those who worship God must do so ‘in s/Spirit and truth’ (Jn 4.23–24)? Does this passage speak simply about the importance of a sincere inward disposition, or does it instead stress the Holy Spirit’s action in worshippers whose minds are filled with truth about Christ? And

2. This study does not include passages that depict the Spirit simply as the giver of the word: passages such as Eph. 3.3–5 (which speaks of gospel mysteries revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit), 1 Cor. 12.1–11 and 14.1–12 (which describe charismatic speech in the community) and the many NT texts that depict the Spirit inspiring the writers of Scripture.

6

Spirit and Word

what about Jesus’s promise that the Paraclete ‘will teach you all things and remind you of all that I have said to you’ (Jn 14.26)? Is this a promise for all believers or one intended exclusively for the original disciples? Does it simply mean the Paraclete will ensure that the things Jesus said are not forgotten, or does it also mean the Spirit will inspire fresh contextualizations of Jesus’s message to meet changing future circumstances? When the readers of 1 John are told, ‘You have received an anointing’ that ‘teaches you all things’ (2.27), does this refer to direct instruction that renders human intermediaries unnecessary or to a Spirit-given ability to recognize when human teachers are speaking the truth? In fact, almost every one of the thirty or so texts we need to examine presents a significant exegetical challenge and requires detailed engagement with competing interpretations. Our first goal, then, will be to determine the best interpretation of the most important NT dual-testimony/dual-action passages. The greater part of the book will be devoted to this exegetical task. A second goal, building on the results of the first, will be to clarify how the three NT writers who display the pattern most extensively thought about dual testimony. In the case of Paul, this motif concentrates in 1 Thessalonians, the Corinthian correspondence, Romans and Ephesians.3 We will trace how Paul expresses and uses dual testimony across these epistles, and consider how his handling of this motif sheds light on other aspects of his theology. In the case of the Johannine writings, both the Gospel and First Epistle are rich in themes relating to dual testimony, although each with its own emphases. Luke’s dual-testimony passages, which are less extensive than those in Paul and John, appear primarily in Acts. A third goal will be to compare these writers with each other with a view to obtaining a clearer overall picture of the NT material relating to dual testimony. This can serve as a useful resource for theological reflection and application. A fourth goal relates to a historical question that seems to arise almost of its own accord as we pursue our other, more exegetically and theologically oriented aims. This concerns the lines of influence and development that may lie behind the similar patterns of thought and expression we so often observe when comparing dual-testimony passages in diverse streams of NT writing. As a work of NT theology, this book exemplifies a ‘cross-section’ approach – it examines the appearance of a single motif across several different works, including those by different authors. Most of the work done on the passages and themes relating to dual testimony has come in the context of commentaries on individual NT books or in monographs on themes relating to the Spirit and/or the message of Christ within a single book or within the work of a single NT writer. This is no doubt as it should be; there are great advantages to interpreting a particular passage or theme with full consciousness of and concentration on its role in the particular work to which it belongs. For this reason, even though this study ultimately covers a wider range of NT material, I  have tried to maintain the vertical perspective offered by reading passages within their native contexts.

3. I include Ephesians among the writings of Paul.

Introduction

7

Nevertheless, a cross-section approach also has its advantages, even at the level of exegesis. The first is focus. By concentrating our attention on a single feature and the specific questions it raises, we can pursue those questions in greater detail and with greater persistence than would otherwise be possible. Second, there is the cumulative effect of looking at several similar or thematically related passages within the work of a single NT writer or body of literature. One passage throws light on another and in this way an author’s distinctive patterns of thought become more apparent. Finally, a cross-section approach allows us to compare the ways different NT writers display the dual-testimony pattern and the ways a single writer may display this pattern in different works.

2 G OSPEL P REACHING AND THE S PIRIT’S P OWER

In two very similar passages, Paul emphatically connects the Spirit’s work with his gospel preaching. According to 1 Cor. 2.4–5, the Spirit proves Paul’s message; according to 1 Thess. 1.4–5, the Spirit persuades Paul’s listeners. In both cases, Paul depicts the Spirit’s action as an exercise of power. These passages are so alike that our analysis of the relationship between the Spirit and preaching in one will inevitably influence our interpretation of that relationship in the other.1 For this reason it will be good to start where the evidence is more abundant. This is 1 Cor. 2.4–5. Although 1 Thessalonians is chronologically prior, the 1 Corinthians passage is set within a context that offers additional and decisive clues to Paul’s meaning. Following our examination of these principal texts, I will briefly comment on two further passages that also mention word, Spirit and power in connection with Paul’s ministry, Rom. 15.18–19 and 2 Cor. 6.6–7.

I. The gospel comes to Corinth: 1 Corinthians 2.4–5 4

And my word and my preaching were not given with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and power, 5that your faith might not rest in human wisdom but in the power of God.

The central question we must answer concerns the nature of ‘the Spirit and power’ that Paul says accompanied his gospel preaching in Corinth. But this proves challenging, as four interpretations are common. First, according to one widely held view, ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ refers to manifestations, gifts, changed lives or other discernible evidence that marked the reception of the Spirit by those who responded to Paul’s message.2 1. However, some scholars do think these passages present differing pictures of the Spirit-word relationship. Some see a reference to signs and wonders in 1 Thess. 1.5 but not in 1 Cor. 2.4–5. And while relatively few interpreters think 1 Cor. 2.4–5 refers to a work of the Spirit that empowers Paul as a preacher, that is the majority view in the case of 1 Thess. 1.5. 2. For example, E.-B. Allo, Première Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris:  J.  Gabalda, 1956), 25; Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand

10

Spirit and Word

Second, a number of interpreters think this expression refers to the Spirit’s direct convincing influence on Paul’s Corinthian hearers, persuading them that his message was true.3 Third, a smaller number of scholars think Paul refers to signs and miracles that demonstrated the truth of his message.4 Finally, a few scholars think ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ refers to the evidentiary impact of Paul’s own Spirit-produced assurance and conviction as a preacher.5 Notice that only the second of these views pictures the Spirit directly influencing hearts and minds to believe Paul’s message. The others envisage the Spirit impacting faith indirectly by producing discernible effects that Paul’s hearers can observe, think about and make the basis for drawing a conclusion about the gospel. It is the second view that is best supported by the evidence. 1. The presence of themes and terms relating to rhetoric makes it strongly probable that Paul uses ‘demonstration’ (ἀπόδειξις) in its rhetorical sense – ‘logical demonstration’ or ‘proof ’. While taking ἀπόδειξις in this sense does not by itself establish the direct–convincing–influence interpretation, it forms a necessary supporting plank for that view. It shows that Paul is talking about argumentation and the establishment of truth. If he were using ἀπόδειξις in its non-rhetorical sense (‘a showing forth’, ‘an exhibiting’), by way of contrast, that would imply he wished to associate the Spirit with an outward display rather than a direct inward influence. But the majority of recent interpreters recognize that Paul here employs ἀπόδειξις as a technical rhetorical term.6 This was a common usage,7 and the context of 1 Corinthians 1–2 almost demands the rhetorical sense. Paul contrasts his preaching with the public speaking and wisdom of popular rhetoricians, using rhetorical terms such as ‘wisdom’ and ‘persuasion’ as he does so. Moreover, a reference to proof or argumentation fits perfectly in a sentence in which Paul speaks about persuasion (2.4a) and the process of coming to faith (2.5).

Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2010), 118; Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther, 3  vols. (EKKNT; Zürich and Braunschweig:  Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener, 1991), 236. 3. For example, C.  K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 66; H.-C. Kammler, Kreuz und Weisheit (WUNT, 159; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 171. 4. R. Dean Anderson, Jr, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Kampen:  Kok Pharos, 1996), 247; Richard Hays, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 36. 5. Allo, Première Épître, 25; Raymond Collins, First Corinthians (SP, 7; Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999), 120. 6. See, e.g., Lars Hartman, ‘Some Remarks on 1 Cor 2:1–5’, SEA 39 (1974), pp. 109–20 (116); Timothy Lim, ‘Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, But in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power’, NovT 29 (1987), pp. 137–49; B. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 125. 7. See Lim, who cites Diogenes Laertius’s Lives 6.45; Epict. 1.25.8; 2/25f; Cicero, Academica 2.8; and Plato, Timaeus 40E, Sophist 265D, Phaedo 77c (‘Persuasive’, 147).

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

11

2. The genitives in ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ are best taken as subjective. If we accept that ἀποδείξει has a rhetorical/logical sense, we must then decide whether the genitives in πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως should be taken as subjective (‘a demonstration given by the Spirit and power’), objective (‘a demonstration proving something about the Spirit and power’), or appositional (‘a demonstration consisting of the Spirit and power’). Context shows the subjective reading to be correct. While this seems to be the most popular approach among recent interpreters,8 a sizeable minority nevertheless view the genitives as objective,9 and still others mention the possibility of their being appositional.10 Perhaps the strongest argument favouring the subjective interpretation is simply that its main alternative, taking the genitives as objective, presents such great difficulties. It does so despite the fact that, in general Greek usage, genitive nouns with ἀπόδειξις usually are objective, expressing the thing being proved.11 But in the case of 1 Cor. 2.4, it simply does not work well to take ‘the Spirit and power’ as the objects of ‘demonstration’. If we assume that ἀπόδειξις has its rhetorical sense of ‘logical demonstration’ in this passage (as argued above), objective genitives would imply Paul was out to demonstrate something about the Spirit and power.12 But this does not fit Paul’s flow of thought. His preaching, as he describes it in this passage, focused on Christ and the cross; it was therefore his word about Christ that needed proving in Corinth, not a claim about the Spirit and power.13 The goal of Paul’s preaching was the Corinthians’ faith in Christ. The parallel ‘not– but’ statements in verses 2.4–5 contrast two opposing ways of establishing such faith:  on the one hand, ‘persuasive words of wisdom’ and ‘human wisdom’, on the other, ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ and ‘the power of God’. The expression ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ must therefore describe a means of confirming Paul’s message about Christ, just like the other elements he

8. See, e.g., Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 117, n. 126; Kammler, Kreuz, 171; Eckhard Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006), 156; Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (ThHK, 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996), 49, n.  146; M.-A. Chevallier, Esprit de Dieu, Paroles d’Hommes:  Le rôle de l’esprit dans les ministères de la parole selon l’apôtre Paul (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé: 1966), 108. 9. For example, Allo, Première Épître, 25; Anderson, who cites the Church Fathers Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact as taking this view (Ancient, 240). Barrett (First Epistle, 65)  and Anthony Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 222) favour both objective and subjective. 10. David Garland thinks the genitives may be either objective or appositional (1 Corinthians [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 87). 11. Anderson, Ancient, 240; Dieter Zeller, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 127. 12. On the objective genitive view, we would probably have to view Paul as the active subject of ἀπόδειξις. 13. See Kammler, Kreuz, 171.

12

Spirit and Word

brings into the discussion. To suddenly introduce a reference to demonstrating a claim about the Spirit would break the focus and balance of the passage.14 As we turn away from the objective interpretation, a number of small observations positively encourage us toward the subjective view. First, it is important to remember that it is the Spirit that Paul sets in relation to ἀπόδειξις. In Paul’s thinking, the Spirit is not merely an inactive object, fact, idea or claim, but an acting and even personal agent.15 Within the world of Paul’s thought, it is easy to imagine the Spirit proving something, particularly something about Christ. Recognizing this goes a good way towards countering the observation that genitives with ἀπόδειξις are usually objective. In cases where the noun in the genitive refers to an inanimate fact, idea or claim, the genitive almost has to function objectively. But in 1 Cor. 2:4 the genitive noun refers to the Spirit – not a passive object but an active agent. Second, if it is true that ‘demonstration’ with a subjective genitive is a rare form of expression, we must bear in mind that Paul’s sentence structure almost forces him to use a construction consisting of a noun form like ‘a demonstration’ preceded by ‘with’ (ἐν). He has begun using ἐν phrases already in 2.3 (‘with weakness and with fear and with trembling’), then continued with two sets of contrasting ἐν phrases in 2.4–5. So if Paul now wants to speak of the Spirit demonstrating the truth of his message, he must, for stylistic reasons, say ‘with a demonstration of ’; he cannot simply use the verb ‘demonstrate’ (ἀποδείκνυμι) or some alternative construction. And once he settles on ‘with a demonstration’, he has to follow it with a genitive to show the Spirit as the acting agent in the demonstration – an uncommon usage, perhaps, but quite appropriate within the structure of the passage. Third, many interpreters suggest that ‘Spirit and power’ should be viewed as a hendiadys with a meaning like ‘the powerful Spirit’, or as an expression that in some other way links the Spirit and power closely together.16 An interpretation along these lines would mean that Paul does not picture impersonal ‘power’ as a separate subject alongside ‘the Spirit’. Taken as a unit, ‘the Spirit and power’ can easily be seen to function as an active agent. Fourth, the prepositional phrase ‘with a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ specifically modifies Paul’s word and preaching (2.4a), not Paul himself or his coming (mentioned in 2.3). This may seem a fine distinction, but it helps us see that the demonstration that accompanied Paul’s preaching need not have been his own act. If he had said, ‘I came with a demonstration of the Spirit and power’, we

14. An objective interpretation of πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως would work better if ἀπόδειξις were taken in its non-rhetorical sense of ‘display’. But, as we have seen, strong factors support the rhetorical sense. Furthermore, to see Paul highlighting an outward display of power at this point would run counter to other elements in 1 Cor. 1.2, as discussed below. 15. See, e.g., Rom. 8.26; Gal. 4.6. 16. For example, Joseph A.  Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (AYBC; New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2008), 173; Kammler, Kreuz, 171; Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 222.

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

13

would naturally suppose that Paul himself was the one doing the demonstrating. But that is not what he says.17 So the subjective interpretation is far better supported than the objective. But what about the possibility of the genitives being appositional? The appositional interpretation (in which the logical demonstration consists of the Spirit and power) implies that some observed or experienced manifestation of the Spirit constitutes the proof of the gospel. So this view is possible only if ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ refers to miracles, gifts, changed lives or visibly empowered preaching.18 As we shall see in the points to follow, it is unlikely that Paul has any of those things in mind. 3. Paul connects the concept of ‘power’ directly to gospel preaching. All four interpretations of ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ recognize some degree of connection between Paul’s gospel and the Spirit’s power, but only the direct– influence view pictures that link as immediate and integral. And an immediate, integral link between power and the preached word – not just at the point of its speaking, but especially at the point of its hearing – is precisely what the context demands. In the passage leading up to 1 Cor. 2.4, Paul describes the word of the cross as the ‘power of God’ (1.18). He says the same thing in Rom. 1.16 using the term ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον). He thus binds the gospel word to power in the tightest possible way. Paul is not simply saying that power was exhibited alongside the preaching of the word (as in the case of miracles) or as a result of the word (as in the case of manifestations of the Spirit in those who received the word), nor is he saying that power enabled the word to be preached. In passages like 1 Cor. 1.18 and Rom. 1.16, he says that the gospel word itself is power. At the same time, the added ‘of God’ shows where this power comes from. Gospel preaching, according to Paul, is a matter of God acting with power.19 Looking more widely at Paul’s thought we see that he frequently portrays the gospel word as an active agent: it works, runs, comes, bears fruit, grows, dwells and is not bound.20 Alternatively, he can depict it as an instrument through which 17. The subjective interpretation of πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως might get small additional support if the variant reading ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας is accepted in 2.4a. See Kammler, Kreuz, 171. The variant ‘persuasiveness of wisdom’ would form a better contrast to ‘proving given by the Spirit’, first, by setting two verbal nouns in contrast, and second, by contrasting two subjective genitives (assuming that ‘of wisdom’ should be taken subjectively). But the reading ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας λογοις also makes an appropriate counterpart to ‘a demonstration given by the Spirit and power’. 18. Interpreting the genitives as appositional probably entails giving ἀπόδειξις the nuance ‘proof ’, while taking them as subjective more naturally aligns with a verbal nuance, ‘a proving’ or ‘argumentation;’ cf. Kammler, Kreuz, 170. 19. Cf. 2 Cor. 4.7. 20. 1 Thess. 2.13; 2 Thess. 3.1; Col. 1.4–5; 3.16; and 2 Tim. 2.9. Paul is not alone in depicting the word of God as ‘living and active’. See Heb. 4.12; Acts 7.38; 1 Pet. 1.23; Isa. 55.11; Jer. 23.29; Ps. 147.15; and Wis. 18.15–16. In contrast to the pictures of battle and

14

Spirit and Word

God acts: God calls, saves, cleanses and brings people to obedience through the word.21 Passages such as these show how typical it was for Paul to connect the word directly and instrumentally to the active exercise of God’s power.22 4. Paul connects power to the apparent weakness of his message (Christ crucified) and personal presence (weakness, fear, and trembling) in a way that makes it hard to suppose that he would then suddenly call attention to a form of power that was both visible and popularly understood (such as miracles, manifestations, gifts, evident inspiration or assurance). In 1 Corinthians 1–2, Paul consciously stresses the paradox that the preaching of the gospel is powerful at the same time that it appears weak. Its weakness consists in the apparent foolishness of its content, Christ crucified, and in the fear and trembling of its preacher, Paul. The power that attends the gospel does not in any way eliminate or draw eyes away from this weakness, but rather works through it. Paul actually highlights and boasts in this weakness.23 This means that the ‘demonstration of the Spirit and power’ in 2.4 must refer to a powerful action that does not violate this paradox or take the force out of what Paul says about preaching with fear and trembling (2.3) and sounding foolish to at least many of those who heard him (1.18, 23). Interpretations that think Paul refers to miracles, dramatic experiences of the Spirit, gifts or evident inspiration run precisely this risk. First of all, at least some of these forms of power clash with the kinds of weakness Paul takes such pains to highlight. To emphasize miracles at this point would clash with his statements about his message appearing weak and foolish. To call attention to his assurance or other obvious signs of inspiration would run counter to his claim to have come with fear and trembling. Not that miracles and confidence played no role in Paul’s ministry; according to his own testimony elsewhere, they did. But to highlight such forms of power here would ill serve the argument of this passage. Second, these forms of power would likely have had evidential value that the general populace could recognize and acknowledge even when operating with their own conventional standards of judgment. Certainly that would be true in the case of miracles, the more dramatic of the spiritual gifts among the Corinthian believers, and assurance or other signs of inspiration in Paul.24 But, in fact, the general Corinthian public was not able to recognize points of strength in Paul’s ministry; on the contrary, they found his message both weak and foolish (1.18–25). Finally, in the eyes of immature believers these types of visible power could easily be mistaken as indications of Paul’s power – a perception he would certainly want to avoid. Paul is addressing a situation in which boasting in human leaders

destruction in Heb. 4.12; Jer. 23.29; and Wis. 18.15–16, however, Paul’s metaphors evoke thoughts of movement and productivity. 21. 2 Thess. 2.14; 1 Cor. 1.21; Rom. 15.18; Eph. 5.26. 22. Cf. Kammler, Kreuz, 172. 23. Cf. 2 Cor. 11.30; 12.9; Gal. 6.14. 24. It would be less true in the case of personal experiences of the Spirit’s presence and quietly changed lives.

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

15

has led to divisions within the church (1.11–12). In response, he uses himself as an example of how Christian leaders are nothing but dependent servants (3.5–9). He highlights his weakness. He does not even want to be known for how many people he baptized (1.14–17). Given these concerns and the Corinthians’ proven readiness to make too much of impressive leaders, it would not have served Paul’s purpose to highlight outward signs of power in close connection with his preaching. In other contexts, perhaps, but not here. 5. The idea that the Spirit directly convinces people about the gospel and leads them to accept it is clearly present in the passage that immediately follows 1 Cor. 2.4–5. Because Paul does not explicitly define what he means by ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ in 1 Cor. 2.4, we are obliged to complete the picture by drawing in ideas from the surrounding context. When we search that context, we discover an explanatory model lying very close at hand. In 2.6–16 Paul depicts the Spirit carrying out a direct work that enables or influences people to receive gospel revelation. In 2.12 he says, ‘We have received . . . the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things given to us by God.’ This is followed in 2.14–15 by the statement that ‘the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God’. Such a person finds these things foolishness and ‘cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But the spiritual person discerns all things’. Without trying to answer every question relating to this passage we can nevertheless affirm two things.25 First, Paul is describing a work of the Spirit in all believers, not just apostles, teachers, or an elite group within the church. While Paul does refer specifically to himself and/or his fellow preachers at some points in this section (vv. 6–7 and probably vv. 10, 13), most interpreters hold that the ‘we’ in v. 12 includes all believers; to say, ‘we have received (ἐλάβομεν) the Spirit’ sounds odd if Paul is talking only about preachers, as does the following purpose clause, ‘that we may know the things given to us by God’.26 But even if 2.12 is thought not to refer to all believers, 2.14–15 almost certainly does.27 In contrasting the natural person (ψυχικός ἆνθρωπος) and the spiritual (πνευματικός) Paul stresses the fundamental divide between those who accept the things of the Spirit with those who find them foolish and cannot know them. Second, this work of the Spirit in all believers consists of enabling them to understand and accept Paul’s gospel message or teaching relating to it. Paul begins this section by saying he speaks ‘God’s wisdom revealed in a mystery’ – that is, he speaks about Christ (2.6–7). This theme continues in v. 13, where he refers both to speaking and teaching about ‘what God has given us’ (v. 12). So the effects of the Spirit Paul mentions in vv. 14–15, accepting (δέχομαι), knowing (γινώσκω), and discerning (ἀνακρίνω), must refer to a person’s response to his teaching about

25. 1 Cor. 2.6–16 receives further discussion in Chapter 6. 26. For the view that the ‘we’ in v.  12 refers to Paul and/or other preachers, see Chevallier, Esprit, 116; M.  Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT, 2–36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 164–65. 27. As Chevallier recognizes in Esprit, 120.

16

Spirit and Word

Christ. And the contrasting response of the natural person, which is to find this teaching foolish (v. 14), aligns precisely with what Paul has said about those who rejected his gospel preaching in 1.18 and 23. Here, then, Paul pictures the Spirit exerting a direct influence on his hearers that enables them accept his teaching about Christ. Even though 2.6–16 probably refers to post-evangelistic teaching, Paul’s depiction of the Spirit’s gospel-related work here provides the best general model for interpreting what he has said in 2.4–5 about the Spirit’s work in connection with his initial preaching in Corinth. 6. Paul’s multiple references in 1 Cor. 1 to God’s act of ‘calling’ the Corinthian believers to salvation support the conclusion that 2.4–5 refers to the Spirit directly leading people to respond to Paul’s message. Paul mentions God’s ‘calling’ of the Corinthians four times in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians: in 1.2 and 1.24 he uses the adjective κλητός, in 1.9 the verb καλέω, and in 1.26 the noun κλῆσις.28 These references offer a strong clue to Paul’s thinking in 2.4–5, as becomes clear when we consider what Paul says about this calling. First, he links the experience of being called to the hearing of the gospel. He says his preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but the power and wisdom of God to those who are called (1.23–24). Being called is the factor that distinguishes those who find the gospel foolish from those who find it wise and powerful. Second, this calling is done by God. Those who are called (1.26) are those whom God has chosen from among the weak of the world (1.26–28); therefore, it is ‘from him’ that the Corinthians are in Christ (1.30).29 Third, God’s calling is not the same thing as Paul’s preaching even though the two activities are closely linked. Paul preached to a wide audience in Corinth and many heard his message about Christ crucified. But only some, the called, believed (1.23– 24). Paul thus sees the calling of the Corinthian believers as a special act of God distinguishable from his own activity of preaching. Paul knows that in one sense his own appeal to his audience is at the same time God’s appeal, since he preaches as God’s ambassador (2 Cor. 5.20). But when he speaks of ‘calling’ in passages like 1 Cor. 1.24 he refers to a communicative act that goes beyond his own speaking and exerts a power greater than his speaking. Neither here nor elsewhere does Paul attribute ‘calling’ specifically to God’s Spirit; nevertheless, the idea of God actively communicating (by any definition ‘calling’ is a communicative act) in close association with Paul’s preaching, and in a way that coincides with Paul’s hearers finding his message to be power and wisdom, is both similar to and compatible with the concept of the Spirit exercising a direct convincing influence on the minds of those hearing Paul’s message.30

28. This reflects a common Pauline theme: Rom. 1.6, 7; 8.28, 30; 9.24; Gal. 1.6; 1 Thess. 2.12; 2 Thess. 1.11; 2.14; 5.24. 29. Cf. Rom. 8.30; Gal. 1.6; 1 Thess. 2.12; 4.7; 5.24; 2 Thess. 1.11; 2.14. 30. Gerhard Delling cites Paul’s use of ‘calling’ as an example of how Paul can speak about the word and the Spirit even when he does not use those specific terms (‘Nahe ist dir das Wort: Wort – Geist – Glaube bei Paulus’, TL 99 [1974], pp. 401–12).

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

17

7. Paul’s description of himself as God’s coworker, with his task that of planting and God’s task that of giving growth (3.5–9), further reinforces the direct–influence interpretation of 2.4. In 3.5–9 Paul uses agricultural imagery to describe his role as a gospel preacher. He makes three points of special relevance to our understanding of 2.4–5: Paul works together with God (v. 9); his special task is planting (v. 6a); and God’s job is to cause growth (v. 6c). These components of Paul’s farming metaphor align with the basic elements of the direct–convincing–influence interpretation of 2.4–5. When Paul uses the term ‘coworker’ (συνεργός) he implies that the fruitful preaching of the gospel is a single project involving two active agents – or better, two classes of agents, human and divine. On the one side, stand Paul and Apollos, on the other, God. Paul structures the entire passage to highlight this distinction. He begins by linking Paul and Apollos together as mere servants who have God as their master: ‘Who is Paul? Who is Apollo? Servants of the Lord’ (3.5). He then lists three tasks  – planting, watering and giving growth  – but inserts a strong adversative (ἀλλά) before the last of these in order to contrast what God does from what he and Apollos do (3.6). The following verse makes this contrast even stronger: ‘Neither the planter nor the one who waters is anything, but (ἀλλά) God who gives growth’ (3.7). Finally, after commenting about the one who plants and the one who waters in 3.8, in 3.9 Paul highlights God’s contrasting status by placing θεοῦ in an emphatic forward position in three successive phrases: θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί, θεοῦ γεώργιον, θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε (‘For we are God’s coworkers; you are God’s field, God’s building’). So Paul pictures one overall project but two different types of acting agent.31 Paul’s ‘planting’ refers to his preaching. Can we then sharpen his imagery still further by identifying the gospel message as the seed he plants? Probably so. Paul does not actually mention a seed in this passage, but each of the actions he does mention (planting, watering and giving growth) quite naturally call up the thought of a seed.32 And that seed would be the message he preaches. God makes this seed grow  – he makes Paul’s planting activity effective in bringing life. This work of effecting growth or life is conceptually parallel to what Paul says in 2.5 about the Spirit’s ἀπόδειξις: it effects faith in Paul’s message. 8. A final argument for the direct–convincing–influence interpretation of 1 Cor. 2.4–5 is that the primary alternatives, the signs view and the view that focuses on

31. The emphatic positioning of θεοῦ in vs. 9, together with the strong contrastive structure of the preceding verses, shows that Paul’s ‘coworker’ image must refer to his and Apollos’s co-activity with God, not to Paul’s co-activity with Apollos. That Paul and Apollos are partners rather than competitors in the gospel ministry is a secondary theme in this passage, to be sure, but Paul’s main point is that both he and Apollos are in a partnership with God in which God’s contribution deserves all the credit while their own roles give no ground for boasting. 32. Cf. Lk. 8.11; James 1.21. Paul identifies the Corinthian community as God’s field (γεώργιον) rather than his plant (φυτεία). He thus seems to picture God giving growth to a seed planted within the community (namely, the gospel) rather than to the community itself.

18

Spirit and Word

the Spirit’s evident work in believers, are beset by serious problems. I have already noted some of these difficulties but here must mention two more. With regard to the signs view, Paul’s comments in 1.22–23 (‘Jews demand signs . . . but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews’) make it hard to suppose that ‘a demonstration of the Spirit and power’ in 2.4 refers to miraculous signs. There are actually two problems here. First, in light what he says in 1.22–23, why would Paul go on to speak so positively about signs in 2.4? Second, if Paul’s message had been prominently accompanied by a demonstration consisting of miracles, why would sign-seeking Jews have found it a stumbling block? With regard to the second (and more popular) view that 1 Cor. 2.4 refers to the Corinthians’ own changed lives and experience of the Spirit, this would imply that the ἀπόδειξις of the Spirit and power was a post-conversion reality. A proof by means of changed lives might be effective for those observing or looking back on the Corinthians’ coming to faith, but not for those who were immediately confronted with Paul’s original gospel preaching. But his original preaching is precisely what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 2.1–5: he speaks of his coming to the Corinthians (2.1, 3); he refers to persuasion (2.4a), which shows he is thinking about the process by which people are brought to faith; he depicts a demonstration leading to the Corinthians’ basic faith (2.5). Paul is not talking about post-conversion realities or the confirmation of his message (as he was in 1.6), but rather about the Corinthians’ initial coming to faith.

II. The gospel comes to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians 1.4–5 4

knowing your election, brothers loved by God, 5because our gospel did not come to you with word only, but also with power and with the Holy Spirit and [with] great assurance, just as you know of what kind we were among you for your sake.

In this passage Paul links his gospel preaching with power, the Holy Spirit, and assurance (πληροφορία). That these three things accompanied his proclamation in Thessalonica proves his readers’ election.33 We must determine what Paul meant by this collocation of elements. Four main lines of interpretation have been taken. The most common view among recent scholars is that Paul reminds his readers about his manner of preaching, particularly highlighting his Spirit-empowered assurance. This approach takes πληροφορία in the sense of ‘full assurance’ or ‘conviction’.34 A second view likewise takes πληροφορία in the sense of ‘assurance’, but thinks Paul refers to a work of the Spirit in those who heard his preaching,

33. Taking the ὅτι at the beginning of v. 5 in its causal sense. 34. For example, Gordon Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009), 34; Günter Haufe, Der erste Brief deshauf Paulus an die Thessalonicher (ThHK, 12/I; Leipzig:  Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 26; Friedrich Horn, Das Angeld des Geist (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 123; Abraham Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 112.

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

19

giving them full conviction about the truth of his message.35 This would have been an essentially internal experience (although its effects would have been outwardly evident to an observer like Paul). Third, some scholars hold that Paul refers primarily to miraculous signs that accompanied his ministry.36 Those who favour this interpretation often (though not always) argue that πληροφορία should be translated as ‘fullness’, referring to the rich plenitude of the Spirit’s presence and power.37 Finally, some think Paul refers to various manifestations of the Spirit’s presence in those who received his message. Here, too, some (but not all) take πληροφορία in the sense of ‘fullness’.38 Paul’s statement about his gospel coming to Thessalonica ‘with power, and with the Holy Spirit, and [with] πληροφορία’ may include more than just one of these thoughts, of course. In fact, quite a number of interpreters think this passage refers to two or more aspects of the Spirit’s activity. Nevertheless, we must try to identify Paul’s primary emphasis. In particular, we must decide what he means by [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. When we examine the evidence, the second view, that Paul refers to the Spirit’s assuring work in those who heard his message, emerges as the strongest. 1. Πληροφορία most likely has the sense ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’ in 1 Thess. 1.5. The word πληροφορία, which occurs almost entirely in Christian writings, has two primary meanings:  ‘fullness’ and ‘full assurance’.39 Most interpreters and translators hold that the latter sense pertains in 1 Thess. 1.5:  [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ thus means ‘with great assurance’ or ‘with full conviction’. Some interpreters prefer the alternative sense, ‘fullness’, however, which would make Paul’s statement a more general reference to spiritual fullness or the completeness of God’s work.40 But two solid factors confirm the majority conclusion. First, the overall usage 35. For example, J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (Philadephia: Westminster, 1975), 226; Kammler, Kreuz, 173, n.149; B. Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 71, n. 34. 36. Charles Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC:  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 79; Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (Zürich: Benziger, 1986), 47. 37. For example, Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 96. Not all who translate πληροφορία as ‘fullness’ think Paul refers to miraculous signs, however; see, e.g., Victor Paul Furnish, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 44. 38. For example, B.  Rigaux, Les Épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (ÉBib; Paris:  J.  Gabalda, 1956), 377–78; Chevallier, Esprit, 109. 39. The two translation options reflect the word’s derivation from the verb πληροφορέω, which can mean either ‘to fill’ or ‘to fully convince’. One occurrence of πληροφορία outside of Christian literature is found in P.Giess. 87, 25, a papyrus fragment with insufficient context to shed light on its sense. 40. For example, Chevallier, Esprit, 109; Delling, TDNT, VI.311; Furnish, Thessalonians, 44; Simon Légasse, Les Epîtres de Paul aux Thessaloniciens (LD, 7; Paris: Cerf, 1999), 88; Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 378.

20

Spirit and Word

of πληροφορία favours the sense ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’. This is quite clearly its sense in Heb. 10.22 and also its predominant sense in later Christian writings.41 ‘Assurance’ or ‘certainty’ is probably its meaning in Heb. 6.11 as well.42 Col. 2.2 presents a more difficult choice; a good case can be made for ‘fullness’ in this context,43 although even here most translations favour ‘assurance’.44 Second, in 1 Thess. 1.5, πληροφορία is not followed by a genitive noun that might be taken as a genitive of content. We may contrast this with Col. 2.2, where πληροφορία is followed by ‘of understanding’ (τής συνέσεως). Since ‘of understanding’ could easily be taken as a genitive of content, we are forced to consider whether here πληροφορία may have the sense ‘fullness’. The same can be said about Heb. 6.11, where πληροφορία is followed by ‘of hope’ (τῆς ἐλπίδος). No such genitive noun follows πληροφορία in 1 Thess. 1.5. This pushes us to take πληροφορία in the sense of ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’. It would be awkward for Paul to speak of a person or group experiencing ‘fullness’ without indicating what it was they were filled with. 2. A number of factors converge to show that the ‘great assurance’ to which Paul refers alludes to an effect of the Spirit on the Thessalonian believers. While strong evidence supports the majority conclusion that [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ refers to great assurance, the same cannot be said for the common view that Paul has his own assurance in mind. On the contrary, several considerations show that he refers first and foremost to the Spirit–worked conviction and assurance experienced by his readers. First, 1 Thess. 1.2–10 as a whole focuses primarily on the Thessalonian believers. Paul begins this section by saying he gives thanks for these believers (1.2). He continues with a series of participial phrases that express how he remembers them and knows things about them.45 He moves on to speak of how they became his imitators (1.6), how they became an example for other believers (1.7) and how the report of their faith has spread throughout Macedonia and Achaia (1.8–10). Interpreters who think Paul refers to his own assurance in 1.5 can cite counternotes that call attention to Paul in this section, to be sure, but these are far outweighed by the avalanche of emphasis on the Thessalonians. The most significant Paul-focused note comes in 1.5c. Immediately after saying that his gospel came with power, the Holy Spirit and conviction, Paul adds the

41. For example, 1 Clem. 42.3 and Ap. Const. 7.39.2. See the additional references in G.  W. H.  Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Fascicle 4 (Oxford:  Clarendon, 1965), 1093. Hesychius’s lexicon gives βεβαιότης (firmness, assurance, certainty) as the meaning of πληροφορία. 42. While to have ‘fullness’ of hope makes good sense, to have ‘assurance’ stemming from hope seems an even a better fit in a passage where the author expresses his desire for his readers to persevere until they inherit God’s promises (v. 12). 43. Cf. NIV, ‘so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding’. 44. For example, NRSV, ‘so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding’. 45. Μνείαν ποιούμενοι (1.2), μνημονεύοντες (1.3), and εἰδότες (1.4).

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

21

clause, ‘just as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake’. At first glance this looks like an explanation of what he means by his gospel coming with power, the Spirit and conviction – that these were factors the Thessalonians had observed in Paul and his missionary companions. But on closer inspection this thought recedes. ‘What kind of men we were among you’ (οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν) sounds like an allusion to Paul’s general comportment more than a specific reference to the power and manner of his preaching. The qualities Paul has in mind include the kind of joyful faith in the midst of suffering that he goes on to mention in 1.6. This joy was an attitude the Thessalonians themselves imitated; it is thus not quite the same thing as conviction-permeated preaching. So when Paul refers to the kind of person he was in 1.5, he may simply point ahead to the characteristics he will go on to describe in greater detail in 2.1–12. While bold proclamation (2.2) is included among the characteristics listed in that later passage, the qualities highlighted there relate much more to Paul’s motives and general behaviour. Furthermore, the ‘just as’ clause in 1.5c may not even explicate the immediately preceding statement in 1.5a–b; instead it may connect back to ‘knowing’ (εἰδότες) at the beginning of 1.4. In that case, Paul would be drawing an analogy between what he knows about his Thessalonian readers (namely, their election and response to the gospel) and what they know about Paul and his behaviour among them.46 Another element that some cite in favour of seeing the πληροφορία as a quality in Paul is that in 2.2 he refers to his boldness in God (ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα ἐν θεῷ) to speak the gospel in spite of opposition.47 This is thought to be relevant for interpreting 1.5 because both passages speak of a God-given quality experienced at the time of Paul’s initial preaching in Thessalonica. 1.5 associates πληροφορία with the Holy Spirit; 2.2 attributes the provision of courage to God. While these parallels are intriguing, the overall focus on the Thessalonian believers in 1.2–10 remains a weightier factor for interpreting 1.5. Moreover, although the qualities of boldness and assurance are no doubt related, courage to speak in the face of opposition is not exactly the same thing as full certainty about the truth of one’s message. A second (and probably the strongest) consideration showing that 1.5 refers to conviction in the Thessalonian believers is that when Paul says his gospel came to the Thessalonians ‘in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction’, he does so to explain the basis for the claim he makes in 1.4, that he knows God has chosen them. What would constitute evidence for the Thessalonians’ election? Not a fact about Paul and his companions, but something that could be observed in the Thessalonians. That Paul’s readers responded to his preaching with conviction and assurance would indeed represent strong evidence of their election. That Paul preached to them with great conviction and assurance, on the other hand, simply

46. See F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 15. 47. For example, James Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 81.

22

Spirit and Word

would not. Whatever else may be said about Paul’s understanding of election, he certainly saw it entailing a believing response to the gospel.48 He knew that among both Jews and Gentiles some found his gospel wise while others found it foolish (1 Cor. 1.23–24); some found it to be an aroma of life, others of death (2 Cor. 2.15–16). But these contrasting responses were not determined by any variation in the level of conviction with which Paul preached. How then could he say that something about his own manner of preaching indicated the Thessalonians’ election?49 Third, the introductory statement, ‘our gospel came to you’, points away from Paul’s own preaching and towards his readers’ reception of his message. Paul introduces what he wants to say about his initial preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica in a way that subtly points away from himself. To see this we need only to compare his wording here with that in 1 Cor. 2.1, where he begins his description of his gospel ministry in Corinth by saying, ‘And when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with superiority of word or wisdom.’50 In the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul emphasizes his coming, in 1 Thess. 1.5 he highlights his gospel’s coming.51 Yes, he is talking about his own preaching, but he does so in a way that emphasizes his message and its reception (εἰς ὑμᾶς) more than his delivery – a small but significant clue to the direction Paul’s thought is taking as he leads into his statement about power, the Holy Spirit and assurance. Fourth, the verses that follow 1.5 specifically highlight response to the gospel. Paul mentions the Thessalonians’ reception of the word (1.6), their faith (1.8), the welcome (εἴσοδον) he had among them (1.9a), and how they turned to God (1.9b). These repeated references to the believers’ positive response support the conclusion that 1.5b refers to a work of the Spirit that gave them conviction about the truth of gospel. Such a conclusion is reinforced by Paul’s comment that the Thessalonians received the word ‘with the joy of the Holy Spirit’ (1.6). Given that he refers to an inward effect of the Spirit accompanying his readers’ reception of the gospel in 1.6, it is easy to suppose that he likewise refers to an inward effect in his readers when he describes his gospel as coming ‘[with] great assurance’ in 1.5.52 3. The believers’ assurance results from the Holy Spirit’s powerful work. In our discussion so far we have simply assumed that the πληροφορία Paul mentions is specifically a work of the Spirit – that when Paul links ‘power’, ‘the Holy Spirit’, and ‘great assurance’, he implies that the Spirit is the active agent behind the power and

48. See 1 Cor. 1.27–28. 49. This argument would not greatly change if the ὅτι at the beginning of 1.4 were given the sense of ‘that’ instead of ‘because’. In that case, 1.5 would be epexegetical, explaining the nature or manner of the Thessalonians’ election, rather than a statement about the grounds for Paul’s knowledge of it. But the basic question would remain: how would a fact about Paul explain the Thessalonians’ election? 50. Κ’αγὼ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἦλθον οὐ καθ’ ὑπεροχὴν λόγοθ ἢ σοφίας. 51. Cf. Frame, Thessalonians, 59. 52. See Witherington, Thessalonians, 71, n. 34.

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

23

assurance. We must now give this matter closer attention, at the same time briefly examining the interrelationships suggested by the construction ‘with power and with the Holy Spirit and [with] great assurance’ (ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καί [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ). Scholars are divided over whether the ἐν before πληροφορία is original. Let us consider Paul’s construction first on the assumption that it is. This would give us three parallel ἐν phrases. We might therefore take ‘power’, ‘the Holy Spirit’ and ‘great assurance’ as three separate elements that accompanied Paul’s preaching. But this is not likely. 1 Thess. 1.5 is not the only Pauline passage that links power with the Spirit. In two instances we find ‘power’ followed by ‘of the Spirit’ (Rom. 15.13 and 19), once we find ‘Spirit’ followed by ‘of power’ (1 Tim. 1.7), and once we have a statement that the experience of being strengthened with ‘power’ comes ‘through the Spirit’ (Eph. 3.16).53 Paul does not see the Spirit and power simply as two factors standing side by side; rather he views the Spirit as a source of power and an agent characterized by power. If the combination ‘Spirit’ and ‘power’ in this series of ἐν phrases pictures the Spirit as the source of power, this would suggest that the ‘Spirit’ and ‘assurance’ combination functions in much same way, namely, to indicate the Spirit as the source of the assurance. In that case it would be easy to understand this Spiritgiven assurance not as a second Spirit-produced effect alongside of power but rather as a specification of the particular form of Spirit-effected power Paul has in mind. But what if we follow the reading that omits ἐν before πληροφορία? In that case, the link between the Holy Spirit and the believers’ assurance would appear even stronger, since both elements would then be encompassed by the single ἐν before πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. This close link would almost have to express the idea that it is the Spirit that causes the assurance. Furthermore, this Spirit–assurance combination might well be seen as epexegetical to ἐν δυνάμει. Paul’s thought would then be that his gospel came ‘with power, even with the Holy Spirit and great assurance’.54 The choice between retaining and omitting the ἐν is not easy. But on almost any analysis of Paul’s threefold formulation the Holy Spirit must be seen as the agent who produces the great assurance. 4. The Spirit’s activity of giving believers assurance about the truth of his gospel is Paul’s primary focus in 1 Thess. 1.5b. If it is correct to conclude that ‘with great assurance’ refers to Spirit-given certainty in those who heard Paul’s gospel, could the larger expression ‘with power, and with the Holy Spirit, and [with] great assurance’ nevertheless also include other aspects of the Spirit’s work, such as miraculous signs? At the level of syntax this is a question about the precise relationship between ‘with power’ and ‘[with] great assurance’ in Paul’s construction. As noted above, it makes good sense to see ‘great assurance’

53. Spirit and power are also associated in 1 Cor. 2.4 and 2 Cor. 6.6–7. 54. See Fee, Thessalonians, 33, n. 24.

24

Spirit and Word

as epexegetic, explaining the specific the kind of power Paul has in mind. He would then be talking about a single effect  – Spirit-given assurance  – which accompanied his words of preaching in Thessalonica. But it is difficult to prove this interpretation on syntactical grounds alone – regardless of whether we retain or omit the ἐν before πληροφορίᾳ. Simply in terms of syntax, it would also be possible to see the power Paul mentions as something distinct from Spirit-given assurance, or perhaps as including that assurance but not limited to it. In either of these latter cases, Paul would be calling his readers’ attention to more than one manifestation of the Spirit’s power that accompanied the gospel’s arrival in Thessalonica. Those additional manifestations might include miracles, gifts and other experiences of the Spirit in those who believed, or even evidences of empowerment in Paul the preacher. While this more inclusive interpretation is possible it is not really necessary. First, to view ‘[with] great assurance’ as a defining explanation of ‘with power’ works quite well in this clause, particularly if the ἐν is omitted. Second, if the earlier argument about 1.5 proving or explaining the Thessalonians’ election is valid, the entire expression in 1.5b is likely to pertain specifically to the Spirit’s activity in Paul’s readers (who had demonstrated their election by hearing and believing his gospel). Furthermore, this activity of the Spirit would touch the believing community as a whole (since the election Paul speaks of pertains to the whole community). Forms of the Spirit’s activity such as working miracles and empowering preaching are not so specifically or necessarily oriented toward Paul’s readers. Gifts and other manifestations would pertain to Paul’s readers more directly, but not to all of them in equal measure. Third, the integral connection between power and the gospel in passages like Rom. 1.16 and 1 Cor. 1.18 makes it unnecessary to look to physical signs and manifestations for an explanation of Paul’s ‘power’ language in 1 Thess. 1.5. Finally, with specific reference to the possibility that Paul has miracles in view, many commentators point out that his use of the singular form (ἐν δυνάμει) speaks against this. When Paul use δυνάμις to refer to miraculous signs he typically uses the plural55 or otherwise explicitly indicates that he is speaking about signs.56 So while an affirmation that Spirit-empowered miracles accompanied his gospel ministry would be fully Pauline, there is reason to question whether this is on his mind in 1 Thess. 1.5. This passage appears to zero in on one activity in particular, the Spirit’s work of bringing assurance and certainty to those confronted with the gospel message. 5. The Spirit’s work of giving assurance is distinct from Paul’s preaching yet closely associated with it. This simple point is implied by the structure of Paul’s affirmation, ‘Our gospel came to you not only with word, but also with power, and with the Holy Spirit, and [with] great assurance.’ The ‘not only . . . but also’ formula (οὐ μόνον. . .ἀλλὰ καί) distinguishes Paul’s actual preaching – his coming ἐν λόγῳ – from the powerful activity of the Spirit.57 At the same time, however, this formulation shows that the

55. 1 Cor. 12.10, 28–29; 2 Cor. 12.12; Gal. 2.5. 56. Rom. 15.19. 57. Cf. Chevallier, Esprit, 110.

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

25

two go together.58 Paul stresses that his spoken words do not stand alone. And the inverse is equally true: the Spirit’s work of giving assurance and certainty does not take place apart from the message communicated by Paul and his companions. These twin ideas of distinction and association are worth keeping in mind as we seek to build Paul’s larger picture of the Spirit-gospel relationship. It is true that he sometimes speaks of the gospel itself as power, and this often leads interpreters to emphasize the power of gospel preaching, which ‘effects what it proclaims’.59 1 Thess. 1.5 reminds us that Paul saw the Holy Spirit playing a necessary role in this process – not as a notional, behind-the-scenes figure whose presence could simply be assumed, but as an active, influencing agent. Having examined 1 Cor. 2.4–5 and 1 Thess. 1.4–5 in detail, we may now pause to compare their respective depictions of the Spirit–word relationship. Apart from the fact that both passages recall Paul’s initial evangelistic ministry among the readers he addresses, four additional similarities are evident. Both passages simply assume the fundamental importance of Paul’s preaching of the message of Christ. Both take special pains to emphasize the presence and action of the Spirit as an accompaniment to that preaching. Both highlight power as a mark of the Spirit’s activity. Finally, both depict the Spirit’s action primarily as a matter of direct, faithproducing influence on those who hear Paul’s message.

III. Note on Romans 15.18–19 18

For I will not dare to speak except of those things that Christ has done through me for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that I have fulfilled the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem around to Illyricum.

In Rom. 15.18–19, just as in 1 Cor. 2.4–5 and 1 Thess. 1.4–5, Paul combines the elements of gospel (‘word’ in this case), Spirit and power as key components of his ministry. A crucial question concerns the clause, ‘by the power of the Spirit of God’ (ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος θεοῦ): how does this phrase relate to the elements that precede it, ‘by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders’? Before reviewing the exegetical options we should observe two things. First, while Paul describes his ministry as one carried out by both ‘word and deed’ (λόγῳ καὶ ἒργῳ), the context of this passage shows that it is gospel preaching that receives the greater focus. The gospel (εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγελίζω) is mentioned in 15.16, 19, and 20, and Paul concludes the whole section in 15.21 by stressing his desire to

58. The ‘not only . . . but also’ formula implies no negative contrast between Paul’s verbal preaching and the activity of the Spirit. See the discussion in D. Kemmler, Faith and Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated by 1–2 Thessalonians and Acts 17,2-4 (NovTSup, 40; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 149–68. 59. Best, Thessalonians, 75; cf. Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 373–74.

26

Spirit and Word

minister to those who have not ‘been told’ and have not ‘heard’. This focus on gospel proclamation fits perfectly with key statements elsewhere in Romans, such as those in 1.16 and 10.14–17. So while the bare expression ‘word and deed’ gives both terms equal place, the surrounding context points to the ‘word’ as the more prominent component of Paul’s ministry. Second, the clause ‘in the power of signs and wonders’ shows that Paul indeed considers miracles to be an important part of his ministry and that he associates the term ‘power’ with them.60 So when he goes on to speak of ‘the power of the Spirit of God’ in the immediately following phrase we are certainly forced to consider whether he may refer to a miracle-working action of the Spirit.61 We now turn to the question of how ‘by the power of the Spirit of God’ relates to the elements that precede it. A first option would be to connect this prepositional phrase only with the immediately preceding parallel phrase, ‘in the power of signs and wonders’. The Spirit’s power would then have to be understood entirely as a matter of working miracles. A second option would be to discern a chiastic pattern in which Paul’s reference to the Spirit’s power connects back to ‘by word’ while his reference to the power of signs and wonders connects back to ‘by deed’. If this is correct, Paul relates the Spirit’s power entirely to preaching and not at all to the working of signs and wonders. This is unlikely. Apart from its complexity, it is hard to think Paul would exclude his deeds from the range of things influenced by the Spirit’s power or that he would define these deeds solely in terms of working miracles.62 A third and far more likely option would be to link Paul’s reference to the Spirit’s power with all the preceding terms; Paul is saying the Spirit empowers all he does as he carries out his ministry.63 The Spirit’s powerful action certainly includes the signs and wonders that Paul singles out for special mention. It also very likely includes empowerment directed towards Paul himself to strengthen him for his task of preaching. Paul implies as much when he goes on to describe the result of Christ working through him in power of the Spirit: he has preached the gospel fully from Jerusalem around to Illyricum (15.19c–21). But Paul must also refer to a third aspect of the Spirit’s power here, the sanctifying action he has just highlighted in 15.16.64 Rom. 15.18–19 is closely connected to 15.16, repeating and expanding what that verse said about Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. So the temple-offering metaphor in 15.16 sheds important light on the Spirit–gospel–power relationship in 15.18–19. As Paul sees it, what the Spirit did in connection with his preaching

60. Cf. 2 Cor. 12.12 and Gal. 3.5. 61. Note that Christ is the subject of κατειργάσατο, the verb to which all these adverbial qualifiers are attached. Here, as in 2 Cor. 3.3, Christ is the ultimate agent who works through both Paul and the Spirit. 62. See, e.g., Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 892–93. 63. Joseph A.  Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; New  York:  Doubleday, 1993), 713; Moo, Romans, 892. 64. See the discussion of this passage in Chapter 3.

Gospel Preaching and the Spirit’s Power

27

was not only a matter of outward signs and his own empowerment as a preacher (though both these things do receive emphasis here), but also included the Spirit’s direct work in or upon the Gentiles who heard him preach.

IV. Note on 2 Corinthians 6.6–7 6

. . . by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, 7by the power of God . . .

Here is another passage where Paul brings the elements of word, Spirit and power together, though not as emphatically as in the other texts we have examined. In the midst of a longer list of qualities marking his ministry, Paul describes it as characterized ‘by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by the power of God’. ‘By the word of truth’ (ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθείας) should be understood as a reference to Paul’s gospel preaching.65 A similar expression appears in Eph. 1.13 and Col. 1.5 as a reference to the gospel.66 Paul also characterizes his gospel ministry as a matter of truth in 2 Cor. 4.2.67 That he here sets the ‘word of truth’ side by side with ‘the power of God’ recalls Rom. 1.16, where the gospel is identified with God’s power.68 It seems surprising that ‘by the Holy Spirit’69 is placed as fifteenth in a series of eighteen ἐν phrases. But the last four items in the series, ‘by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by the power of God’, form something of a climax.70 Following ten phrases depicting the difficult circumstances in which he pursues his ministry and four phrases highlighting moral qualities, Paul moves to the heart of his mission: preaching the gospel in the power of the Spirit. ‘By the Holy Spirit’ comes as a preliminary climax, followed shortly by the closely related ‘by the power of God’. In between come references to what in Paul’s estimation is the greatest moral quality, love, and to his central task, preaching the word of truth. Does the collocation of Holy Spirit, word of truth, and power of God in this passage tell us anything about how these factors interrelate? Probably so. First, we should note that ‘by the Holy Spirit’ and ‘by the power of God’ (which are probably equivalent phrases) work a little differently from the other ἐν phrases. While the others all modify συνιστάντες (commending) in 6.4, these two seem to modify 65. The genitives probably functioning objectively: ‘the word about the truth’. 66. Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 476; Furnish, II Corinthians (AB, 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 345. 67. M. E.  Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; London:  T & T Clark, 1994), 460. 68. Furnish, II Corinthians, 345. 69. In line with normal Pauline usage, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγιῷ must refer to the Holy Spirit. See, e.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 345; Harris, Corinthians, 475; and Thrall, Corinthians, 460. 70. Cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 345.

28

Spirit and Word

the other sixteen. Rather than adding to the list of circumstances under which Paul labours or qualities he displays, they explain the source of power that enables him to minister as he does. If this is correct, the action of the Spirit depicted here relates primarily to providing Paul with strength to handle difficulties and display a godly character. But, second, on either side of the phrase ‘by the power of God’ are references to Paul’s actual ministry activity (‘by the word of truth’ and ‘with the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and left’), as opposed to circumstances and character qualities. This suggests a certain emphasis on the connection between ‘the power of God’ and Paul’s preaching activity. In fact, Paul’s whole description of his ministry in 6.4–10 has a roughly chiastic pattern, with the phrase ‘by the power of God’ at the centre. He begins by listing difficult circumstances, then moves on to character qualities, then mentions his ministry of the word of truth, and finally refers to God’s power. This climaxes the series ἐν phrases. But Paul then moves back out from this centre (now using διά and ὡς phrases), speaking first of his activity with ‘weapons of righteousness’, then of the mixed reactions he faces (glory and dishonor, slander and praise), and finally of the contrasts that exist between the mistreatment and difficulties he endures and his true character and strength. Paul’s reference to God’s power in this passage (with reference to the Holy Spirit nearby) thus relates primarily to divine action experienced by Paul himself. This empowering action enables him to meet hardships and display Christ-like qualities, but also to wield weapons of righteousness in communicating the word of truth.71

71. Cf. Harris, Corinthians, 476.

3 T WO M ETAPHORS

The Spirit–gospel partnerships portrayed in 1 Cor. 2.4–5 and 1 Thess. 1.5 fit easily into the category of ‘dual testimony’. We now turn to two passages where the relationship between the Spirit and the preaching of the gospel might better be described as dual agency. These texts depict the Spirit and the gospel working together not simply to reveal but also to transform. At first glance, 2 Cor. 3.3 and Rom. 15.16 appear to have little in common; one speaks of a letter, the other of a priestly offering. But they actually make an interesting pair. Each presents an extended metaphor in which Paul and the Spirit play complementary roles in the process of creating new people belonging to Christ. 2 Cor. 3.3 pictures the Corinthian believers as a letter of Christ; Paul ‘served’ in that letter’s production and the Spirit inscribed it on human hearts. Rom. 15.16 depicts the Gentiles as an acceptable offering; Paul presents this offering to God and the Spirit makes it holy.

I. Letter writing: 2 Corinthians 3.3 3

showing that you are a letter of Christ, served by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets consisting of hearts of flesh.

Paul describes the Corinthian church as a living, visible letter of recommendation. Three figures have played a part in producing this letter. Christ is its ultimate author (‘you are a letter of Christ’), but the letter was ‘served’ by Paul and has been ‘written . . . on tablets consisting of hearts of flesh’ by the Spirit. We must first consider Paul’s role. What does he mean when he describes the letter as ‘served by us’ (διακονηθεῖσα ὑφ’ ἡμῶν)? There are actually two questions here. The first relates to the precise picture Paul offers: does he portray himself as co-author, amanuensis or delivery person? The second concerns the metaphor’s application: what real-life activity does he refer to? 1. A number of factors show that Paul refers to his basic gospel preaching and that he most likely pictures himself in a letter-producing role under the direction of Christ. First, διακονέω is a general term for serving. The precise nature of the service must be determined from the context in which it is used. In the passages surrounding 2

30

Spirit and Word

Cor. 3.3, Paul lays great stress on his preaching of the gospel (2.12, 17; 4.3, 4). He sees this as a calling with eschatological significance; it involves announcing a new covenant marked by the Spirit and righteousness (3.6, 8, 9; 4.1). It is therefore hard to imagine Paul has any other activity in mind in when he refers to his ‘serving’ role in 3.3. Second, in 3.6, 8, 9 and 4.1 Paul uses the nouns διάκονος (servant) and διακονία (service) to describe his fundamental work of making the gospel known.1 Third, throughout this section, Paul is concerned to defend his ministry. When he pictures the Corinthians as a letter from Christ he does so to prove that his ministry is valid. It thus makes sense that Paul should call attention to his central task, teaching and preaching the gospel, as the core of what he has done on behalf of the Corinthians.2 Fourth, in a verse that pictures Christ authoring a letter (taking ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ as a genitive of authorship) and the Spirit writing on hearts, it is fitting that Paul, when referring to his own activity, should fill the general term διακονέω with meaning that also relates to letter production. Paul does not hesitate to picture himself as God’s co-worker at Corinth (1 Cor. 3.9) or to describe his own assigned role in strong terms like ‘planting’ and ‘laying a foundation’ (1 Cor. 3.6, 10). It is therefore quite likely that he pictures his role in equally strong terms in 2 Cor. 3.3. After all, he goes on to describe the glory of his διακονία in 3.7–11, comparing it to that of Moses. So it is better to picture Paul in a writing role rather than simply that of a courier.3 These points can be seen more clearly by comparing them with the alternative position argued by William Baird, who urges that διακονηθεῖσα should be translated as ‘delivered’. He thinks Paul refers to his activity of telling others about God’s work in the Corinthian church (cf. 1 Thess. 1.8). Baird points out that letters of recommendation in the Hellenistic world were typically carried by the person recommended. If the Corinthian church is a recommendation letter for Paul, he must be the one who delivers it – not the one who writes it. Baird also points out that Paul never uses the verb διακονέω to depict preaching the gospel, but does use it in 2 Cor. 8.19–20 and Rom. 15.25 to refer to delivering the Jerusalem collection.4 Baird’s linguistic argument is not especially strong. First, as already noted, even if Paul does not use the verb διακονέω to describe his gospel preaching, he does apply the nouns διάκονος and διακονία to that ministry. Second, Rom. 15.25 speaks of ‘serving the saints’ (διακονῶν τοῖς ἁγίοις), not ‘delivering a collection’.

1. Cf. Scott Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3.3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 203–4. 2. Cf. Hafemann, Suffering, 203–4. 3. Cf. Chevallier, Esprit, 103–4; and Hafemann, Suffering, 205, who sees Paul as coauthor with the Spirit. Thrall (Corinthians, 225) and Harris (Corinthians, 263) favour a picture of Paul as Christ’s amanuensis. 4. ‘Letters of Recommendation:  A  Study of II Cor 3:1–3’, JBL 80 (1961), pp.  166–72 (169). Cf. J.-F. Collange, Enigmes de la deuzieme épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude exégétique de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 (SNTSMS, 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 54.

Two Metaphors

31

Third, while διακονέω does indeed refer to delivering the Jerusalem collection in 2 Cor. 8.19–20, this is determined by the specific context of that passage rather than by any special sense attached to the word itself.5 As for the observation that letters of recommendation were normally carried by the one recommended, this is an interesting point, but it does not counteract the greater pressure of the context of 3.3. Paul is defending his ministry. As a reference to his ministry of the gospel, διακονηθεῖσα ὑφ’ ἡμῶν makes an important contribution to his argument; as a reference to any part he may have played in passing on reports about the Corinthians it would hardly merit mention. So in 2 Cor. 3.3 Paul describes himself as a sub-agent of Christ, ministering the word of God to bring the Corinthian church into existence. 2. Paul also highlights the Spirit’s active, internal role in making the Corinthian church ‘a letter of Christ’. As Paul develops his metaphor, he says the letter was written ‘not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God’ (οὐ μέλανι ἀλλα πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος). Although Paul uses instrumental terms he is probably thinking of the Spirit as an active agent.6 The dative construction is due to the details of the letter-writing image, in which πνεύματι stands in antithetic parallelism to μέλανι (‘with ink’) and in which Christ has already been introduced as the ultimate author with Paul as co-writer. But lest anyone think the Spirit is merely a passive tool, Paul describes him as ‘the Spirit of the living God’. And the Spirit’s role is internal; it consists of writing ‘on tablets consisting of hearts of flesh’.7 Here there is no possibility that Paul refers to external signs or a work of the Spirit in him as a preacher. The Corinthians will display externally visible fruit, of course, since they are a letter that will be known and read by all people (vs. 2). But the Spirit’s actual inscribing action is explicitly portrayed as internal.8 3. The Spirit’s work in the Corinthians included their ethical transformation. When it comes to specifying the effect of the Spirit’s work in the hearts of the Corinthians, we are obliged to consider two options. Paul might be thinking of a revelatory action – a convincing or illumining activity in which the Spirit took Paul’s outwardly preached message and enabled a response of faith in the hearts and minds of the Corinthians. This would correspond to the conviction-bringing activity depicted in 1 Thess. 1.5 and 1 Cor. 2.4, or to the unveiling and illuminating actions portrayed closer at hand in 2 Cor. 3.17–18a and 4.6. Alternatively, Paul may be thinking of a work of ethical or personal transformation, as in 3.18b (‘being transformed from glory to glory’). If we were to isolate the letter-production

5. Cf. Hafemann, Suffering, 203–4. 6. The datives μέλανι and πνεύματι are instrumental, indicating the means by which the writing was done. According to Daniel Wallace, it is quite rare for the dative to express personal agency (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids:  Zondervan,  1996], 162–66). 7. Ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις. 8. Contra Hafemann (Suffering, 208), who thinks of visible manifestations similar to those described in Gal. 3.1–5.

32

Spirit and Word

picture in 3.3 from its rhetorical context and OT background, it would be tempting to interpret its image of the Spirit writing on hearts purely in terms of the first of these options, as a reference to a convicting work that accompanied Paul’s preaching. We would then have a picture of Christ sending Paul to speak a saving word and, at the same time, sending the Spirit to inscribe that message on human hearts. Context and background factors force us to a see a greater emphasis on ethical transformation, however. First, Paul pictures the Corinthians as a letter that others can see and read with the result that they will know that this letter comes from Christ. What the Spirit does in the Corinthians’ hearts must therefore involve observable behavioural change. Second, the image of writing on hearts alludes quite clearly to Jer. 31.33.9 According to that passage, God’s law will be inscribed on hearts, resulting in a new level of obedience. In addition, Paul’s reference to the Spirit of God in connection with ‘hearts of flesh’ alludes to Ezek. 36.26–27, another passage that speaks of ethical renewal and a new relationship to God.10 Third, Paul uses language reminiscent of 2 Cor. 3.3 and 6 when he refers to an ethically related and Spirit-effected circumcision of the heart in Rom. 2.29.11 It is not always possible to draw a hard and fast line between a revelatory and a transformative activity of the Spirit, to be sure, since the one so naturally entails the other.12 It is particularly difficult to separate the concepts of revelation and transformation in a passage like 2 Cor. 3.3, where Paul’s imagery is something of a moving target. This latter factor becomes very evident when we try to define the functional relationship between gospel and Spirit a little more closely. 4. The language and context of 2 Cor. 3.3 imply that the Spirit’s transformative action worked integrally with Paul’s gospel preaching. Both Paul and the Spirit played a part in making the Corinthians a letter of Christ. But does the metaphor say anything more about the functional relationship between Paul’s preaching and the Spirit’s transforming work? The interconnection between these activities might be viewed in two ways. First, Paul may simply mean that his gospel preaching brings the new covenant promise of the Holy Spirit: Paul preaches with the result that those who believe receive the gift of the Spirit; the Spirit then changes their hearts in accordance with the promises of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. On this view, Paul’s

9. However, Hafemann prefers to see an allusion to Ezek. 11.19 and 36.26ff (Suffering, 213). 10. See, e.g., Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 265. Harris also sees an allusion to Ezk. 11.19. 11. See John Dennis, ‘The Letter and the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Romans 2:29’, in Reimund Bieringer, et al, Theologizing in the Corninthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), pp. 109–30 (111–12). 12. With reference to the latter part of 2 Corinthians 3, Volker Rabens highlights the relational nature of the Spirit’s work, which enables believers to have personal, face-toface access to God (The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul [WUNT, 2.283; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 176). Such activity would seem to include both cognitive conviction and ethical transformation.

Two Metaphors

33

preaching and the Spirit’s action relate as step one and step two – as promise and fulfillment or cause and effect. As far as it goes, this would be an entirely Pauline way of looking at things.13 But this reading leaves a couple of points unclear. It says nothing about whether the Spirit played a role in the Corinthian’s initial response to the gospel, nor does it indicate whether the Spirit made use of the gospel message in the subsequent act of changing their hearts. There is a second way of viewing the preaching–Spirit connection in Paul’s letter-writing image, however. He may be saying that the Spirit worked in and through his preaching in Corinth, using it as an actual instrument of transformation. On this view, Paul portrays his gospel preaching and the Spirit as concurrently acting factors creating the Corinthian church as a letter of Christ. Several factors support this second way of viewing the Spirit–gospel relationship in 2 Cor. 3.3.14 First and most important is a subtle shift in Paul’s imagery at the end of v. 3. Paul began his metaphor in 3.2 by describing the Corinthians as a letter that had been written. They are the subject of the passive verb ἐγγεγραμμένη. This picture continues through 3.3a (the Corinthians are a letter of Christ ‘served’ by Paul) and at least appears to extend into 3.3b (they are a letter written with the Spirit of the living God). But then in 3.3c it is no longer clear that the Corinthians are still the subject of ‘written’. When Paul adds, ‘not on stone tablets but on tablets consisting of hearts of flesh’ he shifts from depicting the Corinthians themselves as written object to speaking about some other entity written in or on them. This shift in imagery is signaled first by allusions to Exodus and Jeremiah contained in 3.3c. ‘On tablets consisting of hearts of flesh’ is a reference to Jer. 31.33. But Jeremiah does not picture God’s people being written, but of something  – namely, God’s law – being written in their hearts. ‘Not on tablets of stone’ alludes to passages like Exod. 31.18.15 Here again we do not find a picture of God’s people being written, but of God’s law being written on something. Moreover, the very fact that Paul suddenly speaks of ‘tablets of stone’ introduces a foreign element into his letter metaphor; as Harris points out, we would have expected him to say ‘not on papyri, but on hearts of flesh’.16 Yet another very obvious signal that Paul’s picture is changing is his jump from the image of a letter written on ‘our hearts’ (3.2) to that of something written on the Corinthians’ hearts (3.3c).17 So Paul’s imagery is not standing still.18

13. Paul probably depicts the Spirit as a gift or result of the gospel in 3.6 and 8. Cf. Gal. 3.14; 4.6; Eph. 1.13. 14. This second view does not necessarily exclude the first. 15. Cf. Exod. 24.12 and 34.1. 16. Corinthians, 264. 17. Though some commentators prefer the reading ‘in your hearts’ in 3.2. For example, Thrall, Corinthians, 223. 18. Cf. Fee: ‘But in typical fashion, Paul’s imagery is fluid, as one image leads to another that leads to yet another’ (God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 303).

34

Spirit and Word

If Paul’s picture does shift from that of the Spirit ‘writing’ (or forming) the Corinthians themselves to that of the Spirit inscribing something on their hearts, what would that ‘something’ be? Although the allusions to Exod. 31.18 and Jer. 31.33 might turn our thoughts at first towards God’s law, a far likelier candidate is Paul’s gospel. Paul has been highlighting his work as a gospel preacher ever since 2.14. Within the letter-production metaphor of 3.2–3 his own ‘serving’ role refers to his fundamental ministry of preaching the gospel. So the gospel is front and centre in the flow of Paul’s thought moving into 3.3c. The law, on the other hand, has not yet been mentioned. The reference to the Spirit inscribing something on the Corinthians’ hearts, then, most likely alludes to the Spirit bringing Paul’s gospel to bear in the hearts of his Corinthian hearers, even though he echoes prophetic passages that originally referred to the internalization of the law. Throughout the rest of Chapter 3 Paul emphasizes the glory of the gospel. At the same time, he can describe himself as ministering a new covenant (3.6), which implies an enablement to keep God’s law. So to conclude that Paul has the gospel in view in 3.3c need not mean that he retains no thought at all of a new covenant inscription of the law on the hearts of God’s people. It simply means he is primarily thinking of the Spirit writing the gospel in the Corinthians’ hearts. And this in turn lends strong support to the view that Paul here pictures the Spirit working integrally with his own gospel preaching. A second line of evidence lends additional support to this supposition. In 3.12– 4.6 Paul implies that the Spirit works with his message about Christ.19 So while it is certainly true that Paul describes the transforming Spirit as a gift promised by his gospel, he also depicts the Spirit carrying out his transforming work in close functional association with Paul’s preaching.20 A third factor supporting an integral connection between Paul’s preaching and the Spirit’s activity is found in the way Paul pictures his own role in the letterproduction metaphor. I argued above that Paul puts himself in the position of an author or amanuensis. If this is correct, we have a striking image: the dual writing of a single letter. That Paul moves so quickly and smoothly from presenting himself as the letter’s co-writer under Christ to highlighting the Spirit as a heartinscribing writer implies that Paul and the Spirit act together. The Spirit’s work of transforming hearts is not simply a second-stage result that follows from the Corinthians having responded to Paul’s ministry of a new covenant, but also part of the very process through which they entered that covenant. 5. When Paul pictures the Spirit writing on human hearts, he refers to the time of the Corinthians’ initial reception of the gospel. If 2 Cor. 3.3 describes a work

19. Paul refers to his gospel being veiled to those who are perishing (4.4) and to the minds of unbelievers being blinded (4.5). Response to his message about Christ therefore depends on God’s illumination (4.6). In the context of 3.12–4.6, the Spirit is shown to be active in this illumining and unveiling. See the discussion in Chapter 4. 20. Even the Jer. 31.33 passage does not simply speak of God transforming people, but of God writing his law in their hearts.

Two Metaphors

35

of the Spirit that includes ethical transformation, we are bound to ask whether Paul refers to a transforming action at the point of the Corinthians’ initial gospelreception or throughout their ongoing life of faith. Two factors point to an action at their initial coming to faith. First, as Hafemann points out, the perfect tense of ‘written’ (the Spirit’s act) and the aorist of ‘served’ (Paul’s contribution) are best seen as pointing to the founding of the Corinthian church.21 Second, the context of this passage favours seeing a reference to Paul’s basic gospel ministry. While this need not exclude ongoing teaching, we know from 1 Cor. 3.6–10 that Paul saw his ministry in Corinth primarily as a matter of planting and foundation laying. So even though 2 Cor. 3.3 implies the ongoing effects of the Spirit’s work in the Corinthians’ hearts (as the perfect tense of ‘written’ and the Corinthians’ status as an effective letter of recommendation suggest), it does not yet explicitly describe an ongoing work of the Spirit in their lives. That thought will be expressed more clearly in 3.18. Putting the factors of initial-conversion and ethical-transformation together, then, we may say that Paul describes the Corinthians’ conversion in terms that highlight the ethical change that formed one important aspect of their initial coming to faith in Christ. 2 Cor. 3.3 thus displays a neat picture of dual agency. The activities of Paul and the Spirit are differentiated (Paul preaches, the Spirit writes on hearts), complementary (both contribute to the same goal of making the Corinthians into a letter showing itself to be from Christ), and integrated (both activities happen at the same time, when the Corinthians hear and respond to the gospel). Paul explicitly pictures the Spirit’s action as internal, and he depicts the complementary actions of Spirit and preaching to operate under the ultimate agency of Christ.

II. Priestly service: Romans 15.16 16

that I might be a minister of Christ Jesus for the Gentiles, performing priestly service with respect to the gospel of God, in order that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

From a picture of Paul as scribe or letter producer we now move to an image of Paul as priest. Rom. 15.16 contains five specific terms relating to temple worship: Paul identifies himself as a ‘minister’ (λειτουργός, a term often used of one engaged in cultic service); he ‘performs priestly service’ (ἱερουργέω); the Gentiles are the ‘offering’ (προσφορά) he brings to God; this offering becomes ‘acceptable’ (εὐπρόσδεκτος); and it does so through being ‘sanctified’ (ἁγιάζω) by the Holy Spirit. Unpacking this metaphor with the concept of dual agency in mind, we must answer several questions. First, what specific activity or set of activities does Paul refer to when he speaks of ‘performing priestly service’? Second, how does the goal of Paul’s own service, that of making the offering of the Gentiles ‘acceptable’,

21. Suffering, 203–4.

36

Spirit and Word

relate to their being ‘sanctified’ by the Holy Spirit? Third, does the sanctification of the Gentiles include their moral cleansing or is it solely a matter of their being set apart for God? Fourth and most crucial for our present study, what is the temporal and functional relationship between Paul’s ‘priestly service with respect to the gospel’ and the Spirit’s work of sanctifying the offering of the Gentiles? We will take up these questions in turn. 1. When Paul pictures himself acting as a priest he refers to his gospel preaching – though this must be taken in a sense broad enough to include his writing of the epistle to the Romans. Paul explicitly links ‘performing priestly service’ (ἱερουγοῦντα) with ‘the gospel of God’.22 This fits the purpose of his metaphor, which is to call attention the grace given him by God (vs. 15), namely, his calling and equipping as a servant of the gospel. At the beginning of the epistle, Paul defines his calling wholly in terms of the gospel (1.1, 9, 15–17). This gospel ministry is first of all a matter of evangelistic preaching; in 15.18–21, for example, Paul stresses his ambition to bring the gospel to places where Christ has not been named. But the specific reason Paul calls attention to his gospel ministry to the Gentiles in 15.16 is to explain to his Roman readers why he is boldly writing to them (15.15). He thereby implies that his ‘priestly service with respect to the gospel’ includes the entire range of teaching he gives in this epistle. The opening sections of Romans likewise suggest that Paul understood his gospel ministry to extend beyond initial evangelistic proclamation, since he describes the encouragement he hopes to give the believers in Rome as a matter of gospel preaching (1.11–15). 2. Paul’s statement about the Gentiles being ‘sanctified by the Holy Spirit’ explicates what he means when he speaks of their becoming ‘acceptable’. The goal of Paul’s priestly ministry is that the Gentiles might become an ‘acceptable’ (εὐπρόσδεκτος) offering, ‘sanctified’ (ἡγιασμένη) by the Holy Spirit. How do these two concepts, being acceptable and being sanctified, interrelate? It seems clear that the participle ἡγιασμένη expresses the means by which the Gentiles become an acceptable offering, but at the same time it helps to define what Paul has in mind when he speaks of the Gentiles becoming acceptable.23 This is not to say that the two terms are synonymous, but simply that each entails the other. The acceptability of the Gentiles depends on their sanctification and their sanctification assures their acceptability.

22. Most translations take the accusative τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as the object of ἱερουργοῦντα but then paraphrase the clause to indicate that it is not the gospel that Paul brings to God as an offering (e.g. NRSV: ‘in the priestly service of the gospel of God’). But it is also possible to treat τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as an accusative of respect, ‘performing priestly service with respect to the gospel of God’ (cf. Robert Jewett, Romans [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007],  907). 23. Cf. John Murray, who sees ‘sanctified by the Spirit’ standing in apposition to ‘acceptable’ (The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 210). According to Wallace, the participle of means is typically epexegetical in that it defines or explains the action of the controlling verb (Greek, 629).

Two Metaphors

37

3. When Paul refers to the Gentiles being ‘sanctified by the Spirit’ he includes the thought of their moral cleansing. The most basic meaning of ἁγιάζω is ‘to set apart’ and a number of interpreters think this is its primary sense in Rom. 15.16.24 But several factors suggest the word also carries a strong nuance of moral cleansing in this passage.25 First, Paul’s metaphor of priestly service highlights his ministry to the Gentiles. Questions relating to God’s acceptance of the Gentiles and to Jewish–Christian acceptance of Gentile believers and their ways have been major concerns through much of Paul’s letter up to this point. When he goes on to describe his planned trip to Jerusalem in the latter part of Romans 15, he specifically asks for prayer that the saints there will find his offering of aid from Gentile believers acceptable (15.31, where Paul uses the word εὐπρόσδεκτος, just as in 15.16). Given the suspicions and uncertainties some felt about his ministry to the Gentiles, it was a bold move for Paul to use temple imagery to describe them as holy and acceptable to God.26 It was thus important that his claim be credible. All this suggests that he intends the expression ‘sanctified by the Spirit’ to convey the thought of observable moral change and not simply or exclusively that of an invisible ‘setting apart’. Second, when Paul describes the results of his gospel ministry in 15.18, he speaks of ‘the obedience (ὑπακοή) of the Gentiles’. While this could just refer to their positive response in general, Paul’s choice of this particular term suggests the idea of behavioural change as well as faith. Third, Paul also links the Spirit to sanctification in other passages. The term ‘sanctification’ (the verbal noun ἁγιασμός rather than the verb ἁγιάζω) appears three times in 1 Thess. 4.3–8, for example, and is clearly equated with moral behaviour, in particular sexual purity. Paul concludes this passage by telling his readers that to disregard the call to holiness is to disregard God, ‘who gives you his Holy Spirit’. This reference to the indwelling Spirit27 strongly implies that Paul understands the Spirit to play an active role in the Thessalonians’ behaviourally oriented sanctification. And in 1 Cor. 6.11 Paul tells his readers that they have been washed, sanctified (ἡγιάσθητε) and justified. He attributes these actions to both Christ and the Spirit. That ‘sanctified’ is associated with ‘justified’ and that both these verbs are aorist might suggest that a positional ‘setting apart’ is in view. But the association with ‘washed’ (ἀπελύσασθε) implies Paul also includes the thought of moral cleansing,28 especially in view of his warnings against unacceptable 24. For example, Thomas Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1998), 767; cf. H. Balz, EDNT. 25. As favored by, e.g., Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (ThHK, 6; Leipzig:  Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 305; Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief:  Ein Kommentar (Güterssloh:  Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1988), 528; Ben Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 26. See J. D. D. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 867. 27. Paul says God gives his Spirit εἰς ἡμᾶς. This perhaps alludes to Ezek. 37.6 and 14, and refers to the Spirit’s indwelling presence; see Fee, Empowering, 52. 28. Cf. Eph. 5.26–27.

38

Spirit and Word

behaviours in 6.9–10. Taking all these factors into consideration, ἀγιάζω most likely carries overtones of moral cleansing in Rom. 15.16 even while also retaining the nuance ‘set apart’.29 When Paul ministers the gospel, the Spirit acts to transform lives.30 4. Although Paul does not specify the temporal and functional relationship between his preaching and the Spirit’s sanctifying action, he implies that the two are integrally connected; the Spirit’s action is not subsequent to or separated from Paul’s preaching but rather accompanies it. Paul’s priestly service and the Spirit’s sanctifying work both contribute to making the Gentiles an acceptable offering. Paul preaches with that goal in view; the Spirit’s action is the means by which the goal is realized. This much is fairly clear. If we want to be more precise about how these complementary actions interrelate, we will have to work with subtler clues and weigh alternative possibilities. Framing the question in temporal terms, does the Spirit’s sanctifying action accompany Paul’s ministry of the gospel or come at a later stage following the Gentiles’ acceptance of Paul’s message? In more functional categories, does the Spirit work in and through Paul’s preaching, both using it and empowering it,31 or does the Spirit instead operate independently?32 Two considerations imply that Paul sees the Spirit sanctifying the Gentiles in and through his gospel ministry. First, when Paul says the goal of his gospel ministry is that the Gentiles may become an acceptable offering, it is most natural to suppose that the Gentiles’ acceptability comes as the direct result of his ministry. This implies that the Spirit’s sanctifying action, which is essential to making the Gentiles acceptable, comes in immediate connection with Paul’s preaching. A similar picture appears in 15.18–19. There, Paul says his ministry of word and deed resulted in the ‘obedience of the Gentiles’. This obedience appears to be a direct result of Paul’s ministry, but with the Spirit also playing an active role

29. The latter nuance would be particularly appropriate in the context of Paul’s picture of a temple offering. 30. Calvin combines the ideas of setting apart and inward transformation:  “Now as ancient sacrifices were dedicated to God by outward sanctifications and washings, so these ‘sacrifices’ are consecrated to the Lord by the Spirit of holiness, through the inward working of whose power they are separated from this world” (The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians [trans. Ron McKenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 311). Paul’s reference to ‘circumcision of the heart by the Spirit’ in 2.29 is also relevant for understanding what Paul means when he speaks of Gentiles being ‘sanctified by the Spirit’ in 15.16. There, too, Paul draws on a Mosaic religious practice for an image to depict a work of the Spirit that clearly involves moral change. 31. For example, Heinrich Schlier, who speaks of the Holy Spirit being ‘effective (wirksam) in the gospel’ (Der Römerbrief [HTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977], 431). 32. In the first case, the gospel might be viewed as the Spirit’s instrument or, alternatively, the Spirit might be viewed as enlivening, illumining or opening hearts to the gospel preaching. In the second, the Spirit is viewed as a gift promised by the gospel but, once given, carrying out a sanctifying work that no longer actively depends on the word.

Two Metaphors

39

(‘by the power of the Spirit of God’). Nothing Paul says suggests that the Spirit’s action was one step removed from Paul’s preaching. Second, the temple-offering metaphor binds the Spirit’s action tightly to Paul’s. The reference to the Spirit’s sanctifying activity is included as part of Paul’s description of his own priestly ministry. In a literal temple offering, the acts of presenting an offering, making it acceptable, and sanctifying it are all bound together as part of a single process. ‘Sanctifying’ is not a separate thing that happens after the priest offers a sacrifice. The very nature of Paul’s imagery thus implies a close integration of Paul’s action and the Spirit’s. I have argued that Paul’s ‘priestly service with respect to the gospel’ refers primarily to his initial evangelistic preaching but must also include his ongoing teaching ministry to those who have already come to faith in Christ. We probably have to draw a similar conclusion about the sanctifying work of the Spirit that Paul sees accompanying his gospel ministry. Sanctification language in Paul often refers to initial conversion,33 but passages like 1 Thess. 4.3–8; 5.23; and Eph. 5.26–27 show it can also refer to an ongoing process. If we now step back and compare Paul’s letter metaphor in 2 Cor. 3.3 with his temple-offering image in Rom. 15.16, we see these passages share a remarkably similar structure of thought. Both metaphors relate to the establishment of churches (though the Romans passage is more general in this regard). Both involve two agents, Paul as a minister of the gospel and the Holy Spirit, performing complementary roles. In each case the Spirit’s role involves direct action in those who hear Paul’s preaching:  internal transformation in 2 Cor. 3.3 and moral cleansing in Rom. 15.16. In each case, Paul and the Spirit work to achieve a single purpose. In each case the Spirit works in close connection with Paul’s preaching, but appears to operate at a different level. Paul’s driving concern in these passages is not to theoretically define the precise nature of the Spirit’s role in relation to gospel preaching, of course, but to affirm and prove the validity of his ministry. But that does not mean he has not thought about the interworking of preaching and the Spirit or gives no indication of how he sees it. It simply means that in examining these texts we have to work with indirect indications and keep Paul’s wider thought patterns in view. But even what he conveys indirectly forms part of his total communication package and merits careful exegetical attention.

33. For example, Fee, Empowering, 859. ‘Sanctification’ is primarily a metaphor for conversion in Paul, not post-conversion work of grace. See 2 Thess. 2.13.

4 K NOWING G OD

We now move from passages that associate the Spirit’s action with Paul’s gospel preaching to three texts that show the Spirit enabling believers to know God’s love and glory. These are Rom. 5.5–8; 2 Cor. 4.6; and Eph. 3.16–19. Each of these passages pictures the heart as the locus of the Spirit’s activity and each depicts the Spirit working in tandem with God’s outward or incarnational revelation in Christ.

I. God’s love: Romans 5.5–8 5

And hope does not put to shame, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. 6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone may possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom. 5.5–8 offers an excellent picture of dual testimony, in this case focusing on the reality of God’s love for believers. To fully see Paul’s portrayal of Spirit–word interaction, we must answer several questions. 1. What does Paul mean by ‘the love of God’ (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ)? Most recent commentators take ‘of God’ as a subjective genitive; on this view, Paul is talking about the love God has for believers. From a purely grammatical perspective, however, it would be equally possible to interpret the genitive objectively (the love believers have for God)1 or even attributively (the godly love believers have for others).2 Each of these options coheres well enough with Paul’s larger theology. Nevertheless, weighty factors show that here he refers to God’s love for believers. First, the immediately following verses (5.6–8) emphatically highlight God’s love for sinners. Second, what God has done to redeem sinners forms the 1. Wallace suggests τοῦ θεοῦ may function both subjectively and objectively. This assumes that Paul may speak with intentional ambiguity or give his words extra meaning at this point (Grammar, 121). 2. For example, Schmithals, Römerbrief, 157.

42

Spirit and Word

predominant theme in the wider context of Romans 3–8, culminating in 8.31–39 where Paul insists that nothing will separate believers from the love God has for them. Third, in Rom. 8.15–16 Paul says the Spirit bears an internal witness3 that assures believers of their adoption as God’s sons and leads them to call out, ‘Abba, Father’.4 This activity of removing fear and giving assurance seems functionally equivalent to the activity depicted in 5.5. Finally, Paul says that hope does not disappoint believers because (ὅτι) the love of God has been poured into their hearts. As several commentators point out, this makes best sense if ‘the love of God’ refers to the believers’ Spirit-given awareness of his love for them rather than to their own loving disposition.5 Paul refers to a strong experiential knowledge of being loved (ἐκκέχυται implies abundance) that forms part of the concrete seal or down payment of the Spirit he speaks about in passages like 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5; and Eph. 1.13–14.6 And while Paul views this Spirit-given sense of God’s love as itself a reliable guarantee of the believers’ sense of hope, he also immediately goes on in 5.6–8 to highlight the external reality that lends substance to the Spirit’s internal testimony, namely, the death of Christ. What the Spirit pours into believers’ hearts is not just a general sense of God’s loving disposition but a specific awareness of his love as displayed in Christ. 2. What does Paul mean when he says the love of God ‘has been poured out in our hearts’ (ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν)? If we are correct that ‘the love of God’ refers to God’s love for believers, the Holy Spirit’s act of pouring it out in the believers’ hearts must be a way of saying the Spirit communicates or bears witness to the truth of God’s love.7 Although the revelatory nature of the Spirit’s action is occasionally denied,8 two considerations strongly support it. First, while the verb ἐκχέω does not by itself include the idea of communication, in combination with ‘in our hearts’ it creates a metaphor that can hardly refer to anything else. The ‘heart’ is where things are perceived, known, and experienced.9 Several Pauline passages depict it as the place where divine revelation is received.10 Second, in 8.16 Paul explicitly speaks of the Spirit carrying out a revelatory act (bearing witness) that concerns God’s love for believers. There, as in 5.5, the communication is internal.

3. Τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματιFἡμῶν. 4. Cf. Gal. 4.6; 2 Thess. 3.5. 5. Moo, Romans, 304; cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975–79), 1.262. 6. For example, Fee, Empowering, 497; Horn, Angeld, 409; Schlier, Römerbrief, 149. 7. Cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, who say ‘love of God’ means ‘our sense of God’s love’ (ICC; A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 5th edn, 1902], 125. 8. For example, Schmithals: ‘Keinesfalls sagt oder meint Paulus aber, der Heilige Geist gebe die Erkenntnis (Kuss, 206f.) oder die Gewissheit (Bultmann, 1967, 428)  der Liebe Gottes (zu uns)’ (Römerbrief, 157). 9. Cf. Haacker, Römer, 114. 10. 2 Thess. 3.5; 2 Cor 4.6; Eph 1.17–18.

Knowing God

43

3. Does Rom. 5.5 refer to an initial revelatory act of the Spirit at the time of conversion or to an ongoing activity in the lives of believers? The best answer is probably both. Ἐκκέχυται (poured out) is in the perfect tense, which implies an action in the past that has ongoing effects. This suggests a definitive act of internal revelation at the time the Spirit was first given (δοθέντες) to the believers – a thought perhaps reinforced by Paul’s choice of the verb ἐκχέω, which recalls the outpouring of the Spirit in Joel 2.28–29 (LXX 3.1–2) and Acts 2.17–18 and 10.45.11 On the other hand, the ongoing-effect nuance of the perfect may hint at an ongoing role for the Spirit, one which keeps the believers’ initial experience of God’s love fresh. Paul’s choice of ἐν instead of εἰς in the expression ‘poured out in our hearts’ may also hint at ongoing activity within believers.12 But the strongest indication that Paul thinks of the Spirit exercising an ongoing love-revealing role comes in his conceptually parallel statement in 8.16, where he uses the present tense συμμαρτυρεῖ to describe the Spirit’s internal testimony to the believers’ adoption. 4. Does Paul’s statement about the Spirit’s action ‘in our hearts’ refer to an activity in individual believers or in the community as a corporate body? This question does not usually come up in connection with Rom. 5.5; it is typically just assumed that Paul describes a work in the hearts of individuals. But the individual-or-corporate question does arise in the case of two other passages, Rom. 8.15–16 and Gal. 4.6. Since these passages are very similar to Rom. 5.5, any debate about the nature of the Spirit’s activity depicted there may well have spillover effects on our understanding of Rom. 5.5. We must therefore assess two approaches to these passages. Rom. 8.15–16 and Gal. 4.6 have traditionally been viewed as depicting an internal work in which the Spirit assures individual believers of their status as God’s children. Furthermore, this assurance is marked by a warm and experiential sense of God as Abba – a term often thought to express the believer’s intimacy with God. But a number of recent interpreters argue that Paul describes exuberant corporate worship rather than individual prayers expressing personal assurance and intimacy with God.13 The Spirit enables the loud cry ‘Abba’ within the congregation, thus bearing testimony to the members’ status as children of God. While this corporate–worship interpretation is sometimes combined with the view that the Spirit also gives individual members of the congregation a sense of intimacy with God,14 it is often set in explicit contrast to readings that highlight individual assurance and the experience of personal intimacy.15 Nevertheless, 11. Schreiner, Romans, 257. 12. Moo, Romans, 305. 13. For example, Dunn, Theology, 431; Horn, Angeld, 409ff. 14. For example, Fee, Empowering, 409ff. 15. See Horn, Angeld, 412; Marianne Meye Thompson, “ ‘Mercy upon All’:  God as Father in the Epistle to the Romans”, in Sven Soderlund and N. T. Wright, Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 203–16. Thompson argues that Rom. 8.15–16 should be read primarily in cosmic, corporate, eschatological and theocentric terms; it does not emphasize the believers’ personal experience or the Spirit’s activity within the individual, but instead calls

44

Spirit and Word

although the corporate–worship interpretation offers an interesting (if somewhat speculative) picture of early-Christian worship, the traditional view of Rom. 8.15–16 and Gal. 4.6 is better supported. First, these passages contain a clear emphasis on inwardness. The Romans passage reminds believers they have ‘received’ (λαμβάνω) the Spirit, who bears witness ‘to our spirit’ (τὀ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν).16 The Galatians parallel speaks of God sending the Spirit ‘into our hearts’ (εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν). This emphasis on inwardness makes it hard to view the Spirit’s activity as corporate in the strict sense of that word. When Paul speaks of the Spirit being sent into ‘hearts’ he is thinking distributively. This implies that he also thinks distributively when he describes the Abba-cries that result from the Spirit’s presence. Whether these cries come in congregational worship or at other times, they and the effects that accompany them are the experience of each believer individually. Second, Rom. 8.15–16 is preceded and followed by references to individual action and experience. In 8.1–13 Paul exhorts his readers to pursue righteous deeds, and in 8.17 he reminds them of the need to endure suffering. Righteous deeds are the common responsibility of all members but they are performed individually; suffering is their common experience, but each member experiences suffering individually.17 Third, Paul’s use of emotion-related language weighs against interpretations that downplay the element of individual experience. In Rom. 8.15–16, he explicitly depicts the Spirit’s action as an antidote to fear. Both this passage and Gal. 4.6 contain the emotive expressions ‘cry out’ (κράζομεν) and ‘Abba, Father’. Rom. 8.15–16 is followed by reference to the believers’ subjective feelings, their groaning and patient hope (8.18–27). So if we allow these passages to shed light on Rom. 5.5 we will see an action of the Spirit that leads individual believers to an experiential knowledge of God as Father. Two additional factors confirm this individual focus. One is that Rom. 5.5 describes the Spirit acting ‘in our hearts’. Here as in other Pauline heart-passages he addresses the community but refers to a divine work that touches each member individually.18 Another is the way Paul describes the experience of believers in 5.3–4. It is hard to picture the progression from troubles to patient endurance, from

attention to what God has done to bring Jews and Gentiles together in one family sharing a common inheritance (212–13). 16. I have taken συμμαρτυρεῖ in the sense of ‘testifies’, viewing the prefix συν- as indicating an intensification of μαρτυρέω (see, e.g., BDAG; Cranfield, Romans, 1.403; Horn, Angeld, 412). Many translators and commentators take συμμαρτυρεῖ to mean ‘testify with’. Chevallier thinks συμμαρτυρεῖ suggests that the assurance communicated by God’s Spirit to the person’s spirit becomes a shared conviction (Souffle de Dieu: Le Saint-Esprit dans le Nouveau Testament, Vol. II [Paris: Beauchesne, 1990], 364). 17. See Rabens’s comments (Holy Spirit, 208–9). 18. 2 Cor. 1.22; 3.3; 4.6; Eph. 1.17–18; 3.17; 2 Thess. 3.5; cf. Rom. 2.29.

Knowing God

45

patient endurance to character, and from character to hope, as a process believers experience in unison as a corporate body. 5. Where does the element of the ‘word’ or outwardly given communication about Christ enter the picture Paul offers in Rom. 5.5–8? We do not find a term like ‘preach’, ‘teach’ or ‘witness’ in this passage, nor does Paul refer to a human communicator. Nevertheless, the passage does describe a form of communication, one carried out directly by God. God ‘demonstrates’ (συνίστησιν) his love (5.8). He does not do this through spoken words (at least not in the first instance), but through a revelatory historical act. So the word or gospel is indeed present in Paul’s formulation. It comes in the form of a historical event, Christ’s death for sinners, with God himself described as the communicator. This passage in fact offers a very clear example of Paul’s dual-testimony pattern of thought: according to v. 5, God reveals his love through the action of the Spirit in believers’ hearts; according to vv. 6–8, he reveals the same love through Christ’s death, a public event in human history. But even though this passage focuses on God revealing his love through a historical event, the element of human communication about that event is also present by implication. Paul knows that it is not as an obscure and remote historical event that Christ’s death demonstrates God’s love, but rather an event made known – set before people’s eyes, as he says in Gal. 3.1. And making Christ’s death known is precisely what Paul does in vv. 6–8. He writes with the pastoral aim of bringing his readers, some of whom are experiencing suffering, to an assurance of God’s love for them. He expects the Spirit to pour out a sense of God’s love in his readers’ hearts, but at the same time, Paul plays his own part in the process by reminding them of truths about Christ. Paul’s pastoral intentions are revealed through his inclusive use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ throughout this section. He draws his readers together with himself into the circle of sinners for whom Christ died. So while Paul does not speak about gospel preaching and teaching in this passage, he nevertheless actively models it. 6. What logical or functional relationship links the love-communicating action of the Spirit and the love-demonstrating work of Christ? Textual variations at the beginning of 5.6 slightly complicate our assessment of how Paul relates his statements about Christ’s death to what he says about the Spirit’s activity of filling believers’ hearts with a sense of God’s love.19 I have adopted the NA27 reading, ‘For while we were still weak’, which implies that 5.6–8 undergirds 5.5 in some loosely defined way. But the variants point in a similar direction. It is the total content of what Paul says more than the connecting word that allows us to say more about the how these two segments of Paul’s thought interrelate. First, the Spirit’s internal communication of

19. Most commentators favor the reading ἔτι γὰρ . . . ἔτι (‘for while we were still weak’ [‫ א‬A C D*]), although some (e.g. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 126) prefer εἴ γε . . . ἔτι (‘if indeed while we were still weak’), and a few εἰς τί γάρ (‘for to what end, while we were still weak’). See Stanley Porter, ‘The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 655–77 (666).

46

Spirit and Word

God’s love depends on the revelation of God’s love given on the cross in at least two ways, both already noted above. The ‘love of God’ that Paul says the Spirit has poured out in the hearts of believers needs to be defined and it needs to be objectively grounded. Christ’s death for sinners, which Paul highlights in 5.6–8, does both these things. Second, the structure of Paul’s argument implies that the dependence works both ways. The external demonstration of God’s love at the cross depends on the Spirit’s internal action if it is to be effective as revelation and thereby sustain hope. If the Spirit’s work were not necessary, Paul could have jumped immediately from 5.5a to 5.6: ‘Hope does not disappoint us, for while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly’. That Paul inserts 5.5b shows that he considers the Spirit’s testifying action to play an essential part in bringing his readers to grasp God’s love and therefore be assured that their hope will not be disappointed.

II. God’s glory: 2 Corinthians 4.6 6

Because the God who said, ‘Light will shine in the darkness’, is the one who has shone in our hearts to give the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Rom. 5.5–8 highlights the complementary roles played by the Spirit and the outwardly given revelation brought by Christ in the process of enabling believers to know God’s love. 2 Cor. 4.6 shows the same two factors at work, this time with the goal of enabling believers to know God’s glory. On the one hand, Paul says believers come to know God’s glory ‘in the face of Jesus Christ’. This is a way of saying that they know God through Paul’s message and teaching about Christ. But on the other hand, knowing God’s glory also involves an illuminating work of God, who shines a light in believers’ hearts. Paul does not name the Spirit as the specific agent through whom God carries out his heart-illumining work, but in the context of 2 Cor. 3.1–4.6 it is natural to see the Spirit’s agency as an unexpressed part of Paul’s thought. Not all interpreters would agree with this reading of 2 Cor. 4.6, however, so we will need to examine this verse in detail. We can start by noting three competing interpretations. A first view holds that Paul’s entire statement in 4.6b relates to God’s work in believers. When Paul says, ‘God has shone in our hearts’, he means in the hearts of all believers. When he goes on to state the purpose of this internal enlightening (‘to give the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’) he refers to an effect on these same believers: God has shone in their hearts in order to bring them the light of the knowledge of his glory. Paul thus describes initial Christian conversion (and probably also ongoing Christian experience) in terms of knowing God.20 20. For example, Jean Héring, La Seconde Épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchatel:  Delachaux & Niestlé, 1958), 43; Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), 140.

Knowing God

47

A second view relates Paul’s entire statement to God’s work in Paul. When he says ‘our hearts’, Paul means his own heart (or perhaps his own and those of the other apostles), and when he goes on to explain the purpose behind God’s illumining work, it is to bring the light of knowledge specifically to him (and perhaps the other apostles). On this view, Paul is describing his conversion and calling. Using language that alludes to his experience on the road to Damascus (the light imagery, the reference to the face of Jesus Christ) he says God gave him a direct vision of Christ accompanied by special inward illumination. Many who favour this interpretation are quick to say that Paul’s unique experience to some extent also serves as a paradigm for the experience of all believers, but this latter thought is usually seen only as an indirect implication of the text.21 A third view takes the first part of Paul’s statement (‘God has shone in our hearts’) as a reference to God’s work in Paul or all the apostles, but his following words about God’s purpose (‘to give the illumination’, etc.) as a reference to the effect of Paul’s ensuing ministry: God illumines Paul’s heart in order that Paul may in turn bring the light of the knowledge of God’s glory to others. On this view 2 Cor. 4.6 focuses primarily on Paul’s ministry.22 But once again, many who favour this interpretation think Paul’s experience also carries indirect implications for the experience of all believers. Despite the popularity of the second and third views, the first is best supported by the evidence. 1. Several factors indicate that when Paul says God has shone ‘in our hearts’ he refers to a work of God in the hearts of all believers. First, Paul’s striking phraseology in 4.6b, ‘to give the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God’ (πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ) picks up the language of 4.4b, ‘the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ’ (τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Since 4.4b refers to illumination and glory that come

21. For example, Sigurd Grindheim (‘Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul’s Prophetic SelfUnderstanding and Prophetic Hermeneutic with Special Reference to Galatians 3.10–12’, NTS 53 [2007], pp.  545–65 [555]); Thomas Schmeller (Der zweite Brief an die Korinther [EKK, 8/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag; Ostfildern:  Patmos Verlag,  2010]), 248; Thrall, Corinthians, 318. 22. Allo, Seconde Épître, 103; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 223; Rudolph Bultmann, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. Roy Harrisville (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 108; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 9; Alfred Plummer, The Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1915), 121; Robert Vorholt, Der Dienst der Versöhnung:  Studien zur Apostolatstheologie bei Paulus (WMANT, 118; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 217. Furnish thinks God’s enlightening pertains to the apostles but not to Paul’s Damascus Road experience (II Corinthians, 251).

48

Spirit and Word

through the gospel and therefore to all believers, it follows that the illumination and glory in 4.6b is likewise given to believers in general. Second, in 4.6 Paul presents God’s solution to the problem described in 4.4a. The problem is Satan-caused blindness, the solution God-given enlightenment. Since the blindness affects the minds (νοήματα) of all people (‘the unbelieving’) the enlightening action that provides the solution must touch the hearts of all who come to faith. The enlightening of Paul’s heart would not provide an adequate solution to the pervasive blindness described in 4.4a. Nor would his subsequent preaching or testimony to his encounter with the risen Christ.23 On the contrary, Paul recognized that his gospel ministry by itself could not overcome the human blindness problem – even his gospel was veiled to the lost (4.3; cf. 2.14–16) and Satan blinds even people who hear the gospel (4.4). The only solution is for God to shine in people’s hearts – not just in Paul’s pre-conversion heart, but in everyone’s. Third, the theme of ‘veiledness’ (or ‘stubbornness’ and ‘blindness’) dominates Paul’s thinking from 3.12 to 4.4. The objects said to be veiled vary: faces (3.13; 3.18), hearts (3.15), and the gospel itself (4.3). That faces should be veiled is to be expected; veils are naturally associated with faces and in the Exodus account that Paul refers to when first introducing this image it was Moses’s face that was veiled. But it is Paul’s mention of veiled ‘hearts’ (3.15) and his focus on ‘minds’ (νοήμα) being ‘made stubborn’ (3.14)24 and ‘blinded’ (4.4) that signals where he sees the real problem lies: not in outward factors but in a condition of heart and mind that prevents people from ‘seeing’ the gospel or ‘beholding’ the glory of the Lord. Given the analysis of the human condition that runs through the paragraphs leading up to 4.6, it is fitting that Paul should conclude this section by highlighting, not just the outward revelation of glory provided by appearance of the risen Jesus and the preached message about him, but also a direct illumining act of God in blinded hearts. Those who interpret 4.6 as a description of Paul’s conversion and calling often point to Paul’s emphasis on his own ministry throughout the preceding context, arguing that 4.6 continues this emphasis. But we must give equal attention to the emphasis on veiling in the paragraphs leading up to 4.6; this too is a theme Paul must bring to a satisfying conclusion. Fourth, conceptual parallels link 4.6 back to 3.18.25 Both verses speak of God’s glory revealed in Christ and both highlight a distinct factor that enables perception of that revealed glory (unveiling in 3.18; God’s act of shining in hearts in 4.6). Since 3.18 describes the experience of all believers (‘we all’), we should expect the same to be true of 4.6. Furthermore, in light of what Paul says in 3.18 about all believers ‘beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror’,26 no one should think what he says 23. Contra Schmeller, Korinther, 249; and Barnett, Second Epistle, 223. 24. Cf. Hafemann:  the veil is a metonymy for Israel’s hard-heartedness (Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel:  the Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006], 454). 25. Cf. Fee, Empowering, 321. 26. Translating κατοπτριζόμενοι with the majority of recent commentators, and understanding ‘the glory of the Lord’ to refer to God’s glory as reflected in Christ, who is the image of God (4.4). See the discussion of 3.18 in Chapter 5.I.

Knowing God

49

in 4.6 about knowing God’s glory ‘in the face of Christ’ must refer to the kind of resurrection appearance accorded Paul and the other apostles. Fifth, the plural form ‘in our hearts’ lends further support to the view that Paul describes an enlightening that touches all believers. This argument weakens somewhat when we realize Paul uses the same plural expression in 2 Cor. 3.2 and 7.3, passages where he appears to refer to himself alone.27 Nevertheless, it is not likely that Paul would use the plural ‘in our hearts’ if he were speaking of his distinctive Damascus-road encounter with the risen Jesus, an event he regarded as providing his credentials as an apostle (1 Cor. 9.1). Sixth, the picture of heart illumination in 2 Cor. 4.6 differs from the way Paul describes his experience of seeing the risen Lord elsewhere. In Gal. 1.16 he speaks of God ‘revealing’ his Son, and in 1 Cor. 5.8 says Christ ‘appeared’ to him. Furthermore, the Acts accounts of Paul’s conversion describe an external light. Although these differences do not constitute an overwhelming argument against the view that Paul refers to his own conversion in 2 Cor. 4.6,28 they do add weight against it. Finally, we must consider the logical relationship between 4.5 and 4.6, signaled by the ὅτι that links the two. The ὄτι is causal. 4.6 must state the reason or cause for what Paul affirms in 4.5. If his main point in 4.5 is simply that he faithfully carries out the task of gospel preaching (‘we preach . . . Christ Jesus as Lord’), a supporting statement about his own conversion and calling in 4.6 would certainly be very appropriate, while a statement about God illumining the hearts of all believers might seem off topic.29 But we must observe that Paul does not emphasize the simple fact of his preaching in 4.5, but rather its focus, Jesus Christ. He says, ‘We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord.’ He identifies himself as a slave to the Corinthians on account of Jesus.30 So it makes sense that Paul should then go on to explain why Jesus Christ stands at the centre of his ministry:  because it is in the face of Jesus Christ31 (note the emphatic final position of ἐν προσώπῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) that the glory of God is known. This glory in the face of Jesus comes to be recognized by all believers as God illumines their hearts. 2. When Paul indicates God’s purpose in shining in hearts (i.e., ‘to give the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’) it is unlikely that he refers to his own preaching activity. I have argued that when Paul

27. Although he could be including his ministry partners; cf. Barnett, Second Epistle, 362, n. 15. 28. Many commentators argue that Paul is simply highlighting the subjective aspect of his experience of seeing the risen Jesus. They may point to Gal. 1.16, where Paul says God revealed his Son ‘in me’ (ἐνFἐμοί). 29. For example, Vorholt, Dienst, 213. 30. Accepting the accusative Ἰησοῦν as the best reading. See Furnish, II Corinthians, 223; Thrall, Corinthians, 314, n. 859. 31. Paul’s reference back to vs. 5 is a little stronger if we accept the longer reading Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

50

Spirit and Word

says, ‘God . . . has shone in our hearts’, he refers to a work of God in all believers. If this is correct, it is unnecessary to show his next words, which describe the purpose of this internal shining, refer to Paul’s apostolic task of bringing light to others. Such an interpretation only becomes an option if his opening statement is thought to refer to a distinctive light-shining action in his own heart. I  will nevertheless take a moment to point out a serious weakness in this interpretation of the purpose clause. If we take πρὸς φωτισμὸν, etcetera, as a reference to Paul’s apostolic preaching we must understand 2 Cor. 4.6b to depict two distinct activities, first God’s act of shining in Paul’s heart, second Paul’s subsequent act of bringing the knowledge of God’s glory to others. But this leaves the description of both activities disturbingly incomplete. Paul’s opening statement, on this view, tells us where and for whom God has shone (‘in our hearts’), but says nothing at all about the nature or focus of this shining. Paul’s following description of his own light-bringing activity tells us a lot about its nature and focus (it relates to knowledge of God’s glory, it focuses on Christ) but nothing about where it shines or whom it touches. So Paul first describes an unfocused shining that takes place in a very specific place, then a very specific kind of enlightening directed toward an undefined place. Granted that Paul uses two different terms to portray the process of enlightening (the verb λάμπω and the verbal noun φωτισμός), there are still not enough words in 4.6b to adequately describe two distinct activities performed by two different agents. This problem disappears when we recognize that Paul is depicting a single process of enlightenment. He begins with a statement about God illumining hearts, then expands his thought to show more about the nature and focus of this illumination. The result is a precise and satisfying picture of God’s light-giving activity.32 So, again, there is strong reason to affirm that 2 Cor. 4.6 refers to the experience of all believers. I have argued this point at length because it represents a minority position in current scholarship. There may be some allusion to Paul’s Damascusroad experience  – I  do not necessarily want to deny this  – but Paul’s primary purpose is to describe a work of God in all believers. His formulation offers no support to the idea that he thought his apostolic ministry by itself had the power to overcome Satan-produced blindness. 3. Paul’s reference to God’s shining in the hearts of believers implies the specific agency of the Spirit. 2 Cor. 4.6 displays a pattern of dual testimony in that it brings together the concepts of internal illumination and the outward presentation of Jesus Christ. Unlike the other passages examined in this book, however, it contains no direct reference to the Holy Spirit. I have nevertheless included it in our study because the Spirit’s agency is implied.33

32. Paul’s language may seem somewhat overloaded, but that is the style he adopts here; a tendency to pile up words is also evident in the string of genitives that follows πρὸς φωτισμόν. 33. Cf. Fee, who speaks of ‘the implied work of the Spirit that lies just below the surface’ of 2 Cor. 4.1–6 (Empowering, 320).

Knowing God

51

That Paul does not explicitly mention the Spirit in connection with God’s work of illumining hearts suggests that in 2 Cor. 4.6 he is more concerned with highlighting the fact of internal divine illumination than the means by which it is carried out. We may also suppose that his introductory allusion to Genesis 1.3, ‘The God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness” ’, leads him to keep the same subject (God) when he goes on to speak of God’s corresponding work of enlightening hearts. To have inserted a specification about the role of the Spirit at this point would have detracted from that parallelism. But there are strong reasons to affirm that Paul does indeed see the Spirit to be active in this work of enlightenment. The first comes from what he says about the Spirit’s role in the paragraphs leading up to 4.6. Much of what Paul says about the Spirit in this section relates to transformation (3.3, 6, 8, 18) and liberation vis-à-vis the Law (3.17b). But 3.16–17a associates the Spirit with the unveiling that enables believers to behold God’s glory. Paul says the veil that lies over people’s hearts is removed when a person ‘turns to the Lord’ (3.16). He then goes on to say that ‘the Lord is the Spirit’ (3.17a). While the exact meaning of this last comment is debated, there is little doubt that Paul understands the Spirit to play a role in removing the veil. One common interpretation takes 3.17a as an exegetical explanation of Exod. 34.34. According to this view, Paul draws an analogy based on that passage’s description of Moses going before the Lord. In this analogy ‘it is the Spirit who now plays a corresponding role to ‘the Lord’ of the Exodus passage to whom Moses turns’.34 So the veil-removal depicted in 3.16 is the work of the Spirit.35 Another approach takes Paul’s statements about ‘the Lord’ as references to Christ. Some who adopt this view then conclude that Paul’s statement in 3.17a, ‘the Lord is the Spirit’, identifies the Spirit and the risen Christ, but a better option simply takes Paul to mean that turning to Christ entails or leads to experiencing the freeing and revealing influence of the Spirit.36 2 Cor. 3.3 and 18 provide additional hints that thoughts relating to an illumining work of the Spirit are not far from Paul’s mind in the lead-up to 4.6. While his reference to the Spirit writing on hearts in 3.3 may point primarily to a work of transformation, Paul probably also intends a secondary allusion to a convincing or revelatory work that accompanied his preaching.37 And although his reference to the Spirit at the end of 3.18, ‘just as from the Spirit of the Lord’ (καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος), connects most closely with ‘we are being transformed’, it

34. Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996), 117. Cf. Thrall, Corinthians, 274. 35. ‘It is thus the Spirit, as ‘the Lord’ of Exodus 34.34, who removes “the veil” of misunderstanding that blinds Judaism – and the most natural explanation of this is that the Spirit achieves such an end precisely by enabling the kind of wisdom or revelation that yields authentic understanding of the kerygma. This same Spirit is then said to enable an ongoing and transforming “beholding” of “the glory of the Lord” (namely Christ: 3.16–18)’ (Turner, Spirit, 118–19). 36. See, e.g., Chevallier, Souffle, 296–99. 37. See Chapter 3.I.

52

Spirit and Word

probably also links back to ‘beholding the glory of the Lord’ in the first part of 3.18.38 This would imply that Paul sees the Spirit as the agent who enables believers to see God’s glory in Christ. The flow of thought between vv. 17b and 18a is perhaps also significant in this regard: the ‘unveiled face’ of 18a helps define the nature of the Spirit-given ‘freedom’ of 17b. A final reason for supposing that Paul implies the Spirit’s involvement in the illumining activity described in 4.6 is simply that this would cohere with his larger pattern of thought. Paul elsewhere associates the Spirit both with hearts and with revelation/illumination.39 4. ‘The knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ refers to God’s historical revelation in Jesus Christ, as conveyed through the preaching of the gospel. Paul makes it clear that the Spirit’s internal illumination coordinates with the revelation brought by Jesus Christ in flesh and history and made known by the outward preaching of the gospel. The historical nature of the revelation of God’s glory is evident simply from Paul’s reference to Jesus Christ.40 Its embodied character is highlighted by the expression ‘in the face (ἐν προσώπῳ) of Jesus Christ’. This latter formulation picks up and develops earlier allusions to Christ as the embodied representation of God’s glory: ‘Christ who is the image (εἰκών) of God’ (4.4), and ‘beholding as in a mirror (κατοπτριζόμενοι) the glory of the Lord’ (3.18). This historically expressed revelation of glory was made known to the Corinthians and other post-Easter believers through gospel preaching. Paul connects the revelation brought by Jesus with his own preaching in 4.4, where he speaks of ‘the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ’.41 This connection is also evident from the way Paul’s focus on ‘the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ in 4.6 directly follows his reference to his own preaching of Jesus Christ in 4.5. In fact, Paul places strong emphasis on his gospel preaching throughout the entire section leading up to 4.6, beginning in 2.14.42 5. Paul speaks about initial conversion but with ongoing revelatory action also implied. A final question is whether 2 Cor. 4.6 refers to an illumining act at the point of conversion or to an ongoing experience in the lives of believers. Three factors indicate Paul has the time of initial response to the gospel primarily in view. First, in the context leading up to 4.6, he has a lot to say about his evangelistic preaching and basic responses to it. Second, Paul’s choice of the aorist ἔλαμψεν rather than either a perfect or present form suggests he is thinking of a past event. Third, Paul likens God’s illumining action in the hearts of believers to his initial act of commanding light to shine at the time of the world’s creation. Since the one

38. Chevallier sees a reference to the Spirit enabling knowledge as well as effecting transformation in 2 Cor. 3.18 (Paroles, 96). See also Rabens, Spirit, 175; and Turner, Spirit, 119. 39. For example, Rom. 5.5; 8.16; Gal. 4.6; Eph. 1.18; 3.16–19. 40. There is a difficult textual choice between Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and Χριστοῦ at the end of 2 Cor. 4.6. The former would call particular attention to Jesus as a historical figure (cf. 4.5). 41. Cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 224. 42. Cf. Gal. 3.1, where Paul depicts his preaching as a matter of presenting a mentally visible picture of Jesus.

Knowing God

53

act constituted an initial starting point, the other may as well. On the other hand, however, it is hard to imagine that Paul would think of the purpose for which God shone in the believers’ hearts, that they might have ‘the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’, as something that did not continue as part of believers’ ongoing experience. In fact, this kind of ongoing experience is exactly what Paul highlights in 3.18, a passage that is in many ways conceptually parallel to 4.6. In 3.18 Paul says believers are being transformed (μεταμορφούμεθα, present tense) as they behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror (κατοπτρζόμενοι, a present participle). So taking into account Paul’s overall thought within this section, it seems best to conclude that in 4.6 he speaks of an illumining act at the time the gospel is first received, but one which then continues in the believers’ ongoing experience. As is Rom. 5.5, this inward illumination is integrally connected to God’s outward revelation in Christ, but here Paul shows more about how he sees the logical/functional relationship between the Spirit’s revelatory action in hearts and the historical revelation brought by Christ:  the Spirit overcomes human blindness so the outwardly imaged glory of God can be seen.

III. The love of Christ: Ephesians 3.16–19 16

In order that he may grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person, 17that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, you being rooted and grounded in faith, 18 in order that you may be able to grasp with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, in order that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Eph. 3.16–19 is not a dual-testimony passage where both the Spirit’s revelatory action in hearts and the outwardly displayed and proclaimed revelation brought by Christ are structurally prominent. This passage highlights only the first of these elements. But it merits our attention nonetheless. It sheds additional light on Paul’s concept of the Spirit’s internal action, especially that which he describes in Rom. 5.5, the revealing of God’s love.43 And while neither gospel preaching nor the historical revelation brought by Christ plays an explicit role in this passage, both stand just off stage. 1. Ephesians 3.16–19 highlights three aspects of the Spirit’s revelatory activity. First, this passage reinforces the picture of an internal work given in passages like Rom. 5.5 and 8.16. Paul speaks of the Spirit strengthening believers ‘in the inner person’ (εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον), an action that is in some way connected to Christ dwelling ‘in their hearts’. This takes place in a communal context (‘that you may

43. Although many scholars consider Ephesians to be deutero-Pauline, most would view it as at least offering significant commentary on passages written by Paul.

54

Spirit and Word

be able to grasp with all the saints’) but the strengthening action itself is one Paul prays will take place within individuals.44 Second, more clearly than either Rom. 5.5 or 2 Cor. 4.6, this passage depicts an ongoing work in believers. When Paul prays that God will strengthen his readers’ hearts through his Spirit, he is praying for those who have already heard the word of truth, believed and been sealed with the Holy Spirit (1.13). And he uses the present tense (κάμπτω) in 3.14 when he describes his kneeling in prayer. This implies that he engages in ongoing prayer for the Spirit’s work of strengthening their hearts to know the love of Christ.45 Third, Paul depicts the Spirit’s action as necessary and enabling. It enables these believers to know what would otherwise be too much for them to grasp. Paul fills this passage with language that highlights the gap between the reality of Christ’s love and the believers’ natural ability to perceive it. He does not just pray that his readers may be strengthened but that they may be ‘strengthened with power’ (δυνάμει κραταιωθῆναι). Rather than simply asking that they may grasp the dimensions of Christ’s love, he prays that they ‘may be able to grasp’ (ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι). He wants them to know a love ‘that surpasses knowledge’. He forces them to consider its extent in all directions, its ‘breadth and length and height and depth’. This repeated emphasis on the need for the inner person to be strengthened forces us to recognize that Paul can use two different types of imagery to depict the internal revelatory action of the Spirit. At one pole, he uses images that evoke the thought of active, outgoing communication: the love of God being poured out in hearts (Rom. 5.5); the Spirit bearing witness with the believer’s spirit (Rom. 8.16). At the other pole, in a passage like the present one, Paul uses imagery that depicts the Spirit dealing with problems on the receiving end of the communication process:  strengthening the inner person; unveiling veiled hearts (2 Cor. 3.15–18). Sometimes Paul combines both kinds of imagery in a single passage, as in 2 Corinthians 4, where he moves from the picture of blinded minds (4.4) to that of light shining in dark hearts (4.6). The presence of both types of image in a single passage alerts us that we should not think of two different theologies of illumination in the Pauline literature but rather a rich conception in which the Spirit’s internal revelatory includes at least two facets. 2. Both the content and context of Paul’s prayer-report imply that the Spirit’s revelatory action coordinates with the gospel message about Christ, even though this latter element receives no direct emphasis in Eph. 3.16–19. The main burden of Paul’s prayer is that his readers will know Christ’s love. The specific thing he asks God to do in order that this may happen is to strengthen them through the Spirit.

44. It is more difficult to determine whether Paul is thinking corporately or individually when he goes on to speak of ‘the power working in us’ (ἔν ἡμῖν) in 3.20. 45. According to Clinton Arnold, the aorist forms in Paul’s prayer (δῷ, κραταιωθῆναι, κατοικῆσαι) indicate he represents the process of strengthening and dwelling as a whole, from beginning to end (Ephesians [ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010], 211).

Knowing God

55

This strengthening is the fundamental element in each of the two main requests that make up the content of Paul’s prayer. His first request (introduced by ἵνα) is that God grant his readers to be ‘strengthened with power’ (3.16); his second request (likewise introduced by ἵνα, and probably elaborating the first) is that they ‘be able to grasp’ the dimensions of Christ’s love (3.18). So as noted above, Paul does not ask that God will communicate something about Christ’s love through the Spirit, but rather that he will strengthen their inner person and enable them to grasp Christ’s love. In other words, Paul speaks here about a reception-enabling work of the Spirit, not about an act that involves imparting new revelation or conveying a message concerning Christ. Paul seems to assume that a message or revelation about Christ’s love is already present and operating among his readers. This already existing (but hard to comprehend) message is what he prays the Spirit will enable them to understand. At this point we can turn to the wider context of Ephesians for the missing element that Paul’s prayer-report implies but does not itself contain. Looking at the epistle as a whole we find several passages that emphasize God’s work in Christ, including the love and grace displayed in Christ and his death (1.4–8; 2.4–8, 13–16). In 3.8 Paul describes his own task as a matter of preaching ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ’ (τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ) – a formulation that strongly recalls his reference to the love of God ‘that surpasses knowledge’ in 3.19. When we combine 3.16–19 with these earlier passages,46 we see that Ephesians as a whole displays a deeply embedded concept of dual testimony.47 3. The picture of the Spirit’s action outlined above emerges with even greater clarity if we view the first two ἵνα clauses (vv. 16–17 and vv. 18–19a) as roughly parallel statements and interpret each as a depiction of the Spirit’s activity of enabling believers to know Christ’s love. Eph. 3.16–19 raises a number of difficult syntactical questions. Let me list just four. First, how does the ἵνα clause at the beginning of 3.18 (‘in order that you may be able to grasp’, etc.) relate to the ἵνα clause at the start of 3.16 (‘in order that he may grant you’, etc.)? Second, how does the sub-clause ‘to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person’ (vs. 16b) relate to the sub-clause ‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith’ (17a)? Third, how does the sub-clause ‘to grasp with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth’ (vs. 18b) relate to the sub-clause ‘to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge’ (vs. 19a)? Finally, how does the double-participle clause ‘you being rooted and grounded in love’ (vs. 17b) relate to the clauses that

46. Also including 1.17–18, if πνεῦμα there refers to the Holy Spirit. 47. It is interesting to note that passages highlighting the Spirit’s work of giving believers knowledge of God’s love (Rom. 5.5; 8.15–16; Gal. 4.6; Eph. 3.16–19) appear following and/or as part of sustained expositions of the richness of the gospel. In Romans 3–8, Galatians 2–4 and Ephesians 1–3 lengthy expositions of God’s saving love in Christ – the facts and implications of the gospel – are capped off by reference to or prayer for the Spirit’s work of enabling believers to grasp God’s love. These larger sections thus display a dualwitness pattern through their overall structures.

56

Spirit and Word

surround it? I will not discuss each of these questions at length but simply present what I think may be the best overall interpretation, along with some supporting comments. Before taking up these syntax issues, however, we must consider the meaning of 17a, ‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith’. I suggest this is best understood as a condensed way of saying, ‘that the knowledge of Christ (or the revelation displayed in Christ) may dwell in your hearts through faith’. Four considerations make this suggestion viable. First, in Col. 3.16 Paul speaks of the word of Christ dwelling in believers (ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ἡμῖν). This may well shed light on the meaning of Eph. 3.17a, because the two passages are linked by common linguistic and conceptual elements: ἐνοικέω in Col. 3.16 is a nearly synonymous cognate of κατοικέω in Eph. 3.17, and the former passage pictures the word of Christ dwelling in believers richly (πλουσίως) while the latter speaks of God strengthening them out of the riches (τὀ πλοῦτος) of his glory. Second, when we compare Eph. 5.18b–19 with Col. 3.16, we find these two passages to be closely parallel, except that in the Ephesians version ‘be filled with the Spirit’ stands in the place of ‘let the word of Christ dwell in you richly’. This suggests that in Paul’s mind there was a significant connection between the Spirit’s internal action and the experience of a rich indwelling of the word on Christ – a connection that can then help us understand what Paul means in Ephesians 3 when he pictures the Spirit’s internal action enabling an indwelling of Christ.48 Third, that Paul expects Christ to dwell in believers’ hearts ‘through faith’ means the indwelling depends on their believing something – which suggests that a given truth or message about Christ is prominent in his mind at this point. Fourth, it is unlikely that 3.17a refers simply to the fundamental gift of Christ’s personal indwelling. Paul writes to believers who have already been sealed with the Holy Spirit (1.13), and Rom. 8.9–11 shows he considered the indwelling presence of Christ to be an essential fact of Christian existence concomitant with a believer’s reception of the Spirit.49 For this reason several commentators correctly perceive that Eph. 3.17 must refer to something other than the bare reality of Christ’s presence within. Suggestions include a growing experience of Christ’s nearness,50 the encouragement believers draw from his indwelling,51 and a deepening of their relationship with him.52 A more contextually fitting interpretation, however, would

48. This argument as I have expressed it assumes that the common mind of Paul lies behind both Ephesians and Colossians but also works if one assumes Ephesians was written by an author who at least understood and sought to write in general harmony with Colossians. 49. In Rom. 8.9–11, Paul speaks of the Spirit ‘dwelling in’ believers (οἰκέω ἐν, ἐνοικέω) three times; he uses the expression Χριστοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν to speak of Christ’s indwelling. 50. Arnold, Ephesians, 211. 51. Frank Thielman, Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 231. 52. Harold Hoehner, Ephesians:  An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2002), 481.

Knowing God

57

be to see Paul’s expression as a way of saying he desires the knowledge or word of Christ to dwell in believers. Moving now to syntactical matters, it is best to see the believers’ experience of having the knowledge of Christ dwell in their hearts (3.17a) as the result or intended purpose of the Spirit’s internal strengthening of believers (3.16b).53 First, 3.16b calls out for completion. Paul prays that believers may be strengthened, but for what purpose? 3.17a supplies the answer.54 Second, the believers are the implied subject of κραταιωθῆναι in 3.16b, whereas Christ is the subject of κατοικῆσαι in 3.17a. This switch of subjects presents no difficulty if κατοικῆσαι introduces a subordinate clause, but creates an awkward construction if we try to make κατοικῆσαι coordinate with κραταιωθῆναι, especially since we must then link both infinitives back to ‘that he may grant you’. Third, if κατοικῆσαι and κραταιωθῆναι were coordinate, we would expect 3.17a to be introduced by a coordinating conjunction.55 Finally, κατοικῆσαι is more likely to connect back to κραταιωθῆναι than to the more distant ἵναFδῷ.56 As for the double-participle clause ‘you being rooted and grounded in love’ (vs. 17b), it is best to see this as a reference to Christ’s love for believers or to God’s love revealed in Christ.57 It is quite difficult to determine precisely how this clause relates to the rest of Paul’s sentence, however, as all the main proposals are marked by grammatical problems. It may be best to view it as an independent interjection,58 reminding the believers that the love of God in Christ forms the basis of their salvation (1.4–8; 2.4–8, 13–16)  – a presupposition that underlies Paul’s wish for his readers to be internally strengthened so that (the knowledge of) Christ can dwell within them. As such, this clause implies that having Christ dwell in their hearts entails knowing his love. To sum up the interpretation of 3.16–17 offered so far, Paul asks God to strengthen believers internally through the Spirit so that they may know Christ

53. For example, Hoehner, Ephesians, 481; Thielman, Ephesians, 231. The alternatives would be to view κατοικῆσαι as coordinate with κραταιωθῆναι, expressing a second prayer request or repeating the first in different terms (e.g., Arnold, Ephesians, 211; Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 258; Gerhard Sellin, Der Brief an die Epheser [KEK, 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008], 281). 54. Note how the reference to strengthening in 3.18 is immediately followed by mention of what it is for: that the believers may grasp something – ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι. 55. See Hoehner, Ephesians, 481. In response to this argument, Arnold cites LXX Deut. 17.19 and 30.19–20 as instances where there is no conjunction between two parallel infinitives following a subjunctive verb with ἵνα (Ephesians, 211). 56. Hoehner, Ephesians, 481; Thielman, Ephesians, 229. 57. See, e.g., Jean-Noel Aletti, Saint Paul Épître aux Éphésiens (ÉBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 2001), 197; O’Brien, Ephesians, 260; Thielman, Ephesians, 233. 58. See Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 342; Thielman, Ephesians, 232. But commentators are quite divided on this difficult question.

58

Spirit and Word

and his love. If this understanding of the first ἵνα clause is correct, it is easy to see Paul’s second ἵνα clause (3.18–19a) as parallel with the first.59 It expresses a second prayer request that largely restates the first. Both requests focus on the believers’ need for strengthening (‘that you may be strengthened with power’, ‘that you may be able’), and in both cases that strengthening is to enable them to know Christ’s love. Rather than taking v. 18 as a request that Paul’s readers grasp one thing (God’s power? God’s plan?) and v. 19a as a request that they know something else (Christ’s love), it is better to see 19a (‘to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge’) as completing and explaining the thought begun in 18b (‘to grasp with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth’).60 Paul asks God to enable his readers (‘through his Spirit’ is the implied thought carried over from 3.16) to get a hold of one thing: Christ’s great and hard-to-grasp love for them.61 I offer this interpretation of the syntax and overall sense of Eph. 3.16–19 tentatively, well aware that any reading of this passage involves making a large number of difficult choices. My earlier observations about how Eph. 3.16–19 sheds light on Paul’s concept of the Spirit’s revelatory activity (in sections 1 and 2 above) can be supported on almost any analysis of its syntax. But the detailed analysis outlined here, if correct, sheds still clearer light on the theme of the Spirit enabling believers to know God in Christ. First, it highlights the causal connection between the Spirit’s action of strengthening believers and their ability to know God’s love as displayed in Christ. Second, it avoids the complicated picture that results when 3.18–19a is seen to be syntactically dependent on 3.16–17. That analysis of the relationship between the two ἵνα clauses leads to a chain of logic in which the Spirit’s action enables (or perhaps parallels) Christ’s indwelling, which in turn enables the knowledge of Christ’s love described in vv. 18–19b. The indwelling Christ thus becomes a middle term between the Spirit’s strengthening action and the believers’ knowledge of God’s love. This seems unnecessarily complex. Moreover, if Christ’s indwelling should then come to be viewed as the primary source of the believers’ knowledge of his love, it would seem to lessen the importance of the revelation of Christ’s love in history and in the proclaimed gospel. Any interpretation leading in this last direction would entail seeing a radically different picture in Eph. 3.16–19 from that depicted in Rom. 5.5 and 2 Cor. 4.6. But in light of passages like Eph. 1.7–9; 2.13; 3.7–9; and 5.25 such a picture can hardly reflect the thought of 3.16–19.

59. See, e.g., Arnold, Ephesians, 207; Michel Bouttier, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Éphésiens (CNT, 9b; Genève:  Labor et Fides, 1991), 153. The alternative is to view the second ἵνα clause as stating the purpose or result of the first (e.g. Best, Ephesians, 335; Fee, Empowering, 694; Hoehner, Ephesians, 485; Sellin, Epheser, 284; Thielman, Ephesians, 233). 60. For example, Best, Ephesians, 346; Hoehner, Ephesians, 488; O’Brien, Ephesians, 261–62; Sellin, Epheser, 289; Theilman, Ephesians, 236. 61. The third ἵνα clause in this passage, ‘in order that you may be filled with all the fullness of God’ (3.19b), should perhaps be seen as dependent on the first two.

5 T RANSFORMATION, W ORSHIP AND W ARFARE

In this chapter we look at three Pauline passages which portray the Christ-centred word and the Holy Spirit as dually operating factors in Christian living. Word and Spirit act in tandem to transform believers into the likeness of Christ (2 Cor. 3.18), fill them with the presence of God in worship (Eph. 5.18–19) and enable them to battle Satan (Eph. 6.17).

I. Transformation: 2 Corinthians 3.18 18

And we all, with unveiled faces beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image, from glory unto glory, just as from the Spirit of the Lord.

Our first task in relation to 2 Cor. 3.18 will be to establish the presence of the ‘word’ factor. This will require showing that ‘beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror’ is indeed the best translation of Paul’s words and that ‘the glory of the Lord’ refers to God’s outwardly displayed self-revelation in Christ. We must then clarify the role of the Spirit, who according to Paul both unveils and transforms believers. 1. A number of factors converge to show that κατοπτριζόμενοι has the sense ‘beholding as in a mirror’. Although some translations and commentators translate κατοπτριζόμενοι as ‘reflecting’ or ‘reflecting like a mirror’,1 the majority of recent interpreters recognize that its most probable sense is ‘beholding as in a mirror’.2 First and most important, this is the usual meaning of κατοπτρίζω in the middle voice.3 Second, ancient versions, such as the Vulgate, usually take the word in this 1. For example NIV, GNT, JB; Linda Belleville, Reflections of Glory:  Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18 (JSNTSup; Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 280–82; Chevallier, Esprit, 96; Duane Garrett, ‘Veiled Hearts: the Translation and Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3’, JETS 53 (2010), pp. 729–72 (762–63). 2. For example, Furnish, II Corinthians, 214; Rabens, Holy Spirit, 181–82; Thrall, Corinthians, 282. 3. See BDAG.

60

Spirit and Word

sense.4 Third, the preceding context focuses primarily on the issue of seeing or beholding the glory of God. The Israelites in Moses’s day were unable to look at his shining face (3.7, 13) and those in Paul’s day had veiled hearts which made them unable to perceive the glory of the new covenant (3.15–16). This emphasis on blocked vision implies that the chief effect of the ‘unveiled faces’ depicted in 3.18 is that believers are now able to behold God’s revealed glory.5 Fourth, there is also a focus on seeing or beholding in the following context. In 4.3–4 Paul depicts unbelievers as failing to see the light of the gospel while in 4.6 he speaks of God giving believers light – that which enables a person to see.6 Fifth, Paul’s picture of believers being transformed into glory in 3.18 looks back to his reference to the transfiguration of Moses’s face in 3.7–13, which is based on the account in Exodus 34. In the Exodus passage, Moses is transformed as a result of meeting with God, an encounter that included at least indirect beholding (34.6 in light of 33.23; cf. Num. 12.8).7 Sixth, within the wider NT 1 Jn 3.2 draws a similar connection between seeing the Lord and becoming like him. Finally, Paul’s choice of a verb that typically depicts seeing that is done in a mirror is a perfect way to express the particular type of beholding he has in mind here, inasmuch as he does not describe direct vision of God but vision of God’s ‘image’ (εἰκών) seen in the face of Christ (cf. 4.4, 6).8 2. ‘The glory of the Lord’ that believers behold refers to the glory of God revealed in Christ. There is some difference of opinion over the identity of ‘the Lord’ whose glory believers behold. On the one hand, Paul normally uses ‘Lord’ (κὐριος) to designate Christ. On the other, he has been alluding to Moses’s experience as described in Exod. 34.29–35. That passage depicts Moses, with his face unveiled, entering the presence of Yahweh. It would therefore be easy to suppose that Paul has Yahweh in mind when he refers to unveiled believers beholding ‘the glory of the Lord’. Furthermore, Paul elsewhere frequently associates ‘glory’ with God, and

4. See BDAG; Harris, Corinthians, 314. 5. See, e.g., Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1986), 71. The context leading up to 3.18 also pictures Moses’ face reflecting the glory of the Lord (3.7, 13), of course. Those who favour translating κατοπτριζόμενοι as ‘reflecting’ argue that Paul moves from the picture of Moses reflecting glory to that of believers reflecting glory. They also point out that veils typically function to hide someone’s face, so that a reference to the believers’ ‘unveiled faces’ would suggest that those faces become visible to others. This could then be seen to cohere with 3.2–3, where Paul describes the Corinthian believers as a letter in which the marks of the Spirit can be read by one and all. But despite these factors the dominant focus in 3.7–18 lies on seeing rather than reflecting. 6. See, e.g., Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (TNC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 100. 7. See Thrall, Corinthians, 295; Frances Back, Verwandlung durch Offenbsarung bei Paulus (WUNT, 2/153; Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 13. Back cites interpretations of Exodus 34 in Philo (Vit. Mos. II.66–70; Virt. 212–219) and Pseudo-Philo which also suggest the idea that Moses was transformed as a result of his vision of God (199). 8. For example Barnett, Corinthians, 205–6.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

61

‘the glory of the Lord’ is a common expression in the LXX.9 What tips the balance most decisively toward taking ‘the Lord’ as a reference to God, however, is Paul’s statement about believers being transformed ‘into the same image’ (εἰκών). Paul returns to this language in 4.4 (‘the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’) and expresses a similar concept in 4.6 (‘the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’). Both of these passages depict Christ as the one in whom God’s glory is revealed. It is thus God’s glory that believers behold in 3.18 – but God’s glory as imaged or mirrored by Christ.10 3. Paul understands gospel preaching to be the primary medium through which believers are confronted with the glory of God revealed in Christ. Paul himself beheld the Lord’s glory, or at least had his initial sight of that glory, through a direct appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9.1; 15.8). For his readers, however, the beholding must come through the gospel. That Paul saw his Christ-focused preaching as a medium through which God’s glory was revealed is strongly implied in 3.6–11, where he contrasts his ministry with that of Moses. Moses’s ministry was attended by glory, Paul says, but his own, marked by the Spirit and righteousness, possesses far greater glory. Since what Paul says about his new covenant ministry in 3.6–11 follows on from what he said in 2.12–17 about his preaching of the gospel, it is evident that he sees the gospel as a locus of glory, made visible to those with unveiled faces. This connection between the gospel and the glory of God revealed in Christ is then made quite explicit in 4.4, where Paul describes his message as ‘the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’. That Paul is focusing on the Christ-depicting gospel rather than some other medium through which Christ might be known or God’s glory revealed is further indicated by his assertion in 4.5, ‘we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord’. It is important to see that for Paul the humanly communicated gospel both depends on and extends the revelation given in the person of Christ himself, and that terms and concepts relating to verbal communication (speaking, hearing, the word of God) can easily integrate with images relating to visual perception.11 Images like veiling, blindness, and light, for example, can be applied to the preaching and reception of the gospel (e.g. 4.2–6). And Paul can certainly use words with the aim of evoking mental pictures of Jesus Christ (4.6b; cf. Gal. 3.1). So there is no need to assume that the vision-related image ‘beholding . . . as in a mirror’ must refer to an actual visual or visionary experience. Whether Paul makes secondary allusion to some more concrete form of seeing is not a matter we can take up here.12 My 9. See Furnish, II Corinthians, 214. 10. By saying that believers behold God’s glory as in a mirror Paul does not mean that they see it only in an indistinct or partial fashion. He uses mirror language in a positive sense: believers behold the glory of God mirrored clearly in Christ, who is the image and revelation of God. See, e.g., Fee, Empowering, 318; Furnish, II Corinthian, 214; Harris, Corinthians, 315; Thrall, Corinthians, 283. 11. Or for that matter, with images relating to smell (2.14–17). 12. Suggestions include seeing the Lord’s glory in the Spirit-filled lives of fellow believers (N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013], 726; Paul

62

Spirit and Word

point is simply that the dramatic imagery in 3.18a depicts believers perceiving and contemplating the glory of God in Christ that has been conveyed to them primarily through preaching and teaching.13 4. Paul’s statement in 3.16, ‘Whenever one turns to the Lord the veil is removed’, stands in partial parallel to 3.18a. It is perhaps best to see ‘the Lord’ (κὐριος) in 3.16 as a reference to Christ.14 If this is correct, we have additional reason to conclude that a concept of dual action marks Paul’s thought throughout this section:  he consistently pictures the Spirit acting in connection with the God’s revelation in Christ, which is the focal point of Paul’s gospel preaching.15 Three factors support the view that ‘the Lord’ refers to Christ (although this is a famously difficult passage and a good case can also be made that in both 3.16 and 3.17 ‘the Lord’ refers to the Lord depicted in Exod. 34.34–35 [Yahweh], interpreted by Paul analogously as the Spirit.16) First, when Paul uses κὐριος he normally refers to Jesus Christ.17 Second, Duff, Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 [Leiden: Brill, 2015], 203); in the apostles’ physical bodies marked by suffering (J. M. F. Heath, Paul’s Visual Piety: The Metamorphosis of the Beholder [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013], 227; Robin GriffithJones, ‘Turning to the Lord: Vision, Transformation and Paul’s Agenda in 2 Corinthians 1–8’, in Reimund Bieringer, et al, Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians [BTS, 16; Leuven: Peeters, 2013], pp. 255–79 (265); in the Eucharist (Collange, Enigmes, 115; Thrall, Corinthians, 285); through a prophetic-visionary experience (Back, Verwandlung, 158); and, in the case of Paul himself, in the Damascus Road vision (Kim, Origin, 231) or through a heavenly journey such as that described in 2 Cor. 12.2–3 (Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee [New Haven: Yale, 1990], 61). 13. This point is reinforced by Rom. 5.5–8, where Paul also pairs the Spirit’s action with Christ as the visible or embodied revelation of God. The God-revealing Christ of Rom. 5.8 is as a figure who acted visibly in human history (the cross) and has now become known to Paul’s readers through the channel of gospel testimony. 14. For example Barnett, Second Epistle, 204; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Corinthians, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1884), 213. This does not mean that 3.17a identifies the risen Christ with the Spirit. Rather, Paul’s statement that ‘the Lord is the Spirit’ should be seen as a way of saying that turning to Christ entails or leads to experiencing the freeing and revealing influence of the Spirit. See, e.g., Chevallier, Souffle, 296–99. 15. By way of contrast, interpretations which do not see ‘the Lord’ referring to Christ in 3.16–17 weaken this element of duality. Fee, e.g., comments that these verses show ‘how thoroughly this whole passage is dealing primarily with the work of the Spirit, rather than of Christ’ (Empowering, 311). 16. See, e.g., Collange, Enigmes, 111; Fee, Empowering, 310, n. 87; Furnish, II Corinthians, 117; Thrall, Corinthians, 273; Turner, Spirit, 117. 17. Harris counters this by pointing out that κύριος lacks the article in 3.16 and that in Pauline usage anarthrous κύριος is usually Yahweh (Corinthians, 308). But the absence of the article in 3.16 might simply be due to κύριος appearing in a prepositional phrase (πρὸς κύριον).

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

63

while Paul can speak of ‘turning to God’ when describing Gentile conversion (1 Thess. 1.9), in the present context he is talking about how the people of Israel respond to the message about Christ and the new covenant. The issue for them is not turning from idols to God, but recognizing Jesus as Messiah and Lord.18 Third, and perhaps most important, in 3.14 Paul identifies Christ as the one in whom the veil that lies over the Israelites’ hearts is done away with (ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται). This last argument requires defense, because there is some debate over whether 3.14 actually refers to an act of unveiling. The debate concerns the subject of καταργεῖται: is it the veil that is done away with or the old covenant?19 The main reason for affirming that it is the veil that is taken away is that in the preceding clause Paul speaks of the veil that remains when the old covenant is read. This veil is not unveiled (μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον), Paul says, ‘because in Christ it is done away with’ (ὃτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται). As Thrall points out, it is most natural to assume that the subject of καταργεῖται is the same as the subject of the immediately preceding participle ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, namely, the veil.20 In addition, the present tenses of ἀνακαλυπτόμενον and καταργεῖται favour the veil as the thing done away with. If Paul were referring to the replacement of the old covenant that came about a result of Christ’s coming he would likely have used the aorist or perfect.21 The principal difficulty with seeing the veil as the subject is that the verb καταργέω (make powerless, abolish, set aside) seems better suited for describing what happened to the old covenant than for depicting an action relating to a veil. In fact, this same verb is applied to the old covenant in 3.11 and 13.22 But this difficulty is less insuperable than that those facing the alternative interpretation. It may be that Paul uses this verb in 3.14 precisely because he has already been using it in the preceding verses and now finds it a suitably strong word for describing the destruction of the veil that occurs when people come to Christ. So 3.14 introduces a theme that is taken up and developed in 3.16. The former verse connects the removing of the veil with Christ in an unspecified way; the

18. Plummer, Second Epistle, 102. 19. The former view is favoured by, e.g. Hafemann, Paul, 380–81; Harris, Corinthians, 303; Hughes, Corinthians, 112; Thrall, Corinthians, 264. The latter interpretation is adopted by, e.g. Furnish, II Corinthians, 210; Martin, Corinthians, 69; Meyer, Corinthians, vol. 2, 210. 20. Corinthians, 266. See also Harris, Corinthians, 304. Those who think the old covenant is the subject of καταργεῖται usually interpret μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον to mean ‘it is not disclosed’, and take ὃτι in its explicative sense, ‘that’. But this is a very unnatural way to handle μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, first because the term ‘veil’ (κάλυμα) in the preceding clause is such an obvious candidate for its subject, and second because ἀνακαλύπτω has the sense ‘unveil’ in 3.18. Furthermore, this proposal would require taking ἀνακαλυπτόμενον as an accusative absolute, a rare construction in the NT. See Harris, Corinthians, 303; Thrall, Corinthians, 264. 21. Harris, Corinthians, 304; Hughes, Corinthians, 112. 22. See also 3.7, where it is applied to the glory on Moses’s face.

64

Spirit and Word

latter then specifies that this removal happens whenever people turn towards him. 3.18 then repeats and modifies the picture given in 3.16, with the turning now described as a matter of beholding and the unveiling depicted as a precondition rather than a result. The consistent element in this series is the link between Christ and unveiling. This coheres with the wider pattern of Paul’s thought about the role of his Christ-centred gospel in relation to the revelatory activity of the Spirit. A statement about revelation taking place as people turn simply toward the Spirit,23 by way of contrast, would clash with the typical Pauline pattern. 5. The participial phrase ‘beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror’ states the means by which believers come to be transformed. Κατοπτριζόμενοι functions not simply as a temporal participle, indicating when believers are transformed into the image of Christ, but also instrumentally, describing the means by which that transformation takes place.24 Such a conclusion is supported, first, simply by the flow of Paul’s sentence. In a tightly argued passage like this it is unlikely he would set a statement about believers beholding the glory of God in Christ side by side with a statement about their transformation into Christ’s image without implying a logical connection between the two. Secondly, the idea of transformation through vision was not unknown in first-century thought, including the NT.25 So Paul affirms that fixing one’s eyes on God as revealed in Christ (and made known through the gospel) plays an instrumental role in the transformation of believers. 6. The final clause of 3.18, ‘just as from the Spirit of the Lord’, states an additional means or agency through which believers come to be transformed. ‘From the Spirit of the Lord’ (ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος)26 identifies the Spirit as the one who effects the transformation, while ‘just as’ (καθάπερ) introduces a comparative adverbial clause indicating that transformation from glory to glory is appropriate to a work of the Spirit.27 The basic idea behind this phrase is not disputed, although the preposition ἀπό has been explained in slightly different ways. Some think it expresses cause, some agency (ἀπό in place of ὑπό),28 and some origin.29 But these all come to

23. Which results when ‘the Lord’ in 3.16 is taken as a reference to Yahweh and, by analogy, to the Spirit. 24. Cf. Harris, Corinthians, 316. 25. The causal connection between seeing the appearing Christ and becoming like him is expressed explicitly in 1 Jn 3.2 (ὃμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, ὃτι ὀθόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν). On the motif of transformation through vision in Hellenistic and Second Temple Jewish literature, see Back, Verwandlung, 2–13; Rabens, Holy Spirit, 184–89; Thrall, Corinthians, 290–95. 26. I have opted to translate κυρίου πνεύματος as ‘the Spirit of the Lord’, even though the word order is very unusual for that meaning; cf. KJV; Collange, Enigmes, 124; Thrall, Corinthians, 285. Most translations and commentators favour ‘the Lord, the Spirit’ or ‘the Lord, who is the Spirit’. But both views identify the Spirit as the transforming agent. 27. See Harris, Corinthians, 317; Thrall, Corinthians, 286. 28. Thrall, e.g., mentions both of these first two possibilities (Corinthians, 286, n. 683). 29. Harris, Corinthians, 317.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

65

more or less the same thing:  the Spirit plays an essential part in the process of transformation. So in 3.18 Paul presents a picture of double agency,30 or to be more precise, one that combines agency (‘from the Spirit’) with instrumentality (‘beholding the glory of the Lord’). 7. While ‘just as from the Spirit of the Lord’ primarily modifies ‘we are being changed’, it may also look back to the whole process Paul describes in 3.18, including the unveiling and beholding that occasion the believers’ transformation. Since a causal chain connects the unveiling, the beholding and the transformation depicted in this passage, it is quite possible that Paul intends his concluding reference to the Spirit’s agency to encompass all of these elements. But whether or not that is so, the preceding context shows clearly enough that the unveiling of the believers’ faces is indeed the result of the Spirit’s action. On any reading of the difficult vv. 16–17a, Paul associates the Spirit with the removal of the veil that prevents people from perceiving God’s glory.31 So the Spirit’s activity, as Paul portrays it in 3.18, has both a revelatory (unveiling and thereby enabling vision of Christ) and a transformational aspect. 8. The Spirit’s transforming action is integrally related to his revelatory work. If this passage ascribes two activities to the Spirit, one concerned with transformation and the other with revelation, how do those functions interrelate? Is the transforming action essentially different from the act of unveiling believers’ faces and only indirectly connected to it, in that the unveiling sets the stage for the Spirit’s transforming work by enabling believers to behold the Lord’s glory? Or does the transforming effect instead flow much more directly from the unveiling, perhaps to the extent that the Spirit’s transforming work could be considered simply one aspect of his revelatory activity? Some scholars move in this second direction, perceiving a tight link between revelation and transformation in Paul’s pneumatology.32 Another important group of interpreters thinks Paul viewed the Spirit in more material terms, however, and thus saw the Spirit’s transforming impact largely as a matter of material change.33 If this is the case the elements of revelation, understanding, and response become less instrumental to the process of change. Several factors favour the conclusion that Paul does see a close connection between the Spirit’s transforming and revelatory actions. First, he depicts the believers’ transformation as a process that depends on their ongoing vision of the Lord’s glory.34 This implies that the causal links between the unveiling, the 30. Cf. Thrall, Corinthians, 286. 31. See the discussion in Chapter 4, section II.3. 32. For example, Turner (Spirit, 118–19), who holds that the Spirit is the soteriological Spirit (transforming) precisely be being the Spirit of prophecy (enabling wisdom or revelation that yields authentic understanding of the kerygma). See also Rabens, Spirit, 175ff. 33. For example, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ‘The Material Spirit: Cosmology and Ethics in Paul’, NTS 55 (2009), pp. 179–97 (187). See the discussion of this general line of interpretation in Rabens, Spirit, 4–14. 34. Two elements in the text signal the ongoing nature of these actions. First, both κατοπτριζόμενοι and μεταμορφούμεθα are in the present tense and, second, the expression

66

Spirit and Word

beholding, and the transforming are marked by an ongoing immediacy. Second, in Rom. 12.2, the only other place where Paul uses the verb μεταμορφόομαι, he urges believers to be transformed ‘by the renewing of the mind’ (τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός). Whether τῇ ἀνακαινώσει is thought to express means or manner, it is the renewal of the mind that enables and perhaps even defines the ethical change Paul desires to see in his readers. But if the mind is a key factor in this transformation, revelation must play a direct role, since revelatory action (unveiling leading to beholding) exerts its primary effect on the mind. Third and most important, when we survey what 2 Cor. 3.1–4.6 as a whole says about the Spirit’s work we find a spectrum of activities running from unveiling faces and illumining hearts (3.16–18; 4.6) to bringing freedom (3.17) to writing on hearts and effecting transformation into the image of Christ (3.3, 18). While these must be seen as different aspects of Spirit’s work, Paul does not seem to draw hard and fast lines between them. At one end of the spectrum we have actions that clearly relate to revelation (unveiling, illumining), at the other end actions that are transformative (writing on hearts, transforming). The bringing of freedom seems to stand as a middle category bridging the gap between revelation and transformation. It thus appears that the Spirit’s internal revelatory work, as Paul sees it, is as much a matter of changing hearts and dispositions as it is of giving cognitive understanding. Inasmuch as the Spirit’s transforming work is linked to revelation and the beholding of Christ, it cannot be seen as a kind of material change that bypasses the human mind and will or the responses of trust and obedience. But on the other hand, it would probably not be true to Paul’s conception of the Spirit’s internal transforming action to reduce it entirely to an aspect or result of his revelatory work. One reason for saying this is that Paul’s language about transformation ‘into the same image’ (τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα) in 2 Cor. 3.18 recalls similar language in 1 Cor. 15.49 (‘we shall also bear the image [εἰκών] of the heavenly man’) and Phil. 3.21 (‘who will transform [μετασχηματίζω] our body of weakness into the likeness [σύμμορφος] of his body of glory’).35 These latter passages refer to the believers’ physical transformation into the image of Christ at the resurrection – something that cannot be reduced to a simple by-product of their reception of revelation. Neither 1 Cor. 15.49 nor Phil. 3.21 mentions the agency of the Spirit, but elsewhere Paul depicts the believers’ future physical change as organically connected to the internal changes the Spirit already works in the present (Rom. 8.9–11). Additional reasons for supposing that the Spirit’s transforming action extends beyond his revealing activity are that Paul depicts the Spirit as a real indwelling presence in believers (e.g. 2 Cor. 1.22; Rom. 8.9–11) and that he sometimes attributes character

‘from glory unto glory’ (ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν) is best understood in the sense ‘from one degree of glory to another’ (e.g. Harris, Corinthians, 316; Rabens, Holy Spirit, 194–95; Thrall, Corinthians, 286). 35. Rom. 8.29 also speaks of believers being brought into conformity to the image of Christ (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) ; it is unclear whether this includes present ethical transformation as well as future physical transformation.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

67

change in believers directly to the Spirit without mentioning an intervening work of revelation (Gal. 5.22–23). Summing up, then, 2 Cor. 3.18 contributes significantly to our growing picture of Paul’s thought relating to dual action. It adds one more piece of evidence that the concept of the Spirit and the Christ-centred word acting in tandem was a basic part of his thinking. It shows that he saw this dual activity operating in the believers’ ongoing lives as well as at the moment of their initial response to the gospel, and that he saw it operating in the process of ethical change as well as in effecting conversion and conveying knowledge of God’s love. Finally, it shows that Paul linked the Spirit’s transformative action to the Spirit’s revelatory activity; on the one hand, he saw the Spirit’s transforming work to involve the mind and the will, and on the other, he saw the Spirit’s revelatory action to include a change in attitude and disposition.

II. Worship: Ephesians 5.18–19 18

And do not get drunk with wine, in which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit, 19speaking to one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making music in your hearts to the Lord.

Eph. 5.18–19 and 6.17 are distinctive in that both passages exhort believers to use the instrument of the word, with the implied promise that as they do the Spirit will act. In the case of 5.18–19 they are exhorted to engage in word-rich worship with the promise that the Spirit will work through their worship to fill them with the knowledge and presence of Christ. This passage does present difficult challenges, however. The most important concerns the logical connection between the exhortation to be filled by the Spirit (or is it filled with the Spirit?) and the reference to word-rich congregational worship (speaking and singing in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs) that follows it. Is the congregation’s worship the means by which believers are to be filled by the Spirit36 or is it the other way around, that the believers’ filling is what enables them to speak and sing?37 Neither the syntax nor the immediate context offers a completely decisive answer. The partially

36. Arnold, Ephesians, 351; Timothy Gombis, ‘Being the Fullness of God in Christ by the Spirit: Ephesians 5.18 in Its Epistolary Setting’, Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002), pp. 259–71 (268–71). 37. John Paul Heil, Ephesians:  Empowerment to Walk in Love for the Unity of All in Christ (Leiden:  Brill, 2007), 236; Hoehner, Ephesians, 706; Lincoln, Ephesians, 345; O’Brien, Ephesians, 394; Petr Pokorny, Der Brief des Paulus an die Epheser (ThHK, 10/2; Leipzig:  Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 1992), 214; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 237; Theilman, Ephesians, 360; Wallace, Grammar, 639. Joachim Gnilka sees both means and enabling (HTKNT, 10/2; Der Epheserbrief [Freiburg: Herder, 1971], 270).

68

Spirit and Word

parallel statement in Col. 3.16 offers tantalizing clues that may break the impasse, but that text presents challenges of its own – not to mention the methodological questions that arise when attempting to interpret Ephesians in light of Colossians. Despite these complexities, however, the cumulative evidence does finally allow us to draw a well-supported conclusion concerning its picture of the Spirit–word relationship. Eph. 5.18–19 depicts congregational worship as an instrument used by the Spirit to fill believers with the knowledge and presence of Christ. 1. The phrase ἑν πνεύματι in 5.18 is best taken instrumentally and translated to ‘by the Spirit’. We must begin by clarifying what it means to be filled ἐν πνεύματι. Although frequently translated ‘with the Spirit’, as if the Spirit were the content of the filling,38 the phrase is better taken instrumentally and rendered ‘by the Spirit’,39 for two reasons. First, when a verb of filling is followed by a noun indicating content that noun is usually put in the genitive. Only rarely do Greek writers use the dative to indicate content, with or without ἐν.40 Second, ‘fullness’ language in Ephesians relates especially to the presence of God and Christ in the church (1.23; 3.19; 4.13), a presence that is also depicted as a matter of indwelling (2.22; 3.17). Both of the latter passages specifically mention the Spirit as the instrument or agent through which this indwelling takes place. According to 2.22, the church becomes a dwelling place for God ‘by the Spirit’ (ἐν πνεύματι, the same construction used in  5.18) and, according to 3.16, it is as believers are strengthened ‘through the Spirit’ (διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος) that Christ dwells in their hearts.41 So the overall thematic emphasis of Ephesians leads us to suppose that the Spirit is the means through which the filling described in 5.18 takes place, while the content with which believers are to be filled is the presence of God in Christ.42 Of course, to be filled with God’s presence in Christ by the Spirit does presuppose that the believers are also filled with the Spirit.43 If the Spirit is the instrument through which Christ dwells in their hearts (the primary emphasis in Eph. 5.18), this is because the Spirit is present and active in their inner persons (Eph. 3.16– 17). Christ’s presence in believers goes hand in hand with that of the Spirit (Rom. 8.9–11). The warning in 5.18a about not being made drunk by wine provides a good (and perhaps intended) illustration of how a statement about means can fit into a larger picture which includes the element of content. Because the dative οἴνῳ

38. Arnold, Ephesians, 349–50. 39. Hoehner, Ephesians, 704; O’Brien, Ephesians, 392; Gombis, ‘Being’, 266–67. Some interpreters opt for both means and content; e.g. Andrew Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC; Dallas:  Word, 1990), 344; Schnackenberg, Ephesians, 237. Heil, Ephesians, 235, and Theilman, Ephesians, 359–60, prefer to take ἐν πνεύματι as indicating the sphere in which the filling takes place. 40. See Wallace, Grammar, 170, 375. Arnold however is able to cite several examples (Ephesians, 350). 41. Cf. Gal. 5.14, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε. 42. See Gombis, ‘Being’, 267. 43. Cf. Fee, Empowering, 721.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

69

in 5.18a stands in parallel to ἐν πνεύματι in 5.18b, some interpreters argue that, since οἴνῳ indicates the means by which a person is made drunk, ἐν πνεύματι must indicate the means by which a person’s filling takes place.44 Others point out that a person is made drunk precisely when filled with wine, and therefore urge that the parallel between οἴνῳ and ἐν πνεύματι implies both expressions indicate content.45 But these varied perspectives can be brought together. While in terms of grammar and emphasis both οἴνῳ and ἐν πνεύματι are best interpreted as expressing means, they also evoke the secondary thought that both wine and the Spirit enter a person as content. 2. ‘Speaking to one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ refers to congregational worship infused with speech about God and Jesus Christ. The activity depicted in 5.19 is a matter of vocalizing testimony to God and Christ. The terms ‘psalm’ (ψαλμός), ‘hymn’ (ὕμνος) and ‘song’ (ᾠδή) all refer to songs of praise.46 These expressions of praise are filled with conceptual content (‘speaking to one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs;’ cf. Col. 3.16, ‘teaching and instructing one another’).47 In many contexts ‘psalm’ refers to one of the OT psalms, which in the early church were often interpreted messianically (Lk. 20.42; 24.44; Acts 1.20). ‘Song’ appears elsewhere in the NT only in Revelation, where it refers to songs praising God and Jesus Christ (5.9; 14.3; 15.3). And while these psalms, hymns and songs are often addressed to God and Christ they are also designed to convey instruction to the gathered believers; they are spoken ‘to one another’. We find further confirmation that this congregational worship centres in testimony about Christ in the partially parallel passage in Col. 3.16, where the reference to singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is prefaced by the exhortation, ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly’. 3. The syntax of 5.18b–19 allows for two possible interpretations:  the activities of speaking and singing are either the means or the result of being filled with the Spirit. We now turn to the question of how vv. 19–20 relate to 18b. The passage is structured around an imperative verb (πληροῦσθε, ‘be filled’) followed by four participles (λαλοῦντες . . . , ᾄδοντες, ψάλλοντες . . . , εὐχριστοῦντες, ‘speaking’, ‘singing’, ‘making music’, and ‘giving thanks’).48 Since the participles directly follow a main verb they must function in dependence on it. As such they could express either means by which the exhortation is to be carried out (‘be filled by means of

44. For example, Wallace, Grammar, 375). 45. For example, Arnold, Ephesians, 350. 46. Although ᾠδή can have a more general sense, in early Christian literature it always refers to a song of praise to God or Christ (BDAG). 47. ‘Spiritual songs’ (ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς) identifies the Spirit as the one who inspires the songs. Although some take the expression as a reference to singing in tongues, which might imply singing without conceptually understood content (cf. 1 Cor. 14.15), the reference to speaking to one another shows that these songs do include the communication of content. 48. Or five participles if we include ὑποτασσόμενοι (‘submitting’) in 5.21.

70

Spirit and Word

speaking’) or the result that will follow from carrying it out (‘be filled, which will lead to speaking’). In terms of syntax alone these options are equally possible; the participles in 5.19–20 occur in the present tense and follow the main verb – features that typify both uses of the participle.49 We must therefore turn to contextual clues to determine whether they express means or result. Before doing so, however, it may be good to say a little more about the category ‘participle of means’. Along with conveying instrumentality, such participles often carry an epexegetical nuance; they define an action or specify the mode in which it takes place.50 When they function this way they express an action contemporaneous with and not easily separated from that of the main verb. Col. 3.16 provides an excellent example of this epexegetical nuance. There the participial clause ‘teaching and instructing one another’ follows the exhortation ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly’. It is easy to see how the congregation’s teaching and instructing coincide with their action of letting the word of Christ dwell in them and clarify what this indwelling of the word actually involves. An epexegetical function is less immediately obvious in the case of Eph. 5.18b–20 because of the compressed form of the command, ‘Be filled by the Spirit’. But if we are correct to conclude that this command is in fact an abbreviated way of saying, ‘Be filled by the Spirit with the presence of God as known through Christ’, the ‘speaking’, ‘singing’, ‘making music’ and ‘giving thanks’ can be seen, not merely as a means to the end of being filled, but also as an explanation, at least in part, of what that filling involves.51 But this will be true only if the participles in 5.19–20 express means rather than result. 4. When we evaluate whether means or result better fits the logical flow of Paul’s discourse, factors can be cited in support of each. A strong argument in favour of the view that the worship activity depicted in 5.19 describes the means by which believers can be filled with the Spirit is that only on this reading does Paul give his readers a positive way to respond to his exhortation in 5.18b. The imperative ‘be filled’ implies that readers are responsible to do something. But the verb is passive; the acting agent who does the filling is the divine Spirit. How then can the readers take action? Verse 19 can be seen as the immediate answer to this question if Paul is saying that the believers’ speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs opens the door for the Spirit’s filling.52 But an alternative understanding of Paul’s flow of thought is also contextually possible. He may cite the worship activities in 5.19 to give his readers a way to measure whether they are fulfilling his command to be filled by the Spirit.53 The form of his warning in 5.18a, ‘Do not be drunk with wine, in which is debauchery’ (ἐν ᾥ ἐστιν ἀσωτία), perhaps lends some weight to this interpretation. ‘Debauchery’ may be seen as the result of becoming drunk. Since Paul draws a deliberate contrast

49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

Wallace, Grammar, 629, 638. See Wallace, Grammar, 629. See Gombis, ‘Being’, 259–71. See Gombis, ‘Being’, 270. Wallace, Grammar, 639.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

71

between being drunk with wine and being filled with the Spirit, might he not also intend to contrast the results of these two activities? Just as drunkenness has the negative effect of debauchery, being filled by the Spirit has the positive effect of heartfelt worship. An additional factor that has been cited in support of the view that the worship depicted in 5.19 comes as a result of being filled with the Spirit is the expression ‘spiritual songs’ (ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς), which is best understood as identifying the Spirit as the inspirer of the songs used in worship.54 So while the argument that Paul would not have left his readers without a positive way to respond to his exhortation strongly favours the view that the participles express means, contextual factors that could support seeing them as expressing result are also present. This lack of clarity suggests that it was not part of Paul’s purpose in this passage to define the precise logical relationship between worship and being filled by the Spirit. 5. In Eph. 5.18–19 Paul is not directly concerned to indicate how acts of worship logically relate to being filled by the Spirit, but what he says here must nevertheless reflect his underlying assumptions about that issue. The flow of Paul’s discourse shows that his dominant mode of expression from Eph. 4.25 going right up to 5.18 is one of command and exhortation. When he moves from the imperatives in 5.18 to the participles in 5.19ff he does not shift from this mode of practical exhortation to one of theological explanation. Paul tells his readers to do something: to speak, sing, make music, and give thanks. This rhetorical priority explains why he does not offer clearer clues concerning the relationship between the congregation’s worship and the action of the Spirit. He does nevertheless link the two  – and that linkage must grow out of and reflect his below-the-surface assumptions. It is thus important that we continue searching for clues to his underlying pattern of thought. 6. The partially parallel formulation in Col. 3.16 tips the balance decisively towards reading the participles in Eph. 5.19 as expressing means rather than result. The wider literary context and conceptual environment in which Eph. 5.18–19 is set yields a mixed bag of evidence concerning its most probable logic. On the one hand are factors suggesting that the speaking and singing describe the means to being filled with the Spirit. For example, Eph. 4.30 describes actions that hinder the Spirit’s work in the lives of believers; it would thus be quite natural if 5.18–19 were to show actions that promote the Spirit’s activity.55 Looking further afield, a few passages 54. See, e.g., Lincoln, Ephesians, 346. Further contextual support for interpreting the participles of 5.19ff as expressing result would come if ὑποτασσόμενοι is viewed as a fifth participle in the series. While ‘submitting’ (which pertains to household life more than congregational worship) could easily be seen as a result of the Spirit’s filling it is harder to see it as a means to that filling. But it may be best to separate ὑποτασσόμενοι from the preceding four participles and view it as an independent participle beginning a new section of the epistle. Wallace points out that this construction is rare (Grammar, 650–51), but several words separate εὐχαριστοῦντες from ὑποτασσόμενοι and a similar independent imperatival participle involving the same word occurs in the household code instruction in 1 Pet. 2.18. 55. Arnold, Ephesians, 350.

72

Spirit and Word

in the OT (1 Sam. 10.5–10; 2 Chron. 5.13–14) and one in the book of Acts (13.2) portray the Spirit as becoming active during worship.56 But on the other hand, Paul frequently depicts the Spirit enabling believers to know and respond to God. In Ephesians itself, for example, the Spirit is depicted as an agent of knowledge and empowerment in 1.17 and 3.16.57 This lends significant support to the view that the speaking and singing come as a result of the Spirit’s filling. So when we look at the wider context of Eph. 5.18–19, there is evidence on both sides. Nevertheless, one passage, Col. 3.16, tips the balance in favour of participles that express means. Like Eph. 5.18b–19, Col. 3.16 consists of a present tense imperative statement relating to divine action (‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly’) followed by participles describing acts of congregational worship (‘teaching and instructing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with thanksgiving in your hearts to God’). The participle clauses in the two passages are similar enough in structure and content to make it obvious that one depends on the other. The introductory imperative statements also share significant similarities. In each passage the opening imperative addresses believers, but the role it prescribes for them is passive in relation to the activity of a divine actor (the Spirit who fills, the word of Christ that indwells). Moreover, in each case, this activity relates to making a divine entity present in or among the believers. If we follow the majority view that Colossians was written before Ephesians we must therefore conclude that the command to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly has been replaced in Ephesians by the exhortation to be filled with the Spirit. This implies that in the mind of the writer of Ephesians the imperative in 5.18a will function in relation to the following participles in a way that parallels the relationship between imperative and participles in Col. 3.16. The participles in the latter passage almost certainly indicate the means or mode through which the imperative is to be fulfilled, with a strongly epexegetical nuance as noted above.58 Here at last we find a clear factor that tips the balance decisively in favour of taking the participles in Eph. 5.19–20 as participles of means. It is methodologically sound to look to this Colossians parallel because, on any view of the authorship and order of the two epistles, there is a reasonable presumption that closely parallel statements in Colossians and Ephesians will reflect a similar pattern of thought. This is not to deny that each epistle develops its own distinctive themes and emphases or that each individual passage must be interpreted on its own terms within its own epistolary context. It is simply to recognize that it is highly likely that the participles in Eph. 5.18–19,

56. Arnold, Ephesians, 351–52. Arnold notes that in 2 Chron. 5.13–14, worship is the occasion of the glory of the Lord to fill the temple (Ephesians, 352). 57. Lincoln, Ephesians, 345. 58. It is difficult to interpret the teaching and instructing as the result of having the word of Christ indwell the church, since these activities seem to constitute the very form in which that indwelling takes place. How could the congregation let the word of Christ dwell in them richly apart from such acts of worship?

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

73

whose logical relationship to the preceding imperative is left unemphasized and unclear, function in a way similar to those in the Colossians parallel. If we ask why Paul changes from a reference to the indwelling word of Christ in Colossians to a reference to filling by the Spirit in Ephesians, a commonly given answer is that this forms part of a larger pattern in which Colossians lays particular stress on Christ as the centre of Christian worship and the one in whom God’s fullness resides.59 In Ephesians, where that concern is less pressing, the role of the Spirit emerges more fully. A further answer may lie in the charge against drunkenness in Ephesians 5.18a, which stands at the end of a long section describing behaviours believers should avoid (5.3–18a). Given the negative command, ‘Do not be drunk with wine’, ‘Be filled with the Spirit’ makes a particularly striking follow up. 8. Eph. 5.18–19 thus presents a picture of double instrumentality: on the one hand believers are filled with the knowledge and presence of Christ through the action of the Spirit and, on the other, the Spirit acts through the believers’ word-rich response of worship. If we are correct to conclude that ἐν πνεύματι in 5.18 is best taken instrumentally and that the participles describing the believers’ worship likewise express means, Paul identifies two factors enabling believers to be filled with the fullness of God in Christ. These factors do not function independently, however. Rather, the filling action of the Spirit depends on the worship of the believers, in the sense that their worship activities become the Spirit’s instrument in the process of filling. It is only as the believers speak and sing, make music and give thanks that the Spirit is enabled to fill them. 9. A similar picture of double instrumentality emerges when Col. 3.16 is read together with Eph. 3.16–17. Col. 3.16 does not mention the role of the Spirit. It focuses entirely on the believers’ ‘teaching’, ‘instructing’ and ‘singing’ as the means through with the word of Christ comes to dwell in or among them. Paul does not say whether these human acts of worship are sufficient in themselves to enable this indwelling. As we have seen, the participles ‘teaching’, ‘instructing’ and ‘singing’ have an epexegetical nuance, defining what it means to let the word of Christ dwell in the congregation. But elements in the text suggest these acts of human worship do not fully define all that is involved in fulfilling Paul’s exhortation. He urges his readers to let the word of Christ act in them (it is the word that ‘dwells’) and to do so richly. Their acts of worship are the mode through which this happens, but the full goal is described in a way that seems to lie a little beyond what they can achieve by themselves. Turning to Eph. 3.17, we find a close conceptual parallel to Col. 3.16a. Where the latter has ‘dwell in you richly’, the former has ‘dwell in your hearts’ (κατοικῆσαι . . . ἐν ταἰς καρδίαις ὑμῶν) with a reference to ‘the riches’ of God’s glory in 3.16; both passages thus convey the thought of a rich internal presence. In Eph. 3.17 the indwelling element is simply ‘Christ’ rather that ‘the word of Christ’, but this comes in a context that lays heavy emphasis on knowing Christ and his love; it thus seems

59. See, e.g., Aletti, Éphésiens, 242; Chevallier, Souffle, 594.

74

Spirit and Word

almost equivalent to ‘the knowledge of Christ’ or, as in Colossians, ‘the word of Christ’.60 The Ephesians passage does not mention congregational worship as a factor enabling Christ to dwell in believers but instead introduces a new factor in the process, internal strengthening through the Spirit (3.16). So Col. 3.16 portrays the rich indwelling of the word of Christ as the fruit of worship while Eph. 3.16–17 depicts a very similar reality as a work enabled by the Spirit. If these passages emerge from a unified theological perspective, we have further evidence of an underlying Pauline pattern of thought relating to the dual instrumentality of the Spirit and word-rich congregational worship.

III. Warfare: Ephesians 6.17 17

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

With its image of the ‘sword of the Spirit’, Eph. 6.17 offers an intriguing variation on the theme of dual agency. It pictures a single instrument – the sword which is the word of God – being grasped by the believer and wielded by the Spirit at one and the same time. To see this image clearly we must settle one crucial question and clarify a number of smaller (though still significant) points. We begin with the crucial question, the role ascribed to the Spirit. 1. In the expression ‘sword of the Spirit’ the genitive expresses possession and conveys the idea of active use:  the Spirit uses the sword. There are three views concerning the sense of the genitive τοῦ πνεύματος. First, many interpreters treat it as a genitive of origin, indicating that the Spirit is the source or giver of the sword.61 To identify the Spirit as the source of the word is consistent with Paul and the wider biblical tradition, of course, but it seems entirely unnecessary for Paul to make that particular point just here, since in the very next clause (‘which is the word of God’) he identifies God as the author of the word. Moreover, it is quite rare for ‘sword’ to be followed by a genitive expressing source.62 Second, a number of interpreters take the expression ‘sword of the Spirit’ as a way of saying the Spirit empowers or is active within the word.63 Once again, this is completely consistent with Pauline theology. It requires packing quite a bit into the simple genitive

60. See the discussion in Chapter 4, section III. 61. For example, Arnold, Ephesians, 461; Hoehner, Ephesians, 852; H.  A. W.  Meyer, Galatians and Ephesians (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 547; Theilman, Ephesians, 428. 62. Μάχαιρα is followed by a genitive two other times in the NT and some thirty times in the LXX. The related term ῥομφαία is followed by a genitive twice in the NT and some fifty times in the LXX. In only one case (Rev. 2.16, ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός μου) does the genitive express source. 63. For example, Heil, Ephesians, 288; Lincoln, Ephesians, 451; O’Brien, Ephesians, 482; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 279.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

75

‘of the Spirit’, however. If Paul had wanted to indicate that the Spirit makes the sword effective, he could easily have added a few more words to make this plain. Furthermore, while an empowered word makes sense as at the theological level, an empowered sword is not something that actually exists at a literal level. In Paul’s cultural world, literal swords were made and used, but not empowered. It is thus unlikely that his readers would have understood his sword metaphor in the way this second view suggests. Third, some interpreters think ‘of the Spirit’ designates the Spirit as the agent using the sword.64 Although not the majority view, this is really the only natural way to interpret the genitive,65 particularly if we keep Paul’s concrete imagery of battle and weaponry in the forefront of our thinking. When we read in the OT of ‘the sword of the Lord’, the ‘sword of Gideon’ or ‘the sword of Goliath’, for example, the thought that naturally comes to mind is possession and use. These passages do not tell us who made or gave the swords, nor do they depict a figure empowering a sword or making it effective – not even when the reference is to ‘the sword of the Lord’. Instead, such passages tell us who actually wields the sword.66 We must envisage ‘the sword of the Spirit’ at this ordinary, concrete level before going on to draw out the theological implications of Paul’s metaphor. When we do then consider what this image implies about the Spirit– word relationship, we see that Eph. 6.17 takes its place harmoniously alongside those Pauline passages that present the word or gospel as God’s instrument. Paul speaks of God calling and saving through the instrumentality of gospel (2 Thess. 2.14; 1 Cor. 1.21),67 and of Christ bringing Gentiles to obedience and cleansing the church by means of the word (Rom. 15.18; Eph. 5.26).68 Here he pictures the Spirit doing battle by using God’s word as his weapon. Notice that the first view (seeing a genitive of origin) results in a picture of single agency: the Spirit supplies the sword but plays no role in the actual battle.

64. For example Jacob Adai, Der Heilige Geist als Gegenwart Gottes in den einselnen Christen, in der Kirche und in der Welt (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1985), 145; Gnilka, Epheserbrief, 314; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 134; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1957), 298 (all of whom see an additional reference to the Spirit as the giver or origin of the sword). 65. A few interpreters have suggested that τοῦ πνεύματος should be taken as a genitive of apposition (‘the sword, that is the Spirit’), in keeping with several of the preceding genitives in Paul’s description of the ‘armor of God’ in Eph. 6.13–17. But this is very unlikely, since the sword is immediately identified as ‘the word of God’. 66. Apart from Isa. 31.8, where μάχαιρα occurs twice followed by a genitive of quality, the eighty or so LXX occurrences of μάχαιρα or ῥομφαία followed by a genitive express possession and implied use. That possession implies use is confirmed even in those special cases where a victorious warrior uses the sword of a defeated enemy (David using Goliath’s sword [1 Sam. 17.39; 21.9; 22.10]; Judas using that of Apollonius [1 Mac. 3.12]). In these cases the sword is still identified with its former owner/user to call attention to his defeat. 67. Διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (2 Thess. 2.14); διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος (1 Cor 1.21). 68. Λόγῳ καὶ ἐργῳ (Rom. 15.18); τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὓδατος ἐν ῥήματι (Eph. 5.26).

76

Spirit and Word

It is only the believers who wield the sword of God’s word. The second and third views, by way of contrast, lead to pictures of dual agency, in which both the Spirit and the believers take action. There is a subtle difference in emphasis between the second and third interpretations, however. On the second interpretation, the expression ‘sword of the Spirit’ calls attention to how the word becomes effective: through the Spirit empowering it or acting through it. On the third, the image highlights something about the Spirit, namely that he works by using the word as his instrument. According to the second interpretation, Paul’s metaphor suggests that the word is ineffective without the Spirit; according to the third, the metaphor implies that the Spirit cannot do without the word. 2. The ‘word of God’ probably refers to Scripture, perhaps especially to passages of particular relevance to the spiritual battle at hand. Many interpreters think ‘the word of God’ (ῥῆμα θεοῦ) refers to the gospel in this verse.69 This would certainly cohere well with the way Paul connects the Spirit to the gospel in many of the other dual-action passages we have surveyed. Moreover, Paul probably refers to the gospel in Eph. 5.26 when he describes the church as being washed with water through the word (ἐν ῥήματι).70 Nevertheless, several factors make it more likely that Paul here refers to God’s word as given in Scripture.71 First, he has already mentioned the gospel in 6.15, where he includes ‘the readiness of the gospel of peace’ as part of the armour believers are to take up.72 Second, in the OT, NT and other Jewish literature the words of God are often described as a sword or instrument of judgment.73 In many instances God’s words spoken through the prophets are specifically in view, and Paul’s readers would have known these words from the scriptural writings. Third, while ῥῆμα is not used to refer to Scripture elsewhere by Paul, it does appear in this sense in Mt. 4.4 (interestingly, in a context that also involves resistance to Satan). 3. Believers are urged to actively ‘take’ the sword of the Spirit. This is a relatively minor point. It concerns whether the imperative δἐξασθε is best translated as ‘take’ or ‘receive’. Δέχομαι has the sense of ‘receive’ or ‘welcome’ in about 75 per cent of its appearances in the NT and the sense ‘take’ in about 10 per cent of its occurrences. Several commentators prefer ‘receive’ in Eph. 6.17,74 but it seems better to give the verb its more active sense of ‘take’.75 The surrounding verses are loaded with verbs 69. For example, Adai, Geist, 140; Aletti, Éphésiens, 310. 70. Theilman, Ephesians, 429. 71. For example, Best, Ephesians, 604 (‘a saying or formula . . . drawn from OT’); Bouttier, Ephésiens, 266; Chevallier, Souffle, 598. Arnold sees a reference to both the Scripture and the gospel (Ephesians, 462). 72. Chevallier, Souffle, 598. Cf. Paul’s use of ῥῆμα for the gospel in Rom. 10.17. 73. For example, Isa. 49.2; Hos. 6.5; Wis. 18.15–16; 1 En. 62.2 (instrument of judgement); Heb. 4.12; Rev 1.16; 19.15. See Bouttier, Ephésiens, 266 for additional references. 74. For example, Lincoln, who draws the further conclusion that this passage lays greater emphasis on the sword as God’s gift than on the believers’ need to exert effort using it (Ephesians, 450). 75. Following most major English versions.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

77

that call for firm response: ‘be strong’ (ἐνδύσασθε, vs. 11), ‘withstand’ (ἀντιστῆναι, vs. 13), ‘stand’ (στῆναι, vs. 13), ‘praying’ (προσευχόμενοι, vs. 18)  and ‘be alert’ (ἀγρυπνοῦντες, vs. 18). A command to ‘take’ thus seems more in harmony with Paul’s emphasis than a call to the more passive stance implied by ‘receive’. In addition, the thought that believers must ‘take up’ (ἀναλάβετε) the armour of God has already been introduced in v.  13. On either translation, however, this verse presents a picture in which believers must ultimately use the sword, just as they do each of the other six pieces of armour. 4. Eph. 6.17 thus presents a paradoxical picture: one sword with two simultaneous users. If we ask who wields the sword in Paul’s metaphorical picture of spiritual warfare, the answer must be both the Spirit and the believer. No one doubts that believers are told to get the sword in their hands. But if our conclusion about ‘of the Spirit’ is correct, the Spirit is said to wield this sword as well  – at the same time as the believers. Can such an imaginative and paradoxical picture really be attributed to Paul? I think we must say yes, although there are two possible ways of explaining how he came to speak of a single sword being used simultaneously by believers and the Spirit. One possibility is that the imaginative formulation is conscious and deliberate. Paul is always a lively, mentally agile writer and the specific motif of concurrent divine and human actions is certainly part of his conceptual toolbox. He expresses this motif in deliberately paradoxical form in passages like 1 Cor. 1.10–11; Phil. 2.12–13; and, closer at hand, Eph. 2.10.76 But it is also possible that the paradoxical aspect of Eph. 6.17 is unconscious. Paul may simply be using language that reflects, on the one hand, his conviction that the Spirit works through the word and, on the other, his concern that believers make use of the same word, without stopping to think that this complicates his sword and battle metaphor. On either explanation, however, this passage advances the theological claim that the Spirit uses the word of God as believers use the word of God. 5. The life setting in which Paul pictures believers and the Spirit co-wielding the sword of the word is the believers’ struggle to resist pressure, deception and temptation from Satan. The ‘sword of the Spirit’ is the only offensive weapon among the pieces of equipment Paul lists in his passage about the armour of God, but he calls for this weapon to be employed in an essentially defensive battle against Satan’s attack.77 Four factors show this to be so. First and foremost, the larger ‘armor of God’

76. This argument will of course bear less weight for those who view Ephesians as only secondarily Pauline. But imaginative and mentally agile writing is not foreign to Ephesians itself, as seen, e.g., in 2.10. 77. See, e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 409; Hoehner, Ephesians, 853. Most commentators relate the believers’ use of the ‘sword of the Spirit’ to the offensive task of evangelism; e.g. Adai, Geist, 138; Aletti, Éphésiens, 310; Chevallier, Souffle, 598; Lincoln, Ephesians, 450; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 279; Theilman, Ephesians, 428.

78

Spirit and Word

passage in 6.10–17 is entirely oriented towards defensive action. The items Paul tells believers to put on – belt, breastplate, shoes, shield and helmet – are largely designed for protection. The reason believers are to take up this equipment is that they may ‘stand against the devil’s schemes’ (6.10) and ‘withstand in the evil day’ (6.13). The enemies who oppose them are ‘the devil’ (6.11) and the ‘rulers’, ‘authorities’, ‘cosmic powers of this darkness’, and ‘spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies’ (6.12).78 Second, as argued above, ‘the word of God’ in this passage probably refers to Scripture rather than specifically to the gospel. If this is so, 6.17 can have a broader orientation that simply evangelism. Third, Paul addresses his exhortation to believers in general. While the general body of believers is not absolved from bearing witness to the gospel, Paul tends to connect the task of evangelism with those who are specially called and gifted as apostles and evangelists. For example, at the end of the armour section he urges his readers to pray for all the saints (6.18), but adds a request for boldness in proclaiming the gospel only when asking his readers to pray for him (6.19–20). Finally, the narratives of Jesus’s temptation in the desert in Mt. 4.1–11 and Lk. 4.1–13 offer a parallel to the concept of resisting Satan by using the word of God. So while Eph. 6.17 no doubt carries implications concerning the Spirit–word relationship in evangelistic settings, Paul’s direct focus is on believers and the Spirit employing the word to resist Satan. If believers are to use God’s word to resist Satan’s attack, to whom does Paul expect them to address that word? He does not explicitly develop this aspect of his metaphor, but taking a sword in hand does imply pointing it at someone. Two targets seem possible. In line with Paul’s battle metaphor, Satan and his forces are the obvious choice. If breastplate, helmet and shield ward off darts coming directly from Satan, then the sword must thrust directly back at him. This would correspond perfectly with the Synoptic tradition of Jesus directly quoting Scripture to Satan – a motif which the narratives in Matthew and Luke specifically highlight. Speaking Scripture to Satan, whether out loud or mentally, would be a practicable tactic for believers to employ at times when they sensed themselves under attack from a personal spiritual power. It would be more difficult to picture the Spirit employing the sword directly against Satan, however. Paul regularly depicts the Spirit bearing testimony to believers or, in evangelistic contexts, to those who hear the gospel, but to speak to the Spirit bearing testimony to Satan would introduce a new and perhaps incompatible thought. Elsewhere Paul describes the Spirit’s testimony performing positive functions, such as illumining, convincing, assuring and transforming.

78. By emphasizing that his readers do not struggle against flesh and blood (6.12), Paul implies that there are domains in which human activity alone will not be effective. What he says here about the Spirit’s involvement in one such domain, the struggle against spiritual forces (τὰ πνευματικά), suggests something about how he sees the Spirit’s action more generally – how it differs from human testimony to the word and why it is necessary.

Transformation, Worship and Warfare

79

The other possible target for the sword of God’s word is the believers themselves. For believers to take up Scripture for their own instruction, guidance and encouragement would certainly constitute an effective weapon against Satanic attack, and in this case the Spirit’s positive correlative action is easily envisaged. As we work with Paul’s imagery, it is perhaps unnecessary to draw a sharp line between these two audiences. If believers were to quote Scripture to Satan, they would no doubt also be letting those words form their own thoughts and actions. At the level of metaphor, it is most natural to picture the sword pointed towards Satan and his forces; at the level of application, it may be best to think of the word addressing a double audience.

6 R EVELATION AND I NTERPRETATION

Questions about the Spirit’s hermeneutical role arise with particular force in connection with two passages in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, 1 Cor. 2.10–16 and 2 Cor. 3.6, 12–17. Many interpreters think these texts picture the Spirit leading believers into readings of Scripture in which the meaning of the text is clarified, enriched or modified. But a closer look shows this to be unlikely. In both cases Paul’s primary point concerns a work of the Spirit which enables people to receive and believe a message about Christ that is conveyed openly and fully through apostolic preaching and teaching. Two additional passages, 1 Cor. 12.3 and 14.37, shed further light on Paul’s view of the relationship between apostolic teaching, on the one hand, and the Spirit’s ongoing revelatory action in the church, on the other. In both texts Paul makes the preached and taught word about Christ a criterion for evaluating claims about the Spirit’s revelatory action within the community at large. He thereby shows that he expects the church to be guided by a body of revealed and accessible instruction whose message remains stable even when the Spirit is most unmistakably active in revelatory ways.

I. Getting it: 1 Corinthians 2.10–16 10

But God has revealed [these things] to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God . . . 12 But we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, in order that we may know the things given to us by God, 13which we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. 14And the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.15But the spiritual person judges everything . . . 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2. 10, 12–14, 16)

We will focus on four exegetical questions that are particularly important for anyone looking for theological guidance concerning the Spirit’s ongoing hermeneutical activity. The first concerns the identity of the ‘us’ and ‘we’ Paul refers to at several

82

Spirit and Word

points. Is he talking about believers in general or only about apostolic preachers like him? There is little doubt that he looks beyond the circle of apostolic preachers and teachers when he contrasts the ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικός) and the ‘natural’ (ψυχικός) person in 2.14–15a, but what about the rest of the passage? The question becomes most crucial in 2.10, where he says, ‘God has revealed (ἀπεκάλυψεν) these things to us through the Spirit’. The second exegetical question also relates to 2.10: what sense does Paul give the verb ‘reveal’ (ἀποκαλύπτω)? Does he refer to a revelatory work that imparts new conceptual content (what we might call ‘objective revelation’ in contemporary theological discussion) or to a revelatory act that opens people’s hearts to receive or understand an already given message (what we might term ‘illumination’ or the subjective aspect of revelation)? A third question concerns the sense Paul gives the verbs ‘accept’ (δέχομαι), ‘know’ (γινώσκω) and ‘judge’ (ἀνακρίνω) in 2.14–15a. These terms describe what the Spirit enables a person to do  – things that the ‘natural’ person cannot do. But do these Spiritenabled activities relate to conceptual understanding or personal response? A final exegetical question concerns what Paul means by ‘the things of the Spirit of God’ (τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ) in 2.14. Does he refer to the basic gospel message, supplementary teachings related to the gospel or Scripture? 1. When Paul says, ‘God has revealed these things to us’ (2.10), he refers to a revelatory action directed towards him and perhaps a limited group of other apostolic preachers.1 A  number of factors support this conclusion. First, in the context leading up to 2.10, Paul focuses specifically on his own ministry. In 2.1–5 he uses the first person singular to describe his initial evangelistic preaching in Corinth. He continues to depict his own ministry in 2.6–7, though now switching to the present tense and using the first person plural.2 Since Paul is talking about his own ministry (perhaps including other preachers as well) when he says, ‘We speak wisdom among the mature’ (2.6) and ‘we speak God’s hidden wisdom’ (2.7), it is natural to assume he continues to refer to himself when he speaks of God revealing this wisdom ‘to us’ in 2.10.3 Second, in 3.1–4.4, Paul continues to speak of his own teaching and preaching ministry (and that of other preachers like Apollos and Cephas).4 Throughout this section, he differentiates himself as a teacher and preacher from the Corinthian believers who receive his ministry. Third, in 1. See, e.g., Bockmuehl, Revelation, 164–65; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 129. Chevallier includes later church teachers among the recipients of this revelation (Souffle, 346). 2. Samuel Byrskog suggests that Paul uses ‘we’ for apologetic reasons. By picturing himself as part of a larger group of preachers, Paul shows his mission is part of a collective enterprise. Similar first person plural references occur in 1 Cor. 3.9; 4.1, 6–13; and 9.4ff. (‘Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural’, ZNW 87 [1996], pp. 230–50). 3. The content of God’s revealing action is described in 2.9 as ‘the things God has prepared for those who love him’. This is another way of defining the wisdom Paul refers to in 2.6–7. 4. Cf. Chevallier, Esprit, 116.

Revelation and Interpretation

83

2.13 Paul uses the first person plural to describe a special group of teachers (or Paul alone if ‘we’ is taken editorially) rather than believers in general:  ‘we also speak . . . explaining spiritual things’.5 This restricted group of teachers receive their message from the Spirit: they speak ‘in words taught by the Spirit’ (ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος).6 Both 2.13 and 2.10 thus express a very similar thought, that the Spirit reveals things to a group identified as ‘we’ or ‘us’. Since this ‘we’ group is clearly restricted to Paul and teachers like him in 2.13, the same is likely to be true in 2.10. Fourth, if we translate 2.13b ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual people’ (πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρἰνοντες), Paul’s statement implies he has two levels of revelatory action in mind. On the one hand, he refers to what the Spirit reveals to him and his fellow apostolic teachers, namely, the ‘spiritual things’ (πνευματικά). These are equivalent to the words ‘taught by the Spirit’ (διδακτοῖς πνεύματος). But he also he alludes to a second type of Spirit-effected revelatory action, one directed towards his hearers, making them ‘spiritual people’ (πνευματικοῖς). According to 2.14–15 these spiritual people stand in sharp contrast to the ‘natural person’ (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος). It is only the spiritual (i.e. those in whom the Spirit acts) who are able to accept and know the things of God’s Spirit. So with the formulation ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual people’ Paul distinguishes between an activity of the Spirit that provides him with words to speak and an activity of the Spirit in the wider community that makes them receptive to what Paul says. But is ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual people’ actually the best translation of 2.13b? This rendering takes πνευματικοῖς as masculine, with the dative indicating an indirect object.7 But πνευματικοῖς might be taken instead as an instrumental dative, picking up on the reference to ‘words taught by the Spirit’ in 2.13a.8 2.13b could then be translated, ‘explaining spiritual things in spiritual words’.9 The choice is difficult, as witnessed by the division of opinion among translators and commentators. Nevertheless, two strong factors support a reference to ‘spiritual people’. First, both at the start of this section and in the statement that immediately follows, Paul calls attention to the special quality of those who receive his teaching. In 2.6 he says that he speaks wisdom ‘among the mature’10 and in 2.14–15, he distinguishes the natural person who cannot receive his Spirit-derived teachings from the spiritual person who can receive them. Second, when Paul uses the

5. Thiselton points out that the λαλοῦμεν in 2.13 picks up that in 2.6 (Corinthians, 265). 6. Πνεύματος is best taken as a genitive of agency. 7. Favored by, e.g., NRSV, ESV, Chevallier, Esprit, 119; Allo, Première Épître, 47; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 133; Kammler, Kreuz, 226; Schnabel, Korinther, 172; Thiselton, Corinthians, 224; Wolff, erste Brief, 60. 8. Πνευματικοῖς would still be masculine if it is thought to refer to ‘words’ (λόγοις). But it might also be taken as neuter and seen as a more general reference to ‘spiritual things’. 9. For example, NIV, NASB, Barrett, First Epistle, 76; G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1987), 115; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 182; Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, 47 10. Kammler, Kreuz, 226.

84

Spirit and Word

word ‘spiritual’ again in 2.15 (ὁ πνευματικός) and 3.1 (πνευματικοῖς), it designates people, not words.11 Finally, the arguments supporting a reference to all believers in 2.10 are not particularly strong.12 One is that the probable inclusive use of ‘we’ in 2.12 implies a similar inclusive usage in 2.10.13 But even if ‘we’ in 2.12 is inclusive, this is more than counterbalanced by the exclusive use of the first person plural in 2.6–7 and 13.14 A somewhat weightier argument is that in 2.9 Paul refers to the things God has prepared ‘for those who love him’. The latter phrase clearly refers to all believers, so we would expect the same be true of the immediately following pronoun (‘to us’) at the beginning of 2.10.15 But this does not necessarily follow.

11. Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 133. Fee cites two grammatical factors that he thinks favour the translation ‘in spiritual words’. First, the participle construction modifying λαλοῦμεν suggests a close tie to what has already been said, not a loose addition anticipating what follows. Since Paul emphasizes that he speaks in Spirit-taught words in 13a, it would be quite natural for him to continue to refer to Spirit-taught words in 13b. But against this, a reference to the Spirit as the source of Paul’s teaching is adequately covered by the term πνευματικά. It is thus best to see πνευματικοῖς as pointing toward Paul’s audience. Second, Fee says πνευματικοῖς would likely be articular if it referred to ‘those who are spiritual’ (Corinthians, 115, n. 75). This is not a weighty factor. 12. Although many scholars favour an inclusive interpretation:  Allo, Première Épître, 45; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 179; Sigurd Grindheim, ‘Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church’, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 689–709 (705); Hays, Corinthians, 45; Horn, Angeld, 270, n. 1; Kammler, Kruez, 219, n. 152; Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT, 9/1; Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2000), 67–68; Schnabel, Korinther, 171. 13. Although a few scholars, such as Bockmuehl (Revelation, 164, n.35) and Chevallier (Esprit, 116) hold that Paul uses the first person plural exclusively even in 2.12, most agree that in this verse Paul does have all believers in view. The ‘we’ Paul refers to here are those who ‘have received the Spirit that is from God’. As Ciampa and Rosner point out (Corinthians, 131), this is how Paul regularly defines believers (Rom. 8.15; Gal. 3.2; 2 Cor. 11.4). 14. Some argue that Paul’s use of first person plurals is deliberately ambiguous throughout 2.6–16 (Zeller, Korinther, 139; cf. Wolff, erste Brief, 51–52.). But the fact that Paul’s usage may vary is no reason to suppose that he is being intentionally ambiguous. A factor that further complicates discussion of the inclusive-exclusive question in 1 Cor. 2.6–16 is that some scholars have argued that ‘we’ refers to Paul and a special group of apostolic teachers together with an elite group of believers (Byrskog, ‘Co-Senders’, 242). This version of the ‘exclusive’ view is rightly rejected on the grounds that it pictures Paul according one group of believers a special status, which would promote precisely the kind of divisions and intellectual pride he battles in 1 Corinthians; cf. Kurt Stalder, Das Werk des Geistes in der Heiligung bei Paulus (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1962), 74–75; Fee, Empowering, 97. Some who adapt an inclusive reading of 2.10 may do so in part as a reaction against this view. 15. Schrage, Korinther, 256–57; Schnabel, Korinther, 171; Christophe Senft, La Première Épitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT, 7; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1990), 51; Wolff, erste Brief, 58.

Revelation and Interpretation

85

There is no compelling reason to insist that the ‘us’ referred to in 2.10 (those who receive revelation concerning the good things God has prepared) must include the entire group described in 2.9 (those who love God and for whom the good things of God have been prepared).16 2. In 2.10, the expression ‘God revealed’ (ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ θεός) refers to an action in which God, through the Spirit, imparted new conceptual content relating to Christ and the gospel. It is not the basic kerygma that was revealed to Paul by the Spirit, but supplementary teaching that clarifies certain aspects of the gospel and discloses more of God’s full purpose in the cross and Jesus Christ.17 This supplementary teaching is the ‘wisdom’ that Paul refers to in 2.6–7, a wisdom hitherto hidden, having the character of ‘mystery’. It concerns that ‘which God has prepared for those who love him’ (2.9). Four factors support this interpretation. First, Paul uses the same term ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) to refer to teaching that discloses hitherto unknown aspects of God’s redemptive purpose in Christ in 1 Cor. 15.51ff, Rom. 11.25ff and Eph. 3.3–10.18 Second, Paul seems to set his activity of teaching wisdom (described in 2.6ff.) in contrast to that of preaching the basic gospel (described in 2.1–5). He depicts these two activities in somewhat different terms and indicates that he teaches wisdom to a more limited audience, ‘the mature’ (2.6).19 Third, Paul explains and supports his statement about God’s revelatory action through the Spirit (2.10a) by describing how the Spirit knows the deep, inner things of God (2.10b–11).20 This suggests that the activity mentioned in 2.10a involves the Spirit disclosing things that go beyond the basic kerygma, since the kerygma centres on the historically evident death and resurrection of Jesus rather than something hidden deeply within God. Fourth, Paul does not base his basic gospel message on Spirit-mediated revelations, but on his personal encounter with the risen Jesus; his own testimony to Christ thus stands side by side with that of other eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection (1 Cor. 15.1–8; Gal. 1.1–17).21 According to a major alternative approach to 1 Cor. 2.10, however, ‘revealed’ (ἀπεκάλυψεν) refers not to the disclosure of fresh conceptual content, but to God’s

16. A connection between ‘those who love him’ and ‘us’ is thought to be particularly strong if we follow those manuscripts that have γάρ (for) instead of δέ (but) at the beginning of vs. 10, since this would establish a tighter logical link to what precedes. See, e.g., Fee, Empowering, 99; Zeller, Korinther, 139. But the function of γάρ, if this indeed be the best reading (support for δέ includes ‫ א‬A C and D; that for γάρ includes P46 and B), could just as easily be to link vs. 10 to vv. 6–7, explaining how it is that Paul can speak ‘the hidden wisdom of God’. See Chevallier, Esprit, 116; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 128, n. 36. 17. Chevallier, Souffle, 320; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 129; cf. Bockmuehl, Revelation, 164. 18. Chevallier, Souffle, 321; Bockmuehl, Revelation, 170, 202. 19. Chevallier, Esprit, 116. Chevallier also points to Paul’s use of λαλέω in 2.6, 7, 13 and 3.1 in contrast to the different verbs uses for preaching the gospel in 2.1–5 (Esprit, 127). 20. 2.10b begins with γάρ. 21. Cf. Chevallier, Esprit, 125.

86

Spirit and Word

activity of enabling people to appropriate the gospel message when they hear it preached.22 On this view, the Spirit’s revelatory action focuses on the basic kerygma, the saving message of the crucified Christ, but its function is to enable reception rather than supply content. A number of arguments can be made in support of this reading. First, we find revelation terminology used to express a similar concept in Eph. 1.17, where Paul prays that God will give believers ‘a spirit/the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (ἀποκάλυψις) in the knowledge of him’. This is a matter of illumination rather than impartation of fresh conceptual content, as can be seen from the explication that follows: ‘the eyes of your hearts being enlightened in order that you may know what is the hope of his calling’ (1.18). Second, in 1 Cor. 2.4–5 Paul has already introduced the idea that the Spirit exerts a convincing influence on those who hear gospel preaching.23 It would thus be easy to see him returning to this point in 2.10. Furthermore, in 2.12, 14–15, he continues to highlight the Spirit’s role of granting understanding and enabling reception of the things of God.24 Third, when Paul affirms that he does in fact speak God’s wisdom in 2.6–7, he may be marking a contrast, not between two types of content (the basic kerygma and supplementary teachings), but two opposing perceptions of the one gospel message (foolishness to the world but wisdom to Paul and believers; cf. 1.18, 24–25). Finally, when Paul contrasts the ‘spiritual person’ (ὁ πνευματικός) and the ‘natural person’ (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος) in 2.14–15, he seems to describe a work of the Spirit that relates the basic gospel message. The ‘natural person’ sounds like an unbeliever – one who does not receive the things of the Spirit but finds them foolish. The ‘spiritual person’, by implication, would simply be one whom the Spirit has enabled to receive the gospel. If Paul refers to a gospel-illumining work of the Spirit in 2.14–15, we might easily see him making a similar reference in 2.10. These substantial arguments illustrate the difficulty of tracking Paul’s thought through a passage in which he moves between exclusive and inclusive uses of the first person plural and intertwines statements about the Spirit disclosing content to teachers with statements about the Spirit enabling reception in hearers. In the end, however, two factors tip the balance away from a gospel–appropriation interpretation of 2.10. One is the body of evidence outlined in subsection 1 that favours an exclusive interpretation of ‘to us’. The other is Paul’s predominant use of revelation language. He normally uses ‘reveal’ and ‘revelation’ to describe outward acts of disclosure, such as his encounter with the risen Jesus, the manifestation of God’s wrath in history, the revelation of righteousness and faith at the coming of Christ, the revelation of eschatological glory and judgement, and the disclosure of prophetic messages.25 22. Grindheim, ‘Wisdom’, 698; Schnabel, Korinther, 171. 23. See the discussion in Chapter 2. 24. Schnabel, Korinther, 172. 25. See Rom. 1.17–18; 2.5; 8.18–19; 16.25; 1 Cor. 1.17; 3.13; 14.6, 26, 30; 2 Cor. 12.1, 7; Gal. 1.12, 16; 2.2; 3.23; Eph. 3.5; 2 Thess. 1.7 and 2.3, 6 and 8. Eph. 1.17 (ἀποκάλυψις) stands as an exception to Paul’s general practice. The precise sense of ἀποκαλύπτω in Phil. 3.15 is unclear, but it too may refer to illumination or internal receptiveness.

Revelation and Interpretation

87

Before moving on I should comment on an interpretation of 2.10 that combines the basic understanding of ἀποκάλυψεν outlined above (that it refers to the disclosure of fresh content supplementing or extending the basic gospel message) with an inclusive interpretation of ἡμῖν (‘to us’).26 On this reading Paul is understood to say that the Spirit may reveal fresh conceptual content relating to Christ not just to a restricted group of apostolic teachers but to any believer or group of believers. This interpretation differs significantly from that for which I  argue and carries significantly different implications for theological hermeneutics and the doctrine of revelation.27 The chief exegetical reason for rejecting this interpretation is that it runs counter to the evidence pointing towards an exclusive interpretation of ‘to us’ cited above in subsection 1. 3. In 2.14–15a, when Paul says that only the Spirit-enabled person can ‘accept’ (δέχομαι), ‘know’ (γινώσκω) and ‘judge’ (ἀνακρίνω) the things of the Spirit of God, he depicts the Spirit’s illumining action as a matter of enabling people to appreciate and properly value gospel-related teachings. In 2.14–15a, Paul clearly alludes to a work of the Spirit that enables believers to receive Paul’s gospel-related teachings. He uses three verbs to describe what the Spirit-enabled person (ὁ πνευματικός) can do but the natural person (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος) cannot. These verbs supply the best indication of what Paul thinks the illuminating work of the Spirit actually accomplishes. On the one hand, he says, it disposes a person to favourably receive gospel-related teaching (δέχομαι); on the other, it brings comprehension of such teaching (γινώσκω, ἀνακρίνω). Questions have arisen concerning the precise nature of this Spirit-given comprehension, however. Is it a matter of conceptual understanding  – catching the intended sense of Paul’s communication  – or a deeper level of comprehension that involves appreciating the significance, relevance and value of his teaching?28 While the verbs γινώσκω and ἀνακρίνω do not in themselves tell us what level of comprehension Paul has in mind,29 three 26. For example, Fee, Empowering, 851; Jean Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: The Epworth Press, 1962), 20. 27. See Héring’s comment on 2.14: ‘So there is therefore no limit imposed by any external authority (ecclesiastical or epistemological) on the Christian theologian (‘he is judged by no one’), provided he remains faithful to the Spirit’ (First Epistle, 20). 28. Most commentators who speak to this question understand Paul to refer to a deeper level of understanding rather than a simple mental grasp of the sense of Paul’s words. Kammler, e.g., comments that Paul is not saying the natural person cannot understand the outward sense and content of the preaching, but its inner meaning and truth (Kreuz, 229). But what this text says about Spirit-enabled understanding is sometimes thought to include basic conceptual comprehension, such that 1 Cor. 2.14–15 is cited in support of the view the Holy Spirit illumines Scripture in a way that includes assistance at the exegetical level. 29. Γινώσκω can have a range of nuances, including the simple possession of information, an understanding of something’s true significance, and personal or experiential knowledge. Ἀνακρίνω normally means ‘examine’ or ‘judge’, with context determining whether the nuance lies towards investigating the basic facts of a matter or towards estimating their value and significance.

88

Spirit and Word

other elements in 2.14 indicate with sufficient clarity that he has a deeper level of understanding in view. The first and most decisive is the way Paul links the natural person’s inability to ‘know’ with the fact that this person views the things of the Spirit as foolishness (μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι). To consider something foolish implies that, at one level at least, you have a clear mental picture of what that thing is. For example, if Paul’s message about Christ crucified is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks (1.23), they find it so precisely because they understand what Paul means when he says the one he proclaims as Messiah and Lord was executed on a cross. Their problem is not that they have difficulty grasping the meaning of Paul’s words, but that what he says stands at such great odds with their normal values, expectations, and standards of judgement.30 Second, that Paul groups the comprehension-related verbs γινὼσκω and ἀνακρίνω with the more volitionally oriented δέχομαι suggests that in this context the former terms carry nuances relating to the kind of knowledge that leads to a positive response,31 namely, knowledge that perceives the true significance and value of Paul’s teaching. Third, as noted earlier, Paul’s contrast between the ‘natural’ and the ‘spiritual’ persons in 2.14 really amounts to a contrast between those who respond to the gospel and those who reject it. This suggests that everything Paul says about the Spirit’s illumining or enabling work in this verse relates to faith and a positive response to the things of the gospel. The Spirit enables the kind of knowing that involves faith and the kind of judging that discovers the positive value of gospelrelated teaching. 4. Although Paul does not directly speak about Scripture in 1 Cor. 2.10–16, what he says about the Spirit’s activity in relation to his own gospel-related teaching is relevant for any attempt to formulate a Pauline theology of the Spirit and Scripture. Because 1 Cor. 2.10–16 has so often been applied to questions about Scripture, I want to comment briefly on the general validity of taking such a step. We should first observe the various expressions Paul uses to describe the body of communication that concerns him in this passage: wisdom not of this age (2.6), hidden wisdom of God (2.7), things revealed by God (2.10), the thoughts of God (2.11), the things given to us by God (2.12), words taught by the Spirit (2.13a), spiritual things (2.13b), and the things of the Spirit of God (2.14). These all designate the same thing, Paul’s teaching about Christ. As argued above, the content of this teaching probably goes beyond the basic kerygma; it clarifies certain aspects of the gospel and discloses God’s purposes more fully. Paul lays particular stress on this teaching being from God; it is not merely human, nor is it even accessible to humans. Against this backdrop of human unattainability Paul highlights two revelatory actions of the Spirit. The Spirit reveals content and words to Paul and perhaps other apostolic

30. See Richard Gaffin, ‘Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2.6–16’, WTJ 57 (1995), pp. 103–24 (110). 31. Δέχομαι typically connotes positive reception or welcoming. See Daniel Fuller, ‘The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation’, in W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor (eds), Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 189–98 (191).

Revelation and Interpretation

89

teachers (2.10, 13), and the Spirit enables believers to receive and understand the truths Paul then communicates (2.12, 14–15). There are at least two strong links between the type of teaching Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 2 and the Scriptures of Israel. The first is that a great deal of Paul’s teaching involved Christ-focused exposition of Scripture. This is evident throughout his epistles.32 The second is that, just as Paul views his own teaching as being revealed by God through the Holy Spirit, so he would have viewed the Scriptures.33 In a similar way there are close links between the teaching Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 2 and the writings that later became the NT. First there is a large degree of content overlap. If we take 1 Corinthians itself as an instance of Paul imparting of ‘hidden wisdom’ and ‘spiritual things’ through writing, for example, at this point the overlap is complete. The same could be said for other canonical letters of Paul. And if the ‘we’ and ‘us’ referred to in 2.10 and 13 includes other specially gifted teachers, the other NT writings could also be viewed as instances of the kind of teaching Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 2. Second, to the extent that those who preserved the NT writings were correct in believing they were written by Spirit-taught apostolic figures, those writings share the same Spirit-revealed quality Paul ascribes to his own teaching in 1 Corinthians 2. These links and analogous features make it a short and reasonable step for Christian theologians to use this passage as a Pauline model (even if partial and indirect) for understanding the Spirit’s revelatory work in relation to Scripture.

II. Unveiling: 2 Corinthians 3.6, 12–17 5

[B]ut our fitness comes from God, 6who makes us fit to be servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive . . . 12 Therefore, having this hope, we act with great confidence 13and not like Moses, who put a veil over his face in order that the sons of Israel might not gaze upon the end of that which was being abolished. 14But their minds were hardened. For until today, at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains. It has not been lifted, because in Christ it is done away with. 15But until today, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies on their hearts. 16But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

32. Bockmuehl, e.g., sees a close connection between the charisma of teaching and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture (Revelation, 156, n.143). 33. The Spirit’s role in association with prophecy and Scripture was a common feature of Jewish thought; e.g., Neh. 9.30; Isa. 61.1; Zech. 7.12; Mk. 12.36; Acts 1.16; 28.25; 2 Tim. 3.16; Heb. 3.7; 10.15–17; 1 Pet. 1.11; 2 Pet. 1.20–21.

90

Spirit and Word

Many difficult exegetical questions arise in connection with these verses. I  will take up only those that shed light on Paul’s view of the Spirit’s role in Scripture interpretation. We can begin by outlining five basic positions relating to this question. First, a number of interpreters think that 3.12–17 depicts the Spirit performing a hermeneutical role, but that 3.6 (‘the letter kills but the Spirit makes alive’) does not. In 3.6 Paul simply contrasts the effect of the law under the old covenant to that of the Spirit in the new. In 3.12–17, by way of contrast, he indicates that a veilremoving work of the Spirit is necessary if those who read Moses are to recognize that the glory of the old covenant law has now been surpassed by the coming of Christ.34 This veil-removing action is not a matter of enabling readers to discern new Christological or contemporary meanings in the Scripture texts, however, but instead is closely related to (or even identical with) the Spirit’s illumining and faith-producing activity in connection with gospel preaching.35 Second, a strong competing view in contemporary scholarship holds that 2 Cor. 3.6 alludes to a sharp tension between Scripture read as mere words (‘the letter’) and Scripture read with Spirit-given perception of its contemporary or Christological message. This interpretation of 3.6 is then thought to be doubly confirmed in 3.12–17. It is confirmed first by what Paul says about the Spirit removing a veil, which is interpreted to mean that the Spirit shows readers the contemporary, Christ-focused sense of the scriptural writings, and second by Paul’s own reading and application of the Exodus account of Moses’ veil, since this seems to exemplify precisely that kind of Spirit-led interpretation. Paul’s own practice thus provides a model for all other Spirit-led readers of Scripture.36 A third important approach, dominant through much of the history of interpretation, though now generally out of favour, holds that 3.6 describes the tension between the literal sense of Scripture and its spiritual or allegorical sense.37 The ‘letter’, on this view, does not refer to the law or even to Scripture per se, but rather to a particular sense of Scripture, namely, its outward or apparent sense. And ‘spirit’ does not refer to the Holy Spirit but to a special level of meaning, that of figuration or allegory. A fourth way of understanding Paul’s contrast is reflected in contemporary speech where we sometimes set ‘the letter of the law’ (i.e. its precise wording and

34. For example, Randall Gleason. ‘Paul’s Covenantal Contrasts in 2 Corinthians 3.1– 11’, BibSac 154 (1997), pp. 61–79; Hafemann, Paul, 453–57. 35. For example, 1 Thess. 1.4–5; 1 Cor. 2.4–5; 2 Cor. 3.3. 36. For example, Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1986), 147–49. Hafemann surveys a number of scholars who exemplify this basic approach (Paul, 16–26). Chevallier sees a reference to hermeneutical freedom in 3.12–18, but not in 3.6 (Souffle, 345). 37. A modern scholar who sees this as part of Paul’s meaning is Héring, Seconde Épître, 36.

Revelation and Interpretation

91

details) over against ‘the spirit of the law’ (its true intent or central principles). Paul would thus be saying that the Scripture’s precise details may kill but its central message gives life. Here again ‘spirit’ is taken to refer to a general category of human meaning rather than the promised Spirit of God.38 A fifth and more radical interpretation identifies ‘the letter’ that kills simply as Scripture. Paul would then be setting Scripture in direct opposition to the Spirit. This last suggestion finds little or no support among commentators, although it does represent an attitude that can easily capture Christian thought at a popular level. The living Spirit replaces or overrules a mere written book. I will argue that the first of these approaches reflects Paul’s thought most accurately. 1. In 3.6, ‘the letter’ (τὸ γράμμα) refers to the old covenant law. Recent scholars generally agree that ‘the letter’ relates to the law given to Israel through Moses. That which Paul says kills is either the law plain and simple,39 the law apart from the Spirit’s empowerment to obey,40 or the law as misused.41 A number of contextual factors support this conclusion. First, Paul has already introduced an allusion to the law in 3.3. When describing the Corinthians as a Spirit-produced letter he refers to writing that is ‘not on stone tablets but on tablets consisting of hearts of flesh’. ‘Stone tablets’ alludes to Exod. 31.18 and ‘tablets consisting of hearts of flesh’ to Jer. 31.33. This combination shows Paul has God’s law in mind and, more specifically, a contrast between the internal work of the Spirit and the commandments written on stone given to Moses. Second, Paul also describes a letter-Spirit contrast in Rom. 2.29 and 7.6 using language almost identical to that in 2 Cor. 3.6.42 In the Romans passages ‘Spirit’ clearly refers to God’s Spirit and ‘letter’ to the Mosaic law. This makes it extremely difficult to argue that this formulation points to something different in 2 Corinthians. Third, if we assume that Judaizing tendencies formed any part of the opposition Paul faced at Corinth, it would make perfect sense that he should contrast the law and the Spirit in this passage.43 There are some who acknowledge that Paul speaks primarily about a salvation– historical change relating to the old covenant law in light of the coming of the promised Spirit, but think that his reference to the letter that kills nevertheless alludes in a secondary way to the Scripture as mere text apart from the Spirit making it alive and enabling readers to interpret it as a witness to the gospel.

38. E.-B. Allo, e.g., speaks of the ‘principe vital’, or the deep, existential sense of the written text (Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956], 107). 39. Gleason, ‘Covenantal’, 76; Thrall, Corinthians, 235. 40. Hays, Echoes, 131. 41. Collange, Enigmes, 64; Furnish, II Corinthians, 200. 42. His formulation is οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεῦματος in 2 Cor. 3.6; ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι in Rom. 2.29; and ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γρἀμματος in Rom. 7.6. 43. Gleason, ‘Covenantal’, 71–72.

92

Spirit and Word

Apart from the Spirit, γραφή (Scripture) becomes mere γράμμα (letter); where the Spirit is present the reverse transformation takes place.44 But Paul’s sharp, simple contrast between letter and Spirit speaks against this view. Rather than depicting a positive relationship between the letter and the Spirit (such as that between text and interpreter), he describes a radical antithesis.45 2. In 3.6, τὸ πνεῦμα refers to the Holy Spirit. The evidence for this is overwhelming. First, πνεῦμα clearly refers to the Spirit of God in 3.3, 17 and 18, as well as in the two Romans passages that highlight the letter–Spirit contrast.46 Second, in 3.6 Paul alludes to Jer. 31.31–33 and describes himself as a minister of a ‘new covenant’. He is thinking in terms of prophetic fulfillment, with Ezekiel’s promise of God’s Spirit also lying in the background.47 Finally, πνεῦμα is never used elsewhere in NT to refer to the deeper meaning of a text.48 3. The veil Paul describes in 3.14–18 refers first and foremost to a veil standing between the people of Israel and the gospel; that this veil also affects their perception of the Scriptures associated with the old covenant is an important yet secondary effect. Because Paul highlights the reading of the old covenant as the specific point at which a veil blocks the understanding of the people of Israel (3.14, 15), it is easy to think that the veiling and unveiling primarily have to do with the interpretation of Scripture. This is not actually the case. The real focus of Paul’s repeated references to veiling and unveiling is the issue of the Israelites’ response to God’s glory revealed in his preaching of the gospel. First, Paul’s point in 3.13–15 is not that a veil keeps the people of Israel from understanding Scripture’s message, content or meaning, but that it prevents them from seeing the ‘end’ (τἐλος) of Moses’s glory, or the glory of the old covenant. ‘End’ may refer either to the cessation of this glory (cf. 3.7, 11) or to the goal or outcome that lay beyond it. But either way, the problem Paul describes is not so much a matter of textual interpretation as it is recognizing the limited and passing nature of the old covenant in relation to the greater glory of the new covenant ministered by Paul.49 Second, Paul does not emphasize Scripture reading as such. His concern is more specific. It lies with the old covenant (‘at the reading of the old covenant’ [3.14]; ‘whenever Moses is read’ [3.15]) and how the glory of that covenant prevents the

44. See, e.g., Chevallier, Esprit, 128; Hays, Echoes, 148–49. 45. See Gleason, ‘Covenantal’, 72. 46. See Gleason, ‘Covenantal’, 71. 47. Ezek. 36.27. In 3.3 Paul has already combined allusions to Jer. 31.31–33 and Ezek. 36.27. See Chapter 3.I. 48. Gleason, ‘Covenantal’, 71. 49. Contra Jack Levison, Inspired:  The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 175; and Hays, who holds that τἐλος refers to the goal of the glory/ text and argues that seeing this goal involves seeing through the text to Christ by recognizing the text’s metaphorical sense (Echoes, 137, 147). But understanding the ultimate goal of the glory associated with Moses and the old covenant is not the same thing as interpreting the scriptural texts that depict that glory.

Revelation and Interpretation

93

Israelites from recognizing and receiving the new.50 What is at stake for Paul is a basic gospel issue (reception of the new covenant), not the practice of Scripture reading.51 Third, in 3.14–15 Paul does not speak of a veil lying over the Scripture but over people’s hearts (3.15). He thus calls attention not to the challenging character of Scripture (its metaphorical nature, its need for decoding) but to the Israelites’ inward condition  – their inability to accept and respond to God’s revelation.52 When Paul returns to the veil image in 4.3, however, his language shifts. Now he speaks of his gospel being veiled. This subtle variation in expression implies that what is foremost on Paul’s mind throughout this section is a veiling that keeps people from responding to his own preaching of the gospel. Fourth, the sequence of references to Christ in 3.14, 16 and 18 reinforces the conclusion that the veiling issue relates to perception of Christ and response to the gospel.53 To say that ‘in Christ it is abolished’ or ‘whenever someone turns to the Lord the veil is taken away’ suggests that unveiling occurs when a person is confronted with the message about Christ. It is not described as something that takes place as and when a person contemplates the old covenant Scriptures. And the unveiling’s chief result is not a new reading of the writings of Moses but ‘beholding the glory of the Lord’ (3.18) that comes to expression in ‘the gospel of the glory of Christ’ (4.4). Finally, Paul’s discussion of veiling in 3.12–18 carries forward his claims in 3.6–11 concerning his new covenant ministry, a ministry marked by greater and more permanent glory than that of the old. This ministry of glory is a matter of preaching the gospel (2.12–17). But in 3.12–18, Paul needs to explain the fact that many of the people of Israel do not recognize the glory of his gospel. He acknowledges their lack of recognition by highlighting the key point at which it becomes evident: they consider the glory of the old covenant to be greater than that of the new. This is why he mentions their reading of the old covenant. Then he explains why they fail to recognize the superior glory of the gospel: their hearts are covered by a veil that can only be removed by the Spirit. 4. Paul depicts the veil’s removal as an action of the Spirit carried out in close association with the Christ-focused gospel. However one interprets the difficult verses 3.16–17, it is clear they associate the Spirit with the act of unveiling that allows people to see God’s glory as revealed in the gospel.54 This emphasis on the Spirit is then reinforced in 3.18, where Paul’s concluding remark, ‘just as from the

50. Cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 208–9. 51. Contra Collange, Enigmes, 93, 97. 52. Hafemann describes the veil as a metonomy for Israel’s hard-heartedness (Paul, 454). ‘What is transformed by the Spirit is not the text, but the people who read it!’ (455). 53. See Chapter 4.II.3 for arguments favouring taking ‘the Lord’ in 3.16 as a reference to Christ, and for understanding ‘the glory of the Lord’ in 3.18 as a reference to the God’s glory as imaged in Christ. 54. See Chapter 4.II.3.

94

Spirit and Word

Spirit of the Lord’, should probably be connected not only to his statement about believers being transformed (3.18b) but also to the unveiling and beholding that makes that transformation possible (3.18a). Additional confirmation concerning the Spirit’s agency in removing the veil comes as we look back to 3.3, where the Spirit is depicted as the one who makes the gospel effective in human hearts. And as we have seen above, this entire section makes it clear that the Spirit carries out his inscribing, enlightening and veil-removing work in tight connection with the gospel of the glory of Christ. 5. There is little reason to think that Paul’s reference to freedom in 3.17b includes the specific thought of hermeneutical freedom. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is’, Paul says, ‘there is freedom’. A number of scholars think he refers at least in part to a Spirit-given liberty in the interpretation of Scripture.55 But Paul almost certainly alludes instead to freedom from the law or, to put it more comprehensively, freedom in one’s relationship with God.56 That he refers to new covenant freedom from the law is evident, first, from the themes he discusses throughout this chapter. Second, freedom in one’s relationship with God is a favourite Pauline theme (e.g. Gal. 4.1–5.1; Rom. 8.1–17). It is natural to take in 3.17 in this sense and no contextual pressure pushes us towards positing an additional allusion to freedom in handling Scripture or new competency to perceive fresh meanings. In this regard it is helpful to remember that, according to 4.3, the same veiling that affects the people of Israel at the reading of the old covenant also affects people when Paul preaches the gospel. Paul’s preaching is not veiled in the sense that his hearers cannot interpret his words or perceive their metaphorical meaning – after all, he characterizes his communication as plain speech (4.2; cf. 3.12–13). His preaching is veiled because ‘the god of this age’ has blinded the minds (τὰ νοήματα) of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel (4.4; cf. 3.14 which speaks of hardened minds). Veil removal takes away this kind of blindness. It is not about granting new insights into the meaning of texts. 6. We should be cautious about concluding that Paul’s hermeneutical moves in expounding Exod. 34 are meant to provide a model for his readers to emulate. Interpreters who argue that 2 Corinthians 3 authorizes Scripture-reading practices marked by Spirit-led freedom rest their case in part on the assumption that our contemporary handling of Scripture should follow Paul’s. But this assumption must be examined. First, while Paul often presents himself as an example to be followed, he does not explicitly do so in this chapter. Furthermore, he says nothing at all about the process through which he arrives at his interpretation of Exodus 34.

55. According to Chevallier, this liberty includes highlighting certain passages and passing over others, transcribing texts in his own manner, and using rabbinic techniques (Esprit, 128). Hays defines it as a matter of not reading Scripture slavishly according to the gramma, but under the guidance of the Spirit as a witness to the gospel’ (Echoes, 149). Cf. Collange, Enigmes, 114. 56. For example, Thrall, Corinthians, 276; Furnish (who thinks there may be secondary reference to boldness as in 3.12), II Corinthians, 237.

Revelation and Interpretation

95

For instance, he mentions the Spirit several times, but never says that it is the Spirit who helps him interpret Scripture. Elsewhere Paul does highlight the Spirit’s role in giving him revelation,57 of course, so there is good reason to suppose that he would in fact have seen the Spirit’s guidance behind his handling of Exodus 34. But it is not part of his agenda to speak about this in 2 Corinthians 3.  We should therefore be cautious about the conclusions we draw from observing Paul’s practice.58 Second, in our discussion of 1 Cor. 2.10–16, we saw that Paul distinguishes his own Spirit-enabled reception of revelation from that of believers in general. A similar pattern can be seen in Eph. 3.1–5, where Paul distinguishes himself from his readers by describing a ministry he has been given on their behalf. Paul’s special role involves a mystery made known to him by revelation (vs. 3), a mystery now revealed ‘to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit’ (vs. 5). Passages like this strongly suggest that, at some points, particularly with respect to the revelatory action of the Spirit, Paul would not have expected his experience to parallel that of all believers. The fresh interpretive insights Paul presents concern fundamental implications of Christ’s coming. This was a relatively recent event from Paul’s standpoint, one he felt specially called to proclaim and explain.59 Would he have expected similar fresh interpretations to be an ongoing norm for later generations of Christian readers of Scripture?

III. Criteria: 1 Corinthians 12.3 and 14.37 3

Therefore I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed’, and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord’, except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12.3). 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command (1 Cor. 14.37).

In 1 Corinthians 12–14 Paul discusses spiritual gifts. At either end of this section we find brief statements that reveal one of his fundamental assumptions about the relationship between his own message and teaching, on the one hand, and the Holy Spirit’s revelatory action in the Christian community on the other. These strategically placed statements tell the Corinthians how to recognize Spiritled speech. With respect to its content, such speech will honor and tell the truth

57. For example, 1 Cor. 2.10–13. 58. Some scholars question whether even Paul himself creatively reinterprets OT texts. Hafemann, e.g., argues that Paul’s comments on Exodus 34 derive from a careful contextual reading (Paul, 452). 59. ‘Paul (not unlike some of his Jewish contemporaries) believes that the interpretation of the Scriptures is sealed and concealed until the time of their prophetic realization, i.e., (in his case) in Christ and the gospel’ (Bockmuehl, Revelation, 155).

96

Spirit and Word

about Christ (12.3). With respect to the way it is communicated, those who convey Spirit-led speech will submit to Paul’s directives for order and edification within the church (14.37). The first of these criteria centres on Christ, the second on Paul’s apostolic authority. But the two tests ultimately boil down to one:  submission to Christ as reflected in Paul’s teaching. If the Corinthians know Jesus as Lord it is only because they have received Paul’s message and teaching, and if Paul’s directives have any authority, it is only because they represent the command of the Lord himself (14.37). 1. In 12.3 Paul’s driving concern is that the Corinthians use discernment to evaluate claims and practices relating to inspired speech. 1 Cor. 12.2–3 represent Paul’s opening shot in his extended discussion of spiritual gifts (τὰ πνευματικά, τὰ χαρισμάτα). Before saying anything else about the Spirit’s gifts, he addresses a potential problem:  there may be speech within the assembly that appears to be inspired by the Spirit, or that some claim is inspired by the Spirit, but really is not. We need to establish this point because it is sometimes contested. Three factors indicate that Paul is concerned to warn his readers about the possibility of seemingly inspired speech that is in fact not of the Spirit. First, in 12.3, he sets up a stark contrast between two acts of speech, one led by the Spirit and the other not. Second, in 12.2, Paul reminds his readers of their former experience of being led towards idols (12.2). He relates his present warning to their past experience (‘Therefore I want you to know’). In describing this former experience, he lays particular emphasis on the fact that they were passively led (ὡς ἄν ἤγεσθε ἀγαγόμενοι),60 thus reminding them that it is possible for people just like themselves to fall under the sway of deceiving influences in a context of worship. Third, the issue of evaluating spiritual gifts and their use hovers in the background of Paul’s discussion throughout 1 Corinthians 12–14. In 12.10, he refers to the gift of discriminating between spirits (διακρίσεις πνευμάτων), in 14.29, he speaks of evaluating what prophets say, and, in 14.37–38, he holds out the possibility of someone thinking himself a prophet or spiritual but in fact being rejected. In chapter 13 Paul calls attention to love as the factor without which gifts of speech and knowledge are meaningless, and in chapter 14 he tells readers to value gifts according to their contribution to the edification of the church. Most interpreters agree that in 12.3 Paul’s chief concern is to give a criterion by which Spirit-inspired speech can be recognized.61 Nevertheless there is an alternative view. According to some, Paul’s real aim is to counter a form of spiritual elitism which divides the Corinthian church into those who have the Spirit and

60. See Fee, who notes the unusual compounding of verbs and the use of passive forms (Corinthians, 578–79). Scholars debate whether Paul’s reference to their having been led towards idols refers to ecstatic experience (e.g. Barrett, First Epistle, 278–79; Collins, First Corinthians, 447; Fee, Corinthians, 578–79) or some other form of influence (Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 458). 61. For example, Barrett, First Epistle, 279; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 455; Craig Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 100.

Revelation and Interpretation

97

those who do not. When he says no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Spirit, his point is that all members of the Corinthian church are equally Spirit-led, since all obviously confess Jesus to be Lord.62 Favouring this view is that Paul does work to correct unhealthy attitudes towards spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12–14, including the idea that certain gifts are marks of spiritual superiority. Nevertheless, Paul’s comments in 12.2–3 are not structured to address that particular issue. First, he emphasizes the act of speaking by the Spirit (‘no one speaking by the Spirit of God says’). He thus shapes his remarks in a way particularly suited to describe the specific practice of inspired speech. Second, if Paul simply wanted to establish that all believers have the Spirit in equal measure, his statement about the Spirit’s necessary role in enabling a positive confession about Jesus (12.3b) would suffice to make his point. He would not need to include the negative statement about cursing Jesus (12.3a), which does not add anything relevant to the point that all believers have the Spirit. 2. The basic criterion laid down in 12.3 is that those who are truly inspired by the Spirit will speak truth about Christ and honor him. The statement ‘Jesus is Lord’ is at the same time an affirmation of Christological truth and an expression of personal submission to Jesus’s authority.63 To say ‘Jesus is cursed’, on the other hand, both denies the truth of the gospel and expresses hostility towards Jesus. So when Paul sets saying ‘Jesus is Lord’ over against saying ‘Jesus is cursed’, he uses extreme, epitomizing examples as a way of stating a general principle: Spirit-led people speak truly and reverently about Jesus. Scholars have puzzled over Paul’s reference to pronouncing a curse on Jesus because it is hard to imagine that such a statement could ever be uttered in the context of a Christian worship gathering, not even by people who were not led by the Spirit and failed to speak truth about Jesus.64 At the same time, simply to

62. For example, Garland, citing Bassler, 1982. Some commentators affirm this perspective while holding that Paul also gives a criterion for recognizing a work of the Spirit (see Collins, First Corinthians, 445; Hays, Corinthians, 208). 63. See Barrett (First Epistle, 281) regarding the element of personal submission. 64. Some have suggested that Gnostic-like influences led some in Corinth to affirm the heavenly Christ while rejecting the earthly Jesus (e.g. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster: 1975]. 234), but there is little evidence that such thinking affected the Corinthian believers (see Garland, Corinthians, 568). Fitzmyer thinks the curse formula was actually uttered by some in the Corinthian assembly (Corinthians, 455). Some think that such curses may have been uttered in pagan worship settings (Collins, First Corinthians, 446). Others see a Jewish background to this formula in light of scriptural references to God’s curse on those hung on a tree (Garland, Corinthians, 571; cf. Charles Talbert, Reading Corinthians:  A  Literary and Theological Commentary [Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, rev. edn, 2002], 103). A weakness of this last proposal is that it breaks the connection between 12.3a and 12.2, which highlights the Corinthians’ idol-worshipping Gentile background.

98

Spirit and Word

say ‘Jesus is Lord’ seems far too basic to serve as an effective indicator of Spiritgiven prophetic speech:  who in the Corinthian church would not affirm this fundamental truth? But the extremity of the first statement and the very basic form of the second enable us to see what Paul is doing here. Cursing Jesus is a hypothetical and hyperbolic example.65 Confessing Jesus as Lord is the first and most fundamental result of the Spirit’s witness. Neither is designed for fine testing but together they illustrate an essential principle in a striking way: Spirit-inspired speech will conform to Christological truth. 3. In 14.37 Paul insists that those who think they are prophets or led by the Spirit acknowledge the authority of his instruction and let it govern the practice of their gifts. In this passage near the end of his discussion of spiritual gifts, Paul directly asserts his authority. That he should do so implies that he envisages possible resistance to the instructions he has been giving, particularly from those in the congregation who sense they are gifted in areas relating to the revelation – those who think they are prophets or Spirit-led (πνευματικοί). His sarcastic questions in 14.36 (‘Did the word of God come from you, or did it reach you only?’) and the warning against any who may fail to recognize his authority in 14.38 add to the impression that he thinks some may be inclined to disregard his teaching. The instructions Paul has been giving in chapters 12–14 focus primarily on the manner in which prophecy and revelatory gifts are to be practiced, but his words in 14.37 imply that the content they deliver must also accord with his teaching. He envisages a situation in which those who think they are inspired may be tempted to put their own discernment about how things should be done in congregational worship – a discernment they would attribute to the Spirit’s leading or revelation – above Paul’s instruction. So the question becomes, who has God’s true word regarding the use of spiritual gifts? Paul insists that he does and that no revelatory action of the Spirit in the congregation will counter or overrule his teaching. In 14.36, we find a further hint that the issue of content forms part of Paul’s concern. Here Paul refers to the ‘word of God’ and warns the Corinthians that they should not think it came out from them or came to them only. This suggests that some in the church were acting as if they were the recipients of divine revelation that carried more weight than Paul’s instruction. A  question arises about the expression ‘the word of God’, however. Is it used in a general sense to indicate any instance of divine revelation (which in this case would presumably include instruction relating to spiritual gifts and church order) or does it refer specifically to the gospel? A number of commentators favour the latter possibility,66 in which case Paul’s point would be that the Corinthians should realize they are part of a larger gospel-generated movement with widely established values. But while it is true that Paul often uses ‘word of God’ to refer to the gospel,67 it is probably

65. Hays, Corinthians, 208–9; Keener, Corinthians, 100. 66. For example, Fee, Empowering, 258; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 533; Garland, Corinthians, 673. 67. 1 Thess. 2.13; 2 Cor. 2.17; 4.2; Col 1.25.

Revelation and Interpretation

99

better to take the expression in its more general sense here. First, ‘the word of God’ (ὀ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) in 14.36 may be seen as a parallel to ‘command of the Lord’ (κυρίου ἐντολή) in 14.37, which clearly refers to instructions about spiritual gifts and church order.68 Second, giving ‘the word of God’ a more general sense fits Paul’s argument better. The issue is not whether the Corinthians are the only ones who have received the gospel, but whether they are the only ones who perceive God’s will concerning church order. Third, even when Paul uses ‘word of God’ to refer to the gospel, he does so as a way of emphasizing that the gospel has the quality of a revelation from God.69 4. The reason why the Corinthians must acknowledge Paul’s instruction as authoritative is that it represents the command of the Lord. Paul asserts that the instruction he gives is nothing less than the Lord’s command (κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή).70 But how exactly does he draw this connection between his word and the Lord’s? Two main answers have been given. A number of interpreters hold Paul claims to be passing on instruction belonging to the tradition of Jesus’s teaching;71 others think he asserts that his own apostolic instruction inherently carries the status of the Lord’s command.72 A couple of points speak in favour of the first view. One is 1 Cor. 7.10, where Paul makes Jesus’s teaching the basis of his instruction about divorce.73 Another is his reference to what is acknowledged ‘in all the churches’ in 14.33b; if a particular practice was widely known that might well be because it reflected early tradition about Jesus. But stronger arguments favour the second answer. First, it seems unlikely that the Jesus tradition contained instructions relevant to the specific issues Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 14. Second, we know from Paul’s writings that he was very conscious of his authority as an apostle. He asserts that authority in passages like 4.18–21 and 9.1–2, and in 12.28 affirms that apostles have priority over prophets and other gifted members of the body (‘first apostles, second prophets’).74 Third, in 2 Cor. 13.3 Paul says the Corinthians seek proof of Christ speaking in him (δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ). This clearly indicates that that he considered his teaching to represent the present word of Christ. So Paul’s sense of apostolic authority, bolstered by the belief that he benefits from a special revelatory work of the Spirit,75 probably lies behind his claim in 1 Cor. 14.37. But on either view of ‘the Lord’s command’, Paul affirms that there is a firm body of instruction, delivered by him and representing the authority

68. Some manuscripts lack ἐντολή (D*, G, Old Latin), but most scholars think it original. 69. This is especially evident in 1 Thess. 2.13. 70. In light of Paul’s general usage, κύριος probably refers to Christ. 71. Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 536. 72. For example, Collins, First Corinthians, 522. 73. In 7.25 Paul actually distinguishes his judgement about the unmarried from a “command of the Lord” (ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου). 74. Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 710–11; Ernst Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (trans. W. J. Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 75. 75. 1 Cor. 2.10; Eph. 3.1–6.

100

Spirit and Word

of Christ, that guides the practice of Christian prophets and serves as a criterion for discerning the Spirit’s activity among the members of Christ’s body.76 5. When Paul says ‘what I write to you is the Lord’s command’, he refers specifically to the instruction in 1 Corinthians 12–14, but his claim carries implications for a much wider range of material. How much of Paul’s instruction has the status of the Lord’s command? ‘What I write to you’ almost certainly covers more than his immediately preceding directives concerning women speaking in the assembly (14.34–35). Instead, 14.37–40 is best seen as a conclusion to everything Paul has written in chapters 12–14. First, his reference to those who consider themselves ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικός) in 14.37 connects back to 12.1, ‘Now about spiritual things/ people’ (περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν). Second, although his final statements about prophecy, tongues, and church order in 14.39–40 nicely summarize the content of chapter 14, they also provide a fitting conclusion to the entire section that begins in chapter 12. Prophecy and tongues already emerge as a central concern in 13.1–2 and 8, while chapter 12 lays the groundwork for understanding Paul’s teaching on these topics.77 But if Paul sees all that he writes in 1 Corinthians 12–14 as the Lord’s command, this suggests he would view his teaching on other topics throughout this epistle as having a similar status. And that would carry further implications, first for his other epistles, second for his spoken teaching, and finally for how Paul viewed apostolic teaching in general. We find hints in his writings concerning each of these matters. Paul writes with conscious authority throughout his epistles (e.g. 1 Cor. 3.10; 5.3; 2 Cor. 10.8; 13.10; Gal. 1.1, 6–9). He explicitly compares the authority of his letters with that of his presence: his written word carries the power of his presence (1 Cor. 5.3) and his presence is as weighty as his letters (2 Cor. 10.10–11). He connects this authority to his calling as an apostle (1 Cor. 9.1–2; 12.28; 15.5–10; 2 Cor. 12.11–12; Gal. 1.1; Eph. 2.20; 3.5). 6. When Paul warns that the one who does not acknowledge his instruction ‘is not acknowledged’ (14.38), he probably means that that person will not be recognized by the church as a Spirit-led prophet or speaker. Although a number of commentators think 14.38 contains a warning of eschatological judgement (with God or Christ as the one who refuses recognition),78 it is more likely that Paul refers to loss of recognition as a prophet within the church.79 First, since exclusion from belonging

76. ‘If a prophet’s utterance contradicts apostolic utterances (let alone biblical tradition), does not that of itself disenfranchise the currency of the prophetic utterance?’ (Thiselton, Corinthians, 1163). 77. Garland cites J. F. M. Smit, who views 14.37–40 as the peroratio of the speech beginning in 12.1–3 (Corinthians, 673). Fitzmyer views these verses as a general conclusion of all of chapter 14, or maybe all of 12–14 (Corinthians, 536). 78. For example, Fee, Corinthians, 712; Garland, Corinthians, 674; Hays, Corinthians, 244; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 537; Collins, First Corinthians, 523. Jesus’s words in Mt. 7.23 would exemplify such judgement. 79. For example, Keener, Corinthians, 120; Barrett, First Epistle, 334.

Revelation and Interpretation

101

to Christ is such a serious judgement  – more than Paul’s readers might expect for simply disagreeing with him about matters of church order  – Paul would likely provide a few more linguistic clues if this were indeed what he wanted to communicate. Second, the interpretation that sees a reference to church recognition fits well with the context. Paul sets forth a requirement for prophets and spiritually gifted believers; failure to meet this requirement would lead quite naturally to loss of recognition as genuine prophets. Third, some manuscripts have ἀγνοίτω (‘let him not be acknowledged’) instead of ἀγοεῖται (‘he is not acknowledged’). Although this variant is not the most likely reading, it seems to interpret Paul’s comment in terms of church recognition rather than eschatological judgment. So there is good reason to prefer the church-recognition interpretation of 14.38. This lends further support to the idea that in 14.37 Paul gives not only a requirement for Spirit-led prophets to follow, but also an implied criterion by which the church may recognize them.

IV. Note on Romans 15.4–5 and 13 4

Whatever was written beforehand was written for our instruction in order that we might have hope through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures. 5And may the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to be likeminded toward one another according to Christ Jesus. 13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, in order that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 15.4–5 together with 15.13 bear quiet yet significant witness to Paul’s thinking about the Spirit’s activity in relation to the reading and hearing of Scripture. In 15.4 he makes a straightforward claim about the Scriptures of Israel: they give encouragement, which (when joined with endurance) enables believers to have hope.80 But this affirmation about Scripture is immediately followed in 15.5 by a partially parallel statement highlighting God’s role in the process, then in 15.13 by a second statement about God’s role, this time accompanied by specific reference to the activity of the Spirit. Rom. 15.5 is tightly bound to 15.4 by its repetition of the words ‘endurance’ (ὑπομονή) and ‘encouragement’ (παράκλησις). According to 15.4, the Scriptures are the source from which believers receive encouragement;81 according to 15.5 God is the source of both endurance and encouragement.82 So

80. Believers have hope διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν. Τῶν γραφῶν is a subjective genitive or genitive of source (Moo, Romans, 870, n.38; Schreiner, Romans, 748). 81. It is best probably to connect τῶν γραφῶν only to τῆς παρακλήσεως, since τῆς ὑπομονῆς is set apart by the repetition of διἀ. 82. Taking the genitives in ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως as expressing source; e.g. Cranfield, Romans, 736; Schreiner, Romans, 749.

102

Spirit and Word

taken together these verses portray dual action: both Scriptures and God play an active role in encouraging believers.83 The key term linking 15.13 to 15.4 is ‘hope’ (ἐλπίς). According to 15.4, hope derives from the Scriptures  – it comes to believers through the encouragement they give (as well as through endurance). But according to 15.13, hope comes from God by the power of the Holy Spirit. First Paul identifies God as ‘the God of hope’ (θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος, with the genitive expressing the idea that God produces hope84), then he prays that God will fill his readers with joy and peace to the end that they abound in hope. The joy and peace come as his readers believe (ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν), the hope comes by the Holy Spirit (ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου). This link between 15.4 and 15.13 is strongly reinforced by the string of four Scripture citations in 15.9–12. If Paul has said that the Scriptures give hope, he now gives four examples of Scripture passages particularly well-suited to give his Gentile readers hope. In fact, the last clause of the citation in 15.12 makes this point explicitly: ‘in him [the root of Jesse] the Gentiles will hope’ (ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπίδος). The Scriptures thus give hope, but so does God through the Spirit.85 If we view encouragement and hope as aspects of believing, these interlinked statements in Romans 15 take their place among those passages where Paul depicts the Spirit effecting faith in connection with preaching or teaching about Jesus, except that here the Spirit is shown working together with Scripture. Or if encouragement and hope are viewed more as qualities of character (as may be suggested by their association with ‘endurance’ in 15.4–5, and the association of ‘hope’ with ‘faith’ and ‘love’ in 1 Thess. 1.3; 5.8 and 1 Cor. 13.3), these passages present a Scripture-focused variation on the Pauline theme that the Spirit effects transformation in association with the message about Christ.

V. Note on 1 Corinthians 14.5, 13, 26–28 14.5

I want all of you to speak in tongues, but much more that you would prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, in order that the church may receive edification . . . 13 Therefore let the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret . . . 26 What then, brothers? When you gather, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be for edification. 27If someone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and in turn, and let

83. Cf. Schreiner: ‘No disjunction should be posited here, for in Paul’s thinking God works through the Scriptures’ (Romans, 749). 84. See Wallace, Grammar, 106. 85. In this context the reference to believers being filled with joy and peace ‘in believing’ may well allude specifically to their believing the Scriptures.

Revelation and Interpretation

103

one interpret. 28But if there is no interpreter, let him be silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.

We cannot examine these interesting references to the interpretation of tongues in detail. I will simply point out two ways in which they differ from Paul’s typical way of portraying the action of the Spirit in relation to humanly given communication about Christ. First, they depict the Spirit interpreting in the sense of enabling conceptual understanding.86 This differs from the picture given in passages like 1 Cor. 2.10–16 and 2 Cor. 3.12–17, where the Spirit’s hermeneutical action consists of enabling hearers or readers to receive and value a message concerning Jesus that is already well enough understood at a linguistic and logical level. Second, the humanly conveyed message that is interpreted with the Spirit’s aid in 1 Corinthians 14 is a very exceptional kind of human communication. It is not a matter of Scripture, apostolic instruction, or historically rooted testimony or tradition. It is not even spoken in a normal human language. Unlike the ‘word’ element in the other passages we are examining in this study, the message the Spirit interprets here is itself wholly given by the Spirit through an act of immediate inspiration. The entire process of Spirit–word communication depicted in these passages  – Spirit-inspired tongue-speaking and Spirit-enabled interpretation of that speech – is Spirit-dominated communication in which the human component is limited. So while these references to the interpretation of tongues demand their place in any survey of Pauline references to the Spirit’s hermeneutical activity or the dual action of the Spirit and the word, they do not fully belong to the pattern of thought we are examining.87

86. See Elim Hiu, Regulations Concerning Tongues and Prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14.26– 40: Relevance Beyond the Corinthian Church (LNTS, 406; London: T & T Clark, 2010), 59. 87. These references do nevertheless reinforce one aspect of Paul’s thinking with respect to the co-activity of word and Spirit, namely, the importance of a clearly understood human word as an essential ingredient in the process of edification. Although in 14.4 Paul says that the one speaking in tongues (apart from interpretation) edifies himself, his later remarks insist that interpretation is essential if the church is to be edified. He thus implies that the Spirit builds up and transforms believers in association with their conceptual understanding of things pertaining to God or Christ. And even his comment in 14.4a is at least in part a rhetorical preparation for 14.4b, where he expresses his principal point, the edificatory value of prophecy.

7 T WO W ITNESSES TO  J ESUS

26 When the Paraclete comes, whom I  will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that comes from the Father, he will testify concerning me. 27And you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning (Jn 15.26–27).

Jn 15.26–27 is the best place to begin our investigation of the dual-witness theme in the Fourth Gospel. In the context of the farewell discourse, Jesus tells his disciples of the coming Holy Spirit, whom he refers to as the ‘Paraclete’.1 The Paraclete will ‘testify concerning me’, Jesus says. But then he immediately goes on to assign the disciples a parallel role: ‘And you also will testify’.2 The disciples’ testifying, like that of the Paraclete, will centre on Jesus. This is implied by the appended clause, ‘because you have been with me from the beginning’; if having been with Jesus is what qualifies the disciples to testify, their testimony must be about him. So Jn 15.26–27 presents us with a deliberately formulated statement about dual testimony. Our interpretation of this passage will set the direction for our understanding of several other passages in the Fourth Gospel that relate the Holy Spirit to the word of or about Jesus. In the introductory chapter, I cited nine possible interpretations of the Spirit’s witness in Jn 15.26–27. Here I will combine some of those categories, reducing the list to five basic approaches. 1. The Spirit’s witness-bearing action could conceivably be understood as a matter of granting new revelations about Jesus in complete independence from the witnessing activity of the original disciples. I  am not aware of any commentator who endorses this interpretation of Jn 15.26, but we should nevertheless pause to consider why such a view must be rejected. After all, some scholars do interpret Jn 14.26 and 16.12–15 along very similar lines, envisaging the Paraclete as a teacher 1. I have opted simply to transliterate παράκλητος. Although in extra-Christian literature the term typically refers to someone who appears in another person’s behalf as an advocate or intercessor, John ascribes a wider range of activity the Holy Spirit as παράκλητος. 2. Ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμου καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε. Since δέ functions as the linking conjunction, καί should be taken in the sense ‘also’. Μαρτυρεῖτε is either present indicative or present imperative. I have translated it as a futuristic present indicative, a usage that ‘typically adds the connotations of immediacy and certainty’ (Wallace, Greek, 535).

106

Spirit and Word

who brings later generations of believers fresh revelations directly from the risen Jesus.3 And at a more popular level, many Christians throughout history have treated the revelatory work of the Spirit and the witness of Jesus’s original followers as two quite independent lines of testimony. The decisive reason for rejecting any such interpretation in the case of Jn 15.26–27 is simply the parallel nature and side-by-side placement of the statements about the Spirit’s and the disciples’ testifying activities; the structural alignment of the two statements signals a close connection between the activities they describe. A further reason for affirming a functional link between the two acts of witness is that several other passages in the Fourth Gospel associate the Spirit closely with Jesus’s words and truth (3.34; 4.23–24; 6.63). 2. A few scholars have understood Jn 15.26 to refer to Spirit-produced works of power that confirm the truth about Jesus.4 Although this view is rare and must ultimately be rejected, the Gospel of John offers just enough intriguing evidence in its favour to warrant a second look. First, John does speak of miraculous works bearing witness to Jesus. In both 5.36 and 10.25 Jesus says, ‘the works that I do testify concerning me’. He takes up a similar theme in 10.32, 37–38; 14.11. Second, Jesus explicitly calls attention to the evidence provided by his miracles in the verses leading up to 15.26–27. In 15.24 he says of those who reject him, ‘If I had not done among them works which no one else has done, they would not have sin.’ Third, in 14.12 Jesus says his disciples will do greater works than he. Finally, as the risen Jesus sends his disciples to carry out a mission analogous to his own (‘as the Father sent me, I also send you’), he imparts the Holy Spirit to them (20.21–22). This conjunction of sending and imparting implies that the disciples will accomplish their mission by the Spirit’s power. So the Gospel of John contains all the necessary components for a concept of the Spirit empowering witnessbearing miracles. Nevertheless it is unlikely that 15.26 refers to this. First, John never brings these dispersed components together. Unlike Acts, or even Paul’s epistles, he puts no emphasis on either the disciples or the Spirit working miracles. Second, even when John does highlight Jesus’s works of power, he also portrays their limitations. Miraculous works often do not lead to faith (e.g. 2.23–25; 6.26) and Jesus sometimes appears less than enthusiastic about displaying them (4.48; 6.30ff; 20.29). 3. Some interpreters think Jn 15.26 refers to a witness the Spirit directs toward the disciples to prepare them to take up the subsequent task of bearing their own witness to the world. This approach interprets Jn 15.26–27 in light of 14.25–26 and

3. See Chapter 8. 4. For example, M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, who assign Jn 15.26–27 to a redactional stage that has been influenced by Luke-Acts, particularly Acts 5.32 (Synopse des Quatre Evangiles, Tome III: L’Évangile de Jean [Paris: Cerf, 1977] 380). Ignace de la Potterie cites others who view the Spirit’s witness as a matter of working miraculous signs, including Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsueste (La Vérité dans Saint Jean, vol. 1 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977], 391, n. 173).

Two Witnesses to Jesus

107

16.12–15, where the Spirit–Paraclete is described as teaching and reminding the disciples of the things said by Jesus. The Spirit’s witnessing activity is thus seen as a kind of preliminary, behind-the-scenes work. The Spirit shows the apostles truth about Jesus; they pass it on to others in their teaching and preaching.5 Or the Spirit encourages the disciples when they are beleaguered by the world’s opposition, giving them strength to press on with their proclamation.6 But despite the undoubted emphasis on the Spirit’s ministry to believers in the first, second, and fifth Paraclete sayings (14.16–18, 25–26 and 16.12–15), it is best to understand the Spirit’s witness in 15.26 as an activity directed towards the world. First, the most dominant and theologically significant use of the verb ‘testify’ (μαρτυρέω) in John relates to witness about Jesus Christ directed towards the world with the aim of bringing people to faith and life. It has this sense when it first appears in the Gospel’s prologue (1.7, 8, 15) and continues to bear this meaning at numerous points thereafter (1.34, 36; 3.26, 32; 4.39; 5.31–40; 8.13, 18; 19.35), right up to the Gospel’s closing passage (21.24). To suggest that ‘testify’ in 15.26 describes an activity directed toward the disciples bends this verb away from its expected Johannine usage. Second, the parallelism between the statements about the Paraclete’s witnessing action and that of the disciples favours seeing both activities as directed towards the world. Since the Paraclete and the disciples are both said to bear witness that focuses on Jesus, we are led to expect that both will address their witness to a similar type of audience. The disciples speak to the world; we should therefore expect the same to be true in the case of the Paraclete. Third, John goes on to portray the Paraclete performing a world-directed action in 16.8–11, that of convicting the world (ἐκεῖνος ἐλέξει τὸν κόσμον). This confirms that he does not think of the Paraclete’s role as directed exclusively towards believers. It is true that some interpreters argue that because 14.15–20, 26 and 16.12–15 highlight the Paraclete’s ministry to the disciples, and because 14.17 indicates that the world cannot receive Paraclete, the work described in 16.8–11 must also be directed towards believers only: the Paraclete proves to believers that the world is in the wrong.7 But this is an unnatural reading of the text.8 Although

5. For example, Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 481; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 3 (New York: Seabury, 1980), 120. Both these interpreters see a world-directed aspect of the Spirit’s witness, as the Spirit addresses the world in and through the witness of the disciples. 6. For example, de la Potterie, Vérité, 390–91; Felix Porsch, Pneuma und Wort:  Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (FTS, 16; Frankfurt am Main: Joseph Knecht, 1974), 271. 7. For example, Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John (AB, 29–29A; 2 vols; Garden City:  Doubleday, 1966–70), 2.712; Chevallier, Souffle, 493; de la Potterie, Vérité, 415; F. Porsch, Johannes-Evangelium (SKKNT, 4; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Biblewerk, 1988), 174. 8. See the discussion of Jn 16.8 below.

108

Spirit and Word

John does present the Paraclete as a gift given specifically to the disciples (14.16; 15.26; 16.7), there is no reason to suppose that the Paraclete’s ministry will only be disciple-directed. That the world cannot receive the Spirit–Paraclete does not mean the Spirit is unable to touch the people of the world as part of the process whereby unbelievers come to believe the message about Jesus. By way of analogy, we may note that, while Jesus has a special relationship with his disciples this does not prevent him from also engaging the world; while in one sense Jesus will not show himself to the world (14.22), this does not preclude the message about him being proclaimed to the world. Finally, Jn 15.27 grounds the disciples’ ability to bear witness in the fact that they have been with Jesus ‘from the beginning’, not in the action of the Spirit. 4. A number of interpreters understand the Spirit’s testifying action as direct witness to the hearts and minds of those who hear the disciples’ preaching about Jesus. On this view the Spirit’s testimony is both distinct from the disciples’ witness and closely connected to it. The Spirit’s witnessing action accompanies the disciples’ preaching. It uses and depends on their preaching but nevertheless maintains its own special character and qualities. These qualities enable the Spirit’s testimony to open peoples’ hearts and convince them that the disciples’ message is true.9 Understood in these terms, the Spirit’s testimony can be seen to form part of the life-giving work attributed to the Spirit elsewhere in John in passages like 3.5–8, 6.63 and 7.37–39. In the discussion that follows, I will argue that this direct-internal-witness interpretation harmonizes particularly well with the text and context of Jn 15.26–27. But first we must consider its most serious competitor. 5. Perhaps the most common approach to 15.26–27 views the Spirit’s witnessbearing action as coterminous with and practically indistinguishable from the witness of the disciples. We might call this the ‘merged witness’ approach: the Spirit’s witness completely overlaps that of the disciples so that the two testimonies effectively condense into one. In the words of Raymond Brown, ‘the disciples’ witness is simply the exteriorization of the Spirit’s witness’.10 Or as J. Ramsey Michaels puts it, ‘These twin testimonies, in fact, are not two but one.’11 For a Johannine analogy to this type of concurrent and coterminous action, we might look to a passage like

9. For example, George Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco:  Word, 2nd edn, 1999), 277; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 684; Allison Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (SNTSMS, 31; Cambridge: CUP, 1977), 119. 10. John, 2.690. 11. The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2010), 825. See also Gitte Buch-Hansen, ‘It is the Spirit that Gives Life’:  A  Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel (BZNW, 173; Berlin:  De Gruyter, 2010), 165; R.  Bultmann, The Gospel of John:  A  Commentary (trans. G.  R. Beasley-Murray, R.  W. N.  Hoare and J.  D. Riches; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 554; Klaus Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium, (ThKNT; 2 vols; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 2.152.

Two Witnesses to Jesus

109

Jn 14.10, where Jesus says the words he speaks represent works the Father does in him. In two respects this view is similar to the direct–internal–witness interpretation. Both approaches understand the Spirit’s witness to be directed towards the world,12 and representatives of both positions can easily speak of the Spirit bearing witness ‘in and through’ the witness of the disciples. But there is a significant difference with respect to how ‘in and through’ is understood. Those who interpret Jn 15.26 in terms of internal witness use such language simply as a way of saying that the Spirit’s witness accompanies and makes use of the disciples’ preaching. Those favouring the single-witness approach mean that the Spirit’s witness, at least in its world-directed aspect, is fully actualized in that preaching. The internal-witness view understands the Spirit’s witness as a special action that may be distinguished from the preaching itself; the merged-witness approach does not. Although interpreters who follow this approach hold that the Spirit’s witness to the world is fully actualized in that of the disciples, this does not necessarily mean they make no differentiation at all between the Spirit’s action and that of the disciples. Many do see the Spirit having a distinctive function relating to the enablement of the disciples. Some describe this as a matter of the Spirit empowering the disciples’ witness.13 Others speak of the Spirit bearing witness by supplying the disciples with words they speak. With respect to this latter idea, many scholars argue that Jn 15.26–27 represents a development of the tradition underlying Mk 13.9–11 and its Synoptic parallels, where the Spirit is depicted as directly inspiring the disciples’ speech.14 In Mk 13.11, for example, Jesus tells his disciples, ‘Say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit.’ Interpreters who link Jn 15.26–27 to this tradition will naturally look to it for an analogy for understanding the Spirit–disciple relationship in the John passage. But in fact it is rather hard to make Jn 15.26–27 fit the Synoptic picture of immediate inspiration. A model in which the Spirit directly supplies speech in a fashion that makes the disciples’ own thoughts and words unnecessary seems foreign to the Gospel of John,15 and especially to 15.26–27, where the disciples’ witness is specifically linked to what they themselves have seen and heard

12. Although some who hold the blended-witness interpretation prefer to speak of the Spirit’s witness to the world as only indirect; e.g. Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 235; Schnackenburg, John, 3.117–18. 13. For example, Bultmann, John, 553; D.  A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 530. 14. Mt. 10.18–20 and Lk. 12.11–12; 21.15; cf. Acts 6.10. See, e.g., Brown, John, 2.699; Christian Dietzfelbinger, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (ZBNT, 4; 2 vols; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001), 2.130; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 496–97. 15. While the concept of the Spirit speaking through prophets was widespread in Judaism and early Christianity, the Fourth Gospel itself does not explicitly portray the Spirit speaking through anyone as an act of intrusive inspiration.

110

Spirit and Word

through being with Jesus. So although interpreters may refer to passages like Mk 13.11 in support of their understanding of Jn 15.26–27, they usually envisage a somewhat different kind of concurrent action than that depicted in the Synoptic tradition – one in which the Spirit’s contribution is less obtrusive, made through being quietly present the disciples’ testimony to Jesus based on their observation and understanding. This coterminous-action view may be partly correct. One strong factor in its favour is the emphasis in 15.26 on Jesus sending the Spirit–Paraclete to the disciples (πέμψω ὑμῖν). By emphasizing this point, John implies that the Spirit is indeed present and active in the disciples when they bear their testimony to Jesus.16 The Spirit’s presence with the disciples could perhaps be explained simply as a matter of empowerment (20.21–22?) or accompaniment, but there is no reason to deny that it may also entail a partial ‘merging’ of the Spirit’s witness with that of the disciples, one in which the two become for all practical purposes indistinguishable. But we must not suppose that such merging tells the whole story and that the disciples’ witnessing action contains and exhausts the witnessing action of the Spirit completely. A number of factors show that there are aspects of the Spirit’s witnessing activity that remain distinct from the disciples’ preaching and teaching. First, to totally merge or blend the two witnessing activities goes against the structure of this passage. The action of the Paraclete and that of the disciples are described in two independent clauses joined by ‘and you also’ (καὶ ὑμεῖς δέ). This construction points most naturally to two distinct activities.17 Furthermore, in those Johannine passages that depict the concurrent action of Jesus and the Father (e.g. 14.10) we typically find explanatory comments, such as reference to Jesus being ‘in the Father’ or the Father being ‘in’ Jesus. There are no similar expressions in 15.26–27 to indicate that the Spirit’s testimony equates to that of the disciples. Second, two of the neighbouring Paraclete passages, 14.25–26 and 16.12–15, describe the Paraclete engaging in communicative activities (teaching, reminding, guiding) that are clearly distinct from any concurrent action of the disciples themselves. That these passages portray a revelatory action distinctive to Spirit makes it natural to suppose that the revelatory action portrayed in 15.26 is likewise distinctive to the Spirit. Third, to treat the Spirit’s witnessing action and that of the disciples as totally merged and practically indistinguishable obscures John’s emphasis on the particular qualities of each witness. The disciples’ witness is based on their observation of Jesus in flesh and history (‘because you have been with me from the beginning’). That of the Paraclete, by way of contrast, is of heavenly origin (‘whom

16. Andrew Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 115. 17. Cf. Hans-Christian Kammler, ‘Jesus Christus und der Geistparaklet. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Verhältnisbestimmung von Pneumatologie und Christologie’, in Otfried Hofius and Hans-Christian Kammler, Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums (WUNT, 88; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), pp. 87–190 (123); Jean Zumstein, L’Évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21) (CNT, 4b; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007) 121.

Two Witnesses to Jesus

111

I will send from the Father;’ ‘who comes from the Father’). This distinctive origin implies that the Paraclete’s witness will be marked by qualities that differ from those which characterize the disciples’ witness. Fourth, when John takes up the theme of witness elsewhere in the Gospel he commonly depicts multiple witnesses to Jesus (5.31–40). He even makes a special point that multiple witnesses are necessary if testimony is to be valid (8.17–18). This motif is not explicitly highlighted in 15.26–27, but its presence in other Johannine passages supports the conclusion that we should see two distinct witnessing activities here as well rather than a single act of witness described in two different ways.18 So Jn 15.26–27 highlights the witness of the Spirit and that of the disciples as two interrelated activities, each with its own importance and special character. The coterminous-action interpretation is wrong when it ignores this. A  better approach combines the internal-witness view with some of the positive insights of the coterminous-action interpretation. But before drawing a final conclusion about the precise nature of the Spirit’s witnessing action we must consider one other issue that arises in connection with this passage. 6. Many interpreters stress the forensic character of the witness depicted in Jn 15.26–27. A number of linguistic and contextual factors seem to support such a perspective. The term ‘witness’ evokes the thought of a trial, as does ‘Paraclete’, which is often translated ‘Advocate’.19 Both the passage leading up to and the passage following 15.26–27 describe coming persecution that by implication will include judicial action:  in 15.18–25 Jesus warns the disciples of the world’s hatred and persecution, and in 16.1–4 he speaks of their being expelled from the synagogues and put to death. Scholars have also noted linguistic connections between Jn 15.18–16.4 and the trial scenes depicted in Mk 13.9–11 and parallels.20 Moreover, in 16.8 the Paraclete is said to ‘convict’ (ἐλέγχω) the world – a statement that could easily fit a trial scene. Finally, the motif of a cosmic trial between Jesus and the world may be discerned at several points in the Fourth Gospel.21

18. Cf. Trites, Witness, 121. 19. While παράκλητος may have the more general sense of ‘mediator’ or ‘helper’ (‘one called to someone’s aid’), it can also be applied to someone who carries out this mediating role in a legal setting. See de la Potterie, Vérité, 330ff; Lincoln, Truth, 113. Lochlan Shelfer, argues that the Greek term takes its meaning from the Latin advocates, which refers to a legal defender (“The Legal Precision of the Term ‘παράκλητος’ ”, JSNT 32 [2009], pp. 131–50 [131]). 20. One general approach holds that the evangelist or a redactor has transposed a Synoptic text or tradition depicting the disciples on trial and the Paraclete acting as their defender into the present form of the text, which should be seen in terms of a cosmic trial between Jesus and the world, with the Paraclete taking up the role of prosecutor. 21. For example, 5.30–46; 8.12–59. In the background lie depictions of a trial between God and the nations, or between God and Israel, in texts such as Hos. 4.1; Mic. 6.1ff; Isa. 3.13ff and Jer. 2.9 and 25.31. Cf. Chevallier, Souffle, 517.

112

Spirit and Word

But while it is generally acknowledged that forensic elements are indeed present in Jn 15.26–27 and its surrounding context, scholars evidence a wide range of opinion over the extent to which the trial imagery should be pressed and how it should influence our understanding of the witness of the Spirit and the disciples. Our present interests do not require us to delve into every aspect of this question, but one particular version of the forensic interpretation does demand our attention. Many interpreters view the Spirit’s witnessing action (and with it, typically, that of the disciples), not so much as positive, evangelistic communication about Jesus, but rather as a matter of prosecution.22 If this is correct, it will impact our perception of how and where the Spirit bears witness in two ways. First, if the Spirit’s witness is a matter of prosecution divorced from evangelistic intent, the view that the Spirit bears direct testimony to the hearts and minds of those who hear the disciples’ speak about Jesus becomes hard to maintain. What would be the point of the Spirit breaking into the hearts and minds of the people of the world if the sole aim of this revelatory action were to condemn them? The direct-internal-witness interpretation makes sense only when the aim of that witness is seen to harmonize with the wider Johannine theme of the Spirit giving life.23 Second, to interpret the witness in 15.26–27 as a non-evangelistic act of prosecution will almost certainly oblige us to interpret the convicting work of the Spirit described in 16.8 in the same way. According to 16.8, the Paraclete ‘will convict the world (ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον) concerning sin and righteousness and judgment’. The semantic range of ἐλέγχω includes ‘convict internally’ as well as ‘convict externally’. If the former nuance is intended in 16.8, that provides important contextual support for the internal witness interpretation of the Spirit’s witness in 15.26. But that support disappears if 16.8 refers only to the kind of external convicting action administered in a law court, with no thought of effecting a change of thinking on the part of the guilty world. We will return to the question of how to understand 16.8 below. For the moment we must consider whether the Spirit’s witness-bearing action in 15.26 can be understood in terms of condemning prosecution. General linguistic data shows that a forensic sense lies in the background of the Greek verb μαρτυρέω but that the strength of this nuance varies widely according to the context in which the word is used.24 The question with respect to its use in

22. For example, Brown, John, 2.698–70; Dietzfelbinger, Johannes, 151; Jack Levinson, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 405. 23. Jn 3.5–8; 6.63; 7.37–39. 24. See Trites, Concept, 222: ‘In fact, our study has uncovered four classes of material where the witness imagery operates: (a) actual trials, where the legal terminology is genuinely forensic; (b) controversy, where there is an extension of the forensic; (c) metaphors where the forensic aspect may be in the background but is not necessarily present; (d) the idea of witness as testimony to, in a religious context (or in terms of reputation, etc.). There are several gradations which must be taken into account’. According to BDAG, μαρτυρέω has two main senses: ‘to confirm or attest something on the basis of personal knowledge or belief ’, and ‘to affirm in a supportive manner’.

Two Witnesses to Jesus

113

15.26–27, then, is not whether a forensic sense is present, but how much of the lawsuit metaphor this word carries with it and which aspects of that metaphor are operating. Does μαρτυρέω simply highlight the idea of strong attestation on the basis of observation and personal knowledge? Does it imply a law-court setting, either literal or metaphorical?25 Does it include specific reference to defending or prosecuting? I  will zero in on just the last of these questions and argue that a number of factors speak against the suggestion that the witnessing activity described in 15.26–27 is primarily a matter of prosecuting or accusing. First, John’s overall use of μαρτυρέω decisively favours interpreting 15.26–27 in terms of positive, evangelistically oriented communication about Jesus. ‘Witness’ is a key theme in the Gospel of John. The verb μαρτυρέω occurs thirty-three times and the noun μαρτυρία fourteen times. Twenty-five of these occurrences come in contexts which specifically indicate that the witness aims at belief leading to life.26 This positively directed witness about Jesus is brought by John the Baptist, the Samaritan woman, various witnesses (5.31–40) and the Beloved Disciple. This last example is particularly relevant for interpreting 15.27, since the Beloved Disciple’s witness seems to exemplify what Jesus states about the disciples bearing witness (19.35; 20.31 together with 21.24; cf. 17.20). The forensic metaphor becomes more evident in 5.31–32 and 8.13, where there is reference to the need for more than one witness for the testimony to be valid. This recalls the legal requirement described in passages like Num. 35.30 and Deut. 17.6 and 19.15. But even in John 5 and 8 there is no indication that the witness-bearing has turned in the direction of prosecution. These passages speak of witness to Jesus, not against his opponents. Only once in the Gospel do we find the term ‘witness’ applied to an accusatory action: in 7.7 Jesus says he testifies about the world that its deeds are evil. But we should note that this text makes specific mention of evil deeds; μαρτυρέω by itself does not carry a negative force. So the overall data concerning ‘witness’ language in the Fourth Gospel demands that we interpret the two references to witness in 15.26–27 as positive communication aimed at leading to belief in Jesus.27 To take μαρτυρέω in a negative, accusatory sense would require explicit reference to the world’s sin within the passage itself.28 Second, a heavy application of the law-court metaphor ill fits the details of this passage. The Spirit’s witness is about Jesus.29 It is not about the world (to 25. See Lincoln for a defense of the view that μαρτυρέω evokes strong law-court connotations in 15.26–27 (Truth, 112ff.) 26. These contexts are Jn 1.7–8 (including 1.15, 32–34); 3.32–33; 4.29; 5.31–40; 19.35; and 21.24 (seen with 20.31). 27. Urban von Wahlde points out that ‘witness’ language also appears regularly in 1 John with no strong forensic overtones (The Gospel and Letters of John [3 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 2.711). 28. Cf. Cf. Kammler, ‘Geistparaklet’, 118–19. 29. Brown translates περὶ ἐμοῦ as ‘on my behalf ’ (John, 2.686), and Porsch as ‘für’ (Pneuma, 273). According to BDAG, περί with the genitive can have this sense with verbs relating to asking, examining, charging, punishing and praising, or with verbs and nouns

114

Spirit and Word

accuse it), nor is it about the disciples (to defend them). In addition, as I  have argued above, both the witness of the Spirit and that of the disciples are directed towards the world. This makes things awkward for those versions of the law-court interpretation that envisage prosecuting witness delivered before God as judge,30 or addressed to believers for their encouragement. Third, while the theme of Jesus bringing judgement is certainly present in the Gospel of John, we must recognize its complexity. On the one hand, there are statements that speak of Jesus’ presence and teaching bringing ‘judgment’ in the sense of forcing a choice or bringing a person’s stance to clear expression (3.18–19; 9.39; 12.48). On the other hand we find declarations denying that Jesus has a judging role, affirming instead that he came to save the world (3.17; 12.47). Given that in two instances the judging and non-judging statements stand side by side, it is necessary to integrate these two thoughts. The best solution is to see the judgment as a secondary effect of Jesus’s primary mission, which aims at the world’s salvation. To complicate the picture further, there is also a time factor in the judgment Jesus effects. Those who reject Jesus are already judged (3.18), but Jesus also speaks of judgement at ‘the last day’ (12.48; 8.26?). This complexity must be kept in mind when we consider the extent to which John shows the Paraclete to take up aspects of Jesus’s judging activity. Even if we do conclude that the Paraclete’s witness carries with it elements of judgement, we must not define this witnessing action exclusively or even primarily in terms of prosecution. Instead we must allow it to reflect the complex totality of Jesus’s mission and impact on the world. The primary aim of such witness will be to save. If it also brings judgement that must be seen as a secondary effect, particularly when the witness is offered this side of the ‘last day’. Fourth, the emphasis on persecution in the context surrounding 15.26–27 does not necessarily indicate that the witness described in that passage must be understood as a matter of counter-action against the world’s opposition. It is often argued that 15.26–27 describes a response to the hatred and persecution described in 15.18–25 and 16.1–4: the disciples bear witness in order to defend themselves and/or expose the guilt of the hostile world, and the Spirit joins them in this process.31 But there is more than one way to explain the connection between these 15.26–27 and its surroundings. The positive, mission-related nature of the ‘witness’ language in these verses makes it much more likely that 15.26–27 serves two other functions in relation to its context. First, these verses highlight the chief cause for the world’s hatred. This corresponds with what Jesus says in 15.20, 22 and 24 about his word and the word of his disciples leading to persecution.32 relating to prayer. But with verbs of oral or written expression (such as μαρτυρέω) its usual meaning is ‘about’. 30. For example, Craig Keener, The Gospel of John:  A  Commentary (2 vols; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1023. 31. See Brown, John, 2.693ff. 32. See Yu Ibuki, Die Wahrheit im Johannesevangelium (BBB, 39; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1972), 291–92. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (London: SPCK, 1955), 400.

Two Witnesses to Jesus

115

The disciples’ witness is the point at which it becomes most evident that they belong to Jesus rather than to the world (15.19) and where Jesus’ name becomes an issue (15.21). Second, Jesus’ statements in 15.26–27 underline the disciples’ responsibility to continue to bear witness despite the opposition they encounter. Jn 15.26–27 thus relates to its context in the same way that Jesus’s charge to Peter to take up his ministry (21.15–17, 19b, 22) relates to his warning that Peter will suffer (21.18–19a). Witness will be costly, Jesus warns, but the disciples must not give up. The first words of 16.1 support this general flow of thought: ‘I have said these things to you so that you will not fall away.’ Jesus does not say, ‘The Paraclete will bear witness so that you will not fall away’, but ‘I have said these things (including 15.26–27) so you will not fall away’. In other words, it is not the Paraclete’s witness that will keep the disciples from falling – that is not its purpose – but rather Jesus’s words of warning about the world’s hatred, together with his reminder that the disciples will have to carry out a witnessing mission under difficult conditions. In conclusion, then, while forensic elements undoubtedly mark Jn 15.26–27 to some extent, we should not build these features into a constraining framework into which we force our interpretation. In particular, we should reject the view that the witness described in this passage is primarily a matter of judicial prosecution.33 Before going further, it will be good to summarize where our discussion has taken us so far. I have argued that an approach which integrates elements of the conterminous-action approach into the direct-internal-witness interpretation makes best sense of the text and context of Jn 15.26–27. The Spirit’s testimony is directed towards the world, it consists primarily of positive witness about Jesus aimed at leading people to believe, and it is both connected to and distinguishable from the testimony given by the disciples. We must now examine three additional considerations that support the conclusion that the Spirit’s witness includes an element of direct internal address. 7. When interpreted in terms of direct internal witness, 15.26–27 can be seen to reinforce and clarify an important element of Johannine theology. Perhaps the central theme of the Gospel of John is that Jesus brings life-giving revelation into the world. He comes as a light shining in the world’s darkness (1.4–5, 9; 8.12; 9.5). He has ‘the words of eternal life’ (6.68; cf. 5.24–25). As one present in the flesh (1.14), he addresses the world in ways that can be humanly observed and reported (19.35; 20.30–31). But at the same time a counter-theme runs through the Gospel: that of human blindness and inability to receive the revelation Jesus brings (1.5, 10–11; 3.11, 32; 8.47; 9.39–41; 12.37–40). Some do believe, of course (though often with only partial or temporary faith), but John’s story nevertheless conveys

33. Many interpreters combine an emphasis on the text’s forensic elements with a much more positive depiction of the Spirit’s witness. See, e.g., de la Potterie, who affirms that the Paraclete’s role is situated within a great conflict between Jesus and the world and views it as forensic in the sense that his role consists of upholding the cause of Jesus and making his message to be welcomed with faith (Vérité, 333). See also Bennema’s good discussion in Power, 238.

116

Spirit and Word

a pervading sense of the world’s incapacity to see and believe. Even Jesus’s lightgiving presence, his words and signs, do not seem to break through this darkness. So there is narrative tension between great revelation and great blindness. A few passages speak directly to the issue presented by this impasse. Faced with an unbelieving audience, Jesus says, ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him’ (6.44). He repeats this assertion a little later (6.65). Within this same context (6.63), Jesus speaks in the strongest terms of human inability to believe (‘the flesh can do nothing’) while at the same time emphasizing the Spirit’s contrasting power to do what the flesh cannot do (‘the Spirit is the one who gives life’).34 What the Gospel’s overall narrative implies is here made explicit. The fullness of God’s glory and grace are revealed through Jesus Christ, but a special divine action is required  – that of the Father working through the Spirit35  – if people are to respond to the revelation brought by Jesus.36 So John 1–12, and the latter part of chapter 6, in particular, set the stage for and almost create the need for further development of the theme that the Spirit enables a believing response to the revelation brought by Jesus. 15.26–27 provides this needed development. When its statement about the Spirit’s testifying action is interpreted in terms of internal witness 15.26–27 not only reinforces the theme that the Spirit must act if people are to respond to the revelation brought by Jesus, it also clarifies certain things about the nature and timing of the Spirit’s lifegiving action: this action takes the form of a special kind of witness-bearing that overcomes human blindness and inability, and it comes in close association with humanly given communication about Jesus. Jn 15.26–27 further contributes to this theme through its positive promise that the Spirit will carry out this responseenabling activity as the disciples fulfill their own responsibility to bear witness.37 8. To affirm that the Spirit exercises a direct internal influence is consistent with the Fourth Gospel’s overall depiction of the locus of the Spirit’s action. While not incompatible with the idea that the Spirit’s testimony may be partly contained within the disciples’ externally delivered message, the internal-witness view insists that the Spirit’s testimony also extends into the hearts and minds of those who

34. This last verse picks up on an earlier depiction of the stark qualitative difference between the flesh and the Spirit in 3.6. See Chapter 8 for further discussion of Jn 3.6 and 6.63. 35. The link between 6.63 and 6.65 implies that the Father’s drawing is effected by the Spirit. 36. Cf. Turner, Spirit, 71. 37. The relationship between the portrait of the Spirit in Jn 1–12 and that of the SpiritParaclete in Jn 13–17 has been a matter of scholarly discussion. While some have seen tension between two quite distinct conceptions of the Spirit many others have stressed the essential theological unity of John’s presentation. According to M. M. Thompson, e.g., ‘The life-giving work of the Spirit underlies every passage concerning the Spirit in John, including even the Paraclete sayings in the Farewell Discourses that emphasize the forensic arena of the Spirit’s work of bearing witness to Jesus’ (The God of the Gospel of John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 186).

Two Witnesses to Jesus

117

hear the disciples’ words. This kind of direct and internal influence coheres with depictions of the Spirit’s internal activity elsewhere in the Gospel of John. When the Spirit teaches, reminds and guides the disciples (14.26; 16.13–15), for instance, this must refer to a direct influence on the disciples’ minds. It cannot refer to a purely external process of instruction mediated through Spirit-inspired human teachers, because these passages envisage the initial post-ascension period in which there would be no human teachers apart from the disciples themselves. Jn 14.26 and 16.13–15 depict the Spirit influencing the minds of believing disciples, to be sure. The same can be said with regard to other Fourth Gospel passages that depict the Spirit’s internal activity (7.37–39 and 14.17). But all these passages do nevertheless show that direct communication with human hearts and minds forms an important part of John’s concept of the Spirit’s activity, one that could also easily pertain to the world-directed communication of the Spirit depicted in 15.26. In fact, to say that the Spirit bears a distinctive ‘internal’ witness is actually just another way of affirming the Johannine contrast between what is of the Spirit and what is human, a contrast in which the Spirit is able to do what human effort cannot do (3.6; 6.63). 9. The Paraclete’s ‘convicting’ role, depicted in 16.7–11, is best understood as an activity addressed to the world with the positive aim of bringing people to an awareness of their sin and/or mistaken thinking. In the fourth Paraclete saying, Jesus tells his disciples that the Paraclete ‘will convict (ἐλέγξει) the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment’ (16.8). We briefly discussed this passage above, but now must examine it more closely. I will seek to show that the Spirit’s convicting action has the positive aim of effecting a change of heart and mind in those it addresses – a reading which adds significant contextual support for an internalwitness interpretation of 15.26.38 I begin with two assumptions. First, the Paraclete’s convicting action will be carried out in association with the disciples’ teaching and preaching, just as the Paraclete’s witness accompanies their witness in 15.26–27. This is implied by 16.7, where Jesus tells the disciples, ‘I will send him [the Paraclete] to you’. Second, the Paralcete’s convicting action is indeed a prosecuting, accusatory activity, in the sense that it involves exposing sin and error. The Greek verb ἐλέγχω (reprove, convict) almost always carries the nuance of exposing someone’s fault, and the context of Jn 16.8–11 makes it clear that the Spirit’s action focuses on the world’s

38. For this general position see, e.g., John Aloisi, ‘The Paraclete’s Ministry of Conviction:  Another Look at Jn 16.8–11’, JETS 47 (2004), pp.  55–69 (69); Barrett, John, 405; Bennema, Power, 238; Gary Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 210; D. A. Carson, ‘The Function of the Paraclete in Jn 16.7–11’, JBL 98 (1979), pp. 547–66 (563); Andreas Köstenburger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 471; Lawrence Lutkemeyer, ‘The Role of the Paraclete (Jn 16.7–15)’, CBQ 8 (1946), pp. 220–29 (221–22); Merrill Tenney, “Topics from the Gospel of John Part III: The Meaning of ‘Witness’ in John”, BibSac 132 (1975), pp. 229–42 (240); Trites, Concept, 118.

118

Spirit and Word

wrongdoing and culpable error. But three additional issues remain to be settled. To whom is this ‘convicting’ activity addressed? For whose benefit is it carried out? And does the ‘convicting’ include bringing the world to a subjective awareness of its guilt? A number of interpreters hold that the Paraclete’s convicting action addresses only the disciples and is designed purely for their encouragement. According to this interpretation, the ‘convicting’ is an objective declaration of the world’s sin and error; it entails no corresponding awareness and acknowledgement of wrongdoing on the part of the world itself. According to Raymond Brown, for example, ‘the courtroom is . . . in the mind and understanding of the disciples’.39 Other interpreters seem to picture the divine law-court where the Spirit’s prosecuting action is given primarily before God.40 The accused world may perhaps hear the charges placed against them, but those charges are brought forward purely to pronounce judgement; there is no evangelistic intention.41 Yet another approach to this text views the Spirit’s convicting action as merely an unintended secondary effect following from positive witness about Jesus; when people reject Jesus and the Spirit they automatically stand condemned.42 But three strong factors support the conclusion that the Paraclete’s convicting action addresses the world and aims at its benefit. First, the overall usage of the Greek verb ἐλέγχω is very favourable to the view that 16.8 refers to communication addressed to the world with the aim of impacting the world’s consciousness. Ἐλέγχω has a range of meanings. On the one hand, it frequently has the sense ‘to convince concerning wrong’ or ‘to bring to the point of recognizing wrongdoing’. For example, C. K. Barrett points out that the term was primarily used by Greek moralists speaking of the conscience.43 On the other hand, ἐλέγχω often has the more objective senses of ‘expose’ or ‘reprove’.44 But even in these latter cases the element of opening the guilty person’s mind to his or her wrongdoing is not precluded; that thought may be conveyed or implied by the context in which the word is used. In fact, impacting the thinking of the person who is in the wrong will frequently be the precise purpose driving the objective reproof or exposure. This is the case in Jn 3.20, for example. If Jesus says the wicked do not come to the light lest their deeds be exposed, this can only mean that the act of exposing their deeds makes the wicked uncomfortably aware of their sin. In fact most of the verb’s occurrences in the NT refer to rebuke or exposure designed to make those who

39. John, 2.712. Cf. Chevallier, Souffle, 493; Porsch, Johannes-Evangelium, 174; Zumstein, Jean (13–21), 133. 40. For example, Keener, John, 1031; Michaels, John, 833. Both writers seem to also envisage an action directed at least in part towards the world. 41. For example, Dietzfelbinger, Johannes, 146. 42. Francis Maloney, The Gospel of John (SP; Collegeville:  Liturgical Press, 1998), 440–42. 43. John, 405. A NT example of ἐλέγχω having a subjective sense is 1 Cor. 14.24. 44. See BDAG.

Two Witnesses to Jesus

119

are in the wrong conscious of their sin and error.45 So while ἐλέγχω can sometimes refer to exposure, accusation or legal prosecution addressed to someone other than the guilty party and with no particular intention of affecting the blameworthy person’s thinking, this is hardly the word’s most common usage. Second, if we look to Jesus’s ministry for a model of how to understand the Paraclete’s convicting action, we find that when Jesus exposed the world’s sin it was a contributing part of his more basic mission of calling people to life. We see this particularly in Jn 3.20. As a light shining in the dark world, Jesus exposes (ἐλέγχω) the works of evil. But in the same context John stresses that God’s fundamental intention in sending Jesus into the world was to save it rather than condemn it (3.17). In 8.24 Jesus warns his interlocutors that they will die in their sins, but at the same time holds out the possibility of salvation through belief in him. In 8.32–36 he alludes to their slavery to sin, but at the same time promises them the Son can set them free.46 Third, the idea that the Paraclete directs his convicting action towards either God or the disciples does not arise naturally from within the text of 16.8–11. The notion that the Paraclete’s primary audience is God depends on bringing an already developed divine law-court metaphor to the text. But while a divine-trial motif may lie in the background of John’s portrayal of Jesus’s confrontation with the world, we have to look to the OT prophets for a full-fledged lawsuit picture in which God’s opponents are put on trial and charges are brought against them. So we may question whether the context surrounding Jn 16.8–11 supplies clear enough signals to warrant reading this passage as a depiction of a lawsuit in which the Paraclete exposes the world’s sin before God. Turning to the proposal that the Paraclete addresses the disciples, this depends largely on a conception of the Paraclete built from 14.16–18, 25–26 and 16.12–15, according to which the Paraclete carries out an entirely disciple-oriented ministry. Again, we may question whether this contextually derived conception is strong enough to determine our interpretation of 16.8. The contextual pressure would have to be quite strong before we could allow Jn 16.8 to refer to anything other than a world-directed action. To begin with, the text simply says that the Paraclete will convict the world. If John had intended his readers to understand that this convicting communication would be directed towards a third party  – not towards the world whose sin is being exposed, but towards God or the disciples – we would expect him to supply some indication within the text itself. The closest thing we find is Jesus’s statement in 16.7 that the Paraclete will be sent to the disciples for their benefit. But nothing suggests this benefit will take the form of having the Spirit show them the world’s sin and error.

45. Mt. 18.15; Lk. 3.19; 1 Tim. 5.20; 2 Tim. 4.2; Tit 1.9, 13; 2.15; Heb. 12.5; Rev. 3.19. Aloisi points out that rebuking a person with a view to getting them to change their behaviour is the dominant sense of ἐλέγχω in the LXX (‘Conviction’, 57). 46. A similar example of reproof for the redemptive good of the guilty party occurs in Rev. 3.19: ‘Those I love, I reprove (ἐλέγχω) and discipline.’ Cf. Acts 2.36–37.

120

Spirit and Word

Jesus’s statement implies rather that the Paraclete will deliver his world-convicting message through the disciples’ preaching and teaching and that they will benefit by seeing the Paraclete make their witness effective in the hearts of their auditors. Second, the suggestion that the Paraclete addresses God and the suggestion that he addresses the disciples both present a picture in which the Paraclete focuses on the world and its guilt, not simply as an aspect of the Spirit’s larger message about Jesus, but as a topic in itself. This runs counter to what we would expect in John, since the Gospel as a whole ties the Spirit’s revelatory work closely to the revelation brought by Jesus. If the Paraclete addresses the world about its sin and error, it is easy to see how this accusatory action would form a necessary part of his task of carrying on the testimony of Jesus. After all, showing the world its sin was part of Jesus’s own message, the flip side of his positive revelation of life. But to expose the world’s sin only to God or the disciples would be an activity divorced from the Spirit’s more usual task of revealing Jesus.47 So Jn 16.7–11 depicts the Spirit carrying out a world-directed revelatory action designed to bring people to an awareness of their sin and mistaken thinking about Jesus. As such, it lends contextual support to the direct-internal-witness interpretation of 15.26–27.

47. Scholars sometimes cite T. Jud. 20.5 as a text that depicts the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας) performing an accusatory role: ‘And the spirit of truth bears witness (μαρτυρέω) to all things and accuses everyone (κατηγορεῑ πάντων), and the one who has sinned is burned in his heart and cannot raise his face before the judge.’ Although the verb here is κατηγορέω instead of ἐλέγχω, this passage does clearly depict a forensic scene, with the accused sinner standing before a judge. But at the same time it is clear that the spirit of truth’s accusing action is also directed towards the guilty party, resulting in that person’s inward sense of shame. The preceding verses depict the spirit of truth as seeking to influence the person’s conscience, in opposition to the spirit of error (20.1–3). So while a picture of the accused person standing before God at the final judgement may be present, this text also offers a picture of the guilty person’s present experience as the spirit bears testimony to his conscience. For further discussion, see John Breck, The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology, vol. 1 (Crestwood: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1991), 117–18.

8 J ESUS’S W ORDS AND THE T EACHING OF THE P ARACLETE

If Jn 15.26–27 depicts the Spirit in a world-directed role, Jn 14.25–26 and 16.12–15 describe the Spirit/Paraclete engaging in a range of revelatory activities directed purely towards the disciples. The Spirit teaches them, reminds them, guides them, speaks to them and announces things to them. But in each of these acts the Spirit’s communication is closely tied to communication given by Jesus. The Spirit will remind the disciples of words spoken by Jesus, guide them into the truth revealed by Jesus, and announce to them things he receives from Jesus. So although Jn 14.25–26 and 16.12–15 differ from 15.26–27 in significant ways, they too are marked by a pattern of dual communication. Our task will be to clarify what these texts say about the Spirit’s teaching, reminding and guiding and to explain how these post-Easter actions relate to Jesus’s historically given words and deeds. In discussing these passages I  will critically interact with a position that is widely held among Johannine scholars. Many interpreters contend that the boundary between the Spirit’s revelatory action in the present and that brought by Jesus in the past becomes quite fluid in these passages. The Spirit/Paraclete creates or reshapes Jesus’s words and deeds in the memory of his disciples with the result that, to a greater or lesser extent, what Jesus said and did loses its status as a firm, independent source of revelation. According to this view, the Fourth Gospel itself explicitly announces and explains the theological basis for an ongoing process of tradition-development – one that corresponds to the kind of development already envisaged by many scholars on historical and literary–critical grounds. We must nevertheless ask whether this approach to 14.25–26 and 16.12–15 does the best job of explicating the texts in purely exegetical terms.

I. Guidance and instruction, part 1: John 14.25–26 25

I have spoken these things to you while remaining with you. 26But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of everything that I have said to you.

Jesus’s promise concerning the Paraclete’s future revelatory activity lies sandwiched between two references to his own teaching. He refers to things he has said in

122

Spirit and Word

the past (perfect tense λελάληκα in vs. 25; aorist εἶπον in vs. 26) while physically present with his disciples (‘while remaining with you’).1 When he promises a future teaching and reminding work of the Spirit–Paraclete, then, Jesus refers unmistakably to activities that stand distinct from the teaching he has done. And yet he makes it equally clear that the Spirit’s communicative action in the future will connect to that which Jesus has already communicated in the past. He tells the disciples the Spirit will remind them ‘of everything I have said to you’. He thus describes a form of dual testimony in which the Spirit acts in partnership, not with the disciples’ post-resurrection witness about Jesus (as in 15.26–27), but with words spoken directly by Jesus himself in the past. But we must answer two major questions. What does the Paraclete’s activity of teaching and reminding actually amount to? And is Jesus’s promise addressed to all believers or only to his original disciples? Interpreters have offered a range of answers to the first of these questions. I will highlight four representative points along the spectrum. First, some interpreters view the Paraclete’s teaching and reminding as distinct activities. The former is a matter of supplying additional input beyond what Jesus had said during time of his ministry, while the latter consists of recalling to the disciples’ minds what they have already heard Jesus say. Interpreters who take this approach usually connect the relative clause at the end of v. 26 (‘that I have said to you’) only with the statement ‘he will remind you everything’. The Spirit’s reminding activity is thus tied to things Jesus has already said in the past, while the Spirit’s teaching action has the potential to move into new territory.2 Second, some interpreters view the Spirit’s teaching and reminding as two aspects of a single activity, that of bringing to the disciples’ minds what they have heard Jesus say while simultaneously giving them deeper understanding of the things they have heard.3 On this view the expressions ‘teach you all things’ and ‘remind you of all things’ are to some extent mutually defining. The ‘and’ (καί) that links the two phrases is understood to function epexegetically (‘will teach you all things, that is to say, will remind you of all things’). Those who hold this position often connect ‘that I have said to you’ to both of the phrases that precede it, so that the Spirit’s teaching and reminding are equally bound to the words spoken by Jesus during the period of his earthly ministry.4 The deeper understanding the disciples 1. If the emphatic ἐγώ at the end of vs. 26 represents the best reading, it further accentuates the claim that these are things that have been said by Jesus himself. 2. For example, Walter Bauer, Johannesevangelium (Tübingen:  J.  C. B.  Mohr:  1912), 141; Hans Windisch, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel (trans. James Cox; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 6–7. 3. For example, Bennema, Power, 228; Chevallier, Souffle, 483; Porsch, Anwalt, 64. Some think the Spirit’s teaching and reminding includes enabling Christological interpretation of Scripture; see, e.g., Kammler, ‘Geistparaklet’, 111; Stephen Witmer, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity (WUNT, 2/246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 129. 4. For example, de la Potterie, Vérité, 367; von Wahlde, John, 2.653. Some think the relative clause grammatically modifies only the second phrase but, because that phrase is epexegetical of

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

123

receive about these words may include belief and internalization as well as new conceptual insight.5 Third, many interpreters who view ‘teaching’ and ‘reminding’ as parallel and mutually defining ways of describing a single activity understand the Spirit’s action to involve developing and contextualizing Jesus’ teaching to fit the new situations that would be faced by the post-Easter disciples.6 This third way of explaining the Spirit’s teaching and reminding does not necessarily stand as an alternative to the second, yet it does represent a point further along the spectrum of interpretive positions. It suggests that the Spirit’s teaching and reminding will include an additive or modifying element vis-à-vis Jesus’ pre-Easter teaching – an element that goes a little beyond simply enabling the disciples to comprehend, believe and apply the precise things Jesus has already told them. Fourth, a large number of interpreters understand the Spirit’s teaching/ reminding as a single activity that involves substantial modification, correction or replacement of things Jesus originally said.7 While not necessarily abandoning the emphases reflected in the second and third approaches described above, this fourth perspective represents a zone still further along the spectrum of interpretations. There are a variety of sub-positions within this last general approach, but common to all is the conviction that the word ‘remind’ (ὑπομιμνήσκω) takes on a special meaning in Jn 14.26. Through its association with the verb ‘teach’ this term is drawn out of its usual semantic orbit so that it no longer entails the thought of strict connection to things heard or seen in the past. It retains elements of that thought, to be sure, but the normal connection between reminding and things known in the past is weakened. The Spirit may thus ‘remind’ the disciples of things they had never actually seen or heard  – perhaps by building around an actual memory of things said and done, but perhaps not.8 A number of factors support the first of these interpretations. Jn 14.25–26 presents the Spirit’s teaching and reminding as distinct though related actions. The reminding is narrowly bound to the things Jesus specifically said during the period of his earthly ministry. The teaching is broader in scope; it covers the whole range

the first, the Spirit’s teaching is still bound to Jesus’s past teaching; e.g., Eskil Franck, Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John (CBNTS, 14; Lund: CWK Gleerup), 46. 5. For example, Porsch, Anwalt, 64. 6. For example, Keener, John, 982; Porsch, Anwalt, 67 (citing Vatican II as an example). 7. For example, Peter Stuhlmacher, ‘Spiritual Remembering:  Jn 14.26’, in Graham Stanton, Bruce Longenecker, and Stephen Barton (eds.), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 55–68 (59); Zumstein, Jean (13–21), 83. 8. For example, Larry Hurtado, ‘Remembering and Revelation:  The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John’, in David Capes, April DeConick, Helen Bond and Troy Miller (eds.), Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity (Waco:  Baylor University Press, 2007), pp.  195–213; Kammler, ‘Geistparaklet’, 112.

124

Spirit and Word

of Jesus’s revelatory life and work, explaining it, drawing out its implications, and applying it to new post-Easter issues. Nevertheless, that the verb ‘teach’ is closely associated with the term ‘remind’ suggests that the ‘everything’ which the Spirit will teach pertains especially to Jesus as he was seen and heard during the period of his earthly ministry. 1. When Jesus says the Holy Spirit ‘will teach you everything and remind you of everything that I have said to you’, the final relative clause (‘that I have said to you’) connects only with the second of these activities, ‘remind you of everything’. Three factors support this conclusion. First, the word ‘everything’ (πάντα) appears twice, first as the object of ‘will teach’ and then again as the object of ‘will remind’. The indirect object ‘you’ (ὑμᾶς) likewise appears twice. This creates a slight separation between the reference to teaching and the reference to reminding, making it easy to suppose that the attached relative clause connects only with the latter. If John had wanted to tie it to both the teaching and the reminding he could have simply said, ‘He will teach and remind you of everything that I have said to you.’ Second, while ‘everything that I have said to you’ goes naturally with the verb ‘remind’, it makes a less suitable complement to ‘teach’. ‘Teach’ typically denotes the impartation of new knowledge or insight. Someone may be taught more about things he or she has already heard, but it would be slightly awkward to simply say they were taught them. Third, Jn 16.12–15 explicitly depicts the Spirit–Paraclete saying and announcing things that Jesus had not yet told the disciples while physically present with them. It would thus be well within the realm of Johannine thought for 14.26 to depict the Spirit making things known to the disciples (i.e., teaching them) in a way that stands distinct from the specific act of reminding them of things they had heard Jesus say during the pre-Easter period. 2. The affirmation that the Spirit ‘will remind you of everything’ is not epexegetical of the statement that ‘he will teach you everything’. One might agree that the relative clause ‘that I have said to you’ does not grammatically connect to ‘he will teach you everything’, yet hold that this statement is nevertheless explained or defined by the entire construction that follows it, ‘and will remind you of everything that I have said to you’.9 On this view, the καί that joins the two statements should be taken in an explicative sense: ‘he will teach you everything, that is, he will remind you of everything that I have said to you.’ But it is doubtful that ‘he will remind’ is so tightly epexegetical of ‘he will teach’. These statements far more likely refer to distinct (though not unrelated) aspects of the Paraclete’s revelatory activity. First, καί most commonly has a simple connective sense. There is no specific contextual indication that it should be taken in any other way in Jn 14.25–26. Second, in its most common usage the verb ὑπομιμνήσκω (remind) means calling a person’s attention to something he or she already knows. It definitely has this sense in Jn 14.26, where the reminding explicitly concerns things the disciples have already heard Jesus say. Διδάσκω (teach), on the other hand, at least in its most typical uses, implies imparting something that lies beyond that which is already known

9. For example, Franck, Revelation, 42.

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

125

or understood or attained: additional information, deeper understanding, better skills. So although there is a certain amount of semantic overlap between the terms, it is most natural to assume that διδάσκω and ὑπομιμνήσκω retain their distinctive nuances. Third, the verb ‘remind’ is significantly absent in Jn 16.12–15. That John does not use this term in a passage where the Paraclete is specifically said to convey things that lie beyond what Jesus said his pre-Easter ministry hints that John wishes to maintain a distinction between what the Spirit does in relation to newly revealed things and what the Spirit’s does in relation to things Jesus said and did in the presence of his disciples in the past.10 3. Nevertheless, Jn 14.25–26 does imply a close link between the Spirit’s future teaching and the things Jesus said and did during the period of his earthly ministry. First, the statement that the Spirit–Paraclete ‘will teach you everything’ is not given as an isolated pronouncement. It is preceded by a reference to things Jesus has spoken to his disciples (‘I have spoken these things to you while remaining with you’) and followed by a similar reference (‘he will remind of everything I have said to you’). This framing has the effect of limiting the scope of the Spirit’s teaching, tying it to Jesus and the time of his physical presence in the world. The ‘everything’ that the Spirit teaches need not be strictly identical with the ‘everything’ of which Spirit reminds, as I  have argued above, but the context implies that both terms do pertain to a similar area of reference.11 In fact, it is probably best to see the reminding as a subset of the teaching. Second, although the καί that links the statement about the Spirit’s teaching with that about his reminding functions connectively (‘and’) rather than explicatively (‘that is’), the mere fact that the two statements are grammatically coordinated in this way implies that they describe related activities. Third, to affirm that the Spirit’s future teaching will be limited to explicating and drawing out the implications of the revelation brought by Jesus during the period of his physical presence in the world coheres with John’s larger theological picture, in which the revelation of God centres in the Son coming into the world, climaxing in Jesus’s death and resurrection. The idea that the Spirit would bring additional revelation that goes beyond explicating that which was brought by the Son through his historical life, death and resurrection seems alien to the Fourth Gospel.

10. 1 Jn 2.27 uses language very similar to that in Jn 14.26 (‘the anointing [i.e. the Spirit] teaches you about all things’). In that passage, the Spirit’s teaching action stands in close relationship with yet remains distinct from John’s call for his readers to let what they had ‘heard from the beginning’ remain in them (2.24). See the discussion in sub-section 6 below and in Chapter 10. Lk. 12.12 also speaks of the Holy Spirit teaching the disciples, but with no specific reference to Spirit calling to their minds things Jesus has said. 11. In light of passages like 2.17, 22; 12.37–41; 18.9, 32; and 20.9 many scholars hold that the Paraclete’s teaching includes giving insight into the Christological meaning of the Scriptures; e.g. Levison, Filled, 403; Stuhlmacher, ‘Remembering’, 63; Witmer, Instruction, 129.

126

Spirit and Word

4. ‘Remind’ (ὑπομιμνῄσκω) may well have an enriched sense in John 14.26, one that includes the thought of giving understanding and calling for the application of that which is brought to mind. Both inside and outside the NT, the verb ὑπομιμνῄσκω most commonly expresses the idea of calling to mind something already known in the past.12 This is clearly its primary sense in Jn 14.26, where the object of ὑπομιμνῄσκω is ‘everything that I have said to you’. But this still leaves open the question of whether this verb and other related terms may carry additional nuances or connotations in the Gospel of John, or even refer to a special Johannine kind of reminding and remembering – one in which the past that is brought to mind is a new past, not quite the same as the past that was previously known. Two sets of texts suggest that ὑπομιμνῄσκω may very well carry an enriched sense in Jn 14.26.13 First, this verb appears four time in the NT epistles in contexts where it means ‘remind’, but where those who are reminded are at the same time being called to response and application. For example, when Timothy is told, ‘Remind them of these things’ (2 Tim. 2.14), this includes the thought that he is to urge his hearers to respond to the truths he recalls to their minds (cf. Tit. 3.1; 2 Pet. 1.12; Jude 5). Second, in a series of passages within the Fourth Gospel itself, the verb ‘remember’ μιμνῄσκομαι) carries the additional nuance ‘understand. According to Jn 2.17 the disciples ‘remembered’ that it was written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me’. Here the verb seems to be a shorthand way of saying more than one thing: the disciples remembered a Scripture passage they presumably already knew (Ps. 69.9), but they also came to recognize something about that passage they had not understood before, namely, that it spoke about Jesus. In 2.22 we read that after Jesus’s resurrection, his disciples ‘remembered’ that he had said, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ In this case they not only recalled Jesus’s cryptic words but also came to understand what he had meant. Finally, in 12.16, after describing Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, John says that although the disciples did not understand (γινώσκω) these things at first, when Jesus had been glorified they ‘remembered that these things were written about him and they (the crowd) had done these things to him’. The ‘things written’ refers to Zech. 9.9, which speaks of Zion’s king coming sitting on a donkey’s colt, and perhaps also to Ps. 118.25–26, reflected in the crowd’s shout, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord’. The reference to the things done by the crowd includes their cutting of palm branches and their acclamation of Jesus as king. The disciples’ postEaster remembering clearly includes gaining a fresh comprehension of these

12. Ὑπομιμνῄσκω can sometimes have the sense of ‘call attention to’ or ‘mention’ without accentuating the thought that the thing mentioned is already known. It seems to be used this way in 3 Jn 10, its only other occurrence in the Johannine writings. 13. OT references to remembering are also relevant here. See de la Potterie, Vérité, 373; Porsch, Anwalt, 64.

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

127

events and Scriptures, since it stands in direct contrast to their former lack of understanding. So if John includes the thought of gaining new understanding when he speaks of the disciples’ acts of remembering, it is quite possible that he includes the thought of giving new understanding in 14.26 when he depicts the Spirit’s act of reminding. Jn 2.22 also associates believing with the act of remembering, but the believing is portrayed as a distinct action – a result of remembering rather than one of its components.14 According to 2.22, the disciples remembered Jesus’s words (about raising the temple after three days) ‘and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken’. Belief is likewise associated with the act of remembering in 13.19 and 14.29, although the verb ‘remember’ does not appear in these passages.15 In both of these latter passages Jesus tells his disciples about something that will happen in the future so that when it happens they will remember his words and believe in him. But here again, the believing is a distinct action, one which results from remembering. In light of this evidence it is quite possible that in Jn 14.26 the verb ὑπομνῄσει carries nuances that extend beyond the basic sense of ‘will remind’. These may include the thought that the Spirit will call the disciples to respond to and apply the things of which they are reminded, the thought that the Spirit will give them new understanding of those things, or both. But it probably does not convey the specific thought that the Spirit will enable the disciples to believe the things Jesus has said to them, even though the Fourth Gospel shows that belief often results from remembering. 5. However, nothing in the Fourth Gospel itself suggests that the evangelist uses the terms ‘remind’ (ὑπομιμνῄσκω) and ‘remember’ (μιμνῄσκομαι, μνημονεύω) in a way that includes the thought of modifying or adding to the content of that which was known or observed in the past. It is commonly argued that John expresses a distinctive theology of memory according to which the Paraclete not only jogs the disciples’ memories of Jesus but also reshapes and supplements them.16 But there are two problems with attributing this theology to the author of the Fourth Gospel. First, the passages that are said to implicitly reflect this concept actually fall short of doing so. We can turn first to the passages that speak about the disciples remembering words and events. Jn 2.19 says Jesus made a comment about destroying the temple and raising it in three days, and 2.22 says his disciples remembered this when he was raised from the dead. Specific details of Jesus’s resurrection (the raising of his body on the third day) have now provided them with the key to his metaphor. In a similar way, 12.12–13 depicts the actions of the crowd as Jesus enters Jerusalem and 12.16 says that when Jesus was glorified

14. Contra Hurtado, ‘Remembering’, 208. 15. Cf. Jn 16.4, where remembering (μνημονεύω) is explicitly mentioned and belief is probably implied. 16. For example, Hurtado, ‘Remembering’, 210; Kammler, ‘Geistparaklet,’ 112.

128

Spirit and Word

the disciples remembered what the crowd had done. Past events are narrated, then these events are said to be remembered as Jesus’s resurrection stimulates the disciples’ memory and understanding. But where do these texts, as narratives with appended commentary, offer any hint that μιμνήσκομαι is being used in a special sense or that what the disciples remember is any different from what they had originally heard and seen? In 13.18–19, 14.28–29 and 16.2–4 Jesus tells his disciples about things that will happen in the future and then says that the words he now speaks will form the basis of their memory when what he has predicted come to pass. These passages portray a straightforward correlation between the words Jesus speaks in the preEaster period and the words the disciples later remember. The evangelist offers no hint that the disciples’ act of remembering is anything other than ordinary. The situation is not much different when we consider instances where the disciples are said to remember a Scripture passage. According to Jn 2.17, they remember a passage in the Psalms, ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.’ The event of Jesus’s resurrection (and the zeal-provoked death that preceded it) now enable them to connect this passage with Jesus’s action in the temple. In the case of Jn 12.14–16, John says that when Jesus was glorified, his disciples remembered and understood a statement in Zech. 9.9, that Zion’s king would come sitting on donkey’s colt. Jesus’s glorification has enabled them to recognize him as king, and that newly gained insight now helps them see that what they had observed at the time of his entry into Jerusalem corresponded to the details of Zechariah’s prophecy. In both these cases their remembering involved fresh recognition of a Scriptural text’s application, but not a transformation of the text. In none of these instances does the evangelist draw a connection between verbs of remembering and a process in which events or sayings are transformed or Scriptures take on new meanings. A second problem for the view that Jn 14.26 depicts the Paraclete as a creative modifier or supplementer of memories of Jesus is that the Fourth Gospel takes pains to attribute the disciples’ knowledge of what Jesus said and did to quite a different source, namely, their hearing and seeing and presence with Jesus. This is emphasized in 14.25, where Jesus refers to the things he has spoken ‘while remaining with you’. It reappears in 15.27 when Jesus says the disciples will bear witness about him because they have been ‘with him from the beginning’. Jn 19.35 attributes the Gospel’s testimony about Jesus’s death to an eyewitness. According to 20.30, the signs that form the heart of the Fourth Gospel, along with many others not recorded there, were done by Jesus ‘in the presence of his disciples’. And, finally, 21.24 attributes the whole of the Gospel to the witness of the Beloved Disciple, a figure who has been shown to be present with Jesus at many key points. It is certainly true that John also highlights the Paraclete’s helping role in the production of his Gospel through teaching, reminding, guiding into all truth and announcing the things to come. But if the evangelist were to depict the Spirit as a creative contemporary source of the disciples’ memories of what the pre-Easter Jesus had said and done in the past it would severely undermine his many claims that that their testimony is fundamentally based on physical hearing, seeing and

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

129

presence.17 There is thus no evidence that the Fourth Gospel espouses or reflects a special theology of remembering. 6. ‘Teach’ (διδάσκω) stands as a general term for the Spirit’s didactic activity in 14.26; this includes giving explanatory guidance concerning the things Jesus has said and done in the past, and may also include giving elements of new instruction that the Spirit will receive from Jesus in the period following his resurrection. I have argued that the Spirit’s teaching activity focuses on explicating or drawing out the implications of the revelation brought by Jesus during the period of his physical presence in the world, but that it should be distinguished from his work of reminding and is not so strictly tied to the specific sayings of the pre-Easter Jesus. Can we say more about this teaching function? Some of our best clues are found in Jn 16.12–15. In that passage Jesus says that the Spirit–Paraclete will ‘guide’ (ὁδηγέω) his disciples into all truth, ‘speak’ (λαλέω) whatever he hears and ‘announce’ (ἀναγγελω) things that he will receive from Jesus. Jn 16.12–15 constitutes significant evidence concerning the meaning of 14.25–26, first because both passages belong to the same series of Paraclete sayings and, second, because they begin in very similar ways. Each contrasts what Jesus has already said while physically present with his disciples with what Spirit will say in future. The full point of this contrast remains a little unclear in 14.25–26. Readers may wonder whether the primary difference between the Spirit’s teaching and that given by Jesus lies in its timing (it is given in the future instead of the past), its depth (it interprets, applies and draws out the implications of the more basic instruction given by Jesus), or its extent (it supplies new information and instructions not included among the things Jesus himself had said). 16.12–15 helps us answer this question. Here Jesus introduces his promise of the Spirit’s future revelatory action by saying, ‘I still have much to say to you, but you are not able to bear it now.’ This statement implies that one part of the Spirit’s task will be to convey those things that Jesus could not yet say during the pre-Easter period. The Spirit will hear (ἀκούσει) and receive (λήμψεται) these things from Jesus in the future. So Jn 16.12–15 shows rather clearly that the Paraclete’s role includes conveying additional instruction that goes beyond the pre-Easter sayings of Jesus. The door is thus open to interpreting the reference to the Paraclete’s teaching activity (though not the reference to his reminding) in 14.26 along similar lines – that is, as instruction that draws out the implications of what Jesus has already said while also including things that he has yet to say. 1 Jn 2.27 provides the second-most important line of evidence concerning the meaning of ‘he will teach you everything’. In this passage, John tells his readers, ‘You have received an anointing from him’ that ‘teaches you about everything’. The ‘anointing’ (χρῖσμα) refers to the Spirit.18 Because the statement that the anointing ‘teaches’ (διδάσκει) about ‘everything’ (πάντων) closely parallels the language of

17. The emphasis on physical seeing and hearing as the source of valid testimony is even more emphatic in 1 Jn 1–4, a passage which makes no mention of the Spirit. 18. This is the majority view, well supported by the evidence. See the discussion in Chapter 10.

130

Spirit and Word

Jn 14.26, and because 1 John as a whole stands in an obviously close literary and historical relationship to the Fourth Gospel, we cannot avoid turning to this passage as we search for clues to the meaning of the Gospel’s reference to Spirit teaching. A problem immediately confronts us, however, in that it is notoriously difficult to determine the precise sense of ‘teach’ in 1 Jn 2.27. The difficulty arises because John tells his readers that because they have received the Spirit (‘the anointing’) they do not need anyone else to ‘teach’ them. And yet this very passage contains the kind of instruction and exhortation we normally associate with teaching and explicitly calls the readers to let what they ‘have heard from the beginning’ remain in them (2.24). What these readers heard from the beginning would have come to them via human messengers who engaged in an activity that must have looked a lot like teaching.19 Is John being inconsistent or does the Spirit’s teaching function involve something other than the kind of exhortation, proclamation, witness and instruction John himself engages in? At least three different interpretations have been proposed concerning the nature of the Spirit’s teaching in 1 Jn 2.27. First, those who think Jn 14.26 describes a special kind of teaching activity, one that blends elements of teaching with elements of reminding, usually take a similar approach to 1 Jn 2.27: the anointing teaches by inspiring and developing the memory-related tradition that the epistle’s readers have heard from various witnesses and leaders ‘from the beginning’.20 Second, some interpreters think this passage describes a revelatory action that brings fresh instruction or insight that claims no particular connection to the originally received tradition about Jesus.21 Third, some think the teaching depicted in 1 Jn 2.27 is a matter of internal illumination that assures believers that the message they have heard from the beginning is true or enables them to distinguish true claims about Jesus from false.22 19. Although some interpreters think John views his own activity as something other than ‘teaching’:  e.g. ‘witnessing’ (R. Brown, The Epistles of John [AB 30; Garden City: Doubleday, 1982], 375), ‘reminding’ (Hans-Josef Klauck, Der Erste Johannesbrief [EKKNT, 23/1; Zürich and Braunschweig:  Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener,  1991], 168)  or ‘reaffirming’ and ‘commenting’ on what the Spirit revealed from the beginning (Chevallier, Souffle, 546–47). Others argue that when he says his readers do not need anyone to ‘teach’ them he refers only to a particular kind of teaching, such as teaching from outside the community (M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy & the Gospel Tradition [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 104) or teaching that claims to give direct communication from God (Witmer, Instruction, 151). 20. For example, David Rensberger, I John, 2 John, 3 John (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997): 1 Jn ‘presents a distinctively Johannine approach to tradition, a dynamic relationship between tradition and Spirit. The tradition is valid only because it is the testimony of the Spirit of truth’ (44). 21. See Levinson: ‘Even the provision made in the Fourth Gospel, that the spirit’s teaching would be entirely in line with Jesus’ teaching, has evaporated’ (Filled, 412). 22. Karen Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John (ZECNT; Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2014), 132; R. Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (trans. Reginald

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

131

This last interpretation is probably best. The first approach runs counter to the epistle’s overall pattern of thought. As I will show in Chapter 10, 1 John as a whole is marked by a recurring pattern of dual testimony. On the one hand, it emphasizes the testimony of eyewitnesses and, stemming from that testimony, a message heard ‘from the beginning’. On the other hand, we find repeated references to the revelatory work of the Spirit. These two elements are frequently juxtaposed, sometimes paradoxically so, but they are never blended into a single entity. The Spirit acts in close association with the heard-from-the-beginning tradition but that tradition retains its distinct and independent status. This leaves little room for a statement about the Spirit recreating or reshaping the original disciples’ memory of Jesus. It is also unlikely that this passage depicts the Spirit bringing new teaching that stands apart from the received tradition. First, 2.27 forms part of a larger unit (2.18–27) designed to strengthen the readers against the influence of antichrists who deny the truth. In his effort to counteract that influence, John points his readers to clearly stated Christological truth (2.22–23) and to the message they have heard from the beginning (2.24), not to new instruction given by the Spirit. Second, the comment in 2.27b, ‘you do not need anyone to teach you’, takes particular aim at the deceivers mentioned in 2.26 (‘I have written these things to you concerning those who are deceiving you’). If these deceivers are the same as the false prophets of 4.1–6 (as they almost certainly are), one of their claims would be that they speak under the Spirit’s inspiration. This makes it difficult to suppose that John would propose fresh Spirit-inspired instruction as an effective countermeasure to the deceivers – particularly so if we were to envisage that fresh instruction as coming to the community via Spirit-inspired prophets in their midst. No single factor pushes us irresistibly to conclude that 1 Jn 2.27 refers to an internal activity of the Spirit that convinces believers of the truth of the message they have heard from the beginning and enables them to distinguish Christological truth from error, but a number of small considerations do make this the most probable interpretation. First, the idea that the Spirit bears supporting witness to the truth of the history-grounded message about Jesus appears in other Johannine passages. 1 Jn 5.6–8 probably reflects this motif (although this passage admittedly presents its own exegetical challenges),23 and with regard to the Fourth Gospel I  have already tried to show that two of its Paraclete passages, 15.26–27 and 16.8–11, are best understood as depicting an internal, convincing activity of the Spirit. Second, the idea that the Spirit gives believers Christological discernment probably appears in 1 Jn 4.4, ‘You have overcome them [the false prophets], because

Fuller and Ilse Fuller; New  York:  Crossroad, 1992), 149–50; Witmer, Instruction, 106. Robert Law envisages the Spirit’s teaching activity in terms of convincing witness and the giving of discernment, but thinks that the Spirit gives this teaching by means of charismatic prophecy rather than internally The Tests of Life:  A  Study of the First Epistle of St. John, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968], 111–12). 23. See the discussion in Chapter 10.

132

Spirit and Word

the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.’ ‘The one who is in you’ probably refers to the Spirit.24 Third, the citation of Isa. 54.13 in Jn 6.45 (‘And they will all [πάντες] be taught by God’) may well shed light on 1 Jn 2.27. In Jn 6.44 Jesus speaks of the Father ‘drawing’ people to him; if this ‘drawing’ helps define what it means to be ‘taught by God’, the latter concept must include the thought of being internally taught and drawn to Jesus. The link between Jn 6.45 and 1 Jn 2.27 is strengthened by the statement in 2.20 that the anointing leads ‘all’ (πάντες)25 John’s readers to knowledge.26 Fourth, as is widely recognized, conceptual parallels link 1 Jn 2.20, 27 to Jer. 31.34.27 Jer. 31.33 speaks of a time when God will write his law on the hearts of the people of Israel – a promise not far removed from the thought of an internal work of the Spirit that convinces and enables discernment. Finally, there is a slight difference in wording between Jn 14.26’s statement that the Spirit ‘will teach you everything’ (ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα) and 1 Jn 2.27’s claim that the anointing ‘teaches you about everything (διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων). We should perhaps not make too much of this difference, but the latter formulation is certainly appropriate if 2.27 refers to the Spirit supplying assurance or enabling discernment about a tradition the readers already possess. If this analysis is correct, the term ‘teach’ is given a somewhat special sense in 1 Jn 2.27c. What accounts for this special usage? A probable answer is ready at hand if we consider both the rhetorical context of this statement and the influence of Jer. 31.34. John is warning his readers against those who are trying to deceive them (2.26). As he does so, he draws upon the thought and language of Jer. 31.34, which describes a time when the people of Israel will no longer need anyone to teach them because they will all know God. This accounts for John’s strongly formulated statement in 2.27b that his readers do not need anyone to teach them.28 And the fact that he has used the verb ‘teach’ in 2.27b probably explains its reappearance in 2.27c when he goes on to urge them to depend instead on the anointing (the Spirit) they have received. By repeating the verb he effectively highlights the contrast between the false teachers and the Spirit, even though this means that when he uses the term in 2.27c he has to give ‘teach’ a special nuance. It is possible that some of that special nuance, which relates to convincing and enabling discernment, may also be found in Jn 14.26; but the main sense of the word ‘teach’ in this latter passage aligns more closely with the activities described in Jn 16.12–15. 7. The ‘you’ whom the Spirit will teach and remind refers primarily to the original disciples. I  have argued that Jn 14.26 depicts two related but distinguishable

24. See Chapter 10. 25. Adopting the reading favoured by the majority of scholars. 26. See Witmer, Instruction, 106. This assumes that πάντες is the best reading. 27. I.e. the reference to all members of the community knowing (2.20); the reference to community members having no need for anyone to teach them in (2.27b). 28. For example, Witmer, Instruction, 133. John expresses his thought so strongly, partly because he drawing on Jeremiah, but also because he is attacking a specific group who pose an immediate threat to his readers.

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

133

revelatory activities of the Spirit. The Spirit’s reminding is narrowly tied to things Jesus specifically said during the period of his earthly ministry. The Spirit’s teaching activity is broader in scope, covering the whole range of Jesus’ life and work, including the Scriptures that speak about him; it explains that historical and Scriptural revelation, draws out its implications and applies it to new post-Easter issues. But we must now ask who receives this teaching and reminding. When Jesus says the Paraclete will teach ‘you’ and remind ‘you’ (in each case the plural ὑμᾶς), to whom does he refer? Some interpreters hold that, while this promise may carry limited secondary implications for all believers, it is primarily for Jesus’s original disciples.29 Others think this promise applies fully to all believers, or at least to the believing community as a corporate body, in every time and place.30 The balance of evidence favours the first of these views. First, the ‘you’ in 14.25 can only be the original disciples, since Jesus refers to what he said ‘while remaining with you’. In the absence of specific counterindications it is most natural to assume that the three occurrences of ‘you’ that follow in 14.26 continue to have the original disciples as their antecedent. Second, this natural assumption is strongly confirmed by the second and third occurrences of ‘you’ in 14.26. ‘You’ (ὑμᾶς) is the object of ‘remind’ and ‘to you’ (ὑμῖν) is the indirect object of Jesus’ reference to ‘the things I  have said’ (aorist εἶπον). In both cases the pronoun can only refer to those who have been with Jesus in the pre-Easter period. Third, if we identify the ‘you’ as Jesus’s original disciples, 14.26 can be seen to fulfill an important purpose within the Gospel, that of showing readers how the original disciples, and therefore the evangelist, came to an accurate understanding of Jesus’s life and teaching following his glorification and resurrection.31 Fourth, the Farewell Discourse as a whole has a time-of-Jesus setting. Jesus’s immediate audience is therefore the original disciple group. Many of Jesus’s promises and instructions in these chapters are no doubt meant to apply to all believers, but where this is true we would expect it to be indicated by specific signals in the text (such as the reference in to the Paraclete being ‘with you forever’ in 14.16) or to be implied by the totality of the Gospel’s message. Where such factors are lacking, and especially where we find counter-signals that imply narrow application to Jesus’s immediate hearers, the concrete narrative setting should determine our interpretation. Although various factors can be listed in support of the alternative view that the promise in Jn 14.26 fully applies to all believers, these are insufficient to overturn the conclusion affirmed above. A first argument favouring an inclusive view of the saying in 14.26 is that some of the Fourth Gospel’s other Paraclete promises apply to all believers. This is especially true in the case in the first Paraclete passage, 14.16–18. Jesus says that the Paraclete will be ‘with you forever;’ that ‘he will remain with you and will be in you’ (in direct contrast to the world, which cannot

29. For example, Carson, John, 505; Witmer, Instruction, 126. 30. For example, Keener, John, 981; von Wahlde, John, 2.662. 31. See Witmer, Instruction, 126.

134

Spirit and Word

receive the Paraclete); and that Jesus ‘will not leave you orphans’. These statements must address all believers or the disciples as representatives of all believers. But this argument is more than counterbalanced by the sayings in 15.27 and 16.12, which clearly apply exclusively to the original disciples. The ‘you’ in 15.27 refers to disciples Jesus describes as having been ‘with me from the beginning’. And in 16.12, where Jesus says he has more things to say but ‘you cannot bear them now’, he speaks exclusively to those who are with him in that pre-Easter, pre-Paraclete setting. A second factor that might seem to support an inclusive approach to the promise of Jn 14.26 is the reference in 6.45 to a time when the people of Israel ‘will all be taught by God’. This eschatological promise is found in Isa. 54.13; a similar promise is given in Jer. 31.34. Both of those passages envisage a time when divine teaching will be extended to the whole community of God’s people.32 So when Jn 14.26 says the Paraclete will be sent by the Father to teach, one might expect the recipients of that activity to be all disciples in the period of eschatological fulfillment. The problem with this conclusion is that Jesus’s saying in 14.25–26 does not sound like a general eschatological promise. At one point its scope is significantly narrowed (‘he will remind you of everything I have said to you’) and, as noted above, there are several indications that Jesus is addressing a specific group. A third argument, similar to the second, looks to the references to the ‘anointing’ in 1 Jn 2.20 and 27. According to 2.27, the anointing (the Spirit) teaches, and according to 2.20 the anointing leads ‘all’ (πάντες)33 within the community to know. If 1 Jn 2.27 reflects the same thought as Jn 14.26, this would mean that the latter passage also refers to a teaching function that extends to the whole community of believers.34 This is a substantial argument, but I have already given reasons for concluding that 1 Jn 2.27 does not refer to precisely the same activity as Jn 14.26. Finally, many scholars are convinced that the Fourth Gospel presents, at least to some extent, a two-tier story that blends time-of-Jesus narrative with depiction of situations facing the Johannine community of a later generation.35 The Farewell Discourse of chapters 13 to 17 is thought to have the needs and situation of the later community in view to a particularly strong degree.36 This estimate of the Gospel’s genre makes it easy to see the original disciples as literary representatives of later believers and to transpose the time-of-Jesus narrative into a portrayal of post-Easter realities.37 With respect to Jn 14.25–26, then, it might not really matter

32. See Witmer, Instruction, 125. 33. Here again Jer. 31.34 lies in the background. 34. See, e.g., Keener, John, 981. 35. See J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd edn (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 40. 36. See, e.g., Porsch, Johannes-Evangelium, 162. 37. See, e.g., Schnackenburg:  the original disciples ‘are addressed, partly in the situation before Jesus’ departure, but mainly also as representatives of the future community’ (John, 3.84).

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

135

that the recipients of Jesus’s promise are portrayed as disciples who have been with Jesus in the pre-Easter period. It is impossible to offer a quick response to this widely held and all-encompassing perspective.38 Nevertheless, it makes sense to argue that, even in a narrative aimed totally at meeting the needs and addressing the issues of a later generation, it must mean something that the evangelist has chosen to portray the ‘you’ group to whom Jesus addresses his promise as those who had been physically present with him and heard him speak in the pre-Easter period. John did not have to do this. If he had intended to make Jesus’s promise fully applicable to later believers, he could easily have avoided the restricting references that mark the ‘you’ group as pre-Easter disciples. He could have left the ‘you’ more open and potentially inclusive, as he does at many other points within the Farewell Discourse. We must remember that at this point the evangelist is explicitly portraying a promise about the post-Easter future. This means that, even if he were writing a two-tier story, he would have been perfectly free to drop the time-of-Jesus perspective for a moment and portray the Paraclete’s teaching and reminding entirely in post-Easter terms. That he nevertheless portrays the recipients of the promise as disciples who have been physically present with Jesus in the pre-Easter period must therefore mean that he does not intend these particular words to be read at any level as a promise for all believers. The promise in Jn 14.16–18 that the Paraclete will be actively present with the whole community of believers and the references in Jn 6.45 and 1 Jn 2.27 to a teaching activity that extends to all believers suggest that the promise in Jn 14.26 may in some limited sense refer to Spirit teaching whole community.39 It may include secondary reference to the kind of confirming and discernment-giving teaching mentioned in 1 Jn 2.27, for example, or to the kinds of revelatory action associated with the Spirit in other NT writings. But the promise in Jn 14.26 directly addresses Jesus’s original disciples. It is designed to enable them to carry out their distinctive task of bearing witness to Jesus as those who have been with him ‘from the beginning’ (15.27). 8. The Spirit teaches and reminds through a process of unmediated influence or revelation. Jn 14.26 does not say how the Spirit–Paraclete will carry out his teaching and reminding. Many (but not all) of those who think this promise addresses all believers envisage the Spirit speaking in a mediated fashion, through prophets or teachers within the community.40 According to this view, to say that 38. One’s position on the two-tier nature of the Fourth Gospel depends on one’s assessment of a number of factors, including the history of the Johannine community, the relationship between John and the Synoptics, and the genre conventions that influenced the Gospel writers. It would be very difficult to defend this approach if one were to rely purely on text-internal signals, since the author claims to be telling a time-of-Jesus story and offers no hints that he is doing anything else. I have expressed some of my own reservations about departing from the Gospels’ time-of-Jesus settings in ‘Scenes and Details in the Gospels: Concrete Reading and Three Alternatives’, NTS 50 (2004), pp. 167–84. 39. Cf. Witmer, Instruction, 126. 40. Hurtado, e.g., suggests the Paraclete’s guiding and teaching would have come in part via charismatic utterances as in 1 Corinthians 12–14 and 1 Jn 4.1–3 (‘Remembering’, 205).

136

Spirit and Word

the Paraclete teaches and reminds is to say that a Spirit-inspired spokesperson teaches and reminds. But if the promise of 14.26 addresses Jesus’s original disciples only, as I have argued above, we must envisage the Spirit addressing these disciples directly.41 John depicts these disciples as the initial post-Easter witnesses and teachers about Jesus; there are thus no prophets or pre-existing traditions through which the Spirit might teach them. The possibility that 14.26 describes a prophetmediated activity disappears once we recognize that its promise addresses the original disciples only. But it may still be helpful to point out additional reasons for doubting that this passage alludes to the activity of Spirit-inspired prophets. First, the Fourth Gospel as a whole tends to depict the Spirit as acting directly. The Spirit or Paraclete is never explicitly said to work through anyone, nor are the disciples ever said to speak by the Spirit.42 Second, John often pictures the Spirit as dwelling internally in all believers (Jn 7.37–39; 14.17; cf. 1 Jn 4.4) or as internally received (Jn 20.22). The Spirit is thus positioned to act directly in every believer. Third, as noted earlier, in 1 Jn 2.18–27, the Spirit as teacher seems to be distinguished from human teachers or tradition-bearers. On the whole, then, there is little reason to suppose that 14.26 alludes to the activities of community leaders or prophets.

II. Guidance and instruction, part 2: John 16.12–15 12

I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak from himself, but will speak whatever he hears and announce to you the things to come. 14He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and announce it to you. 15Everything the Father has is mine. Because of this I say that he will take from what is mine and announce it to you. 13

The Paraclete saying in 16.12–15 is both similar to and different from that in 14.25–26. Both sayings begin with a reference to Jesus’s earthly teaching, establishing this as a backdrop against which the future teaching or guiding

Dietzfelbinger envisages it coming through the preaching and teaching of the community (Johannes, 67); cf. Michael Theobald, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT, 267; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 279. Zumstein thinks it will come especially through the Fourth Gospel itself (Jean, 82). But others envisage the Spirit teaching and reminding individual believers through a direct internal influence (e.g., de la Potterie, Paraclete, 64; Porsch, Anwalt, 63). 41. We might envisage the Spirit exercising a quiet influence on the disciples’ memories and understanding or picture a more invasive form of revelation. The action of reminding suggests the former, as does John’s depiction of the Spirit’s internal presence in passages like 7.37–39 and 14.16–18. 42. Although 1 Jn 4.1–6 implies the existence of Spirit-inspired prophets within the community.

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

137

ministry of the Spirit may be more clearly described. But whereas 14.25 gives greater emphasis to what Jesus has already said while present with his disciples, 16.12 highlights things he is not yet able to say. This sets the stage for the rest of the saying, which focuses on how the Paraclete will communicate those things that Jesus is for the present leaving unsaid. 1. The promise in 16.12–15 is directed primarily to Jesus’s original disciples, and the Paraclete’s guiding, speaking, and announcing comes to them directly rather than through human intermediaries. The issue of who receives Jesus’s promise and the question of how the Spirit communicates were discussed at length in our analysis of Jn 14.25–26. Everything that was said there applies to 16.12–15 as well. We must consider one additional piece of evidence relating to the intended recipients of the promise in 16.12–15, however. This arises from what Jesus says in Jn 10.3–4 and 16 about his sheep hearing his voice.43 In 10.16 he says he will lead (ἆγω) the whole flock, including his future followers, and they will hear (ἀκούω) his voice. Given the semantic overlap between ἆγω in 10.16 and ὁδηγέω (lead, guide) in 16.13, and the reference to the Paraclete passing on to the disciples what he hears (ἀκούω) from Jesus, it would be easy to see – in fact, hard not to see – the Paraclete’s guiding and speaking as the channel through which Jesus’s sheep are led and come to hear his voice. But even if we conclude that one part of the Spirit’s overall revelatory activity is to convey the voice of Jesus to all his sheep, and that the role implied in 10.16 is analogous to the guiding, speaking and announcing described in 16.12–15, there is still reason to distinguish the specific action depicted in the latter passage from that described in John 10. For one thing, the John 10 passage focuses on intimate personal knowledge (vv. 4–5, 14–15) while 16.12–15 highlights the communication of information (guiding into all truth, announcing the things to come). For another, the promise in 16.12–15 is addressed to those who are present at the time Jesus speaks with no indication that this group expands to include all believers of all generations. This differs from John 10, where the initial statement about Jesus’s sheep (vv. 3–5) is later explicitly applied to future generations of Jesus’s followers (vs. 16). So it is best to conclude that the statements in 16.12–15, like those in 14.25–26, apply primarily to Jesus’s original disciples, even though they may allude secondarily to partially parallel or overlapping actions of the Spirit in all believers. If the Paraclete guides and speaks to the original group of disciples, this communication must come to them directly, since no intermediary prophets or teachers stand between the Paraclete and these very first disciples. But it is more difficult to say whether the Paraclete’s action will take the form of quiet influence on the disciples’ thought processes or more intrusive charismatic revelation. The activity of ‘guiding into all truth’ seems to align well with the former model; ‘hearing and announcing’ could appropriately fit the latter. 2. As 16.12–15 presents it, the Paraclete’s guiding, speaking and announcing is not a matter of reshaping or developing the Jesus tradition but rather of conveying

43. Keener, John, 1039.

138

Spirit and Word

instruction that is differentiated from Jesus’s historically given teaching. If this claim is correct it undercuts the view that Jn 16.12–15 intends to describe a process through which the Spirit reshapes the tradition concerning what Jesus said or perhaps even creates new sayings that nonetheless have the right to be presented as words of the pre-Easter Jesus. There are three strong indications that this passage does not describe a revelatory activity that links to specific Jesus sayings. First, the future revelatory action of the Paraclete (introduced by the clause, ‘But when he comes’) is explicitly set in contrast to Jesus’s present teaching, which is said to be limited in what it could cover (‘I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now’). The Paraclete’s guiding, speaking and announcing will thus communicate precisely those things that according to 16.12 Jesus is not yet able to say.44 Some interpreters have tried to argue that the ‘many things’ that the disciples are not ‘able to bear’ (βαστάζω) are not things Jesus has left totally unsaid so much as things he has said in a hidden fashion. In Jn 16.25, for instance, Jesus refers to things he has said in figures of speech (ἐν παροιμίαις), but which he will one day speak more plainly (παρρησίᾳ). Some see this as another way of describing the Spirit’s revelatory activity in 16.13–15,45 which would imply that the Paraclete’s future revelatory activity is a matter of explicating things Jesus has already said. But although 16.25 may shed some light on one aspect of the Paraclete’s guiding and speaking, the emphasis in 16.12–15 itself points in a different direction. Jesus does not say, ‘I said many things to you, but you were not able to bear them’, but ‘I have many things to say to you’. Others stress the totality of the disciples’ pre-Easter miscomprehension as the reason for their inability to bear what Jesus has to say, and then conclude that the Paraclete’s action must consist of opening the disciples’ minds to understand what Jesus has said.46 But once again, while the statement ‘you are not able to bear them now’ undoubtedly points to the disciples’ inability to comprehend, and while the Paraclete’s corrective action of guiding them into all truth certainly includes giving them a new understanding of what they had seen and heard of Jesus, 16.12 rather plainly refers to things Jesus has not said while physically present with his disciples.47 44. Each succeeding clause in Jn 16.13–15 helps to define the one that precedes it. ‘He will speak whatever he hears and announce to you the things to come’ defines ‘he will guide you into all truth’ (the two are logically connected by γάρ). ‘He will receive and announce what belongs to me’ defines ‘he will speak whatever he hears and announce to you the things to come’ (‘announce’ is repeated and ‘receive’ parallels ‘hear’). ‘Everything the Father has’ helps define ‘what is mine’ (as indicated by the words, ‘Because of this I say’). So these activities of the Paraclete are all linked together and set in contrast to the statement in 16.12 about the limits of Jesus’s teaching. 45. Porsch, Anwalt, 88 46. For example, Kammler, ‘Geistparaklet’, 137–38; Zumstein, Jean (13–21), 138. 47. A number of interpreters identify the ‘many things’ that the disciples cannot yet bear specifically as teaching relating to coming persecutions; e.g. Dietzfelbinger, Johannes, 149; Keener, John, 1035; Michaels, John, 835. But this unnecessarily limits Jesus’s reference and, with it, the scope of the Paraclete’s counteracting guidance. The Paraclete is said to

Jesus’s Words and the Teaching of the Paraclete

139

Second, when Jesus identifies the source of the Paraclete’s message, he specifically refers to what the Paraclete will hear (ὅσα ἀκούσει) and will receive (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται).48 If the Paraclete will only receive his message at a future time, this quite plainly distinguishes what Jesus will say through the Paraclete from what he has said in the past while physically present with his disciples. Third, the Paraclete will guide the disciples into ‘all truth’ (ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ). Since John associates truth with the total revelation constituted by Jesus’s historical presence and work in the world (1.17; 10.32; 14.6; etc.), ‘all truth’ cannot be limited to just the specific words Jesus spoke to his disciples.49 3. While the Paraclete’s guiding, speaking and announcing is clearly distinguished from the things Jesus said while physically present with his disciples, it nevertheless remains firmly connected to Jesus’s flesh-and-history revelation. Just as it is important not to erase the boundary between Jesus’s historical sayings and the revelatory action of the Paraclete, it is equally important, if we are to be fair to the emphases of Jn 16.12–15, to recognize the close link between the Paraclete’s future guiding and the revelation brought by Jesus during the period of his historical ministry. If it is true that the Paraclete will speak on behalf of the risen Jesus (‘he will take from what is mine’), it is also true that the unseen risen Jesus does not convey completely new revelation, but only makes what he has already visibly revealed in history (1.14) more fully known and understood. That this is so is indicated, first of all, by the text’s first and most basic statement about the Paraclete’s activity, that ‘he will guide you into all truth’. As noted earlier, ‘truth’ (ἀλήθεια) is a dominant

guide the disciples into all truth, and to speak ‘whatever he hears’ (ὅσα ἀκούσει), which is the equivalent of the things that belong to Jesus (τοῦ ἐμοῦ). Furthermore, Jesus already has told his disciples about the persecution and suffering they will face (15.18–16.4). 48. The future form λἠμψεται occurs in vs. 14. In the parallel statement in vs. 15 there is a textual variation between λήμψεται (Vaticanus and Bezae) and the present tense λαμβάνει (Sinaiticus). This variation does not make much difference, because the future setting of the Paraclete’s reception of his message is clearly established in vs. 14. See Brown, John, 708. 49. The statement in vs. 13c that the Spirit will announce ‘the things to come’ (τὰ ἐρχόμενα) has been understood in several different ways. It has been taken to refer to (1) Jesus’s death, resurrection and return to the Father (e.g., Kammler, ‘Geistparaklet’, 149); (2) the post-Easter comprehension of things already present in the Son (Chevallier, Souffle, 494) or ‘the contemporary significance of what Jesus means for one’s own time’ (Brown, John, 2.716; (3) instruction relating to new situations the disciples would face in days to come (Keener, John, 1041); (4)  eschatological events revealed through prophetic oracles (Hurtado, ‘Remembering’, 203, n. 27). The first proposal is difficult because Jesus’s death and resurrection would no longer be ‘things to come’ when the Paraclete was given. The second may correctly describe a large part of what the Paralclete’s guiding activity involves, but not the specific element of announcing ‘the things to come’. The third and fourth options are stronger choices. But whichever best explains the statement in vs. 13c, announcing the things to come should be seen as just one aspect of the larger guiding activity depicted in 16.12–15.

140

Spirit and Word

theme in the Fourth Gospel, a way of referring to the total revelation constituted by Jesus’s person and work in the world (1.14; 10.32; 14.6; etc.). Not only is Jesus the truth, he is the truth fully present and revealed in flesh and history. In 1.14, John emphasizes that the glory of the Word become flesh, ‘full of grace and truth’, was seen (ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ). In 14.6 it is precisely as one who is present, known and seen (14.7) that Jesus describes himself as ‘the way, the truth, and the life’. So when Jn 16.13 says the Paraclete will guide the disciples into all truth, this cannot refer to something entirely new that was not already present and visible (even if not fully understood) in Jesus’s historical life and work.50 Second, the close connection between the Paraclete’s revelatory action in the future and the revelation brought by Jesus at the time of his physical presence in the world is unmistakably indicated by Jesus’s statement in 16.15, ‘Everything the Father has is mine.’ This statement clarifies what it means to say that the Paraclete receives and passes on the things that belong to Jesus (16.14b and 15b): what the risen Jesus reveals to his disciples through the Paraclete is what the Father has to reveal. But Jn 15.15 affirms that already in the time of his historical presence Jesus has made known to his disciples all that he has heard from his Father (‘all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you’). According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus already fully reveals the Father (1.18; 14.8–9). What the Paraclete later receives and conveys in the post-Easter period, then, must primarily be a matter of elucidating, applying or drawing out the implications of Jesus’s original and definitive revelation of the Father.51

50. Cf., Bennema, Power, 231; de la Potterie, Vérité, 464. 51. Another factor that is sometimes brought into this discussion concerns the implications of the statement that the Paraclete will guide the disciples ‘in’ (ἐν) or ‘into’ (εἰς) all truth (16.13). But there is a great deal of uncertainty here, first about whether ἐν or εἰς is the best reading, and then about what either of these prepositions would imply. There are scholars on both sides of the textual question who think John’s formulation suggests the idea of enabling deeper perception of an already existing revelation. de la Potterie, e.g., favours εἰς and thinks this preposition conveys the thought that the Spirit leads disciples into the interior of the truth – the deep sense of the truth (Vérité, 438). Zumstein, on the other hand, prefers ἐν and thinks that guidance ‘in the truth’ is a matter of deeper appropriation of a previously given truth (Jean [13–21], 139, n. 61). Brown declines to take a firm position on the textual question and warns against making too much of shades of difference between the two prepositions (John xiii–xxi, 707).

9 J ESUS’S W ORDS AND THE L IFE- G IVING A CTION OF THE  S PIRIT

In John 1–12 the Spirit is presented especially as the giver of life. This is seen in 4.10–14 and 7.37–39, where the Spirit is portrayed as ‘living water’, but also in three passages where the Spirit’s life-giving action is closely tied to some aspect of Jesus’s revelatory presence in the world: to his words in 6.63, to his spoken testimony and lifting-up on the cross in 3.1–15, and to his truth in 4.23–24.

I. Life: John 6.63 63

The Spirit is the one that gives life; the flesh achieves nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life.

Any examination of the Spirit–word relationship in the Fourth Gospel will have to give particular attention to Jesus’s arresting and enigmatic statement in 6.63c, ‘the words I  have spoken are Spirit and life’. Does this formulation imply a deep and perhaps indefinable merging of two concepts, that of the Spirit and that of Jesus’s revelatory word, or is it simply a dramatic way of expressing a more easily understood idea – that Jesus’s words reflect Spirit and life, for example, or that they bring the Spirit and life? To answer this question about 6.63c we will first need to make a decision about the meaning of 6.63a, ‘The Spirit is the one that gives life.’ And before making a decision about the positive assertion in 6.63a, we must probe the meaning of its negative counterpart in 6.63b, ‘the flesh achieves nothing’. 1. Jesus’s statement that ‘the flesh achieves nothing’ (6.63b) refers to human incapacity to understand and positively respond to Jesus’s revelation. There are three principal views about the ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) which, according to Jesus, ‘achieves nothing’ (ὠφελεῖ ουδέν). First, some have seen a reference to the elements of the Lord’s Supper, particularly when the latter is treated merely as an outward rite. This Eucharistic interpretation typically depends on the view that the reference to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man in 6.51–58 speaks expressly of the Lord’s Supper. According to this reading of 6.63b, Jesus is saying that a literalistic approach to his preceding words or reliance on a merely physical partaking of the Eucharistic bread and wine

142

Spirit and Word

will be of no avail for eternal life.1 Second, a number of interpreters argue that ‘the flesh’ refers to Jesus’s physical, earthly life when viewed as a thing by itself apart from the cross, ascension and outpouring of the Spirit.2 Third, many interpreters argue that Jn 6.63b does not refer to Jesus’s flesh in any form but rather to the fleshly existence of his audience. Their purely human efforts to understand and believe in the revelation Jesus brings will come to nothing because of the limitations of their earthly nature.3 This third view best fits the overall context of the Fourth Gospel and the context of chapter  6, in particular. First, in three other passages, the evangelist uses the term ‘flesh’ to designate the sphere of natural human existence. One of these specifically contrasts ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ in a way that is very similar to 6.63. According to 3.6, ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’ Here Jesus contrasts natural human birth with birth from above; he stresses that only the latter enables a person to enter the kingdom of God. Another passages associates ‘flesh’ with human inability to understand Jesus for who he is: according to 8.15, the Pharisees are unable to accept Jesus’s testimony about himself because they judge ‘according to the flesh’ (κατὰ τὴν σάρκα). Finally, in the Gospel’s prologue, John contrasts those who receive Jesus, who are born of God, with those born merely ‘of the will of the flesh’ (ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός; 1.13). So human inability is a prominent theme in the Gospel of John and the term ‘flesh’ is frequently used to express this concept. Jn 6.63b fits into this thematic and linguistic pattern perfectly.4 Second, the final section of John’s account of Jesus’s bread of life discourse (6.60–71) focuses on the response of Jesus’s listeners. The verses that immediately surround 6.63 emphasize the unbelief, confusion and offense of many of those who had been following him. In 6.65 Jesus directly calls attention to their human inability to respond to him positively:  ‘No one is able to come to me unless it is given to him by the Father.’ This echoes his earlier statement in 6.44, ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.’ So a statement about human inability to believe and a corresponding reference to divine assistance is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to find at this point in John’s narrative.5

1. For example, Burge, Anointed, 181; John Wijngaards, The Spirit in John (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 39. 2. For example, J.  D. D.  Dunn, ‘John VI—A Eucharistic Discourse?’ NTS 17 [1971], pp. 328–38 (337); Schnackenburg, John, 2.71. T. Engberg-Pederson represents a further variation on this basic perspective. Arguing for Stoic influence on John’s thinking, he understands 6.63b to refer to Jesus’s physical body which, though of no value in itself, has been filled out or transformed by pneuma (‘Logos and Pneuma in the Fourth Gospel’, in David Aune and Frederick Brenk [eds.], Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament:  Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute [NovTSup, 143; Leiden: Brill, 2012], pp. 27–48 (46). 3. For example, Porsch, Anwalt, 123. 4. See, e.g., Brown, John, 1.237; Lincoln, John, 237. 5. Cf. Porsch, Anwalt, 122.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

143

Third, the alternative interpretations of 6.63b (that ‘the flesh’ refers to the elements of the LORD’s Supper or to Jesus’ physical and earthly existence) are contextually awkward to the point of impossibility. They clash with the near context of John 6 as well as with the large context of the whole Gospel. This is because references to Jesus’ flesh are always positive in the Fourth Gospel.6 In fact, John consistently highlights Jesus’s coming in flesh as a soteriological necessity. When the Prologue introduces Jesus as the Word become flesh (1.14), it associates his fleshly presence with the revelation of light and life (1.4–5, 9, 14). John 6 likewise presents Jesus’s ‘flesh’ as a positive source of life. Jesus says, ‘The bread that I give for the life of the world is my flesh’ (6.51). He goes on to say, ‘The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life’ (6.54). Whether we take these last two statements to be direct references to Jesus’s sacrificial death or to his body and blood as represented by the bread and wine of the LORD’s Supper, Jesus’s flesh is said to give life. It is therefore nearly impossible to suppose that 6.63 asserts that Jesus’s flesh ‘achieves nothing’ in contrast to the Spirit who ‘gives life’ (6.63a). It is true that the word σάρξ occurs six times in 6.51c–58, in each case referring to the flesh of Jesus. This is the chief reason why a number of scholars conclude that σάρξ likewise refers to Jesus’s flesh when it appears again in 6.63.7 But there is no reason to think the evangelist was locked into using σάρξ the same way in 6.63 as he did in 6.51–58. On the contrary, we see John making an even more abrupt shift of reference in 1.13–14, where he moves from σάρξ as a way of referring to human insufficiency (‘not by the will of the flesh’) to σάρξ as a reference to Jesus’s human existence (‘the Word became flesh’). 2. Jesus’s affirmation that ‘the Spirit is the one that gives life’ means the Spirit enables the understanding and belief that leads to right relationship with God. If the statement that the flesh achieves nothing speaks of human inability, the contrasting assertion that the Spirit gives life (τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν, 6.63a) must refer to an act of enablement. But what kind of enablement exactly? The Fourth Gospel contains numerous references to ‘life’ and the giving of life, and the nuance conveyed by that image can vary depending on the context. The verb ζῳοποιέω (‘give life’, ‘make alive’) appears twice in 5.21, once with the Father as its subject and once with the Son. In this verse it refers to the future physical resurrection of the dead,8 but the verses that follow show that it also has a present aspect. One aspect of this life is a relationship with God free of judgement (5.24–25) and wrath (3.36; cf. 3.16–17). Other passages describe life in more positive relational terms: it consists of knowing God and Jesus Christ (17.3) and involves coming to the Father (14.6). Those passages that describe the life Jesus gives in terms of abundance (10.10) 6. The positive value of Jesus having come in the flesh is affirmed in a polemic context in 1 Jn 4.2 and 2 Jn 7. 7. For example, Dunn, ‘John VI’, 330. Some avoid the weight of this argument by speculating that 6.51c–58 is a later interpolation into the text. Porsch, e.g., thinks 6.51–58 is either an interpolation or a side-topic from the main flow of the discourse (Anwalt, 120). But this is hardly necessary. 8. As confirmed by 5.28–29; cf. 6.40, 45 and 11.25.

144

Spirit and Word

and the satisfaction of hunger and thirst (4.10–14; 6.35) perhaps likewise point to a rich relationship in fellowship with God (cf. 1 Jn 1.2–3). The Fourth Gospel also associates eternal life with revelation and illumination. The passages that associate life with light seem to reflect this emphasis (1.4; 8.12); the depiction of Jesus as the bread of life (6.32–51) may partly reflect this emphasis as well.9 Finally, the references to being born of the Spirit in 3.3–8 may suggest that moral transformation forms one aspect of the life Jesus brings. Jn 3.5 in particular seems to allude to prophetic passages like Ezek. 36.25–27, which speak of purification and a new heart inclined to obedience.10 So in the Fourth Gospel, ‘life’ is a broad general category with several interrelated strands. In any given passage, the context will show whether one particular strand or emphasis stands to the fore. The context surrounding Jn 6.63a deals especially with the issues of understanding and believing. 6.61–65 forms Jesus’s response to grumbling disciples who find his words hard to accept. We must therefore ask how Jesus’s statement about the Spirit giving life contributes to this response. A  general affirmation of the Spirit’s transforming activity does not really seem necessary here.11 A more specific reference to a work of the Spirit that enables understanding and belief, by way of contrast, would serve an important purpose. It would shed light on the condition of Jesus’s interlocutors and point towards the solution. In fact, the function of 6.63a in the context of 6.60–62 parallels the function of 6.44 in the context of 6.41–43. In both cases, Jesus must respond to grumbling and doubt, in both cases he explicitly calls attention to his listeners’ offended frame of mind, and in both cases the issue of his heavenly origin lies at the heart of things.12 In 6.44, Jesus responds to the situation by referring to the need for the Father to draw people to himself; in the parallel statement in 6.63 he speaks of the need for the Spirit to give them life. The Spirit’s life-giving, in this context, must carry the nuance of illumining Jesus’s teaching or otherwise enabling his audience to believe in him.13 This reading of 6.63 is additionally confirmed by 6.65, where Jesus 9. See Turner, Spirit, 64. 10. See Section II below. 11. Some interpreters who do see a general reference to the transforming power of the eschatological Spirit in 6.63 find contextual justification in Jesus’s preceding statement about seeing the Son of Man ascending to where he was before (6.62), which is understood as a reference not simply to Jesus’s ascension as proof of his heavenly origin but to an entire complex of saving events: Jesus’s being lifted up on the cross, being raised from death, ascending to heaven, and pouring out the promised Holy Spirit (e.g. Dunn, ‘John VI’, 337; cf. Burge, who stresses the Spirit’s work of bringing believers into life-giving union with Christ [Anointed, 188]). But this packs far too much into the simple reference to Jesus’s ascension in 6.62, where Jesus’s point seems to be that his interlocutors’ failure to recognize his heavenly origin lies at the heart of their present incomprehension. 12. Though in the case of 6.60–62, the specific hard saying that provokes doubt concerns Jesus’s words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood (6.51–58). 13. For example, Porsch, Anwalt, 125; Turner, Spirit, 66. Schnackenburg thinks this emphasis on the Spirit giving understanding ‘depends too much on Pauline theology’, and

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

145

reminds his listeners of his earlier statement in 6.44: ‘Because of this I said to you, No one can come to me unless it is given to him by the Father.’ If 6.63a refers to the Spirit’s work of illumining or otherwise enabling Jesus’s listeners to believe, does this new ability to believe itself constitute the life that the Spirit gives? In view of the many rich nuances expressed by the term ‘life’ in the Fourth Gospel, this is quite possible. On the other hand, several passages in John depict belief as a means to life rather than its equivalent. According to 3.36, for example, life in the sense of freedom from God’s wrath comes as a result of believing. A similar picture appears in 5.24–30 and 12.44–50. If belief is a necessary step towards receiving life, the illumining work that enables such belief would also seem to be part of the process towards receiving life. So we cannot answer this last question with precision. Perhaps both thoughts are included in the affirmation that ‘the Spirit is the one that gives life’. The Spirit gives illumination, which is itself one aspect of life; and this belief-enabling illumination leads to a right relationship with God, which is another aspect of life. 3. When Jesus says, ‘The words that I  have spoken to you are Spirit and are life’, he is affirming that his words bring and/or are accompanied by the Spirit, not that they are equivalent to the Spirit or have a spiritual quality. We now come to 6.63c, the clause that most concerns us as we seek to understand John’s concept of dual testimony. What does this statement tell us about the relationship between Jesus’s words  – his testimony  – and the activity of the Spirit? There are at least four ways in which the affirmation that Jesus’s words ‘are Spirit’ (πνεῦμά ἐστιν) might be understood. First, we might take this as a simple statement of identity or equivalency: Jesus’s words and the Spirit are in some sense the same thing. Few interpreters follow this line of interpretation consistently, perhaps because it is not easy to understand exactly what this would mean.14 Second, 6.63c might be taken to mean that Jesus’s words are characterized by ‘spirit’. In this case πνεῦμα would probably be viewed as a quality (pertaining to things of the Spirit or the sphere of God) rather than a direct reference to the Spirit.15 Third, the most common argues that 6.63 refers to the Spirit giving life in a more general way. But the context points decisively towards an action of the Spirit that enables comprehension of Jesus and his hard sayings. 14. According to de la Potterie, Jesus’s word and the action of the Spirit are equivalent in Jn 6.63, and, in 3.34, to communicate the words of God is the same as to communicate the Spirit. But he also speaks of the Spirit working by and in the word (Vérité, 467). Burge sees a similar fusion of Jesus’s revelatory word and the Spirit conveyed through the living water imagery of Jn 4.10–14 and 7.37–39 (Anointed, 102–3). 15. Bernhard Weiss thinks πνεῦμά ἐστιν is a stronger way of saying πνευματικά; the evangelist did not use this latter word because he wanted to connect 6.63c to 6.63a, where he had used πνεῦμα (Das Johannes-Evangelium [Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,  1893], 276). Köstenberger argues that the absence of the article with πνεῦμα indicates that this term refers to the quality or essential nature of Jesus’s words (John, 219, n. 94). But as von Wahlde points out, a similar variation between the anarthrous and articular use of πνεῦμα also occurs in 3.5–6, 1.33 and 7.39, and πνεῦμα is also anarthrous in 20.22. (John, 2.117).

146

Spirit and Word

interpretation holds that Jesus depicts an instrumental relationship between his words and the Spirit:  his words bring or give the Spirit.16 Finally, with a slight difference in nuance we might understand Jesus’s statement to mean that his words are accompanied by the Spirit. The context offers us three primary clues as we seek to clarify the relationship between Jesus words and the Spirit in Jn 6.63c. The first is provided by 6.63a, which describes an instrumental relationship between the Spirit and life. According to 6.63a, the Spirit is not the equivalent of life but rather an agent or power that gives life. If ‘Spirit’ and ‘life’ are not equivalent terms in 6.63a, neither will they be in 6.63c. And this implies that the entire statement in 6.63c, ‘The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life’, does not express equivalency. If it did, we would have not just two but three equivalent terms: Jesus’s words, the Spirit and life. But since Spirit and life are not equivalent to each other, it is unlikely that either is equivalent to Jesus’s words. It would be odd if one predicate complement (Spirit) stood in a relationship of equivalency to ‘words’ while the other (life) did not. Second, the Fourth Gospel consistently portrays an instrumental relationship between Jesus’s words and life. In 6.68, for instance, Peter highlights the lifegiving function of Jesus’s words (‘You have the words of eternal life’); many other Johannine passages express the same theme.17 This suggests that a similar instrumentality marks the relationship between Jesus’s words and the Spirit in 6.63, because that verse connects ‘the words that I have spoken to you’ to ‘Spirit’ in the same way that it connects them to ‘life’. Third, three of John’s Paraclete sayings (14.25–26; 15.26–27; and 16.12–15) depict the Spirit acting in close connection with Jesus’s words. As we have seen in Chapters 7 and 8, these sayings depict the Spirit as an active agent that stands distinct from Jesus’s teaching and the disciples’ witness to it. Jesus’s words are not specifically said to bring or give the Paraclete, but the Paraclete may nevertheless be said to accompany Jesus’s teaching and the disciples’ witness. These lines of evidence show that Jn 6.63c is best understood as saying that Jesus’s words are instrumental in bringing the Spirit – which would of course include the related idea that the Spirit accompanies Jesus’s words. But we must go on to ask in what sense Jesus’s revelatory word brings the Spirit to those it addresses. Is Jesus simply saying that those who believe his words will receive the promised gift of the eschatological Spirit?18 Or is he speaking instead of something more specific and immediate, an illumining work of the Spirit that will enable his hearers to believe in the first place? If what I argued above is correct, that 6.63a refers specifically to a work of the Spirit that enables understanding and belief, then that thought must be intended in 6.63c as well. The function of this latter clause within the context

16. A few commentators reverse the direction of this instrumentality and suggest that 6.63c expresses the idea that Spirit produces or inspires Jesus’s words; e.g. Carson, John, 301–2; and von Wahlde, John, 2.333. 17. See Jn 5.24–25; 8.5; 14.23. 18. For example, von Wahlde, John, 2.333.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

147

of 6.60–65 thus becomes clear. Jesus is giving additional information about the solution to incomprehension and unbelief. In 6.63a–b he diagnosed the problem (the flesh) and identified the Spirit as the necessary solution. Now he goes on to indicate how and where the Spirit’s help may be found:  though listening to his words.19 Jesus’s comments thus present something of a paradox. On the one hand, his hard words are impossible to grasp; on the other hand, these same words are his listeners’ hope, because they bring the illumining Spirit with them.20 4. Although Jn 3.34 likewise describes a connection between Jesus’s words and the Spirit, that passage makes a different point than 6.63. It would be tempting to see a parallel to Jn 6.63c in the statement of 3.34, ‘For the one God sent speaks the words of God, for he does not give the Spirit by measure.’21 Many scholars take the statement ‘he does not give’ (οὐ . . . δίδωσιν) as a reference to Jesus (‘the one God sent’), so that Jesus is both the one who speaks God’s words and the one who gives the Spirit without measure.22 This would then suggest some kind of correlation between Jesus’s act of teaching and his act of giving people the Spirit – maybe that the two activities are equivalent, maybe that Jesus’s words are the vehicle through which the Spirit is transmitted,23 or maybe simply that Jesus’s claim to speak the words of God is validated by his status as the giver of the Spirit. But it is more likely that ‘he does not give’ refers to God’s act of giving the Spirit without measure to Jesus. The Spirit is thus depicted as the one that inspires Jesus’s words. At least six arguments can be listed in favour of the view that 3.34b refers to God giving Spirit to Jesus (although two of these are neutralized by nicely balancing counterarguments). First, in 3.34a, God is highlighted as the one who sends Jesus and the one whose words Jesus speaks; this makes God the natural antecedent to ‘he does not give’ in 3.34b. But this contention is effectively counterbalanced by the opposing syntactical argument that two verbs (‘speaks’ and ‘does not give’) linked by γάρ (‘for’) are likely to have the same subject, namely Jesus.24 Second, Jn 1.33a affirms that the Spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism. Proponents of the alternative interpretation point out that the Fourth Gospel also portrays Jesus as the giver of the Spirit, however,25 so once again we have two factors that balance each other out.

19. Cf. Porsch, Anwalt, 131. 20. A similar paradoxical structure underlies Jn 3.1–15. See the discussion below. 21. ὅν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μἐτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα. It is particularly tempting to link this text to Jn 6.63c since, as Chevallier points out, the same vocabulary (ῥῆμα, λαλέω) occurs in both passages (Souffle, 447). 22. For example, Porsch, Anwalt, 130. 23. Cf. Porsch, Anwalt, 130. 24. For example, Kammler, who adds that if John had wanted to indicate Jesus as the one who had received the Spirit without measure, he would have said, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου λαμβάνει τὸ πνεῦμα (‘Jesus’, 173). 25. Jn 1.33b; 4.10; 6.27; 7.37–39; 14.27.

148

Spirit and Word

A third argument is stronger, however. Since 3.34b is introduced by γάρ (‘for’) it must somehow explain the statement in 3.34a. If 3.34b refers to Jesus’s reception of the Spirit without measure, this clause makes perfect sense as an explanation of the preceding assertion that Jesus speaks the words of God. In this regard, interpreters often cite the rabbinic tradition about R. Aha, who said, ‘The Holy Spirit who rests on the prophets, rests on them only by measure’ (Lev. Rab. 15.2). To say that the Spirit is given to Jesus without measure would thus imply his uniqueness vis-à-vis the prophets and validate the claim that he speaks God’s words.26 If 3.34b refers to Jesus’s role of giving the Spirit to others, on the other hand, its explanatory function is less immediately obvious.27 Fourth, the surrounding section, Jn 3.31–36, is primarily about establishing Jesus’s credentials. One of these credentials is Jesus’s possession of the Spirit without measure.28 Fifth, 3.35 speaks of God giving the Son ‘all things’ (πάντα δέδωκεν). This corresponds with the affirmation in 3.34b that he gives the Spirit without measure, confirming that, in this latter clause, God is the giver and Jesus the receiver.29 Finally, it is doubtful that John would speak of Jesus giving the Spirit to his disciples ‘without measure’. This would imply that Jesus’s followers possess the Spirit in equal degree with Jesus himself and thus run counter to the Gospel’s emphasis on Jesus’s uniqueness.30 The strongest argument in favour of seeing Jn 3.34b as a reference to Jesus giving the Spirit to his disciples is the observation that verbs describing the Son’s functions are typically in the present tense (ἐστίν, μαρτυρεῖ, λαλεῖ) while those referring to the Father’s actions towards the Son are normally perfect or aorist. In 3.35, for example, where the reference is clearly to the Father’s action, the perfect tense δέδωκεν (‘has given’) is used. But 3.34b uses the present δίδωσιν (gives).31 This is a significant observation, but it does not outweigh the even more substantial arguments indicating that God is the giver of the Spirit in this passage.32 We must

26. See, e.g., Beasley-Murray, John, 53; Köstenberger, John, 139; Michaels, John, 225– 226. Turner cautions that R. Aha lived ca. 290–330, however, so that this tradition may be too late to aid the interpretation of Jn 3.34 (Spirit, 59, n. 8). 27. Kammler argues that 3.34b shows how Jesus’s words can be known as God’s words: they carry the creative power of God and thus show themselves as the word of the eschatological new creation (‘Jesus’, 178). But if this is its intended sense, the γάρ clause has been awkwardly constructed. 28. Chevallier, Souffle, 445–46; cf. Lincoln, John, 162. 29. Chevallier, Souffle, 445; Schnackenburg, John, 1.387. 30. Burge, Anointed, 84. 31. Kammler, ‘Jesus’, 172; Porsch, Pneuma, 104. 32. Another argument sometimes advanced in favour of the view that 3.34 refers to Jesus as the giver of the Spirit is that Jesus himself does not need to receive the Spirit, since he is the one whose origin is from heaven. See, e.g., Kammler, ‘Jesus’, 173; Porsch, Pneuma, 104. But this claim runs afoul of a straightforward reading of Jn 1.32–33.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

149

conclude that Jn 3.34 does not really parallel 6.63c and therefore cannot be used as evidence for its interpretation. 5. Jn 6.63c affirms that two interdependent factors, Jesus’s words and the Spirit, lead to illumination, belief and right relationship with God. If the conclusions I have drawn about Jn 6.63 to this point are correct, it remains simply to clarify the causal relationship between Jesus’s words, the Spirit’s illumining/enabling activity and the experience of life. We know from 6.63a that the Spirit gives life, and from 6.68 and elsewhere in John that Jesus’s words give life. 6.63c supplies the additional insight that Jesus’s words and the Spirit do not carry out their life-giving functions in complete independence. On the one hand, Jesus’s words somehow bring the Spirit’s life-giving action into play. On the other, the Spirit’s life-giving action takes the specific form of enabling understanding and belief in Jesus’s revelatory word. So perhaps the best way to sum up the import of 6.63c is to say that Jesus’s words bring the Spirit, and the word–Spirit combination then enables belief that brings life.

II. Birth: John 3.1–15 Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus raises interesting questions directly relevant to our inquiry into John’s conception of dual testimony. We must try to answer two in particular. The first arises from the overall structure of Jn 3.1–15. How does the insistence on new birth by the Spirit, highlighted in 3.3–8, relate to the ensuing emphasis on believing in Jesus, expressed most strongly in 3.14–15? Each is said to be necessary for salvation.33 But does birth by the Spirit enable a believing response to Jesus’s revelatory words and deeds, result from such belief, equate to it or simply coincide with it? A second question concerns the specific nature of new birth by the Spirit. Is this new birth primarily a matter of belief-enabling illumination or instead a matter of general moral transformation? These two questions are in fact closely interrelated. To define new birth in terms of illumination correlates especially well with the idea that it precedes and enables belief. To envisage Spiritgiven birth as a total transformation of life, on the other hand, seems most natural when the experience of being born anew is understood to follow belief in Jesus. While these questions bring us close to the classic theological debate about the relationship between faith and regeneration, they are not simply generated by that debate. They are forced upon us by the text itself. This is so, first of all, because Jn 3.3–8 lies sandwiched between sections that focus heavily on Jesus’s revelatory ministry: the preceding verses highlight his signs (2.23–3.2), while the following sections emphasize his words (3.11–12), his lifting up on the cross (3.14–15, 16) and his presence on earth as the heavenly Son (3.13, 16) and light of the world (3.19–21). In close association with their focus on Jesus’s revelatory activity, these

33. New birth is necessary if one is to see or enter the kingdom of God (3.3, 5); believing is necessary if one is to have eternal life (3.15).

150

Spirit and Word

surrounding sections also stress the need for people to respond to that revelation with proper understanding (2.24), acceptance (3.11) and belief (3.13ff.). So the very structure of this passage presses us to consider how its arresting central affirmations about Spirit-given birth connect to the encircling material that highlights Jesus’s revelatory and response-demanding presence. Second, Nicodemus’s question in 3.9 obliges us to read 3.10–15 as a further explication of what Jesus has said in 3.3–8 about being born of the Spirit. Nicodemus asks, ‘How can these things be?’34 Whether we take this as a simple expression of unbelief or a genuine request for clarification,35 Nicodemus’s question sets the stage for Jesus’s words in the verses that follow and marks them as commentary on what Jesus has said about new birth by the Spirit in 3.3–8. But the explanatory comments that follow 3.9 focus primarily on the revelation Jesus brings and the need for a believing response. 3.11–12 highlights Jesus’s testimony, 3.13 his heavenly origin and 3.14–15 his lifting up on the cross; 3.16–21 then continues this emphasis on revelation and response. A third factor that presses readers to consider the temporal and causal relationship between new birth and belief in Jesus is that 3.19–21 offers an explanation for the way people respond to Jesus that centres wholly on human responsibility. Some people shun the light because their deeds are evil and they fear exposure; others come into the light because they live by the truth. So we are faced with two questions that we can almost formulate as one: as John describes it in 3.3–8, is being born of the Spirit a matter of revelatory illumination that precedes and enables belief in Jesus or a work of the Spirit that follows believing and effects general moral transformation? The issue is difficult to resolve and, as might be expected, interpreters approach it in different ways. Some express a definite preference for one alternative over the other, clearly assigning temporal and causal priority either to faith or new birth.36 Others are content to leave the question of priority untouched and simply affirm that new birth and belief coincide in some unexplained way. Still others resolve the dilemma by envisaging

34. Πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι; ‘How can these things be’ is the preferred translation of most English versions, although many commentators favour ‘How can these things happen’ (e.g. Carson, John, 198). 35. In favour of the former, Schnackenburg cites the use of πῶς in the LXX (John, 1.374) and Ridderbos points to Jn 6.42; 8.33; and 12.34 (John, 132). If Nicodemus’s question is interpreted as a genuine request for clarification, he might be asking about the conditions under which the basic eschatological promise of the Spirit will be fulfilled (e.g. Burge, Anointed, 169)  or, alternatively, inquiring about the specific issue raised in 3.8, how and when the Spirit mysteriously gives a person new birth. Porsch understands Nicodemus’s question in this latter sense, with the answer coming in the following verses: people are born of the Spirit by their believing acceptance of the witness of the one sent by God (Anwalt, 139); cf. Turner, Spirit, 69. 36. Burge, e.g., sees faith as a prerequisite for rebirth (Anointed, 170). Many interpreters leave their position on this issue surprisingly unclear.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

151

the Spirit’s birth-giving activity as a comprehensive process that includes two steps:  new birth involves both an initial act of the Spirit that enables faith and a post-faith act of moral transformation.37 Despite its slight complexity, this last approach seems fairest to the text. It takes the varied emphases within Jn 3.1–15 seriously and respects the Gospel’s larger picture of the life-giving work of the Spirit.38 1. The fact that the Fourth Gospel depicts ‘life’ as a multi-stranded reality lends preliminary support to the view that John 3 reflects a multi-faceted conception of new birth by the Spirit. In our discussion of Jn 6.63, we saw that the terms ‘life’ and ‘eternal life’ carry several nuances within the Fourth Gospel. ‘Life’ can refer to physical resurrection, freedom from judgement, positive fellowship with God in the present, the satisfaction of spiritual hunger and thirst, the reception of

37. For example, Bennema, Power, 179–80. 38. A few scholars view the new birth depicted in Jn 3.3–8 as first and foremost a description of Jesus’s experience. See Wayne Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), pp.  44–72 (52–57); Buch-Hansen, Pneuma, 277–312. One piece of evidence cited in support of this interpretation are the references to Jesus’s heavenly origin (3.13, 31, etc.), which parallel the description of new birth as birth ‘from above’ (ἂνωθεν). Another comes in 3.8, which could be understood to mean that no one knows where the person born of the Spirit comes from or is going to; this parallels what Jesus says about himself in 8.14. This approach to Jn 3.3–8 also coheres with an approach to the Fourth Gospel that sees Jesus’s baptism as the point of his generation as the Son of God. But it is really an impossible imposition on the passage, which quite clearly applies the statements about new birth to those who need to be redeemed by Jesus, not to Jesus the Redeemer. (1) To be ‘born from above’ (3.3) is not the same thing as coming from above (3.31) or coming out of heaven (3.13). (2) In 3.7 Jesus says, ‘I told you (σοι), you (ὑμᾶς) must be born from above’. (3) The expression ἐὰν μή τις (3.3, 5) occurs two other times in the Gospel, and ἐὰν τις thirteen times. In both other instances of ἐὰν μή τις (12.27; 15.6) and in nine occurrences of ἐὰν τις (6.51; 7.17, 37; 8.51, 52; 10.9; 12.26 [2x]; 14.23), Jesus describes conditions a person other than himself must fulfill in order to receive the salvation that he offers. Only twice does ἐὰν τις refer to a condition that Jesus himself fulfills (9.31, being God-fearing and doing God’s will; 11.9, walking in the day). (4) The expression ‘see the kingdom’ (3.3), as we will see, fits the context of 2.23–3.2. Jesus’s statement may thus describe the necessary solution to a problem facing Nicodemus and others like him. (5) ‘Enter the kingdom’ is traditional language used to describe people receiving the salvation Jesus offers. Neither the Fourth Gospel nor the rest of the NT ever pictures Jesus as standing outside God’s kingdom and needing to enter it. (Lk. 23.42 is no exception, because there the thief refers to Jesus’s coming into his kingdom [i.e., his kingly rule] rather than God’s kingdom, and ἔρχομαι is used instead of the usual εἰσέρχομαι.) (6) Jn 3.14–15, which is part of a passage explicating Jesus’s statements in 3.3–8, depicts people other than Jesus receiving salvation. The same is also true of 3.16–21. (7) The wording of 3.8c, ‘So is everyone (πᾶς) who is born of the Spirit’, shows Jesus is talking about a general principle that applies to many rather than highlighting his own special origin as the Son of Man who offer redemption.

152

Spirit and Word

revelation and moral transformation.39 The context of each passage in which the term ‘life’ appears will determine which of these interrelated aspects stands to the fore. This rich use of life imagery implies that the Spirit’s role as the life-giver (τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν, 6.63) is not limited to a single kind of life-giving action. And that in turn implies that the Spirit’s activity as birth-giver may also include multiple strands of action. If the issues of faith enablement and life-transformation both appear to be relevant to Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus, the new birth Jesus speaks about in this passage may very well include each of these things within its scope. 2. Two contextual factors suggest that the Spirit’s activity of giving new birth at least partly involves a revealing or belief-enabling action. First, the lead-in to Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus strongly foregrounds the issue of inadequate response to Jesus’s words and deeds. In this instance, the focus is on Jesus’ deeds, specifically the signs he has been doing. According to Jn 2.23–3.2 these signs have led many in Jerusalem to believe in Jesus’s name. In particular, they have convinced Nicodemus that Jesus is a ‘teacher come from God’. But Jesus discerns the crowd’s belief to be seriously inadequate (2.24–25). What the text explicitly says about the crowd’s response to Jesus’s signs is by implication also true of Nicodemus’s response. He is confident that he recognizes the truth about Jesus (‘we know’), but Jesus’s negatively formulated reply in 3.3 makes it clear that Nicodemus actually falls drastically short of true understanding. Given this highlighted problem of inadequate response to revelation, it would seem natural for the stated solution (new birth from above) to be some form of illumination. The wording of Jesus’s initial reply to Nicodemus has often been thought to accentuate the idea that new birth has a revelatory effect. Jesus says, ‘Unless a person is born from above, he cannot see (οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν) the kingdom of God.’ It would be easy to interpret this as an assertion that new birth enables a person to perceive the reality of God’s kingdom.40 Such a response would make good sense in view of Nicodemus’s evident lack of understanding. A statement about entering the kingdom (like that in 3.5; οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν), by way of contrast, would seem to introduce a whole new topic. Furthermore, a reference to seeing ‘the kingdom of God’ is a fitting way of expressing the idea of perceiving the true import of Jesus’s signs. In the Synoptic tradition, ‘the kingdom of God’ refers to the eschatological reign of God that is being established through Jesus’s ministry.41 The kingdom has a present as well as a future aspect and Jesus’s miracles signal its presence.42 Given the focus on Jesus’s miraculous signs in the immediately preceding verses, together with the Fourth Gospel’s frequent emphasis on the present aspects of eschatological salvation, the expression ‘see the kingdom of God’ might easily refer to perceiving the presence of God’s reign in Jesus’s signs. Nevertheless, this

39. 40. 41. 42.

See section I.2 above. For example, Lincoln, John, 150; Maloney, John, 92–93. The expression occurs in the Gospel of John only in 3.3 and 5. For example, Lk. 11.20.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

153

interpretation of Jesus’s reference to seeing the kingdom is by no means certain. As many commentators have pointed out, ‘seeing’ something often expresses the idea of participation.43 In 3.36, for instance, to ‘see’ (ὁράω in this case) life is the same thing as to ‘have’ (ἔχω) life.44 So while the overall contextual emphasis on misunderstanding and inadequate belief does lend strong support to the view that the new birth spoken of in Jn 3.3 has a revelatory aspect, it is probably best not to put too much weight on Jesus’s use of the specific verb ‘see’.45 A second strong factor supporting the view that this new birth precedes and enables faith is found in Jn 3.8. Here, Jesus uses the blowing of the wind to illustrate the Spirit’s action in the process of effecting new birth:  ‘The wind (τὸ πνεῦμα) blows where it wills and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so it is everyone who is born of the Spirit (τοῦ πνεύματος).’ Jesus’s point is that the Spirit himself decides where the Spirit will act and no one can know where this will be.46 This implies that new birth is not the predictable result of a purely human act of faith. Rather than follow such faith, then, new birth must precede it. Despite some alternative proposals this is really the only way Jesus’s wind analogy can be understood. First, Jesus uses the wind to illustrate the Spirit’s action, not the actions or lifestyle of the Spirit-born person. Some scholars argue for the latter interpretation because when Jesus draws his analogy he says, ‘So is everyone who has been born of the Spirit’ (οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος), which if taken very literally sounds like Jesus is talking about the actions of the new-born person. But this does not really work. What would be the point of saying that the person born of the Spirit, like the wind, goes where he or she wills? The wind’s provenance and destination are sometimes thought to refer to the motives and goals of the person born of the Spirit or to that person’s origin and destiny.47 But it is difficult to see how a reference to the incomprehensible character of Spirit-born people would contribute to the present dialogue. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus uses a play on words, with πνεῦμα first meaning ‘wind’ and then ‘Spirit’, shows that his actual comparison concerns the wind and the Spirit. Jesus’s formulation must therefore be understood as a shorthand way of saying ‘So it is every time the Spirit gives a person new birth’.

43. For example, Brown, John, 1.130; Bultmann, John, 138. Ulrich Wilckens cites a number of examples in the LXX (Das Evangelium nach Johannes [NTD, 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998], 65). 44. Weiss, Johannes-Evangelium, 145. 45. The widespread Jewish conception of the Holy Spirit as the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ further supports the idea that birth by the Spirit has a revelatory aspect. See Turner, Spirit, 70. Bennema detects allusions to Wis. 9.16 and sees these as pointers to a conception of the Spirit as the agent who gives perception of Jesus’s revelation and the cross (178–79). 46. For example, Brown, John, 1.141; Köstenberger, John, 125. 47. Porsch (Anwalt, 137) and Keener (John, 555) see a reference to origin; Lincoln to origin and destiny (John, 151); Wilckens to the born-again person’s way of life (Johannes, 67–68).

154

Spirit and Word

As Jesus illustrates the Spirit’s birth-giving action, he calls attention to two specific features of the wind: it goes where it wills and its course cannot be tracked or predicted. He thus depicts the Spirit as an agent that determines its own course and does so in a way that lies beyond the reach of human understanding.48 The Spirit displays these qualities, Jesus says, precisely when bringing new birth to everyone who receives it.49 The very nature of the birth metaphor, appearing five times in Jn 3.3–8, may lend an additional small amount of support to the view that new birth precedes and enables believing.50 Birth is an appropriate image for depicting a starting point. Its use may thus imply that that the Spirit originates or initiates the whole process of life in the kingdom, including faith. 3. At the same time, however, there are elements in Jn 3.3–8 that suggest birth by the Spirit also involves general moral transformation and comes as a post-faith gift. The most important factor linking new birth to general ethical transformation is the apparent allusion to Ezek. 36.25–27 in 3.5, where Jesus speaks of being born ‘by water and Spirit’. His later remark to Nicodemus, ‘You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand these things?’ implies that Jesus is saying things that someone familiar with Israel’s Scriptures should recognize. Isa. 44.3 describes an outpouring of water and God’s Spirit and Ezek. 11.19–20 links a ‘new spirit’ with a transformed heart, but it is in Ezek. 36.25–27 that the elements of water, a new and obedient heart, and God’s Spirit all come together.51 If this prophecy lies behind Jesus’s words in Jn 3.5, as many interpreters believe, being born of the Spirit must involve the kind of moral change described in Ezek. 36.25–27 and Jer. 31.31–34.52 A second element that may lend a measure of support to the moral transformation view of new birth is the emphasis on the contrast between the flesh and the Spirit/spirit in 3.6. When Jesus says, ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’, he seems to refer not only to the moment of birth or beginning, but also to an ongoing condition that follows birth. This may suggest that being born by the Spirit involves more than just an initial experience of illumination.

48. Schnackenburg suggests that the wind illustration simply highlights the invisibility of the supernatural process of salvation (John, 1.374). But Jesus mentions more than just the wind’s invisibility. 49. Jn 3.8 thus makes a point very similar to that in 1.13, where the evangelist sets being born of God in direct contrasts to being born as a result of human will or decision (οὺδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ’ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν). 50. Γεννεθῆ ἀνωθεν (3.3), γεννηθῇ ἐξ πνεύματος (3.5), τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (3.6), γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν (3.7) and ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (3.8). 51. The elements of water, a God-given spirit (holy spirit, spirit of truth), purification and a renewed relationship with God also come together in 1QS 4.20–22. See F.-M. Braun, Jean le Théologien (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1966), 88. 52. See, e.g., Carson, John, 195; Schnackenburg, John, 1.370–71.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

155

A third and potentially quite strong factor favouring a post-faith view of new birth relates to reference to being ‘born of water and the Spirit’ (γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος) in 3.5. If ‘born of water’ alludes to either John’s baptism or later Christian baptism this would suggest that a human action somehow precedes or prepares the way for new birth by the Spirit  – after all, the water is mentioned before the Spirit. But the meaning and implications of ‘born of water’ are vigorously debated. There are problems with the view that Jesus refers to baptism here,53 and particularly to the view that this baptism is instrumental to new birth by the Spirit. In 3.8 Jesus emphasizes that the Spirit’s action lies outside of human control. Furthermore, in both 3.6 and 1.13, merely human actions stand in stark contrast to divine birth or begetting. It is thus unlikely that the human act of baptism would be depicted as a co-factor with the Spirit in the process of effecting new birth in 3.5. Perhaps the best interpretation of this verse looks again to the association of water and the Spirit in Ezek. 36.25–27. In that passage the water symbolizes Yahweh’s act of cleansing his people, a purification that should probably itself be seen as a work of the Spirit.54 So despite initial appearances, Jn 3.5 probably does not speak directly to the question of whether new birth precedes or follows belief in Jesus. A final factor is more significant, however. This is John’s wider picture of the relationship between believing in Jesus and receiving the Spirit. In 4.10, Jesus indicates that living water is given to those who ask for it.55 According to 7.37–39, the living water of the Spirit is given to those who come to Jesus and drink. The Paraclete is promised to those who love Jesus and keep his commands (14.15–17) and Jesus breathes the Spirit into those who are disciples (20.22). Summing up our discussion in these last two subsections, a both-and position is best. Even if Jn 3.1–15 places greater emphasis on the Spirit effecting illumination that leads to belief, it implies that the Spirit effects moral transformation as well. As for the question of whether being born of the Spirit precedes or follows a person’s response of faith, it seems necessary to conclude that John portrays both a preliminary action of the Spirit that enables belief and a further action of the Spirit than comes a result of believing. 4. In the latter part of his dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus points to his own revelatory activity as the key factor leading to belief and eternal life; he thus sets his outward witness in the world side by side with the Spirit’s action of giving new birth as a factor opening the door to faith and salvation. In a remarkable way 53. Especially to Christian baptism, which would not fit the narrative setting. 54. For example, Bennema, Power, 170–73; Turner, Spirit, 68. Bennema identifies the construction ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος as a hendiadys, which ‘probably describes two different, although related, activities under one single concept, and not one activity or two identical activities’ (Power, 170). Lincoln thinks that ‘water’ is a direct symbol for the Spirit in Jn 3.5, so that ‘water and Spirit’ are equivalent terms (John, 150). 55. The parallels between 4.14 and 7.38 show that ‘living water’ in 4.10–14 symbolizes the Spirit.

156

Spirit and Word

Jesus shifts from intense emphasis on new birth by the Spirit (3.3–8) to intense emphasis on his own spoken witness and public action (3.11–15), a theme which then continues unabated in the evangelist’s appended comments on Jesus’s words to Nicodemus (3.16–21).56 Jesus calls attention to his revelatory activity first by using the language of witness: ‘We speak what we know and bear witness to what we have heard, and you do not receive our witness’ (3.11). He goes on to describe himself as the Son of Man come down from heaven who speaks of heavenly as well as earthly things (3.12–13). He then draws a striking analogy between the serpent Moses lifted up in the desert and himself lifted up on the cross (3.14–15). Since the serpent was an object the people of Israel were asked to look at in order to live (Num. 21.8–9), Jesus thus implies that his death will have a revelatory aspect: it is when people look at the Son of Man lifted up on the cross that they can believe and live. The evangelist then takes up this same theme in his own comments, first speaking of the Son sent into the world and the need to believe in him to receive life (3.16–18), then describing Jesus as light that has entered the world (3.19–21). What message does this juxtaposition of two quite distinct emphases send? Not that there are two alternative routes to life – after all, new birth and belief in Jesus are both described as essential – nor that these are simply two different ways of describing the same thing. The implied message is rather that the Spirit’s birthgiving action accompanies Jesus’s revelatory activity and enables the response this revelation calls for. That the Spirit is needed to enable a proper response to Jesus is implied by the negative note that appears almost every time Jesus’s revelatory action is mentioned. His signs result in inadequate belief (2.24–25; 3.2), his witness is not received (3.11), the earthly things he says are not believed and the same will be true if he says heavenly things (3.12), and people do not want to come to the light (3.19–20). Jesus’s words and actions aim to bring life and call for belief but rejection seems to be the dominant response. But the juxtaposition of these two themes also implies that people need to listen to Jesus’s words and look at his revelatory acts, particularly his lifting up on the cross, if they wish to experience the birth-giving work of the Spirit. This is implied by the progression of Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus. Jesus alerts Nicodemus to his helpless condition and absolute need for the Spirit’s enabling. He describes the Spirit’s action as a mysterious reality lying beyond Nicodemus’s control. But Jesus does not stop there. When Nicodemus asks him how these things can be, Jesus does not unravel the mystery of the Spirit’s action, but nevertheless points him to something that is wholly accessible to him: Jesus’s words, deeds and presence. The implied message is that, as Nicodemus attends to these audible and visible things, the Spirit may give him illumining and faith-enabling new birth.57 56. 3.16 seems the most likely transition point from John’s portrayal of Jesus’s words to Nicodemus to his own direct comments to his readers. 57. The assertion that the Spirit works where he wills (vs. 8) is not presented as John’s comment to his readers, as if to explain why Nicodemus does not perceive the truth about Jesus, but rather as Jesus’s direct statement to Nicodemus. This implies that Jesus intends it to impact Nicodemus in a way that is consistent with and contributes to his following

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

157

III. Worship: John 4.23–24 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and the truth; for the Father seeks such to worship him. 24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in the Spirit and the truth.

In his conversation with the Samaritan woman, Jesus identifies two factors that enable worship. One is the Holy Spirit, the other the truth which Jesus reveals. He mentions these factors twice. In 4.23 he says that worship ‘in the Spirit and the truth’ (ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ) is the distinguishing mark of true, Godpleasing worshipers. Then in 4.24 he identifies worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ as a necessary condition for worshiping God. Jesus thus underlines the importance of these two elements and the fact that they belong together. Our first task will be to verify that Jesus is indeed talking about the Holy Spirit and the truth which he himself reveals. A second task is to determine how these factors interact to enable worship. Neither step is particularly easy. Although the view that ἐν πνεύματι refers to the Holy Spirit and ἐν ἀληθείᾳ to the truth revealed in or by Jesus is probably the majority position among recent interpreters, strong claims are also advanced in support of alternative interpretations. And when it comes to describing precisely how the factors of πνεῦμα and ἀληθεία interrelate in the process of worship, we face a typical Johannine challenge. John’s writings are filled with unexplained pairings and elements in juxtaposition, and identifying the logical or functional relationship between these juxtaposed items is never easy. Nevertheless, there are details in the immediate context of John 4 as well as larger patterns at the whole-Gospel level that provide clues enabling us to proceed with a fair degree of confidence. 1. Although a reasonable case can be made for the view that worshiping ἐν πνεύματι refers to worshiping inwardly (in one’s spirit) rather than merely through outward forms, this interpretation ultimately proves insufficient.58 A first argument that can be advanced in favour of the inward-worship view is that the Greek word πνεῦμα often does refer to the inner part of a person. In the Fourth Gospel πνεῦμα has this sense in 11.33 and 13.21. A reference to the inner person is thus possible. Second, this lexical possibility gains considerable support from the context in which Jesus makes his comments about worshiping ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. In 4.23–24 Jesus is not just giving general teaching but replying to a specific remark statements about receiving his testimony (vs. 11)  and believing in his coming lifting up (vv. 14–15), both of which contain an implied call to respond. Is Jesus’s statement about the Spirit given as a warning that Nicodemus should not depend on his own abilities? Was it a way of urging him to seek the Spirit? A very similar piece of dialogue occurs in John 6, where Jesus joins a call for his interlocutors to look and believe (vs. 40) with a statement that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them (vs. 44). 58. For example, Bauer, Johannesevangelium, 46; Wijngaards, Spirit, 39. de la Potterie distinguishes the view that worship ἐν πνεύματι refers to incorporeal worship from the view that it refers to worship in the human spirit (both of which he rejects); but these are very close, as he himself acknowledges (Vérité, 674–75).

158

Spirit and Word

made by the Samaritan woman:  ‘Our fathers worshiped on this mountain and you say that Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary to worship’ (4.20). Jesus responds by saying that a time is coming when neither Mount Gerazim nor the Jerusalem temple will be needed as places of worship. Instead, true worshipers will worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. It would certainly make excellent sense to interpret this to mean that that inward worship takes precedence over outward place or form.59 Third, Jesus’s assertion that ‘God is spirit’ (πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, 4.24a), which prefaces his second reference to the need to worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, adds further support to the supposition that he is affirming the importance of an inward approach to the Father. The construction highlights God’s quality as πνεῦμα.60 At first glance, this is most easily understood as a reference to God’s immaterial nature. Since Jesus’s immediately following statement about worshipping ἐν πνεύματι is presented as a logical implication of God’s quality as πνεῦμα,61 we might well suppose him to be saying that God requires an immaterial or inward form of worship.62 Various objections can be raised against this inward-worship interpretation. One is that, in the words of Raymond Brown, ‘An ideal of purely internal worship ill fits the NT scene with its Eucharistic gatherings, hymn singing, baptism in water, etc.’63 Another is that John might easily have found better ways to express the idea of sincere worship.64 But the real problem with the view that Jesus is speaking about worship in one’s inward spirit is that there is a much better alternative. 2. Stronger evidence supports the view that worship ἐν πνεύματι refers to worship offered through the enabling of the Holy Spirit.65 First, although πνεῦμα can occasionally refer to the human spirit in the Fourth Gospel, it refers to the Holy Spirit far more frequently – as many as seventeen times.66 Second and even more significant, when Jesus says that ‘the hour is coming and has now come’ he refers to the new time of eschatological fulfillment that he is now bringing to pass. The gift of the Spirit is a major component of that eschatological fulfillment. We see this in Jn 1.33, where John the Baptist asserts that Jesus, the eschatological figure

59. See, e.g., Morris, John, 270–71. 60. See Wallace, Grammar, 270. 61. The two clauses are linked by καί. 62. See, e.g., Köstenberger, John, 157. Köstenberger goes on to say that this passage ultimately points readers to worship in the Holy Spirit. 63. John, 1.180. 64. Keener suggests ἐν ὅλῃ καρδιᾳ (John, 615). Thettayil cites Shoemaker, who points out that when reference is made to the human spirit in Jn 11.33 and 13.21, the expression is τῷ πνεύματι, not ἐν πνεύματι (Spirit, 134–35). 65. For example, Bennema, Power, 118; Jojko, Worshiping, 315; Thettayil, Spirit, 137. Keener thinks this passage may refer to charismatic worship (Spirit, 154). 66. As Chevallier points out, the lack of the article in ἐν πνεύματι is not significant. Definite nouns often lack the article following a preposition (Souffle, 514).

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

159

he has been proclaiming, ‘is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’. The Spirit is likewise depicted as an eschatological gift in Jn 7.37–39:  the Spirit has been promised in Scripture (7.38) but will be given only after Jesus has been glorified (7.39).67 Third, Jesus has already introduced the theme of the Holy Spirit in the earlier stages of his conversation with the Samaritan woman.68 He offered her ‘living water’, water which was ‘the gift of God’ (4.10) and would become ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ in the person who drank it (4.14). These last words enable us to identify Jesus’s offer of living water as an offer of the Holy Spirit, because Jesus uses very similar language in Jn 7.38 to describe the effects of the Spirit in those who receive him: ‘rivers of living water will flow from his [the person who receives the Spirit] belly’. The expression ‘living water’ (ὕδωρ ζῶν) is the same in 4.10 and 7.38, while the striking image of water flowing from within a person appears in both 4.14 and 7.38. It is true that some scholars interpret the ‘living water’ Jesus offers to the Samaritan woman as something other than the Spirit (or as something only indirectly related to the Spirit). For example, some take ‘living water’ in John 4 as a general allusion to life and salvation, or as a reference to Jesus’s revelatory word,69 or to purity.70 But the parallels with Jesus’s words in 7.38 are too striking to ignore. And even those who interpret the water Jesus offers the Samaritan woman in terms of ‘life’ or ‘Jesus’s word’ will often acknowledge that the gift of the Spirit must also form a significant part of the picture.71 A fourth reason for concluding that Jn 4.23–24 refers to worship by the Holy Spirit is that this passage connects πνεῦμα with ἀλήθεια (truth). Several other passages in the Fourth Gospel associate ἀλήθεια particularly with the Holy Spirit. Jn 14.17, 15.26 and 16.13 present the Holy Spirit/Paraclete as the ‘Spirit of truth’ (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας), and 16.13 adds that the Spirit guides Jesus’s disciples into the truth. A fifth reason is that the idea that a work of the Spirit is needed to enable the kind of worship the Father seeks harmonizes completely with the larger Johannine picture. Elsewhere John shows that the Spirit is necessary if a person is to enter the kingdom of God (3.5) and experience true life (6.63); the ‘flesh’ (natural human capacity) is simply inadequate for these God-related things (3.5–6; 6.63). In the same way, true worship depends on the Holy Spirit.72

67. See Brown, John, 1.172; Chevallier, Souffle, 514. 68. Burge, Anointed, 193. 69. de la Potterie cites evidence in Jewish literature that living water was often an image of wisdom or the law (Vérité, 689). 70. Keener, Spirit, 154. 71. Porsch, e.g., thinks Jesus’s image refers to his revelatory word and the Spirit in their relatedness and unity as two stages in revelation (Pneuma, 143). Bennema sees reference to the Spirit as well as to several things related to the Spirit: life, salvation, purity and Jesus’s revelatory work (Power, 185). 72. Cf. Brown, John, 1.180.

160

Spirit and Word

Finally, the statement that ‘God is πνεῦμα’ in 4.24a may be more than simply an ontological assertion about God’s nature. Many scholars argue that Jesus’s affirmation instead reflects Jewish thought patterns. His primary point may be that God manifests and communicates his presence through his Spirit.73 3. A variation of the view that worship ἐν πνεύματι means worship by the Holy Spirit holds that πνεῦμα does not refer to the Holy Spirit directly, but rather to the new mode of life that results from the Holy Spirit’s work in a person.74 In terms of what it implies about the Spirit’s role in enabling worship, this interpretation is actually very close to that defended in the point above. Many of the arguments listed there would also support this position. The main reason why some scholars favour giving πνεῦμα a somewhat special sense in this passage is that the word seems to carry a similar meaning in Jn 3.6. When Jesus says, ‘That which is born of the Spirit is spirit’ (τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν), the second πνεῦμα is neither the Holy Spirit (the giver of new birth) nor the natural inner person (which results from natural rather than new birth), but instead refers to the new kind of life the Spirit creates.75 Although I think it best to take ἐν πνεύματι in 4.23–24 a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, the difference between that position and the new-mode-of-life view is not crucial to our investigation of the Spirit– word partnership in Johannine thought. Both views ultimately agree in attributing acceptable worship to the Holy Spirit working in connection with the truth about Jesus.76 4. A number of factors show that worship ‘in truth’ means worship with a receptive awareness of the truth revealed in or by Jesus Christ.77 First, ‘truth’ in the sense of true knowledge about God and Jesus Christ is a major theme throughout the Gospel of John. Jesus is presented as the fullest revelation of God’s truth (1.14, 17– 18). He speaks the truth and that truth sets people free (8.32, 40). But more than that, he is himself the truth: when John the Baptist bears witness about Jesus he bears witness to the truth (5.33), and Jesus describes himself as the way, the truth and the life (14.6).78 In the narrative world of the Fourth Gospel, then, to speak of worshiping ἐν ἀληθείᾳ immediately suggests the thought of worshiping in the truth revealed by Jesus.

73. See, e.g., de la Potterie, Vérité, 676; Bernadeta Jojko, Worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth:  An Exegetico-Theological Study of Jn 4:20–26 in the light of the Relationships among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Rome:  Pontifica Università Gregaoriana, 2012), 372; Keener, Spirit, 154. 74. For example, Carson, John, 225. 75. Πνεῦμα may perhaps also have this sense in Jn 6.63c (τὰ ῥήματα ἅ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν). 76. An additional proposal concerning the sense of πνεῦμα in Jn 4.23–24 relates it to the Stoic concept of ‘spirit’. See Buch-Hansen, Spirit, 30. 77. For example, Bennema, Power, 188; Chevallier, Souffle, 514; Jojko, Worshiping, 366. 78. Cf. Burge, Anointed¸ 193.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

161

Second, the Johannine writings most frequently use the expression ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (or its articular form ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ) with the sense ‘in the truth’. The expression without the article has this sense in Jn 19.19; 2 John 4; and 3 John 3; the expression with the article expresses this meaning in Jn 16.13; 17.17; and 3 Jn 4.79 To interpret the two occurrences of ἐν ἀληθείᾳ in Jn 4.23–24 as ‘in the truth’ thus conforms to John’s predominant usage.80 Third, as we have seen when examining several other passages in the Fourth Gospel, John repeatedly connects the Spirit to the truth revealed by Jesus. In chapter 3 he aligns birth by the Spirit with the ability to recognize Jesus’s signs and respond to his teaching. Jn 6.63 connects the Spirit with Jesus’s words in the process of giving life. In 15.26–27, the Spirit’s testimony to Jesus is tied to the disciples’ testimony to Jesus. According to 14.26 and 16.13, one of the Spirit’s specific roles is to guide disciples into the truth, in the sense of enabling them to know and understand the true revelation brought by Jesus. This pattern of Johannine theology almost demands that we read the πνεῦμα-ἀλήθεια pairing in 4.23–24 as a reference to the Spirit’s activity in connection with the truth revealed by Jesus. Fourth, immediately before he speaks about worshiping ‘in the Spirit and the truth’, Jesus raises the issue of worship in accordance with true knowledge. He tells the Samaritan woman that the Samaritans worship what they do not know. The Jews, by way of contrast, worship what they do know, because salvation is from the Jews (4.22). So even though Jesus goes on to say that the Jews’ and Samaritans’ differing views about the physical location of worship no longer matter, he nevertheless affirms the value of revealed knowledge in the process of worship. This sets the stage for his following emphasis on the Spirit and the fuller truth Jesus now reveals. Fifth, another note in the immediate context of Jesus’s dialogue with the Samaritan woman lends still further support to the conclusion that worship ἐν ἀληθείᾳ refers to worship that is impacted by revealed truth. This comes in 4.25–26, where Jesus accents his role as revealer. The woman says that the coming Messiah ‘will tell us all things’. Jesus replies, ‘I who speak to you am he.’ Finally, Jesus’s reference to the eschatological ‘hour’ in 4.23 shows that his own historical role – and the truth displayed therein – provide the key (together with the activity of the Spirit) to the new worship he describes.81

79. Following a preposition ἀληθείᾳ can be definite (‘the truth’) with or without the article. For example, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ in Jn 17.19 stands in parallel with ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ in 17.17. The expression ‘walk/walking in the truth’ occurs three times in 2 and 3 John, twice without the article (2 Jn 4; 3 Jn 3) and once with the article (3 Jn 4). But the sense is the same in all three instances. Since the expression clearly means ‘walking according to the truth’ in 3 Jn 4, the same meaning must pertain in the other two occurrences as well. 80. Ἐν ἀληθείᾳ means ‘truly’ in 1 Jn 3.18. The sense is debatable in Jn 8.44; 2 Jn 1, 3; and 3 Jn 1. 81. Chevallier, Souffle, 514.

162

Spirit and Word

Despite the strength of the case for taking ἐν ἀληθείᾳ as a reference to the truth revealed by Jesus, we must briefly consider two alternative interpretations. Some interpreters have understood ‘worship in truth’ to refer to worship with sincerity, while others have taken the phrase to mean genuine worship.82 The first of these alternatives puts the emphasis on the worshiper’s inward attitude, the second on the worshiper’s fulfillment of whatever conditions God requires for acceptable worship, whether these are understood to relate to inward attitude or something else. Two main arguments can be cited in support of these interpretations. First, in 4.23 Jesus says that it is ‘the true worshipers’ (οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ) who will worship in Spirit and truth. Since ‘true’ (ἀληθινοὶ) undoubtedly does have the sense ‘genuine’ or ‘authentic’ in this instance, we might easily suppose that Jesus’s primary concern throughout the whole passage lies with genuineness in worship (worshiping correctly and acceptably), or perhaps more specifically, with the issue of sincerity (people’s attitude when they come to worship). But while Jesus is certainly concerned with the genuineness of worship, ‘genuine’ is a broad term that does not really define the more specific expression ‘in Spirit and truth’. Yes, worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ will be genuine, but this still does not tell us exactly what worshiping ἐν πνεύματι or worshiping ἐν ἀληθείᾳ involves. For that we will have to look to other evidence – and this points strongly toward worship marked by the Spirit and the truth revealed by Jesus. Second, there are passages in the Johannine writings where the expression ἐν ἀληθείᾳ can be translated ‘truly’ or ‘genuinely’. The clearest example is found in 1 Jn 3.18, where John exhorts his readers to love not just in word but ‘in deed and truth’ (ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ). In this context ἐν ἀληθείᾳ clearly means ‘in reality’ or ‘genuinely’. The expression ‘whom I love ἐν ἀληθείᾳ’, in 2 Jn 1 and 3 Jn 1 is more ambiguous. It may mean ‘whom I genuinely love’ or ‘whom I sincerely love’, but could just as easily mean ‘whom I love in the truth’, as it does in 2 Jn 4 and 3 Jn 3 and 4. The same ambiguity marks the expression ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ in 2 Jn 3. So the overall weight of evidence solidly supports the conclusion that Jn 4.23–24 refers to worship in the truth revealed in or by Jesus.83 5. While Jn 4.23–24 does not explain the functional relationship between the Spirit and the truth in the process of worship, in light of the Fourth Gospel’s overall emphases, it is best to understand the Spirit’s role to be that of making

82. Another, older alternative interpretation of ἐν ἀληθείᾳ in Jn 4.23–24 was to see it as a reference to worship in the reality to which the OT types (such as the temple) pointed. See the discussion in de la Potterie, Vérité, 677. 83. Scholars sometimes discuss whether the preposition ἐν is locative (referring to the place of worship) or instrumental (referring to the means by which worship is offered). The former interpretation would highlight the theme of Jesus as the metaphorical temple that replaces the Jerusalem temple (cf. Jn 2.19–21); see Jojko, Worshiping, 207; Thettayil, Spirit, 161–62. While this question has its importance, it does not seem to make much difference for the specific issue that concerns us here, John’s conception of the Spirit-word relationship.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

163

worshipers receptive and responsive to the truth revealed by Jesus. Because this passage does not define how the Spirit and the truth function in connection with worship, and because a single preposition governs both terms, differing views about their respective roles have emerged. Interpreters display three basic tendencies. Some highlight the combination of two distinct factors in worship but say little about their working relationship.84 Others tend to equate the two factors or merge them into one. For example, Thettayil thinks it best to take Spirit and truth as ‘a single entity personified in Jesus in whom the traffic between heaven and earth is localized’.85 Von Wahlde views ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ as a hendiadys signifying ‘in (the Holy) Spirit, that is, in truth’.86 Finally, some interpreters understand this passage to mean that the Spirit performs a distinctive role that is functionally related to the truth revealed by Jesus. The two most common forms of this third approach are to see the Spirit as the source of the truth87 and to see the Spirit as the one who bears faithbringing internal witness to the truth Jesus reveals outwardly.88 Although the immediate context of Jn 4.23–24 does not provide us with clues to the Spirit–truth relationship in worship, the larger Gospel does. When we place this passage alongside other passages that depict the work of the Spirit vis-à-vis Jesus’s revelatory works or the testimony of his followers, the last mentioned interpretation, that the Spirit enables worship by bearing internal witness to truth revealed by Jesus, stands out as the best explanation of this text’s pairing of Spirit and truth. Neither the approach that simply acknowledges that both factors are necessary nor the approach that blends the two into one adequately reflects the typical Johannine picture. While spelling out logical relationships is not John’s style, his linking of the Spirit and Jesus’s revelatory work in 6.63 and 15.16–17, and his emphasis on the Spirit’s convicting and life-giving work in 3.3–8; 6.63; and 16.8, show that the Gospel does not present the Spirit simply as an independent, disconnected factor standing alongside of Jesus’s words and acts. These same passages also indicate that John distinguishes the Spirit’s role from that of Jesus or his witness-bearing disciples. So it is best to see the Spirit and the truth performing distinctive yet functionally related roles in the activity of worship. As to the nature of those roles, it does not really fit the Johannine picture to describe the Spirit as the source of the witness given by or to Jesus. As we saw in connection with Jn 14.25 and 15.26–27, for example, Jesus’s revelation and the

84. Keener, e.g., sees Jn 4.23–24 affirming the importance of both divine inspiration and grounding in the historical person of Jesus (John, 618). 85. Spirit, 163. 86. John, 2.176. Cf., Brown, who says ‘Spirit and truth’ might almost be equivalent to ‘Spirit of truth’ in Jn 14.17 and 15.26 (John, 1.180). 87. Burge, Anointed, 195; cf. von Wahlde, John, 2.83. 88. For example, de la Potterie, Vérité, 682, 704; Turner, Spirit, 67.

164

Spirit and Word

disciples’ witness to it have their own distinctive source and status. John does speak of the Spirit aiding and enabling both Jesus’s teaching and the disciples’ witness (3.34; 14.25; 16.12–15), but this is not presented as the Spirit’s dominant role. A more deeply ingrained theme is that the Spirit accompanies the outwardly given witness of or about Jesus with a distinctive inward witness that brings insight, conviction, faith and life.89 6. In the context of Jn 4.23–24, ‘worship’ primarily refers to the performance of specifically religious activities, especially those which involve consciously expressing reverence, gratitude, devotion and praise. Contemporary Christians use the term ‘worship’ in several different but partly overlapping senses. One common tendency is to use ‘worship’ to refer to everything believers do in connection with a church service. A second tendency, perhaps more frequent, is to use the term to designate one particular type of activity within the service, that which takes place when the congregation thanks and praises God through songs, prayers or liturgy. ‘Worship’ in this second sense involves conscious address to God and can also be carried out as an individual activity outside of a church setting. But sometimes Christians will emphasize that all of life should be offered to God as worship; this leads to a third sense of the term, one which broadens the concept of worship to include the whole of Christian existence. Which of these senses comes closest to the meaning of ‘worship’ (προσκυνέω) and ‘worshiper’ (προσκυνητής) in Jn 4.23–24? The answer would seem to be a combination of the first two. The basic lexical sense of the verb προσκυνέω, according to BDAG, is ‘to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure’. In the Gospels προσκυνέω is often used to describe a person bowing before Jesus in reverence or grateful praise (e.g. Jn 9.38). Elsewhere in the NT it often designates a specific expression of praise and honour directed towards God, whether in a congregational setting or not. So the term typically refers to a conscious, God-directed act. But προσκυνέω can also be used to designate specific activities connected to a temple. This is how the Samaritan woman uses it when she first introduces it into her conversation with Jesus in Jn 4.20. But when Jesus uses the same word in his response its meaning begins to shift towards its more frequent nuance of consciously expressed praise and reverence, perhaps even encompassing a wider range of obedience and service.90 The shift away from specific temple activity is implied by Jesus’s statement that an hour is coming when neither the Samaritans’ mountain nor Jerusalem will be a necessary locus of worship. His affirmation that God is spirit and his insistence that those who worship must do so by the Holy Spirit and in

89. Some scholars claim that when John links two terms as he does in 4.23–24 the second element gets the greater accent. See, e.g., de la Potterie, Vérité, 704; Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT, 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 261. Thyen cites ‘grace and truth’ in Jn 1.14, 17; ‘the truth and the life’ in Jn 14.6; ‘in deed and truth’ in 1 Jn 3.18; and ‘in truth and love’ in 2 Jn 3. But to draw such a conclusion from these examples seems somewhat subjective. 90. Cf. Jojko, Worshiping, 205.

Jesus’s Words and the Life-Giving Action of the Spirit

165

the truth revealed by Jesus are further indications that the activity he envisages is not limited to the kind of temple activity the Samaritan initially had in mind. If we were to relate the activity Jesus describes to our contemporary definitions of worship, then, we might say that his statements about worshiping in the Spirit and in the truth fairly apply to ‘worship’ in all three of the senses listed above, although with the central focus falling on conscious acts of praise and reverence.

10 T HE S PIRIT AND THE F ROM- THE- B EGINNING M ESSAGE

The theme of dual witness pervades 1 John as it does no other NT writing. From the very start this epistle emphasizes the testimony given by a group of direct eyewitnesses to Jesus (1.1–2). At the same time it repeatedly highlights the revelatory role of the Spirit, culminating in a direct identification of the Spirit as ‘the one who testifies’ (5.6). John directs his readers to one or the other of these testifying sources at several crucial points, sometimes juxtaposing them in striking ways.1 He views them as resources that will keep his readers walking in the truth. We will examine five passages where John places human testimony about Jesus side by side with that of the Spirit. But first it will be good to survey the full string of passages where he grounds the human testimony in the witnesses’ direct and foundational contact with Jesus.

I. The ‘we’ group and the ‘from the beginning’ message: 1 John 1.1–4, 5; 2.7, 24; 3.11; 4.6, 14 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have observed and our hands have touched, about the word of life – 2and the life was made visible, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made visible to us – 3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you . . . 4And we write these things in order that our joy may be complete (1 Jn 1.1–4).

A series of seven passages ties witness and teaching about Jesus to a foundational group who had physically seen and heard him. Four of these passages are marked by the use of ‘we’ in an exclusive sense; three are indicated by reference to what John’s readers have had or heard ‘from the beginning’. 1. Exclusive ‘we’ passages. John’s opening statements in 1.1–4 form the first and most important of the exclusive ‘we’ passages. He uses first person plural forms to 1. I identify the author as John but my exegetical discussion does not depend on a particular view of the epistle’s authorship or relationship to the Fourth Gospel, except to recognize that the two works reflect a close family likeness.

168

Spirit and Word

refer to an exclusive group, one to which he belongs but his readers do not (note the contrast between ‘we’ and ‘you’ in 1.3).2 This ‘we’ group, John says, has seen and heard Jesus Christ (identified here as ‘that which was from the beginning’ and ‘the eternal life which was with the Father and was made visible to us’). Based on their eyewitness observation they now proclaim him. There is wide agreement that these opening verses explicitly emphasize witness deriving from contact with the historical Jesus. It is true that some scholars consider this claim a fiction3 and others see it simply as a later author’s way of identifying himself closely with the original eye-witnesses.4 But even scholars who hold positions such as these will acknowledge that 1.1–4 deliberately highlights the importance of witness rooted in direct historical contact with Jesus.5 John multiplies and repeats verbs for hearing and seeing. The expression ‘we have seen with our eyes’ is particularly forceful, ‘our hands have touched’ more striking still. Furthermore, the verb ἐφανερώθη (‘made visible’, occurring twice in vs. 2) is a term John typically uses to refer to a physically observed manifestation at a particular point in history. He does not use it to designate an inwardly perceived revelation of the sort that might come to believers in any time or place.6 So at the very beginning of his epistle, John forcefully introduces the theme of direct-contact witness. The second exclusive ‘we’ passage (which might be considered an extension of the first) follows immediately in 1.5. Having highlighted the ‘we’ group’s observation-based witness in 1.1–4, John now goes on to mention one specific part of their message: ‘This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and there is no darkness at all in him.’ To show his readers that this affirmation derives from direct contact with Jesus, John repeats two of the key verbs found in 1.1–4 (‘we have heard’, ‘we proclaim’) and specifically says that this message was heard ‘from him’, that is, Jesus.7

2. The first person plural forms in 1.1–4 might alternatively refer to John alone (the ‘editorial’ we), especially in light of ‘we write these things’ in vs. 4. See the discussion in Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 48–50. But either way, this ‘we’ does not include the readers. 3. For example, Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 13–14. 4. For example, Brown, Epistles, 160; John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 130; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 55. 5. Though some deny or downplay this factor. Judith Lieu, e.g., emphasizes the subjective and existential perception of the eternal life revealed through Jesus and denies that 1.1–4 makes any claim to historical observation of the events of his life (‘Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John’, JBL 127 [2008], pp. 36–43). 6. There are seven additional occurrences of φανερόω in 1 John. Three times it clearly refers to the saving and love-revealing historical appearance of Jesus (3.5, 8; 4.9), three times to his future coming (2.28; 3.2 [twice]), and once, in a non-Christological statement, to the manifestation of the true nature of those who have left the fellowship (2.19). Not once does this term refer to a purely subjective present revelation of Christ. 7. Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 138.

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

169

The third instance of the exclusive ‘we’ requires more comment. It comes in 4.6: ‘We are from God; the person who knows God listens to us. The person who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception.’ In the context leading up to this statement, John has warned his readers about false prophets who speak according to the spirit of the antichrist. He has given them a test for distinguishing these false teachers from those who speak according to the Spirit of God: the latter confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4.2–3). But now in 4.6 he offers an additional criterion for identifying who is truly from God. As he does so he drops the second person verbs and pronouns he has been using in 4.1–4 and begins to speak in the first person. ‘We are from God. The one who knows God listens to us.’ Interpreters divide over whether John uses ‘we’ in its exclusive sense here, which would mean he refers specifically to the eyewitness group described in 1.1–4, or whether the ‘we’ functions more inclusively to encompass the whole community of faithful believers. Despite the split scholarly opinion there are strong reasons to affirm that ‘we’ is exclusive.8 First, the switch from second person in 4.1–4 to first person in 4.6 suggests that John wishes to mark a distinction between his readers and the group to which he now refers. That he began his epistle by dramatically spotlighting an exclusive wegroup makes it easy to suppose that he now points back to that special company of witnesses. Second, as has often been pointed out, the test John offers in 4.6 becomes quite empty if the ‘we’ is interpreted as a reference to the community at large. To say ‘whoever agrees with us is right’ constitutes an effective argument only if the ‘us’ refers to a group possessing a special claim to authority. Such a group would have to stand distinct from the wider body of community members, since the latter, after all, are under threat and need all the help they can get to distinguish truth from error.9 Third, the specific issue of debate John addresses in this passage concerns the reality of Jesus’s coming ‘in the flesh’ (4.2). An appeal to the authority of those who had physically heard, seen and touched Jesus (1.1–3) would therefore be especially relevant for settling this particular question. The weightiest counterargument to the view that the ‘we’ in the first part of 4.6 refers to an exclusive group is that, in the latter half of the verse, ‘we’ seems clearly

8. Or perhaps editorial. For the exclusive sense, see Law, Tests, 397; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 263. Favouring a reference to the wider community are, e.g., Brown (Epistles, 499); Strecker (Johannine, 139, n.57); Hansjörg Schmid (BWANT, 159; Gegner im 1.  Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem [Stuttgart:  Kohlhammer,  2002], 144). John Christopher Thomas sees both exclusive and inclusive elements; the statement has an authoritative feel while at the same time the writer identifies with the readers (The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 John, 1 John, 3 John [London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004], 210). 9. Although Brown views the ‘we’ as inclusive he is aware of the difficulty this presents: ‘the criterion had little practical chance of success, and ultimately some of the author’s adherents may have sought out the clearer criterion of hierarchical teachers who claimed apostolic authentication’ (Epistles, 510). Cf. Rensberger, 1 John, 113.

170

Spirit and Word

to be used in a non-exclusive sense: ‘by this we (the whole community) know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error’. Would the author move so quickly from one sense of ‘we’ to another? Such a move may seem surprising, but in fact John does make a similar shift earlier in the epistle. He abruptly switches from an exclusive ‘we proclaim’ in 1.5 to an inclusive ‘if we say’ in 1:6. There, as in 4.6, the shift is sudden, signaled only by the content of the successive statements. Another potential argument against seeing an exclusive ‘we’ in the first part of 4.6 relates to the parallel between 4.4a (‘you are from God’) and 4.6a (‘we are from God’). It could be argued that the latter statement simply reinforces the former, the only difference being that now John includes himself with his readers. But against this, it is equally possible that the shift in pronoun is meant to mark a distinction between the two statements. Consider the differing implications John draws from each affirmation. When addressing the ‘you’ in 4.4, he highlights the empowerment to overcome false prophets that results from his readers’ relationship with God. Such empowerment relates especially to discerning true teaching from false, an ability needed particularly by those who hear teaching – the community at large. But when referring to the ‘we’ in 4.6a, John draws quite a different implication from the assertion that they are from God, namely, that they will be listened to by those who know God. Being listened to is a quality that has relevance for teachers and witnesses rather than simple hearers. This suggests that though the statements in 4.4a and 4.6a are syntactically parallel, they nevertheless speak of distinct groups. As we consider the parallelism between 4.4a and 4.6a it is also important that we not overlook the intervening antithetical parallel in 4.5a: ‘They are from the world’. When we take this additional element into account, we see that 4.6a does more than simply complement the point of 4.4a; it also directly counterbalances the statement in 4.5a. If the ‘they’ in 4.5 refers to a group of teachers (the false prophets), the counterbalancing ‘we’ in 4.6a will likely also refer to a group of teachers (the direct-contact witnesses). In fact, it is very likely that the ‘false prophets’ (4.1) who ‘speak from the world’ and to whom ‘the world listens’ are figures who have assumed the role of leaders and teachers of a secessionist group. It is thus entirely fitting that John should set another group of leaders and teachers (himself and the other eyewitnesses) over against these false prophets; in 4.5–6 he contrasts two sets of teachers rather than simply two communities.10 A fourth and final instance of the exclusive ‘we’ comes in 4.14: ‘We have seen and we testify that the Father has sent the Son as the savior of the world.’ This verse stands in the middle of a section marked by the inclusive use of ‘we’. When 4.13

10. Lieu argues that the alternations between first and second person pronouns in 1 John form part of a rhetorical strategy designed to relocate readers from a position of opposition to one of inclusion, a strategy that does not depend on a ‘we’ group that possesses any particular objective credentials (‘Us or You?’ 805–19). But while linguistic features by themselves can certainly exert a rhetorical effect, the content of 1.1–4—its claims to direct contact with Jesus—is an even more obvious factor to consider when assessing the epistle’s impact on its audience.

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

171

says, ‘By this we know that we remain in him’, the ‘we’ obviously refers to the whole community. Likewise, when 4.16 says, ‘And we have known and believed the love that God has for us’, the whole community is again in view. If John’s statement in 4.14 is exclusive, therefore, this will mean he has shifted his usage momentarily then immediately switched back to an inclusive ‘we’. Despite its abruptness there are good reasons to affirm such a shift. The most important indication that 4.14 refers exclusively to the direct-contact witnesses is the vocabulary of ‘seeing’ (τεθεάμεθα) and ‘testifying’ (μαρτυροῦμεν). In using these words, John picks up the language of 1.1–4, where the same two verbs form part of the package of terms describing the observation and proclamation of the direct-contact witnesses. Neither word appears elsewhere in 1 John to describe an activity of the community at large.11 The emphatic first person plural pronoun (ἡμεῖς) at the beginning of 4.14 offers a second indication that a shift in reference is now occurring. Elsewhere in this epistle John frequently uses an emphatic personal pronoun to highlight a contrast between one party and another (e.g. 2.20, 24; 4.4, 5, 6, 16, 19).12 2. ‘From the beginning’ passages. In 2.7 John refers to a command his readers have had ‘from the beginning’ (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), namely, that they should love one another. ‘From the beginning’ refers to the time the readers first heard the message about Jesus. We do not know whether they first heard about Jesus directly from one of the ‘we’ group eyewitnesses or from another evangelist who based his message on theirs. But either way, the message John’s readers heard would have ultimately derived from those who had been in direct contact with Jesus. To describe the command to love as one the readers have had ‘from the beginning’ thus firmly roots it in the witness of the group John describes in the epistle’s opening sentences. Such a connection is further implied by the pattern established in 1.5 when John first introduced ethically focused teaching into his epistle. There he stressed that he was passing on what he had learned through having been with Jesus. By implication, the same will be true of the additional ethical teaching about love he now gives in 2.7–11.13 11. Strecker says that θεάομαι has ‘a tendency toward a contemplative, spiritual vision in contrast to the realistic seeing that the author claims for himself as an apostolic witness’ in 1.1–2 (Johannine, 158). But a survey of this word in the Johannine writings (it occurs three times in 1 John and six in the Gospel) and the rest of the NT does not support this claim. The statement ‘we have seen’ in 4.14 helps answer a question that may arise concerning the earlier ‘we’ passage in 4.6a. If John had wished to stress the authority of an exclusive group in 4.6 why did he not include a direct reference to their eyewitness qualifications at that point? The answer may lie in his habit of introducing a theme somewhat generally and then returning to it and providing stronger definition in a later passage. See, e.g., his initial reference to a denial that Jesus is the Christ in 2.22; then his expanded reference to acknowledging that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh in 4.2; and finally the still fuller reference to Jesus Christ’s coming by water and blood in 5.6. The statement 4.14 thus fills in and clarifies the point first introduced in 4.6a. 12. See Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 273. 13. The expression ‘which you have had from the beginning’ in 2.7 echoes ‘that which was from the beginning’ in 1.1. Even though the referent changes (since in 1.1 ‘from the

172

Spirit and Word

A second reference to what the readers have ‘heard from the beginning’ occurs in 2.24. The expression occurs twice, in fact: ‘Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.’ Here John highlights Christological rather than ethical aspects of the testimony his readers have received: they have heard that Jesus is the Christ. A third ‘from the beginning’ passage comes in 3.11: ‘For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.’ While the basic thought is similar to that in 2.7, the expression ‘this is the message that you heard’ parallels the wording of 1.5, ‘this is the message that we [the exclusive ‘we’ group] have heard’. The linguistic echo strongly reinforces our earlier conclusion: when John speaks of what his readers have received ‘from the beginning’ he speaks of what they received from the ‘we’ group who had been in direct contact with Jesus. To summarize, John begins his epistle with a strong emphasis on testimony deriving from direct contact with Jesus. He then scatters six additional reminders of this factor throughout the rest of his epistle. This chain of references is designed to reinforce the strength, credibility and authority of his entire message. But we must now examine five passages where John sets an additional element alongside the factor of history-grounded human witness. This is the witness or teaching of the Spirit.14

II. Dual witness and discernment: 1 John 2.18–27 20

And you have an anointing from the Holy One and you all know. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth but because you know it and because every lie is not from the truth . . . 24Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you

beginning’ most likely refers to the beginning of Jesus’s historical ministry), the repetition of this formula in 2.7 brings the earlier passage back into view, hinting at a link between what the readers first received and the history-based message introduced in 1.1–4. In a similar way, the ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς formula in 1 Jn 1.1 recalls the ἐν ἀρχῇ of Jn 1.1 (assuming that 1 John was written after the Gospel). In this case, too, there is a change in reference, and yet the allusion enriches our understanding of what the author seeks to convey. 14. The Spirit is conspicuously absent in 1 Jn 1.1–4. This is significant because it implies that John sees the primary source of his message about Jesus to lie in eyewitness observation rather than in the Spirit’s revelatory action. To be sure, in 4.1–6 John does picture a work of the Spirit that influences those who teach and testify about Jesus, and this appears to include the ‘we’ group depicted in the first half of vs. 6. But this influence is not particularly highlighted, nor is it presented as the source of the ‘we’ group’s authority. In 2.27 the Spirit (the ‘anointing’) is described as teaching, but this activity is directed towards believers in general, enabling them to discern the truth, rather than towards teachers and proclaimers (see the discussion below).

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

173

also will remain in the Son and in the Father . . . 27And you, the anointing which you received from him remains in you and you do not have need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and is true and not a lie, just as it taught you, remain in him.

John’s readers are troubled by a breakaway group who deny Jesus is the Christ. He calls them to adhere to the from-the-beginning teaching rooted in the testimony of the ‘we’ group (2.24). But at the same time he points them to the Spirit’s discernment-giving activity. They have an ‘anointing’ (χρῖσμα), he says, that helps them counter those who try to deceive them. 1. Several considerations indicate that the ‘anointing’ refers to the Holy Spirit.15 First, three other NT passages use the related verb χρίω to refer to anointing with the Spirit. These are Lk. 4.18 (citing Isa. 61.1), Acts 10.38 and 2 Cor. 1.21–22. Second, according to 2.27 the anointing ‘teaches’. This corresponds to the Fourth Gospel’s depiction of the Spirit/Paraclete as one who reveals, testifies and teaches.16 Third, the anointing teaches about ‘all things’.17 This echoes what Jn 14.26 and 16.13 say about the Spirit. Fourth, believers receive this anointing ‘from the Holy One’ (vs. 20; cf. vs. 27, ‘from him’). Regardless of whether ‘the Holy One’ refers to God or Jesus, this is an appropriately Johannine way to describe the reception of the Spirit/Paraclete; according to the Fourth Gospel the Paraclete comes from the Father and is sent by both the Father and Jesus (14.16, 26; 15.26; 16.7). Finally, the most commonly proposed alternative interpretation (that the ‘anointing’ refers to the tradition or teaching the readers have received)18 has little to commend it. Anointing is not an obvious or expected metaphor for teaching. Moreover, if John were speaking of tradition or teaching about Jesus we would expect him to follow his usual pattern and allude to the human witnesses who had brought this tradition to his readers. 2. When John says the anointing ‘teaches’ he probably does not mean that the Spirit imparts fresh information. In 2.20 John says his readers ‘know’ (οἴδατε) because they have an anointing. In 2.27 he says the anointing ‘teaches’ (διδάσκει)

15. This is the majority position. See Brown, Epistles, 345–46; Chevallier, Souffle, 529; Horst Hahn, Tradition und Neuinterpretation im ersten Johannesbrief (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009), 29. 16. Jn 14.19–20, 26; 15.26; 16.13–15. 17. 2.20 may also refer the anointing giving John’s readers knowledge of ‘all things’ (οἴδατε πάντα), but the alternative reading ‘you all know’ (οἴδατε πάντες) is perhaps slightly preferable. 18. For example, Johannes Beutler, Die Johannesbriefe (RNT; Regensburg:  Friedrich Pustet, 2000), 75; Judith Lieu, I, II, & III John: A Commentary (NTL, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 104; John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 205. I. de la Potterie sees the anointing as the word of Christ as it has become an interior reality under the influence of the Spirit (‘Anointing of the Christian by Faith’, in I. de la Potterie and Stanislaus Lyonnet, The Christian Lives by the Spirit [New York: Alba House, 1971], 79–143 [109]).

174

Spirit and Word

them about all things. Since ‘teach’ usually refers to the impartation of knowledge and information, it is understandable that many assume the term carries this typical meaning here as well – not in the sense that the Spirit supplies believers with a body of instructional content totally separate from the message originally proclaimed by the ‘we’ group, but in the sense that the Spirit gives them new ideas about how the from-the-beginning tradition should be understood, developed or reshaped in light of their present circumstances. Several arguments seem to support to this general conception of the Spirit’s teaching. First, ‘teach’ certainly seems to carry the sense of imparting information 2.27a, where John tells his readers, ‘You do not have need that anyone should teach you.’ This is a jab at those who are trying to deceive John’s readers (2.26). These deceivers appear to have taken up the role of information-giving teachers who present distinctive concepts about Jesus. It would thus be natural to picture Spirit’s teaching activity as similar in kind, since it renders other information-givers unnecessary.19 Second, the verb ‘teach’ probably includes the idea of imparting content in Jn 14.26 when the Spirit/Paraclete is said to teach the disciples (cf. Jn 16.12–15).20 Finally, scholars who think the Fourth Gospel explicitly depicts the Spirit as adapting or contextualizing the Jesus tradition for later generations of believers often assume that a similar view of the Spirit’s relation to the tradition underlies 1 John as well.21 Nevertheless, we encounter significant problems if we try to interpret ‘the anointing teaches you’ in this way. First, how would telling John’s readers that the Spirit gives them a new and correct understanding of Jesus provide them with an effective antidote against the deceivers, given that the deceivers also claim to possess a Spirit-given understanding of Jesus?22 Second, in 2.24 John commands his readers to let what they heard from the beginning remain in

19. The absolute formulation in 2.27a has provoked discussion. If taken to mean that the community needs no teachers whatsoever, it stands in obvious tension with the fact that John himself carries out a teaching role. Some resolve the tension by arguing that John views his own activity as something other than ‘teaching’; e.g. witnessing (Brown, Epistles, 375) or reminding (Klauck, Erste, 168). Others think he means his readers have no need for a special kind of ‘teaching’. A version of this second approach, one that takes John to mean teaching that goes beyond what his readers have heard from the beginning, is probably best. But it is also possible that John’s statement is a form of paralipsis, a rhetorical device in which the writer pretends to pass over something he actually mentions. See Witmer’s comments on 1 Thes 4.9 (Instruction, 163). 20. See the discussion in Chapter 8.I, where it was argued that Jn 14.26 does not describe the Spirit as imparting conceptual content that stands apart from that the revelation given in Jesus’ life and work, but rather as explaining and drawing out the implications of Jesus’s historical words and deeds. 21. For example, Klauck, Erste, 166. See Chapter 8 for a critique of the view that the Gospel depicts the Spirit as reshaping the Jesus tradition 22. See 1 Jn 4.1–6.

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

175

them. He then repeats the thought in a conditional statement: ‘If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.’ Against a backdrop of doctrinal controversy John’s implied meaning is, ‘Let this remain in you and nothing else’. This makes it difficult to interpret the statement about the Spirit’s teaching activity in 2.27 as a reference to the Spirit imparting fresh or revised content. Such an interpretation would force us to find a plausible way of relating the fresh teaching given by the Spirit in the present to the original teaching given by the ‘we’ group witnesses in the past. Since few interpreters imagine that John envisaged two distinct sets of teachings about Jesus, one deriving from the Spirit, the other from the original witnesses, many prefer to envisage instead a single body of Christological affirmations emerging from a vaguely defined blending of the ‘we’ group’s witness and the Spirit’s teaching.23 We will consider the viability of this blended-witness solution a little further on. For the moment I simply highlight the inevitable tension that results when Spirit’s teaching activity is defined as a matter of imparting or shaping content. Finally, no other passage in 1 John suggests that the Spirit’s role in relation to the tradition about Jesus involves adding to or modifying its content. In fact, one key passage implicitly speaks against that suggestion. This is 1.1–4, the fountainhead text about the testimony of the ‘we’ group and the tradition they authorize. While 1.1–4 places great weight on physical observation as the source of the message about Jesus, it includes no mention at all of the Spirit. This silence is significant. 3. The teaching activity of the Spirit is best understood as a matter of giving believers discernment or certainty about the tradition they have already received. The Spirit confirms rather than shapes the tradition.24 A number of factors support this conclusion. The first is context. John’s readers are threatened by people who try to deceive them or lead them astray. He tells them the Spirit’s teaching activity will help them meet this threat. An activity that consisted of giving them discernment about the truth-status of what they were being told, or about whom they should believe (4.1), would admirably suit their need. Second, while ‘teach’ does mean impart new information in the first part of 2.27 (‘you do not have need that anyone should teach you’) this does not require that it carry the same sense in the latter part of the verse. John may have chosen to repeat the verb ‘teach’ in the second half of 2.27 for the rhetorical effect of highlighting the contrast between the Spirit’s positive revelatory work and the undesirable activity of the deceivers without implying that the Spirit and the deceivers teach in the same manner: the believers have no need for anyone to ‘teach’ them (in the sense

23. Rensberger expresses this common perspective: rather than set up a fixed dogmatic standard, 1 John ‘presents a distinctively Johannine approach to tradition, a dynamic relationship between tradition and Spirit. The tradition is valid only because it is the testimony of the Spirit of truth’ (I John, 44). 24. Schnackenberg speaks of ‘illumination’ that gives subjective certainty (Johannine, 149–50), Witmer describes the Spirit’s teaching as a matter of giving discernment or a sensus fidelium (Instruction, 106).

176

Spirit and Word

of imparting new and different Christological content); instead, the anointing ‘teaches’ them (in the sense of giving them discernment about what they have already received). Third, it is likely that 1 Jn 2.20 and 27 allude to and reflect the thought of Jeremiah 31.33–34.25 If we accept ‘you all know’ (οἴδατε πάντες) as the best reading in 2.20, this statement corresponds to ‘they shall all know me’ in Jeremiah 31.34 (LXX, πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με). Similarly, John’s statement that his readers need no one to teach them (2.27) corresponds to Jeremiah’s promise that ‘no longer shall each one teach his neighbor’. But the Jeremiah passage does not refer to God giving new laws so much as it does to his new act of writing an already-given law on his peoples’ hearts. The focus is on a new level of reception more than on the delivery of new content. Fourth, in Jn 6.44–45, being ‘taught’ (διδακτοί) by God is linked to being ‘drawn’ by God.26 In other words, the verb ‘teach’ seems to be used there to describe an inward influence rather than the giving of information. Finally, with respect to the comparison that is often drawn between what is said about the Spirit’s teaching activity in Jn 14.26 and 1 Jn 2.27, we must note the differences as well as the parallels. One difference is that in 1 Jn 2.27 the ‘you’ who receive the Spirit’s teaching includes the whole community; in Jn 14.26 ‘you’ is best understood as a reference to the original disciples (since the Spirit will also remind them of the things Jesus has said to them).27 Raymond Brown points out another difference. Jn 14.26 says the Holy Spirit ‘will teach you all things’ while 1 Jn 2.27 says the Spirit ‘teaches you about all things’. The variation is small, but Brown suggests it may reflect a shift in meaning: in the latter passage, the Spirit does not impart the Jesus tradition so much as explicate it.28 Brown is right that the wording ‘about all things’ is significant, but it would be better to say the modified wording signals the difference between teaching in the sense of shaping or explicating the tradition (Jn 14.26) and teaching in the sense of giving discernment about the truth-status of the tradition and over against that of its competitors (1 Jn 2.27). 4. John portrays the Spirit’s teaching as an internal influence. According to 2.27, the anointing remains ‘in’ the believers. This seems to imply that the Spirit’s teaching takes place internally. But it might be asked whether the Greek phrase ἐν ὑμῖν would better be translated ‘among you’.29 This alternative rendering is entirely possible from the standpoint of grammar. If the plural ὑμῖν is intended distributively the idea will be ‘in each of you individually’. If ὑμῖν functions collectively the sense will be ‘among you all as a body’. Taking ἐν ὑμῖν in this latter sense we might picture the Spirit teaching the community through an outwardly given message brought

25. See Rensberger, 1 John, 83; Witmer, Instruction, 133. 26. See Witmer, Instruction, 106. 27. See the discussion in Chapter 8.I. 28. Brown, Epistles, 650. 29. Robert Yarbrough argues that the phrase may have this sense here (1–3 John [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 166).

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

177

by inspired prophets. Alternatively, we might think of the Spirit instructing the corporate body in a more diffuse manner via a gradually building consensus, perhaps under the guidance of community leaders. Either way, the concept of the Spirit exercising an influence internal to individual members of the community would be diminished. Two factors support the usual translation ‘in you’, however, and with it the picture of the indwelling Spirit exerting direct internal influence on believers. First, at many points in the epistle, John moves back and forth between plural personal pronouns, such as ‘us’, and plural forms of ‘you’ and terms with a singular reference, such as ‘whoever’ or ‘everyone’. By doing so he shows that he often has individual responses and relationships with God in view even when speaking of groups. We see such shifts of reference within 1.6–2.6, for example. The change from ‘the truth is not in us’ (1.8) to ‘the truth is not in this one’ (2.4) is especially significant. Or, in a passage that speaks of God’s indwelling, there is a change from ‘in him’ in 3.14a to ‘in us’ in 3.24b. A second factor is the allusion to Jeremiah 31 discussed above. In 31.33 the Lord promises, ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts (LXX, ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν)’. In 31.34 he promises, ‘They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.’ These promises in Jeremiah are directed to every member of the community considered individually and they speak of an internal influence. 5. Although he does not explain how they interrelate, John nevertheless directs readers to two distinct resources for meeting the challenge of false teachers. 1 Jn 2.18– 27 is very much a dual-testimony passage. Despite strong statements about the Spirit’s sufficiency in 2.20–21 (where John says the anointed believers all know the truth) and 2.27 (where he says the Spirit’s teaching means they have no need for other teachers), in 2.22–24 John highlights an additional resource believers must use in their struggle against those who deny the truth about Jesus: the fromthe-beginning Christological tradition.30 The sandwich structure of the passage reinforces the importance of each line of witness/teaching.31 Furthermore, despite their evident (though never directly explained) interplay, these two resources remain distinct; the boundary between them is never eliminated. It is true that many scholars speak as if the boundary were eliminated – as if John’s references to the teaching of the Spirit and the witness of the original disciples were, more or less, two ways of describing the same reality.32 But such a 30. Schmid points out the striking parallel between 2.24ab, ὑμεῖς ὅ ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω and 2.27ab, καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα ὅ ἐλάβετε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, μένει ἐν ὑμῖν (Gegner, 87). 31. The idea John makes a sharp distinction between ‘witness’ (an activity of the disciples) and ‘teaching’ (an action of the Spirit) is misguided, as 2 Jn 8–10 shows. 32. For example, when Brown suggests that the author of 1 John identifies the testimony of the Spirit with that of the Beloved Disciple (Epistles, 580) he seems to imply that these are two simply different ways of describing one witness. Another way of eliminating the boundaries is to attribute the tradition to the Spirit’s inspiration; see Brown, Epistles, 369; Rensberger, 1 John,’ 84. Von Wahlde ties this view to a particular stage in the thinking of the Johannine community (John, 1.352).

178

Spirit and Word

position depends too much on a certain interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. It can hardly be supported by anything said in 1 John. As we have seen, 1 Jn 1.1–4 grounds the testimony of the ‘we’ group in what they saw and heard of Jesus, making no mention of the Spirit. Subsequent passages anchor references to the tradition in this group’s observation-based authority. There is undoubtedly an element of paradox in 1 Jn 2.18–27 – the anointing is both sufficient and insufficient. But the tension lies at the level of John’s rhetoric more than that of his thinking. His actual thought is coherent: the received tradition functions as a clear, firm criterion for evaluating Christological claims while the Spirit gives discernment and certainty about that criterion.

III. Dual witness and discernment revisited: 1 John 4.1–6 1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit but test the spirits whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God:  every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God . . . 4 You are from God, children, and have overcome them, because he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world . . . 6 We are from God. The person who knows God listens to us; the person who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception.

Once again, John addresses the issue of false teachers. He warns his readers to distinguish the Spirit of God from the spirits that inspire false prophets, and acceptable confessions about Jesus from those that are unacceptable. We saw that a statement about the from-the-beginning message lays sandwiched between two references to the Spirit in 2.18–27; the sandwiching in 4.1–6 is more complex. An initial reference to the Spirit of God (4.2a) is followed by a tradition-based Christological affirmation that serves as a criterion for identifying the Spirit (4.2b). Then comes a second reference to the Spirit (‘he who is in you’, 4.4), now described as one who plays an active role in support of John’s readers as they battle deceivers. The ‘we’ group, the originators and authorizers of the community’s tradition, is then brought into the picture (4.6ab), followed by a final reference to the Spirit (‘the Spirit of truth’, 4.6d). In 4.6 as in 4.2 the factor of authorized human teaching and testimony stands as a criterion for identifying the revelatory work of the Spirit. In 4.2 John points his readers to Christological tradition; in 4.6 he directs them to the original witnesses who first brought them the message about Jesus and now continue (through his letter) to teach about it. So 4.1–6 goes over much the same ground as 2.18–27, but now with a greater emphasis on how the teaching emanating from the ‘we’ group serves as a criterion for identifying the revelatory work of the Spirit. The Spirit’s active role of helping

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

179

believers in their struggle against deceivers is still present but slips into a less emphatic position. 1. John presents two closely related criteria for distinguishing the Spirit’s revelatory work from false prophecy: the received Christological tradition and the testimony of the ‘we’ group. Providing readers with tests for distinguishing true prophets from false and the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error is high on John’s agenda in 4.1–6. When he says ‘by this you know’ (4.2) and ‘by this we know’ (4.6), he refers to knowing the difference between Spirit-given teaching and false teaching.33 In both instances ‘by this’ refers to a criterion for making that distinction. In 4.2 the criterion is confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh, an affirmation that must be seen as part of the from-the-beginning tradition.34 In 4.6 it is listening to the ‘we’ group. These two tests in effect merge into one, since the received tradition derives from the testimony of the ‘we’ group and what the ‘we’ group says about Christ corresponds to the received tradition. 2. ‘He who is in you’ (4.4) refers to the Holy Spirit. A  good number of commentators think ‘he who is in you’ (ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν) refers to God rather than the Spirit.35 One reason for this is that John uses the masculine article; if πνεῦμα were the antecedent, we would expect the neuter. Another is that 1 John frequently speaks of God indwelling believers (3.24; 4.12–13, 15–16). Nevertheless, even stronger arguments favour a reference to the Spirit. First, as Brown points out, this section begins by contrasting the Spirit of God and the spirit of the antichrist (4.2–3) and ends by contrasting the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error (4.6). It would thus be very fitting to find a similar contrast involving the Spirit in 4.4 (‘the one who is in you’ in contrast to ‘the one who is in the world’).36 Second,

33. The references to Spirit-given teaching in 4.2 and 4.6 imply that the Spirit has a revelatory role that enables true prophecy or teaching about Jesus. False prophets lack this enablement; instead of being guided and empowered by the Spirit of truth they are influenced by the spirit of error. 4.2 and 4.6 thus focus on a work of the Spirit in leaders and prophets rather than in the community at large. Such a role differs from the discernment-giving function implied in 4.4 and (according to the exegesis defended in Section II.3 above) in 2.20 and 27. But we should note that not even in 4.2 and 4.6 is the Spirit described as a source of fresh Christological teaching. John says ‘every spirit that confesses (ὁμολογεῖ) Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God’. This is not the same thing as revealing, reshaping, guiding or imparting new information. Ὁμολογέω carries senses like ‘share a common view’, ‘concede something is factual or true’ and ‘acknowledge something’ (BDAG), i.e. this word denotes a response to an idea more than the origination, development or proclamation of an idea. 34. Note how the Christological affirmation in 2.22–23 is tied to the reference to ‘what you heard from the beginning’ in 2.24. 35. For example, Lieu, I, II, & III John, 171; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 208, n.16; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 255; Strecker, Johannine, 137. 36. See Brown, Epistles, 498.

180

Spirit and Word

Jn 14.16–17 provides a strong conceptual parallel to 1 Jn 4.4. It pictures Jesus’s disciples indwelt by the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, in specific contrast to the world which cannot receive the Spirit.37 Third, the overall structure of 4.1–6 closely parallels that of 2.18–27. Both passages begin with a warning about the presence of multiple antichrists/false prophets who deny truth about Christ and both combine references to the Spirit with a statement of Christological truth. It would thus be entirely fitting to find a reference to the Spirit’s indwelling in 4.4 to match the similar reference in 2.27, and a depiction of the Spirit helping believers meet the challenge of false teaching to match the similar depictions in 2.20 and 27. As for John’s use of the masculine article, 5.7–8 provides another example of a grammatically masculine form used in reference to τὸ πνεῦμα (in combination with τὸ ὕδωρ and τὸ αἷμα, which are also neuter nouns). The attribution of the personal act of witness-bearing to the Spirit, water and blood seems to have influenced John’s grammar in 5.7–8. Similar contextual factors may well be in play in 4.4, since this verse likewise highlights a personal act, that of enabling believers to combat false teaching. We should also note that ‘he who is in you’ is set in direct contrast to ‘he who is in the world’. This latter expression refers to the antichrist (4.3),38 a personal agent requiring a masculine personal article. The author may have chosen to use the personal article in the first expression (ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν) to parallel that in the second (ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ) and so provide a neater contrast. So there is nothing surprising about John’s choice of the masculine article. Finally, with respect to the argument based on references elsewhere in 1 John to God indwelling believers, we should observe two differences between 4.4 and these other indwelling passages. First, 3.24; 4.12, 13, 15 and 16 all highlight a mutual indwelling of God in believers and believers in God, whereas 4.4 does not. Second, these other passages focus on the simple fact of indwelling as a mark of relationship whereas 4.4 calls attention to a specific quality (greatness) and role (helping believers overcome false prophets) of the indwelling one. 3. 1 Jn 4.4 implies that the Spirit enables believers to overcome deception by discerning Christological truth. John does not describe the Spirit’s activity in 4.4. He does identify the Spirit as a decisive factor enabling his readers to withstand the influence of false prophets, however. Since overcoming these deceiving prophets requires the readers to distinguish between what is false and what is true, particularly with respect to what a given prophet or teacher says about Jesus, it is fair to assume that John conceives the Spirit’s contribution to be a matter enabling believers to discern Christological truth. This parallels the Spirit’s teaching/ knowledge-giving role observed earlier in 2.18–27. 4. The discernment-giving work of the Spirit seems to be depicted as a matter of direct internal influence. John’s brief reference to ‘he who is in you’ does not indicate how he understands the Spirit to impart discernment to his readers. It

37. See Brown (Epistles, 498), who also cites Zech 4.6 and 1QS 3.17–25 as supporting background. 38. Or possibly the devil (3.10; 5.19), also a masculine agent.

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

181

would thus be possible to interpret ‘in you’ (ἐν ὑμῖν) in a corporate sense (in or among your community) and envisage discernment coming to the community through the agency of Spirit-led prophets or teachers. Alternatively we could take ‘in you’ in a distributive sense (in each of you) and picture the Spirit giving discernment to individual believers through a process of direct internal influence. A factor that might favour the corporate interpretation is that ‘he who is in you’ parallels ‘he who is in the world’ (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ). The one who is ‘in the world’, according to 4.3, is the antichrist. If we ask how the antichrist exercises influence ‘in the world’, 4.1 provides a clear answer: through the false prophets who have gone out ‘into the world’ (εἰς τὸν κόσμον). If the antichrist thus operates ‘in the world’ through the agency of human intermediaries we might conclude that the Spirit of God works in the believing community in the same way. Nevertheless, three factors make the second interpretation, that which understands the Spirit to act in individual community members directly and internally, a better choice. First, as argued earlier, the formulation ἐν ὑμῖν in 2.27 should be understood distributively rather than collectively; it points to the Spirit’s indwelling of individual believers and not simply to his presence within the corporate body. Second, in the absence of explicit reference to Spirit-led teachers/prophets we should not assume the simple expression ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν includes the thought of such intermediary figures. To introduce them here would add too much to the text. Third, it is difficult to think that John would point his readers to the presence of Spirit-led prophets or teachers as an effective resource in their struggle to distinguish true prophecy from false. To do so would still leave them with their original dilemma, that of discerning teachers who are led by the Spirit of God from those influenced by the spirit of the antichrist. We must therefore conclude that John thinks of the Spirit as conveying a form of internal testimony directly to the believers.39 5. Here as in 2.18–27 John highlights the revelatory work of the Spirit and the Christological teaching of the original eyewitnesses as two distinct resources for meeting false teachers, although now he reverses the balance of emphasis between them. Like 2.18–27, 1 Jn 4.1–6 is a dual-testimony passage. But whereas 2.18–27 begins and ends with an emphasis on the Spirit’s positive revelatory aid and inserts a call to adhere to the received tradition in between, John reverses the pattern in 4.1–6. Now he begins and ends by accenting the tradition delivered by the original witnesses and places a brief reminder of the Spirit’s role as a victorygiving resource (vs. 4) in the middle. So here John puts greater emphasis on the received and authorized tradition as a criterion for discerning what is true from what is false. As in 2.18–27, the Spirit’s influence and the teaching received from the original witnesses function as distinct sources of help. Their essential independence is in fact reinforced in 4.1–6, at least by implication. The tradition and witness of the

39. Cf. Schnackenberg, Johannine, 149–50 (though Schnackenberg does not use the terms ‘witness’ or ‘testimony’ to describe this internal revelatory work).

182

Spirit and Word

‘we’ group can function as a criterion for evaluating claims concerning the Spirit’s inspiration precisely because it possesses its own independent authority.

IV. Dual witness and assurance: 1 John 3.23–24; 4.13–15 3.23

And this is his command, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us command. 24 And the one who keeps his commands remains in him, and he in him. And by this we know that he remains in us, by the Spirit that gave us. 4.13 By this we know that we remain in him and he in us, because he gave us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as savior of the world. 15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God.

1 Jn 3.24 refers to a revelatory action of the Spirit directed towards assuring believers of their relationship to God:  ‘by this we know that he remains in us, by the Spirit that he gave us’. 1 Jn 4.15 repeats this thought in slightly different words: ‘By this we know that we remain in him . . . because he gave us of his Spirit.’ These parallel passages reinforce the pattern of dual witness observed in 2.18–27 and 4.1–6, but take it in a new direction. Now the witness relates to something more personal:  not general Christological truth but the believer’s own standing with God. Three observations are important. 1. These passages refer to a revelatory action on the part of the Spirit. I make this point because John’s condensed form of expression might give rise to the thought that the believers’ knowledge derives, not from a specific witnessing action carried out by the Spirit, but simply from the conviction of having received God’s gift of the Spirit. Raymond Brown, for example, argues that the wording of 4.13b (‘because he gave us of his Spirit’) implies that knowledge of being indwelt by God results simply from the proclaimed fact that God has given the believers his Spirit.40 But such an interpretation takes all the force out of John’s double reference to a factor he expects to function as an effective source of knowledge for uncertain believers (‘By this we know’). Furthermore, the slightly different wording of the parallel statement in 3.24 (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος οὗ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν) shows that it is precisely the God-given Spirit that assures believers, not just the bare fact or experience that God has given them the Spirit. Another common interpretation understands John to refer to the Spirit’s role in producing discernible effects in the believers, especially correct belief in Jesus Christ and love for one another. It is the Spirit as known through these effects

40. ‘Neither interior awareness of the Spirit nor observable presence may be intended by the author in this verse – he knows God has given of the Spirit because the Johannine Jesus said so!’ (Epistles, 557, n.42).

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

183

that proves John’s readers to be in relationship with God.41 But this does not do justice to what John says. Having already mentioned the necessity of keeping the commands to believe in Jesus and love one another (3:23–24a), John moves on to highlight the Spirit as a factor that enables his readers to know that God remains in them (3:24b). He then highlights this factor a second time in 4:13. This implies that he sees the Spirit as a distinct additional evidence-giving factor functioning alongside the factors of love and correct belief.42 And the Spirit’s evidence-giving function is best understood as a matter of direct revelatory action. Jn 14.16–18 provides the necessary conceptual backdrop for the idea that the Spirit directly assures believers about their relationship with God. In that passage Jesus promises his followers that God will give them the Spirit (the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth) who will be with them (μεθ’ ὑμῶν, παρ’ ὑμῶν), be known by them and convey the presence of Christ to them in such a way that they will not be left orphans. This picture of the Spirit as a personal, communing agent sets the stage for the kind of relationship-focused revelatory activity John seems to refer to in 1 Jn 3.24 and 4.13. It is true that John expresses himself very concisely in these verses. He relies on the brief prepositional phrase ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος in 3.24, and a ὅτι clause referring to God’s giving of the Spirit in 4.13. In neither verse does he add a clause specifying that the Spirit carries out a knowledge-giving activity. But this should not surprise us. John refers to the Spirit’s knowledge-giving activity in a similarly condensed form in 2.20, where he simply connects the fact that his readers know with the fact that they have an anointing; it is only in 2.27 that he goes on to clarify that the anointing (the Spirit) carries out a specific teaching action. 2. 1 Jn 3.23–24 and 4.13–15 are dual witness passages. The believers’ assurance does not depend on the Spirit’s witness alone. As John depicts it, the Spirit’s assuring work functions side by side with additional indicators that the believers remain in God and he in them. These additional factors are belief in the name of Jesus Christ (3.23), confession that Jesus is God’s Son (4.15–16b), and obedience to the command to love one another (3.23–24a; 4.12). Each of these additional assurance-giving indicators involves positive response to the testimony of the original eyewitnesses. This is most explicit in 4.14–15, where confidence in one’s relationship to God depends on a belief (namely, that Jesus is God’s Son sent to be the world’s saviour) that rests squarely on the testimony of the exclusive ‘we’ group who, according to 4.14, have seen and bear testimony to Jesus.43 So once again in 41. For example, Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 171, and von Wahlde, John, 3.137. As von Wahlde puts it, ‘The correct confession would indicate the presence of the correct Spirit that then could in turn be said to indicate that God was abiding in the believers (and the believers in God).’ 42. With respect to the view that the Spirit shows the believers they belong to God by inspiring their love for one another, the Spirit’s work of ethical transformation is a Pauline more than a Johannine theme. The Johannine writings focus much more on the Spirit’s revelatory activities, such as testifying, teaching and leading into truth. 43. The command to love one another likewise goes back to the original eyewitnesses (2.7–10; 3.11), although this connection is not emphasized in 3.23–24 and 4.13–15.

184

Spirit and Word

1 John we find an interplay between two knowledge-giving factors:  the Spirit’s action on the one hand and witness and teaching deriving from those who had first been with Jesus on the other. 3. These passages depict the Spirit’s revelatory action as a matter of direct internal influence. Neither 3.24 nor 4.13 explains precisely how the Spirit shows believers that God lives in them. John does offer significant hints, however. First, both passages depict the Spirit as ‘given’ to the believers. Here as in several other NT passages, this way of speaking coheres well with the thought that the Spirit is sent to indwell believers. This in turn suggests that the Spirit carries out his assuring work within believers – a concept we have already seen to be implied in 2.27 and 4.4 in connection with the Spirit’s work of giving discernment. Second, according to 4.13 (and implied in 3.24), the Spirit assures believers not only that they live in God but also that God dwells in them. It is fitting that the witness to God’s internal presence should itself be given internally. Third, an issue relating to the readers’ internal condition lies in the background of these passages. The verses leading up to 3.23–24 depict believers who are inwardly troubled. They need to persuade their heart (πείσομεν τὴν καρδὶαν ἡμῶν, 3.19) because their heart sometimes condemns them (ἐαν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία, 3.20a). The whole point of John’s statements about believers knowing they remain in God, then, is to lead believers to inward assurance. Of course the corporate confidence of the threatened community is very much in view, but this does not diminish John’s concern that individual believers also have confidence about their relationship with God.

V. Water, blood, and Spirit: 1 John 5.6–8 6

This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ. Not by water only but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the one who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that bear witness, 8the Spirit and the water and the blood. And the three are at one.

These verses directly address the theme of witness, as does the larger passage in which they are set (5.6–12). At first glance they seem to promote a concept of triple witness: there are three that bear witness, Spirit, water and blood. But closer inspection shows this passage to in fact be governed by a concept of dual witness. As such it stands as a fitting climax to the pattern we have seen throughout 1 John. 1. The terms ‘water’ and ‘blood’ refer to key events in Jesus’s life or to representations of such events. I  state this point in broad terms to avoid getting embroiled in debates that do not greatly affect the argument I wish to make about dual witness. According to what is probably the most common interpretation, the water in 1 Jn 5.6–8 refers to the event of Jesus’s baptism and the blood to his death on the cross.44 An alternative view holds that the water 44. In my view this is the most likely interpretation. See, e.g., Maarten Menken, Studies

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

185

and blood function together to refer to the single event of Jesus’s death.45 Yet another line of interpretation detects a shift in reference from Jesus’s historical life and death in 5.6a to sacramental representations of his death in 5.6b.46 But all of these views link the water and the blood to events in Jesus’s earthly life, especially his crucifixion. Even the sacramental interpretation maintains this link, in that the baptism and Lord’s Supper observance of the post-Easter church are specifically designed to symbolize and point believers back to what Jesus did once for all in history. 2. According to 5.6, the Spirit’s witness focuses specifically on these events in Jesus’s life. In 5.6 John sets the Spirit apart from the water and the blood. Water and blood are the mode through which Jesus came, or defining features of his historical coming (note the aorist participle, ὁ ἐλθών). John is emphatic about Jesus having come by water and blood; he affirms it twice, in fact. Only after reiterating this claim does he move on to speak of the Spirit. In contrast to the water and the blood, the Spirit is not described as a mode or feature of Jesus coming but rather as one who bears witness (τὸ μαρτυοῦν, a present participle).47 This can only mean that the Spirit bears present witness to the past fact that Jesus came by water and blood.48 It appears John’s readers need this witnessing action of the Spirit. The reality of Jesus having come by both water and blood has come under challenge. That this is so is shown by John’s particular insistence that Jesus came ‘not by water only, but by water and by blood’. Moreover, John makes a point of reminding his readers that ‘the Spirit is the truth’. So in 5.6 we are presented with a fundamental

in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays (CBET, 77; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 398; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 304–5. 45. This interpretation looks to Jn 19.34–35, where the evangelist makes a special point of offering true testimony to the fact that blood and water flowed from Jesus’s side. See Brown, Epistles, 578. 46. For example, Strecker, Johannine, 182–83. 47. John’s depiction of the Spirit as one who bears witness in 5.6–8 suggests that other descriptions of the Spirit’s revealing work in 1 John (giving knowledge, teaching, enabling believers to overcome false prophets) constitute aspects of, or are at least closely linked to, the Spirit’s activity of bearing witness. Some interpreters resist extending the term ‘witness’ to the revelatory activity depicted in passages like 2.20, 27; 3.24; and 4.13 because they think ‘witness’ language always refers to an external, world-directed function in the Johannine writings; see, e.g., Brown, Epistles, 600; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 239, 244. This narrow definition of ‘witness’ is sometimes linked to the view that the Johannine concept of ‘witness’ has a predominantly juridical and negative orientation. But if 1.2–3 and 4.14 are any indication, the author of 1 John views witness as positive, life-giving activity; there is no reason to insist on a narrow definition of the term. 48. Thus the Spirit’s witness cannot be limited to certain moments in the past, such as the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism or a work of the Spirit at the moment of Jesus’s death (sometimes thought to be symbolized by the water that flowed from his side in Jn 19.34).

186

Spirit and Word

duality. On one side are water and blood, joined together and representing Jesus’s coming; on the other is the Spirit who bears witness to these key aspects of Jesus’s earthly life.49 3. According to 5.7–8, the key events of Jesus’s earthly life, his baptism (probably) and crucifixion, bear their own distinct witness alongside that of the Spirit. In 5.7–8 John sets the Spirit, the water and the blood side by side on equal terms.50 Now all three are said to bear witness, and their witness is marked by unity and harmony.51 But how does the threefold witness depicted in 5.7–8 relate to the twofold structure observed in 5.6? To answer this question it will help to consider three others. First, why does John move from the twofold structure presented in 5.6 to a picture of three witnesses in 5.7–8? A good explanation lies close at hand. The statement in 5.6 that Jesus came ‘not by water only but by water and by blood’ shows John wants to stress that both of these elements were an important part of Jesus’s experience, probably in response to a specific controversy. It is likely that the formulation in 5.7–8 was shaped by this same concern. By highlighting three witnesses, and then naming them as ‘the Spirit and the water and the blood’, John reinforces the claim that both the water and the blood form essential aspects of the witness offered by the events of Jesus’s life. So the formulation in 5.7–8 should not be seen as a step away from the twofold pattern of thought expressed in 5.6; the latter stands as John’s more fundamental conception of the relation between the Spirit’s witness and the events of Jesus’s life. Second, to what do the water and blood bear witness? The immediately surrounding context suggests that John cites these decisive events in Jesus’s earthly life as confirming evidence for the claim that Jesus is the Christ (5.1), the Son of God (5.5, 10) through whom God has given John’s readers eternal life (5.11–12; cf. 4.14). Or looking further back to a factor stressed in an earlier passage, the water and blood prove that Jesus came in the flesh (4.2). In other words, the water and the blood, together with the Spirit, testify to the truth of John’s central Christological message. Third, how does the testimony of the raw historical events represented by the water and the blood relate to the verbalized testimony of the ‘we’ group and the tradition that stems from it? 1 Jn 5.6–8 makes no mention of the human witnesses who observed Jesus’s baptism and crucifixion. Nevertheless, John has already taken pains to establish a tight link between the events themselves and the role of those who saw and proclaimed them, namely, the ‘we’ group of 1.1–4. It is only because of this group’s witness that John’s readers know anything about the historical facts concerning Jesus. The witness of the ‘we’

49. Strecker points out that the καί that introduces 5.6c has the effect of placing the Spirit’s witnessing action in parallel with Jesus’s coming with water and blood (Johannine, 185). The added clause ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια (5.6d) has the effect of further distinguishing the Spirit from the water and blood. 50. τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, ὁ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸFαἵμα. 51. οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν (8b).

The Spirit and the From-the-Beginning Message

187

group and the tradition that derives from it thus channel and extend the witness of the water and blood depicted in 5.6–8.52 To speak of the one necessarily entails the other.53 4. The overall picture that emerges from 5.6–8 coheres well with the pattern of dual revelatory action observed in other passages in 1 John. Putting the various components of 5.6–8 together allows us to affirm three things about John’s conception of the Spirit’s witness. First, he sees the Spirit’s witness as something distinct from the water and blood. What John says in 5.6 makes this quite clear. Second, the Spirit’s witness conveys the same message as the water and the blood – according to 5.8b the three are ‘at one’. In other words, the Spirit’s distinct revelatory action does not involve distinct content. Third, the Spirit’s witnessing action lends support to the prior revelation constituted by Jesus’s historical coming by water and blood. This again is clearly implied in 5.6. 1 Jn 5.6–8 thus presents a picture that harmonizes with the model of dual witness implied in 2.27 and 4.4, one in which the Spirit does not convey new content so much as lend necessary support to an outwardly conveyed message that is rooted in observable events in Jesus’s life.54 Because the concept of dual witness plays such an important role in 1 John, it will be helpful to offer several summarizing observations. (1) In this epistle, the two modes of revelatory action – one deriving from direct contact with Jesus, the other given by the Spirit – work together; neither is sufficient without the other. (2) The witness deriving from contact with Jesus is not a product of the Spirit’s witness but has its own independent basis in the historical seeing and hearing of Jesus. 52. Menken attributes the readers’ knowledge of Jesus’s ministry specifically to their reading of the Gospel of John, which, on the basis of passages like Jn14.26 and 16.13, he then equates with the witness of the Spirit referred to in 1 John 5.6–8 (Studies, 401–2). But neither the Gospel nor any other form of witness given by the ‘we’ group is to be simply blended with the witness of the Spirit. We have seen that 1 John pictures the teaching received from the ‘we’ group and the revelatory action of the Spirit as distinct entities, just as the testifying action of the disciples is distinguished from that of the Paraclete in Jn 15.26–27. 53. In a similar manner, Jn 19.34–35 ties the observable event of Jesus’s death, specifically the flow of water and blood from his side, to the eye-witness whose testimony lies behind the Fourth Gospel. 54. In 5.9–10 John goes on to speak of God’s witness. This is best understood as a way of describing the unified witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. (1) The reference to God’s witness comes immediately after the statement that the Spirit, the water and the blood are εἰς τὸ ἕν. (2) When John contrasts ‘the witness of men’ to that of God he is not referring to the ‘we’ group’s proclamation, since this is rooted in the revelatory event of Jesus’s coming. (3) The comment that the one believing in God’s Son has God’s witness ἔν ἑαυτῷ may refer to the effect of the Spirit’s witness, conceived as an internal testimony to the historical facts and outwardly proclaimed message about Jesus.

188

Spirit and Word

(3) Rather than supplying new information about Jesus, the Spirit’s witness serves to support the foundational message given by the original eyewitnesses. (4) The testimony and tradition deriving from the eyewitnesses can serve as a criterion for judging claims concerning the Spirit’s revelatory action. (5) The witnessing action of the Spirit appears to touch its recipients directly and internally.

11 A POSTLES AND  S PIRIT

The portrayal of the connection between the Spirit and the apostles in the book of Acts reveals a number of things: that dual witness forms a deep part of Luke’s thinking; that he has a multifaceted conception of the Spirit’s witnessing action; that he depicts the apostles’ message as independently grounded in their preascension contact with Jesus; that he views internal witness (heart-piercing and eye-opening) as one aspect of the Spirit’s actions; and that he thinks it important that the witness of the Spirit be confirmed by Scripture. We will focus the investigation on three passages.

I. An explicit formulation: Acts 5.32 32

And we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him.

Acts 5.32 is similar to Jn 15.26–27 in that it presents a succinctly formulated statement of twofold witness about Jesus in which one component (the witnessing activity of the disciples) is clearly defined while the other (the witnessing action of the Spirit) is less defined and therefore subject to a variety of interpretations.1 The apostles bear their witness primarily by preaching, although they also speak about Jesus in legal settings, such as the Sanhedrin hearing that forms the context of Peter’s words in 5.32.2 But it is harder to know precisely what activity is in view 1. The conjunctions in καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες . . . καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον are correlative (‘both we . . . and the Holy Spirit’), accentuating the apostles and the Spirit as two distinct subjects while at the same time highlighting their common identity as witnesses; see George K. A. Bonnah, The Holy Spirit: A Narrative Factor in the Acts of the Apostles (SBB, 58; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007), 327. The Spirit is further distinguished from the apostles by the relative clause ὅ ἔδωκεν ὀ θεὸς τοῖς πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτῷ. Trites sees 5.32 as another instance of Luke’s tendency to pair witnesses and preachers, which he traces to the demand for two witnesses in Deut. 19.15 (Concept, 133–35; 152). 2. The former is seen in 2.14–41; 3.11–26; the latter in 4.5–20; 5.27–32. The apostles are identified as witnesses in 1.8, 22; 2.32; 3.15; 10.39, 41; and 13.31, with a focus on bearing testimony to Jesus’s resurrection in 1.22; 2.32; and 3.15. The formula ‘we are witnesses’ occurs

190

Spirit and Word

when Peter identifies the Spirit as a co-witness. The Spirit does a number of things in Acts that might justify the label ‘witness’. Which of those stands to the fore in 5.32? We must review five possibilities. 1. Dramatic manifestations of the Spirit’s presence:  these play a significant witness-bearing role in the wider narrative of Acts but are not a direct factor in the immediate setting of 5.32. Visible and audible effects of the Spirit’s infilling confirm the message about Jesus at three significant points in Luke’s unfolding story of the spread of gospel. The first is the Pentecost launch of the apostles’ mission, where the effects that accompany the Spirit’s initial outpouring draw a crowd and provide Peter with evidence that confirms his message about Jesus. In 2.32 Peter identifies himself and his fellow apostles as witnesses to the resurrection. He then cites the Spirit-worked manifestations his audience has just observed as confirming evidence of Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation (2.33). On the basis of these combined factors (with additional input from Psalms 16 and 110) Peter then draws a conclusion: ‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified’ (2.36). A second significant point comes when Philip preaches the gospel in Samaria. Having heard that Samaritans are turning to Christ, the apostles send Peter and John from Jerusalem. Peter and John pray and lay hands on the new believers, who then receive the Holy Spirit. The narrative implies that observable manifestations accompany the Samaritans’ reception of the Spirit (since Simon the magician is able to see that the Spirit was given) and that the Spirit’s evident coming marks God’s seal of approval on this new stage in the outward movement of the gospel. The Cornelius narrative is a third point at which Spirit-wrought manifestations play an important confirmatory role. That the Spirit falls upon Cornelius and his household accompanied by speaking in tongues becomes the primary evidence that God has indeed granted Gentiles a place within the church (10.44–48). When Peter later recounts this event in Jerusalem (11.15–18) he uses ‘witness’ terminology to describe the effects of the Spirit’s coming: ‘God bore witness to them, giving the Holy Spirit to them just as he had to us.’3 Both the Cornelius episode and that of the Samaritan believers show God bearing witness to the accepted status of nonJewish believers. This is not precisely the same thing as the Spirit bearing witness to the truth of the apostolic message about Jesus, but the evident presence of the Spirit on these occasions nevertheless provides at least indirect testimony to the

in 2.32; 3.15; and 10.39, in each case on Peter’s lips. Paul is identified as a witness in 22.15 and 26.16, and Stephen in 22.20. Peter is the subject of the verb διαμαρτύρομαι in 2.40 and, together with other apostles, in 8.25 and 10.42; Paul is the subject of the verbs μαρτυρέω in 23.11 and 26.22, and διαμαρτύρομαι in 18.5; 20.21, 24; 23.11; and 28.23. See Trites, Concept, 128–29, and Lincoln, Truth, 324, on the relation between the original law-court connotations or ‘witness’ and its broader use in Luke and Acts. 3. C. K.  Barrett cites the Spirit’s coming on Cornelius as an illustration of the kind of witness referred to in 5.32 (The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 [ICC; London:  T&T Clark, 1994], 291).

Apostles and Spirit

191

nature and truth of the gospel. Taken together, then, Luke’s accounts of Pentecost, the Samaritan believers, and Cornelius show that Peter’s comment in 5.32 could very well allude to witness borne through observable manifestations of the Spirit in those who receive the message about Jesus. We should also note that in 5.32 Peter describes the Holy Spirit as the one ‘God has given to those who obey him’. This way of describing the Spirit might provide an additional hint that Peter has conversion-accompanying manifestations in view, since in Acts observable effects like tongue-speaking are typically associated with the initial giving and reception of the Spirit. Nevertheless, one important factor speaks against seeing this option as the best explanation of Peter’s words. Luke typically emphasizes the witness-bearing effect of such manifestations in connection with boundary-breaking moments in the advance of the gospel:  the initial outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, the reception of the gospel in Samaria, and especially the coming of the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter’s statement before the Sanhedrin is not closely connected to any such breakthrough moment, but pertains instead to a more general pattern of ongoing witness in Jerusalem. 2. Spirit-empowered healing and deliverance miracles: these frequently complement and assist gospel preaching in Acts and probably explain at least in part why Peter describes the Spirit as a witness. As Luke portrays the spread of the gospel he often describes acts of power that exert a witness-bearing effect, confirming or setting the stage for the spoken message about Jesus. Miracles feature in Luke’s picture of early Jerusalem church life (2.42–47), with the implication that they contribute to the apostles’ teaching and preaching. The whole series of events depicted in 3.1– 4.31 – Peter’s evangelistic preaching, large numbers coming to faith, the apostles’ witness to the Jewish authorities, and the worship of the gathered believers – is put into motion by the healing of a lame beggar. A  similar pattern continues throughout Acts: miraculous signs accompany the spoken word and lead people to believe in Jesus.4 And in one instance, Luke explicitly uses ‘witness’ terminology to describe the effect of such signs: in 14.3 he speaks of the Lord ‘bearing witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done through their [Paul and Barnabas’s] hands’. But is it the Holy Spirit that empowers these miracles? Luke strongly implies that it is.5 If Stephen does great wonders and signs (6.8) it is because he is full of the Spirit (6.3, 5, and 10). If Paul announces a sign of judgement upon Elymas it is because at that very moment he is filled with the Holy Spirit (13.9–12). In the case of Jesus, the causal link between the Spirit and miracles is even clearer: according to Lk. 4.18–19, the Spirit anointed Jesus to proclaim freedom to captives and

4. See 6.8–10; 8.4–8; 10.32–42; 13.4–12; 14.3; 15.12; 16.25–34; 19.11–20; 28.7–10. 5. Despite the contrary claims of some; e.g. Robert Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 227; Schweizer, TDNT, VI. 407–9. See the discussion in Turner (‘The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritative Preaching in Luke-Acts: A Question of Origins’, NTS 38 [1992], pp. 66–88.

192

Spirit and Word

sight to the blind, while Acts 10.38 connects Jesus’s anointing with the Spirit to his ministry of healing those in the devil’s power. We must also note Peter’s citation of Joel 2.28–32 in his Pentecost sermon. Where Joel speaks of ‘wonders (τέρατα, LXX) in heaven and upon the earth’, Acts 2.19 has ‘wonders (τέρατα) in heaven above and signs (σημεῖα) on the earth below’. By means of this small verbal modification Luke highlights the miraculous signs performed by the apostles as aspects of the Spirit’s work.6 Turning to the specific context of 5.32 we find additional reasons to suppose that Peter’s remark about the Holy Spirit alludes to the witness-bearing function of miracles wrought by the Spirit’s power. First, the apostles have been brought before the Sanhedrin because they have filled Jerusalem with their teaching (5.28), a feat that was significantly aided by their acts of healing and deliverance (5.12–16). Second, the apostles’ appearance before the Sanhedrin in 5.17–42 is analogous to Peter and John’s earlier questioning by the same body in 4.5–22, which was sparked by the miraculous healing of a lame man. 3. Spirit-inspired revelatory speech: while a significant feature of the story Acts tells, this is unlikely to explain the allusion to the Spirit as a witness in 5.32. It is certainly true that Acts emphasizes the Spirit inspiring prophecy. At the initial Pentecost outpouring, the Jerusalem believers speak in other tongues and tell the mighty works of God ‘as the Spirit gave them ability to speak’ (2.4–11). When Peter explains this event as the fulfillment of prophecy he underlines the link between the Spirit and inspired speech, first by citing Joel’s words (‘your sons and daughters will prophesy’, 2.17), then by repeating the thought in an additional phrase of his own (‘and they shall prophesy’, 2.18). The idea that the Spirit gives messages to those who prophesy recurs in passages that depict the Spirit as speaking through David (1.16; 4.25) and Isaiah (28.25) or through Christian prophets such as Agabus (20.23; 21.11; cf. 13.2).7 So when a prophet delivers a message supplied by the Spirit it is quite possible for Luke to say the Spirit is speaking. In one passage, when he refers to Agabus’s inspired declaration that Paul faces prison and hardships, Luke even says the Spirit witnesses (διαμαρτύρομαι, 20.23).8 Nevertheless, we should not quickly assume that when 5.32 describes the Spirit as a witness it alludes to the Spirit speaking through the apostles by inspiring their words. Luke normally connects this type of action with prophecy, not with apostolic preaching. He depicts the Spirit speaking through David, Isaiah or Agabus, but does not typically describe the Spirit as speaking through preachers and teachers in the sense of supplying them with their message.9 As Luke characteristically 6. Cf. Barrett, Acts, 1.137. 7. The same thought is expressed in converse form in passages that depict a prophet speaking through the Spirit (11.28; 21.4). 8. In 20.21 and 24, the same verb describes Paul’s witness to the gospel. 9. According to 6.10 Stephen speaks through or by the Spirit (τῷ πνεύματι ᾧ ἐλάλει), but this may be a matter of empowerment more than inspiration in the sense of receiving message content. Being full of the Spirit is also associated with wisdom, both for the seven Hellenist leaders (6.3) and for Stephen individually (6.10); these passages may refer to the

Apostles and Spirit

193

portrays it, the apostles draw the content of their witness from the teaching they received from Jesus (including his teaching about the Scripture’s testimony to him)10 and from the things they observed about him.11 It is true that one Lukan passage does depict the Spirit supplying message content to the apostles: in Lk. 12.11–12 Jesus tells his disciples they will be brought before synagogues and rulers and that the Holy Spirit ‘will teach you in that hour what it is necessary to say’.12 This passage deserves careful attention because Jesus foretells a situation exactly similar to that in which Peter and the other apostles find themselves as they stand before the Sanhedrin. Does this mean that when Peter calls the Spirit a witness he refers to the fact that, then and there, the Spirit is supplying him with the words he speaks to the rulers? Probably not. Despite its initial attractiveness such an interpretation fits very awkwardly in the scene Luke presents. It requires us to suppose first, that at the very moment he addresses his interlocutors Peter is conscious of the Spirit giving him the words he speaks and, second, that he thinks it will be helpful to mention this to the Sanhedrin. But why would Peter, as a character within this particular scene, think this? When he tells the rulers that he and his fellow apostles are witnesses to the things concerning Jesus he refers to a role they have been playing primarily outside the courtroom (e.g. 2.32; 3.15; and 10.39). By implication his reference to the Spirit as a witness likewise points to a role carried out far more widely than on the limited occasion of this hearing before the Sanhedrin.13 4. Spirit-empowered preaching: Acts puts great emphasis on the Spirit empowering the apostles’ proclamation, but this is probably not the primary focus of Peter’s comment in 5.32. Lk. 24.48–49 introduces the theme of the Spirit empowering the apostles: they are to be witnesses of the things concerning Jesus but must wait in Jerusalem until God sends the promised Spirit to clothe them with power. This motif is then reiterated with striking emphasis in Acts 1.8 and further illustrated at several points in the ensuing Acts narrative, especially in the early chapters.14 Spirit giving guidance and perception more than a specific message. In 1.2 the risen Jesus is said to give the apostles commands through the Holy Spirit (διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου). 10. See Lk. 24.44–46. 11. See Acts 1.21–22; 2.32. The line between the Spirit’s work of empowering apostolic witnesses and giving message content to prophets is blurred, at least in terms of the language Luke uses, in passages that speak of someone speaking ‘through’ or ‘by’ the Spirit (1.2 [διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου]; 6.10 [τῷ πνεύματι ᾧ ἐλάλει]; 11.28; 21.4 [διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος]). The first of these passages speaks of Jesus’s teaching, the second of Stephen’s preaching and the final two of the prophesying of Christian prophets. 12. The parallels in Mt. 10.17–20 and Mk 13.9–11 speak of the disciples giving ‘witness’ (μαρτύριον) on these occasions; cf. Lk. 21.12–15. 13. Cf. Bonnah, Holy Spirit, 327. 14. For example, 4.8, 31; 6.10; and 7.55–56. As Turner points out, we should distinguish between the Spirit’s works of charismatic revelation and prophetic speech, on the one hand, and the Spirit’s activity of empowering preaching and teaching, on the other. The former relate to situations in which someone receives and communicates revelatory knowledge

194

Spirit and Word

Many interpreters consider this empowering action of the Spirit to provide the best explanation of Peter’s reference to the Spirit being a witness,15 but we may question whether this is actually the case. The chief difficulty is that Peter does not speak of the Spirit merely enabling witnesses, but of the Spirit as a witness. He thus implies that the Spirit himself carries out an activity of direct witness, just like the apostles. 5. The Spirit’s internal influence in those who hear the message of Christ: although internal witness is not a major Lukan emphasis, it does have a place in the Acts narrative and may partly account for the reference to the Spirit as witness in 5.32. Luke does not emphasize the Spirit’s direct internal influence to the same extent that he highlights dramatic outward manifestations, miracles, prophecy and the empowerment of the apostles. Nevertheless, several passages in Luke and Acts do express the thought that a divine act of opening hearts and minds is necessary if people are to respond to the gospel, while others suggest a link between this divine action and the Spirit.16 One passage in Acts directly refers to a divine work of opening the human heart to the preached message of Jesus, but identifies the divine agent as ‘the Lord’ rather than the Holy Spirit. In 16.14 Luke says of Lydia that ‘the Lord opened her heart to give heed to the things spoken by Paul’. This internal influence is a matter of convincing, attracting or giving understanding with respect to Paul’s spoken message. It touches Lydia’s heart directly; no external miracles or manifestations enter the picture, nor is there any reference to Lord empowering Paul. If Luke had identified the Holy Spirit as the specific agent opening Lydia’s heart this would be a classic text for the internal testimony of the Spirit. But ‘the Lord’ is best identified as Jesus, since in the following verse the same title seems to designate Jesus (though it could possibly refer to God). It must be acknowledged that Luke does not articulate a specific theology about the divine action of opening hearts. Acts 16.14 is the only time he explicitly refers

from God, the latter to occasions that involve the proclamation and application of a tradition, idea or event (‘Spirit of Prophecy’, 73–76.) 15. For example, Bonnah, Holy Spirit, 328. Richard Pervo gives a special twist to the idea that the Spirit’s witness consists of empowering the apostles, suggesting that the Spirit enables them to bear witness with ‘eloquent speech delivered in concert’ (Acts: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009], 145). This over-reads the plural form of Peter’s statement. 16. See Trites, Concept, 152: ‘In other words, when the apostles give their testimony, the Spirit testifies with them: his power acts on their hearers, either to confound them if they do not accept, or to convince them; several times the Book of Acts draws attention to this “piercing” ministry of the Spirit (2.37; 5.33; 7.54; cf 6.10).’ Daniel Marguerat, by way of contrast, denies that Acts ever presents the Spirit provoking faith: ‘The Spirit is not at the origin of individual faith, which is born from listening to the Christological word, but he is at the origin of testimony’ (The First Christian Historian [SNTSMS, 121; Cambridge: CUP, 2002], 125–26.

Apostles and Spirit

195

to such a work and there he does not pause to elaborate. His comment about Lydia seems to simply reflect his natural, unreflective way of thinking: conversion requires a heart-opening work of God; gospel preaching and divine, internal action go together. Various passages in the Gospel do shed further light on this thought, however, by depicting human blindness and the need for internal revelation. In Lk. 10.21–22 Jesus says the Father has hidden the things of the kingdom from the wise and revealed them to children, and that the Father is known only by those to whom the Son reveals him. These revelatory acts of the Father and the Son accompany the outward disclosure brought through the works and teaching of Jesus and his disciples (see the mission activity described in 10.1–20) but also go beyond it. Many people see the outward evidence and hear the outward message of the kingdom but only some, those touched by this special revelatory action, believe and repent. The theme of blindness to outward revelation likewise appears in two passages portraying Jesus’s grief over Jerusalem. In 13.35 Jesus may well refer to something other than physical sight when he says, ‘You will not see me until you say, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord”.’17 He certainly alludes to the issue of spiritual sight in 19.42, where he says to Jerusalem, ‘If only you had known on this day the things that bring peace, but now they are hidden from your eyes.’ Then in the resurrection accounts we read of two disciples on the Emmaus road whose eyes are suddenly opened to recognize Jesus (24.31). Although no sight-giving agent is named, the narrative hints that the disciples’ moment of recognition does not come purely as a natural effect of an outward stimulus to their memory (Jesus’s act of breaking of bread), but also as the result of divine perception-giving influence. We also read of a larger group of disciples whose minds are opened to the Scriptures’ testimony about Jesus (24.45). In this case it is Jesus himself who opens their minds through his instruction, but Luke may offer at least a faint hint that this also involves an internal touch. In 24.44 and 46 he refers to Jesus speaking to his disciples about the Scriptures’ witness, with the statement about Jesus opening their minds sandwiched between in verse 45. This may suggest that Luke sees opening minds and giving outward teaching as distinct though complementary actions. So internal revelatory action does form part of Luke’s thought world. We can now consider a passage that suggests the Spirit plays an active role in this revelation. In 2.37, in the account of Peter’s Pentecost sermon, Luke describes Peter’s audience as being ‘stabbed in their hearts’ (κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν). Since Luke portrays the Pentecost events in their totality as dominated by the Spirit, we are almost obliged to see this stabbing as the direct work of the Spirit. Piercing hearts is not quite the same as opening them – the first image implies painful conviction, the second (as in the case of Lydia) the creation of positive receptivity. Nor is piercing hearts precisely the same as opening eyes and minds. But these diverse images share much in common. They all depict a powerful internal influence and all are

17. Although the Mt. 23.39 parallel seems to focus purely on physical sight, since it includes the additional phrase ἀπ’ ἄρτι (‘You will not see me from now until’).

196

Spirit and Word

used by Luke to describe what can happen to people when they hear teaching and preaching about Jesus (or in the case of the Emmaus disciples, physically encounter Jesus himself). A second passage may also link the Spirit to internal impact, although this instance is less certain. In 7.51 Stephen calls those who have arrested him ‘uncircumcised in hearts and ears’ and says, ‘You always resist (ἀντιπίπτετε) the Holy Spirit  – as your fathers, so also you.’ The question is whether ἀντιπίπτετε refers to internal resistance or outward opposition. The latter is probably the dominant thought. Stephen’s situation is marked by verbal and physical opposition to his Spirit-empowered message, and when he likens the actions of his audience to that of their fathers he refers to instances where previous generations in Israel outwardly opposed Spirit-inspired prophets (7.52).18 Nevertheless, Stephen’s words may also allude to his audience’s resistance to an internal influence. He prefaces his charge that they resist the Holy Spirit by calling attention to the condition of their hearts and ears. In doing so he may hint that their outward opposition to his externally spoken words was accompanied by inward resistance to an internal action of the Spirit.19 The internal revelatory influence Luke mentions in various places could in principle offer a suitable explanation for Peter’s reference to the Holy Spirit as a witness in Acts 5.32. This kind of influence would involve the Spirit touching human hearts directly with nothing in between. As such it forms a good parallel to the witnessing action of the apostles, which is also a matter of direct communication. 6. Conclusion. When all these considerations are taken into account, the Spirit’s work of empowering miracles stands out as the most likely focus of Peter’s reference to the Spirit as witness in Acts 5.32.20 But it is probably best to see this activity simply as the most prominent element within a larger and more inclusive conception of witness  – the focal element brought to the foreground by the immediate situation in which Peter stands. Whether we think in terms of Peter’s perspective as a character within this narrative scene or of Luke’s perspective as the author of Acts, to describe the Spirit as a witness highlights a broad and fundamental role that comes to expression is several diverse but closely related activities.

18. Cf. Num. 27.14 LXX, where ἀντιπίπτω refers to the community’s opposition to Moses and Aaron. 19. Another way of seeing the element of internal witness in Acts would be to understand the empowering of the apostles (1.8) as a matter of the Spirit’s presence and work, not only in them, but also in the total situation in which they preach. Turner speaks of ‘the numinous sense of ‘God’s presence and activity’ as one aspect of empowered witness in Acts (‘Spirit of Prophecy’, 70–72). 20. Cf. Charles Talbert, who sees a pattern of dual witness of sign and speech running through the early chapters of Acts (Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary [Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005], 34–35).

Apostles and Spirit

197

II. A carefully designed structure: Acts 1–2 If Peter’s words in 5.32 give succinct expression to the idea that the apostles and the Spirit serve as dual witnesses to Jesus, Luke also highlights the complementary roles and fundamental importance of apostles and Spirit in another way, through his structuring of the opening sections of Acts. 1. Acts 1–2 evidences careful literary arrangement designed to highlight the apostles and the Spirit as dual factors enabling the birth of the church. Two considerations should predispose us to give special attention to the opening sections of Acts. First, themes introduced early in a narrative work often carry particular weight, establishing features and conditions that readers can expect to pertain throughout the ensuing story.21 Second, Luke has already demonstrated his ability to convey theological messages through narrative structuring in the opening chapters of his Gospel, where he intersperses material relating to the birth of John the Baptist and material relating to the birth of Jesus to highlight both similarities and differences between these two figures.22 A cursory overview of Acts 1–2 reveals a skillfully crafted structure comparable to the arrangement of Luke 1–2 in terms of its capacity to highlight significant themes. The opening section (1.1–11) sets the stage by describing the period between Jesus’s resurrection and ascension. A  culminating section (2.42–47) presents an attractive picture of life in the newly established church. Between this carefully conceived beginning and culmination we find an account of the birth of the church as the reconstituted people of God. This consists of three sections: one focusing on apostles and apostleship (1.12–26), one devoted to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (2.1–13), and one describing the first example of Spirit-enabled apostolic preaching (2.14–41). By arranging his material in this way, Luke tells his readers that two principal ingredients give rise to the church: apostolic preaching and the Holy Spirit.23 2. Acts 1.12–26 forms a distinct unit emphasizing the role and importance of the twelve apostles. While the emphasis on the Spirit in 2.1–13 is well known, the balancing focus on the apostles in 1.12–26 does not always receive the attention it deserves. But this latter passage highlights the apostolic role from start to finish. Before examining the details of how this is done, however, we must first show that 1.12–26 functions as a unified section. In particular we must show the close link between 1.12–14 (which describes the disciples’ return to Jerusalem after Jesus’s 21. Cf. Joel Green, ‘The Problem of a Beginning: Israel’s Scriptures in Luke 1–2’, BBR 4 (1994), pp. 61–86 (62). 22. See J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (AB, 28A; New York: Doubleday, 1981), 313–15. 23. This general analysis of Acts 1–2 remains valid even if one does not consider these two chapters to form a distinct major section in an overall outline of Acts. On almost any estimate of the larger structure of Acts, the summary unit in 2.42–47 can be seen to effectively round off the story of the birth of the Jerusalem church and thus mark the fulfillment of an important stage in Luke’s narrative.

198

Spirit and Word

ascension and lists the names of the eleven remaining apostles) and 1.15–26 (which describes the selection of a replacement for Judas). It is clear, first, that 1.11 marks the end of one distinct unit and 1.12 the beginning of another. 1.9–11 describes Jesus’s ascension into heaven, which marks a major change in situation. 1.12 thus stands at the beginning of a new stage of Luke’s story. Second, although 1.12–14 may be identified as a summary section, it also specifically sets the stage for the following account of the selection of a successor to Judas by describing the setting in which that event takes place (Jerusalem and probably the upper room), the leading characters (the eleven, the women, Jesus’s family members), and their chief activity (prayer). The opening words 1.15, ‘And in those days’, connects the successor-to-Judas narrative with these people and this place and time. So 1.12–14 is best seen as the context-setting introduction to 1.15–26, and not simply as the aftermath or conclusion of 1.1–11.24 Viewing 1.12–26 as a thematically unified section, then, we find the names of the remaining eleven apostles listed near its beginning (1.13) and ‘apostles’ as the very last word at its end (1.26). Within this inclusio appear three additional references to an apostolic function or office: Luke speaks of a ‘ministry’ (vs. 17), an ‘office’ (vs. 20), and a ‘position of ministry and apostleship’ (vs. 25).25 References to being ‘numbered among’ (vs. 17) and ‘enrolled with’ (vs. 26) the apostles reinforce the picture of a clearly defined group.26 This group has specific qualifications, a specific task, and a fixed number. The qualifications are to have been with Jesus throughout the period of his ministry (21–22a) and to be chosen by God (1.24–26a). The task is to bear witness to Jesus’s resurrection (1.22b).27 The fixed number is twelve, as implied by Peter’s references to the necessity of choosing someone to fill Judas’s place (20b–22, 25) and the narrator’s concluding statement about Matthias being added to the eleven apostles (26b). Luke takes pains to portray the community’s unity, prayer and searching of Scripture in this section. These narrative details are not designed simply to provide a model for church decision-making, but rather to underline the unique importance of this apostolic group. Peter’s citation of Scripture highlights the God-ordained necessity of filling the position Judas has left empty: on the basis of Ps. 69.25 and 109.8 he concludes that one of those who had been with them must serve with them as a witness to Jesus’s resurrection (1.20–22).28 And by portraying the community’s prayer and lot-casting Luke shows that Matthias meets the qualification of being chosen by God (or Jesus). As a prelude to casting lots the

24. Yet another indication that Acts 1.12 marks a distinct new beginning is that the preceding material in 1.1–11 overlaps with Lk. 24.36–52. Beginning with 1.12 Luke moves into new territory. 25. Διακονία (vs. 17), ἐπισκοπή (vs. 20) and τόπος τῆς διακονίας καὶ ἀποστολῆς (vs. 25). 26. Lk. 22.3 (ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν δώδεκα) implies a similar conception; see Josef Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT, 5; Regensburg: Pustet, 1994), 84. 27. The leadership role implied by Lk. 22.28–30 is not highlighted in Acts 1.12–26. 28. Δεῖ οὖν (vs. 21).

Apostles and Spirit

199

disciples pray, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show us which one of these two you have chosen.’29 The narrative shaping throughout this unit thus points in one clear direction; it calls the readers’ attention to apostles and apostleship.30 3. In highlighting the apostles Luke calls attention both to their number and their task of bearing witness. Granted that Luke accentuates the apostles in Acts 1.12–26, what precisely is he saying about them? Does he wish to call attention primarily to their number and thereby imply something about the church’s relation to Israel through the symbolism of twelve? Or does his greater interest lie in the actual task these twelve will carry out, showing his readers how important this is for the birth and life of the church? We need not set these two interests against each other. Luke is obviously concerned with the number of the apostles in this section – this issue underlies the whole logic of selecting a replacement for Judas. Luke takes pains to show that the full complement of twelve apostles is in place, perhaps because he is about to describe the fulfillment of a great eschatological promise to Israel, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. If the twelve apostles in any way represent Israel’s twelve tribes (cf. Lk. 22.29–30) now is the time for the full number to be in place.31 On the other hand, however, Luke does not specifically highlight a link between the apostles and Israel in Acts 1.12–26. The number twelve is never actually mentioned, there are no direct pointers to its symbolic value, and the apostles are not explicitly portrayed as the leaders of a reconstituted Israel. While the symbolism attached to the number twelve is no doubt important, it lies below the surface of the narrative. What Luke makes more immediately visible are Matthias’s qualifications and the witnessing task he will share.32 The one direct description of the nature of the apostle’s ministry depicts them as witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection (1.22) – a designation that will recur in Peter’s Pentecost sermon (2.32), his address to the crowd that gathers after the healing of a crippled beggar (3.15), and his words to the Sanhedrin (5.32). But Luke also tells his readers about a precondition for apostleship: the necessity of having been

29. See Lk. 6.12–16, where Jesus spends the night praying before choosing twelve disciples to be apostles, and Acts 1.2, which refers to the apostles as those ‘whom he had chosen’. Acts 10.41 refers to the apostles as those who had been chosen by God. Luke also emphasizes God’s choice of Paul (9.15 and 26.16; cf. Gal 1.1). 30. It might be argued that 1.12–26 is not programmatic for all of Acts in that apart from Peter none of the other eleven plays a major role in the rest of the book, and Peter himself disappears after chapter 15. But Luke’s programmatic point is that testimony to Jesus grounded in that of the Twelve or, in the case of Paul patterned after that of the Twelve, is an essential ingredient for the growth and ongoing life of the church 31. For example, Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 89; Arie Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias (WUNT, 2/187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 173. 32. Cf. Jürgen Roloff, who emphasizes that Luke’s interests extend beyond the significance of the Twelve with respect to a restored Israel to include their role as witnesses to the resurrection and guarantors of the Jesus’s tradition (Die Apostelgeschichte [NTD, 5; Göttingen and Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988], 36).

200

Spirit and Word

with Jesus from John’s baptism to the time of Jesus’s ascension (21–22a). This implies that their ministry will also involve bearing witness to what they saw and heard during that pre-Easter period. The apostolic task highlighted in 1.12–26, then, is simply that of bearing witness to Jesus. So as Luke presents it, the twelve apostles do not signal a new beginning for Israel simply by virtue of being present to receive the eschatological promise of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Instead, they point to a new beginning by doing something to shape the new community. They bear witness, and Luke shows this witness to be decisive, foundational and fully legitimate. It is important not to miss this emphasis on the apostles’ active ministry. A  one-sided picture of the birth of the church can easily result when interpreters give their attention entirely to the apostles’ function as symbolic representatives of a reconstituted Israel. To the extent that they represent Israel, the apostles play a largely passive role:  while the Spirit acts to give birth to the church, the Twelve simply receive the eschatological promise as representatives of Israel. But this is only part of the picture Luke presents. He structures the opening chapters of Acts to highlight not just one but two active forces at the birth of the church: the witness of a specially qualified and chosen group of apostles and the powerful action of the Holy Spirit. 4. The arrival of the Holy Spirit in 2.1–13 balances the re-establishment of twelve apostles in 1.12–26; the Spirit’s multifaceted and witness-related action complements and integrates with the witnessing activity of the apostles. We have already noted how the opening chapters of Luke’s Gospel, where he carefully intersperses material about the birth of John the Baptist with that relating to the birth of Jesus, provides a precedent that encourages us to also read the opening chapters of Acts with an eye to how their narrative structure may convey a theological message. Several other small factors give us additional reason to read the account of the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2.1–13 in close relation to the apostle-centred narrative of 1.12–26. First, the account of the Spirit’s coming begins with a reference to ‘all’ being together in one place. Since there is no indication that any new group is in view, this is best taken as a reference to the company of 120 mentioned in 1.15 and depicted as presenting two candidates for apostleship, praying and casting lots in 1.23–25. That both episodes portray a gathering of the same group establishes a link between them. Second, the rich description of community life in 2.42–27 is best seen as Luke’s climactic conclusion to the entire narrative of post-ascension events that begins in 1.12 (and not simply as the climax of the Pentecost events alone). His reference to the believers ‘devoting themselves to the apostles teaching’ (2.42, the first item in his list of community activities) supports this conclusion. As Luke portrays the establishment of the Jerusalem church, he accentuates the role of the apostolic witnesses in equal measure with that of the Spirit. Third, the episode of selecting a replacement for Judas appears as something of an interlude between Jesus’s parting command to wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit (1.4–5, 8) and the Spirit’s arrival on the day of Pentecost.33 So when Luke inserts 1.12–26 it is 33. Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 38.

Apostles and Spirit

201

almost as if he pauses in the midst of his account of promise and fulfillment relating to the Spirit to make sure that the element of apostolic ministry does not slip from sight. Fourth, both the immediately preceding section of 1.1–11 and the immediately following section of 2.14–41 are marked by an interweaving of elements focusing on the apostles and elements focusing on the Spirit. So Luke’s account of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost appears to be purposefully juxtaposed with his narrative about the selection of a twelfth apostle. These two episodes, together with his immediately following description of Peter’s sermon, bridge the gap between the period of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances and the early Jerusalem church life pictured in 2.42–47. They constitute Luke’s implicit comment on the crucial factors enabling the latter to come into existence. With respect to the nature of the Spirit’s activity in Luke’s account of Pentecost (including both 2.1–13 and 14–41), we have already seen that the Spirit’s varied actions all relate to the general category of witness. Of the five witness-bearing activities surveyed in our earlier discussion of Acts 5.32, the two that appear most prominently in the Pentecost narrative are the effecting of physically observable manifestations in those who have received the Spirit and the empowering of Peter’s preaching. Dramatic manifestations (a sound like rushing wind, tongues like fire and speaking in foreign languages) dominate the narrative in 2.1–13, then add weight to Peter’s sermon as he cites them as evidence that Joel’s prophecy about the last days has come to fulfillment (2.16, 33). As for Peter’s empowerment, his preaching and the response of 3000 of his listeners provide the strongest imaginable fulfillment of Jesus’s programmatic promise in 1.8. But Spirit-worked prophesy and miracles also receive mention in Peter’s citation and modification of Joel 2.28–32. And Luke’s reference to Peter’s hearers being ‘stabbed in the heart’ and calling out, ‘What shall we do?’ (2.37) points to a direct internal influence that can be considered yet another form of the Spirit’s witness. Our survey of Acts 1–2 thus shows the dual activity, and specifically the dual witness, of apostles and Spirit to be a major Lukan interest. The sharp formulation in 5.32 reflects an underlying pattern of thought that has left its mark on the very structure of Luke’s literary work.34

III. A two-pronged argument: Acts 15.1–35 Like the foundation-establishing narratives in chapters  1–2, Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council in chapter  15 is one of the most important passages in Acts. Luke must show the strong and valid grounds on which the early church

34. Commenting on Acts 10.43, Trites says Luke joins a third witness to that of the apostles and the Spirit, namely that of the Scriptures (Concept, 153). But the Scriptures’ witness to Jesus could also be considered as one aspect of the apostles’ witness, inasmuch as Jesus’s teaching about how the Scriptures spoke of him formed part of their preparation as witnesses (Lk. 24.44–48).

202

Spirit and Word

determined that Gentile believers would not be required to be circumcised. In pursuit of this agenda he presents an interesting variation on the theme of dual testimony. Here it is Scriptural prophecy rather than the message of the apostles that pairs with the Spirit’s witness. The apostles play a central role, to be sure, but this is primarily a matter of reporting and interpreting the Spirit’s acts on the one hand and the words of Scripture on the other. The Spirit’s witness comes in the form of message-carrying manifestations and signs and wonders. This witness, in partnership with that of Scripture, does not focus on Jesus directly but instead on one specific result of his saving mission, God’s acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles. 1. Luke highlights Peter’s report of Gentiles receiving the Spirit (15.7–11) and Barnabas and Paul’s account of Spirit-effected signs and wonders in the Gentile mission (15.12) as clear indications that God has accepted Gentiles apart from circumcision. When Peter reminds the assembled apostles and elders of what happened when God chose him to speak the gospel to the Gentiles, he says, ‘God bore witness to them (ἐμαρτύρησεν αὐτοῖς), giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us’ (15.8). He is referring to the conversion of Cornelius and his household, where the Spirit fell upon them and they spoke in tongues (10.44–48; 11.15–18). These observable manifestations bore witness (or were the means by which God bore witness) to the acceptance of the Gentiles. This same theme of witness recurs, though now more implicitly, in the immediately following verses where Barnabas and Paul recount the signs and wonders God has worked through them among the Gentiles (15.12). As Luke makes clear in 14.3, the signs and wonders done by Paul and Barnabas are God’s (or Christ’s) way of ‘bearing witness’ to the gospel. And while neither 14.3 nor 15.12 mention the Spirit explicitly, passages like 2.17–19; 6.3–10; 10.38; and 13.9–12, together with Lk. 4.18–20, suffice to show that it is indeed the Spirit who effects these witness-bearing signs. 2. Luke highlights James’s appeal to Scriptural prophecy (15.13–21) as confirmation of the conclusions Peter has drawn from the experience of Gentile converts receiving the Spirit. Following the comments of Peter and the report of Barnabas and Paul, both of which highlighted the witness conveyed through observable works of the Spirit, James takes the floor. He introduces a new factor, the ‘words of the prophets’ (15.15). He emphasizes that the words he is about to cite from Amos 9.11–12 have the status of Scripture (‘just as it is written’). These words of Scriptural prophecy, he says, ‘agree with’ (συμφωνοῦσιν) what Peter has concluded about God’s acceptance of the Gentiles. In terms of weight and evidentiary value, how does the word of Scripture cited by James compare with or contribute to witness of the Spirit’s works cited by Peter, Barnabas and Paul? On the one hand, it would not be unfair to Luke’s narrative to say that the Spirit’s witness does more to tip the balance towards Gentile acceptance: three speakers highlight the works of the Spirit while only one cites Scripture; two examples of the Spirit’s activity are set before the reader while only a single passage is from Scripture. But on the other hand, James’s appearance as the last to speak gives his words a certain conclusive quality. He does more than simply cite Scripture, he specifically brings it to bear as confirming what Peter had earlier said. Like James, Scripture has the final word.

Apostles and Spirit

203

Some interpreters highlight the specific way James words his comment about Scripture (‘and with this [i.e. the evidence cited by Peter] the words of the prophets agree’), concluding that Luke thereby implies that Scripture is being brought into conformity with events rather than events being interpreted in the light of Scripture,35 or that the reported events are shown to confirm Scripture rather than Scripture shown to confirm the reported events.36 But such inferences are unlikely. For one thing, συμφωνέω could be translated as ‘match’ as easily as ‘agree with’. The word appears in Lk. 5.36, for example, where Jesus speaks of a piece of new material not matching the old. In that passage, the idea is simply that the two items do not correspond; there is no connotation that the new material refuses to ‘agree’ with the old garment in the sense of actively adjusting itself to it or submitting to its higher authority. The most that might be said about Luke’s wording in Acts 15.15 is that it reflects the greater prominence he accords to outward evidences of the Spirit’s activity in this narrative, with the testimony of Scripture playing a more supportive role. But, as argued above, even a narrative that places Scripture in a supporting role can at the same time reflect the conviction that it carries great authority and demands full respect. 3. Within the narrative context of Acts 15 the statement that ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’ should be understood as a reference to the Spirit bearing witness through outward manifestations and signs, not through direct revelation, prophecy or hermeneutical insight into the meaning of Scripture. When the apostles and elders write to the churches about the decision they have reached, they say, ‘For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you’ (15.28). This clearly intends to say that, while those who attended the Jerusalem Council arrived at a reasoned and mutually agreed decision (see vs. 25), they did so with the conviction that their decision was fully in accord with what the Holy Spirit wanted. But how did the Spirit show them his will or lead the Council in their decision making? Although the statement in 15.28 does not by itself offer any clues, the preceding narrative context points us to an answer. The Spirit came upon uncircumcised Gentiles with outward manifestations and accomplished signs and wonders among them; these outwardly observable occurrences allowed the apostles

35. For example, Stephen Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 114; cf. John Christopher Thomas, ‘Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: A Pentecostal Hermeneutic as a Test Case’, in J. Green and M. Turner (eds), Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 108–22 (113–115). 36. L. T.  Johnson, Scripture and Discernment:  Decision Making in the Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 1–5. Such interpretations of 15.15 often go hand in hand with an attempt to treat Luke’s narrative of the Jerusalem Council as a paradigmatic scene that offers perspective on the use of Scripture in the process of making decisions in the church. But Luke has shaped his narrative to establish a point about the conditions under which Gentiles can be accepted by God, not to provide the church with a model for how to make decisions or use Scripture.

204

Spirit and Word

and elders to draw a logical conclusion, that God had accepted the Gentiles. Luke describes this process in 15.8–10 where Peter, after recounting how the Spirit had been given to Cornelius and his household, immediately says, ‘now therefore’ (νῦν οὖν) and draws the obvious conclusion concerning Gentile circumcision. James describes a similar process of reasoning in 15.19:  ‘therefore I  judge’ (διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω). In James’s case the reasoning builds on a double foundation, since evidence from Scripture is added to the experiential evidence described by Peter, but 15.14 implies that his conclusion is nevertheless partly based on the latter. And Luke highlights this same pattern of Spirit-given evidence followed by logical reasoning in his earlier portrayals of Cornelius’s conversion. After seeing the Spirit fall upon Cornelius and his household, Peter rhetorically asks whether anyone could object to their baptism (10.47), and on his return to Jerusalem, he reasons, ‘If therefore God gave them the same gift . . . who was I to hinder God?’ (11.17). In view of alternative explanations that are sometimes given about what is implied by ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’, we should notice that the narrative offers no specific indication that the Spirit guided the Jerusalem Council through direct charismatic revelation,37 prophetic messages or hermeneutical assistance in reading Scripture texts.38 Direct charismatic revelation cannot be completely ruled out, of course, since the Spirit is shown to communicate in this way elsewhere in Acts. Such guidance even occurs in the Cornelius narrative, where the Spirit informs Peter that messengers have arrived and he must go with them (10.19– 20). But Peter’s final conclusion about baptizing Cornelius and his household, as we have seen, is not attributed to this kind of direct revelation. A similar picture emerges with respect to prophecy. While the Spirit’s initiation of Barnabas and Paul’s mission into Gentile territory appears to come through a prophetic message (13.1–2), and while the prophets Judas and Silas accompany Barnabas and Paul when they take the Council’s decision to the churches, offering the believers words of encouragement (15.32), prophetic messages play no role in Luke’s account of the Council itself. And as for narrative indications that the Spirit assists the Council in its interpretation of Scripture, the conclusions James draws from Amos 9.11–12 seem to depend instead on the same process of reflection and reasoning that governs the apostles’ interpretation of the Spirit-effected manifestations and signs they observed among the Gentiles. So while all of these alternative explanations of 15.28 are certainly possible, and while on general grounds we may even consider it probable that Luke would have thought of the apostles as receiving some form of revelatory assistance from the Spirit beyond that provided by the signs and manifestations, his narrative offers no special information about this.39 37. As M. Turner suggests (‘Luke and the Spirit: Renewing Theological Interpretation of Biblical Pneumatology’, in C.  Bartholomew, J.  Green, and A.  Thiselton [eds], Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005], 267–93 (279). 38. For example, Fowl, Engaging, 103. 39. Levison argues that the inspired interpretation of Scripture ‘is the principal effect of the holy spirit in the book of Acts’ (Inspired, 152). This judgement depends partly on quite a broad concept of Scripture interpretation, but also on reading beyond what the

Apostles and Spirit

205

Luke’s portrayal of the Jerusalem Council thus depicts a particular type of Spirit– word duality. The Spirit’s action (in the form of visible manifestations) combines with words of Scripture to bear testimony to God’s acceptance of Gentiles, but this co-testimony is not marked by tightly integrated and interdependent action. The Spirit is not portrayed here as empowering the word, using the word, interpreting the word, or convincing people about the word. The Spirit and the Scripture simply stand side by side, each bearing independent testimony to the same truth. Nonetheless, there is one point at which the two factors are shown to interact. James’s appeal to Scripture seems to play a supportive role vis-à-vis the signs and manifestations of the Spirit: it confirms the Spirit-effected testimony and to some extent helps the Council interpret it.

relevant texts actually say or imply. For example, he cites 4.8–12, where Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit and delivers a speech that includes applying Ps. 118.22 to Jesus. But the primary effect of the Spirit’s filling is Peter’s boldness (noted in 4.13); Luke says nothing about content-reception or hermeneutical assistance. Moreover, the citation of Scripture is only one part of Peter’s speech, which also includes statements about the healing of the lame man and Jesus’s death and resurrection. Since Peter’s knowledge of these latter matters does not derive from inspiration, it is doubtful Luke wishes to attribute any of Peter’s speech content to inspiration. At most we might say that, here and in similar passages, the effect of the Spirit’s filling or empowerment of preachers includes guidance and enhanced understanding in a general way. Furthermore, while Luke does not specifically depict the Spirit aiding Scripture interpretation, he does portray Jesus giving the apostles eye-opening Scripture lessons (Lk. 24.25–27, 44–47), including pre-resurrection teaching on the specific text Peter alludes to in Acts 4 (Lk. 20.17).

12 I NDIVIDUAL F EATURES AND C OMMON G ROUND

It is now time to summarize the findings of our exegetical chapters, first with respect to the individual tendencies of the Pauline, Johannine and Lukan writings, then with regard to their shared patterns of thought.

I. Dual testimony in Paul In chapters 1 to 5 we examined eighteen Pauline passages depicting ‘dual testimony’ or ‘dual action’. These appear in five epistles: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians. 1. The ‘word’. The ‘word’ element (i.e. the component relating to outwardly given communication about Jesus) takes a variety of forms in these texts. In at least six instances, it is the gospel preached evangelistically. In other passages it is a matter of teaching, prophecy or hymns. In two passages it is a matter of Scripture, and in three instances Paul simply points his readers to Christ himself as the visible and knowable revelation of God. But whatever its specific form, this ‘word’ element typically displays two qualities: it communicates a message in human words (or, in the case of Christ himself, through a historical manifestation that can be described in human words) and the message relates to Christ. 2. The Spirit’s action. The Spirit’s action is likewise diverse in these passages, although in most cases it falls somewhere along a spectrum running from inward revelatory activity to inward transformative action. Some passages picture the Spirit persuading, proving, illumining and pouring out knowledge (1 Cor. 2.4– 5; 1 Thess. 1.4–5; 2 Cor. 4.6; Rom. 5.5–8) – revelatory actions that complement the outwardly communicated message about Christ.1 At the other end of the spectrum are passages where the Spirit sanctifies, brings to obedience, writes on hearts, transforms, generates worship and produces hope (Rom. 15.16, 18–19; 2 Cor. 3.3, 18, Eph. 5.18–19; Rom. 15.4//13); these acts relate to ethical 1. As noted in the Introduction, this study does not include those passages in which the Spirit’s revelatory action consists of giving or shaping content for outward proclamation; e.g. passages in which the Spirit enables prophecy (1 Cor. 12–14) or reveals mysteries to Paul (Eph. 3.3–5).

208

Spirit and Word

change. Still other passages depict activities that blend elements of revelation and transformation: the Spirit enables understanding and receptivity, removes a veil, or strengthens the inner person to comprehend (1 Cor. 2.10–16; 2 Cor. 3.12–17; Eph. 3.16–19). The presence of this latter group of passages, together with Paul’s frequent references to the Spirit influencing the heart or inner person (2 Cor. 3.3, 15; 4.6; Rom. 5.5; Eph. 3.16–17), suggests that the majority of Paul’s dual-action passages actually portray the Spirit performing a single basic type of activity that we may describe as ‘heart-impacting communication’ or ‘bringing the message about Christ into hearts’. But in some passages the Spirit’s action lies outside this dominant type: the Spirit also enables the interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 14.5, 13, 26–28), counters spiritual powers (Eph. 6.17), or simply comes and is present (Eph. 5.18–19). And in two passages the Spirit plays an essentially passive role visà-vis the outwardly communicated word; these are 1 Cor. 12.3 and 14.37, where Paul insists that Spirit-inspired prophecy be guided and tested by his gospel and teaching. 3. Rhetorical functions. Paul’s references to dual action serve a number of rhetorical purposes. a. In five passages Paul links the Spirit’s action to his preaching and teaching in order to validate his gospel ministry (1 Cor. 2.4–5; 2 Cor. 3.3; 6.6–7; Rom. 15.16, 18–19). b. In two passages he emphasizes that it is the Spirit who enables people to receive gospel preaching in order to explain why some reject his message (1 Cor. 2.10–16; 2 Cor. 3.12–17). c. In one instance, he reminds his readers that the Spirit acted in association with his preaching in order to assure them of their election (1 Thess. 1.4–5). d. In one passage, Paul’s reference to dual action contributes to a larger argument designed to counter human boasting (1 Cor. 2.4–5).2 e. In four instances a reference to dual action seems primarily designed to praise God and encourage believers by pointing them to God’s provision for their life in relation to him. Through the co-activity of the Spirit and Christ as the outwardly manifested revelation of God, God provides for the believers’ transformation (2 Cor. 3.18), perception of his glory (2 Cor. 4.6), and knowledge of his love (Rom. 5.5–8; Eph. 3.16–19). f. In five instances, Paul employs the dual-action motif to exhort believers to use the word. They are to use the word as a criterion for evaluating prophecy (1 Cor. 12.3), a guideline for prophetic activity (1 Cor. 14.37), a means to strengthen hope (Rom. 15.4//13), a means to the Spirit’s filling (Eph. 5.18–19) and a weapon in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6.17). g. In one passage, Paul connects the Spirit’s interpretative activity to tonguesspeech (a special form of outwardly spoken words) to remind believers of the 2. The reference to dual testimony in 1 Cor. 2.4–5 serves a double purpose, validating Paul while at the same time striking a blow against boasting in rhetorical talent.

Individual Features and Common Ground

209

importance of understanding and edification in corporate worship (1 Cor. 14.5, 13, 26–28). 4. Observations on Paul’s usage. Several observations emerge from Table  1. First, the majority of Paul’s dual-action passages cluster in four sections of text. One of these, 1 Cor. 12.1–14.40, forms a distinctive unit within the Pauline corpus and (not surprisingly) the dual-action texts within this section also display a distinctive character:  only here does Paul bring word and Spirit together to highlight the importance of edifying discourse and to establish guidelines for the practice of prophecy. To discover what is more common and characteristic about the dual-action motif in Paul’s thinking, however, we must turn to the other cluster sections, 1 Cor. 2.1–16; 2 Cor. 3.1–4.6; and Rom. 15.1–21. In each

Table 1. Paul’s dual-action passages Text

Form of word

Spirit’s action

Rhetorical function

1 Thes. 1.4–5 1 Cor. 2.4–5

gospel preaching gospel preaching

persuading proving

1 Cor. 2.10–16

preaching/teaching

making receptive

1 Cor. 12.3

basic confession

----

1 Cor. 14.5, 13, 26–28 1 Cor. 14.37

tongues

interpreting

assure believers validate Paul/ counter boasting explain rejection/ acceptance give guidelines for prophecy promote edification?

Paul’s instruction

----

2 Cor. 3.3 2 Cor. 3.12–17

gospel preaching gospel preaching?

writing on hearts removing a veil

2 Cor. 3.18 2 Cor. 4.6 2 Cor. 6.6–7 Rom. 5.5–8 Rom. 15.4 and 13

Christ Christ gospel Christ Scripture

transforming illumining unspecified revealing love fostering hope

Rom. 15.16 Rom. 15.18–19 Eph. 3.16–17 Eph. 5.18–19

gospel gospel unspecified teaching, hymns

sanctifying making obedient enabling knowledge unspecified

Eph. 6.17

Scripture?

warfare

give guidelines for prophecy validate Paul explain rejection/ acceptance encourage believers encourage believers validate Paul encourage believers exhort believers to use word validate Paul validate Paul encourage believers exhort believers to use word exhort believers to use word

210

Spirit and Word

of these extended passages, Paul is chiefly concerned with describing his ministry, defending its validity and explaining why it receives mixed results. His references to dual action contribute to that agenda. Here if anywhere is the central locus of Paul’s interest in the interplay between the Holy Spirit and the spoken message about Jesus Christ. A second observation concerns 1 Thess. 1.4–5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5. These passages display striking similarities (similar wording, a look back to Paul’s initial evangelistic preaching to his readers, the claim that when he preached the Spirit acted) yet differ with respect to the rhetorical purposes they serve. In the one instance Paul assures his readers about their status as God’s elect, in the other he validates his ministry and counters his readers’ wrong valuation of human abilities. Third, those passages in which the ‘word’ element is Christ himself as the visible and knowable revelation of God (2 Cor. 3.18; 4.6; Rom. 5.5–8; and maybe Eph. 3.16–19) are also the passages whose rhetorical function it is to encourage believers by reminding them of God’s provision for their life in relation with him – an interesting correlation. Finally, we observe a prominent yet somewhat distinctive emphasis on dual action in Ephesians. Here the ‘word’ element appears to be Scripture (6.17) or word-rich congregational worship (5.18–19 and possibly 3.16–19). While 3.16–19 shares the predominant Pauline stress on the Spirit as the one who enables reception and understanding of truth about Christ, 5.18–19 and 6.17 shift the focus to the believers’ responsibility to use the instrument of the word, with the implied promise that as they do the Spirit will act. This latter emphasis is not a totally new idea (the combination of Rom. 15.4 and 13 may reflect a similar thought) but it does differ from Paul’s more typical use of the dual-action motif. Eph. 6.17 is also distinctive in that it portrays the Spirit–word combination acting against spiritual forces – a new slant but quite fitting in the context of 6.10–20, a distinctive section focusing on spiritual warfare. 5. The Spirit–word interplay. Paul does not pause to directly explain the precise dynamics governing the interplay of Spirit and word, but we can nevertheless describe several features of his thinking. First, he clearly distinguishes the factors of Spirit and word and pictures them working on two different levels (note the contrastive grammar in passages like 1 Thess. 1.4–5; 1 Cor. 2.4–5; and 2 Cor. 3.3). The word factor is humanly conveyed and outward; the Spirit is divine (‘the Holy Spirit’, ‘the Spirit of God’) and typically exerts an inward influence. This inward aspect is explicit in some passages (2 Cor. 3.3, 15; 4.6; Rom. 5.5; Eph. 3.16–19) and implied in many others. Second, each factor has its own integrity and independent status; neither derives from or collapses into the other. Paul occasionally refers to elements of teaching that were revealed by the Spirit and would certainly have acknowledged the Spirit’s role in the inspiration of Israel’s Scriptures,3 but he more typically roots 3. Of course Paul derived many elements of his message from Scripture, which he would have understood as Spirit-given. But Scripture represents a revelation given in the historical past and thus stands somewhat separate from the present activity of the Spirit that Paul depicts in the dual-activity passages we are examining.

Individual Features and Common Ground

211

his message in the revelation he received directly from the risen Jesus and in the tradition delivered by those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus (Gal. 1.11–12; 1 Cor. 15.3–8). Third, Paul typically depicts the Spirit and the outwardly communicated message working together to achieve a single purpose. Several passages make the point that the humanly conveyed word depends on the Spirit’s power for its effectiveness; other texts depict the Spirit depending on the word, either as a channel that opens the way for the Spirit to come (Eph. 5.18–19), an instrument that the Spirit can use (Eph. 6.17),4 or a guiding standard to which the Spirit adheres (1 Cor. 12.3; 1 Cor. 14.37). Finally, two Pauline passages (2 Cor. 3.3 and Rom. 15.18–19) point behind the factors of word and Spirit to the ultimate agency of Christ. 6. Issues in Pauline theology. A  global overview of Paul’s dual-testimony/ action passages affords clearer perspective on several issues relating to his pneumatology and wider theology. A  first and obvious observation is that he indeed expresses a concept of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Passages such as 1 Thes. 1.5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5 depict the Spirit exerting a direct, faith-producing influence in conjunction with Paul’s preaching, while 2 Cor. 4.6, Rom. 5.5–8 and Eph. 3.16–19 describe the Spirit opening believers’ hearts to know what God has outwardly revealed though Jesus Christ. According to 1 Cor. 2.10–16, the Spirit enables people to understand and receive the message about Christ, while 2 Cor. 3.12–17 says the Spirit removes barriers to such reception. So if by ‘internal testimony of the Holy Spirit’ we mean a divine influence that accompanies the humanly communicated message about Christ and makes it effective, there is plenty of evidence showing that this forms a significant strand of Paul’s thinking. The passages we have surveyed also allow us to clarify his thought about the nature of this testimony, however. First, the Spirit’s testimony is tightly linked to the outwardly proclaimed message about Christ. If terms like ‘internal testimony’ or ‘illumination’ sometimes evoke thoughts of immediately received knowledge divorced from the historical revelation of Christ, this has little to do with Paul’s concept of the Spirit’s witness. Second, the Spirit’s internal testimony operates primarily in relation the gospel – the basic message and revelation of Christ. Paul does not present it as a matter of convincing Christian believers of the authority of Scripture (as the testimonium internum Spiritus sancti has often been understood in Protestant theology). A second observation concerns the Spirit’s hermeneutical role. The passages in which Paul aligns the present revelatory action of the Spirit with reading of Scripture or the reception of apostolic teaching do not depict the Spirit enabling

4. With its picture of a single instrument (the sword which is the word of God) being grasped by the believer and wielded by the Spirit at one and the same time, Eph. 6.17 suggests that the Spirit acts simultaneously with as well as in dependence upon human use of God’s word.

212

Spirit and Word

readers to discern new Christological or contemporary meanings in a previously given revelation. The two passages most often cited as examples of this type of hermeneutical activity are 1 Cor. 2.10–16 and 2 Cor. 3.6, 12–17. But 1 Cor. 2.10 most probably describes a revelatory work of the Spirit directed towards Paul and his fellow apostles, while the more widely directed action depicted in 2.14 is a matter of enabling people to recognize and receive gospel teaching, not of contextualizing it or explaining its sense. 2 Cor. 3.12–17 likewise depicts the Spirit’s role as a matter of enabling people to recognize the truth about Christ, not as that of aiding Scripture interpretation per se. Furthermore, the guideline passages in 1 Cor. 12.3 and 14.37 show that Paul expects the church to be guided by a body of revealed and accessible instruction whose message remains stable even at those times when the Spirit is most unmistakably active in revelatory ways. A third question in Pauline pneumatology concerns the relationship between the Spirit’s revelatory activity and work of ethical transformation.5 That Paul’s depiction of the Spirit’s activity in the dual-testimony/agency passages moves between the poles of revelatory and transformative action, and sometimes merges the two, implies that revelation plays a significant role in the process of Spiriteffected transformation – a linkage that becomes particularly evident in 2 Cor. 3.18. It appears that Paul saw the Spirit’s transforming work to involve a person’s mind and will6 and the Spirit’s revelatory work to affect a person’s attitude and disposition. The tendency of the dual-testimony/action passages thus weighs against views that stress ontic transformation as the sole factor effecting ethical change.7 The further question of whether Paul saw all of the Spirit’s transforming work as a subset or result of the Spirit’s revelatory action requires further investigation. Fourth, the overall tendency of Paul’s dual-activity passages contributes to our understanding of his anthropology. The many passages that highlight the Spirit’s action as a necessary complement to human communication about Christ, and especially those that depict the Spirit enabling reception and removing barriers and blindness (1 Cor. 2.10–16; 2 Cor. 3.12–17; 4.6; Eph. 3.16–19), cohere with and reinforce Paul’s broader picture of human incapacity. Finally, a global view of the passages where Paul depicts the co-activity of Spirit and word helps us see what he has in mind in texts where he stresses just one of these elements. When he depicts the Spirit (or God) giving knowledge of God’s love (Gal. 4.6; Rom. 8.15–16; 2 Thess. 3.5; Eph. 3.16–19), God’s will (Col. 1.9), or God himself (Eph. 1.17) without mentioning the instrumentality of preaching

5. See Rabens, Holy Spirit. 6. What Paul says about the interpretation of tongues in church gatherings underscores the role of the mind and understanding in the process of edification. But he also seems to acknowledge a kind of ‘wordless’ edification in the one who speaks in tongues (14.4a). Does this refer to genuine edification within a limited scope? Or does ‘edify’ take a slightly ironic sense here, highlighting the contrast between those who benefit themselves and those who benefit the church? 7. What Rabens calls the ‘infusion-transformation approach’ (Holy Spirit, 4).

Individual Features and Common Ground

213

or teaching, we should consider whether this latter thought may nevertheless lie unexpressed in the background. Or when we find Paul simply highlighting the power, importance and active nature of the gospel or the word (1 Thess. 2.13; 2 Thess. 3.1; 1 Cor. 1.18; Rom. 1.16; Col. 1.4–5; 3.16), we should think carefully before drawing conclusions about the inherent or automatic power of the word alone.

II. Dual testimony in John Eleven Johannine passages display the pattern of dual testimony or agency, six in the Gospel and five in 1 John. Of those in the Gospel, three occur in chapters 3–6 and three in the Paraclete passages of 14–16. 1. The ‘word’. In all but one of the dual-testimony passages in the Gospel, the outwardly communicated message is either a matter of Jesus’s words (6.63; 14.25–26; 16.12–15) or the totality of what he says and does as the one who has come into the world (3.1–15; 4.23–24). The exception is 15.26–27, where it is the witness of Jesus’s original disciples based on what they know from having been with him ‘from the beginning’. In 1 John the observation-grounded witness of Jesus’s first followers becomes the predominant form of the ‘word’, although in one passage, 5.6–8, it is actual events in Jesus’s life (‘water and blood’) that are paired with the witness of the Spirit. 2. The Spirit’s actions. The Spirit’s activity in the Johannine dual-action passages is predominantly revelatory in nature: the Spirit witnesses (Jn 15.26–27; 1 Jn 5.6–8); teaches and reminds (Jn 14.25–26; 1 Jn 2.18–27); guides, speaks and announces (Jn 16.12–15); gives knowledge (1Jn 3.23–24; 4.13–15); and strengthens believers with discernment (implied in 1 Jn 4.4). While two Gospel passages portray the Spirit giving birth or life (3.1–15; 6.63) and one depicts the Spirit enabling worship (4.23–24), even these activities appears to include a significant measure of revelatory action. The depiction of the Spirit in 1 Jn 4.6 is somewhat distinctive, however, in that here the Spirit’s presence is simply a thing to be confirmed or disconfirmed according to whether the person or group listens to the teaching of the ‘we’ group. 3. Narrative and rhetorical functions. The references to dual-testimony in the Gospel function at two levels; they serve one purpose within their time-of-Jesus narrative settings and another when it comes to John’s communication with his readers. At the purely narrative level, Jesus connects the factor of the Spirit’s work to that of his own outwardly given revelation in order to teach Nicodemus about the way to eternal life (3.1–15), explain to the Samaritan woman why the issue of which mountain to worship at is no longer relevant (4.23–24), explain to would-be followers why they find his words hard to understand (6.63), and tell his disciples how the Paraclete will help them in their future role as his servants and witnesses (14.25–26; 15.26–27; 16.12–15). At the level of the evangelist’s rhetorical agenda vis-à-vis his readers, these depictions of dual action teach the way to eternal life (3.1–15; 6.63), highlight the new way of relating to God that Jesus brings (4.23–24), validate the original disciples as authoritative teachers about Jesus (14.25–26;

214

Spirit and Word Table 2. Johannine dual-action passages

Text

Form of word

Spirit’s action

Jn 3.1–15 Jn 4.23–24

Jesus’s words/deeds Jesus’s words/deeds

Giving new life Enabling worship

Jn 6.63 Jn 14.25–26 Jn 15.25–26 Jn 16.12–15 1 Jn 2.18–27 1 Jn 3.23–24 1 Jn 4.1–6 1 Jn 4.13–15 1 Jn 5.6–8

Jesus’s words Jesus’s words Disciples’ witness Jesus’s words Original message Original message Original message Original message Water and blood

Rhetorical function

Teach way to eternal life Issue of Samaritans/ worship Giving life Teach way to eternal life Teaching, reminding Validate disciples’ witness Witnessing to Jesus Explain witness to Jesus Guiding/announcing Validate disciples’ witness Teaching re. truth Counter false teachers Assuring Give assurance Guarding, passive Criterion/false teachers Assuring Give assurance Witnessing Counter false teachers

16.12–15), and explain how witness to Jesus will be carried out during the period after his departure (15.25–26). In 1 John the dual-testimony motif appears primarily in passages designed to counter the influence of the secessionists. John uses it to recall his readers to the message of the original witnesses while at the same time reminding them of the resource they have in the Holy Spirit (2.18–27; 4.1–4; 5.6–8). But in two passages he highlights the dual factors of Spirit and Christological tradition in order to assure his readers about their relationship with God (3.23–24; 4.13–15), and in one instance he urges them to make the teaching of the original witnesses a criterion for judging claims about the Spirit’s inspiration (4.6). 4. Observations on Johannine usage. A glance at Table 2 makes it immediately clear that the rhetorical functions of the Johannine dual-testimony passages stand very close to the central concerns of the works or sections in which they appear. Those appearing in the first half of the Gospel support that section’s emphasis on Jesus as the way to eternal life, those falling within the Last Supper discourses explicate the disciples’ post-departure situation, and those in 1 John (where the dual-action motif is particularly prominent) form an integral part of the epistle’s response to the opponents who were troubling the community.8 5. The nature of the Spirit–word interplay. With respect to the dynamics of the Spirit–word relationship we note, first, that the Spirit and the outwardly revealed or proclaimed word stand as distinct and independent elements. This is especially clear in those passages in the Gospel where the ‘word’ element is formed by Jesus’s 8. The Johannine predilection for parallel passages in which an idea is first introduced then later revisited (often with expansion or development) also shows up in connection with the dual-action passages. Jn 6.63 partially pairs with 3.1–15, especially 3.6; 16.12–15 parallels 14.25–26; 1 Jn 4.1–6 parallels 2.18–27; and 1 Jn 4.13–15 parallels 3.23–24.

Individual Features and Common Ground

215

directly spoken words and visible deeds, but it is also evident in passages where the witness and message of Jesus’s original followers constitute the ‘word’ factor. The Gospel links the message of the first disciples to observation and memory (14.25–26; 15.27) and 1 John emphatically establishes historical hearing and seeing as the direct basis for the ‘from-the-beginning’ message and the testimony of the ‘we’ group (1.1–4). So the outwardly given word does not simply derive from the Spirit. Nor is the Spirit simply an aspect of the word. The Spirit’s activities always have their own distinct status and role in relation to the outwardly proclaimed message about Jesus. If the witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood are one with respect to their message (1 Jn 5.8), for example, the Spirit nevertheless performs the unique function of bearing witness to the water and the blood (5.6). Second, the Johannine dual-action passages consistently depict the Spirit and the word working together to achieve a common goal, whether that be making Christ known, enabling life or assuring believers of their standing before God. That neither factor is sufficient without the other is directly stated in Jn 4.24 and strongly implied in Jn 6.63, 15.26–27 and 1 Jn 5.6–8. The Spirit enables the word to be believed, received or otherwise made effective in the lives of those who hear it, while at least one passage (Jn 6.63) implies that the ‘word’ factor (in this case the words Jesus speaks) brings the Spirit into play. Third, although John does not particularly highlight the point, the Spirit’s witnessing action appears to touch its recipients internally (in contrast to Jesus’s words and deeds and the proclamation of his original followers, which convey a message outwardly). 1 Jn 2.27 and 4.4 imply internal activity, and 3.23–24 and 4.13–15 hint at it as well. 6. Issues in Johannine theology. Our examination of dual-testimony passages sheds light on a number of questions in Johannine theology. One concerns the theme of human inability to perceive the revelation brought by Jesus Christ (a disturbing undercurrent in a book whose stated purpose is to lead people to belief and life in Jesus). The dual-testimony motif in Jn 3.1–15, 6.63 and 15.26–27 reinforces the Gospel’s general picture of human blindness while at the same time showing that God provides the Spirit to overcome this problem. But how and when does the Spirit act, and can anything be humanly done to bring the Spirit onto the scene? The Nicodemus episode hints at a way forward by moving from a statement about the wind mysteriously blowing wherever it wills to a picture of the Son of man openly lifted up with a promise of life to those who look and believe. 6.63 then calls attention to Jesus’s words as the doorway to the Spirit and life, while 15.26–27 implies that the Spirit will work as his followers bear their human testimony to him. A second issue concerns the Spirit’s role as interpreter and teacher of things concerning Jesus. Does John understand this to involve expanding or reworking the disciples’ memory and understanding of Jesus’s historical words and deeds? It is frequently argued that Jn 14.25–26 and 16.12–15 depict a process through which memories are reshaped and the Jesus tradition grows and develops as a living entity. 1 Jn 2.18–27 and 4.1–6 are then read as additional descriptions of this process: what the Spirit teaches the community in the present merges with the message heard

216

Spirit and Word

from the beginning to form a freshly developing authoritative tradition. But an analysis of how these passages depict dual testimony exposes problems with this line of thought. Chief among them is that it compromises the integrity of one side of the duality John sets up (the independently grounded message of Jesus’s original disciples) by subsuming it under the other (the revelatory action of the Spirit). Third, our findings impinge on the question of sacramental theology, particularly whether the Johannine writings present baptism and the Eucharist as acts having an inherent life-giving efficacy. The most relevant passages are Jn 3.5 (which stands within the dual-testimony passage 3.1–15) and 6.53–58 (which stands close to the expression of dual action in 6.63). The dual-testimony motif sheds little light on the debate over whether these passages actually allude to baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the first place, but it does imply something about how John must have viewed these ordinances if he did intend to speak about them. Within the Johannine pattern of dual testimony, the Spirit is never merged with or simply contained in Jesus’s words or the testimony of his first disciples. Rather, the Spirit stands distinct from the message of and about Jesus and bears convincing, life-giving witness to its truth. This suggests that, if the water in Jn 3.5 does make any reference to Christian baptism and the eating and drinking in Jn 6.53–58 do refer to partaking of the Lord’s Supper, these actions cannot be understood as having an intrinsic life-giving quality of their own or as bearing the Spirit as one of their inherent properties. Fourth, while Spirit’s activity is primarily revelatory in the Johannine dualtestimony passages, the question of transformative action does come up in 3.1–15 and 6.63. For example, there has been debate over whether the new birth depicted in John 3 should be understood as belief-enabling illumination or general moral transformation. The overall pattern of dual testimony in John suggests that while both themes may be present, that of belief-enabling illumination dominates. Fifth, the motif of dual testimony provides a helpful framework for assessing the classic (and very legitimate) question or whether the new birth spoken of in Jn 3.1–15 precedes or follows belief in Jesus. Because the Spirit is typically depicted enabling belief or understanding, we are pushed to see the giving of new birth as a similar kind of work, one that precedes and enables belief in Jesus. Nevertheless, if the birth image also includes secondary reference to a wider transformation of life, this latter aspect may be viewed as an effect of the Spirit that follows and results from believing. Finally, the Johannine dual-testimony passages, particularly those depicting the interplay of word and Spirit in the initial call to faith, contribute to our understanding of John’s larger portrayal of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. The Gospel of John as a whole stands as an appeal to believe, yet it also contains references to human inability to do so apart from God’s action. This corresponds to the essential structure of dual testimony, where Jesus’s outwardly revealed words and deeds demand human response while the Spirit’s action enables it. For example, the absolute need for the Spirit to act is stated most clearly in 3.1–15 and 6.63, yet both passages immediately move on to call attention to Jesus’s outwardly given revelation. The implied message seems to be that everything

Individual Features and Common Ground

217

depends on the mysterious work of the Spirit but there is nevertheless a practical way forward even for mere human flesh: attend to Jesus’s words and his lifting up on the cross.

III. Dual testimony in Luke We focused attention on just three passages in Acts where the motif of dual testimony appears with special force: 5.32; 1.12–2.41; and 15.1–35. These passages offer good windows into Luke’s thinking, although it should be remembered that the theme of dual testimony also comes to expression elsewhere in Acts, particularly in those places where Luke depicts the Spirit empowering the apostles’ preaching or confirming it with visible signs. 1. The ‘word’. The predominant vehicle of outwardly given verbal testimony about Jesus in Acts is apostolic preaching and teaching. This is the factor that stands alongside the witness of the Spirit in 5.32 and 1.12–2.41. In 15.1–35, however, it is Scripture that functions in tandem with the Spirit’s witness-bearing action. 2. The Spirit’s action. The book of Acts as a whole assigns a wide range of witnessrelated activities to the Spirit:  producing manifestations in those who believe, effecting signs and wonders, empowering the apostles, convincing their hearers and inspiring prophecy. All these activities appear in the foundational picture set out in 2.1–41 (with dramatic manifestations and the empowerment of the apostles figuring most prominently) and all form part of the background when 5.32 briefly identifies the Spirit as a witness (though here the work of enabling miraculous signs stands somewhat in the forefront). In the dual-testimony narrative of 15.1–35 the focus narrows to manifestations and signs. 3. Narrative and rhetorical functions. The structural juxtaposition of apostles and Spirit in Acts 1–2 serves an important rhetorical purpose by highlighting the basic generative pattern that underlies the birth and ongoing life of the church. That pattern is to some extent reiterated in 5.32, but there the reference to dual testimony also serves a more specific apologetic function. At the level of the narrative scene, the claim that the Holy Spirit stands together with the apostles contributes to their defense before the Sanhedrin; it calls attention to the validating signs that accompany their preaching and constitutes a claim that they have God’s approval. These same effects come into play at the level of Luke’s message to his readers: the apostles are God-approved messengers; their message about Jesus is confirmed by the powerful work of the Spirit. The dual witness of Scripture and Spirit serves a similar apologetic function in 15.1–35, although here the point that needs proving concerns God’s acceptance of Gentile believers. 4. Observations on Lukan usage. Luke depicts dual witness in the service of his central theological concerns:  the establishment of the church, the spread of the gospel and the acceptance of Gentiles. The motif is present at several points in Acts, especially in the early chapters, but plays a particularly prominent role at two key moments in the story, the birth of the church in chapters 1–2 and the Jerusalem Council in chapter 15. It comes to expression in a variety of forms: in a

218

Spirit and Word

brief saying, in the plot of a single episode and in the structure of a larger narrative section. 5. The nature of the Spirit–word interplay. The dynamics of the Spirit–word relationship vary according to which of the Spirit’s witness-bearing activities is in view and what form the ‘word’ element takes. When manifestations or miraculous signs partner with apostolic preaching, the Spirit’s witness can be said to accompany the word, stand alongside it and support it. Where manifestations and signs partner with Scripture (as in Acts 15) similar dynamics apply except that the direction of support changes. But in neither case are the two factors connected integrally, in the sense that one works through the other or is enabled by the other. When the Spirit’s witness-bearing action is a matter of empowering apostolic preaching or convincing those who hear it, by way of contrast, the link between the two factors is more integral:  in the former instance the preaching depends on the Spirit, in the latter the Spirit makes the preaching effective in the hearts of those who hear it. 6. Issues in Lukan theology. A  first area where sensitivity to the way Luke portrays dual testimony sheds light on the theology of Acts is ecclesiology. It is widely recognized that Acts lays particular stress on the role of the Holy Spirit in the church, beginning with its birth in the dramatic events of Pentecost and continuing on in every aspect of its ensuing life and growth. But this wide recognition of the importance Luke accords the Spirit sometimes leads readers to overlook the equal importance Luke assigns to the apostles as a distinct and necessary group whose testimony to Jesus likewise plays an essential part in the birth and ongoing life of the church. Awareness of the dual-testimony motif, especially as expressed through the structure of Acts 1–2, can help us avoid an imbalanced reading in this area. A second major strand of Lukan theology relates to missions and evangelism. For the most part, the dual-testimony material simply reinforces the common perception that Luke lays special emphasis on two factors in the process of evangelism, the Holy Spirit’s empowerment of preachers and the evidentiary effect of accompanying signs and wonders. Our analysis of dual testimony may add just one note of clarification about the second of these factors:  the evidentiary impact of miraculous signs, such as healings and exorcisms, should probably be distinguished from the impact of the manifestations that sometimes accompany reception of the Spirit, such as speaking in tongues and charismatic praise. While the latter are shown to bear testimony to God’s acceptance of those who believe (particularly in the case of doubtful groups such as Gentiles), only the former are highlighted as impacting people’s attraction and response to the gospel. Finally, Luke’s overall picture of dual testimony sheds a sliver of light on a question concerning his pneumatology that has arisen in recent years. Several writers have urged that the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 presents a paradigmatic picture of the Spirit guiding the church in the process of making theological decisions. Luke’s narrative is thought to show either that the Spirit gives

Individual Features and Common Ground

219

the church special insight into the meaning of Scripture or that the Spirit reveals God’s mind in ways that in some instances bypass or subordinate Scripture.9 These readings of Acts 15 raise a number of exegetical questions that lie beyond our current scope of interest,10 but our analysis of the relationship between the Spirit’s action and the apostles’ decision in that chapter nevertheless allows two observations. First, neither hermeneutical assistance nor direct charismatic revelation receives highlighting as a factor that brings the Council to its decision. Second, Scripture enters the Acts 15 narrative as an independent source that confirms what the Spirit’s actions seem to indicate.

IV. Common features What do Paul, John and Luke share in common with respect to the dual-testimony motif? First and foremost, all three writers show a concept of dual action in which word and the Spirit work together in complementary ways to be a deeply engrained part of their thought. Second, each writer uses this motif to support some of his most central themes and concerns. Paul uses it to defend his gospel ministry, encourage believers and establish guidelines for church practice. John ties it to his theme of eternal life through belief in Jesus, uses it to explain and validate the future testimony to be borne by Jesus’s followers, and in 1 John puts it to work to counteract schism and opposing teachers. Luke employs it to elucidate his portrayal of the establishment of the church, the spread of the gospel and God’s acceptance of Gentiles. Third, despite their flexible and multifaceted depictions of dual testimony, each writer frequently portrays the Spirit as an agent who in some way convinces people about the word. Fourth, in its most common form (predominant in Paul and John but also present in Acts) this motif depicts a word–Spirit interplay marked by three features. (1) The word element and the Spirit are independent factors, each with its distinct status and integrity. (2) They operate on different levels: one functions on a normal human plane, the other on a more-than-human plane; one communicates outwardly, the other inwardly. (3)  They work in an interdependent manner to accomplish a single task. In most cases, this interdependence is a matter of the Spirit making the word effective, in others a matter of the word opening the way for the Spirit or enabling the Spirit to work. Fifth, in each of these writers the word element most frequently takes the form of apostolic preaching and teaching.

9. For example, Stephen Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation, 1998, 103; Thomas, ‘Reading’, 119. 10. See Wiarda, ‘The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task’, JETS 46 (2003), pp. 233–48.

220

Spirit and Word

Sixth, each writer has at least one dual-testimony passage in which the word factor functions as a criterion or guideline for evaluating claims concerning the activity of the Spirit. Seventh, Paul and John share three significant points of common ground that are lacking in Luke. (1) Both writers contain several passages best interpreted as depicting the Spirit’s direct revelatory influence on those hearing the message about Jesus (although John lacks Paul’s explicit emphasis on the ‘heart’ or ‘inner person’). While this thought is not wholly absent in Acts, Luke places greater emphasis on the Spirit’s outward signs and manifestations. (2)  Their depictions of dual testimony frequently correlate with their strong sense of human inability. (3)  Both writers give primary emphasis to the Spirit’s revelatory activity while nevertheless blending this with the thought of transformative or life-giving action. Eighth, a point of similarity linking Paul and Luke is that both place heavy emphasis on the Spirit confirming or validating apostolic witness. This theme is only weakly present in the Johannine writings. Finally, Luke and John share a certain emphasis on the historical grounding of the apostle’s testimony. This is lacking in Paul, at least in connection with the dual-testimony motif.

13 D EVELOPMENTS AND A NTECEDENTS

The motif of dual testimony/action appears in three major streams of NT literature. Although Paul, John and Luke display individual differences in the ways they express and employ this theme, several common elements are also evident. The parallels are striking enough to raise the question of whether lines of influence can be traced from one writer to another, or whether a shared tradition or background underlies their employment of this particular pattern of thought. We will give these matters some brief consideration. I  begin with two specific issues, the first relating to a possible line of development in Paul’s use of the motif and the second to the frequently made suggestion that John’s portrayal of dual testimony, especially as formulated in Jn 15.26–27, developed from the Synoptic tradition that underlies Mk 13.11 and its parallels. These narrowly focused probes are followed by more general reflections on precedents to the dual-testimony concept and on the correlation between that concept and newly arising conditions in the early Christian movement.

I. From Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ We identified eighteen Pauline passages displaying the motif of dual testimony or action. Do these allow us to trace lines of development in Paul’s thinking? The question is worth investigating even if we must hold our conclusions lightly, remembering that we are working with limited data and that Paul may have said other things relating to dual testimony that are now lost to us. I  will attempt a limited analysis. If we set aside the three passages in 1 Corinthians 12–14 (where Paul pursues a distinctive set of rhetorical concerns) and Rom. 15.4//13; Eph. 5.18–19; and 6.17 (where he exhorts believers to use the word), we are left with twelve passages where Paul depicts the Spirit acting in connection either with his gospel preaching or the outward display of God’s glory and love in Jesus Christ. We may take these twelve expressions of dual action in chronological order and trace the developments that appear. The first in this series and the earliest Pauline dual-action passage overall appears in 1 Thess. 1.4–5, usually thought to date from 50 or 51. Paul reminds his readers about the concrete circumstances of his mission among them: he preached

222

Spirit and Word

and the Spirit acted in power to convince them that his message was true. Paul highlights the Spirit’s action in order to assure his readers that they have indeed been chosen by God. The second dual-action passage occurs in 1 Cor. 2.4–5  – written some five years later (54/55). It is remarkably similar to 1 Thess.  1.4–5. Once again Paul reminds his readers of his initial preaching among them, emphasizing that the Spirit acted with power to give them conviction and faith. There is a shift in rhetorical aim, however, in keeping with the different situation Paul now addresses. He reminds his Corinthian readers that the Spirit made his preaching effective, not to assure them of their election, but to counteract their overestimation of human wisdom while at the same time underlining the validity of his own ministry. So at this point there is little change in the basic concept, just in the implications Paul draws from it. But then almost immediately he takes the dual-testimony concept in a new direction. If his essential claim in 1 Thess. 1.4–5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5 was, ‘When I preached the Spirit acted’, in 1 Cor. 2.12–16 this becomes ‘People respond to the gospel only when the Spirit enables them’. Paul is still defending his gospel ministry but now focuses on accounting for the fact that not everyone accepts his teaching. And as he does so he moves from reminding his readers of specific events in their past to stating a more generally applicable principle. Two more passages connecting the Spirit’s action with Paul’s preaching then occur in 2 Corinthians 3, written perhaps a year after 1 Corinthians. In 3.3 we find a statement that is conceptually very similar to those in 1 Thess. 1.4–5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5. Here again Paul reminds his readers of his gospel ministry among them and advances the claim that when he preached the Spirit acted, and as in 1 Cor. 2.4–5 his rhetorical agenda is to defend the validity of his ministry. But there are three fresh developments. The plainer statements in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians blossom into the arresting metaphor of letter writing. The implied interiority of the Spirit’s action is now made explicit by the image of the Spirit writing on hearts. And while the idea of a convincing, faith-producing action of the Spirit likely remains in place, a new thought drawing on Jer. 31.33 and Ezek. 36.26–27 is also intimated: when Paul preached the Spirit also effected an ethical change. These shifts appear quite natural. We can almost see them happening. Coming into 2 Corinthians Paul has the basic idea of dual action already in place. He knows how to use it as an argument to support the validity of his ministry. But now the issue of recommendation letters comes to his mind, probably sparked by specific new elements in the Corinthian situation. And with the thought of written letters comes Jeremiah’s image of writing on hearts, and closely allied with that, Ezekiel’s reference to new hearts made obedient through the presence of God’s Spirit. It is impossible to say exactly how and in what order these various thoughts and images came together in Paul’s mind, but it is not hard to imagine the initial confluence happening right at this point as one image or element attracted another.1 1. Even though Jer. 31.31–33 and Ezek. 36.26–27 express ideas very similar to that of dual action it is unlikely that they lie at the origin of Paul’s thinking in this area. 1 Thess. 1.4–5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5 most likely reflect the earliest form of Paul’s thinking about dual

Developments and Antecedents

223

2 Cor. 3.3 is followed shortly by another dual-action passage in 3.14–17. With its picture of hearts that need unveiling, this passage makes essentially the same point as that expressed in 1 Cor. 2.12–16, namely, that people respond to the gospel only when the Spirit enables them. In the progression of Paul’s discourse in 2 Corinthians 3 we thus see a sequence similar to that observed in 1 Corinthians 2. Paul moves from an apologetically motivated affirmation that the Spirit acted when he ministered the gospel to an explanation of why many nonetheless reject his message. What is new in 2 Cor. 3:14–17 is Paul’s specific focus on the people of Israel and his imagery of glory, veils and unveiling – elements that enter the picture because of special themes that have arisen in the course of Paul’s preceding argument in 3.7–13. Yet another passage depicting the cooperation of gospel and Spirit follows immediately in 2 Cor. 3.18 – except that here it is not exactly the gospel that Paul pairs with the Spirit, but instead the actual subject and focus of all gospel preaching, Christ himself as the outwardly imaged revelation of God’s glory. And with this shift from pairing Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ come three additional developments. First, whereas the preceding Spirit–gospel passages described the impact of dual action in connection with evangelism, Paul now describes an ongoing action in believers. Second, the element of ethical transformation that was intimated in the letter metaphor of 3.3 now takes centre stage. Third, while the earlier dual-action statements (with the exception of 1 Thess. 1.5) were put to work to defend the validity of Paul’s ministry, his statement in 2 Cor. 3.18 aims simply at encouraging believers and/or expressing praise for the richness of God’s revelatory action. So Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 3.18 represents a major extension or deepening of his concept of dual testimony. This deeper conception of dual testimony (apart from the emphasis on ethical transformation) comes to expression again in 4.6 where, in what seems to be primarily a burst of praise, Paul speaks of Christ as the outwardly shining locus of God’s revealed glory and of the Spirit (contextually implied) as the agent who shines in believers’ hearts so that they can see that glory. At this point we should pause to observe how the new development of thought from Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ is driven by the momentum of Paul’s rhetoric and argumentation in the paragraphs leading up to 3.18. The flow of Paul’s argument can be traced from the allusion to a new covenant in the letter metaphor of 3.3. From there Paul goes on to highlight his identity as a minister of this new covenant, marked by the Spirit and life. Then, to illustrate the superior glory of the new covenant and his new covenant ministry, he introduces the Exodus account of Moses’s shining face. He makes his point (that the glory of the new is greater than

testimony, and those texts display no particular sign of having arisen from reflection on Jer. 31.31–33 and Ezek. 36.26–27. They call attention to and derive their force from concrete experiences of the Spirit’s power and they focus on the Spirit’s work of bringing conviction and faith with no note about ethical transformation. Furthermore, the allusions to Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 2 Cor. 3.3 are inseparably embedded within Paul’s letter-writing metaphor, which is very closely tied to the specific situation Paul addresses in 2 Corinthians 3.

224

Spirit and Word

that of the old) but is then obliged to explain why so many of the people of Israel have nevertheless failed to see that glory. This he does in 3.14–17 by developing an argument based on the veil mentioned in the Exodus story. Paul’s flow of thought is of course complex, but by the end of 3.17 he has a number of themes and images in fluid motion: his gospel, the Spirit, visible glory, a glorious face, a veiled face, veiled hearts and an act of unveiling. That he should then put these materials together to create the new formulations we find in 2 Cor. 3.18 and 4.6 could never have been predicted, but once the formulations are made they appear natural enough. The rhetorical developments that precede them provide materials, conditions and momentum quite sufficient to account for their emergence. An additional passage linking the Spirit’s action to Paul’s preaching occurs in 2 Cor. 6.6–7. Here as in 1 Thess. 1.4–5 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5 the elements of word, Holy Spirit, and power are brought together, though now they are embedded within a much longer list of factors marking Paul’s ministry, and the nature of the Spirit’s activity is less clearly indicated (it may primarily involve empowering Paul). Once again, Paul cites the Spirit’s action as evidence that demonstrates the validity of his mission, but now he describes the general pattern of his ministry rather than a specific event in the past. The dual-testimony motif next appears in Rom. 5.5–8, written some two years after 2 Corinthians. Rom 5.5–8 is a dual-action passage of the type first introduced in 2 Cor. 3.18 and 4.6, one that pairs the inward revelatory action of the Spirit with God’s outwardly given self-manifestation in Christ. Its rhetorical purpose is oriented towards encouraging believers; it describes an ongoing activity of the Spirit in their lives. But now Paul highlights the revelation of God’s love rather than his glory and he points to the historical event of Christ’s death as the specific locus of Christ’s visible imaging of God’s character. Two more passages that relate the Spirit’s action to Paul’s preaching appear in Romans 15. In 15.16 he returns to depicting the co-action of the Spirit and gospel preaching, making the same basic claim articulated in 1 Thess. 1.5; 1 Cor. 2.4–5; and 2 Cor. 3.3, ‘When I preached the Spirit worked.’ But now he emphasizes that his ministry is directed especially towards Gentiles and employs a striking new metaphor well suited to supporting that emphasis. He pictures himself as priest whose offering (the Gentiles to whom he preaches) is made holy by the Spirit. Once again, his chief concern is to affirm the validity of his ministry. Like the letter metaphor of 2 Cor. 3.3, this temple-offering image suggests that the Spirit’s action includes ethical transformation as well as bringing conviction and faith. And as in 2 Cor. 6.6–7 Paul describes the general pattern of his ministry rather than pointing his readers back to a specific ministry event. Another dual-action passage then follows almost immediately in Rom. 15.18–19. As in 1 Thess. 1.4–5; 1 Cor. 2.4–5; and 2 Cor. 6.6–7, Paul once again brings together the trio of preached word, Spirit and power. But as in the last of these precedents, he does not specify nature of the Spirit’s action – it may include the working of signs, the empowerment of Paul and the kind of sanctifying of his hearers just depicted in 15.16. Finally, we must note Eph. 3.16–17, where Paul asks God to work in his readers’ hearts though his Spirit so that they may grasp the love of Christ that surpasses

Developments and Antecedents

225

knowledge. Written perhaps around 60/61, some three years after the writing of Romans,2 this passage aligns with the pattern of 2 Cor. 3.18; 4.6; and Rom 5.5–8. It pictures an ongoing work of the Spirit in conjunction with God’s self-revelation in Christ and aims at encouragement and praise. So through these twelve passages we see a number of variations:  from plain statements to metaphors, from reminding readers of past events to stating general principles, from the work of persuasion to that of transformation, from ministry defense to encouragement and praise, from Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ. To what extent do these literary interconnections and progressions shed light on the actual chronological development of Paul’s thinking? We do not know when, where, or how Paul may have used this motif in contexts outside of his extant writings, of course. But the literary evidence we do have allows a few suggestions. First, the developments we observe in Paul’s expression of the dual-action concept were driven primarily by audience, rhetorical situation and the demands of Paul’s progressing argument within particular epistolary contexts rather than by simple theoretical reflection. Second, it is likely that the concept of dual action first became an important part of Paul’s thinking in close connection with his missionary experience of preaching the gospel. Six of the twelve passages we have surveyed refer to what happened when he preached and all but one of these aim at defending or explaining his ministry of proclaiming the gospel. Third, we can probably sharpen this point and say that 1 Thes. 1.5–6 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5 reflect the earliest stage of Paul’s thinking in this area, or at least the earliest stage of which we have evidence. This conclusion depends in part on 1 Thes. 1.5–6 being the earliest Pauline expression of dual action known to us and on 1 Cor. 2.4–5 standing at the head of the extensive series of dual-action passages in the Corinthian correspondence. But it is also supported by the nature of the variations that appear in the later passages. In almost every case there is a certain logical plausibility to viewing the thought expressed in 1 Thes. 1.5–6 and 1 Cor. 2.4–5 as the generative starting point from which the observed adaptation or offshoot grew. For instance, it is easy to suppose that plain statements about dual testimony preceded the fully formed metaphors we encounter in 2 Cor. 3.3 and Rom. 15.16. With respect to rhetorical purpose, the evident fact that the Spirit had worked powerfully when he preached would have been an obvious argument for Paul to seize upon and employ in defense of his ministry, while the related but more reflective thought that people were unable to respond apart from the Spirit is less immediately obvious and therefore more likely to represent a secondary development. And given that Paul was first and foremost an evangelist, it is easy to suppose that his thinking focused first on the Spirit’s convincing influence in connection with gospel preaching and only later on the underlying dynamics of the Spirit’s revelatory action in relation to Christ as the image of God.

2. Those who consider Ephesians to have been written after Paul’s death would date it much later and consider it to reflect a posthumous development of Pauline teaching.

226

Spirit and Word

Third, 2 Cor. 3–4 appears to be the actual site of some of the most significant developments in Paul’s thinking, triggered primarily by the demands of his rhetorical situation and the momentum of his progressing argument. As I suggested above, the fresh imagery and extended understanding the Spirit’s action in connection with gospel preaching expressed in the letter metaphor of 2 Cor. 3.3 appears to owe its existence in part to specific factors in the Corinthian situation, while the major transition in 2 Cor. 3.18 from Spirit and gospel to Spirit and Christ depends on and grows naturally from Paul’s freshly developing argument in the immediately preceding paragraphs. Finally, tracking the developments that occur in Paul’s expression of this motif chronologically shows them to be a matter of flexible adaptation and branching out rather than permanent change or replacement. Paul can express dual action in a new form or put it to a new purpose but then in a later context return to the earlier form or application.

II. From Synoptic saying to Johannine theology? Our second foray into questions relating to the development of the dual-testimony concept concerns the influential hypothesis that the formulation in Jn 15.26–27, together with the Fourth Gospel’s larger picture of the Paraclete, developed from a spark provided by the Synoptic saying about the Holy Spirit aiding disciples by giving them words to speak at times when they were put on trial (Mt. 10.18–20; Mk 13.9–11; Lk. 12.11–12 and 21.12–15).3 The most important evidence supporting this proposal is, first, that John’s picture of dual witness (when interpreted as a matter of the Spirit enabling the disciples to bear testimony) correlates with the Synoptic picture of the Spirit giving disciples the words they speak; and, second, that the emphasis on persecution and martyrdom in the context surrounding Jn 15.26–27 parallels the trial situation depicted in the Synoptic tradition. Our earlier analyses of Jn 15.26–27 and Acts 5.32 complicates this hypothesis in two ways, however. First, I argued that Jn 15.26–27 does not picture the Spirit speaking through the disciples (as in Mk 13.11; Mt. 10.18–20) or teaching them what to

3. Brown, e.g., argues that the larger section of tradition reflected in Mt. 10.17–25, with its references to the world’s hatred, persecution, synagogue opposition, martyrdom and the Spirit’s help when disciples are put on trial, influenced the whole of Jn 15.18–16.4a, and suggests that the Synoptic tradition’s picture of the Spirit speaking through persecuted disciples ‘may have been the principal catalyst for the development of John’s understanding of the Paraclete’ (John, 2.693–701). While not committing himself to the full developmental view, Michel Gourgues likewise affirms a family connection between Jn 15.26–27 and the Synoptic tradition (‘Le Paraclet, L’Esprit de Vérité:  Deux Désignations, Deux Fonctions’, in G. Van Belle, J. G. Van Der Watt and P. Maritz [eds.], Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel [BETL, 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005], pp. 83–108 [106]). This hypothesis is also discussed in Chapter 8.

Developments and Antecedents

227

say (as in Lk. 12.11–12), but rather as addressing the world directly in a way that parallels yet stands distinct from the testifying action of the disciples. The disciples’ testimony derives from what they have seen and heard through being with Jesus. Second, we saw that Acts 5.32 expresses the same dual-witness formula as Jn 15.26–27. We must therefore bring that passage into the picture. How can we talk about a line of development running from the Synoptic trial tradition to Jn 15.26–27 without taking Acts 5.32 into account? The trial setting of Acts 5.32 is even more obvious than that of Jn 15.26–27, and Acts has more clearly established literary ties to the Synoptic tradition than does John.4 It is this second complication that I wish to examine more closely. If we posit a line of influence running from the tradition reflected in Mk 13.11 to the dual-testimony statement in Jn 15.26–27 we have to see that line running through Acts 5.32. As we have seen, Jn 15.26–27 and Acts 5.32 display very strong parallels. This means that if one of these passages derived from the Markan or preMarkan tradition, both did. And yet, given the strength of the parallels, it is very unlikely that such derivation could have happened independently. Either Acts 5.32 must stand as an intermediate stage on the way from the Synoptic tradition to Jn 15.26–27 or the John passage must stand as a middle factor on the way to Acts 5.32. Given that choice, one would have to opt for Acts 5.32 as the intermediate text because of Luke’s obvious familiarity with the Synoptic tradition. But to posit that Acts 5.32 stands in the middle of a line of development running from the trial tradition to John 15 raises problems of its own – problems significant enough to throw the whole hypothesis that 15.26–27 derives from the Synoptic tradition into question. Let me elaborate these points, beginning with the claim that strong parallels link Acts 5.32 and Jn 15.26–27. These passages share five conceptual elements. First, both refer to witness. The parallel is linguistic as well as conceptual:  Acts uses the noun μάρτυς, John the verb μαρτυρέω. Second, both identify the apostles/ disciples as witness-bearing agents. Third, both present the Holy Spirit (‘Paraclete’ and ‘Spirit of truth’ in the John passage) as a correlative witness with the apostles. Fourth, in both instances this dual witness-bearing focuses on Jesus. Fifth, both passages describe the Spirit as God’s gift to disciples. This combination of similar elements constitutes a remarkable parallel. And in neither case is the combination merely a random convergence of linguistic elements; both passages depict speakers who deliberately join the idea of witnessing apostles to that of a witnessing Spirit. Given this degree of similarity it does not make sense to argue that Jn 15.26–27 derived from a Synoptic tradition without drawing the same conclusion about Acts 5.32. If anything, the argument for tying the latter passage back to the Mk 13.11 or Mt. 10.17–25 tradition is much stronger than that for Jn 15.26–27. For one thing, we know from his Gospel that Luke had access to and made use of Mk

4. Acts 6.10 also enters into the picture. It shares the somewhat distinctive terms σοφία and ἀνθίστημι with Lk. 21.15. See Lucien Cerfaux, ‘Témoins du Christ d’après le Livre des Actes’, in Receueil Lucien Cerfaux, vol II (Louvain: Duculot, 1954), 157–74.

228

Spirit and Word

13.11 or a tradition similar to it while we can only speculate in the case of John. For another, the trial setting that is at best implied (and in my view doubtful)5 in the case of Jn 15.26–27 is explicit and highly developed in Acts 5. The situation in which Peter speaks in Acts 5.32 matches that depicted in Mk 13.11 and parallels almost exactly. The strong similarities between Acts 5.32 and Jn 15.26–27 also makes it very unlikely that Luke and John could have developed their formulations from the Synoptic tradition independently of one another. The only viable way to hold the trial-tradition hypothesis is to assume that one of these authors developed his concept of dual testimony from that tradition and then served as a model for the other. That author would have had to be Luke. The line of influence, if there was one, would have had to run from Mk 13.11 or the tradition it represents to Lk. 12.11–12 and 21.12–15, then through Acts 5.32 and on to Jn 15.26–27. But this trajectory is problematic enough to throw the whole hypothesis into doubt. First, Lk. 12.11–12 does not develop Mark and Matthew’s picture of the Spirit as a direct witness to persecutors. Whereas those evangelists affirm first that what the disciples are to say will be given to them and, second, that it will be the Holy Spirit rather than the disciples who speak, Luke drops this second way of stating the Spirit’s role. He keeps only a picture of the Holy Spirit teaching the disciples what to say. This weighs against the supposition that Lk. 12.11–12 (and thus the trial tradition lying behind it) served as a model for Acts 5.32 (and beyond that for Jn 15.26–27), since neither of these latter passages portray the Spirit as a teacher who supplies the disciples with message-content, but simply as a witness addressing the world. Second, while the Acts 5 setting corresponds to that depicted in Mk 13.9–11; Mt. 10.18–20; and Lk. 12.11–12, it simply does not fit the flow of the narrative scene to read Peter’s words in 5.32 as a claim to be speaking under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit.6 He is thus not voicing the same idea found in the Synoptic trial tradition, which weighs against seeing that tradition as a model for the formulation in Acts 5.32. Third, the most obvious contextual clues to the meaning of Peter’s statement in 5.32 lie in Acts passages that depict the Spirit effecting witness-bearing miracles and manifestations, with additional overtones supplied by passages depicting the empowerment of the apostles and the piercing of their hearers’ hearts. It is hard to say why a statement evoking these motifs should be traced back to a saying that depicts the Spirit giving disciples words to speak. Finally, Luke consistently emphasizes that the apostles bear witness to what they have seen and heard from being with Jesus; he never portrays the Spirit as the source of what they proclaim, especially when they present themselves as witnesses.7 If the tradition reflected in Mk 13.9–11//Lk. 12.11–12 is thus unlikely to have been the seed from which the ideas expressed in Acts 5.32 grew, its claim

5. See Chapter 7.6. 6. See Chapter 11.I.3. 7. See Chapter 11.I.3.

Developments and Antecedents

229

to be either the starting point for or the key to interpreting the statements in Jn 15.26–27 must be even more questionable. If the Synoptic trial-tradition hypothesis proves untenable, where does that leave us? The parallels between Jn 15.26–27 and Acts 5.32 might then be explained in one of three ways:  (1)  John was directly influenced by Acts; (2)  Luke was influenced by John or a pre-Gospel form of Johannine tradition; or (3) both writers drew upon a common source or commonly held early Christian concept other than the Synoptic trial tradition. The first two explanations are of course tied to the larger question of the overall literary relationship between Acts and the Fourth Gospel, a matter that is in turn connected to issues such as the date of Luke–Acts and possible stages in the production of the Gospel of John. A number of scholars argue that John knew Luke’s Gospel, while some hold that Luke drew at least to some extent from a pre-Gospel form of Johannine tradition.8 Neither of these views precludes the supposition that Luke and John nevertheless represent largely independent streams of tradition, a position that many would hold.9 Although most discussions of the Luke–John relationship centre on the two Gospels, it would not be hard to extend one’s conclusions concerning possible lines of influence to include Acts as well. The general question of whether there may have been influence between the Johannine writings and Acts is thus quite complex. This makes it hard to draw a conclusion concerning the three options listed above purely on the basis of a general hypothesis about the relationship between John and Acts. But with specific regard to the dual-testimony formulations in Acts 5.32 and Jn 15.26–27 one important observation can nevertheless be made. The brief statement about the apostles and the Spirit as correlative witnesses in Acts 5.32 expresses a concept that plays a sizeable role in Luke’s thinking, taking multiple forms, serving multiple purposes and leaving its mark on the very structure of Acts. In a similar way the formulation in Jn 15.26–27 articulates a pattern of thought that exerts a widespread and multifaceted influence elsewhere within the Johannine writings. In other words, neither of these statements about dual witness stands as an isolated element in the larger work in which it appears. Instead each gives expression to a rich and deeply held pattern of thought that influences its author at a quite basic level. This means that neither John nor Luke has borrowed the dual-testimony motif or dual-testimony language as a mere formula. It is one thing to posit the borrowing of a single linguistic formula but quite a different thing to assume that a whole complex of ideas has been deeply assimilated from a work that does not seem to have been a major source of material in other respects. Given the three possibilities listed above, then, the easiest way of explaining the parallels between Acts 5.32 and Jn 15.26–27 is to suppose that Luke and John have each drawn independently from a rich conceptual tradition that was widespread within the early Christian movement.

8. See, e.g., Paul Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 147. 9. For example, Anderson, Riddles, 144.

230

Spirit and Word

III. Antecedents A full survey of the antecedent ideas that may have contributed to, shaped or helped make intelligible the NT writers’ thinking about dual testimony would have to include many things. The widespread Jewish understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy,10 for example, supplies one essential conceptual block from which the dual-testimony concept is constructed. Another building-block concept is the idea that the Spirit purifies.11 Still another is the thought that God enables faithful readers to understand the Law and the prophets.12 But here I only offer a few comments on a more limited range of material, those passages in the OT and Second Temple literature that explicitly depict God’s Spirit acting in conjunction with a previously given communication from God. These can be grouped in two categories: ‘law in heart’ passages and ‘charismatic exegesis’ passages. A number of passages look ahead to a time when God will act to transform Israel by bringing his law into the hearts of his people. But only one explicitly mentions both God’s Spirit and God’s law. This is Ezek. 36.26–27. Here the LORD promises to sprinkle Israel with clean water (perhaps already alluding to God’s Spirit) to cleanse them from impurities and idolatry. He also promises to give them a new heart and a new spirit, to replace their heart of stone with a heart of flesh, to put his own Spirit within them, and to cause them to obey his statutes and decrees. On the most obvious reading of this passage in both the Hebrew text and the LXX there is a distinction between the reference to ‘a new spirit’ in verse 26, which is linked to ‘a new heart’ and thus refers to a part of the person (or personified nation) or an element that belongs to the person, and ‘my Spirit’ in vs. 27, which indicates the Spirit of God.13 So Ezek. 36.26–27 pictures God’s Spirit as an indwelling force or agent that effects the change of heart that leads Israel to obey the law. But the same cannot be said for a number of other passages that speak of a future day when God will put his law in the hearts of his people. These other texts emphasize the LORD’s special action but make no specific reference to his Spirit. Ezek. 11.19–20, for example, contains language very similar to that in 36.26–27, including reference to a ‘new spirit’ (paired with ‘one heart’) and obedience to God’s laws, but it lacks the line that speaks of the LORD putting his Spirit within the people as the effective cause of their obedience. Jer. 31.31–34 heightens the 10. I.e. ‘the organ of communication between God and a person’ (Turner, Spirit, 6). 11. See Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts:  Divine Purity and Power (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 7–10; Levison, Two Minds, 60–63. 12. For example, Ps. 119.12, 18–19, 27, 33–35, 73; 1QS V.9; 1QpHab VII.4 (cited by Levison, Filled, 186). 13. Granted that both ruach and πνεῦμα have a wide lexical range, and that the conceptual boundary between the (God-given) human spirit and God’s own Spirit is not always clear in OT and Second Temple writings, contextual signals typically allow readers to perceive which sense is in view. See Turner’s comments on the polysemous use of ruach in ‘Levison’s Filled With the Spirit: A Brief Appreciation and Response’, JPT 20 (2011), pp. 193–200 (196).

Developments and Antecedents

231

law-and-heart imagery by picturing the LORD inscribing his law on hearts but again there is no explicit reference to God’s Spirit. Deut. 30.6–8 presents yet another image with its picture of the LORD circumcising the hearts of his people and thereby leading them to love him with all their heart and soul, which was the core requirement of the Law. This divine act will reverse the people’s present condition, described in Deut. 29.4 as not yet having a heart to understand. But God’s Spirit is not mentioned. In addition to these future-oriented passages we also find a few texts that speak of God bringing his law into an individual’s heart in the present. In Ps. 40.8 the psalmist says that God’s law is within his heart. Divine action seems to stand behind this condition of heart (since 40.6 refers to the LORD having dug or opened the psalmist’s ear) but there is no direct reference to God’s Spirit. Among the Qumran writings, 1QH 12.11–13 speaks of God bringing his law into close connection with the author’s heart,14 although again the Spirit is not mentioned.15 As a group these ‘law in heart’ passages come close to expressing the fundamental pattern of thought we have been examining in Paul, John and Luke. They depict an outward, humanly mediated revelation (the law given through Moses) that is then made effective through a distinct divine action in the inward person. The parallel becomes complete in Ezek. 36.26–27, which identifies God’s Spirit as the agent performing this divine action. The ‘charismatic exegesis’ passages constitute a second major group of texts demanding attention as possible precursors to the NT motif of dual testimony, particularly in its hermeneutical application. ‘Charismatic exegesis’ or ‘inspired interpretation’ are terms used in recent scholarship to refer to the divinely aided

14. Florentino García Maritínez translates it as “your Law, which you engraved on my heart” (The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English [trans. Wilfred Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1996], 334); cf. Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Heritage Press, 1967). Michael Wise, Martin Abegg and Edward Cook have ‘which you spoke distinctly in my heart’ (The Dead Sea Scrolls: a new translation (San Francisco:  HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 95. The key word is ‫ ;התננש‬DCT lists ‘teach incisively’ as a possible meaning (8.514). 15. Ps. 51.10–12 also speaks of God’s present action in human hearts. David prays that God will create a clean heart and renew a steadfast spirit in him, and will not cast him from his presence or take his (God’s) holy s/Spirit away from him. He also prays that God will ‘uphold him with a willing spirit’. In vs. 10 ‘a steadfast spirit’ is paired with ‘a clean heart’, which indicates a reference to David’s own inner person (cf. vs. 17, where ‘a broken spirit’ is paired with ‘a broken and contrite heart’). ‘Your holy s/Spirit’ in vs. 11, on the other hand, might possibly allude to David’s God-given breath or life, but the linguistic signals (together with the fact that ‘do not take your holy s/Spirit away from me’ stands in parallel to ‘do not cast me from your presence’) seem to point to God’s Spirit in distinction from David’s. If so, then this passage bears some similarity to Ezek. 36.26–27. The Psalm 51 passage does not depict God’s Spirit as a factor that enables David to keep God’s law, however, nor does it explicitly mention the law. Moreover, David does not ask that he be given God’s Spirit as a fresh endowment but rather that God’s Spirit will not be removed from him.

232

Spirit and Word

interpretation of Scripture  – a concept many consider to be widely reflected in OT and Second Temple writings.16 Despite what these commonly used terms might imply, however, not all of the texts that have been cited as evidence of charismatic exegesis actually exemplify the kind of dual testimony or dual action we have been investigating in the present study. Among the commonly cited texts, some describe the Spirit giving understanding, wisdom or revelation but do not clearly describe this as a matter of helping someone to interpret scriptural texts.17 Others describe divinely given insight into Scripture or the law but fail to mention the Spirit.18 Still others do mention both Spirit and Scripture/Law but fail to bring these two elements together in a way that is either clear or textually close.19 Passages such as these certainly add to our understanding of the theological environment in which the Christian movement arose, but my aim at present is to identify texts that closely and fully exemplify the dual-testimony pattern examined in this book. Ideally such passages will combine clear reference to the Spirit with clear reference to Scripture or the Law, and will depict a distinct act of textual interpretation.20 In

16. For discussion, see David Aune, ‘Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity’, in James Charlesworth and Craig Evans (eds), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPSS, 14/SSEJC, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 126– 50; Bockmuehl, Revelation, 174–75; Mark Boda, ‘Word and Spirit, Scribe and Prophet in the Old Testament’, in Kevin Spawn and Archie Wright (eds), Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (London: T & T Clark, 2012), 25–45; John Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). 17. For example Wis. 9.17; 1QH 20.11–13; 2 Kgs 22.8–20. The latter passage does not depict interpretation so much as a fresh prophecy related to what God will do in the near future to fulfill the threats of the Law; also the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned. 18. For example, Ps. 119.12, 18–19, 27, 33–35, 73; 1QpHab 2.7–10; 7.1–5; Josephus, War 3.351–53; Philo, Cher. 27–29 (his god-possessed soul [θεολημτεῖσθαι]); Spec. Leg. 3.1–6 (a soul possessed by some God-sent inspiration [τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιθειασμόν]); Mut. Nom. 18. 19. For example, Neh. 9.12–25. The Spirit and the interpretation of Scripture texts are both mentioned in this passage, but establishing a functional connection between the two demands conjecture. If 9.19–25 deliberately parallels 9.12–15, the reference to the gift of the good spirit to ‘instruct’ the people in 9.20 might be seen to parallel the giving of the Torah in 9.13–14. And given the way words belonging to the ‘instruct’ family are used elsewhere in Nehemiah, 9.20 may hint at Spirit-enabled instruction on the basis of the Torah. See Levison, First, 195–96. 20. One factor leading to differing assessments of the degree to which OT, Second Temple and NT literature reflects a concept of charismatic exegesis is that scholars frequently mean different things by ‘interpretation of Scripture’. This expression can be used in a very broad sense to designate Scripture-influenced teaching given by someone presumed to be helped by the Holy Spirit. Defined broadly, the expression could include almost anything preached or taught in the early church (or for that matter preached and taught by faithful Christian pastors today). Others assume a narrower definition and envisage a

Developments and Antecedents

233

my opinion the following seven passages have the best claim to meeting this stricter standard. In Somn. 2.252 Philo claims that ‘the invisible spirit accustomed to commune in a hidden way’ (τὸ εἰωθὸς ἀφανῶς ἐνομιλεῖν πνεῦμα ἀόρατον) has given him insight into the meaning of the expression ‘city of God’ in Ps. 46.4. Here we find spirit-inspired interpretation of a specific Scripture text – interpretation which in this case involves perceiving an allegorical meaning. But the way Philo describes the inspiring agent somewhat diminishes the parallel between this text and the NT passages that depict God’s Spirit acting in relation to the word. As Levison points out, Philo’s language evokes that used by Plato and others to describe Socrates’s daemon.21 Cher. 7–29 likewise depicts inspired interpretation. Philo receives insight into the allegorical meaning of the two angels and the flaming sword in Gen. 3.24. But once again he chooses language that weakens the parallel with dual-testimony texts in the NT. He does not use the term ‘spirit’ but instead refers to hearing a thought in his god-possessed soul (ψυχῆς ἐμῆς εἰωθυίας τὰ πολλὰ θεολημτεῖσθαι).22

specific act of discerning or appropriating the meaning of a particular text. Sharper categories and clearer definitions would be welcome. For example we might distinguish: (1) Coming to appreciate, value, and positively respond to Scripture or the Law (Deut. 29.4; Ps. 40.6–8; 119.12, 18–19, 27, 33–35; Isa. 50.4–5; 59.21). (2) Coming to a more adequate global understanding of Scripture and the God revealed therein (Sir. 39.6–8). (3) Receiving special insight into prophetic mysteries, hidden truths in the Torah, allegorical meanings, Christological applications, etc. (Philo, Cher. 27–29; Spec. Leg. 3.1–6). (4) Receiving a fresh revelation about something God is doing or will do that fulfills or relates to previously given scriptural revelation; e.g. 2 Kgs. 22.8–20; Dan. 9; Lk. 2.25–32. Aune’s fourfold categorization of biblical interpretation is also helpful: (1) paraphrastic translation (Targums, LXX); (2) rewritten Scripture (1–2 Chronicles, Jubilees); (3) anthological style, in which Bible text is woven into the style of the composition (1QH, apocalypses); and (4) commentaries which carefully distinguish the text from the interpretation (pesharim, midrashim, many of Philo’s works, such as Legum allegoriae and De cherubim) (‘Charismatic’, 129–30). 21. Levison refers especially to Philo’s use of εἰωθός (Filled, 190). 22. Spec. Leg. 3.1–6 is another passage that describes a form of inspiration (τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιθειασμόν) without using the term ‘spirit’. In this case the link between Philo’s inspiration and his interpretation of Scripture is not as tight as in Cher. 27–29 and Somn. 2.252. He mentions inspiration in the context of describing (in somewhat poetic terms) his general pursuit of φιλοσοφία. This forms part of his introduction to an exposition of Mosaic law, to be sure, but his reference to inspiration (3.1) nevertheless stands a little apart from his claim to unfold things from the Law (3.6).

234

Spirit and Word

In War 3.351–53 Josephus mentions dreams God had given him concerning the fate of the Jews and the destinies of Roman rulers, and says he was skilled at interpreting dreams and God’s ambiguous utterances. He also says he was familiar with the prophecies of the holy books. He then goes on to say that at the hour of having to decide whether to surrender to the Romans, he was inspired (ἔνθους γενόμενος) and, mindful of his recent dreams, prayerfully decided to surrender. Precisely what effect Josephus attributes to his moment of inspiration is unclear, however. Does the inspiration specifically enable him to understand his dreams and interpret the prophetic writings or does it simply strengthen him to make the difficult personal decision to surrender? This ambiguity, together with the lack of explicit reference to God’s Spirit, make this an uncertain or borderline example of the Spirit aiding Scripture interpretation.23 Sir. 39.6–8 should probably also be considered a borderline example of Spiritenabled interpretation of Scripture. This passage speaks of a person being ‘filled with the spirit of understanding’ and as a result speaking words of wisdom and thanking the LORD in prayer.24 Although this understanding relates to God’s Law in a general way, it is not directly connected to the interpretation of specific texts.25 In part it may be a matter of valuing and responding to the Law.26 In addition, there is ambiguity about whether ‘the spirit of understanding’ refers to a Godgiven human disposition or to God’s direct action within the person. Prov. 1.23 might conceivably be taken as an example of Spirit-enabled Scripture interpretation. To those who heed her reproof, Wisdom promises, ‘I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you’ (ESV). If the figure of Wisdom can be taken as representing God, then this passage joins a promise of God’s Spirit with a promise that God’s words or thoughts will be make known. And if the ‘words’ (dabar) that the divine Spirit (by implication) makes known are those contained in God’s previously given revelation in the Law or scriptural writings, we would have a picture of God’s Spirit enabling some form of textual interpretation. But such a reading depends on several uncertain factors. Since the speaker is presented as personified Wisdom rather than God, the reference to ‘my spirit’ may simply be the equivalent of ‘my thoughts’ (NRSV) or ‘my heart’ (NIV). In that case ‘pour out my spirit’ would stand as a parallel expression to ‘make my words known’, not as a statement about a factor that will cause Wisdom’s words to be known. Furthermore, this passage provides no specific indication that the ‘words’ Wisdom will make known are a matter of Scripture or the Law. Isa. 59.21 describes a covenant the Lord makes with Israel: neither his Spirit (‘my Spirit that is upon you’) nor his words (‘my words that I have put in your

23. See Levison, First, 203–4 for discussion of the term ἔνθους. 24. See, e.g., Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology:  The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology (WUNT, 2/194; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 132–34. 25. Levison, First, 198–99. 26. Cf. Turner, Holy, 9–10.

Developments and Antecedents

235

mouth’) will depart from the mouth of the people or their descendants. While this statement brings God’s Spirit and words together in a striking way it offers no direct comment on the Spirit’s function in relation the word. That the divine Spirit does carry out a function in relation to God’s words may be implied, but it is not fully clear whether this is a matter of revealing fresh words or inspiring people to keep teaching and valuing the words already given to them in Scripture or the Law. Among the Qumran writings 1QS 8.15–16 stands out as a possible example of a text picturing Spirit-aided biblical interpretation. But this partly depends on how the text is translated. Compare Martínez and Tigchelaar’s rendering, ‘This is the study of the Law which he commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age, and according to [italics added] what the prophets have revealed through his holy spirit,’27 with that of Wise, Abegg and Cook, ‘This means the expounding of the Law, decreed by God through Moses for obedience, that being defined by [italics added] what has been revealed for each age, and by what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.’28 The second of these renderings more strongly suggests that that the revelations given by the Spirit-inspired prophets specifically interpret or contemporize the Law previously given through Moses. But the first sticks more closely to the underlying text.29 Other passages such as 1QS 5.9 and 1QpHab 7.4–5 show that the Qumran community did in fact see divine revelation to play an important role in the interpretation of the Law, however.30 This makes it possible that 1QS 8.15–16 contains that thought as well. The preceding survey leaves little doubt that it is the series of passages describing a future day when God will put his law in the hearts of his people (Deut. 30.6–8; Jer. 31.31–34; Ezek. 11.19–20; 36.26–27) that forms the closest and most significant precursor to the kind of dual-testimony or dual-action thinking we find in Paul, John and Luke. First, here we find the basic elements of dual action present as a focus of rhetorical attention: God’s previously revealed word (the Law) combined with an activity of his Spirit that internalizes the Law and thereby transforms the person or nation. Second, these passages point forward to God’s action in Israel’s national future. As such, they present themselves as perfect texts to catch the attention of an early church that saw itself as living in a time of eschatological fulfillment. Third, these precursors occur in writings that were well known, heavily used and accorded highest authority among the first Christians. Finally, we know from 2 Cor. 3.3 that on at least one occasion Paul drew directly from the promises in Jer. 31.31–34 and Ezek. 36.26–27 to express his thinking about the Spirit’s action in and through his gospel preaching. The concept of ‘charismatic exegesis’ that surfaces here and there in the OT and Second Temple literature, by way of contrast, makes a decidedly weaker

27. 28. 29. 30.

Martínez, Scrolls, 12. Wise et al., Scrolls, 138. ‫ושדוק חודב םיאיבנה ולג רשאכו‬ Levison, First, 200.

236

Spirit and Word

candidate to be considered as an influence on the early church’s thinking about the dual action of gospel and Spirit. Few of the texts commonly cited as examples of charismatic exegesis actually portray the Spirit acting in, through, or alongside a previously given revelation in an emphasized or unambiguous way. Furthermore, the theme of divine inspiration aiding people to conceptually interpret a message or text, which is prominent in at least some of the Second Temple ‘charismatic exegesis’ passages,31 is at best a restricted element among the NT’s dual-testimony passages.32 Paul, John and Luke put much greater emphasis on the Spirit enabling people to believe, receive and recognize the validity of a message. But even though the ‘law in heart’ passages form the closest parallel and most significant known precursor to the NT motif of dual testimony, it is unlikely that this series of prophetic texts was the generating seed that first led early Christian writers to think in terms of dual testimony or action. I argued this point above with respect to Paul, and if it is true for him it is likely to be true for John and Luke as well.

IV. Messiah, Spirit, and gospel According to John, statements about dual testimony were part of Jesus’s teaching and according to Luke the concept was familiar to the earliest disciples in Jerusalem. It would lie outside the scope of this study to comment on the historical validity of these portrayals, but as an outgrowth of the preceding investigation I want to offer three observations that may contribute in at least a small way to our understanding of when and how the idea of dual testimony emerged among Jesus’s early followers. The first is simply that the concept of dual testimony or dual action is widely attested in the NT. It appears as a distinct motif in the writings of Paul, John and Luke. The degree of common ground these writings display with respect to this motif (see Chapter 12) makes it unlikely that the dual-action concept originated with each writer or stream of tradition independently. At the same time, it seems unlikely that the common pattern of thought resulted simply from one writer borrowing from another. The possibility of literary borrowing in connection with the linguistic and conceptual parallels between Jn 15.26–27 and Acts 5.32 was briefly discussed above. Some of the points made with respect to those specific texts could be extended to the wider range of dual-action passages in all three of the bodies of writing we have surveyed. In none of these streams of writing does the motif of dual testimony rest lightly on the surface, as might be the case if it

31. Somn. 2.252, Cher. 27–29 and War 3.351–53 are notable examples. 32. Where it occurs it relates primarily to the original disciples/apostles (Jn 14.26; 16.12–15; 1 Cor. 2.10; Eph 3.5) or to the interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12.10, 30; 14.13, 26–28).

Developments and Antecedents

237

were simply a borrowed idea or form of expression. On the contrary, the concept of dual action appears to be a well-integrated and influential part of each writer’s thought-world, one he can express in a variety of ways and creatively relate to a variety of concerns. So unless one is prepared to argue that one of these bodies of writing (for chronological reasons this would have to be Paul’s letters) exercised a very deep, formative influence on the theology expressed in the others,33 it is better to suppose instead that Paul, John and Luke each drew upon an early, commonly held way of thinking about the action of the Holy Spirit in relation to the outwardly communicated message about Jesus. A second observation is that if the ‘law in heart’ passages of the OT are unlikely to have been the generating source of Paul’s thinking about dual testimony (as argued in section II above) it is even less likely that John or Luke first came to this idea as a result of reflecting on these or any other OT or Second Temple texts. A final observation concerns the general conditions under which dual testimony became a powerful concept. It is widely recognized that distinctive new convictions shaped and saturated the worship, life and thinking of Jesus’s first followers. The central new conviction was that Jesus was the Messiah. But emerging from this were two others that have a very obvious connection to the idea of dual testimony: belief that Jesus’s followers had been given a gospel to proclaim and belief that the promised eschatological Spirit had been poured out. It is precisely within a movement and community governed by this set of convictions that the dual-testimony motif makes such good sense. On the one hand, Jesus’s followers had a strong interest in a humanly communicated message centring on Jesus, on the other a strong awareness of the Spirit’s active presence. The dual-testimony motif picks up both of these elements and brings them together.34 So there is a close correlation between the structure of thought that underlies the NT’s dualaction passages and the central interests and concerns of the early church. This is not to suggest that the early church environment made the idea of dual testimony inevitable, but it is to say that it is difficult to imagine a similar structure of thought becoming prominent before the arrival of the Christian movement. Certainly there was a strong emphasis on humanly communicated revelation in pre-Christian Judaism (the Law, prophetic writings, dreams), but the early Christian urgency

33. And if such influence were present we would expect it also to be evident with respect to many other themes and motifs in addition to that of dual testimony. But there is no strong weight of scholarly opinion that any one of these writers influenced the theological formulations of either of the others in a widespread or dominating fashion. 34. Another conviction that also soon became a prominent part of early Christian thinking was the belief that Jesus was the focal point of God’s revelation to Israel and the world. Particularly in Paul, but also in John, this conviction slots into the dual-testimony structure of thought, which then becomes a vehicle for expressing the still richer perception that God’s reveals himself through a twofold sending, the Son sent into the world and the Spirit sent into believing hearts (Gal. 4.4–6; cf. Jn 14.8–10, 16–17).

238

Spirit and Word

about making the gospel known represented something new; there was awareness of God’s Spirit, but nothing quite the same as the Christians’ intense sense of living in the new day of the Spirit’s outpouring.35 These observations cohere well with the supposition that the dual-testimony idea goes back to an early period and that it came to prominence in close association with the apostles’ evangelistic preaching.

35. Cf. Turner, who concludes that there is little evidence in Judaism of the Spirit empowering expository preaching and the like (‘Spirit of Prophecy’, 87).

14 T HE N EW T ESTAMENT AND C ONTEMPORARY I SSUES

The pattern of thought in which an inward influence of the Spirit and an outwardly conveyed revelation centring on Christ are seen as acting together to achieve a single purpose is widespread and consistent enough to merit the attention of those who look to the NT as a normative source for contemporary Christian theology. In this final chapter I want to mention some points at which of our investigation of the Pauline, Lucan and Johannine writings may speak to modern concerns. These points of relevance touch three broad areas of Christian practice: pastoral ministry and Christian life, hermeneutics and the exercise of discernment. Before saying more about application points, however, let me reiterate four characteristic marks of the pattern we have surveyed. One is simply duality. The pattern passages speak of two witnesses, two agents or operating factors, two life-giving, church-establishing elements. Another is distinction:  each of the two elements has its own independent status (neither is merely a product or aspect of the other) and qualities (the word element is outwardly displayed or communicated fully in human terms; the Spirit touches the inward person with divine power). A third is complementary action: the two elements work together in a mutually interdependent manner, neither achieving its effect apart from the other. A fourth characteristic pertains specifically to the word element in the Spirit– word duality:  historical grounding. The outwardly conveyed revelation repeatedly takes the form of Jesus’s historical words and deeds and/or apostolic testimony and instruction about him. The word element is thus as rooted and determinate as Christ’s actual presence in flesh and history. With these typical features in view we can move on to consider where the NT’s dual-testimony pattern may have relevance for contemporary questions. 1. Dual testimony and pastoral ministry/Christian life. We would naturally expect the NT motif of dual testimony or action to hold particular relevance for contemporary practice in areas such as evangelism, worship, corporate and individual spiritual life, the practice of spiritual disciplines and so on (i.e. the territory of ‘pastoral’ or ‘practical’ theology), because most of texts we have surveyed deal precisely with matters like these. NT writers connect dual action to new birth, gospel preaching, worship, ethical transformation, knowledge of God, assurance and spiritual battle. As we now seek to draw lines between the NT pattern and current thought and practice in these areas, four specific issues come

240

Spirit and Word

to mind. First and perhaps most important is the disparity between the Pauline, Lucan and Johannine insistence on Spirit–word duality and the widespread contemporary tendency (at least in churches outside the Pentecostal/charismatic orbit) to underemphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in effecting spiritual life, growth and change. It has almost become a cliché to contrast the Pentecostal/charismatic churches with the non-Pentecostal, characterizing the one as unbalanced in favour of the Spirit and the other as unbalanced in favour of the word. But with respect to the latter group of churches, at least, there is a fair measure of truth in that analysis. Of course, no one would deny that the Spirit must act in order for the message about Christ to effect faith, transformation and knowledge of God. Yet typically there is nothing like the conscious sense of necessity and expectation we see reflected in the NT dual-testimony passages. To cite just one indicator of this general tendency, I have been surprised when reading recent works devoted to the spiritual disciplines  – certainly a topic where one would expect to find heavy reference to the Holy Spirit – to discover how few of these treatments offer significant discussion of the Spirit’s working. The same is true of much of the recent writing about pastorally-focused theological interpretation of Scripture. In terms of raising consciousness, then, it could be very important for theologians and pastors to give new attention to the multifarious NT expressions of Spirit– word duality. It might also be useful to reexamine and reinvigorate the old concept of ‘the internal witness of the Spirit’. This traditional expression seems to have fallen out of favour in many circles. Perhaps this is partly because it has often been used in a restricted sense to refer only to the Spirit’s attestation of Scripture and partly because it is sometimes used in quite a different sense to refer to inwardly received revelation that comes totally apart from Scripture. But the dual-testimony passages of the NT point to something else. They emphasize an internal action that enables transforming understanding and faith specifically when a person is confronted with God’s revelation in Christ and the gospel. The second issue I  will mention may seem academic, yet how it is resolved can impact the more practical matter discussed above, the degree to which contemporary Christians consciously rely on the working of the Holy Spirit. I refer to the question of whether the Spirit always acts when the Christ-centred word is in play. This question has factored in Protestant–Roman Catholic debates about the sacraments, Lutheran–Reformed debates concerning the effects of gospel proclamation, and twentieth-century discussions about the nature of the word of God. It is no easy topic. Nevertheless, the practical concern that I wish to raise is whether a too-easy assumption that the Spirit always acts when the word is humanly communicated might paradoxically lead to less actual thought and expectation with respect to the Spirit. Might the Spirit’s action come to be simply taken for granted, particularly when it is viewed as something internal? Although the dual-testimony passages do not speak directly to the question of whether the Spirit’s action always accompanies the word, they do suggest lines for further investigation. To begin with, the distinction these passages maintain between the Spirit and the humanly conveyed message reminds us that the two factors cannot simply be blended into one. Furthermore, while the Spirit’s activity is often

The New Testament and Contemporary Issues

241

described as internal it is also portrayed in terms that imply power, abundance, and definite, recognizable effect. Finally, in the case of Paul, some aspects of his argumentation seem to imply that the Spirit’s internal influence does not always accompany his gospel preaching, at least not to its full extent. He says that the Spirit’s action in his hearers validates his gospel ministry, which suggests that the same cannot automatically be said about all instances of gospel preaching. He accounts for the fact that many reject his message by explaining that the Spirit must act if people are to believe; this implies that the Spirit does not always influence everyone who hears the outwardly preached gospel. A third issue concerns what pastors, churches or individual Christians can do to bring the Spirit onto the scene or open the door for the Spirit to work. As we have seen, some of the NT texts seem to carry a promise or expectation that the Spirit will act when the Christ-centred word is communicated (e.g. Jn 6.63). Others specifically exhort believers to make use of the word, which is fully accessible to them, with the implication that as they do the Spirit will work (Rom. 15.4//13; Eph. 5.18–19; 6.17). Taken as a whole, then, the NT dual-testimony passages suggest two things about the ‘means of grace’: on the one hand, human communication of the word does not automatically guarantee the Spirit’s action; on the other, Christians are encouraged to expect that, as they communicate, contemplate and make use of the Christ-centred message, the Spirit will indeed act. A fourth issue related to this general area of practical theology concerns attempts that are sometimes made to emphasize that the Spirit may act apart from or in disjunction from a humanly communicated message about Christ. One contemporary manifestation of this tendency is occasionally seen in Pentecostal or charismatic circles. There are those who speak of a ‘power’ ministry, consisting of Spirit-worked signs and wonders, which they then set over against a ‘word’ ministry, consisting of preaching and teaching. When pushed just a little, this way of thinking breaks the pattern of connection and complementarity that lies at the heart of the NT’s dual-action motif. To name a second manifestation of this separating tendency, among some contemporary theologians there is an increasing emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s activity outside the church, activity that enlightens and transforms human existence in various ways apart from immediate connection with the historical revelation brought by Christ. While not necessarily denying the Spirit–word or Spirit–Christ connection, this line of thought nevertheless relativizes it by making it just one mode of the Holy Spirit’s working. What do the NT’s dual-testimony passages, with their consistent picture of complementary action, contribute to this topic? In and of themselves they do not tell us whether or not the Spirit may also sometimes work according to another pattern, one that does not involve direct connection with God’s revelation in Christ and the gospel. And yet the very prominence of Spirit–word complementarity in the NT, together with the notable absence of passages displaying an alternative vision, sounds a very loud note that should be heard in ongoing discussion of this issue. 2. The interpretation of Scripture. The one large issue we must consider in this area of contemporary practice concerns a diffuse and widespread approach to Scripture which holds that the Spirit gives Christian readers a special conceptual

242

Spirit and Word

understanding of the message conveyed by Bible texts. In its various forms, this hermeneutical action of the Spirit might be thought to involve solving exegetical mysteries, revealing hidden levels of meaning, communicating distinctive personal messages, or reshaping the original meaning of the text. This general perspective affects Scripture reading in contexts ranging from personal and group devotional exercises to sermon preparation to church decision-making about Christian behavioural standards in a changing society. But a common factor in its varied expressions is the assumption that Scripture is a living word and that the Spirit can lead readers to interpret it in ways that move beyond its original meaning. Many theologians contest this conception of the Holy Spirit’s hermeneutical role, of course, arguing that the Spirit’s contemporary illumination of a Bible text is always strictly bound to its historical meaning. Our findings with respect to dualtestimony contribute to this large and complex discussion in at least four ways. First, the NT passages most frequently cited in support of the view that the Spirit gives readers special conceptual understanding or takes them beyond the text’s original meaning are Jn 14.25; 16.12–15; Acts 15.15 and 28; 1 Cor. 2.10–16; and 2 Cor. 3.6, 12–15. But if our analysis of dual testimony in these passages is correct, it is unlikely that any of them describes the kind of Spirit-led interpretation this approach envisages. Close examination reveals that some of these texts depict the Spirit guiding a limited group (namely, the original witnesses or apostles) rather than later generations of Christians, while others describe a hermeneutical work in which the Spirit enables faith and reception rather than discloses an otherwise hidden message. Second and more positively, however, the dual-testimony passages do frequently depict the Spirit fulfilling a hermeneutical role in the sense of enabling people to respond to the message about Christ with acceptance, faith, recognition, conviction and assurance. Sometimes this activity is described in terms of the Spirit bearing complementary internal witness to the outwardly communicated message, sometimes in terms of the Spirit removing blindness or other factors that block a person from receiving gospel teaching. Third, we have seen that historical grounding forms part of the way the wordelement is characterized in several of the dual-testimony passages. The wordelement can be the historical event of Jesus’s death (Rom. 5.5–8), for example, or the testimony of those who had been with Jesus (Jn 15.26–27; 1 Jn 1.1–4), or a heard-from-the-beginning message (1 Jn 2.24). These passages tie the Spirit’s contemporary revelatory action to a determinate and witnessed-to past. This factor should not be overlooked when we weigh the view that original historical meanings can be transformed. Fourth, another prominent characteristic of the word-element in the NT’s dual-testimony passages, closely related to its historical grounding, is its independent status vis-à-vis the Holy Spirit. If the original outwardly communicated message were ultimately simply a product of the Spirit, it would be quite natural to suppose that the Spirit might later modify it. But in fact the dual-testimony passages depict the Spirit and the word as genuinely independent witnesses, so much so that several passages present the outwardly

The New Testament and Contemporary Issues

243

conveyed word (the Scripture text in the contemporary church context) as a criterion by which claims concerning the Spirit’s witness or activity can be evaluated. 3. Discerning the Spirit. The previous comment about evaluating claims concerning the Spirit’s activity brings us to a final point at which the NT motif of dual-testimony/action may have contemporary relevance. Both inside and outside of the Pentecostal and charismatic churches Christians often need to discern whether a particular teaching, leading, impression, decision, word of prophecy, activity, ministry, movement, manifestation or dramatic sign is a work of the Holy Spirit or not. Sometimes conflicting claims and evidence make this quite difficult. The four dual-testimony passages we identified as ‘criterion’ passages are directly relevant here. While not answering all the difficult questions and challenges Christians face with respect to discernment, these texts point to confession of a central conviction about Jesus (1 Cor. 12.3), adherence to apostolic instruction (1 Cor. 14.37–38; 1 Jn. 4.6) and conformity to Scripture (Acts 15.15) as measures that can take them a long way in the process of distinguishing what is truly of the Spirit from what is not.

B IBLIOGRAPHY Adai, Jacob, Der Heilige Geist als Gegenwart Gottes in den einselnen Christen, in der Kirche und in der Welt (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1985). Aletti, Jean-Noel, Saint Paul Épître aux Éphésiens (ÉBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 2001). Aloisi, John, ‘The Paraclete’s Ministry of Conviction: Another Look at Jn 16:8–11’, JETS 47 (2004), pp. 55–69. Allo, E.-B., Première Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956). Allo, E.-B., Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956). Anderson, Paul, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011). Anderson, R. Dean, Jr, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996). Arnold, Clinton, Ephesians (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). Aune, David, ‘Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity’, in James Charlesworth and Craig Evans (eds), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPSS, 14/SSEJC, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 126–50. Back, Frances, Verwandlung durch Offenbsarung bei Paulus (WUNT, 2/153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Baird, William, ‘Letters of Recommendation: A Study of II Cor 3.1-3’, JBL 80 (1961), pp. 166–72. Barnett, Paul, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London: SPCK, 1955). Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968). Barrett, C. K., The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1994). Bauer, Walter, Johannesevangelium (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr: 1912). Beasley-Murray, George, John, 2nd edn (WBC; Waco: Word, 1999). Belleville, Linda, Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18 (JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). Bennema, Cornelis, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007). Best, Ernest, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998). Beutler, Johannes, Die Johannesbriefe (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2000). Bockmuehl, M., Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT, 2–36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). Boda, Mark, ‘Word and Spirit, Scribe and Prophet in the Old Testament’, in Kevin Spawn and Archie Wright (eds), Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (London: T & T Clark, 2012), pp. 25–45. Boismard, M.-É. and A. Lamouille, Synopse des Quatre Evangiles, Tome III: L’Évangile de Jean (Paris: Cerf, 1977).

246

Bibliography

Bonnah, George K. A., The Holy Spirit: A Narrative Factor in the Acts of the Apostles (SBB, 58; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007). Boring, M.  Eugene, The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy & the Gospel Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991). Bouttier, Michel, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Éphésiens (CNT, 9b; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991). Braun, F.-M., Jean le Théologien (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1966). Breck, John, The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology, vol. 1 (Crestwood: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1991). Brown, Raymond, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29–29A; 2 vols; Garden City : Doubleday, 1966–70). Brown, Raymond, The Epistles of John (AB, 30; Garden City : Doubleday, 1982). Bruce, F. F., 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982). Bruce, F. F., The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Buch-Hansen, Gitte, ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life’: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel (BZNW, 173; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010). Bultmann, Rudolph, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. D. Riches; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971). Bultmann, Rudolph, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. Roy Harrisville; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985). Burge, Gary, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Byrskog, Samuel, ‘Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural’, ZNW 87 (1996), pp. 230–50. Calvin, John, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (trans. William Pringle; 2 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949). Calvin, John, The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians (trans. Ron McKenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973). Carson, D. A., ‘The Function of the Paraclete in Jn 16.7–11’, JBL 98 (1979), pp. 547–66. Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). Cerfaux, Lucien, ‘Témoins du Christ d’après le Livre des Actes’, in Receueil Lucien Cerfaux, vol II (Louvain: Duculot, 1954), pp. 157–74. Chevallier, M.-A., Esprit de Dieu, Paroles d’Hommes: Le rôle de l’esprit dans les ministères de la parole selon l’apôtre Paul (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé: 1966). Chevallier, M.-A., Souffle de Dieu: Le Saint-Esprit dans le Nouveau Testament, Vol. II (Paris: Beauchesne, 1990). Ciampa, Roy and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Collange, J.-F., Enigmes de la deuzieme épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude exégétique de 2 Cor. 2.14–7.4 (SNTSMS, 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Collins, Raymond, First Corinthians (SP, 7; Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999). Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975–79). Delling, Gerhard, ‘Nahe ist dir das Wort: Wort – Geist – Glaube bei Paulus’, Theologische Literaturzeitung 99 (1974), pp. 401–12. Dennis, John, ‘The Letter and the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3,6 and Romans 2,29’, in Reimund Bieringer, Ma. Marilou Ibika, Dominika Kurek-Chomycz and Thomas

Bibliography

247

Vollmer (eds) Theologizing in the Corninthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), pp. 109–30. Dietzfelbinger, Christian, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (ZBNT, 4; 2 vols; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001). Duff, Paul, Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Dunn, J. D. D., ‘John VI—A Eucharistic Discourse?’ NTS 17 (1971), pp. 328–38. Dunn, J. D. D., Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadephia: Westminster, 1975). Dunn, J. D. D., Romans 9–16 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988). Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ‘The Material Spirit: Cosmology and Ethics in Paul’, NTS 55 (2009), pp. 179–97. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ‘Logos and Pneuma in the Fourth Gospel’, in David Aune and Frederick Brenk (eds), Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute (NovTSup, 143; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 27–48. Fee, Gordon, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). Fee, Gordon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Fee, Gordon, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (AB, 28A; New York: Doubleday, 1981). Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Romans, (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993). Fitzmyer, Joseph A., First Corinthians (AYBC; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). Fowl, Stephen, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). Frame, James, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912). Franck, Eskil, Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John (CBNTS, 14; Lund: CWK Gleerup). Fuller, Daniel, ‘The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation’, in W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor (eds), Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 189–98. Furnish, Victor Paul, II Corinthians (AB, 32A; Garden City : Doubleday, 1984). Furnish, Victor Paul, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). Gaffin, Richard, ‘Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2:6–16’, WTJ 57 (1995), pp. 103–24. Garland, David, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003). Garrett, Duane, ‘Veiled Hearts: the Translation and Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3’, JETS 53 (2010), pp. 729–72. Gleason, Randall, ‘Paul’s Covenantal Contrasts in 2 Corinthians 3.1–11’, BibSac 154 (1997), pp. 61–79. Gnilka, Joachim, Der Epheserbrief (HTKNT, 10/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1971). Gombis, Timothy, ‘Being the Fullness of God in Christ by the Spirit: Ephesians 5:18 in Its Epistolary Setting’, Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002), pp. 259–71.

248

Bibliography

Green, Gene, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Green, Joel, ‘The Problem of a Beginning: Israel’s Scriptures in Luke 1–2’, BBR 4 (1994) pp. 61–86. Green, Joel, Methods for Luke (MBI; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Griffith-Jones, Robin, ‘Turning to the Lord: Vision, Transformation and Paul’s Agenda in 2 Corinthians 1–8’, in Reimund Bieringer et al., Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (BTS, 16; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), pp. 255–79. Grindheim, Sigurd, ‘Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church’, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 689–709. Grindheim, Sigurd, ‘Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul’s Prophetic Self-Understanding and Prophetic Hermeneutic with Special Reference to Galatians 3.10–12’, NTS 53 (2007), pp. 545–65. Gourgues, Michel, ‘Le Paraclet, L’Esprit de Vérité: Deux Désignations, Deux Fonctions’, in G. Van Belle, J. G. Van Der Watt and P. Maritz (eds), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel (BETL, 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. 83–108. Haacker, Klaus, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (ThHK, 6; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999). Hafemann, Scott, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2.14–3.3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Hafemann, Scott, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006). Hahn, Horst, Tradition und Neuinterpretation im ersten Johannesbrief (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009). Harris, Murray, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). Hartman, Lars, ‘Some Remarks on 1 Cor 2.1–5’, SEA 39 (1974), pp. 109–20. Haufe, Günter, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher (ThHK, 12/I; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999). Hays, Richard, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1986). Hays, Richard, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997). Heath, J. M. F., Paul’s Visual Piety: The Metamorphosis of the Beholder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Heil, John Paul, Ephesians: Empowerment to Walk in Love for the Unity of All in Christ (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Héring, Jean, La Seconde Épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1958). Héring, Jean, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: The Epworth Press, 1962). Hiu, Elim, Regulations Concerning Tongues and Prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14.26– 40: Relevance Beyond the Corinthian Church (LNTS, 406; London: T & T Clark, 2010). Hoehner, Harold, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002). Holtz, Traugott, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (Zürich: Benziger, 1986). Horn, Friedrich, Das Angeld des Geist (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Hoskyns, Edwyn, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber and Faber, 1947). Hurtado, Larry, ‘Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John’, in David Capes, April DeConick, Helen Bond and Troy Miller (eds),

Bibliography

249

Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), pp. 195–213. Ibuki, Yu, Die Wahrheit im Johannesevangelium (BBB, 39; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1972). Jewett, Robert, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Jobes, Karen, 1, 2, & 3 John (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014). Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Acts of the Apostles (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992). Johnson, Luke Timothy, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). Jojko, Bernadeta, Worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Jn 4.20–26 in the light of the Relationships among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Rome: Pontifica Università Gregaoriana, 2012). Kammler, Hans-Christian, ‘Jesus Christus und der Geistparaklet. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Verhältnisbestimmung von Pneumatologie und Christologie’, in Otfried Hofius and Hans-Christian Kammler, Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums (WUNT, 88; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996). Kammler, Hans-Christian, Kreuz und Weisheit (WUNT, 159; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Käsemann, Ernst, New Testament Questions of Today (trans. W. J. Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969). Keener, Craig, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997). Keener, Craig, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). Keener, Craig, 1–2 Corinthians (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Kemmler, D., Faith and Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated by 1–2 Thessalonians and Acts 17.2–4 (NovTSup, 40; Leiden: Brill, 1975). Kim, Seyoon, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Klauck, Hans-Josef, Der Erste Johannesbrief (EKKNT, 23/1; Zürich and Braunschweig: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991). Köstenburger, Andreas, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004). Kruse, Colin, 2 Corinthians (TNC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Fascicle 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). Law, Robert, The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968). Légasse, Simon, Les Epîtres de Paul aux Thessaloniciens (LD, 7; Paris: Cerf, 1999). Levison, Jack, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Levison, Jack, Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). Lieu, Judith, I, II, & III John: A Commentary (NTL, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008). Lieu, Judith, ‘Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John’, JBL 127 (2008), pp. 36–43. Lim, Timothy, ‘Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, But in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power’, NovT 29 (1987), pp. 137–49. Lincoln, Andrew, Ephesians (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990). Lincoln, Andrew, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000). Lindemann, Andreas, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT, 9/1; Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2000).

250

Bibliography

Lindars, Barnabas, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). Lutkemeyer, Lawrence, ‘The Role of the Paraclete (Jn 16:7–15)’, CBQ 8 (1946), pp. 220–29. Malherbe, Abraham, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday, 2000). Maloney, Francis, The Gospel of John (SP; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998). Marguerat, Daniel, The First Christian Historian (SNTSMS, 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Marshall, I. Howard, The Epistles of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Martin, Ralph, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1986). Maritínez, Florentino García, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. Wilfred Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1996). Martínez, Florentino Garcia and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Translations) (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–98). Meeks, Wayne, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 44–72. Menken, Maarten, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays (CBET, 77; Leuven: Peeters, 2015). Menzies, Robert, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004). Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Corinthians, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1884). Meyer, H. A. W., Galatians and Ephesians (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884). Michaels, J. Ramsey, The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). Murray, John, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). O’Brien, Peter, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Painter, John, 1, 2, and 3 John (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002). Pervo, Richard, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). Philip, Finny, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology (WUNT, 2/194; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Plummer, Alfred, The Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1915). Pokorny, Petr, Der Brief des Paulus an die Epheser (ThHK, 10/2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 1992). Porsch, Felix, Pneuma und Wort: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (FTS, 16; Frankfurt am Main: Joseph Knecht, 1974). Porsch, Felix, Johannes-Evangelium (SKKNT, 4; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Biblewerk, 1988). Porter, Stanley, ‘The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 655–77. Potterie, Ignace de la, ‘Anointing of the Christian by Faith’, in Ignace de la Potterie and Stanislaus Lyonnet, The Christian Lives by the Spirit (New York: Alba House, 1971), pp. 79–143. Potterie, Ignace de la, La Vérité dans Saint Jean, vol. 1 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977). Rabens, Volker, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul (WUNT, 2.283; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).

Bibliography

251

Rensberger, David, I John, 2 John, 3 John (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997). Rigaux, B., Les Épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (ÉBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956). Roloff, Jürgen, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; Göttingen and Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988). Sanday, W. and A. C. Headlam (ICC; A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 5th edn, 1902). Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Epheser (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1957). Schlier, Heinrich, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977). Schmeller, Thomas, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (EKK, 8/1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Ostfildern: Patmos Verlag, 2010). Schmid, Hansjörg (BWANT, 159; Gegner im 1. Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002). Schmithals, Walter, Der Römerbrief: Ein Kommentar (Güterssloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1988). Schnabel, Eckhard, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006). Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 3 (New York: Seabury, 1980). Schnackenburg, Rudolf, Ephesians: A Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991). Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (trans. Reginald Fuller and Ilse Fuller; New York: Crossroad, 1992). Schrage, Wolfgang, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT; 3 vols; Zürich and Braunschweig: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991). Schreiner, Thomas, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). Segal, Alan, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale, 1990). Sellin, Gerhard, Der Brief an die Epheser (KEK, 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). Senft, Christophe, La Première Épitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT, 7; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1990). Shelfer, Lochlan, ‘The Legal Precision of the Term “παράκλητος” ’, JSNT 32 (2009), pp. 131–50. Stalder, Kurt, Das Werk des Geistes in der Heiligung bei Paulus (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1962). Strecker, Georg, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Stuhlmacher, Peter, ‘Spiritual Remembering: Jn 14.26’, in Graham Stanton, Bruce Longenecker and Stephen Barton (eds), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 55–68. Talbert, Charles, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, rev. edn, 2002). Talbert, Charles, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005). Tenney, Merrill, ‘Topics from the Gospel of John Part III: The Meaning of “Witness” in John’, BibSac 132 (1975), pp. 229–42. Theobald, Michael, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT, 267; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) pp. 256–81 (279). Thielman, Frank, Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010).

252

Bibliography

Thiselton, Anthony, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Thomas, John Christopher, ‘Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: A Pentecostal Hermeneutic as a Test Case’, in J. Green and M. Turner (eds), Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 108–22. Thomas, John Christopher, The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 John, 1 John, 3 John (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004). Thompson, Marianne Meye, ‘ “Mercy upon All”: God as Father in the Epistle to the Romans’, in Sven Soderlund and N. T. Wright, Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 203–16. Thompson, Marianne Meye, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Thrall, M. E., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; London: T & T Clark, 1994). Thyen, Hartwig, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT, 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Trites, Allison, The New Testament Concept of Witness (SNTSMS, 31; Cambridge: CUP, 1977). Turner, Max, ‘The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritative Preaching in LukeActs: A Question of Origins’, NTS 38 (1992), pp. 66–88. Turner, Max, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996). Turner, Max, ‘Luke and the Spirit: Renewing Theological Interpretation of Biblical Pneumatology’, in C. Bartholomew, J. Green and A. Thiselton (eds), Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), pp. 267–93. Turner, Max, ‘Levison’s Filled With the Spirit: A Brief Appreciation and Response’, JPT 20 (2011), pp. 193–200. Vermes, Geza, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Heritage Press, 1967). Von Wahlde, Urban, The Gospel and Letters of John (3 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Vorholt, Robert, Der Dienst der Versöhnung: Studien zur Apostolatstheologie bei Paulus (WMANT, 118; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008). Wallace, Daniel, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). Wanamaker, Charles, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Weiss, Bernhard, Das Johannes-Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1893). Wengst, Klaus, Das Johannesevangelium (ThKNT; 2 vols; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001). Wiarda, Timothy, ‘The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task’, JETS 46 (2003), pp. 233–48. Wiarda, Timothy, ‘Scenes and Details in the Gospels: Concrete Reading and Three Alternatives’, NTS 50 (2004), pp. 167–84. Wijngaards, John, The Spirit in John (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988). Wilckens, Ulrich, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD, 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Windisch, Hans, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924). Windisch, Hans, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel (trans. James Cox; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968).

Bibliography

253

Wise, Michael, Abegg, Martin Jr. and Cook, Edward, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). Witherington, B., Conflict and Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Witherington, B., Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Witherington, B., 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Witmer, Stephen, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity (WUNT, 2/246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Wolff, Christian, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (ThHK, 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996). Wright, N. T., Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013). Yarbrough, Robert, 1–3 John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). Zeller, Dieter, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK, 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Zmijewski, Josef, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT, 5; Regensburg: Pustet, 1994). Zumstein, Jean, L’Évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21) (CNT, 4b; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007). Zwiep, Arie, Judas and the Choice of Matthias (WUNT, 2/187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).

INDEX OF AUTHORS Adai, Jacob 75–7 Aletti, Jean-Noel 57, 73, 76, 77 Allo, E.-B. 9–11, 47, 83, 84, 91 Aloisi, John 117, 119 Anderson, Paul 229 Anderson, R. Dean, Jr. 10, 11 Arnold, Clinton 54, 56–8, 67–9, 71, 72, 74, 76 Aune, David 232, 233 Back, Frances 60, 62, 64 Baird, William 30 Barnett, Paul 47–9, 60, 62 Barrett, C.K. 10, 11, 83, 96, 97, 100, 114, 117, 118, 190, 192 Bauer, Walter 122, 157 Beasley-Murray, George 108, 148 Belleville, Linda 59 Bennema, Cornelius 109, 115, 117, 122, 140, 151, 153, 155, 158–60 Best, Ernest 25, 57, 58, 76 Beutler, Johannes 173 Bockmuehl, M. 15, 82, 84, 85, 89, 95, 232 Boda, Mark 232 Boismard, M.-E and A. Lamouille 106 Bonnah, Goerge K. A. 189, 193, 194 Boring, M. Eugene 130 Bouttier, Michel 58, 76 Braun, F.-M. 154 Breck, John 120 Brown, Raymond 107–9, 112–14, 118, 130, 139, 140, 142, 153, 158, 159, 163, 168, 169, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 185, 226 Bruce, F.F. 21, 77 Buch-Hansen, Gitte 108, 151, 160 Bultmann, Rudolph 42, 47, 108, 109, 153 Burge, Gary 117, 142, 144, 145, 148, 150, 159, 160, 163 Byrskog, Samuel 82, 84 Calvin, John 3, 38

Carson, D. A. 109, 117, 133, 146, 150, 154, 160 Cerfaux, Lucien 227 Chevallier, M.-A. 11, 15, 19, 24, 30, 44, 51, 52, 59, 62, 73, 76, 77, 82–5, 90, 92, 94, 107, 111, 118, 122, 130, 139, 147, 148, 158–61, 173 Ciampa, Roy and Brian Rosner 9, 11, 82–5 Collange, J.-F. 30, 62, 64, 91, 93, 94 Collins, Raymond 10, 96, 97, 99, 100 Cranfield, C. E. B. 42, 44, 101 Delling, Gerhard 16, 19 Dennis, John 32 Dietzfelbinger, Christian 109, 112, 118, 136, 138 Duff, Paul 62 Dunn, J. D. D. 19, 37, 43, 97, 123, 142–4 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 65 Fee, Gordon 18, 23, 33, 37, 39, 42–4, 48, 50, 58, 61, 62, 68, 83–5, 87, 96, 98–100, 169 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 12, 26, 83, 84, 96–100, 197 Fowl, Stephen 203, 204, 219 Frame, James 21, 22 Franck, Eskil 123, 124 Fuller, Daniel 88 Furnish, Victor Paul 19, 27, 47, 49, 52, 59, 61–3, 91, 93, 94 Gaffin, Richard 88 Garland, David 11, 97, 98, 100 Garrett, Duane 59 Gleason, Randall 90–2 Gnilka, Joachim 67, 75 Gombis, Timothy 67, 68, 70 Gourgues, Michel 226 Green, Gene 19 Green, Joel 197

256

Index of Authors

Griffith-Jones, Robin 62 Grindheim, Sigurd 47, 84, 86 Haacker, Klaus 37, 42 Hafemann, Scott 30–2, 35, 48, 63, 90, 93, 95 Hahn, Horst 173 Harris, Murray 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 47, 60–4, 66 Hartman, Lars 10 Haufe, Günter 18 Hays, Richard 10, 84, 90–2, 94, 97, 98, 100 Heath, J. M. F. 62 Heil, John Paul 67, 68, 74 Héring, Jean 46, 87, 90 Hiu, Elim 103 Hoehner, Harold 56–8, 67, 68, 74, 77 Holtz, Traugott 19 Horn, Friedrich 18, 42–4, 84 Hoskyns, Edwyn. 107 Hurtado, Larry 123, 127, 135, 139 Ibuki, Yu 114 Jewett, Robert 36 Jobes, Karen 130, 168, 183 Johnson, Luke Timothy 200, 203 Jojko, Bernadeta 158, 160, 162, 164 Kammler, Hans-Christian 10–14, 19, 83, 84, 87, 110, 113, 122, 123, 127, 138, 139, 147, 148 Käsemann, Ernst 99 Keener, Craig 96, 98, 100, 114, 118, 123, 133, 134, 137–9, 153, 158–60, 163, 230 Kemmler, D. 25 Kim, Seyoon 47, 62 Klauck, Hans-Josef 130, 174 Köstenburger, Andreas 117, 145, 148, 153, 158 Kruse, Colin 60 Lampe, G. W. H. 20 Law, Robert 131, 169 Légasse, Simon 19 Levison, Jack 92, 125, 204, 230, 232–5 Lieu, Judith 168, 170, 173, 179 Lim, Timothy 10 Lincoln, Andrew 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 110, 111, 113, 142, 148, 152, 153, 155, 190

Lindars, Barnabas 109 Lindemann, Andreas 84 Lutkemeyer, Lawrence 117 Malherbe, Abraham 18 Maloney, Francis 118, 152 Marguerat, Daniel 194 Marshall, I. Howard 179 Maritínez, Florentino García 235 Martin, Ralph 60, 63 Meeks, Wayne 151 Menken, Maarten 184, 187 Menzies, Robert 191 Meyer, H. A. W. 62, 63, 74, 117 Michaels, J. Ramsey 108, 118, 138, 148 Moo, Douglas 26, 42, 43, 101 Morris, Leon 108, 158 Murray, John 27, 32, 36 O’Brien, Peter 57, 58, 67, 68, 74 Painter, John 168, 169, 171, 173, 179, 185 Pervo, Richard 194 Philip, Finny 234 Plummer, Alfred 47, 63, 83 Pokorny, Petr 67 Porsch, Felix 107, 113, 118, 122, 123, 126, 134, 136, 138, 142–4, 147, 148, 150, 153, 159 Porter, Stanley 45 Potterie, Ignace de la 106, 107, 111, 115, 122, 126, 136, 140, 145, 157, 159, 160, 162–4, 173 Rabens, Volker 32, 44, 52, 59, 64–6, 212 Rensberger, David 130, 169, 175, 176, 177 Rigaux, B. 19, 25 Roloff, Jürgen 199 Sanday, W. and A. C. Headlam 42, 45 Schlier, Heinrich 38, 42, 75 Schmeller, Thomas 47, 48 Schmid, Hansjörg 169, 177 Schmithals, Walter 37, 41, 42 Schnabel, Eckhard 11, 83, 84, 86 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 67, 74, 75, 77, 107, 109, 130, 134, 142, 144, 148, 150, 154, 168, 185 Schrage, Wolfgang 10, 84

Index of Authors Schreiner, Thomas 37, 43, 101, 102 Segal, Alan 62 Sellin, Gerhard 57, 58 Senft, Christophe 84 Shelfer, Lochlan 111 Stalder, Kurt 84 Strecker, Georg 168, 169, 171, 179, 185, 186 Stuhlmacher, Peter 123, 125 Talbert, Charles 97, 196 Tenney, Merrill 117 Theobald, Michael 136 Thielman, Frank 56–8 Thiselton, Anthony 11, 12, 83, 100, 204 Thomas, John Christopher 21, 37, 47, 169, 203, 219 Thompson, Marianne Meye 43, 116 Thrall, M. E. 27, 30, 33, 47, 49, 51, 59–66, 91, 94 Thyen, Hartwig 164 Trites, Allison 108, 111, 112, 117, 189, 190, 194, 201 Turner, Max 51, 52, 62, 65, 116, 144, 148, 150, 153, 155, 163, 191, 193, 196, 203, 204, 230, 234, 238

257

Vermes, Geza 231 Von Wahlde, Urban 113, 122, 133, 145, 146, 163, 177, 183 Vorholt, Robert 47, 49 Wallace, Daniel 31, 36, 41, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 102, 105, 158 Wanamaker, Charles 19 Weiss, Bernhard 145, 153 Wengst, Klaus 108 Wiarda, Timothy 219 Wijngaards, John 142, 157 Wilckens, Ulrich 153 Windisch, Hans 46, 122 Wise, Michael 231, 235 Witherington, B. 10, 19, 22, 37 Witmer, Stephen 122, 125, 130–5, 174–6 Wolff, Christian 11, 83, 84 Wright, N. T. 43, 61, 232 Yarbrough, Robert 176 Zeller, Dieter 11, 84, 85 Zmijewski, Josef 198, 199 Zumstein, Jean 110, 118, 123, 136, 138, 140 Zwiep, Arie 199

INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1.3 51 3.24 233 Exodus 24.12 33 31.18 33, 34, 91 33.23 60 34 60, 94, 95 34.1 33 34.6 60 34.29–35 60 34.34 51 34.34–35 62 Numbers 12.8 60 21.8–9 156 27.14 196 35.30 113 Deuteronomy 17.6 113 19.15 113 29.4 231, 233 30.6–8 231, 235 1 Samuel 10.5–10 72 17.39 75 21.9 75 22.10 75 2 Kings 22.8–20 233 2 Chronicles 5.13–14 72 Nehemiah 9.3 89 9.12–25 232

Psalms 40.6 231 40.6–8 233 40.8 231 46.4 233 51.10–12 231 118.22 205 118.25–26 126 119.12 230, 233 119.18–19 230, 233 119.27 230, 233 119.33–35 230, 233 119.73 230 147.15 13 Proverbs 1.23 234 Isaiah 3.13 111 31.8 75 44.3 154 49.2 76 50.4–5 233 54.13 132, 134 55.11 13 59.21 233, 234 61.1 89, 173 69.9 126 Jeremiah 2.9 111 23.29 13 25.31 111 31.31–34 154, 176, 230, 235 31.31–33 222, 223 31.33 32–4, 91, 92, 132, 177, 222 31.34 132, 134, 177 Ezekiel 11.19 32, 154 11.19–20 230, 235 36.25–27 144, 154, 155

260 Ezekiel (cont.) 36.26 32, 222, 223, 230, 231, 235 36.27 192, 222, 223, 230, 231, 235 36.36–37 32 37.6 37 37.14 37 Daniel 9 233 Hosea 4.1 111 6.5 76 Joel 2.28–29 43 2.28–32 192 Amos 9.11–12 202, 204 Micah 6.1 111 Zechariah 4.6 180 7.12 89 9.9 126, 128 NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 4.1–11 78 4.4 76 10.17–20 193 10.17–25 226, 227 10.18–20 226, 228 18.15 119 23.39 195 Mark 12.36 89 13.9–11 2, 109–11, 193, 226 13.11 221, 227, 228 Luke 2.25–32 233 3.19 119 4.1–13 78 4.18 173

Index of References 4.18–19 191 4.18–20 202 5.36 203 6.12–16 199 8.11 17 10.21–22 195 11.20 152 12.11–12 4, 109, 193, 226–8 12.12 125 20.17 205 20.42 69 21.12–15 193, 226, 228 21.15 109, 227 22.3 198 22.28–30 198 22.29–30 199 23.42 151 24.25–27 205 24.44 69 24.44–47 205 24.36–52 198 24.44–46 193 24.44–48 201 24.48–49 4, 193 John 1–12 116, 141 1.1–4 215 1.4 144 1.4–5 115, 143 1.5 115 1.7–8 107, 113 1.9 115, 143 1.10–11 115 1.13 142, 143, 154, 155 1.14 115, 139, 140, 143, 160, 164 1.15 107 1.17 139, 160, 164 1.18 140, 160 1.32–33 148 1.33 145, 147, 158 1.34 107 1.46 107 2.17 125, 126, 128 2.18–27 131 2.19–21 162 2.19 127 2.20 132 2.22 125, 126, 127

Index of References 2.23–25 106 2.23–3.2 149, 151, 152 2.24 150 2.24–25 152, 156 2.27 6, 131, 132 3–6 213 3.1–15 141, 147, 149–57, 213–16 3.3–8 144, 149, 163 3.5 144, 145, 159, 216 3.5–8 108, 112 3.6 115, 117, 142, 145, 159, 160 3.11 115 3.16–17 143 3.16–21 150, 151, 156 3.17 114, 119 3.18–19 114 3.20 118, 119 3.26 107 3.31 151 3.31–36 148 3.32 107, 115 3.34 106, 145, 147–9, 164 3.36 143, 145, 153 4.10 147, 155, 159 4.10–14 141, 144, 145, 155 4.14 155 4.20 158, 164 4.20–26 160 4.22 161 4.23–24 5, 106, 141, 157–65, 213, 214 4.25–26 161 4.39 107 4.48 106 5 113 5.21 143 5.24–25 115, 143, 146 5.24–30 145 5.28–29 143 5.30–46 111 5.31–32 113 5.31–40 107, 111, 113 5.33 160 5.36 3, 106 6.26 106 6.27 147 6.30 106 6.32–51 144 6.35 144 6.40 143

261

6.41–43 144 6.42 150 6.44 116, 132, 142, 145 6.44–45 176 6.45 132, 134, 143 6.51 143, 151 6.51–58 141, 143, 144 6.53–58 216 6.54 143 6.60–62 144 6.60–65 147 6.60–71 142 6.61–65 144 6.63 106, 108, 112, 115–17, 141–9, 151, 152, 159, 163, 213–16, 241 6.65 115 6.68 115, 146 7.7 113 7.17 151 7.37 151 7.37–39 108, 112, 116, 136, 141, 145, 147, 155, 159 7.38 155, 159 7.39 145 8 113 8.5 146 8.12 115, 144 8.12–59 111 8.13 107, 113 8.15 142 8.17–18 111 8.18 107 8.24 119 8.26 114 8.32 160 8.32–36 119 8.33 150 8.40 160 8.44 161 8.47 115 8.51 151 8.52 151 9.5 115 9.31 151 9.38 164 9.39 114 9.39–41 115 10 137 10.3–4 137

262

Index of References

John (cont.) 10.9 151 10.10 143 10.16 137 10.25 3, 106 10.32 106, 139, 140 10.37–38 106 11.9 151 11.25 143 11.33 157, 158 12.12–13 127 12.14–16 128 12.16 126, 127 12.26 151 12.27 151 12.34 150 12.37–40 115, 125 12.44–50 145 12.47 114 12.48 114 13–17 116, 134 13.18–19 128 13.19 127 13.21 157, 158 14–16 213 14.6 139, 140, 143, 160, 164 14.7 140 14.8–9 140 14.8–10 237 14.10 109, 110 14.11 106 14.12 3, 106 14.15–17 155 14.15–20 107 14.16 133, 173, 180, 237 14.16–18 107, 108, 119, 133, 135, 136, 183 14.17 107, 117, 136, 159, 163, 180, 237 14.19–20 173 14.22 108 14.23 146, 151 14.25 163, 164 14.25–26 106, 107, 110, 119, 121–37, 146, 213–15, 242 14.26 2, 6, 105, 107, 117, 173, 174, 176, 187, 236 14.27 147 14.28–29 128 14.29 127 15.6 151

15.15 140 15.16–17 163 15.18–25 111, 114, 115 15.18–16.4 111, 139, 226 15.24 3, 106 15.25 214 15.26 159, 163, 173 15.26–27 1–5, 105–22, 131, 146, 163, 187, 189, 213, 215, 221, 226–9, 235, 242 15.27 128, 134, 135, 215 16.1–4 111, 114, 128 16.4 127 16.7 108, 117, 119, 120, 173 16.8 163 16.8–11 107, 111, 112, 117–20, 131 16.12 134 16.12–15 105, 107, 110, 119, 121, 124, 125, 129, 132, 136–40, 146, 164, 174, 213–15, 236, 242 16.13 137, 140, 159, 161, 173, 187 16.13–15 2, 117, 173 16.26 138 17.3 143 17.17 161 17.20 113 18.9 125 18.32 125 19.19 161 19.34–35 185, 187 19.35 107, 113, 115, 128 20.9 125 20.21 110 20.22 3, 110, 136, 145, 155 20.29 103 20.30 115, 128 20.31 113, 115 21.15–22 115 21.24 1, 107, 113, 128 Acts 1–2 198–201, 217, 218 1.2 193 1.8 4, 189, 193, 196 1.12–2.41 217 1.16 4, 89, 192 1.20 69 1.21–22 193 1.22 189 2.1–41 217

Index of References 2.2 189 2.2–6 4 2.4–11 192 2.14–41 189 2.17–18 43, 192, 202 2.19 4, 192, 202 2.32 189, 190, 193 2.33 4, 190 2.36 190 2.37 5, 194, 195 2.40 190 2.42–27 191 3.1–4.31 191 3.11–26 189 3.15 189, 190, 193, 199 4 205 4.5–20 189 4.5–22 192 4.8 193 4.8–12 205 4.13 205 4.25 4, 192 4.31 193 5.12–16 191 5.17–42 192 5.27–32 189 5.28 192 5.32 3, 4, 5, 189–97, 199, 201, 217, 226–9, 236 5.33 194 6.3 191, 192 6.3–10 202 6.5 191 6.8 191 6.8–10 191 6.10 109, 191–4, 227 7.38 13 7.51 4, 196 7.52 196 7.54 194 7.55–56 193 8.4–8 191 8.17 4 8.25 190 9.15 199 10.1–20 195 10.19–20 204 10.32–42 191 10.38 173, 192, 202

10.39 189, 190, 193 10.41 189, 199 10.42 190 10.43 201 10.44–48 4, 190, 202 10.45 43 10.47 204 11.15–18 4, 190, 202 11.17 204 11.28 192, 193 13.1–2 204 13.2 72, 192 13.4–12 191 13.9–12 191, 202 13.31 189 13.35 195 14.3 191, 202 15 199 15.1–35 201–5, 217 15.8 4 15.12 191, 202 15.15 242, 243 15.28 4 16.14 4, 194 16.25–34 191 18.28 4 18.5 190 19.11–20 191 19.42 195 20.21 190, 192 20.23 4, 192 20.24 190, 192 21.4 192, 193 21.11 4, 192 22.15 190 22.20 190 23.11 190 24.31 195 24.45 195 26.16 190, 199 26.22 190 28 242 28.7–10 191 28.23 190 28.25 4, 89, 192 Romans 1.1 36 1.6 16

263

264

Index of References

Romans (cont.) 1.7 16 1.9 36 1.11–15 36 1.15–17 36 1.16 13, 24, 26, 27, 213 1.17–18 86 2.5 86 2.29 32, 44, 91 3–8 42, 55 5.3–4 44 5.5 52–5, 58, 208, 210 5.5–8 41–6, 53, 54, 62, 207–11, 224, 225, 242 7.6 91 8.1–13 44 8.1–17 94 8.9–11 56, 66, 68 8.15 84 8.15–16 42–4, 55, 212 8.16 42, 52–5 8.17 44 8.18–19 86 8.18–27 44 8.26 12 8.28 16 8.29 66 8.30 16 8.31–39 42 9.24 16 10.14–17 26 11.25 85 12.2 66 15.4 208 15.1–21 209 15.4 209, 210, 221, 241 15.4–5 101–2, 207 15.9–12 102 15.13 23, 101–2, 207–10, 221, 241 15.15 36 15.16 25, 26, 29, 35–9, 207–9, 224, 225 15.18–19 9, 25–7, 38, 75, 208, 209, 211 15.18–21 14, 36, 75 15.18 37 15.19 23–6 15.20 25, 26 15.21 25, 26 15.25 30

15.31 37 16.25 86 1 Corinthians 1 16 1.2 12, 16 1.9 16 1.10–11 77 1.11–12 15 1.14–17 15 1.17 86 1.18 13, 14, 16, 24, 86, 213 1.18–25 14 1.21 14, 75 1.22–23 18 1.23 14, 16, 22, 88 1.24 16, 22 1.24–25 86 1.26 16 1.26–28 16 1.27–28 22 1.30 16 1–2 10, 14 2 223 2.1 22 2.1–5 18, 82, 85 2.1–16 209 2.3 12, 13 2.4 23, 31 2.4–5 5, 9–18, 25, 29, 86, 90, 207–11, 222, 224, 225 2.6 83–5, 88 2.6–7 82, 85 2.6–16 15, 16, 84, 86, 88 2.7 88 2.9 82, 85 2.10 5, 99, 236 2.10–13 95 2.10–16 81–9, 95, 103, 208, 209, 211, 212, 242 2.12 5, 15 2.12–16 222, 223 2.14 212 2.14–15 15 3.1–4.4 82 3.5–9 15, 17 3.6–10 35 3.6 30

Index of References 3.9 30, 82 3.10 30, 100 3.13 86 4.1 82 4.6–13 82 4.18–21 99 5.3 100 5.8 49 6.9–10 38 6.11 37 7.10 99 7.25 99 9.1 49, 61 9.1–2 99, 100 9.4 82 12–14 95–8, 100, 135, 207, 221 12.1 100 12.1–11 5 12.1–14.40 209 12.2 96, 97 12.3 81, 95–101, 208, 209, 211, 212, 243 12.10 24, 96, 236 12.28–29 24, 99, 100 12.30 236 13.1–2 100 13.3 102 13.8 100 14 103 14.1–12 5 14.4 103, 212 14.5 102–3, 208, 209 14.6 86 14.13 102–3, 209, 236 14.15 69 14.26 86 14.26–28 102, 103, 209, 236 14.29 96 14.30 86 14.33 99 14.34–35 100 14.36 98, 99 14.37 81, 95–101, 208, 209, 211, 212 14.37–38 243 14.37–40 100 14.38 96, 98, 100 15.1–8 85 15.3–8 211 15.5–10 100

265

15.8 61 15.49 66 15.51 85 2 Corinthians 1.21–22 173 1.22 42, 44, 66 2.4–5 9 2.12 30 2.12–17 61, 208 2.14 34 2.14–16 48, 52 2.14–17 61 2.15–16 22 2.17 30, 98 3 32, 34, 94, 95, 222, 223 3–4 226 3.1–11 90 3.1–4.6 46, 66, 209 3.2 31, 33, 34, 49, 60 3.3 26, 29–35, 39, 44, 51, 60, 66, 90–2, 94, 207–11, 222, 223, 225, 226, 235 3.6 5, 30, 32–4, 51, 89–95, 212, 242 3.6–11 61, 81, 93 3.7 60, 63, 92 3.7–11 30 3.7–13 60, 223 3.7–18 60 3.8 30, 33, 51 3.9 30 3.11 63, 92 3.12–15 242 3.12–17 81, 89–95, 103, 208, 209, 211, 212 3.12–4.6 34, 94 3.13 48, 60, 63, 94 3.14 48, 63, 94 3.14–17 223, 224 3.14–18 92 3.15 48, 210 3.15–16 60 3.15–18 54 3.16 63, 64 3.16–17 51, 62, 65, 66 3.17–18 31, 52, 62, 66, 92 3.18 35, 48, 51–3, 59–67, 90, 93, 207–10, 212, 223–6 4.1 30 4.1–6 50

266

Index of References

2 Corinthians (cont.) 4.2 27, 94, 98 4.2–6 61 4.3 30, 48, 93, 94 4.3–4 60 4.4 30, 44, 47, 48, 52, 54, 60, 61, 93, 94 4.5 49, 52, 61 4.6 31, 41, 42, 46–53, 54, 58, 60, 61, 66, 207–11, 223–5 4.7 13 5.5 42 5.20 16 6.4–10 28 6.4 27 6.6–7 9, 23, 27–8, 208, 209, 224 7.3 49 8.19–20 30, 31 10.8 100 10.10–11 100 11.4 84 11.30 14 12.1 86 12.7 86 12.9 14 12.11–12 100 12.12 24, 26 13.3 99 13.10 100 Galatians 1.1 100, 199 1.1–17 85 1.6 16 1.6–9 100 1.11–12 211 1.12 86 1.16 49, 86 2–4 55 2.2 86 2.5 24 3.1 45, 52, 61 3.1–5 31 3.2 84 3.5 26 3.10–12 47 3.14 33 3.23 86 4.1–5.1 94 4.4–6 237

4.6 12, 33, 42–4, 52, 55, 212 5.14 68 5.22–23 67 6.14 14 Ephesians 1–3 55 1.4–8 55, 57 1.7–9 58 1.13 27, 33, 54, 56 1.13–14 42 1.17 72, 86, 212 1.17–18 42, 44, 55 1.18 52 1.23 68 2.4–8 55, 57 2.10 77 2.13–16 55, 57, 58 2.20 100 2.22 68 3 56 3.1–5 95 3.1–6 99 3.3–5 5, 207 3.3–10 85 3.5 86, 100, 236 3.7–9 58 3.14 54 3.16–17 209, 224 3.16–19 41, 52–8, 208, 210–12 3.16 23, 68, 72 3.17 44, 68 3.19 68 3.20 54 4.13 68 4.25 71 4.30 71 5.3–18 73 5.18–19 56, 59, 67–74, 207–11, 221, 241 5.20 69, 70 5.21 69 5.25 58 5.26 14, 75, 76 5.26–27 37, 39 6.10–17 78 6.10–20 210 6.11 77 6.12 78 6.13 77

Index of References 6.13–17 75 6.15 76 6.17 59, 67, 74–9, 209–11, 221, 241 6.18 77, 78 6.19–20 78 Philippians 2.12–13 77 3.21 66 Colossians 1.4–5 13, 213 1.5 27 1.9 212 1.25 98 2.2 20 3.15 86 3.16 13, 56, 68–74, 213 1 Thessalonians 1.2–10 20 1.3 102 1.4–5 5, 9, 18–25, 29, 90, 207, 209, 210, 221–3 1.5 9, 31, 211, 223–5 1.6 22, 225 1.8 22, 30 1.9 22, 63 2.1–12 21 2.12 16 2.13 13, 98, 99, 213 4.3–8 37, 39 4.7 16 4.9 174 5.8 102 5.23 29 5.24 16 2 Thessalonians 1.7 86 1.11 16 2.13 39 2.14 14, 16, 75 2.3 86 2.6 86 2.8 86 3.1 13, 213 3.5 42, 44, 212 5.24 16

1 Timothy 1.7 23 5.20 119 2 Timothy 2.9 13 2.14 126 3.16 89 4.2 119 Titus 1.9 119 1.13 119 2.15 119 3.1 126 Hebrews 3.7 89 4.12 13, 14, 76 6.11 20 10.15–17 89 10.22 20 12.5 119 James 1.21 17 1 Peter 1.11 89 1.23 13 2 Peter 1.12 126 1.20–21 89 1 John 1–4 129, 131 1.1 171 1.1–4 167–72, 175, 178, 186, 242 1.5 167–72 1.2–3 144 1.6 170 1.6–2.6 177 2.7 167–72 2.7–10 183 2.7–11 171 2.18–27 136, 172–8, 180–2, 213–15 2.19 168 2.20 134, 171, 185 2.22 171 2.22–23 179

267

268 1 John (cont.) 2.24 125, 167–72, 179, 242 2.27 125, 129, 130, 132, 134, 181, 184–6, 215 2.28 168 3.2 60, 64, 168 3.5 168 3.8 168 3.10 180 3.11 167–72, 183 3.14 177 3.18 161, 164 3.19 184 3.20 184 3.23–24 182–4, 213–15 3.24 177, 178, 180, 185 4.1 170 4.1–3 135 4.1–4 169, 214 4.1–6 136, 172, 174, 178–82, 214, 215 4.2 143, 171, 186 4.2–3 169 4.4 131, 136, 170, 171, 180, 184, 187, 213, 215 4.5 170, 171 4.6 167–72, 214, 243 4.9 168 4.12 180, 183 4.12–13 179 4.13 170, 180, 185 4.13–15 182–4, 213–15 4.14 167–72, 185, 186 4.15 180 4.15–16 179 4.16 171, 180, 183 4.19 171 5.1 186 5.5 186 5.6 171 5.6–8 184–8, 213–15 5.6–12 184 5.7–8 180 5.9–10 187 5.10 186 5.11–12 186 5.19 180

Index of References 2 John 1 161, 162 3 161, 162, 164 4 161 7 143 8–10 177 3 John 1 161, 162 3 161, 162 4 161 10 126 Jude 5 126 Revelation 1.16 76 2.16 74 3.19 119 5.9 69 14.3 69 15.3 69 19.15 76 APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Maccabees 3.12 75 1 Enoch 62.2 76 Sirach 39.6–8 233, 234 Testament of Judah 20.1–3 120 20.5 120 Wisdom 9.16 153 9.17 232 18:15–16 13, 14, 76 DEAD SEA SCROLLS 1 QH

Index of References 12.11–13 231 20.11–13 232

Leviticus Rabbah 15.2 148

1QpHab 2.7–10 232 7.1–5 232 7.4–5 235 VII.4 230

GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE

1QS 3.17–25 180 4.20–22 154 5.9 235 8.15–16 235 V.9 230

Diogenes Laertius Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 6.45 10

PHILO

Cicero Academica 2.8 10

Epictetus Discourses 1.25.8 10

De Cherubim 7–29 233 27–29 232, 233, 236

Hesychius Lexicon 20

De Mutatione Nominum 18 232

P.Giess 25 19 87 19

De Somniis 2.252 233, 236 De Specialibus Legibus 3.1–6 232, 233 De Vita Mosis II.66–70 60 De Virtutibus 212–219 60 JOSEPHUS The Jewish War 3.351–53 232, 234, 236 MIDRASH

Plato Phaedo 77c 10 Sophist 265D 10 Timaeus 40E 10 EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 1 Clement 42:3 20 Apostolic Constitutions 7.39.2 20

269