The Hour of Justification in the Fourth Gospel 9783161620799, 9783161620805

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
Part I: Introduction
Chapter 1:The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept
1.1 Théo Preiss’ “Justification in Johannine Thought”
1.2 Attempting to Solve the Fourth Gospel’s Juridical Puzzle
1.3 John Borrows Juridical Material at Least Twice from the Synoptic Passion Week and Trial
1.4 Our Working Thesis
Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel
2.1 John’s ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω Christology and its Juridical Context
2.2 Juridical Use of μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία
2.3 Juridical Use of κρίμα, κρίνω, and κρίσις
2.4 Juridical Use of κατηγορέω
2.5 Juridical Use of ἐλέγχω
2.6 Juridical Use of Paraclete/παράκλητος
2.7 Chapter Summary
Part II: Second Isaiah and John’s Cosmic Trial Concept
Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and the Prologue’s Juridical Outlook
3.1 Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Salvific Arch of John’s Gospel
3.2 ‘Finish’-Verbs in Jn and the ‘Work’ of Jesus the Sent One
3.3 The Word of God in Isa 55:1–3; 10–11 and Jesus the Bread of Life in Jn 6:27–71
3.4 The Prologue’s Juridical Outlook
3.5 Chapter Summary
Chapter 4: Second Isaiah’s Lawsuits and the Fourth Gospel
4.1 The Lawsuits of Isaiah 40–55 and A. Lincoln’s Truth on Trial
4.2 Critique of Lincoln’s “Cosmic Lawsuit” Concept
Chapter 5: Necessity and Advantage: The Servant of Isa 40–55 in the Fourth Gospel
5.1 The Foundation of the Suffering Servant in Early Christian tradition
5.2 The Influence of the Suffering Servant Tradition on John’s Trial Thinking
5.3 Chapter Summary and Outlook
Part III: John’s Preponed Trial, Annas’ Interrogation, and Pilate’s Trial
Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial
6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial
6.1.1 The Cleansing of the Temple: Mk 11:15–17 par
6.1.2 The Question about Authority (Temple): Mk 11:27–33 par
6.1.3 The Question about Authority (John the Baptist): Mk 11:27–33 par
6.1.4 The Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants (Sent ones): Mk 12:1–12 par
6.1.5 The Pharisees’ and Herodians’ [Preface to their] Question: Mk 12:13–14b par
6.1.6 Persecutions Foretold: Mk 13:9–13 par
6.1.7 The Son of Man will gather his elect: Mk 13:27 par
6.1.8 The Chief Priests and Scribes Conspire against Jesus: Mk 14:1 par
6.1.9 The Betrayal by Judas: Mk 14:10–11 par
6.1.10 The Last Supper: Mk 14:18–25
6.1.11 Gethsemane: Mk 14:32–42 par
6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial
6.2.1 Conspicuous Christological Allusions in Jn
6.2.2 Christological Titles and Related Statements in the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial and John
6.2.3 Additional Christological Aspects
6.3 Three Sets of Deliberations and/or attempts against Jesus
6.4 Chapter Summary
Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week
7.1 The Christ
7.2 The Prophet/False Prophet
7.3 The Son: Jesus as the Sent One
7.4 The Son of God
7.5 King (of Israel)
7.6 The Son of Man
7.7 The Case for Recognizing John’s Preponed Trial
7.8 The Johannine Passion Demi-Week
Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial
8.1 Jesus’ Arrest: Jn 18:1–11
8.2 Annas’ Interrogation: Jn 18:12–14; 19–24
8.3 Peter’s Denials: Jn 18:15–18; 25–27
8.4 From Caiaphas to Pilate: Jn 18:28–32
8.5 Jesus the Witness before Pilate: Jn 18:33–40
8.6 Behold the man!: Jn 19:1–6
8.7 The Son of God: Jn 19:7–12
8.8 Pilate’s Final Verdict: Jn 19:13–22
8.9 Chapter Summary
Part IV: Judging According to Appearance or Righteously? The Spirit-Paraclete, Isa 11:1–5, 10, and the Farewell Discourse
Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete
9.1 The Problem: Previous Attempts to Explain the Background of the Term παράκλητος
9.2 The Gnostic Helper Background
9.3 The Jewish Intercessor Background
9.4 The ‘Vorläufer-Vollender’/Son of Man Background
9.5 The Qumran Spirit of Truth and the Angel Michael
9.6 The Paraclete as an Inner-Christian Development
9.7 The Farewell Discourse Genre
9.8 The Wisdom Background
9.9 The Forensic/Juridical Background
9.10 The Apocalyptic Final Judgment Genre
9.11 The Synoptic Background
9.12 Isa 11:1–5, 10 as the Background of the Paraclete
Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception
10.1 Isa 11:1–10
10.2 LXX Isa 11:1–10
10.3 The Qumran Text of Isa 11:1–10
10.4 Pss Sol 17:21–18:9
10.5 1QSb 5
10.6 4QpIsaa
10.7 1 Enoch 49–51; 62
10.8 4 Ezra 13
10.9 2 Baruch
10.10 New Testament
10.11 Christian references to Isa 11:1–10 in the ‘Post’-NT Period
10.12 Summary: Isa 11:1–10 Texts and their Reception
Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete
11.1 Allusions in Jn 1:32–20:23 to Isa 11:1–5, 10
11.1.1 Isa 11:2 – Jn 1:32
11.1.2 Isa 11:3 – Jn 7:24, cf. 1Sam 16:7
11.1.3 Isa 11:4 – Jn 8:16 and 18:6
11.1.4 Isa 11:5 – Jn 16:10
11.1.5 Isa 11:10 – Jn 12:20–21
11.1.6 Isa 11:1 and Jn 7:40–44
11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context of the Fourth Gospel
11.3 Summary: Judging According to Appearance in Jn 5–10
11.4 “Judging by Appearance” in Jn 18–19?
11.5 Summary: Isa 11:1–5, 10 and the Fourth Gospel
11.6 Persecution and Prosecution of Jesus’ Disciples
11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings
11.7.1 The First Paraclete Saying (Jn 14:16–17)
11.7.2 The Second Paraclete Saying (Jn 14:25–26)
11.7.3 The Third Paraclete Saying (Jn 15:26–27)
11.7.4 The Fourth Paraclete Saying (Jn 16:7–11)
11.7.5 The Fifth Paraclete Saying (Jn 16:13–15)
Part V: Conclusion Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification
12.1 The Issue of Righteous Judgment (Jn 7:24; 8:15–16)
12.2 The Challenge of Jesus’ Temple Saying
12.3 Jesus’ Confidence in his Justification (Jn 8:50)
12.4 Glorification as Justification
12.5 Satan as the Cosmic Adversary
12.6 Biblical-theological Contours of Justification and Intercession
12.7 Conclusion: Glorification as the Cosmic Trial Concept’s Common Denominator
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Modern Authors
Subject Index

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Christina M. Kreinecker (Leuven) ∙ Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) ∙ J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

622

Stephen C. Amador

The Hour of Justification in the Fourth Gospel

Mohr Siebeck

Stephen C. Amador, born 1953; 1975 AB in Biblical Studies and Christian Education; 1978 MDiv; 1987 Dr. theol. (New Testament); 1987–1988 Research Assistant, Tübingen University; 1988 Adjunct Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary; 1991–1994 Parish vicar and second theological exam; 1994–1995 School vicar; 1995–2019 Pastor and religious education teacher.

ISBN 978-3-16-162079-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-162080-5 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162080-5 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at https://dnb.dnb.de. © 2025  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper and bound by AZ Druck und Datentechnik in Kempten. Printed in Germany.

For Matthias 1992–2023 “See how he loved him!” John 11:36

Acknowledgements This study has been a long time coming. That it is now being published is due to individuals who deserve many thanks for their assistance. This book represents a complete revision of my German language, 1986 dissertation at the University of Tübingen, Gerechtes Gericht und Gerechtigkeit im Vierten Evangelium: eine exegetische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Prof. Peter Stuhlmacher was my Doktorvater; he and Prof. Otfried Hofius, who was a fine advisor, wrote the standard two evaluations, for which I was most appreciative. An essay by Prof. Stuhlmacher on the interpretation of Scripture led me on my path to Tübingen. During an initial meeting he suggested several possible dissertation topics. One of them was “Righteousness in the Gospel of John.” A very appropriate topic, it would seem, for a doctoral student whose mentor’s own thesis was Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (God’s Righteouness in Paul). I began my studies in September of 1981, supported by a Rotary Foundation Graduate Fellowship, for which I was most grateful. During this period, I was amazed at how much I was learning about the Biblical Theology that the Tübingen New Testament scholars were developing. During these years I had the privilege of being one of Prof. Stuhlmacher’s research helpers, later as Dr. theol. a research assistant. Prof. Stuhlmacher was always so much more than just a Doktorvater, helping me and my family in difficult times. For all his academic accomplishments, personal qualities and helpful deeds I am more than grateful. At the conclusion of my doctoral studies, Prof. Martin Hengel (†) and Prof. Otfried Hofius offered to publish a somewhat revised version in the WUNT 2 monograph series. But it did not come to a published dissertation, as I completed pastor training and began teaching Protestant Religion at a Gymnasium. This was made possible by Kirchenrat Gottfried Gerner-Wohlfahrt and Kirchenrat Hartmut Greiling. To both gentlemen I am most grateful for their sponsorship. Many years before pursuing doctoral studies in Germany I attended Wheaton College. My professor for Biblical studies, Prof. Donald A. Hagner, and for Theology, Prof. Robert E. Webber (†), inspired me to search the Scriptures and think critically. This process continued at Fuller Theological Seminary, where Prof. Daniel P. Fuller (†) introduced me to continental theology and encouraged me to pursue doctoral studies in Germany. Prof. Hagner caught up to me

VIII

Acknowledgements

at Fuller in my second year there. He and Prof. Fuller made the seminary a hot bed of learning and commitment for me. For this time I am most grateful to these scholars for what and how they taught me. I also owe Prof. Hagner a debt of gratitude for an adjunct professor position later in 1988. The path to this complete revision, to this book, began in the spring of 2004. I realized the remarkable significance of John 1:45: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Phillip identifies Jesus as the Prophet-likeMoses. Here Jesus is the pendant to the false prophet described elsewhere in John. The “christological cast” of John’s trial concept is introduced here in John 1:45–51! Retirement came 15 years later and with it the opportunity to work full time on the complete revision. In 2021 Prof. Jörg Frey expressed interest in publishing it in Mohr Siebeck’s WUNT 2 series. I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to him for this (renewed) opportunity. For the preparation of the book’s manuscript and publication, I want to thank the team at Mohr Siebeck publishers that has helped me in recent years: Betina Burkhart, Markus Kirchner, Iona Wener, and Matthias Spitzner. Special thanks go to Frank Hamburger, who formatted and checked the manuscript as well as compiled the indices with great skill. I wish to thank friends who proofread the manuscript: Dr. Gottlieb Brunner, Kit Glawion, and Angelika Mey-Künstle. All remaining errors are mine. Finally, I owe my loving wife, Gabriele, unlimited thanks for her insights and support. Thanks also go to our oldest son, Christopher, for his technical support. Our younger son, Matthias, over the years energetically discussed his father’s discoveries and ideas for this book, but he tragically did not live to see its publication. November 2024

Stephen C. Amador

Contents Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Part I: Introduction Chapter 1:The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Théo Preiss’ “Justification in Johannine Thought”  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Attempting to Solve the Fourth Gospel’s Juridical Puzzle  . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3 John Borrows Juridical Material at Least Twice from the Synoptic Passion Week and Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4 Our Working Thesis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1 John’s ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω Christology and its Juridical Context  . . . 13 2.2 Juridical Use of μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3 Juridical Use of κρίμα, κρίνω, and κρίσις  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.4 Juridical Use of κατηγορέω  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.5 Juridical Use of ἐλέγχω  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.6 Juridical Use of Paraclete/παράκλητος  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.7 Chapter Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

X

Contents

Part II: Second Isaiah and John’s Cosmic Trial Concept Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and the Prologue’s Juridical Outlook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1 Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Salvific Arch of John’s Gospel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2 ‘Finish’-Verbs in Jn and the ‘Work’ of Jesus the Sent One  . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.3 The Word of God in Isa 55:1–3; 10–11 and Jesus the Bread of Life in Jn 6:27–71  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.4 The Prologue’s Juridical Outlook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35 3.5 Chapter Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 4: Second Isaiah’s Lawsuits and the Fourth Gospel  . . . . . . . 41 4.1 The Lawsuits of Isaiah 40–55 and A. Lincoln’s Truth on Trial  . . . . . . . 41 4.2 Critique of Lincoln’s “Cosmic Lawsuit” Concept  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45

Chapter 5: Necessity and Advantage: The Servant of Isa 40–55 in the Fourth Gospel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.1 The Foundation of the Suffering Servant in Early Christian tradition  . . . 49 5.2 The Influence of the Suffering Servant Tradition on John’s Trial Thinking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52 5.3 Chapter Summary and Outlook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54

Part III: John’s Preponed Trial, Annas’ Interrogation, and Pilate’s Trial Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57 6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58 6.1.1 The Cleansing of the Temple: Mk 11:15–17 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58 6.1.2 The Question about Authority (Temple): Mk 11:27–33 par  . . . . .  59 6.1.3 The Question about Authority (John the Baptist): Mk 11:27–33 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.1.4 The Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants (Sent ones): Mk 12:1–12 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Contents

XI

6.1.5 The Pharisees’ and Herodians’ [Preface to their] Question: Mk 12:13–14b par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.1.6 Persecutions Foretold: Mk 13:9–13 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6.1.7 The Son of Man will gather his elect: Mk 13:27 par  . . . . . . . . . . 63 6.1.8 The Chief Priests and Scribes Conspire against Jesus: Mk 14:1 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.1.9 The Betrayal by Judas: Mk 14:10–11 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65 6.1.10 The Last Supper: Mk 14:18–25  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65 6.1.11 Gethsemane: Mk 14:32–42 par  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.2.1 Conspicuous Christological Allusions in Jn  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.2.2  Christological Titles and Related Statements in the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial and John  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.2.3 Additional Christological Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.3 Three Sets of Deliberations and/or attempts against Jesus  . . . . . . . . . . .  75 6.4 Chapter Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1 The Christ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.2 The Prophet/False Prophet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 7.3 The Son: Jesus as the Sent One  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 7.4 The Son of God  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7.5 King (of Israel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.6 The Son of Man  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.7 The Case for Recognizing John’s Preponed Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.8 The Johannine Passion Demi-Week  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 8.1 Jesus’ Arrest: Jn 18:1–11  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 8.2 Annas’ Interrogation: Jn 18:12–14; 19–24  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 8.3 Peter’s Denials: Jn 18:15–18; 25–27  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 8.4 From Caiaphas to Pilate: Jn 18:28–32  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.5 Jesus the Witness before Pilate: Jn 18:33–40  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.6 Behold the man!: Jn 19:1–6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.7 The Son of God: Jn 19:7–12  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 8.8 Pilate’s Final Verdict: Jn 19:13–22  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 8.9 Chapter Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

XII

Contents

Part IV: Judging According to Appearance or Righteously?  The Spirit-Paraclete, Isa 11:1–5, 10, and the Farewell Discourse  Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.1 The Problem: Previous Attempts to Explain the Background of the Term παράκλητος  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.2 The Gnostic Helper Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.3 The Jewish Intercessor Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 9.4 The ‘Vorläufer-Vollender’/Son of Man Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.5 The Qumran Spirit of Truth and the Angel Michael  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.6 The Paraclete as an Inner-Christian Development  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 9.7 The Farewell Discourse Genre  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 9.8 The Wisdom Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9.9 The Forensic/Juridical Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 9.10 The Apocalyptic Final Judgment Genre  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 9.11 The Synoptic Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 9.12 Isa 11:1–5, 10 as the Background of the Paraclete  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . 141 10.1 Isa 11:1–10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 10.2 LXX Isa 11:1–10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 10.3 The Qumran Text of Isa 11:1–10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 10.4 Pss Sol 17:21–18:9  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 10.5 1QSb 5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 10.6 4QpIsaa  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 10.7 1 Enoch 49–51; 62  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 10.8 4 Ezra 13  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 10.9 2 Baruch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 10.10 New Testament  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 10.11 Christian references to Isa 11:1–10 in the ‘Post’-NT Period  . . . . . . . 163 10.12 Summary: Isa 11:1–10 Texts and their Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 11.1 Allusions in Jn 1:32–20:23 to Isa 11:1–5, 10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 11.1.1 Isa 11:2 – Jn 1:32  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Contents

XIII

11.1.2 Isa 11:3 – Jn 7:24, cf. 1Sam 16:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 11.1.3 Isa 11:4 – Jn 8:16 and 18:6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 11.1.4 Isa 11:5 – Jn 16:10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 11.1.5 Isa 11:10 – Jn 12:20–21  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 11.1.6 Isa 11:1 and Jn 7:40–44  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context of the Fourth Gospel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 11.3 Summary: Judging According to Appearance in Jn 5–10  . . . . . . . . . . . 181 11.4 “Judging by Appearance” in Jn 18–19?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 11.5 Summary: Isa 11:1–5, 10 and the Fourth Gospel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 11.6 Persecution and Prosecution of Jesus’ Disciples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 11.7.1 The First Paraclete Saying (Jn 14:16–17)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 11.7.2 The Second Paraclete Saying (Jn 14:25–26)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 11.7.3 The Third Paraclete Saying (Jn 15:26–27)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 11.7.4 The Fourth Paraclete Saying (Jn 16:7–11)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 11.7.5 The Fifth Paraclete Saying (Jn 16:13–15)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Part V: Conclusion Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 12.1 The Issue of Righteous Judgment (Jn 7:24; 8:15–16)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 12.2 The Challenge of Jesus’ Temple Saying  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 12.3 Jesus’ Confidence in his Justification (Jn 8:50)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 12.4 Glorification as Justification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 12.5 Satan as the Cosmic Adversary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 12.6 Biblical-theological Contours of Justification and Intercession  . . . . . . 204 12.7 Conclusion: Glorification as the Cosmic Trial Concept’s Common Denominator  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Index of References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Index of Modern Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Subject Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Part I: Introduction

Chapter 1

The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept The Gospel of John ranks high among Christians because of its simple prose, faith strengthening metaphors, and heartwarming assurances of love and consolation. As time goes on, scholars and students often experience – not only initially – that this Fourth Gospel has made a deceptively simple impression on them as readers. Upon further study, the Gospel of John becomes a fascinating and unexpectedly demanding literary work. As a reflection of this, academia has long struggled with the so-called Johannine Question, which goes far beyond what the gospel’s seemingly simple, but viewed from this other perspective, challenging words and thoughts could actually mean. This includes a plethora of issues including its authorship, provenance, literary composition, as well as its relationship to the Synoptic gospels.

1.1 Théo Preiss’ “Justification in Johannine Thought” It was in 1946, a time when Johannine scholars had already long found themselves amid so many questions on the one hand and so few answers on the other, that a theologian from Alsace, Théo Preiss, made a fundamental suggestion. He proposed that Johannine scholars turn their attention to its largely previously overlooked juridical aspect. He therefore entitled his essay “Justification in Johannine Thought.”1 Théo Preiss sees himself as having good reason to approach Johannine thought from a new perspective. He sees the Fourth Gospel having been “almost universally” interpreted in terms of the Prologue (10). In what follows in the Gospel of John (forthwith for the sake of clarity: Jn), Preiss sees John 1 Théo Preiss, “La justification dans la pensee johannique,” in: Hommage et Reconnaisance. Recueil de travaux publies a loccasion du soixantieme anniversaire de Karl Barth (Cahiers Théologiques de lactualité Protestante, Hors Série 2, Neuchatel and Paris: Delechaux & Niestle, 1946), 100–118, Théo Preiss, “Justification in Johannine Thought,” id., Life in Christ, translated by H. Knight (Studies in Biblical Theology 15, London: SCM Press, 1954), 9–31. Théo Preiss, “Die Rechtfertigung im johanneischen Denken,” übersetzt von R. Pfisterer, EvTheol 16 (1956), 289–310. Both the English and the German translations are based on the original in French. In this study, numbers in parenthesis refer to pages in the work which is currently being discussed.

4

Chapter 1: The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept

developing a few unchanging themes: Father, Son, love, life and death, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, judgment, and witness. John makes out of this “poverty” a kind of music which possesses “infinitely varied harmonies which even the most attentive ear cannot capture at once.” Preiss asserts that to try to analyze these themes in succession would be an exercise in futility. All these themes are curiously intertwined with each other, none of them is capable of being analyzed and explained in isolation. This said, Preiss observes that the difficulty of Johannine thought lies in its very simplicity. This should not be understood as just any kind of simplicity. It draws its source “from a strict convergence of all the themes towards the Person of him whose speeches, delivered in a mysterious monotone, culminate in those sovereign formulae, e.g.: “I am the light of the world […] the resurrection and the life […].” This convergence has a christocentric character which results in making “his thought so resistant to any systematic analysis.” Preiss views the juridical aspect of Johannine thought as offering a chance to discover a “more coherent system of ideas” (11) than what he has just described, while at the same time not being divorced from the whole of it. Preiss goes on to present this “more” as involving this juridical aspect. He describes the elementary fact that juridical terms and arguments are “notably frequent.” He names the terms ‘sent,’ ‘witness,’ ‘judge,’ ‘judgment,’ ‘accused,’ ‘convict,’ ‘paraclete,’ and ‘truth.’ Jesus is light that judges and luminates in the darkness. Preiss then deals with questions and issues involving John being considered a mystic and with regard to Paulinism. He comments that Jn’s juridical aspect is not centered on the problem of the Law. For Jn’s interpreters there exists the theological problem of excessive emphasis on subjective and individualistic thinking, with personages such as the accuser Satan having seemingly been forgotten. The objective aspect of justification includes eschatology and judgment. John regards God’s judgment of the world as central and this is based on cosmic trial concepts found for example in Lk 18 and in Paul in Rom 8, where there is “the celestial court of justice which forms a climax to the process of justification” (12–14). A one-sided emphasis on the purely individual and subjective aspect of justification is countered by this fundamental aspect of Johannine thought which “puts before us precisely this cosmic and objective perspective” (14). Preiss goes on to “summarily analyze its constituent elements,” beginning with the terms ‘witness’ and ‘to witness’ (14–15). These terms have both a religious and juridical sense, being conceived in the framework of a trial. Then Preiss observes that it is no coincidence that four groups of terms which he has examined center on Jn 3, 5, 8 and 12. These “gravitate around” the title of ‘Son of Man,’ who is judge and who functions as a paraclete according to 1Jn 2:1. Judgment is in Johannine thought both future and present (17). Other figures also arise and belong in this “gigantic” juridical trial after the resurrection. The Spirit plays a major role in the new phase of the earthly trial.

1.1 Théo Preiss’ “Justification in Johannine Thought”

5

The Spirit and its connection with the earthly Jesus must, according to Preiss, be viewed in terms of the drama which transpires on the celestial and cosmic plane, cf. Jn 12:31–32. Understanding judgment for John as being something purely interior, eminent, and spiritual is incorrect. In fact, the trial includes a transcendental aspect and involves the Last Judgment. In the Son of Man, the future judge, judgment is already mysteriously present. When the Son of Man accepts death, Satan is cast out. The Spirit will come and witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26–27). The “essential content” of being led in all truth (Jn 16:7–14) is seen in the reply of Jesus to Pilate. The justification of Jesus means that he will be and is already justified and glorified. He already has overcome the world (cf. Jn 16:33). With and in him, his own will be and are “already justified and glorified and triumphant” (17–19). Preiss emphasizes the role of the Spirit-Paraclete as essential and thoroughly integrated in both the Fourth Gospel and Johannine thought as a whole. He then goes on to discuss the origin of what he calls juridical mysticism with the Son of Man representing the classic inclusiveness ideal associated with him. This aspect of Johannine thought, notes Preiss, is very similar in this respect to Paul’s. In conclusion, Preiss stresses that this juridical aspect is not necessarily historical, but asserts that truth is nothing other than the last word in the drama of the cosmic trial (19–22). Théo Preiss himself was not able to conduct further study. He died in 1950 due to wounds suffered in the Second World War. After the publication of Preiss’ essay in 1946 in French and its later translations into English and German, Preiss’ article was well received. At the same time scholars appear to have had difficulty dealing with the large scope of his initiative and its theological consequences. In the four decades following its publication, Preiss’ essay was often cited, but the scholarly world was still waiting for a study devoted to developing Preiss’ perspective. More recent reception of Preiss’ article with its insights regarding juridical terminology, trial concept, and “objective” justification orientation presents a mixed picture beginning in the 1990’s. P.W. Meyer’s article on the Father in Jn does mention Preiss’ article in a footnote but does not pursue the topic further.2 J. Frey sees in Preiss’ essay “a substantial contribution for understanding Johannine eschatology.”3 Andrew Lincoln refers several times to Preiss’ article, stating that Preiss “did so much to rehabilitate the themes of judgment and witness.”4 At the same time Lincoln sees the “neglected juridical aspect of Jo2 P.W. Meyer, “‘The Father:’ The Presentation of God in the Fourth Gospel,” R.A. Culpepper and C.C. Black, eds., Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 255–73. 3 Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, (WUNT 96, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 1:220 [Translation by S.C.A.]. 4 Andrew Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 140.

6

Chapter 1: The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept

hannine thought” already “remedied” with the monograph Krisis by J. Blank.5 In his 2001 study of Johannine sabbath conflicts, M. Asiedu-Peprah asserts that it “is generally acknowledged in this regard that Théo Preiss was the first to have drawn attention to the importance of the Johannine juridical metaphor for a correct understanding of the theological thought of the Fourth Gospel.”6 H.W. Salier7 states in his book on signs in John that contributions from scholars like Preiss, N. Dahl (1962), A.E. Harvey (1976), and A.A. Trites (1977) are significant.8 H. Thyen9 readily cites Preiss’ work, calling it a “brilliant presentation of John’s juridical thought.” P.J. Bekken refers to the theological work of Preiss regarding the law and judicial principles playing a central role in John’s “lawsuit.”10 The foregoing review of the initial as well as recent reception of Preiss’ article shows that his basic insight, that Jn is full of juridical terms, has been almost universally acknowledged. The concept of a “cosmic trial” has also gained wide acceptance, even if, as we will see later, much is dependent on how the term “cosmic” is understood. Another term Preiss uses, ‘juridical mysticism,’ has had a cool reception, partly because of the question of what is meant with the term mysticism itself, partly because of the question of how the mystical and the juridical are brought together in Jn or in a general theological sense. A review of Preiss’ essay’s reception also suggests that many scholars have remained non-committal on what Preiss calls Jn’s “objective” side of justification. Preiss’ emphasis on what he sees as the close connection between eschatology and justification raises a central question: How can the role of justification in this gospel be of central and decisive importance, where a Greek term for this, δικαιοσύνη, is used practically only once in Jn 16:8 and 10? An answer to this question is imperative if Preiss’ trial concept insight itself is to be fully developed. Therefore, it appears necessary to pursue what Preiss envisioned as

5 Josef Blank, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1964), cited by Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 4–5. 6 Martin Asiedu-Peprah, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy (WUNT 2/132, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 1. 7 W.H. Salier, The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2/186, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 47 n. 8. 8 N.A. Dahl, “The Johannine Church and History,” W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder, eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper (London: SCM Press: 1962), 124–42, A.E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1976), and A.A. Trites, The Concept of Witness in the New Testament (MSSNTS 31, Cambridge: University Press, 1977). 9 Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6, 2nd ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 74, cf. 144, 165, 204. 10 Per Jarle Bekken, The Lawsuit Motif in John's Gospel from New Perspectives: Jesus Christ, Crucified Criminal and Emperor of the World (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 5.

1.2 Attempting to Solve the Fourth Gospel’s Juridical Puzzle

7

a “more coherent system of ideas” (11) to sustain the thesis contained in his essay’s title, “Justification in Johannine Thought.” This brief introduction suggests that there are still many other questions awaiting answers when the title of his work is the subject. Therefore, efforts dedicated to this theme even after more than 75 years – and in a sense also dedicated to the memory of this one theologian Théo Preiss – are not in vain. In this spirit we now take up the quest for John’s ‘Cosmic Trial Concept.’

1.2 Attempting to Solve the Fourth Gospel’s Juridical Puzzle We best begin our analysis by presenting germinal thoughts which form the present study’s underpinnings. Here we compare the juridical aspect of Johannine thought together with the whole of John’s Gospel to the challenge that a puzzle presents. In the Fourth Gospel we find several puzzle parts representing various juridical aspects. Here we are confronted with the issue, how can we understand what John does with these puzzle pieces and thereby enable us to recognize some kind of ‘juridical concept,’ in Preiss’ words, a “more coherent system of ideas,” in the Fourth Gospel? Here we begin with six well-known juridical puzzle parts in Jn. The first puzzle part is made up of the many juridical terms which are found in Jn. These include as we have seen, among others, sent, witness, judge, judgment, accused, convict, and paraclete. Previous publications focusing on just one of these terms, more than one of these, or one of these terms in conjunction with a central theme in Jn such as eschatology, have certainly proven enlightening. But they have not solved the juridical puzzle before us. Scholars have often consciously or unconsciously reduced John’s juridical thought to a single term such as ‘trial concept’ or ‘lawsuit’ in the sense of a single trial or juridical proceeding. But this can overlook the necessity to deal with the simple fact that there are several different juridical proceedings and trials reflected in Jn. Based on an exegetical investigation of the Fourth Gospel, we will establish that such examinations of John’s juridical thought find him making use of no fewer than nine trials, including an interrogation. This variety could lead us to speak of a ‘cosmic trial complex’ or a ‘multifaceted cosmic trial concept’ except for the fact that these juridical models all center on the one Jesus and his one Hour as the One being justified and the One justifying all who believe in him. The following factors listed support this view: 1. Isa 55:10–11’s path of Jesus as the Word, whose salvific mission has pronounced juridical consequences in Jn, cf. for example, Jn 8:28–29, 3:13 and 19:30.

8

Chapter 1: The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept

2. The two rib-controversies found in Second Isaiah and their use in Jn for the disputes between ‘the Jews’ and Jesus. 3. The fate of, and benefits associated with, Jesus as the Suffering Servant drawn from Isa 53 and 50. 4. John’s adaption of Synoptic Passion Week Events and the Trial narratives of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in what we propose to call the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53. 5. Annas’ interrogation of Jesus in Jn 18:12–14 and 19–24. 6. Jesus’ Trial before Pilate in Jn 18:28–19:16. 7. The debate between ‘the Jews’ and Jesus, which centers on ‘judging according to appearance’ and ‘judging righteously‘ (Jn 7:24). 8. The juridical-apologetic work of the Spirit-Paraclete (Jn 1–20) following Jesus’ departure. 9. God’s heavenly tribunal (cf. Jn 8:50 and 16:7–11). Therefore, the term ‘Cosmic Trial Concept’ is in this christological and theological sense thoroughly appropriate to designate John’s juridical thought, provided we remain aware of the remarkable breadth of the juridical models that John has implemented.  Another puzzle piece concerns juridical rules and procedures which are reflected in Jn or are a matter of open dispute. These include the requirement for two witnesses, the circumstances under which – in John’s view – one witness suffices, the procedure for declaring a person to be wanted and calling for information about his whereabouts (cf. Jn 11:57), the rules for the status and function of emissaries, guidelines for cooperation between Jewish and Roman authorities, and the theological authority or power (ἐξουσία) required for becoming “children of God” (cf. Jn 1:12). A puzzle piece of fundamental importance is Jewish Law, which is both religious and juridical. The guidelines pertaining to the observance of the Sabbath are at the center of Jesus’ disputes with his opponents in Jn 5 and 9. In Jn 18:28 we are told that those who led Jesus to Pilate did not enter the praetorium to avoid defiling themselves. Shortly afterward these persons maintain, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (RSV), a statement John explains as indicating that Jesus is to be crucified and not stoned. Jesus’ adversaries expressly accuse Jesus of breaking the Law when they claim in Jn 19:7, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God.” Another puzzle piece consists of figures that are juridical per definition. These include the Son of Man in the sense of Dan 7 (cf. Jn 5:27), the Lamb of God, “who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, 36), the high priests Caiaphas and Annas, Pilate, (possibly) Jesus the “King” as judge in Jn 19:13, and the convicting work of the Spirit-Paraclete in Jn 16:7–11.

1.3 John Borrows at Least Twice …

9

1.3 John Borrows Juridical Material at Least Twice from the Synoptic Passion Week and Trial What at first appears to be a very small puzzle piece consists of juridical material that John has borrowed from the Synoptic Passion Week and Trial. He has twice then imported them into contexts that are also juridical. First, there is the so-called temple cleansing, drawn from the Synoptic Passion Week scene in Mk 11:15–19 and adopted by John in Jn 2:13–22. Second, there is the “Christ” question in Jn 10:24–25, “If you are the Christ, tell us plainly,” which appears to have been at least in part directly drawn from what we read in Lk 22:66–68. At this juncture we must ask: Has John tipped his hand here? Has John left this puzzle piece as small as it seems at first glance? Or did he make it larger than research has, up until now, recognized? Did he gain inspiration from additional material from both the Synoptic Passion Week and the Synoptic Trial narratives? In this study we shall answer these questions affirmatively. An examination of this aspect reveals that there are no fewer than eleven instances of John borrowing words and events from the Synoptic Passion Week narratives. Further examination shows that there are nine instances of John borrowing christological titles drawn from the Synoptic Passion Sanhedrin and Roman Trials as well. Additional aspects include the I AM, witness, the temple, and blasphemy. One of the key instances of John borrowing from the Synoptic Passion Week involves John the Baptist (JtB). The evangelist John turns him, the Baptist, into John the Witness due to his being referred to as possibly functioning as a witness by Jesus’ opponents in Mk 11:31 (“Why then did you not believe him?”). This makes JtB in Jn, who as an eschatological figure already has a juridical function in the Synoptics, a confessional-juridical figure, one whose confession and witness have great importance. Against this background of John’s borrowing described above, the five christological titles surrounding Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1:40–51 – Christ, Prophet, Son of God, King of Israel, and Son of Man – attract our attention. Here we see what we wish to call Nathanael’s watershed confession. The reason for this lies in what John does with them in Jn’s chapters that follow. The christological titles surrounding Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1 demonstrably play a key role in the christological controversy that marks Jn 2:1–11:53. All five figures in Jn are the objects of (intended) confessions (cf. “Christ” in Jn 11:27, “Prophet” in 6:14, “Son of God” in 3:18, 20:31, “King of Israel” in 12:13 and “Son of Man” in Jn 9:35–38). This makes Nathanael, like JtB, also a confessional-juridical figure. Because of the political hazards associated with the designation “King,” John avoids this title here in Jn 2:1–11:53 except in Jn 6:15, which offers a

10

Chapter 1: The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept

concrete example of the very danger Jesus wishes to avoid. John will of course come back to the title “King” in Jn 18–19. These insights derived from John’s borrowing lead us to propose that John presents in Jn 2:1–11:53 a dramatization of the Sanhedrin Trial found in the Synoptics. He attemps to demonstrate that its verdict was false, and that Jesus’ claims were true. To describe this, we avail ourselves of the term in Indian English used for the opposite of ‘postponed:’ ‘preponed.’ John has preponed elements of the Synoptic Sanhedrin trial in his gospel. All four gospels have what we call a Passion Demi-Week, that is, an account beginning approximately with Jesus’ triumphal entry and ending before Jesus’ arrest. John’s Passion Demi-Week differs sharply from those of the Synoptics. Following the Preponed Trial, John’s own portrayal of the Passion Demi-Week includes three major aspects. First, it makes the predetermined divine course of Jesus’ Hour of Glorification clear. This will involve criminal prosecution proceedings against Jesus, but his death will lead to his justification before the heavenly tribunal of his Father. Second, the appearance of the ‘Greeks’ in the context of the whole of Jn 12 discretely resembles the watershed confession of Nathanael in Jn 1:40–51 in several respects. The ‘Greeks’ approach Andrew and Philip (cf. Jn 1:44–45) and wish to see Jesus (cf. Jn 12:20d; Isa 11:10). The whole of chapter 12 contains references to the same five christological titles as in Jn 1:40–51. Comparable to the scene with Nathanael, John will later focus on four of the five titles in Jn 18–19 associated with Nathanael’s confession. Third, John uses his Passion Demi-Week to set the stage for chapters 14–16, 17, 18–19 as just noted, and for 20–21. He wishes to prepare believers for what is to come and strengthen their faith and resolve in the face of persecution. John’s portrayal of Annas’ interrogation serves the purpose of showing that Nicodemus’ demand that Jesus be given a fair hearing in Jn 7:51 still goes unheard in 18:19–24. Annas suspects that Jesus is a false prophet, but he neither calls witnesses for, nor against Jesus. Annas’ decision to deliver Jesus to Caiaphas and Pilate is, therefore, juridically seen, null and void. Three of the five christological titles stand in the center of the trial before Pilate: King, Son of Man and Son of God. The trial establishes that Jesus is not guilty of any crime. Jesus, on the contrary, is shown to be King, Suffering Servant/Son of Man, and Son of God from the perspective of faith, if not in Pilate’s view and that of “the Jews.” The title “Christ” is not relevant for John’s portrayal of the Roman trial and therefore does not appear here. Isa 11:1–5 is the literary model for the activity of the Paraclete in Jn 16:7–11. This is based on correspondences between Jn 16:7–11 and Isa 11:1–5 that include all four Johannine key terms ἐλέγχειν, ἁμαρτίας (ἀσεβῶν as a synonym), δικαιοσύνη, and κρίσις, which involve the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete (cf. Isa 11:2). The presence of δικαιοσύνη demonstrates the positive core of this passage. Its genre is therefore not an apocalyptic Day of Reckoning at the Last

1.4 Our Working Thesis

11

Judgment (so Betz, Müller and Thyen11), but rather a Heilsankündigung, that is, a pronouncement of salvation, as in Isa 11.12 Isa 11:1–5 directs our attention to a central part of the Paraclete’s provenance: the eschatological revelation of the Messiah in the context of righteous judgment. The extent of Isa 11’s impact on Jn goes beyond the context of the Farewell Discourse. This is seen in a series of allusions and near allusions to Isa 11:1–5, 10 in Jn 1:32–20:23. For this reason we see the subtle but clear eschatological and theological realization of the Isa 11:1–5, 10 oracle in Jn’s gospel. The Paraclete’s broader context is its apologetic character. The Spirit-Paraclete continues where the incarnate Jesus left off. This activity and its presentation must necessarily be largely subtle due to the often times militaristic aspect evidenced in Isa 11’s Jewish and Christian reception. The broad arch of the Isa 11 theme “judging not by appearance but righteously” centers on central juridical issues in Jn. These will find their resolution in Jesus’ justification (cf. chapter 12). Seen from this perspective, we can view the whole of the Fourth Gospel as the product of the inspiration and activity of the Spirit-Paraclete. The narrower context involves the five Paraclete sayings in the Farewell Discourse. It concentrates on what the Spirit-Paraclete will do for Jesus’ witnesses, who suffer in their hour of endangerment, abandonment, and sadness. They are nonetheless called upon to be witnesses to the righteousness of Jesus (cf. Jn 16:10, Isa 11:5). The earthly Jesus embodies the righteousness which consists of his sinlessness and unfailing obedience to his Father (cf. Jn 7:18; 8:46, 29; 12:49–50). This also involves the prerequisite for his ascension to the Father (20:17). The heavenly Jesus’ righteousness has been recognized before the Father’s tribunal, which means his justification (8:50; 16:10b–c). Thus, the term δικαιοσύνη in 16:10 involves both the personal righteousness of Isa 11:5‘s messianic king (v. 10a) as well as justification as the Lord‘s servant in accordance with LXX Isa 53:11, “to justify the just one” (10b–c).

1.4 Our Working Thesis This then represents our working thesis for describing how John has assembled these puzzle parts which involve his juridical thought. The following chapters of this book will attempt to ground this thesis by analyzing the Fourth Gospel in terms of a biblical theological perspective. 11 Cf. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 662, for the three examples. We shall discuss these below in 9.10. 12 C. Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 6:51–52.

12

Chapter 1: The Quest for the Fourth Gospel’s Cosmic Trial Concept

As a basic procedural matter this study will concern itself with the thought represented in the Fourth Gospel and therefore not with “Johannine thought,” as Preiss does. This is done with the goal of focusing on the Fourth Gospel’s own text and horizon. On occasion we might well refer to parallel terms or concepts in one of the three Johannine letters or the Revelation, treating them just as any other parallel elsewhere in the New Testament. Furthermore, we will be part of the recent trend to accept the text of the Fourth Gospel in its present form and be loath to entertain attempts to make modifications. The nomenclature which shall be used for legal proceedings conducted by a person or persons who judge differentiates between juridical proceedings which are civil juridical proceedings and those that are criminal juridical proceedings. Those proceedings that can lead to a decision to execute a person accused of a criminal act shall be referred to as trials, even if at this time some doubt persists whether in certain situations this designation is historically precise. Preiss’ essay was the point of departure of this writer’s 1986 unpublished Tübingen dissertation.13 Some of the latter’s insights and content provide in part the foundation for this present work.

13 S.C. Amador, Gerechtes Gericht und Gerechtigkeit im Vierten Evangelium: Eine exegetische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Dissertation Tübingen: 1986).

Chapter 2

Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel In this chapter terms that Théo Preiss designates as being juridical will be examined with the intent to determine whether such terms are in and of themselves such. When this should be the case, the additional question will be to what degree these juridical terms are jointly part of juridical scenarios in Jn. In this way we hope to establish a philological fundament which is grounded in various kinds of juridical thought in the Fourth Gospel.

2.1 John’s ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω Christology and its Juridical Context The first concept which Preiss sees as being used juridically in Jn concerns ‘sending,’ which is represented by the terms ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω. ἀποστέλλω is used a total of 132 times in the NT, 28 of these in Jn and three in 1Jn. The term πέμπω is used 79 times in the NT, and 32 of these are in Jn (none are found in the Johannine letters). Thus, both terms occur frequently in the Johannine literature and could be expected to play a major role, especially in the Gospel of Jn. Liddell and Scott define ἀποστέλλω with 1.) “send off or away from,” 2.) “dispatch on some mission or service,” 3.) “put off, doff” and intransitively, “retire, withdraw (with respect to the sea, or persons).”1 They define πέμπω with 1.) “send,” 2.) “send forth or away, dismiss, send home,” 3.) “conduct, escort,” 4.) “send as a present,” and 5.) “send up, comment […].”2 There is no mention regarding a specifically juridical sense for either term. W. Bauer defines ἀποστέλλω with “absenden, wegsenden, aussenden”3 and πέμπω with “senden.”4

1 H.G. Liddell, and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Supplement (Revised and augmented by H.S. Jones, 9th ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 219. 2 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1359. 3 Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (5th ed., Berlin: Töpelmann, 1971), 195. 4 Bauer, Wörterbuch, 1272.

14

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

These two terms which are used for the concept of ‘to send’ in Jn thus present a major difficulty with respect to illustrating their juridical use outside of the Johannine writings. It is necessary to proceed directly to a review of an essay which will enable us to appreciate the juridical use and significance of the terms ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω as they are used especially in Jn. Proceeding on the basis of Preiss’ thesis, P. Borgen lists several principles of agency drawn from Rabbinic sources and illustrates them with examples in the New Testament and especially the Fourth Gospel. Borgen’s article is divided into two main sections, in the second of which he demonstrates the relationship between John and Philo regarding heavenly agency.5 It is the first section that is the point of interest for us, since it is here that Borgen demonstrates the similarities between Jn and halakhic teaching of general agency, which is quite juridical in character. These similarities are six in number and follow each other in logical order. The first basic principle of Jewish agency is that a similarity exists between an agent and the one who sent him. Here Borgen compares Jn 12:44 with Siphre on Numbers 12:9: “he who believes in Me believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.” In Siphre we read: “With what is this matter to be compared? With a king of flesh and blood who has a consul (agent) in the country. The inhabitants spoke before him. Then said the king to them, you have not spoken concerning my servant but concerning me.” There are five additional such sayings in John: Jn 13:20: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whoever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. Jn 5:23: […] in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Jn 12:45: And he who beholds Me beholds the one who sent Me. Jn 14:9: He who has seen Me has seen the Father. Jn 14:23: He who hates Me hates my Father also.

Borgen points out that this juridical concept was developed by some rabbis into “a juridical mysticism,” saying that the agent is a person identical with the sender (cf. b. Qiddushin 43a). Passages in John similar to this idea are: Jn 10:37–38: If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Jn 14:10–11: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does his

5 Peder Borgen, “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel,” in: J. Neusner, ed., Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 137–48. Numbers in parenthesis in this section refer to pages in Borgen's article. Scripture and rabbinical quotations are Borgen’s.

2.1 John’s ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω Christology and its Juridical Context

15

works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves. Jn 17:20–21: I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. (138–139)

Borgen then proceeds to follow Preiss in the use of “juridical mysticism,” since these terms in John are brought together with a kind of personal mysticism. This personal mysticism is best evidenced by use of the words Son and Father to express the agency between Jesus and the one who sent him. Borgen goes on to point out that the implied subordination in this Son-Father relationship is found in John and halakhic statements: Jn 13:16: Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. Gen. R. 78: The sender is greater than the [one] sent. (139–140)

The third similarity is that it was expected that the agent would carry out his mission in full obedience to the one who sent him: b. Erubin 31b–32a: It is a legal presumption that an agent will carry out his mission. b. Qiddushin 42b: I appropriate you for my advantage, and not for my disadvantage. m. Terumoth 44: If a house holder said to his agent, “Go and give heave-offering,” the agent should give heave-offering according to the house holder’s mind. (140)

Fourthly, Borgen sees an implicit commissioning of the Son by the Father in John which parallels what is found in b. Baba Qamma 70a: “Go forth and take legal action so that you may acquire title to it and secure the claim for yourself.” These parallels in John are: Jn 3:35: The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Jn 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” Jn 8:26: I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but he who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I speak to the world. Jn 8:42: Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on my own initiative, but he sent Me.” Jn 12:49: For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. Jn 14:24: He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent me.

Once the sender transferred his rights and property to his agent,6 the agent was to acquire title in court in his own name. The same idea is found in Jn

6 See Borgen’s note 1 on page 141 in Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven (SupplNovT X, Leiden: Brill, 1965), 137–48; cf. John 6:39, “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that all He has given me […]” and John 17:6, “Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to me.”

16

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

12:31–32, as Borgen states, “The world and the ruler of this world are judged and cast out from the heavenly court:” Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself (cf. b. Baba Qamma 70a). (141–42)

Borgen’s fifth observation is that just as in p. Hagigah 76d, “Behold, we send to you a great man as our shaliach, and he is equivalent to us until such time as he returns to us,” so in Jn does Jesus report to the one who sent him (cf. Jn 4:34; 5:36; 17:4; 13ff.; and 19:30) (142–43). The final similarity between John and halakhic rules is that in general “an agent can appoint an agent” (b. Qiddushin 41a). Jesus practices this in three places in John: Jn 13:20: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. Jn 17:18: As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. Jn 20:21: Jesus therefore said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

This examination of John’s use of ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω has drawn our attention to the importance of emissaries in the ancient world, as for example reflected in Rabbinic writings (acknowledging at the same time the fact that dating these sources is a difficult matter) and specifically in the New Testament and Jn (cf. for example Mt 10:40; 18:5 par; Lk 10:16; Gal 4:14). John availed himself of the ancient institution of agency to help create juridical scenarios portraying conflict between the several parties we find in John. The primary emphasis is laid by John on Jesus’ claim to be the sent one of his Father, who descended on his mission from his place by his Father. He will fulfill his divine task and then return to his Father. While it is certainly legitimate up to this point to concentrate on Jesus in examining this concept, it does not suffice to solely state the fact that the disciples are sent in turn by Jesus (cf. 13:20). Jesus and his disciples are not the only figures who are sent in the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel of John needs to be understood in terms of a broad scope of juridical agency, for doing so does its juridical emphasis justice, particularly in its christological regard. When we look to the whole of this gospel and its acteurs, it becomes immediately apparent that almost all uses of ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω can be categorized in terms of five major groups or persons: 1.) Jesus, 2.) John the Baptist (JtB), 3.) “the Jews,” 4.) Jesus’ disciples, and 5.) the Paraclete. This use of the two terms at hand is an indication that John is presenting what will be shown to be a juridical conflict among these parties, all of whom play important roles in this juridical clash. The story of the Fourth Gospel centers on the sending of God’s son, his salvific work, and the continuing conflict between the Word and the World: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you,” Jn 20:21.

2.2 Juridical Use of μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία

17

2.2 Juridical Use of μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία Liddell and Scott define μαρτυρέω with 1.) “bear witness, give evidence” and 2.) “to be in aspect with (astrological).” The word μαρτυρία they define with “testimony.”7 W. Bauer’s lexicon indicates that these two terms can have juridical as well as non-juridical meanings. For μαρτυρέω, Bauer8 names four basic meanings: 1.) “Zeugnis ablegen, Zeugen sein,” 2.) “bezeugen, bestätigen,” 3.) “ein gutes Zeugnis ausstellen, Beifall spenden, empfehlen,” 4.) “Zeugnis ablegen, (Blut) Zeuge sein, das Martyrium erleiden.”9 For μαρτυρέω Bauer presents five aspects for its basic meaning of ‘witness:’ 1.) juridical, 2.) historical, 3.) religious-moral, 4.) with respect to Jesus and 5.) in connection with martyrdom in the early church. That these terms could be juridically used is indicated not only by these lexica but also by J. Beutler’s exhaustive study.10 Here we can restrict a review of these terms’ juridical use to a few examples which promise to be relevant for John’s thought. The principle that more than one witness is necessary to convict a murderer occurs in Num 35:30. The same principle is stated in Dt 19:15. In this context, in 19:18, it is stated that a witness who bears false witness will be punished in the way the falsely accused person would if convicted. In Dt 31:19–21 the song of Moses will serve as a witness against Israel. The two false witnesses at the trial of Susanna in LXX Dan Th Su 40 describe their words as that to which they witness. The noun ‘witness’ occurs in Ex 20:16 par Dt 5:20 in the commandment against false witness. Prov 12:19 and 25:18 also speak of one who witnesses falsely. The term μαρτυρία is used several times in the synoptics juridically. In Mk 14: 55–63 we are told about the efforts made by the council to find testimony against Jesus. In Lk 22:71 Jesus’ response, “You say that I am” to the council’s question, “Are you the Son of God, then?” is taken as sufficient testimony to convict Jesus: οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· τί ἔτι ἔχομεν μαρτυρίας χρείαν; αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἠκούσαμεν ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1082. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 973–75. 9 Bauer, Wörterbuch, 975–76. 10 For a thorough treatment of the witness theme in Jn, cf. Johannes Beutler, Martyria: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes (FTS 10, Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1972). It is unfortunate that the results of this study are so meager that W. Meeks’ Review of J. Beutler, Martyria, JBL 93 (1974), 139–41, reviewing Beutler's book, is prompted to suggest that the adjective “vergebliche” should perhaps be added to the subtitle, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes.” Meeks correctly notes a major weakness of Beutler's approach: “Yet his very caution and the narrowness which gives the book such concentration seem to prevent his venturing the reconstructions which are necessary to supply the connective tissue in a history of traditions” (W. Meeks, Review of J. Beutler, Martyria, JBL 93 [1974], 139–41, 140). 7 8

18

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

There are three recurring major juridical contexts in Jn where the terms “witness” and “to witness” play a central role. In the first recurring major juridical context, the Fourth Gospel presents several witnesses on Jesus’ behalf during the gospel narrative. The witness of John the Baptist is of paramount importance in Jn. Like the Synoptic Gospels, John the Baptist plays a major role in the initial stages of Jn. But Jn 1:6–8 would appear to interrupt the primary focus of the Prologue, which is the Logos. JtB’s primary role in Jn however is that of a witness for the Logos (cf. Jn 1:19–36; 3:23–30; 5:33–36; 10:41) and this underlines the importance of the Logos. Others in Jn also testify for Jesus. The Samaritan woman’s testimony leads to her countrymen and -women to believe in Jesus, cf. Jn 4:39. The man born blind in Jn 9 functions as a witness for Jesus. There are two places where the Beloved Disciple serves as a witness for Jesus. He is cited as a witness to water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side in 19:35. In Jn 21:24 the editor of Jn expresses his conviction that the beloved disciple’s witness is true. In the second recurring major juridical context, Jesus himself is, besides these witnesses just named, an outspoken witness for himself. In several bitterly fought verbal battles Jesus bears witness for himself and – whether alone or in concert with his Father – he raises claim to being the sole fully empowered sent one of his Father. He has the power to lay down his life and take it up again. In such passages, especially in Jn 5–8 and 10, we see the connection between Jesus’ status of being the fully authorized emissary of his Father and his witness to this fact. In Jn 5:31–47 Jesus calls upon a series of witnesses to justify his actions and support his claim. Jesus’ self-witness in Jn 8:13–18 stands at the center of Jesus’ defense of his claims. Jesus says that his works testify for his claim that he and his Father are one in Jn 10:25–30. In Jn 18:37 Jesus tells Pilate, “For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” Jesus’ witness is that he is the Truth. The third recurring major juridical context centers on the role of Jesus’ disciples. They are to follow in Jesus’ footsteps with the help of the Spirit-Paraclete to witness to the truth of his claims. We see this particularly in Jn 15:26–16:11 (cf. the other Paraclete passages in Jn 14:16–17; 14:26; 16:13–15 as well as Jn 20:22–23). The Evangelist conceives Jesus’ disciples as those who become witnesses for him in a way that recalls Isa 43:10.11 The qualification for being a witness named in Jn 15:27 is having been with Jesus since the beginning of his ministry. The verb ἐστέ emphasizes the permanent unity between Jesus and his followers. Schnackenburg sees this as involving the point of departure upon which all later proclamation will be based.12 11 Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1955), 483. 12 R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, II. Teil (HTKNT 4, Freiburg: Herder, 1971), 137.

2.3 Juridical Use of κρίμα, κρίνω, and κρίσις

19

The result of this brief examination can be summarized as follows. At the outset of this section, we established that the terms μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία could be used juridically outside of the Johannine writings. It was then shown that the Johannine concept of ‘witness’ is primarily a juridical one which is intimately related with the κρίσις of the world in Jn. This is born out initially by references to the OT and early Jewish standards of jurisprudence. In Jn we see μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία being used in three recurring major juridical contexts. First, many witnesses are presented to support Jesus’ claim. The testimony of JtB plays a particularly important role. His witness is that Jesus is the Elect One of God upon whom the Spirit rests, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and the one who baptizes in the Spirit (1:29–3413). Second, Jesus’ own witness is his word (18:37) and his self-witness, which is identical to that of the Father (8:18). This witnessing to and by Jesus usually takes place in confrontation with Jewish authorities (e.g., 1:19–34; 5:7–8; 8:12–30; chapter 9; chapter 10 and 18:19–24). It can be characterized as being Spiritfilled and prophetic (1:32; 7:28 and 12:44). Third, Jesus’ disciples will follow Jesus in witnessing to the truth of his sonship with the enablement of the SpiritParaclete, cf. especially Jn 15:26–16:11.

2.3 Juridical Use of κρίμα, κρίνω, and κρίσις Liddell and Scott14 define κρίμα with 1.) “decision, judgment,” 2.) “decree, resolution,” 3.) “legal decision,” 4.) “matter for judgment, question, law-suit,” and 5.) “judging, judgment.” They define κρίνω with 1.) “separate, put asunder, distinguish,” 2.) “pick out, choose,” 3.) “bring to trial, accuse,” and 4.) “pass sentence upon, condemn.”15 Kρίσις they define with 1.) “separating, distinguishing,” 2.) “decision, judgment,” 3.) “choice, election,” 4.) “interpretation” (of dreams), 5.) “judgment” (of a court), and 6.) “event, issue.”16 W. Bauer defines κρίμα with 1.) “d[er] Streitfall,” 2.) “d[ie] Entscheidung,” 3.) “d[as] Handeln des Richters,” and 4.) “d[as] richterliche Urteil.”17 He defines κρίνω with 1.) “scheiden, unterscheiden,” 2.) “urteilen, meinen, erklären, halten,” 3.) “sich entscheiden für,” 4.) “als jurist[ischer] t[erminus] t[echnicus] richten, vor Gericht ziehen, verurteilen,” and 5.) “Recht verschaffen.”18 Based on this review there is no question but that these three terms as a rule have juridical connotations in sources outside of the Johannine writings, viz. in 13 Cf. Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 63, and the outset of our Chapter 5 regarding “the Elect One of God.” 14 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 997. 15 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 996. 16 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 997. 17 Bauer, Wörterbuch, 891. 18 Bauer, Wörterbuch, 891.

20

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

classical Greek literature, the LXX, the New Testament, and other first century Greek sources. Therefore, we can proceed directly to their use in the Fourth Gospel and go to a summary of their use in Jn. In Jn we see how the coming of Jesus is portrayed in terms of these three juridical expressions κρίμα, κρίνω, and κρίσις. The realized eschatology of the Fourth Gospel is centered on the κρίσις, which is created by the coming of Jesus. This judgment is brought about by God’s attempt to save the world (3:17), whereby Jesus has the power to give life (5:22). Belief in Jesus’ word is the criterion for judging the world (3:18 and 5:24), and this belief means to accept Jesus’ witness (5:30–31). Just as the case with this witness, Jesus’ judgment is the same as the Father’s (5:30; 8:13–20). This judgment is carried out by Jesus’ word (5:24), and this word will condemn those who do not receive it (12:47–48). It is to the Father that Jesus appeals as the ultimate judge (8:26, 50). This κρίσις, which involves individuals, is put into the framework of a universal, cosmic trial whereby Jesus expels ‘the ruler of this world’ (12:31; 16:11). Jesus is he who overcomes (16:33) both this ruler and the world. Due to the victorious departure of Jesus, the κρίσις is carried on through the witness of Jesus’ disciples by the power of the Spirit-Paraclete (15:26–27; 16:7–11). The counterpart to this trial is the one “the Jews” carry out against Jesus. In contrast to Jesus, who judges righteously, “the Jews” judge “according to appearance” (7:24) or “according to the flesh” (8:15). This theme of what we can also call “unrighteous judgment” is a key concept in Jn and will be explored further in chapters to come.

2.4 Juridical Use of κατηγορέω Liddell and Scott define this term with 1.) “speak against, esp. before judges, accuse, bring as a charge against,” 2.) “signify, indicate, prove,” and 3.) “in Logic, predicate of a person or thing.” 19 With respect to the NT and Early Christian literature, W. Bauer20 defines κατηγορέω with “anklagen” and notes that the term is used almost always as a terminus technicus, i.e., “Anklage erheben,” either before a human or a divine tribunal. Since this term is almost always a juridical terminus technicus, we can limit our review to two NT examples which will prove to be important for the background of John’s trial concept. In Mk 3:2 par we are told that Jesus was watched to see if he would heal on the Sabbath ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. In Mk 15:4 par Pilate comments that the high priests accuse Jesus of many things, ἴδε πόσα σου κατηγοροῦσιν. 19 20

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 926–27. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 836–37.

2.5 Juridical Use of ἐλέγχω

21

This verb appears only twice in Jn, and both uses appear in 5:45.21 Here Jesus asserts that not he himself, but Moses will accuse “the Jews” of failing to accept Jesus and his witness. When Jesus says that Moses wrote of him in 5:46, it is likely that Dt 18:15–19, the promise of a prophet-like-Moses, is in view. Because the Jews do not believe in Jesus, they also do not believe Moses (v. 47). Thus, Moses will act as an accusing witness against the Jews. Here we have a possible reflection of the thought of Dt 31:26, “Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.” This possibility is strengthened by the fact that Jn 12:47–48 – a statement also characterized by Jesus denying that he himself does or will exercise a juridical function against those who do not believe him – also seems to echo Dt 18:18–19 and 31:9, 26. Highly significant is the fact that Jesus brings the heavenly tribunal into play. Here we find a sure sign that Jesus in John’s portrayal of this debate in Jn 5 reckons fully with this cosmic aspect of the κρίσις. The significance of this term is seen in the fact that Jesus claims continuity with Moses and the Law. Thus, the fact that “the Jews” do not believe Jesus places their belief in Moses and his writings in question. This will lead, if there is no change of heart, to a reckoning before the heavenly tribunal, where Moses – and not Jesus – will accuse Jesus’ unbelieving listeners.

2.5 Juridical Use of ἐλέγχω Liddell and Scott22 define ἐλέγχω with 1.) “disgrace, to put to shame” and 2.) “cross-examine, question.” W. Bauer23 defines the term as follows: 1.) “ans Licht stellen, an d[en] Tag bringen, dartun,” 2.) “j[e]m[ an)d[e]n einer Sache überführen, j[e]m[an)d[e]m etw[as] nachweisen,” 3.) “tadeln, zurechtweisen” und 4.) “strafen.” Since this term is not exclusively or even primarily a juridical one, it is necessary to present some juridical uses which could have relevance for John’s trial concept. Some of these are taken from the LXX and the NT, others concern a tradition which involves final judgment. The LXX often uses ἐλέγχω in juridical contexts. The term is used this way several times in the book of Job, cf. Job 9:33; 13:3, 10; 15:6; 22:4; 39:32, 34; and 40:2, 4. With respect to the activity of the Spirit of the Lord in Wis 1:8 we read that no one will escape the punishment of justice. In Wis 4:20b the term at hand is used in the sense of conviction of conscience. Amos 5:10 refers to a lack of justice: “They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth.” In Micah 4:3 we read that the Lord “shall judge 21 22 23

Cf. also Jn 8:6, which belongs to the secondary pericope in 7:53–8:11. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 531. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 494.

22

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

between many peoples and shall decide for strong nations afar off.” Isa 29:21, like Amos 5:10 and Hag 2:14, concerns a person who “reproves in the gate.” In the NT ἐλέγχω is used eleven times outside of the Fourth Gospel. Of these eleven occurrences, three can be juridical. In 1Tim 5:20, those who persist in sin are to be rebuked before all the church. The juridical nature of this is indicated by the admonition in v. 19 that a charge against an elder should be admitted only based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. James writes in Jas 2:9 that those who show partiality are convicted by the Law. Concerning the traditional background of John’s use of ἐλέγχω in 3:21 and 16:8, the following elements can be noted. We will see in chapter 10 that this term or its Latin equivalent arguō also appears in Pss Sol 17:25 and 4 Ezra 13:37. This verb pair ἐλέγχω/arguō also finds a broader application in Gerichtsreden where allusions to Isa 11 are sometimes present. Quoting 1 Enoch 1:9, Jude 15 speaks about the day when the Lord will come to exercise judgment: … ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. Behold, he [God] will arrive with ten million of his holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything they have done.

The same concept also appears in 2 Baruch 55:8: … and if you are grieved, what about when you see what the Majesty will reveal, who convinces24 some and cause others to rejoice?

In 2 Baruch 40:1–2 this function is attributed to the “Anointed One:” The last ruler who is left alive at that time will be bound, whereas the entire host will be destroyed. And they will carry him to Mount Zion, and my Anointed One will convict him of all his wicked deeds and will assemble and set before him all the works of his hosts.

This concept is also found in 4 Ezra 12:31–32: And as for the lion that you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and speaking to the eagle and reproving him his unrighteousness, and as for all his words that you heard, this is the Messiah.

It is on the basis of such passages where at least this concept of “finding guilty” is present, if not the technical terminology ἐλέγχω/arguō itself, that P. Volz25 asserts, Eine beliebte Vorstellung ist ferner, daß Gott (bzw. der Messias) die Sünder tadelt (vgl. Mt 25): der Richter hält eine Gerichtsrede. Dies ist zunächst ein forensischer Akt, wird aber

Convince in the sense of ‘find guilty.’ P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (2nd ed., Tübingen: Mohr, 1934), 302. 24 25

2.6 Juridical Use of Paraclete/παράκλητος

23

zuweilen auch vor dem Vernichtungsgericht erwähnt und erinnert an alttestamentliche Ausdrücke in Jer 116 412 395.

It is therefore against this background that John’s use of ἐλέγχω in Jn 3:21 and 16:8 (and 8:44) can be understood. It remains to be seen in chapter 9 which genre is appropriate for determining the connotation of ἐλέγχω for Jn 16:7–11. In any event all three uses of ἐλέγχω in Jn appear to be juridically oriented. In the explanation of the krisis, which Jesus precipitates by his coming to save the world in Jn 3:19–21, it is explained in v. 20 that all those who hated the light did not come to it so that their deeds would not be exposed (ἐλεγχθῇ). There can hardly be any pedagogical purpose intended by this exposure. In Jn, those who hate Jesus are not portrayed as having a change of heart. In Jn 8:46 Jesus poses the rhetorical question τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας; Once again, the concept here is not that Jesus might be convinced of personal wrongdoing for pedagogical purposes, but the situation is a juridical one. The intention of the Jews to kill Jesus in vv. 37 and 40 bears this out, as Schnackenburg26 observes. There is also little doubt among most scholars that ἐλέγχω in Jn 16:8 is also used juridically. But precisely its sense in this passage is contested. Therefore, we will return to this term in chapter 11 below.

2.6 Juridical Use of Paraclete/παράκλητος A deeper examination of the Paraclete sayings and their place in the Johannine trial concept will be conducted later in chapter 11 of our study. At this point it will suffice to 1.) demonstrate that the term παράκλητος can be used as a juridical term outside of Johannine writings, and 2.) briefly discuss its juridical use in Jn as well as in 1Jn. Liddell and Scott27 define the term at hand with 1.) “called to one’s aid, in a court of justice” or “legal assistant, advocate” and 2.) “intercessor.” W. Bauer28 defines the term with “der zugunsten eines anderen Auftretende, der Mittler, d[er] Fürsprecher, d[er] Helfer” and for the NT and early Christian literature in general Bauer gives “d[er] Helfer, d[er] Fürsprecher,” for Jn, “d[er] Helfer.” It appears that παράκλητος occupied a far more important place in Greekspeaking culture than the few examples of its use which we have would indicate.29 The term does not occur in the LXX, and in classical Greek writings and other fragments there are no more than twenty extant examples, including 26 27 28 29

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 146. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1313. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 1226–27. Cf. Johannes Behm, art. Παράκλητος, TWNT 5:800. Italics are Behm’s.

24

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

two in LXX versions. But its use, in transliterated form, testifies in Rabbinic writings not only to its importance but also to its probable widespread use in the Greek-speaking world. The juridical use of this Greek term can be illustrated with three examples. The first is from Demosthenes De Falsa Legatione 19.1, a scene in which Aeschines is accused of not having faithfully carried out his duties as ambassador in Macedonia: You will reflect that justice and the oath concern yourselves and the commonwealth, whereas the importunity and party spirit of advocates (παρακλήτων) serve the end of those private ambitions which you are convened by the laws to thwart, not to encourage for the advantage of evil doers.

Another example is found in the Minus Fragment of the British Museum, §1894, where Person ‘D’ is corrected by Person ‘A’ so that he or she might pronounce “paraclete” properly, correcting παρακρήτῳ to παρακλήτῳ. Third, Didache 5:2 par Barnabas 20:2, apparently using a Jewish source, discusses those who, among other things, act as councils for the rich and are unjust judges of the poor: […] men who turn away from the needy, oppress the afflicted, act as council (παράκλητοι) for the rich, are unjust judges of the poor; in a word – men steeped in sin.

The juridical use of παράκλητος as a transliteration in the Rabbinic writings is above all indicated by texts where ‘paraclete’ is set in opposition to an accuser, a κατήγορος. Two examples are presented here.30 In m. Aboth 4:11 Rabbi Eliezer says, “He that performs one precept gets for himself one advocate, but he that commits one transgression gets for himself one accuser. Repentance and good works are as a shield against retribution.”31 In Shabbath 32a32 we find: The Sages said: When a person goes out to the marketplace where there are fights and disputes, he should consider himself as someone who has been handed over to a soldier [seradiyot]. If his head hurt, he should consider it as if they placed him in a chain [kolar] around his neck. If he climbed into bed and fell ill, he should consider himself as if they took him up to the gallows to be judged, as with regard to anyone who goes up to the gallows to be judged, if he has great advocates [peraklitin], he is spared, and if not, he is not spared. And with regard to divine judgment, these are a person’s advocates: Repentance and good deeds. The Gemara comments: And even if there are nine hundred ninety-nine asserting his guilt and only one asserting his innocence, he is spared, as it is stated: “If there be for him an angel, an advocate, one among a thousand, to vouch for a man’s uprightness; then He is 30 For a convenient review of the uses of this term in classical Greek writings, cf. K. Grayston, “The Meaning of PARAKLETOS,” JSNT 13 (1981), 67–82. Grayston’s suggestion of “supporter” or “sponsor” as a definition of the term is well-intended, but the forensic/juridical aspect often becomes the victim of tendentious interpretation. 31 J. Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933, 1954 printing), 454. 32 Translation from The William Davidson Talmud, https://www.sefaria.org/williamdavidson-talmud, Shabbat 32a, downloaded on 30 May 2022.

2.6 Juridical Use of Paraclete/παράκλητος

25

gracious unto him, and says: Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom” (Job 33:23–24).

With respect to the Paraclete in Jn, we can at this point observe that παράκλητος is used in a juridical sense in Jn 15:25–27 and 16:7–11 in the view of virtually all scholars. Here the juridical activity of the Paraclete corresponds to that of Jesus. The disciples, empowered by the Spirit-Paraclete, continue the defense of Jesus in his stead in the trial of the world by means of their preaching the Word. The characterization of the Paraclete’s activity with μαρτυρήσει in 15:26 and ἐλέγξει in 16:8 bears this out. The disciples’ activity as witnesses (15:27) parallels that of the Paraclete, that is, they are coincidental. This testifying will result in the disciples proving the world wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment with respect to the ministry and death of Jesus. The other three Paraclete sayings (14:16–17; 14:26 and 16:13–15) appear in the view of most scholars not to be juridically oriented. This is because the functions attributed to the Johannine Paraclete are not those generally associated with a paraclete. This issue will be addressed in chapter 9. Concerning the juridical nature of Jesus’ role in 1Jn 2:1, however, there should be no doubt whatever. There we read, Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον. This concept of Jesus interceding on behalf of sinners before the Father would appear to be the same as what is so often found in Rabbinic sources. It is however this very correspondence which prompts scholars to see no conceptual relation between 1Jn 2:1 and juridical Paraclete sayings in Jn, e.g., 15:26–27 and 16:7–11. Despite the apparent juridical character of all three, the observation is often made that in 1Jn 2:1 there is a heavenly paraclete who intercedes, whereas in Jn 15 and 16 there is an earthIy paraclete who juridically proceeds against the world. While this would appear to be the case, there is a mistaken tendency to extend this difference so as to include Rabbinic paraclete traditions and thus make the situation in Jn and 1Jn more difficult than it really is. U.B. Müller,33 for example, asserts, Aus dieser jüdischen Tradition ist in der Tat die Bezeichnung Jesu als Paraklet in 1Joh 2,1 zu verstehen. Was nimmt es wunder, wenn man diese Erklärungsmöglichkeit auch beim JohEv heranzog. Nun hat aber der Paraklet im JohEv keine Funktion im Himmel vor Gott, wie es die jüdische Tradition und 1Joh 2,1 verlangen, vielmehr wirkt er auf Erden bei den Jüngern.

Müller is not alone in this view. J. Behm34 asserts that rabbinic equivalents for παράκλητος designate “immer den Fürsprecher vor Gott.” Mowinckel,35

U.B. Müller, “Die Parakletenvorstellungen im Joh-Ev,” ZThK 71 (1974), 31–77, 32. Behm, art. Παράκλητος, 802 n. 28. 35 S. Mowinckel, “Die Vorstellungen des Spätjudentums vom heiligen Geist als Fürsprecher und der joh. Paraklet,” ZNW 32 (1933), 97–130, 109. 33 34

26

Chapter 2: Juridical Terms and Juridical Scenarios in the Fourth Gospel

Bultmann,36 and Schnackenburg37 do not make such categorical statements, but all speak exclusively of this rabbinic tradition in terms of paracletes before God who are in heaven. If we look however at these rabbinic traditions again, it becomes clear that such assertions are not correct. Besides those places where the thought is the same or similar to 1Jn 2:1, there are also those where reference is to earthbound paracletes who do not necessarily intercede before God. Two examples may be noted here. In Mid rabba Ex 18:3, Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh, is said to have had a good paraclete in Moses. Here the idea is that although she was the firstborn of her mother, she was not killed when the Angel of Death passed through Egypt (cf. Ex 12) because of Moses’ intercession. Here it is plain that even if Moses interceded for Batya before God himself (and not before the Angel of Death), Moses is an earth-bound figure. The other example is Shabbat 32a, which we cited above. While the quote of Job 33:23 certainly involves a heavenly paraclete, this is a comparison to the idea of being led to the gradon, an earthly place of judgment.38 Therefore, there would seem to be only one difference between these rabbinic traditions and John’s concept of the Paraclete, that of what a paraclete in fact does. But this difference is explicable if the importance of the synoptic parallel Mk 13:9–11 for Jn’s concept in Jn 15–16 is recognized. If we can proceed on the hypothesis that the term παράκλητος was associated with the role of the Holy Spirit in this synoptic tradition,39 then a paraclete role for the Spirit becomes apparent. Brought before hostile tribunals, the disciples have a paraclete in the Spirit, who according to the Markan and Matthean versions is the one actually speaking. In the broad Lukan tradition, the Spirit is responsible for speech which adversaries will be unable to withstand or contradict (Lk 21:15; cf. Acts 6:10; 7:56–57). This would mean for John’s Spirit-Paraclete that the concept, as drawn from tradition, is parallel to (rabbinic) forensic use but had been developed further first in Christian circles, and then in Jn. Therefore we have seen that παράκλητος can be used as a juridical term and that the realm of such an intercessor can indeed be activity on an earthly plane (and not just a heavenly one, as in 1Jn 2:1). This is the meaning and the function of the Spirit-Paraclete in Jn 15:26–27 and 16:7–11. This initial examination of John’s Paraclete will be expanded in Part Three, where a comprehensive approach to John’s Paraclete will be developed.

36 R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 438. 37 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 158–59. 38 On the use of the loanword gradon in the Rabbinics, cf. D. Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984), 76–78. 39 So Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 167–68.

2.7 Chapter Summary

27

2.7 Chapter Summary In this chapter we have outlined the juridical background of the terms ‘send’ (ἀποστέλλω, πέμπω), ‘witness’ and ‘to witness’ (μαρτυρία, μαρτυρέω), ‘judge’ and ‘judgment’ (κρίμα, κρίνω, κρίσις), ‘accuse’ (κατηγορέω), ‘convict’ (ἐλέγχω), and ‘paraclete’ (παράκλητος) and established their juridical use in Jn. Thus, we see that first, these terms are often used juridically throughout the Fourth Gospel. Second, it is very often the case that two or more of these terms occur in the same context. Third, Preiss’ view that other key Johannine terms, ‘truth (ἀλήθεια)’ and ‘light (φῶς),’ also have juridical overtones, appears to be more than plausible. Fourth, three of these terms are used in the key summary passage in Jn 3:16–21 (ἀποστέλλω, κρίνω, ἐλέγχω, cf. also the juridically flavored terms ἀλήθεια and φῶς there). Fifth, Jesus’ statement in Jn 5:45–47 threatening his opponents with their one day being accused by Moses clearly establishes God’s heavenly tribunal as a part of John’s juridical scenario. Sixth, five of Preiss’ six terms/term groups are found in the two Paraclete sayings in Jn 15:26–27 and 16:7–11. This concentration represents a highly significant factor that, taken together as Jn 15:26–16:11, places this passage at the center of John’s juridical thought. Overall our review has also established some of the parameters of John’s ‘trial concept.’ It has become apparent that there are at least two trials in progress in Jn, Jesus vs. “the Jews”/world and “the Jews”/world vs. Jesus. As will be seen throughout the rest of our study, this two-sidedness is part of the issue of righteous judgment, cf. Jn 7:24 and 8:16.

Part II: Second Isaiah and John’s Cosmic Trial Concept

Chapter 3

Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and the Prologue’s Juridical Outlook When studying John’s or for that matter, any biblical author’s use of the Book of Isaiah, it is of paramount importance that this be done not from the perspective of modern-day readers, but, if possible, with the eyes of its ancient readers themselves. It is not necessary to devote an entire chapter to this subject, since this insight is very simple to comprehend. In our case we need to realize (and then, if necessary, remind ourselves) that, for the Fourth Gospel’s author(s), the book of the prophet Isaiah was precisely that: the work of one prophet. As far as we can determine, the readers of Isaiah in the first century of the common era made no distinction between what scholars today refer to as Isaiah, Second Isaiah, and Third Isaiah, or the Servant Songs. For him or them, if not her, the Servant of the Lord for example was very clearly one figure, regardless of where “he” in Isaiah appeared. John himself understands his quotes of Isa 53:1 and Isa 6:10 in Jn 12:38 and 40 respectively as both having been spoken by the prophet Isaiah. John brings together two rhetorical questions from the fourth song of the Servant of the Lord with a description of the future consequences for the hearers of Isaiah’s message, who neither saw nor perceived it. Therefore, while we will readily devote special attention in our study to three major parts of Isaiah as well as the Servant Songs as such, we shall always keep in mind that John sees and uses them as coming as one whole prophetic book from its one author.

3.1 Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Salvific Arch of John’s Gospel Jesus’ last words in Jn were not the same as in Mk 15:34 par, where he cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Quite the contrary. Instead, he said in Jn 19:30, “It is finished.” Then, we are told, Jesus bowed his head and gave up his spirit. But what precisely was finished? The process of execution by crucifixion itself? Or the passion as a whole, which involved going up to Jerusalem, the words and events of the Passion week in addition to Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion? Could it also involve still more, perhaps even the mission of Jesus as the Sent One of his Father? The answers to these questions are to be found in the term “to be finished” (τετέλεσται) itself.

32

Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and Juridical Outlook

A. Dauer1 examined the history-of-religions background of this term τελειόω, considering the views of C.H. Dodd,2 R. Bultmann,3 and E. Stauffer4 before arguing for the influence of Isa 55:(10–)11 on Jn 19:30: For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, (11) so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Dauer sees a clear connection between Isa 55:11 and several passages in Jn, beginning with the Logos in Jn 1, the “going out from God” in for example 8:42, 13:3, “returning to God” in for example 7:33, 16:5, “Jesus’ task(s)” in, for example, 4:34, 5:36, and “the time of Jesus’ return” in 19:28 and 19:30. H. Lausberg has very convincingly also argued for this view in his meticulous publications centering on John’s Prologue.5 H. Thyen quotes Lausberg: ‘Wort Gottes’ (‘mein Wort’) der Stelle Js 55,10–11 bezieht sich auf die ‘redende Verkündigung’ Gottes durch den Propheten: Diese Rede Gottes ist fruchtbar wie der Regen. Hierbei erfährt das Wort Gottes eine gewisse poetische Personifizierung. – Der Evangelist benutzt diese Personifizierung, um den persönlichen Jesus mit ihm in eins zu setzen und die Ereignisse (und Reden) des Lebens Jesu in dieser Interpretationssicht darzustellen. Der Schriftsteller will, daß die das ganze Evangelium durchziehende interpretatorische Anspielung auf Js 55 immer wieder als solche verstanden wird […]. Besonders deutlich wird dies an den Stellen J 8,29 […] und J 19,30 […].6

Seen from this perspective, we can consider Isaiah 55:1–11 as a kind of ‘salvific arch’ in John’s Gospel. The Logos of the Prologue is none other than the Word of Isa 55 which completes its mission as the person named Jesus. Jn 1:1 introduces the Logos, Jn 8:29 is a clear parallel to Isa 55:11 (cf. “for I always do what is pleasing to him” with “but it shall accomplish what I please”) and Jn 19:30 documents the death of its incarnation, Jesus. Having determined the 1 A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18,1–19,30 (München: Kösel, 1972), 210–13. 2 C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), 437. 3 R. Bultmann, Johannes, 523 n. 2. 4 E. Stauffer, Jesus, Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern: Francke Verlag, 1957), 107. 5 H. Lausberg, Minuscula philologica (V): Jesaja 55,10–11 im Evangelium nach Johannes, NAWG.PH (1979), 131–44, H. Lausberg, Minuscula philologica (VII): Das Epiphonem des Johannes-Prologs (J 1,18), NAWG.PH 1 (1982), 269–89, H. Lausberg, Prolog J 1,1–18 und “Corpus narrativum” J 1,19–20, 29 als grundständig einander zugeordnete Teile des Johannes-Evangeliums: rhetor. Befunde, NAWG.PH 1 (1987), 1–7. 6 Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 72, cf. Lausberg, Jesaja 55,10–11 im Evangelium, 143.

3.2 ‘Finish’-Verbs in Jn and the ‘Work’ of Jesus the Sent One

33

two outer points of the salvific arch and one parallel under it, the role of Isa 55:1–11 warrants further consideration in the body of John’s Gospel.

3.2 ‘Finish’-Verbs in Jn and the ‘Work’ of Jesus the Sent One A review of ‘finish’-verbs (τελειόω and τελέω) demonstrates that John portrays how Jesus carries out his mission with the paramount purpose of completing it, thereby being able to declare in Jn 19:30, “It is finished.” In Jn 4:34 Jesus tells his disciples his goal: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.” In order to attain this goal, Jesus refers in Jn 5:36 to the works which he has carried out up to that point, which constitute a witness which is even more important than that of John the Baptist: “But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” In Jn 13:1 Jesus’ commitment to his disciples is emphasized on the eve of his death with the words, “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” Looking back on the time of his ministry in Jn 17:4, Jesus summarizes, “I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do.” The desired fruits of Jesus having fulfilled his mission are described in Jn 17:23. Jesus’ hope for his disciples is “I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” Jesus’ consciousness of the goal of his Father’s commission continues up to the moment of his impending death in Jn 19:28: “After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfil the scripture), “I thirst.” His last act is receiving vinegar, after which he dies with the words “It is finished” on his lips. Thus, we see how John portrays the works of Jesus as being a central aspect of his mission which need to be performed within the predetermined time frame which leads to Jesus’ “Hour” (cf. Jn 2:4; 4:21; 4:23; 5:25; 5:28; 7:6; 7:8; 7:30; 8:20; 11:9; 12:23; 12:27; 13:1; 16:2; 16:4; 16:21; 16:25; 16:32; 17:1). As Jesus declares in Jn 9:4, “We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work.” The daylight hours that Jesus metaphorically refers to here correspond to the salvific arch of Isa 55:10–11, which John has consciously filled with the statements and descriptions involving the Greek ‘finish’-verbs outlined here.

34

Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and Juridical Outlook

3.3 The Word of God in Isa 55:1–3; 10–11 and Jesus the Bread of Life in Jn 6:27–71 There is yet another passage in the Gospel which demonstrates how John has been fundamentally influenced by Isa 55:1–11 and has used key parts of this prophecy to depict the path and mission of the Logos. D. Burkett has demonstrated that “the numerous and close parallels set out […] indicate that Jn 6:27ff. is directly dependent on Isa 55:1–3; 10–11.”7 Burkett summarizes his findings in the following table, here in the form presented by Thyen:8 Isa 55:1–3; 10–11 a. Two types of food are contrasted, that which does not satisfy and that which does (55:1–2) b. One should not pay money of one’s labor for the food which does not satisfy (55:2) c. One should buy the food which satisfies, which is given without a price (55:1) d. To buy and eat the food which satisfies is to listen (receptively) to the Word of God (55:2) e. “Incline your ear and come to me” (55:3) f. If one listens to the Word of God (eats the bread which satisfies), one’s soul will live (55:3) g. Listening to the Word of God satisfies both hunger and thirst (55:1–2)

Jn 6:27–71 a. Two types of food are contrasted, that which perishes and that which remains (6:27) b. One should not work for the food which perishes (6:27) c. One should work for food which remains, which the Son of Man will give (6:27) d. To work for the food which remains is to believe in the one whom God sent (6:28) e. Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me (6:45; cf. 6:35, 37, 47, 65) f. If one eats the bread of life one will live forever (6:27, 33, 35, 40 etc.)

g. “He who comes to me shall not hunger and he who believes in me shall never thirst” (6:35; cf. 53–56) h. The Word of God is sent by God (55:11) h. Jesus, the living bread, is sent by God (6:29, 38f., 44, 57) i. The Word of God, like the rain and snow, i. Jesus, the living bread, descends from descends from heaven (55:10–11) heaven (6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57) j. The Word of God, like the rain and snow, j. “The bread of God is that which descends waters the earth and causes it to give birth from heaven and gives life to the world” (6:33) and bear fruit (55:10) k. The Word of God, like the rain and k. Jesus, or the Father, gives bread (6:27, snow, gives bread to eat (55:10–11) 32, 51) 7 D. Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 132. 8 Cited by Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 347–48, with reference to Burkett, Son of the Man, 131–32.

3.4 The Prologue’s Juridical Outlook Isa 55:1–3; 10–11 l. The Word of God does the will of God, who sent it (55:11) m. The Word of God returns to God in heaven (55:10f.)

35

Jn 6:27–71 l. “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me” (6:38) m. The Son of Man ascends to where he was before (6:62)

Burkett’s convincing findings speak for themselves. John has, as an integral and decisive part of his gospel, filled the salvific arch of Isa 55:1–11 with these Bread of Life parallels in Jn 6:27–71. Together with H. Thyen,9 Burkett is correct in seeing that ‘the Word’ and ‘the Son of Man’ are understood to refer to the same preexistent individual who has become incarnate as Jesus.10 This interpretation brings us now to the Logos in John’s Prologue, together with this study’s interest in possible juridical aspects at the outset of the Fourth Gospel.

3.4 The Prologue’s Juridical Outlook Théo Preiss, as we noted in chapter 1, complained that the Fourth Gospel “has almost universally been read in the light of the Prologue.” He commented, “People talk as if the Prologue were a gold coin and the Gospel which follows simply the small change!”11 Such unjustified concentration on the Prologue is today no longer the case, but given that we have determined that Isa 55:1–11 presents the salvific arch of Jn, it behooves us to investigate what we wish to call the Prologue’s juridical outlook. Violence should not under any circumstances be done to the Prologue through such an examination. If juridical aspects are not or hardly to be found, so be it. But precisely because Isa 55:1–11 is thoroughly salvific in character and does not appear itself to contain any juridical, or more specifically, trial elements, it is necessary to pursue this question. To what extent has John, consciously aware of the role he has assigned to Isa 55, included aspects that can be viewed as part of a juridical outlook? These aspects, which can be either salvific or not salvific, could be understood as foreshadowing that which is later developed in the Gospel. Thus, there might very well be, as it were, juridically conditioned gold in the Prologue that does not at first glance glisten. Therefore, we will take a closer look at the Prologue. Jn 1:1–5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; 9 10 11

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 347. Burkett, Son of the Man, 135. Preiss, Justification in Johannine Thought, 10.

36

Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and Juridical Outlook

all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The contrast between the timeless “was” (ἦν) of the Logos, in contrast to the “becoming” (ἐγένετο) of John the Baptist corresponds to the qualitative difference between being “from above” and coming “from below” in Jn. This bifurcation between he who comes from above and he who is of the earth determines whether one can accept Jesus’ testimony. If not, then “the wrath of God rests upon him” in judgment (cf. Jn 3:31–36). The assertion that “God was the Logos” presents already in this first verse of the Gospel and the Prologue what is the decisive assertion or charge regarding Jesus the incarnate Logos: Jesus’ claim “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). “The Jews” accuse Jesus “because you (i.e., Jesus), being a human, make yourself God.” This charge of “making one’s self God” in Jn 10 leads the Jews for example to pick up stones to kill Jesus. They will later repeat this charge in the trial before Pilate in Jn 19:7. The Logos as light shines upon all humans, regardless of how they respond, be it positively or negatively, to its illuminating effect. This reflects a juridical dichotomy that is introduced and then described in Jn 3:19–21, “And this is the judgment […].” It is founded on the Johannine view that the Light shines and will continue to victoriously shine while the darkness, which is per definition opposed to the light, has failed to extinguish the light.12 Jn 1:6–8, 15 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.’”

John the Baptist is introduced in Jn 1:6–8 and 15 not as baptizer but as a witness sent from God.13 His being ‘sent’ in the sense of the Greek verb ἀποστέλλω or the synonym πέμπω, involves being sent and being legitimated, in this case by God, at the same time. Thus, John has chosen a term here which has at the least legal implications, but as we saw in chapter 2 and will presently see, a strongly juridical connotation. For John portrays JtB as a very important witness indeed in his gospel, cf. Jn 1:19–36, 22–30; 5:33–36 and 10:41.

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 72. For an explanation of how vv. 6–8 and 15 correspond respectively to the ‘first day’ in Jn 1:19–28 and to the ‘second day’ in Jn 1:29–34, cf. M. Hooker, “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue,” NTS 16 (1969/70), 354–58. 12 13

3.4 The Prologue’s Juridical Outlook

37

As we shall argue in chapter 6, the origin of JtB’s portrayal as a witness can be traced to the pericope in Mk 11:27–33 par involving the “Question of Authority.” Jesus’ opponents do not answer his question partly because they fear having to justify their not understanding JtB’s “baptism” as having come “from heaven:” “Then why did you not believe him?” JtB is perceived in Mk 11 as an authority whose word should be believed. The context of the pericope is juridical, as Mk 11:18a indicates, “And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him.” It is precisely in this way – JtB as a witness in a juridical setting – that JtB becomes John the Witness in the Fourth Gospel (cf. Bekken,14 who calls JtB John the Witness solely based on Jn’s text). In addition to this aspect, we can recognize why John inserts the words about and from JtB so abruptly into the Prologue. The enmity of the darkness requires the authoritative witness of JtB to support the claim of the Gospel that the Logos “was” in the beginning and that he “was” the life and light. In this way and at the earliest practicable juncture in the Prologue, JtB testifies to the pre-existence of the Logos and supports thereby Jesus’ claim to be equal to God, the ego eimi.15 Jn 1:9–11 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.

The progression outlined in vv. 9–11 describes in summary form the tragic side of the Logos’ entry into the world. This becomes clear when we paraphrase these words as follows: The Light enlightens in general every human being. Even though the Logos was created through him and that he was in the world, the world did not recognize his authority. When he came to his own people they did not receive him. The Logos’ “own” rejected him. This rejection has in the Fourth Gospel consequences of the worst kind. Those who spurn Jesus are “already judged.” Jesus, as God’s incarnate emissary, and therefore God himself, wishes that all should be saved from judgment who believe him and in him. But those who do not, have themselves to blame (cf. 3:16–18). Jn 1:12–13 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

There are however exceptions among the “own” to whom the Logos came. Those who believed in him received the authority, the power (ἐξουσία) to be14 15

Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 126, for example. Cf. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 100.

38

Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and Juridical Outlook

come children of God. This birthing event is not due to any bloodline, human desire, or human will, but to God himself. There it appears, biblically speaking, that this is due to a Rechtsakt,16 a legal act, that these “receivers” of the Logos became children of God. The most probable explanation of this empowerment is that the resurrected Jesus claimed his victory over the “ruler of this world” (cf. Jn 16:11) and assumed his new place as intercessor/Paraclete before the heavenly tribunal of God the Father. In this case statements found in Rom 8 and 1Jn help us to understand this kind of adaption, which is the result of a juridical victory (Jn 16:33). A. Culpepper views Jn 1:12b as the “pivot” statement of a chiastic structure involving the whole of the Prologue.17 Theologically, this would mean that John understands this aspect of the ‘Christ event’ to be the most important of the Prologue and correspondingly of the entire Gospel (cf. chapter 12). This event is the goal of the incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Logos. Jn 1:14–18 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

In v. 14, the incarnation, the “becoming” (ἐγένετο) of the Logos is pronounced. The μονογενοῦς is the only Son of the Father, and as such he has the supreme position in relation to him. For this very reason, the Logos descends to earth. He becomes “flesh,” the union of both his being and becoming. In doing so the stage is set for his path to the cross and death. But this is the Father’s will and represents the climax of the Logos’ mission. This, together with the witness, signs, and healings, all make up the revelation of the Logos’ glory in the Fourth Gospel.18 The promised experience of “greater things” to Nathanael in Jn 1:50 and the manifestation of Jesus’ glory which is first announced in 2:11 is a central theme in Jn, as we shall see in chapter 12. The constant question that accompanies Jesus and all who encounter him is: Are Jesus and his claims true, is his judgment, when he judges, just, and is he “the way, the truth and the life?” This theme “glory” however has, as it were, a dark lining. As John’s quotes of Isa 6:10 in Jn 12:39–41 show, Isaiah did see Jesus’ glory and spoke of it. But later others – many others – “could not believe” because their eyes were blinded, and their hearts were hardened. The juridical consequences of this Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 85. R. A. Culpepper, “The Pivot of John's Prologue,” NTS 27 (October 1980), 1–31. 18 Cf. N. Chibici-Revneanu, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: Das Verständnis der doxa im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/231, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), for a thorough examination of δόξα und δοξάζειν in John. 16 17

3.5 Chapter Summary

39

are clearly described in Jesus’ summary of his mission shortly thereafter in Jn 12:44–50: his “Word” will be the judge of those who do not believe in him. The statements regarding the relationship of the grace of the Mosaic covenant and the grace of the incarnate Logos in vv. 16–17 foreshadow the contradicting claims of Jesus and his opponents which stand in the middle of their bitter fighting. These confrontations, as we shall see, have a thoroughly juridical quality. The last verse of the Prologue corresponds to its chiastic counterpart in v. 1. The Logos comes as Jesus to make his Father known in the hope that their oneness will be received with belief.

3.5 Chapter Summary Our examination of Isaiah 55:1–11 as the salvific arch of John’s gospel has established its fundamentally broad and deep influence on John’s portrayal of the Logos. Backtracking from Jesus’ “It is finished” (τετέλεσται) statement in Jn 19:30, the ‘finish’-(τελ-)words demonstrate how throughout the Fourth Gospel Jesus is as this Word determined to accomplish the purpose for which he came down from heaven. The influence of Isa 55:1–3; 10–11 on Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse in Jn 6:27–71 shows how the very words of Isaiah themselves influenced John in his portrayal of the incarnate Logos. We then proceeded to examine the outset of Isa 55’s salvific arch, the Prologue, which generally has not been recognized as being an integral part of John’s juridical thinking. The association of Jesus’ last words, the verdict spoken by Pilate and Jesus’ execution already have a pronounced juridical character. The consequences of the Logos being “from above” and not “from below” foreshadow the unavoidable clash between belief and unbelief, and this leads to judgment. The claim of the Prologue that the Logos “was” God lays the foundation for the juridically relevant conflict centering on the accusation that Jesus “makes himself God” (cf. Jn 10 and 19). The Logos being the Light automatically brings the exposure of evil deeds with it. Darkness will certainly fail in trying to extinguish this light. The Light can only be victorious (cf. Jn 3:19–21). In the Prologue JtB is John the Witness. He testifies to the preexistence of the Logos and thereby assumes a prominent role in the fateful juridical fight between light and darkness. The salvific nature of the Logos’ incarnation tragically leads to his rejection by his own people, which has juridical consequences. Those who did receive the Logos became the children of God. This involves a juridical victory for Jesus before the heavenly tribunal. The incarnation, the Logos’ becoming ‘flesh,’ is the first step to the cross and Jesus’ statement, “It is finished.” The ultimate manifestation of Jesus’ glory is inextricably linked to his being “lifted up,” i.e., his being glorified by being crucified (Jn 3:14, 8:28, 12:32–34, 13:31–32, cf. Isa 52:13). This glory is, metaphorically

40

Chapter 3: Isaiah 55:1–11 as the Johannine Salvific Arch and Juridical Outlook

speaking, a silver cloud with a dark lining, since salvation comes for some, but condemnation remains for many. The topic of Moses in the Prologue points to heated juridical disputes concerning the Law and the claims of Jesus especially in John 5–10.

Chapter 4

Second Isaiah’s Lawsuits and the Fourth Gospel The pioneering work done by A.A. Trites1 concerning the New Testament concept of witness demonstrated especially the importance of legal ‘controversies’ in Second Isaiah for the Fourth Gospel. Making use of new research (especially that of K. Nielson2), Andrew Lincoln3 built upon this foundation in 2000. He presented further insights into the nature of both Isaiah’s controversies themselves as well as how John in Lincoln’s view “reworked” their legal aspects into the fiber of the Fourth Gospel’s “lawsuit” concept.

4.1 The Lawsuits of Isaiah 40–55 and A. Lincoln’s Truth on Trial Lincoln sees Jesus being confronted with the problem of the Law in Jn. John, he postulates, wants to “move away from this limited perspective on the law and set it in a broader context” (38). For this reason, he introduces another legal model, one that is also founded on Scripture: the covenant lawsuit, the rîb. In Israel, this was a legal controversy where one party files a complaint, accusations are then exchanged and witnesses are called to testify for each side, so that at the end a verdict can be reached. Other Old Testament examples of the rîb are found in Dt 32, Hos 4 and 5; 12:2–14; Mic 6:1–8; and Job 23:1–7; 40:1–9. Second Isaiah contains two such lawsuits. The first one is the case Yahweh vs. the Nations. This lawsuit is found in Isa 41:1–5; 41:21–29; 43:8–13; 44:6–8; and 45:18–25. The second case is Yahweh vs. Israel and comes to the fore in Isa 42:18–25; 43:22–28; and 50:1–3. Lincoln names additional verses which involve “disputations,” which presumably do not fit one of the two major lawsuit categories, for example 40:12–31; 44:24–28; 45:9–13; 46:5–11; 48:1–5; 49:14–26; and 55:8–13. He notes that “both within the trial passages and elsewhere in [Isa] 40–55, there are frequent references to judgment and witness” (39).

1 2 3

Trites, The Concept of Witness. K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978). Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 36–56.

42

Chapter 4: Second Isaiah’s Lawsuits and the Fourth Gospel

Citing the work of Nielsen,4 Lincoln names basic elements of the rîb: 1.) an introduction, which includes the setting of the trial scene, often times with a call for witnesses to come forward, 2.) an accusation made by the prosecutor [for one of the two sides], sometimes introduced by a reminder of Yahweh’s gracious deeds, 3.) an opportunity for the accused to defend her- or himself, and 4.) the finding of a verdict (39). Lincoln notes that “some of the elements might be omitted in any particular occurrence,” as well as the fact that lawsuit participants can assume various roles. For example, Yahweh can be both prosecutor and judge, he can “both demand and preside” at a trial (39).5 Lincoln proceeds to describe the “cosmic lawsuit” in Isa 40–55 that involves the case of Yahweh vs. the Nations. Yahweh and his witnesses are on the one side, the gods of the nations and their witnesses on the other. Yahweh is both “a prosecuting witness and judge” (39). The nations are summoned to appear in court, where they are then challenged by Yahweh to match feats. He made Cyrus victorious, he declared “the former things,” that is, he has made predictions that have been fulfilled, in short, he has proven himself to be the true God of history, the I AM. The witness of Yahweh and Israel to these things means that their witness, taken together, is legally valid. The pagan gods make no response, which means that Yahweh wins the case. Lincoln cites Nielsen regarding the purpose of this rîb: “The purpose of Deutero-Isaiah’s proclamation, then, is to convince his people that Yahweh is right; it is to this end that he employs the language of the lawcourt, which is highly suited to apologetic.”6 At the same time Lincoln calls attention to the fact that although the nations in LXX Isa 45:18–25 have lost the case, this does not lead to their condemnation, but rather to an offer of salvation in verse 22. Yahweh swears an oath to this, and therefore Lincoln observes: “Since, in the nature of the case there can be no greater authority by which to swear, Yahweh’s witness to this promise of salvation is self-authenticating” (41).7 The second lawsuit focuses on the question of who is responsible for Israel’s plight. Has Yahweh left Israel to be defeated, plundered, and taken captive, or is Israel guilty of forsaking Yahweh and thereby bringing such suffering practically upon itself? Here Lincoln quotes Nielsen again: “The purpose of the trial is thus to convince Israel that the Exile was a just punishment for an actual sin” (41). The indictment of Israel is outlined in 42:18–25 and 43:22–28 as well as 50:1–3. But Israel need only realize that Yahweh can rescue Israel for this restoration to occur. Yahweh proved himself in the Exodus, demonstrating that he can do everything necessary to save Israel and provide her with what she needs. As Lincoln points out, these lawsuits are “embedded within an overall Nielsen, Prosecutor and Judge, 25. Cf. Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 22, who characterizes this assertion to be false and a “legal monstrosity.” 6 Nielsen, Prosecutor and Judge, 62. 7 Cf. Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 146–47. 4 5

4.1 The Lawsuits of Isaiah 40–55 and A. Lincoln’s Truth on Trial

43

promise of salvation” (42). Isaiah’s message is not without reason portrayed as “comfort” for God’s people and comes as such to expression in the traditional title of Isa 40–55, “The Book of Consolation” (42). Following this examination of the Old Testament rîb in Isaiah 40–55, Lincoln names several “further influences” from Isa 40–55 before beginning to describe its main influence on Jn. Lincoln calls these “links,” and in his view they show that any of Jn’s readers with knowledge of Jewish Scriptures would interpret Jn’s narrative in the light of this Second Isaiah background. These aspects include forensic language, the issue of truth with respect to witness, the servant as a witness, the question of God’s origin, monotheism, the I AM, predictions and their fulfillment, and the revelation of the glory of Yahweh. When Lincoln comes to the actual “reworking” of Isa 40–55’s lawsuits into the Fourth Gospel, he sees this occurring in nine ways. 1. An informed reader of the Fourth Gospel is well-versed in knowledge of Scripture and recognizes the importance of verses cited in Jn and especially quotes of Isa 40:3 in Jn 1:23; Isa 54:13 in Jn 6:45 and Isa 53:1 in Jn 12:38. Lincoln recognizes in these first and last quotes an inclusio in which this reader “will not fail to have heard resounding echoes from these chapters of Isaiah” (45–46). 2. Lincoln sees this “scriptural depth” enabling the implied reader to discern clearly that, in the Fourth Gospel narrative, the two lawsuits have been “brought together” (46). This involves the Dt-Isa lawsuit Yahweh vs. the Nations becoming God vs. the World. This in turn “provides the overarching framework of within which Israel’s controversy with God is now seen to be a part” (46). This process goes then yet another step further: “Israel also now becomes the representative of the world within the main plot” (46). Just as in Dt-Isa, where Yahweh’s accusers became the accused, so in Jn: Jesus’ accusers become the accused. Thus, we see that the lawsuit functions of witness, accuser, prosecutor, and judge are combined in Jn just as in Dt-Isa. Jesus and his disciples take over the role of Israel, because Israel has abdicated due to its rejection of Jesus. 3. Since Israel has abandoned its role as witness in Jn, the small group of believers consisting of Jesus as chief witness and those who believe in him take over this role. In both Isa and Jn Lincoln sees this witness role being combined with that of the Servant. In Jn this can be observed in Jn 13:15, 16 and 15:20. Lincoln summarizes this complex as follows: “It is clear from the lawsuit in Isaiah that, in Yahweh’s dealings with the world, Israel as chief witness was meant to manifest Yahweh’s name and be the bearer of Yahweh’s glory. Now the same language is used in the Fourth Gospel for Jesus’ role (47). This connection also arises when the Servant-witness of Dt-Isa receives our attention. The Servant-witness was intended to be the bearer of Yahweh’s glory. Jesus aspires to fulfill this role by seeking the glory of the one who sent him, even

44

Chapter 4: Second Isaiah’s Lawsuits and the Fourth Gospel

to the point of being crucified and in this Johannine sense of the term glorified (cf. Jn 7:18; 12:28; 13:31–32) (48). 4. Those who are believers recognize the God whose words of prediction are realized in history (cf. Yahweh in 41:26; 42:9; 43:9, 12; 44:7; 46:10; 48:14; Jesus in Jn 4:25; 16:4; and the Paraclete in 16:15). In Dt-Isa Israel was to be the chief witness to Yahweh’s name and be the bearer of his glory. This role is now ascribed in Jn to Jesus using the same language as in Dt-Isa (47). 5. John’s Gospel places special emphasis on the oneness of Jesus with God. This oneness allows Jesus to use Yahweh’s self-designation that is at the same time his name: I AM. We see this name in Jn 8:24, 28, 58; and 18:5, 8, and where this I AM is combined with making accurate future predictions in Jn 13:19, just as in Dt-Isa (47). Another clear parallel is Isa 45:19, “I did not speak in secret,” which Jesus – shortly after the I AM theophany in 18:5 – seems to be referring to in his statement to Annas, “I have said nothing in secret” (cf. Jn 18:20) (47). 6. Israel is intended in Dt-Isa to be a light to the nations (cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:3), Jesus in Jn is the Light of the world (8:12; 1:4, 5, 9; 3:19–21; 12:35, 36) (48). 7. Just as Israel in exile had called into question Yahweh’s claim to be the true God, as well as his actions and claims, so did Jesus provoke a dispute about truth: There were conflicting claims about the true God and how God is known. In the aftermath of the crucifixion there were questions about God’s sovereignty. In both lawsuits, monotheism is a central issue. In both Dt-Isa and Jn the cosmic lawsuit is employed as a literary device to strengthen faith and encourage believers to assume their role as witnesses. 8. Regarding the theme of atonement in Jn, Lincoln addresses this later in his book. He has on pages 201–203 addressed this theme “in terms of Jesus as judge,” and now Lincoln wishes to “return to the presentation of Jesus’ role as witness, in which the theme is not spelled out so clearly” (203–4). Lincoln asserts that the “dominant influence of the scriptural lawsuit from Isaiah cannot be forgotten” (204). John portrays the death of Jesus in terms of the Suffering Servant being glorified and lifted up, a two-fold concept anchored in LXX Isa 52:13. Referring to the whole of Isa 52:13–53:12, Lincoln states: In the light of what we have seen of the convergence of the judgment and Passover sacrifice themes in Jesus’ crucifixion, it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suspect that this portrayal from the lawsuit, also utilized frequently in early Christian traditions that would be known to the readers, was expected to inform implicitly their understanding of the death of the witness. (204).

9. The ultimate goal of both Dt-Isa and Jn is to foster faith, and this not only for Israel or Jesus’ followers, but for the whole world. In this sense the lawsuits retain a “cosmic” character. The “arena” of the Logos’ mission is the very world that came into being through him. This whole world scope of Jesus’ coming and work is reflected in passages such as 1:29; 4:42; 8:12; 9:5; 17:2; and 12:32

4.2 Critique of Lincoln’s “Cosmic Lawsuit” Concept

45

(50–51). Lincoln observes that links with the lawsuit motif are not limited to chapters 40–55 in Isaiah. There is the well-known oracle of Isa 11:1–10 concerning the Davidic king (cf. Jn 7:24; 8:15–16; 16:8) as well as the exodus motif found in Isa 48:21, which Lincoln sees being based on Ex 17:1–7. In this context Lincoln notes that Scripture in general enjoys in John’s view the highest regard. This is the case despite the problems associated with the “Law,” which create major obstacles for recognizing Jesus for who he really is. For example, Jesus says in Jn 5 that his listeners need to believe the words that Moses wrote about him – Jesus! –, otherwise, they will have Moses himself as their accuser (cf. Jn 5:45–47; Dt 31:26) (56). Scripture “needs interpretation in the light of God’s new revelation in the incarnate Word, the one who now speaks the words of God (cf. 3:34)” (55).

4.2 Critique of Lincoln’s “Cosmic Lawsuit” Concept Without question Lincoln has conducted an impressive, wide-ranging examination of the Fourth Gospel as a whole and in particular its “reworked” Second Isaiah lawsuit found in Jn. There are, however, several points that appear to be problematic regarding 1.) Lincoln’s understanding of the Servant’s role in the two rîb-trials in Isa 40–55, 2.) its “cosmic” nature and 3.) the question of how many trials are found in Jn and their relationship to each other. Despite Lincoln’s thorough analysis, he fails to adequately explain the relationship on the one hand between Isa 40–55’s Servant especially in Isa 52:13– 53:12 and on the other hand John’s use of Dt-Isa’s rîb-trials. We posit that two genres are involved here. One genre is the rîb-trial which is comparable to a modern-day civil lawsuit. The second genre is that of the Servant Songs, which climax in a miscarriage of justice as the result of a juridical procedure comparable to a modern-day criminal trial. Therefore, we must ask: How does John connect these two genres? We hold that the answer lies in the Servant theme which appears as a variant reading in Jn 1:34. Does JtB proclaim here οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ or οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ? Schnackenburg8 argues – we think correctly – that this latter reading, ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, should be preferred to ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ as the lectio difficilior.9 Here we turn to C. Westermann,10 who sees God’s Elect One in Isaiah 42:1– 4 as a figure who, designated and equipped by Yahweh with the Spirit, is also upheld by him and delights in him. The Servant’s tasks center on three uses of Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 305. Cf. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 123–26, who makes a heroic effort for the reading ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ but fails to overcome the might of the lectio difficilior. 10 Claus Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66 (NTD 19, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 77–81. 8 9

46

Chapter 4: Second Isaiah’s Lawsuits and the Fourth Gospel

the term ‫ִמ ְְׁש ָָּפט‬, ִ ‘bringing forth judgment,’ that is, making ‫ ִִמ ְְׁש ָָּפט‬prevail abroad ‘in the earth’ in vv. 1, 3 and 4. Westermann sees them best understood in terms of trial speeches in Isa 41:1–5; 21–27 and 45:20–25 (cf. 49:6, “Light of the gentiles”). The Servant’s bringing forth justice involves truth being made to prevail. Already here, according to Westermann, there is a hint of the Servant suffering in the future, cf. v. 4. The shared goal of Yahweh and his Servant is for divine justice to be established for both Israel and the gentiles (cf. also Isa 51:4 and 5b). On this basis we can therefore conclude that accepting the textual variant “the Elect One of God” in Jn 1:34 helps us better understand what John is doing in his gospel. Endowed with the Spirit (1:32), being the light of the world (8:12), his judgment being true (8:16), being pleasing to God (8:29), and witnessing to the truth (18:37), this servant represents an important christological figure in the Fourth Gospel. The rîb we find underlying Jn’s controversies provide not just a juridical framework drawn from Second Isaiah by John himself. It is characterized by the presence and actions of this leading figure in the person of God’s Elect One, who is introduced by John’s allusion to Isa 42:1–4 in Jn 1:34. John the Baptist’s witness of Jesus’ baptism and his public designation of Jesus as the Elect One signal the start in Jn of God’s Servant’s activity in terms of the four Dt-Isa Servant Songs (42:1–4, 5–9; 49:1–6, 7–13; 50:4–9, 10–11; 52:13– 53:12). The judging task of the Servant will result in his speaking the truth during the course of accomplishing his salvific work, which will be fulfilled on the cross. There is no better description for the fulfillment of this prophecy than a metaphor common to both Dt-Isa and Jn: Light for both Israel and the nations (Isa 42:6, Jn 8:12, cf. Isa 49:6; Jn 1:4, 9; 9:5; 11:10; 12:35; 12:46). Lincoln describes the “cosmic” setting of Jn’s “lawsuit” thoroughly, naming six aspects. 1.) The lawsuit involves God and the whole world. 2.) John retains this thinking; a cosmic element is found already in the Prologue. 3.) The spatial settings of heaven above and earth below are fundamental, 4.) John the Baptist witnesses to the fact that the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the (whole) world, so that all might believe, 5.) the three languages in the INRI-titulus stress Jesus’ universal reign, and 6.) the “ruler of the world” is according to 16:11 condemned. Despite this listing of such elements, Lincoln does not place emphasis on the celestial elements that are so important for Preiss. As Preiss himself commented, there is tantalizingly very little in the New Testament that can help us to better understand what is involved for example with the “casting out” of the “ruler of this world” (Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).11 Lincoln unfortunately could do much more with the thinking and consequences associated with this decisive event in Jn, which is inextricably tied to Jesus’ death, glorification and going to his Father, leading to the adaptation of the children of God. 11

Preiss, Justification in Johannine Thought, 18–19.

4.2 Critique of Lincoln’s “Cosmic Lawsuit” Concept

47

After we have concentrated on three trials lurking in Jn (a consolidated rîbtrial, the Servant’s, and Jesus’ trial before Pilate), we need to recognize that there are even more, as we have already proposed (cf. chapter 1). While Lincoln offers a comprehensive view of what he calls the “lawsuit motif,” he does not attempt to establish how many juridical models are to be found in Jn with the further goal of determining their relationship to each other. For this reason, he can say nothing about the further task of determining how these individual trial concepts might be held together in John’s theological thinking. This, then, is the direction this study needs to go.

Chapter 5

Necessity and Advantage: The Servant of Isa 40–55 in the Fourth Gospel At the end of the previous chapter, we saw how fundamentally important the Servant of Isa 40–55 is due to Jn 1:34. John the Baptist calls Jesus “the Elect One of God,” an allusion to Isa 42:1. Lincoln calls our attention to Jn 12:38 in the narrator’s summary, where Isa 53:1 is cited, “Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” In this chapter we want to demonstrate that John has integrated the Servant theme and its trial background into his Gospel as a whole due to the influence of early Christian tradition and therefore by way of his Christology. As will become apparent, it is the Son of Man in Jn who assumes at least one Servant function. The importance of this chapter for John’s juridical thinking becomes even more apparent when we recognize the significance of this Servant having been unjustly convicted and condemned to death in a capital criminal trial. The precise nature of this proceeding is not described, but we have good reason to assume that it is predicated on an expansion of the basic Old Testament rîb, so as to accommodate serious charges.1 Thus, we have in Isaiah not just the rîb concept in Jn, but also a tradition that involves an additional trial. This now needs to be analyzed while determining the contours of John’s juridical thought.

5.1 The Foundation of the Suffering Servant in Early Christian tradition This analysis is best accomplished by reviewing the foundation of early Christian tradition regarding the Suffering Servant. However, such an undertaking has not always been a task seen worth attempting in the view of many scholars of Jn. 1 While we can readily agree that this rîb is foundational for John’s juridical thinking, it is not able to account for or assimilate other trial motifs in Jn in which Jesus is subject to capital criminal prosecution, for example in 7:45–52, 11:47–53 and 18:28–19:16. Here A.E. Harvey (Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 46) makes a helpful observation: “There were, of course, superior courts to which more difficult cases might be referred (Dt 17:8–13). In biblical times these were staffed by priests or scribes, in later times they were organized in the form of local Sanhedrim dependent upon the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.” In Jn we find situations where judging the case of Jesus appears to have been done at such differing levels.

50 Chapter 5: Necessity and Advantage: The Servant of Isa 40–55 in the Fourth Gospel According to R. Bultmann,2 “spielt der Gedanke vom Tode Jesu als dem Sühnopfer bei Johannes keine Rolle; und sollte er ihn aus der Gemeindetradition übernommen haben, so wäre er bei ihm ein Fremdkörper.” He cites for example that there is only one passage in the gospel, 20:23, that is concerned with the forgiveness of sins. There the risen Jesus gives his disciples authority to do so. Bultmann maintains that Jesus’ death is not a special work. It is viewed as of one piece of the whole life work of Jesus, and in this sense its completion. The dominating influence that Bultmann’s view had in general is also exemplified by the position of R. Schnackenburg, who over the years engaged Bultmann in scholarly dialogue. Schnackenburg commented on John’s citing of Isa 53:1 with the following words: Aus der Tatsache, daß die Stelle im letzten Knecht-Gottes-Lied steht, das von seinem Sühneleiden handelt, läßt sich nicht auf einen stärkeren Einfluß jenes Kap. auf Joh schließen, weil sie nur eine Zwischenbemerkung des Propheten ist und den Gottesknecht nicht in den Blick bringt.3

In the meantime, the research situation has fortunately changed considerably. Thus, we can begin our examination with an overview by Peter Stuhlmacher4 on the roots and the influence of the Suffering Servant figure in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Stuhlmacher’s view of Jesus’ own role in this process may not have found favor with some, or even many biblical scholars. But for the purposes of this study, whether certain aspects of atonement teaching developed already with Jesus himself – which we consider very likely – or only later in the early stages of primitive Christianity, should make little difference regarding that which much later influenced John and the Fourth Gospel. Stuhlmacher sees Jesus having adopted a messianic interpretation of Isa 53 and understanding his future path of suffering and death in terms of Isa 43:3–4 and Isa 53:11–12. After completing his mission, i.e., after his crucifixion and resurrection, this Suffering Servant song was understood for the first time in primitive Christianity in terms of a historical individual, with his fate being explained in terms of the whole of Isa 53. This view becomes plausible when we recognize what the origins of this Synoptic tradition were. Jesus had a ‘school’ in which he formulated his teachings and taught them to his disciples. After Easter, these teachings provided a continuum of traditions which were passed on from his disciples to the initial members of the Jerusalem community of believers. This continuum included Jesus’ modification of John the Baptist’s eschatological message with the previously named passages Isa 43:3–4 and 53:11–12 in the center of Jesus’ calling. Jesus taught his disciples about his 2 R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (9th ed., Tübingen: Mohr, 1948–1953, 1984), 407. 3 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 516. 4 P. Stuhlmacher, “Jes 53 in den Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte”, B. Janowski und P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996/2010), 93–105.

5.1 The Foundation of the Suffering Servant in Early Christian tradition

51

impending path toward Jerusalem and his passion, which we find in the classic passion predictions in Mk 8:31 par; 9:31 par; 10:33–34 par as well as Mk 14:22, 24 par and Lk 22:35–38. In the early community of the church the three predictions were adapted as preparation for reading and understanding the passion story. In all three the central figure is the Son of Man. He also is the decisive person in Mk 10:45: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Stuhlmacher’s interpretation: Jesus understands himself here as the “man” or the Son of Man whom God will send to save Israel and whose life will be used as a “ransom,” and thereby redeem “the many” (of Israel) in the face of the Final Judgment. This plan coincides with Jesus’ so-called “temple cleansing” (Mk 11:15–17), where Jesus demonstrates his readiness to substitute himself for the daily sacrifice, so that there would be – once and for all – no more debt of sin in the sight of God. The tradition of the Lord’s Supper supports this view. His “word of the cup” in Mk 14:24 is based on both Ex 24:8 and Isa 53:10–12. Jesus’ life will be offered in accordance with Isa 53:10 as a “debt payment” which will give Israel new life in the sight of God. This transpires by Jesus suffering as God’s servant a violent death that is vicarious, thereby attaining atonement for “the many.” They obtain in the (new) covenant forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28) and this enables them to fulfill the will of God (cf. Ex 24:8 with Jer 31:31–34). In the aftermath of the resurrection appearances the newly formed community of believers collected the teachings of Jesus along with additional memories and through using this material, kerygmatic stories were formulated (cf. Acts 2:42). Jesus’ path was, so Stuhlmacher, understood on the basis of Isa 53 “in a decisive manner.” (98) This influence can be recognized in traditional texts that Paul uses: Rom 4:25 (cf. Isa 53:5, 11) and 1Cor 15:3b–5 (cf. Isa 53:5, 10–12). These two catechetical summaries enabled these Christians to speak of Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection clearly and precisely. In the following decades, these statements and confessions of Christian faith were followed by major works in the form of the Gospels and the book of Acts which also show the influence of Isa 53. Here we can name a few examples from Lk, Acts, and Mt. Some textual witnesses have in Lk:23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” where we can recognize the influence of Isa 53:12, “and [he] made intercession for the transgressors.” In Acts 8:32–33 the LXX text of Isa 53:7–8 is quoted: As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.

In the Gospel of Matthew, we gain the insight that its understanding of Jesus’ mission based on the Second Isaiah tradition of the (Suffering) Servant has been expanded from the passion predictions and the passion story onto the entire story of Jesus.

52 Chapter 5: Necessity and Advantage: The Servant of Isa 40–55 in the Fourth Gospel

5.2 The Influence of the Suffering Servant Tradition on John’s Trial Thinking The climax of all Christian passion narratives centers on the crucifixion of Jesus. In statements predicting this event, John uses the verb ὑψόω five times in five verses for the active form meaning “lift up” or “exalt,” or the passive form, meaning “being lifted” or “be lifted up.” In all five verses it is directly stated or clearly implied that Jesus as the Son of man is the pivotal character. In Jn 8:28 Jesus states that his being lifted up will lead to the recognition of who he really is. In the other four, in 3:14 (twice) and 12:32; 34, we encounter the statements by Jesus or the crowd of his listeners that involve the necessity (δεῖ) of his being lifted up/exalted. Here we are compelled to ask: What is the reason for this necessity? John uses the expression δεῖ ten times and all of them involve some kind of divine constraint of seemingly considerable or paramount importance, such as in 3:14 and 12:34. In Jn 3:7 Jesus says that one must be born anew. The Samaritan woman tells Jesus that it is required for Jews to worship in the Jerusalem temple in 4:20. Shortly thereafter, Jesus states that what is necessary is to worship God in spirit and truth. Jesus declares in 9:4 that “we” must do the works of God as long as it is day. Jesus informs his listeners in 10:16 that he has other sheep which he needs to gather. John explains in 20:9 that the disciples had not yet understood the scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead. Even in the one remaining example of the verb’s use in 4:4, divine necessity also appears to be the case, as F. Moloney argues: The narrator reports that Jesus was under constraint: he had to pass through Samaria […]. Geographically this is not true, and it may not even have been wise. The motivation for Jesus’ journey through Samaria is some constraint under which Jesus acts out his story. Although it is not clear, at this stage, why this should be the case. Jesus’ presence in Samaria is the result of divine necessity. He must move into the world beyond Israel.5

This review of the use of δεῖ leads us to view its use in 3:14 and 12:32; 34 like the example in 20:9: it is grounded in scripture. With for example Brown6 and Thyen7 we see this scripture being Isa 52:13, where the Servant is described: “Behold, my servant shall understand, and be exalted, and glorified exceedingly.” This view is supported by the observation that these three ὑψόω statements are Johannine equivalents to the synoptic predictions by Jesus in Mk 8:31; 9:31 and 10:33–34, and par. In both groups the Son of Man is the central figure and 5 F.J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (D.J. Harrington, ed., Sacra Pagina Series 4, Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2016), 116. 6 R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Chapters 1–12: translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary (Anchor Bible 29; 2nd ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 146. 7 Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 207.

5.2 The Influence of the Suffering Servant Tradition on John’s Trial Thinking

53

in the first saying of Mk, in 8:31 par, the δεῖ of divine necessity is also present. As R. Brown, who argues for an understanding of ὑψόω that begins with Jesus’ return to his Father and only ends with his ascension in 20:17, goes on to remark, “The similarity of these groups of sayings is another reason for insisting that ‘to be lifted up’ in John includes more than the crucifixion and that they reflect the theme of the Suffering Servant.”8 We now turn to Caiaphas’ statement during deliberations in the Sanhedrin in 11:47–53. Following the raising of Lazarus, the high priests and the Pharisees have no idea what they should do. They are concerned that if even more believe in Jesus, things will get completely out of hand. As a result, the Romans could well crush both the country and its people. Caiaphas, of whom we are told was high priest that year, then says: “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is to your advantage that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” John explains that Caiaphas did not say this of his own accord, but because he was high priest that year. He unwittingly prophesized that Jesus should die for the nation as well as gather “into one” the children of God who were scattered abroad. Here it is theologically rather obvious that the concept of vicarious dying in the tradition of the Suffering Servant lies behind John’s thinking. Brown9 correctly sees that “to the perceptive ear of the Christian theologian he was echoing a traditional saying of Jesus himself: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). That the thinking behind Caiaphas’ prophecy is central to John’s thought is demonstrated by the fact of which we are reminded as readers in Jn 18:14, when Caiaphas once again comes on the stage, that “he was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good [“of advantage”] if one man died for the people.” O. Hofius sees Jesus here, who says in Jn 10:16, “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice.” So, there shall be one flock, one shepherd, speaking of its “eschatological necessity,” just as later in 11:52. Hofius notes the influence here of Isa 56:8, “Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.”10 The redemptive quality of the expression “to be of advantage” (συμφέρω) also occurs in Jn in 16:7. Jesus says with respect to his departure, i.e., death, “But very truly I tell you, it is to your advantage that I am going away.” We can also recognize this “advantage” of Jesus dying for others in the statements of John the Baptist at the outset of the Fourth Gospel in Jn 1:29; 36, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” P. StuhlmR.E. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 146. R.E. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 442. 10 O. Hofius, “Die Sammlung der Heiden zur Herde Israels (Joh 10:16–11:51f.),” ZNW 58 (1967), 289–911. 8 9

54 Chapter 5: Necessity and Advantage: The Servant of Isa 40–55 in the Fourth Gospel acher11 understands this designation of Jesus in terms of the vicarious death of Jesus on the cross not only as the eschatological paschal lamb with reference to Jn 19:36 (cf. 1Cor 5:7). It also involves “in a deep dimension” Isa 53:7, “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” This person was he who “from arrest and judgment […] was taken away” (Isa 57:8). Since the expression “take away the sin” of the world can only be explained with reference to Isa 53:4; 11–12 and not the tradition of the paschal lamb, the expression “lamb of God” needs to be understood as being based on the tradition of the Suffering Servant. In 1Jn 2:1–2 Stuhlmacher sees the risen Christ being portrayed as 1.) the righteous one, 2.) as the Paraclete in the sense of an intercessor and therefore 3.) as “the expiation for our sins” and the sins of the whole world. Stuhlmacher sees all three statements as corresponding very well to a christological understanding of Isa 53:4; 6; 10–12. The same thing can be said for 1Jn 4:10, God “loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” On the basis of these three passages, we interpret Jn 3:16 and Jesus’ statements regarding his voluntary sacrifice of his life in Jn 10:11, 15, 17, and 18 in terms of Isa 53.12

5.3 Chapter Summary and Outlook In this chapter we have attempted to demonstrate that early Christianity was firmly grounded in Isa 53 tradition and that it provides a foundation also for John’s understanding of Jesus in Jn. We have seen that in the double declaration by John the Baptist in Jn 1:29; 36 that Jesus is the Lamb of God. This, taken together with the unwitting prophecy of Caiaphas in 11:50 that Jesus should die for the Land, reflects atonement theology in a subtle, but clear and fundamental form. This view is substantiated by the reminder in 18:14 that Caiaphas had so spoken. Whether the Suffering Servant theme appears still elsewhere in Jn, for example in Jn 18, will be determined in chapter 8 of our study. When we take note of the consequences of Jesus’ willingness to die for the world and the role assumed by him as the heavenly paraclete, we can also begin to recognize some of the contours of the “cosmic” aspect of John’s trial concept. In this context we should note that the fates of both the Suffering Servant in Isa 53 and Jesus in Jn are similar not only because of the suffering they underwent but also because they were victims of miscarriages of justice. This second juridical scenario directs our attention now to the trial of Jesus and its context in the Synoptic Passion tradition. 11 P. Stuhlmacher, “Jes 53 in den Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte,” B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996/2010), 93–105, 103–4. 12 Stuhlmacher, Jes 53, 103.

Part III: John’s Preponed Trial, Annas’ Interrogation, and Pilate’s Trial

Chapter 6

The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial It would be a perfectly understandable reaction if the reader of this study would be at least somewhat perturbed by the term ‘preponed,’ which was only briefly explained in chapter 1. What does ‘preponed’ mean and in what way can a particular trial in John be preponed? The verb prepone is the logical antonym of the common English verb ‘postpone.’ It is described by the Cambridge Dictionary1 as a term occurring in Indian English and defined with the phrase “to do something at an earlier time than was planned or is usual.” In this chapter we wish to demonstrate that John has taken the creative step of preponing elements of the Synoptic versions of the Passion Week and Sanhedrin trial proceeding against Jesus into Jn 2:1–11:53 in order to challenge the Sanhedrin’s verdict against him. It is a well-known fact that John has ‘relocated’ at least two scenes found in the synoptic tradition to the time of Jesus’ mission in John 1–17. One example is the so-called temple cleansing in Jn 2:13–22, which is based on Mk 11:15–19. Another involves the claims of Jesus in Jn 10:24–25, which appear to have been partially directly drawn from Lk 22:66–68. As we shall see here in this chapter, there are more such ‘relocations’ which warrant examination, especially since these parallels appear to have at least an implicit or even an explicit juridical quality. Therefore, parallels like the temple cleansing which occur in the Synoptic Passion Week narratives will first be examined. Second, we will present parallels found in the Synoptic Trial narratives. Third, three sets of deliberations and/or attempts to apprehend Jesus in the Synoptic Passion Week together with the Synoptic Trial narratives will be evaluated. We have concentrated on what we consider to be christologically relevant events, statements, and themes, which can be viewed as parallels between a Synoptic passage and John. Our interest concerns especially those aspects that have been preponed, i.e., taken out of the traditional Synoptic Passion Week and Trial narratives and relocated into the time of Jesus’ work and teaching in Jn 2:1–11:53. Corresponding to the goals outlined above, results of this study are presented here in three groups. The first group, beginning with section 6.1, focuses primarily on Jesus’ statements and actions in the Synoptic Passion Week. The 1

Cf. art. “prepone,” www.dictionary.cambridge.org, downloaded on 5 June 2022.

58

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

second group, beginning with section 6.2, focuses largely on the activities of Jesus’ opponents in the Synoptic Trial Narratives. The third group begins with section 6.3 and focuses on John’s use of the juridical term ζητέω.

6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial To properly evaluate an apparent parallel, each parallel has been categorized according to 1.) Original context, 2.) Original content, 3.) Juridical relevance, 4.) Transferred to: (verse[s] in Jn), 5.) New context, 6.) Transformed content, 7.) Juridical relevance. 6.1.1 The Cleansing of the Temple: Mk 11:15–17 par Original context: Following the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus curses a fig tree on the way from Bethany to Jerusalem in Mk 11:12–14. Original content: Upon arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus enters the temple and begins driving out those selling and buying, overturning the tables of moneychangers as well as the seats of those selling pigeons. Jesus forbade any one to carry anything through the temple. Then Jesus is expressly described as having taught, saying, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?’” (cf. Isa 56:7). “But you have made it ‘a den of robbers’” (cf. Jer 7:11). Juridical relevance: J. Ådna states: In der Tempelaktion hatte Jesus ganz bewusst seine “Sache” auf die Spitze getrieben und eine Entscheidung, sei sie positiv oder negativ, provoziert […]. Die Folge waren ein entscheidender Entschluss der Hohenpriester und Schriftgelehrten Jesus so bald wie möglich unschädlich zu machen (vgl. Mk 11,18), und eine immer schärfere Auseinandersetzung zwischen Jesus und seinen Gegnern in den Stunden und Tagen nach der Tempelaktion.2

Transferred to: Jn 2:13–17 New context: Following the wedding at Cana with its water-into-wine sign, Jesus went with his family to Capernaum for a few days. Transformed content: John describes Jesus as going up to Jerusalem and into the temple. There he finds sellers of animals and moneychangers going about their business. Jesus is described as taking a whip of cords and driving all persons and animals out of the temple, thereby turning over the tables of moneychangers with their coins. To the pigeon sellers he says: “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John writes: “His 2 Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (WUNT 2/119, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 443.

6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

59

disciples remembered that it is written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me’ (instead of LXX Ps 69:9, aorist κατέφαγεν, the irregular future form καταφάγεταί).” Juridical relevance: Moloney comments: The recollection of the disciples cites the psalm with the verb in the future tense: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” At this stage of the story, they can only guess that the actions performed by Jesus will eventually lead to a life and death struggle.3

6.1.2 The Question about Authority (Temple): Mk 11:27–33 par Original context: Following the temple cleansing in Mk 11:15–17, vv. 18–19 inform us of the reaction of the chief priests and the scribes. They “heard this and began looking for a way to kill him [i.e., Jesus], for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.” Original content: Following the pericope about the withered fig tree in Mk 11:20–26, verse 27 portrays Jesus in Jerusalem, walking in the temple. The chief priests, scribes, and elders ask Jesus, “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you authority to do them?” Jesus answers by posing a counter-question concerning the authority of John the Baptist: Is the baptism of John from heaven or from men? If they answer Jesus’ question, then he will answer theirs. But Jesus’ listeners realize that both possible answers offer, for them, no acceptable alternative. If they say, “from heaven,” then Jesus will say that they should have believed him. If they say, “from men,” then the people will stone them. So, they say that they do not know. Therefore, Jesus also does not answer. Juridical relevance: Since Jesus’ enemies are looking for a way to kill Jesus (cf. Mk 11:18), this attempt to challenge Jesus’s authority obviously has a lifethreatening quality. Transferred to: Jn 2:18–22 New context: “The Jews” desire to have Jesus reveal what sign Jesus has to show to justify that he is doing “these things” after he ‘cleansed’ the temple. Here we recognize that John has taken the authority question of Mk 11:27–33 par out of its original context and centered the question of authority in Jn 2 on the question of what “sign” Jesus can produce to justify his actions. Transformed content: “The Jews” ask Jesus in Jn 2:18, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answers, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” “The Jews” take Jesus’ challenge literally, but John notes that Jesus spoke of the temple of his body. He goes on to explain that after Jesus’ resurrection the disciples recalled this prediction and thereby believed both the scripture (i.e., Ps 69:9) and Jesus’ word. 3

Moloney, The Gospel of John, 76.

60

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

Juridical relevance: Just as in Jn 2:13–17, the stakes for Jesus could not be higher. The Jewish powers that be are challenging Jesus’ shocking act and therefore demand that he justify himself. His prediction that he will be justified when the temple of his body is raised in three days’ time is the only “sign” that they will ultimately get. 6.1.3 The Question about Authority (John the Baptist): Mk 11:27–33 par Original context: As in the previous example, the Jewish authorities are searching for a way to kill Jesus. Original content: Again, as we saw in the preceding parallel, Jewish authorities challenged Jesus whether he had authority to do what he was doing. Jesus responds with a counter-question: Was the baptism of JtB from heaven or from men? Since they cannot decide how to answer, because each answer would lead to negative consequences, Jesus says he will also not answer. Juridical relevance: If Jesus responds in the wrong way or with the wrong words, he could be at least arrested, if not killed. Transferred to: Jn 1:7; 30; 10:41 New context: In Jn 1 John the Baptist is portrayed primarily as a witness for Jesus. When priests and Levites are sent from Jerusalem, they ask JtB who he is. He responds that he is not the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet, but the voice of one crying in the wilderness, as in Isa 40:3. When again pressed for an answer, JtB speaks of one who comes after him. Finally, in Jn 1:29 and v. 36 Jesus appears and JtB calls out, “Behold the Lamb of God!” Transformed content: Clearly, John the Baptist is portrayed in Jn 1 not so much as a baptizer but as a witness for Jesus. Understood in the light of John’s use of the Synoptic Passion week, this being a witness for Jesus needs to be understood as having been inspired by Mk 11:27–33. The degree of transformation is not as great as might first appear and is certainly not far-fetched. For in Mk 11:31 Jesus’ enemies say, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he [i.e., Jesus] will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’” Thus, already in Mk 11, John the Baptist is portrayed as a witness who should be believed.4 Juridical relevance: John has been inspired by the trustworthy synoptic John the Baptist to portray him at the outset of his gospel as a witness for Jesus in settings fraught with juridical hazard. The men from Jerusalem are sent to interrogate JtB and he did not deny, but confessed to the coming of the Spirit on Jesus, bearing witness to Jesus as the Elect One of God (cf. Jn 1:345). Cf. A.E. Harvey (Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 32), who calls attention to this fact, but does not recognize the significance we see for Jn 1. 5 At the outset of the previous chapter (5), we cited Lincoln’s argument (Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 63) that this reading in Jn 1:34 as the lectio difficilior should be preferred. Cf. also the introductory remarks there. 4

6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

61

6.1.4 The Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants (Sent ones): Mk 12:1–12 par Original context: Following the question of authority in Mk 11:27–33, chapter 12 begins with this parable. Original content: Jesus tells the parable of a winegrower who sets up a new vineyard and all that is needed to make wine. He lets it out to tenants and goes away to another country. When the time comes for the harvest, he sends a servant to get his share of the fruit, but the tenants beat him and send him away empty-handed. Several other attempts follow, all of them are unsuccessful. Many of those sent are killed. Then the winegrower sends his son, thinking that the tenants will respect him. Just the opposite occurs. Seeking the inheritance, they kill the son. Jesus then poses the question: What will the winegrower do? Jesus’ answer: He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. Jesus then quotes Ps 118:22–23. Mark notes that Jesus’ enemies realized that Jesus had told this parable against them. Their attempt to arrest him fails for fear of the crowds, so they leave him. Juridical relevance: By way of this parable Jesus accuses his opponents of standing in a tradition of serious offences against God’s prophets (cf. Neh 9:26). For their part, they try to arrest him, but do not succeed. Transferred to: Jesus, the Sent One in Jn, passim, e.g., in Jn 8 New context: Jesus as the Sent One of his Father is a theme in Jn the importance of which can hardly be overestimated. Jesus comes down from above to carry out the will of his Father. This involves his being faithful to his Father in every respect, including dying a death on the cross to save the world from sin. Transformed content: That John has been inspired to adapt the ‘sending’ theology of this parable and develop it in christological and soteriological fashion seems very likely. The characters and particular aspects of the parable parallel those that we find in the Fourth Gospel: a father, a son, his being sent, those who are set in their opposition to the owner, and the son’s death. They will suffer utter destruction because of their murderous conduct. Juridical relevance: According to the shaliah institution and other Semitic laws concerning emissaries, a person who is a designated representative is invested with the authority of the one who sent him. To reject him, or even to harm him in the course of his duties, means breaking conventions which can put an offender at the mercy of the one who sent his emissary. 6.1.5 The Pharisees’ and Herodians’ [Preface to their] Question: Mk 12:13–14b par Original context: As we have described above, at the close of the parable of the wicked husbandmen Mark writes that Jesus’ enemies tried unsuccessfully to arrest him.

62

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

Original content: These same opponents are described in v. 13 as having sent to Jesus some of the Pharisees and Herodians to “catch him in his words.” Correspondingly, they address Jesus with deceptive praise to then pose their trick question regarding paying taxes to Caesar: “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” Juridical relevance: Jesus’ rivals hope to compromise Jesus when he answers their question, since however he answers, they reckon that he will make himself guilty of an offense against Jewish or Roman law. Transferred to: Jn 3:2 New context: Following the marriage at Cana, the temple cleansing, and Jesus’ prediction on the destruction and rebuilding of the temple, i.e., his death and resurrection, John summarizes the fact that now many believe in Jesus because of his signs. At the same time, John notes, he did not trust himself to them, nor did he need anyone “to bear witness of human beings,” “for he himself knew what was in women and men.” Transformed content: Nicodemus approaches Jesus by night and says, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” The table below demonstrates how similar the structure of the two statements in Mk 12 and Jn 3 are:

Address Compliment

Reason for the compliment

Mk 12:14a–b Teacher we know that you are a man of integrity You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.

Jn 3:2 Rabbi we know that you are a teacher who has come from God For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.

Juridical relevance: The similarity between Mk 12:14a–b and Jn 3:2 strongly suggests that the atmosphere in Jn 3:2 is also juridically charged. Nicodemus is a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews. Based on the rest of what will be said about Nicodemus in Jn 7:50 and 19:39, the intended reader will see him coming closer later in Jn to belief in Jesus. But at this point, given what John writes in Jn 2:25 and the clear parallel in Mk 12:14b, Jesus is well advised to exercise great caution.

6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

63

6.1.6 Persecutions Foretold: Mk 13:9–13 par Original context: At the outset of the Eschatological Discourse, Mk 13:1–2 portrays Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple and vv. 3–8 have the “signs before the end” as their subject. Original content: Jesus forewarns his disciples. They will be arrested, beaten, and must stand trial for Jesus’ sake. The disciples are to bear witness to the gospel, but they should not worry about what they should say. It shall be “given” to them in that it will be the Holy Spirit speaking, not them. There will be betrayals, death and in general hatred because of Jesus’ sake. But, Jesus adds, “he who endures to the end will be saved.” Juridical relevance: The disciples will suffer persecution, be brought to trial, and bring testimony for the gospel. Transferred to: Jn 14:26; 15:21; 16:2; Jn 9:1–41 New context: Like Mk 13:9–13, in the course of the Farewell Discourse Jesus prepares his disciples not only for his departure to the Father but also for the task of the disciples bearing witness for him. Both passages take place in their respective contexts on the eve of Jesus’ arrest and trial. The healing of the man born blind is another story. It takes place after the bitter fight between Jesus and “the Jews” at the close of Jn 8. Transformed content: The disciples will be hated and persecuted for Jesus’ sake. They will suffer to the point of being put out of the synagogue and even being killed. But the Spirit-Paraclete will be their intercessor and help the disciples in the continuance of the cosmic trial against the “world” and its “ruler.” The theme of this synoptic pericope has been preponed by John from the time of Jesus speaking on the eve of the passion trial to the healing of the man born blind and his “trial” in Jn 9:1–41, which leads to him to being put out of the synagogue because of his bearing witness for Jesus. Juridical relevance: The testimony of the man and his being put out of the synagogue have clearly a juridical quality. 6.1.7 The Son of Man will gather his elect: Mk 13:27 par Original context: Somewhat later in the Eschatological Discourse, and following the pericope “False Christs and False Prophets,” we read in Mk about “The Coming of the Son of Man.” Original content: Here circumstances of the last days are described, e.g., tribulation, darkening of the sun, and “the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” Then the Son of man will appear “with great power and glory.” He will send out his angels “and gather his elect from the four winds” (cf. 1 Enoch 51:2; 62:8). Matthew’s gospel has Jesus as the Son of Man separating the sheep from the goats in Mt 25:31–46.

64

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

Juridical relevance: The time frame of this passage as part of this discourse is the Last Judgment. Transferred to: Jn 10:16, 11:52; cf. 12:32 New context: The concept that Jesus will gather other “sheep” or “children” is found in the narratives in Jn 10:7–21 and 11:45–53, respectively. Transformed content: In Jn 10:16 Jesus, the Good Shepherd, reveals, “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.” In Jn 11:52 John explains Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy that Jesus should die not only for the nation “but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.” In broader terms Jesus says (as the Son of Man) in 12:32, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Juridical relevance: The gathering of the elect by the Son of Man is a part of the “judgment of this world.” 6.1.8 The Chief Priests and Scribes Conspire against Jesus: Mk 14:1 par Original context: After the close of the Eschatological Discourse, Mk continues with the Passion narrative. Original content: The Pharisees and the Herodians had begun plotting against Jesus with the goal of killing him already in Mk 3:6. According to Mk 14:1 par, two days before the Passover, the chief priests and the scribes are ready to take divisive action. Despite the upcoming celebration of Passover, they are seeking to arrest Jesus “by stealth” (ἐν δόλῳ) and kill him. Juridical relevance: An arrest of Jesus would clearly be a juridical act, to say nothing about killing him. Transferred to: Jn 7:45–52 as well as 11:47–53 New context: After several unsuccessful attempts to arrest and even kill Jesus, the Jewish officers charged with this task report back to the chief priests and Pharisees. They are angry that Jesus was not apprehended. They are also fearful of what is happening because of Jesus, who is leading people astray (Jn 7:47b). The results of their further deliberations as a result of Lazarus’ being restored to life are portrayed in 11:47–53: Jesus will die for the sake of the nation. Transformed content: As in Mk 14:1 par, the Jewish authorities here in Jn have also made up their minds about Jesus. But in contrast to Mk, this final decision is already made in Jn before the Passion Week. They have determined that Jesus is a false prophet who misleads the common folk. Therefore, they have already turned a deaf ear to Nicodemus’ objection that Jesus should be given a hearing.

6.1 The Synoptic Passion Week as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

65

Juridical relevance: John portrays that the council’s will is to have Jesus arrested for having committed a capital crime. The only question now is finding an opportunity to kill him. 6.1.9 The Betrayal by Judas: Mk 14:10–11 par Original context: The anointing in Bethany is described in Mk 14:3–9. Original content: In Mk 14:10–11 we are told that “Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve,” went to the chief priests “in order to betray him to them.” They were glad and promised to give him money. Therefore, he sought an opportunity to betray Jesus. Juridical relevance: Judas negotiated what amounted to a bounty in return for turning Jesus over to them. He would then be formally arrested. Transferred to: Jn 6:60–71; 12:4 New context: In the heated discussion previous to Jn 6:60–71, Jesus pronounces his “hard saying.” Transformed content: Jesus addresses his listeners regarding his utterance in 6:53 and injects, “But there are some of you that do not believe.” John then informs his readers in 6:64: “For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.” This statement is for the reader at first oblique and then in vv. 70–71 very clear. Here Judas is already named in Jn 6, long before the Passion week. It indicates that Judas’ future betrayal of Jesus has an especially important place in John’s portrayal of Jesus’ death. We see a similar surprising interjection in the form of Judas’ objection to the anointing at Bethany in 12:4. At the customary place in the synoptics, i.e., on the eve of the Passover, John continues his devoting special attention to Judas in 13:2, 26, 29; 14:22. We are told by John that the devil had already put his betrayal in his heart (13:2) before the supper. Judas then appears once again in 18:2–3, 5 when he carries out his plan. Juridical relevance: Judas’ betrayal leads to Jesus’ arrest. 6.1.10 The Last Supper: Mk 14:18–25 Original context: Preparations are made for eating the Passover meal in Mk 14:12–17 par. Original content: Jesus foretells his betrayal in Mk 14:18–21 and celebrates the Last Supper with the twelve in 14:22–25. Juridical relevance: P. Stuhlmacher summarizes the meaning of Jesus’ life and the Last Supper from the perspective of the early Christian tradition as follows: Sein Leben wird nach Jes 53,10 eingesetzt zum ֙‫ָאָ ָׁשׁ ֙ם‬, das heißt zur “Schuldtilgung”, die Israel neues Leben vor Gott verschafft. Sie geschieht dadurch, daß Jesus als Knecht Gottes den

66

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

ihm bevorstehenden gewaltsamen Tod stellvertretend erleidet, mit seinem Blut Sühne für die “Vielen” erwirkt und sie so einstiftet in den (neuen) “Bund”, der ihnen Vergebung ihrer Sünden gewährt (vgl. Mt 26,28) und sie in die Erfüllung des Willens Gottes stellt (vgl. Ex 24,8 mit Jer 31,31–34).6

This atonement has a cultic-juridical character. Transferred to: Jn 6, esp. 6:51–59 New context: The Bread of Life pericope which begins in Jn 6:22–65 leads up to the “hard saying” in 6:51–59. Transformed content: Here it is best to follow Thyen,7 who argues energetically and persuasively, interpreting this pericope in metaphorical terms and not in a strictly eucharistic sense. To include this as another preponed element from the Passion Week would be inadvisable since the content of Mk 14:18– 25 has been radically transformed. In addition, Jn 6 would be completely the wrong place for this. Still, the scandalous words concerning the “eating my flesh” and “drinking my blood” are clear allusions to Jesus’ words during the Last Supper. L. Morris8 therefore describes the primary sense of Jn 6:51c–58 in these terms: “It seems much better to think of the words as meaning first of all the appropriation of Christ.” Juridical relevance: Through this kind of eating and drinking believers will “live forever,” with them “abiding” in Jesus. This has sacramental-juridical quality. 6.1.11 Gethsemane: Mk 14:32–42 par Original context: Peter’s denial of Jesus is predicted by Jesus in Mk 14:26–31. Original content: Jesus withdraws from the disciples to pray in Gethsemane. There he prays, “Abba, Father,” and “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” Juridical relevance: Jesus’ death on the cross is demonstrated to be purely voluntary, as befits the theology of the Suffering Servant of Isa 53. Transferred to: Jn 12:27 New context: In Jn 12:23 Jesus declares that the decisive “Hour” has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. His soul is troubled, and he asks himself in a purely rhetorical fashion whether he should not go ahead on his way to the cross. Transformed content: Jesus’ determination to die on the cross is demonstrated by his words here, which are completely the opposite to what he says Stuhlmacher, Jes 53, 97. Cf. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 368–71. 8 L. Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT 4, London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1971), 377. 6 7

6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

67

in the synoptic Gethsemane: “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” Juridical relevance: Jesus’ statement here demonstrates even more that he is going to the cross voluntarily. He does this as the faithful and obedient Son and Servant. This fulfills the condition necessary to be “glorified” in the process of being “lifted up.” As a result of his “going to the Father,” Jesus will, after having been convicted at his trial, be both acquitted (i.e., found guiltless) and justified (i.e., claims upheld).

6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial The observations made and conclusions drawn in the previous section prompt a similar examination of the influence of Synoptic Trial accounts on John’s juridical thinking. The first step involves devoting attention to two scenes in John which bear remarkable similarity to scenes in the Sanhedrin trial narrative in Lk. These have been named in 6.2.1. “Conspicuous Christological Allusions in Jn.” In a first step these scenes are subjected to a comparative analysis according to the following four criteria: 1. the Synoptic Juridical context, 2. the specific Synoptic source that apparently inspired John, 3. the place where this allusion appears in Jn, and 4. its Juridical context in Jn. In a second step special attention will be directed to B. “Christological Titles and Related Statements in the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial and John.” 6.2.1 Conspicuous Christological Allusions in Jn The “If I tell you …”-Answer (Standard Comparison of Lk 22:67–68 and Jn 10:24–25 and 10:31, cf. section 1.2.6) 1. Juridical Context: 2. Synoptic source:

Trial before Greek text the Sanhedrin Lk 22:67– 67 λέγοντες· εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ 68 χριστός, εἰπὸν ἡμῖν. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε· 68 ἐὰν δὲ ἐρωτήσω, οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε.

English translation

67 “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask you, you will not answer.”

68

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

3. Jn:

Jn 10:24– 25

4. Juridical Context (Jn):

Jn 10:31

24 … ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αἴρεις; εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ. 25 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε· 31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν.

“How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe.” (cf. Jn 18:20–21) Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him …

This example clearly shows John adapting Luke’s Sanhedrin confrontation between Jesus and his accusers. His version of this scene emphasizes the fact that Jesus has in the past always been very open about his claims. He rebukes them for their refusal to believe then as well as now.  uestioning in the Sanhedrin Trial and the Son of Man in Jn 8:28 Q (Side-by-side Comparison of Lk 22:67–70 and Jn 8:24–28) 1. Juridical Context: Sanhedrin Trial 2. Synoptic Source: Lk 22:67a λέγοντες they said, Lk εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὸν ἡμῖν. 22:67b–c If you are the Messiah, […] tell us. Lk 22:67d εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· He [Jesus] answered, Lk ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὐ μὴ 22:67e–f πιστεύσητε· If I tell you, you will not believe me, Lk 22:69 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου the Son of Man Lk 22:70c ἐγώ εἰμι. I am

3. Jn’s text: Ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ So they said to him, σὺ τίς εἶ;

Jn 8:25a Jn 8:25b

Who are you? εἶπεν οὖν [αὐτοῖς] ὁ Ἰησοῦς· So Jesus said to them, ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, for unless you believe that I am he τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the Son of Man ἐγώ εἰμι, I am he 4. Juridical Context (Jn): cf. Jn 8:28, the ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man

Jn 8:28c Jn 8:24b

Jn 8:28b Jn 8:28c

This Lukan scene cited has significantly influenced John’s portrayal of the scene leading up to Jesus’ dramatic statement in Jn 8:28, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.” This view is supported by the fact that there are only three contexts in the NT where I AM

6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

69

and the Son of Man (ἐγώ εἰμι and τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) appear together: Mk 14:62, Lk 22:69–70 and Jn 8:28. These two examples showing how John has adapted Lk 22:67–70 prompts further investigation of christological titles and statements in the Synoptic Sanhedrin trial narratives and their relationship to John. 6.2.2 Christological Titles and Related Statements in the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial and John The Christ-Question 1. Juridical Context: 2. Synoptic source(s):

3. Jn:

4. Juridical Context (Jn):

Greek text Trial before the Sanhedrin Mk πάλιν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπηρώτα 14:61b αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ; Lk 22:67 λέγοντες· εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὸν ἡμῖν. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε· Jn ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν 10:24b–c αἴρεις; εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ. Jn 10:31 31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν.

English translation

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; […]” “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him…

Corresponding to the declared goal of the Fourth Gospel, that its reader should believe that Jesus is the Christ (Jn 20:30–31), the “Christ-Question” is the first christological title to be examined. Once again, this question is of utmost importance both for the Synoptic tradition as well as for John. Demand to Prophesy 1. Juridical Context: 2. Synoptic source(s):

Trial before the Sanhedrin Mk 14:65 (cf. Mt 27:63; Lk 23:5)

Greek text

English translation

Καὶ ἤρξαντό τινες ἐμπτύειν αὐτῷ καὶ περικαλύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ κολαφίζειν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ· προφήτευσον, καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται ῥαπίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον.

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

70 1. Juridical Context: 3. Jn:

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial Trial before the Sanhedrin Jn 7:12

7:47

cf. 7:40

4. Juridical Jn 7:51 Context (Jn):

Greek text

English translation

καὶ γογγυσμὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις· οἱ μὲν ἔλεγον ὅτι ἀγαθός ἐστιν, ἄλλοι [δὲ] ἔλεγον· οὔ, ἀλλὰ πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον. ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν αὐτοῖς οἱ Φαρισαῖοι· μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς πεπλάνησθε; Ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου οὖν ἀκούσαντες τῶν λόγων τούτων ἔλεγον· οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης· μὴ ὁ νόμος ἡμῶν κρίνει τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ πρῶτον παρ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ γνῷ τί ποιεῖ;

And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, “He is a good man,” others said, “No, he is leading the people astray.” The Pharisees answered them, “Are you led astray, you also?” When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.” “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”

This emphasis that John places on the question/accusation of whether Jesus is a prophet, the Prophet or a false prophet who displays messianic pretentions, is best explained by the presence of this issue in the Synoptic narratives.9 The Son-Question 1. Juridical Context: 2. Synoptic source(s): 3. Jn:

Sanhedrin Trial Elements Mk 14:61c par Jn 10:36

4. Juridical Jn 10:39 Context (Jn):

Greek text

English translation

σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ; [ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον] ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι;

“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” [do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world,] “You are blaspheming, because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’”? Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Ἐζήτουν [οὖν] αὐτὸν πάλιν πιάσαι, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν.

“The Jews” accuse Jesus of “making himself the Son of God” on several occasions in Jn 5–10 and renew the charge in Jn 19:7 before Pilate.

9 Cf. A. Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit (WUNT 1/21, Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980), who explores the significance of this charge found in the gospels and in sources thereafter that Jesus was a false prophet.

6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

71

The King-Question (Scene before Pilate, “the Jews’” finding is based on the previous result of the Sanhedrin Trial) 1. Juridical Context:

2. Synoptic source(s):

Sanhedrin’s finding (The Sanhedrin’s verdict brought to Pilate) Lk 23:2

Lk 23:3

3. Jn:

Jn 1:49

Jn 12:13

Jn 12:15

4. Juridical Context (Jn):

Jn 12:16

Greek text

English translation

Ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες· τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι. ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις. ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ· ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.” And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the king of Israel!” Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt. His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.

ἔλαβον τὰ βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων καὶ ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκραύγαζον· ὡσαννά· εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, [καὶ] ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. μὴ φοβοῦ, θυγάτηρ Σιών· ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται, καθήμενος ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου. ταῦτα οὐκ ἔγνωσαν αὐτοῦ οἱ μαθηταὶ τὸ πρῶτον, ἀλλ’ ὅτε ἐδοξάσθη Ἰησοῦς τότε ἐμνήσθησαν ὅτι ταῦτα ἦν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα καὶ ταῦτα ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ.

John has in a very limited but decisive manner addressed the “King Question.” In Jn 1–13 the title “King” appears, apart from where it is expressly rejected as in Jn 6:15, in only two additional contexts, in 1:49 and 12:13. In those places, as later in Jn 18–19, John attempts to fill the title of “King” with new content so that the title does not raise political suspicions, but at the same time makes a clear statement, as we will see in chapters 7 and 8. The juridical context of

72

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

these allusions to the “King-Question” in Jn is the fact that only the glorification of Jesus enables the disciples to properly judge the significance of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and therefore understand what it means for Jesus to be king. The Son of Man-Answer 1. Juridical Context: 2. Synoptic source(s):

Trial before the Sanhedrin Mk 14:62bc

3. Jn:

Jn 8:28

4. Juridical Jn 8:26 Context (Jn):

Greek text

English translation

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. εἶπεν οὖν [αὐτοῖς] ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ. πολλὰ ἔχω περὶ ὑμῶν λαλεῖν καὶ κρίνειν, …

And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.” “I have much to say about you and much to judge;”

Jesus’ dramatic statement here in Jn 8:28 has sometimes been called a “theological equivalent” of Mk 14:62.10 As previously stated, the I AM and Son of Man title occur together only three times in the NT: Mk 14:62, Lk 22:69–70 and Jn 8:28. 6.2.3 Additional Christological Aspects The “I AM”-Answer 1. Juridical Trial before Greek text Context: the Sanhedrin 2. Synoptic Mk σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ source(s): 14:61c–62a εὐλογητοῦ; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι, 3. Jn: Jn 8:58–59 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. 

English translation

“Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am;” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

10 Cf. for example, C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), 89.

6.2 Sanhedrin Trial Accounts as the Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial 4. Juridical Jn 8:59 Context (Jn):

Ἦραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ’ αὐτόν. Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ.

73

So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Jesus’ answer to the high priest’s question in Mk 14:61 is most probably intended to be understood elliptically and therefore, formulated as a complete response, be understood as, “I am the Christ, the Son of the Blessed.” Jesus’ use of the I AM in Jn shows however that John has gone a step further in this regard, just as he has in making Jesus the Son completely equal to the Father (cf. for example, Jn 10:30, “I and the Father are one”). John is not at all shy about portraying Jesus in this light, as the many I AM statements in Jn demonstrate (cf. 4:26; 6:20; 8:24; 8:28; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8). Jesus’ Witness (singular in Lk!) is sufficient 1. Juridical Trial before Greek text Context: the Sanhedrin 2. Synoptic Lk 22:71 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· τί ἔτι ἔχομεν source(s): μαρτυρίας χρείαν; αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἠκούσαμεν ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. 3. Jn: Jn 8:13–14 Εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι σὺ περὶ σεαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖς·ἡ μαρτυρία σου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· κἂν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου, ὅτι οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγω· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι ἢ ποῦ ὑπάγω. Trial scene 4. Juridical Context (Jn):

English translation

And they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.” The Pharisees then said to him, “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.” Controversy with juridical consequences

In Luke’s Sanhedrin trial narrative, the Sanhedrin speaks of Jesus’ Son of Man statement as being his witness, whereas in Mt and Mk the rhetorical question is posed, “Why do we still need witnesses?” This singular form of “witness” corresponds to the eminent role that Jesus’ testimony plays in Jn. This concept is present with respect to the trial before Pilate in the tradition found in 1Tim 6:13, “In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession […].”

74

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

Temple Prediction 1. Juridical Trial beContext: fore the Sanhedrin 2. Synoptic Mk 14:58 source(s):

Greek text

ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω. 3. Jn: Jn 2:18–19 Ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; 19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν. Ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι 4. Juridical Jn 2:18 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· τί σημεῖον Context δεικνύεις ἡμῖν ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; (Jn):

English translation

“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?”

Once again, the temple prediction in Jn 2 attracts attention due to what John does with accusations against Jesus during the Sanhedrin trial. John takes this juridically explosive testimony against Jesus and turns it into a challenge that Jesus issues in Jn 2, coupled with a prediction for those who will one day be able to understand what he means by it. Ultimately, the prediction will be fulfilled as a part of Jesus’ Hour and thereby his justification. Accusation of Blasphemy 1. Juridical Context: 2. Synoptic source(s):

Trial before the Sanhedrin Mk 14:64

3. Jn:

Jn 10:33

Jn 10:36

Greek text

English translation

ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας· τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; οἱ δὲ πάντες κατέκριναν αὐτὸν ἔνοχον εἶναι θανάτου. ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν. ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι;

“You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” “[…] do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’”?

6.3 Three Sets of Deliberations and/or attempts against Jesus 4. Juridical Jn 10:39 Context (Jn):

75

39 Ἐζήτουν [οὖν] αὐτὸν πάλιν 39 Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their πιάσαι, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς hands. χειρὸς αὐτῶν.

In Mk 14:64 Jesus’ claim to be the Son of Man causes the high priest to tear his garments and declare that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. In Jn 10, Jesus makes this claim while he is teaching in the temple. Here it is Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God that motivates his opponents to try to arrest him (after they had previously taken up stones in v. 31 to kill Jesus). The charge of blasphemy/ Jesus “making himself equal to God” is also found in Jn 5:16–18; 7:28; 8:19 and 8:59.

6.3 Three Sets of Deliberations and/or attempts against Jesus There are three sets of statements in the Synoptics which tell of deliberations and/or attempts of Jewish leaders to arrest and/or kill Jesus. The statements of the first set are always found immediately after the Sanhedrin trial, where the Jewish authorities hand Jesus over to Pilate. The Jewish authorities take council as to what they should do with Jesus or, as in Luke, have already decided to accuse him: Mt 27:1 Mk 15:1

Lk 23:1–2

all the chief priests and elders of the people took council (συμβούλιον) against Jesus to put him to death. And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation (συμβούλιον); and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate. Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him.

The second set consists, apart from one exception, of statements found in the pre-Passion Week narrative of each gospel, and involves “taking council” or “discussing with one another,” which appear to place emphasis on juridical deliberations and decisions: Mt 12:14 Mk 3:6 Lk 6:11

But the Pharisees went out and took counsel (συμβούλιον) against him, how to destroy him. The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel (συμβούλιον) with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another (διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλου) what they might do to Jesus.

Similarly, in the single exception among the Synoptic writers, we read in Matthew‘s Passion Week narrative:

76

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

Mt 26:3–4 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together (συνεβουλεύσαντο) in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.

The statements of the third set are found in the Passion Week narrative of each gospel: Mk 11:18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought (ἐζήτουν) a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. (cf. Lk 19:47–48) Mk 12:12 And they tried (ἐζήτουv) to arrest him, but feared the multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them; so they left him and went away. (cf. Mt 21:26/Lk 20:19) Mk 14:1 And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking (ἐζήτουν) how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him. (cf. Lk 22:2)

According to Bauer’s Lexicon11 regarding Jn 8:50, the Greek verb ζητέω can be used as a technical term for a juridical investigation. This would mean that the Jewish authorities are not simply “looking” for Jesus here, they are pursuing him in the sense of a prosecutorial act so that they can kill him. This interpretation corresponds to John’s extensive use of ζητέω to describe the efforts of “the Jews” in his gospel: Jn 5:18 Jn 7:1 Jn 7:19 Jn 7:30 Jn 8:37 Jn 10:39

This was why the Jews sought (ἐζήτουν) all the more to kill him. because the Jews sought (ἐζήτουν) to kill him “Why do you seek (ζητεῖτε) to kill me?” So they sought (ἐζήτουν) to arrest him; “yet you seek (ζητεῖτε) to kill me” Again they tried (ἐζήτουν) to arrest him

Assuming that John had some kind of access to all three Synoptic traditions, the fact that John chooses to adapt this third set of Synoptic statements, which 1) use this juridical term and 2) occur only in the Synoptic Passion Week narratives, indicates that he made a conscious decision on his part to do so. John could have used the form involving “taking council” or something similar as in the second set, but he did not. The decisive juridical character of the term ζητέω for concrete prosecutorial measures and the location of corresponding statements in the Synoptic Passion Week narrative, taken together, appear to have been the determining factors in his decision. The result are the concrete prosecutorial measures we see portrayed in Jn 5–10.

11

Bauer, Wörterbuch, 670,1c.

6.4 Chapter Summary

77

6.4 Chapter Summary The results of this chapter’s investigation can now be summarized, listing them here in the order in which they appear in the Fourth Gospel. 1. The portrayal of John the Baptist in Mk 11:27–33 par has inspired John to portray him expressly as a witness par excellence in Jn 1:7; 30 and 10:41. His key role in John’s Cosmic Trial Concept is emphasized twice in the Prologue, at the outset of the Johannine narrative itself and later in Jn 3, 5 and 10. 2. In Jn 2:13–17 we have seen how John takes the ‘cleansing’ of the temple incident from Mk 11:15–17 par and uses it to have Jesus commit a resounding act of provocation. This challenges his interrogators in a way that will end in a deadly struggle between the parties involved. 3. John has transferred the Question about Authority regarding Jesus’ ‘cleansing’ the temple from Mk 11:27–33 par to Jn 2:18–22. In doing so, he frames his gospel with Jesus’ claim that he will raise the temple of his body in three days. John comes to the fulfillment of this prediction in chapter 20. 4. In Jn 3:2 we have the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus which echoes the Pharisees’ and Herodians’ preface to their question addressed to Jesus in Mk 12:13–14b par. It is precisely the verbal similarity between these two passages which prompts us to see a juridical atmosphere in Mk as suggesting something similar at the outset of Jn 3, albeit in a much less threatening form. Nicodemus, it is clear, will return in 7:50–51 and 19:39, appearing as a Pharisee who is earnestly seeking the right answer to the question of who Jesus actually is. But the passage nonetheless emphasizes the nature of the great divide between those who are “from below” and those who are “from above.” 5. One of the key and dominant themes in John’s Gospel, beginning in Jn 3, is that of the “sent one.” His role as the Sent One of his Father appears to have drawn its inspiration from the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in Mk 12:1–12 par. This passage and the Fourth Gospel have in common the basic plot elements owner/father, servants/opponents, a son, violence, the son’s murder and at the end, judgment. 6. The Bread of Life discourse bears similarities when compared to the Last Supper narratives of the Synoptics. But it seems unlikely to be a case of true ‘preponing,’ since one eucharistic element, that is, wine, is not present and John does leave the Last Supper as taking place during Jesus’ last days in Jn 13:4. As long as the phrases “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” of the Son of Man in Jn 6:51c–58 are understood as meaning first of all the appropriation of Christ in faith, this passage may be considered a faint allusion to the Last Supper. 7. Judas’ betrayal, which leads to Jesus’ arrest, is foretold already in Jn 6:70–71 and reiterated in 12:4, with the Synoptics reserving it for the Passion Week. John thereby emphasizes Jesus’ upcoming death, but also a strong association between Judas and the Satan here and later in 13:2, 26–29. The “ruler

78

Chapter 6: The Inspiration for John’s Preponed Trial

of this world” and his upcoming “judgment” in the form of being “cast out” (Jn 12:31) are thereby foreshadowed. 8. The parallels in Jn 14:26; 15:21; 16:2 to Mk 13:9–13 par are located at similar places, i.e. shortly before Jesus’ arrest. But the persecutions that the man born blind already suffers in Jn 9 offer a concrete example of what Jesus addresses expressly in Jn 15 and 16, including the punishment of being banished from the synagogue, cf. Jn 16:2. 9. The gathering of the elect by the Son of Man is a part of the synoptic tradition of Final Judgment on the Last Day. Jesus places special emphasis on this gathering of his “other sheep” in Jn 10:16. John himself does so with his remark in Jn 11:52 regarding the “children of God who are scattered abroad.” Particularly the portrayal of the “Greeks” does so, who desire to see Jesus in Jn 12:32. 10. John appears in Jn 7:45–52 and 11:45–53 to be adopting the way the chief priests and scribes conspire against Jesus in Mk 14:1 par. In contrast to these synoptic passages, however, they take place in Jn before the Passion Week. Through these formal juridical deliberations John brings his readers to the cusp of the Johannine version of the Sanhedrin Trial in the Synoptics. We see a short form of this in Jn 18:19–24, which however should probably be understood as an interrogation and not a trial. John incorporates many aspects of the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial in what we are calling the Preponed Trial, which is the subject of the next chapter. 11. The arrival of Jesus’ Hour already in Jn 12:27, and not immediately before his arrest, as in the Gethsemane pericope in the Synoptics, has enormous consequences for Jesus. He is about to fulfill his mission and thereby his purpose of “coming into the world.” His refusal to ask the Father to save him from this Hour is a clear rebuttal of the Synoptic portrayal in Mk 14:32–42 par. Jesus, as will be seen in chapter 8, is the master of his fate in the Fourth Gospel. 12. Central christological titles and questions in Jn can be traced back to the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus. These include the Christ-Question, the Demand to Prophesy, the Son-Question, the King-Question, and the Son of Man-Answer. 13. The characterization of Jesus’ message as his “witness,” his “I AM” statements as the Son of God, the resulting repeated accusation of blasphemy in Jn and Jesus’ temple prediction can all be traced to parallel parts of the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus. 14. It has been demonstrated that the juridically colored term for “seek” (ζητέω) and the Synoptic Passion Week narrative location of what we call “third set” statements (i.e., Mk 11:18, Mk 12:12 and Mk 14:1) have led John to adapt these statements no less than six times in John 5–10 for his portrayal of the confrontation between “the Jews” and Jesus. Since John could have instead chosen a less overtly juridically colored set of statements which are not solely found in the Passion Week narrative, it seems fair to conclude that he

6.4 Chapter Summary

79

did this on the basis of a conscious decision. This offers a strong argument for the view that John is in fact “preponing” these juridically colored elements in order to make his case.12 In the next chapter what we wish to call a “working thesis” of a preponed trial in Jn 2:1–11:53 will be proposed and explored. Perhaps this can contribute to a more “coherent system of ideas” that Théo Preiss believed the juridical aspect in Jn offers.

12 Bekken (Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 115–16) sees the term ζητέω as pointing to an important juridical procedure in Jn. In some cases, its usage “depicts the procedure and terminology for getting hold of a criminal, who had evaded the municipal authority” (cf. P.Oslo II, 17).

Chapter 7

The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week The previous chapter began with two passages that had attracted our attention, the temple cleansing in Jn 2 and the Christ-Question in Jn 10. This gave cause to pursue similar passages or elements that appeared to have also been “preponed” into Jn 2:1–11:53. Some come from Synoptic Passion Week narratives, many others appear in Synoptic Trial narratives. Additionally, John uses several instances of prosecutorial measures using the juridical term ζητέω, which likewise have their origin in Synoptic Passion Week narratives. These elements represent three different types of narrative material (themes, titles, and procedures) which have their literary origin in two juridically-conditioned sources (Passion Week, Sanhedrin Trial) and are so many in number. Therefore, it would be fair to say at this point that all these instances, taken together, are hardly coincidental. This leads us to propose the following thesis: John’s burden in Jn 2:1–11:53 is to effect a revision of the Sanhedrin trial verdict against Jesus. He wishes to show that Jesus is in fact the saving, justifying, justified, and judging Christ. To this end, he is inspired by Synoptic themes and elements found in Synoptic Passion Week and Sanhedrin Trial narratives. He ‘prepones’ these many key elements into the narrative we know as Jn 2:1–11:53. This working thesis gains sharper focus when look at events in Jn 1:40–51. Together with the calling of the first disciples, the portrayal of Nathanael’s encounter with Jesus builds a key scene for John. Nathanael is a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile (cf. Zeph 3:12–13). John’s cluster of references to five christological titles in Jn 1:40–51 (Christ, Prophet-like-Moses, Son of God, King, Son of Man) demands special recognition. These ‘surround’ Nathanael’s confession of Jesus as “the Son of God and King of Israel.” These five christological titles will now be examined in an effort to describe, among other aspects, their juridical contributions, and thereby substantiate our thesis of John’s Preponed Trial.

82

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

7.1 The Christ “Christ” occurs twenty times in the Fourth Gospel and plays thereby a central role due to the expressly stated goal in Jn 20:31, that the implied reader “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this person may have life in his name.” Here the appositive “the Son of God” is a helpful clarification of the title, which is the subject of much controversy in John. A review of other occurrences of “Christ” points to what should probably be considered the gospel’s basic controversy: What are the characteristics of the Christ, and could Jesus be him? At the outset of the gospel, John the Baptist attempts to clarify the situation with (overly) curious emissaries from Jerusalem in Jn 1:20 when he responds, “And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’” They are perturbed that John the Baptist (JtB) is baptizing when he is, by his own admission, neither the Christ, Elijah nor the Prophet (Jn 1:25). JtB later repeats his witness and calls upon bystanders to testify that he had already denied being the Christ (cf. Jn 3:28, “You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent ahead of Him’”). In a central part of the gospel, that is, chapters 4 through 10, the Christ question often occupies many persons, mainly in the company of crowds. The one exception to this rule is the Samaritan woman, who in Jn 4:25 exclaims, “I know that the Messiah is coming” (to which John adds, “who is called Christ”) and “when he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” The crowds in Jn 7 are portrayed as being somewhat helpless, speculating about a wide range of properties associated with the anticipated Christ. They say in 7:26, “Look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they?” Shortly thereafter, in 7:31, they believe and question, “When the Christ comes, he will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?” The geographical origin of the Christ is also a subject of conjecture in 7:41, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?” as well as in 7:42, “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” No wonder “the Jews,” by now rather exasperated in Jn 10, again exercise juridical pressure against Jesus by gathering around him and demanding, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (10:24). Some seem rather certain of themselves regarding the coming Christ. It is again the Samaritan woman who leads off in this category with the call (despite its negative wording) to her fellow Samaritans, “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?” (Jn 4:29). Some of the people of Jerusalem in 7:27 are certain about one thing: “However, we know where this man is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from.” Some are so certain that they can say, “This is the

7.2 The Prophet/False Prophet

83

Christ” (7:41). The crowd in 12:34 is confounded by Jesus’ prediction of his imminent death and therefore responds, “We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?” All these questions and doubts together with unresolved speculation stand in strong contrast to the confessions of faith made by persons who believe in Jesus. Andrew finds his brother Simon Peter and asserts, “We have found the Messiah (to which John adds, ‘which translated means Christ’)” (Jn 1:41). The man born blind is cast out of the synagogue because of his confession of Christ, which is implied in 9:22. Following Lazarus’ being brought to life again, Mary confesses, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world” (11:27). Jesus himself appears to quote a Johannine confession of faith with the words, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (17:3).

7.2 The Prophet/False Prophet The Fourth Gospel, in the words of O. Cullmann, “strongly underlines” the fact that John the Baptist is not the Prophet. This makes the way clear for John to emphasize that it is Jesus who is the Prophet. This is a view which is otherwise only so clearly expressed in Acts 3:22 and 7:37.1 But this emphasis has the air of a reserved quality about it, for John himself does not at any time directly name Jesus “the Prophet.” This can be observed in a limited number of passages in Jn. In Jn 1:45 we read, “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’” This figure of whom Moses wrote is almost certainly the Prophetlike-Moses himself, described in Dt 18:15–22. This passage is also referred to by Jesus himself in Jn 5:46, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.” The “people” named in Jn 6:14 are not completely wrong when they, having seen Jesus’ sign in Jn 6:1–13, state: “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus withdraws from them because he perceives that they therefore want to make him king. This suggests that their conception, if not their initiative regarding the Prophet, was basically correct. During the controversies in Jn 7 some of the people listening to Jesus conclude, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Lastly, John has Jesus use “unmistakable al-

1 O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (5th ed., Tübingen: Mohr, 1975), 29.

84

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

lusions” to the Prophet-like-Moses in Dt 18:18–19 while speaking the closing words of his public ministry in Jn 12:49 and 47:2 Dt 18:18

Jn 12:49

A B B1 A1

Dt 18:19 C

Jn 12:47

C1

I will raise up for them a Prophet just like you from among their brothers, and I will give my word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them whatever I command him. for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And the person who does not hear his words, whatever the Prophet may speak in my name, I will exact vengeance from him. I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Therefore, John does consider Jesus to be the Prophet, but he seems to be somewhat reserved about how much he should make of it. One reason is most likely that the concept of the Prophet was associated with a Messias- or Prophet-King, as W. Meeks has described.3 The crowd in Jn 6 demonstrates how dangerous a movement founded alone on the Prophet could become. Another aspect is the simple fact that for John, Jesus the Christ embodies far more aspects of faith in himself than the designation the Prophet alone can express. Cullmann observes, “In the Johannine Jesus all the functions of all those sent from God are united.”4 Therefore, it might be best to say: Jesus the Christ is for John the Prophet-like-Moses – and so much more. This “so much more” will be seen as we continue this examination of the christological titles surrounding Nathanael’s confession. There is, however, another and far more important reason for John’s caution in designating Jesus as the Prophet. In the previous chapter it was shown how important the accusation in the Synoptic trial accounts was that Jesus was a false prophet, a person leading the common people astray. In John, this accusation also provides the background for Annas’ interrogation in Jn 18:19–24, a view that will be presented in chapter 8. Already in the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53, the theme and thereby the charge that Jesus is a false prophet can be seen in several passages. In Jn 7:12 we read, “And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, ‘He is a good man,’ others said, ‘No, he is leading the people astray.’” This accusation in Jn 7:12 that Jesus 2 Cf. Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 86–87, cf. also Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie (WUNT 110, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 2:313ff. 3 W. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (SupplNovT XIV, Leiden: Brill, 1967). 4 O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (2nd ed., London: SCM Press, 1963), 29.

7.2 The Prophet/False Prophet

85

is leading the people astray directs us to Philo’s interpretation of Dt 13 (cf. Mos. 2:214–218) and the possibility that both vigilante and regular prosecution were acceptable forms of juridical action.5 In 7:46–47 the Pharisees speak in similar fashion: “The officers answered, ‘No man ever spoke like this man!’” The Pharisees answered them, “Are you led astray, you also?”’ In Jn 11 the “chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council” and express a fear which recalls the description of a false prophet in Dt 13 that includes his performing “signs.” They say, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.” Cf. Dt 13:2–4a: If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, “Let us go after other gods,” which you have not known, “and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet […].

The Fourth Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus’ signs is often not far away from “the Prophet,” but these signs are not exclusively assigned to this figure. John goes to considerable lengths to reject the accusation (and the Sanhedrin’s verdict record!) that Jesus was a false prophet. He does this long before Annas’ interrogation in Jn 18 by demonstrating that Jesus fulfills the test of a true prophet, found in Dt 18: And if you say in your heart, “How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?” – when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

When however, what he predicts will happen does actually come to pass, then he is a true prophet. In Jn there are literally scores of omniscient statements and predictions made by Jesus. It is probably best to be on the safe side by considering omniscient statements and predictions as a reflection of Jesus’ being equal to God (cf. Jn 1:47, 48, 50; 2:24; 4:17–19, 29, 39; 5:42; 6:15; 9:3; 16:30). Possible prophetic instances are when Jesus has knowledge of events or developments from afar: Jn 4:50; 11:11 and 11:14. The definition of an eschatological prophet involves preaching as an eschatological act, revealing final mysteries, and restoring revelation as God had given it in the law of Moses.6 In this sense it is possible to see Jesus in Jn fulfilling these functions when he knows when his “Hour” is and informs his followers about it (Jn 2:4; 7:6, 8; 12:23, 31; 13:1), when he foretells his betrayal (Jn 6:70; 13:11, 27), predicts his “going away” (7:33, 34; 8:21; 13:33, 36; 14:19; 16:10), informs about upcoming events relating to his mission, crucifixion and resurrection (Jn 2:19, 22; 3:14; 5:25; 8:28; 12:32; 13:3, 19; 14:29; 18:4; 16:32, 38; 19:28, 30), and foretells the disciples’ persecution (15:20; 16:2, 4a). 5 6

Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 70. Cullmann, Die Christologie, 21.

86

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

For John, Jesus is in fact the Prophet-like-Moses – and as the Christ so much more. For this reason, he devotes a great deal of attention to portraying Jesus at the very least like the Prophet as well as so much more as the Christ who “comes from God” (Jn 16:30). John is here, as so often in Jn 2:1–11:53, recreating the juridically charged Passion Week and Trial confrontation in his attempt to demonstrate that Jesus was wrongly put to death. He was falsely accused of being a false prophet instead of being recognized as the Christ in the comprehensive sense reflected in Jn 1:40–1:51.

7.3 The Son: Jesus as the Sent One Jesus’ origin is, in accordance with Isa 55:1–11, that of the Logos/Word of God. It receives the charge to descend to earth and, having accomplished its task, is to return to the heavenly realm. It is to this path from “above,” descending into the world of human beings and then returning to the “above” that Jesus refers to in Jn 7:28: “So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, ‘You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know.’” Jesus declares that his opponents do not know his origin (πόθεν), nor do they know the One who has sent him. The rhetorical question evinces that Jesus’ origin and sender are for them inscrutable, and consequently, Jesus’ opponents will not be able to recognize him for whom he is nor the divine nature of his mission. The One who has sent Jesus is his Father, from whom Jesus claims to have proceeded and come forth in Jn 8:42. Jesus once again maintains that he has not come of his own accord. Jesus is certain that his Father is always “with him” and that he is “true to him” (cf. 7:28). This is because Jesus has always done what is pleasing to him, an allusion to Isa 55:1–11 (cf. Jn 8:29). This complete identification of Jesus with his Father means that even if Jesus does judge, his judgment is true (8:16). Jesus is so much one with his Father that he can send his disciples in the same way his Father sent him and remain assured that they, like Jesus, will be one (Jn 17:18, 21). Jesus emphasizes the fact that he is completely devoted to doing his Father’s will. In Jn 6:38 he asserts, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” In this context this involves for Jesus “that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.” This decisive determination to do the Father’s will assumes concrete form in Jn 12:27–28: “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” Jesus’ mission corresponds to the “salvific arch” formed in Jn on the basis of Isa 55:1–11 (cf. chapter 3). The Son is sent to save and not condemn the world

7.3 The Son: Jesus as the Sent One

87

(Jn 3:17). Jesus is as the Son so taken up with the mission his Father has given him that he can say, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” in Jn 4:34. Jesus has been charged with a mission whose fulfillment is part of the plan. The Father’s will is that the Son should lose none of those the Father has given him and raise them up at the Last Day (Jn 6:44). It is the Father who “draws” those who “come to” Jesus. The Son himself is certain of the way he has to go. Accordingly, he can already announce the future fulfillment of his mission: “I shall be with you a little longer, and then I go to him who sent me” (7:33). This departure will create great consternation among the disciples (16:5), but this will no longer be the case after Jesus appears again as the Resurrected One. “The Jews” on the other hand are not able to recognize Jesus as the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world (10:35–36). The principle that was applied to a divine level in Jn 10:35 is based on concepts of agency. An agent is identical with his sender with respect to his authority and function as well as his qualities. John appears to be arguing that if those who received the Logos on Sinai were properly called “gods” in Ps 82:6, then so much more is the designation “Son of God” appropriate for the Father’s agent, who is sanctified and sent into the world as a human being.7 The congruency between the Son and his Sender, the Father, is absolute, grounded in their oneness. It therefore follows that all who honor the Son honor the Father, and all who do not honor the Son do not honor the Father (Jn 5:23). The Son does not speak on his own authority, he remains at all times congruent with the Father. Therefore, he does not at any time, or in any way, seek his own honor. It is the Father who gives the Son “all judgment” with the intent that all may honor the Son even as the Father. The Son thus does not speak on his own authority, but on that of the Father (7:18a). It is the Son who seeks (ζητέω) the glory of his sender (8:50). For this reason is this one sent by the Father “true and there is no falsehood in him” (7:18b). The reciprocity of the Father and the Son honoring each other demonstrates the extreme intimate relationship between the Son and his Father (5:23). This is the reason why Jesus can assert in 12:44–45, “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me.” This reciprocal nature of sending also comes to the fore when Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (13:20). The teaching of the Son as the Father’s word is unsurpassed: “he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit (3:34). The Son is also in this regard the obedient Sent One of his Father: “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (7:16). Everything that Jesus says is that which he has heard from his Father: “I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him” (8:26). Jesus’ discipline in this regard is so strict, that he 7

Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 174–75.

88

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

speaks of following the Father’s commandment: “For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak” (12:49). Jesus underlines this fact when he is no longer teaching publicly, but is among his disciples in 14:24, “He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.” Thus, Jesus can claim in his intercessory prayer in Jn 17:8, “for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.” Not just the witness of John the Baptist, but the works that Jesus does bear witness to the fact that Jesus has been sent by the Father in 5:36, “But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” These works are of great importance for Jesus the Son, as his statement in 9:4 indicates: “We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work,” as well as in 4:34 (cf. above). The foundation of Jesus being the Sent One of the Father is his knowing him, knowing that he “comes” from him and knowing that he is sent by him (7:29). Because his opponents do not know who sent Jesus, they are his enemies who wish – and eventually will succeed – to kill him (15:21). But this knowledge will be the basis for those who in the future believe in Jesus and therefore become “perfectly one” with the Son, the Father and each other. Then the world, that has not yet known the Father, may also know him (17:23, 25). Believing Jesus means having eternal life (Jn 5:24). Those who wish to be doing the work of God should believe in Jesus as the Sent One of God (6:29). By hearing Jesus’ word, they can come to believe in him (11:42). Consequently, they have God’s word abiding in them (5:38). Believing in Jesus means believing in him who sent Jesus (12:44), just as the one seeing Jesus sees him who sent Jesus (12:45). Eternal life is knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3). He has sent him as the living Father and therefore Jesus also lives, as does the person who metaphorically “eats” him (6:57). In chapter 3 the fundamental role of Isa 55:1–3, 10–11 for John’s Gospel was established. Based on the parallels between Isa 55:1–3, 10–11; 6:27–71, its fundamental association with John’s Sent One christology can be regarded as firmly established. This is in keeping with Thyen’s previously cited view that John wishes that the interpretive reference to Isa 55:10–11, which permeates the entire gospel, be repeatedly understood as such. This is especially apparent in Jn 8:29 and 19:30.8 8

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 70.

7.4 The Son of God

89

As was observed in chapter 5, it seems very likely that John has been inspired to adapt the “sending” events and theology of this parable and develop them christologically. The characters and several aspects of the parable parallel those that are found in the Fourth Gospel: a father, his son, one who is sent, those who are set in their opposition, the son’s death, and the consequences of their murderous conduct. This adaptation by John affords him the opportunity to literally “flesh out” the arrival, mission, and return of the Word in terms of the parable. As we saw in chapter 2, this interpretive work of John presupposes the existence and knowledge of the institutional canons of emissaries in trade and diplomacy in the ancient world.9

7.4 The Son of God Nathanael’s confession, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God” occupies an important place in the Fourth Gospel since “the Jews” assert before Pilate in Jn 19:7, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God.” This accusation is preceded by contexts of the Preponed Trial, as is in Jn 5, 7, 8, and 10. A.E. Harvey’s study of Johannine juridical procedure10 focuses on John’s portrayal of the confrontations between “the Jews,” Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, and the resulting charge of blasphemy. Harvey sees five incidents in Jn 5 through 10 which portray these clashes. After the man at the Sheep gate pool in Jn 5 was healed, “the Jews” interrogated him because he was carrying his pallet on the Sabbath. They wanted to know if he was sinning presumptuously – a serious offense – or if had a special reason for doing so. When he explained that it was the man who healed him who had told him to do so, “the Jews” viewed Jesus as being responsible for this sin. John explains to his readers in 5:16–17: “Therefore the Jews started persecuting (better: prosecuting, see Harvey below) Jesus, because he was doing such things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working.’” For this reason, the Jews were seeking even more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but also was calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. Bekken understands Jn 5:17–18 in the context of Philo’s ‘cosmic interpretation’ of work on the Sabbath, where breaking the Sabbath has broader implications which “intensify” the crime. Jesus’ connecting God’s being unceasingly active even on the Sabbath (cf. Philo’s Mos. 2:218–219) with his healing act was understood as meaning that Jesus was intensifying his violation of it. Philo understands blasphemy to be a special kind of insult, that is, “the human arrogating and usurpation of divine status to himself” (cf. Legat. 353–368). Based 9 Cf. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 137–48 and J.-A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Ev. (WUNT 2/2, Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1977), 118–80, 181–261. 10 Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 50–54.

90

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

on Philo’s writings, Bekken sees both “vigilante on the spot” and regular juridical procedure taking place in Jn, with the former not having been considered illegal (Spec. 1:54–57; 315–318; 2:252–253; 3:96).11 Bekken sees John using the defense that the framework of the heavenly halakha permitted seeing Jesus as God’s heavenly agent who could, like his Father, do God’s work on the Sabbath without being culpable of Sabbath breaking and blasphemy.12 Harvey rightly objects to formulating the outset of Jn 5:16 with “persecuting.”13 “The Jews” are prosecuting (ἐδίωκον) Jesus because he has presumptuously violated the Sabbath. It is their religious duty to do so. But Jesus’ response exacerbates the already difficult situation. He compares himself to the Father and claims the right to be “create-tively” working just as his Father, the Creator. For this reason, “the Jews” “were seeking (ἐζήτουν) even more” to kill Jesus: he was calling God his own Father and thereby making himself equal to God. As Harvey (52) notes, Jesus had indeed a defense, in the form of a reason why it was right for him to perform an act which was prima facie a transgression of the law relating to the Sabbath; but this defense depended on there being a special relationship between himself and God – that is, on him being the Son of God in a very much more personal and individual sense than that according to which any Jew might call upon God as Father.

Harvey sees the goal of killing Jesus as an indication that Jesus is considered to have committed blasphemy (52). In Jn 7:28, Harvey (52–53) sees “the Jews” still in the early stages of prosecuting Jesus. In his view, three conditions must be fulfilled to be able to kill him. One group of Jews had heard Jesus speaking in an “incriminating” way. About this there was no doubt. But secondly, it must be perfectly clear that the definition of blasphemy was applicable to his words. Thirdly, a practicable way of putting Jesus to death had to be found. Jesus obliges his opponents with a clearly defined occurrence of blasphemy in Jn 7:28: “You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.” Upon hearing this, Jesus’ opponents do not hesitate to take consequences: “So they sought to arrest him.” They now have sufficient proof that Jesus incriminated himself and that his statements can legitimately be classified as blasphemous. The only thing keeping them from killing him is that “his hour had not yet come.” Up to this point in Jn 8:19 Harvey sees a three-stage pattern established: utterance containing a possible forbidden statement, confirmation that it contains blasphemous words, and an attempt to arrest and kill which, however, is thwarted because of what John seems to understand as what we wish to call 11 12 13

Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 69–70. Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 173. Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 51.

7.5 King (of Israel)

91

‘divine untimeliness.’ The next scene in Jn 8:19 corresponds to this: “Then they said to him, ‘Where is your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’” The scene continues until it then reaches a climax at the end of Jn 8. Jesus says to them in Jn 8:58–59, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So “the Jews” took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. This time the reaction of “the Jews” is immediate and decisive. But once again Jesus is, so to speak, ‘saved by the hour.’ Jn 10:30 Following the healing of the man born blind in Jn 9 (which once again represents a violation of Sabbath law), Jesus is teaching in the temple. In the course of the pericope “Jesus the Good Shepherd” (Jn 10:7ff.), Jesus has already claimed in 10:17–18, For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.

It comes then as no surprise that Jesus shortly later in Jn 10:30 draws the logical and factual consequence of this father-son relationship: “The Father and I are one.” “The Jews” pick up stones again in 10:31. This time, Jesus responds verbally to their intention to stone him. He closes his remarks by challenging those prosecuting him: If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

They respond by trying to arrest Jesus, but once again he eludes them. These scenes which focus on the claim of the Johannine Jesus culminate in the charge that Jesus makes himself the Son of God. This theme develops an important aspect of the Synoptic Passion Story and especially the Synoptic Trial narrative. It thus provides a major, dramatic aspect of the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53 as a whole, and specifically in critical scenes in Jn 5, 7, 8, and 10.

7.5 King (of Israel) The christological title “King” occurs rarely in Jn before the Roman trial account in Jn 18–19. It occurs once in Nathanael‘s confession in Jn 1:49 and once in the Preponed Trial in 6:15. In John’s Passion Demi-Week in Jn 11:54–13:38 it occurs twice, in Jn 12:13, 15. What kind of king was being confessed by Nathanael, then avoided by Jesus, later celebrated by the crowd with the words, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” and then subject of so much attention in the trial before Pilate? Whether Jesus was a king presented a loaded question both for the historical Jesus himself as well as later for Johannine Christians. A political, and es-

92

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

pecially a military concept of a “king” could have presumably led to a brutal reaction from the Romans and therefore to disaster – which, without Christian participation, had likely already taken place before the Fourth Gospel appeared in the form as we know it. This concern can be clearly seen in the scene involving the chief priests and the Pharisees in Jn 11:47–48. The fear of the association of a “king”-like leader performing signs with a violent uprising against the Romans most likely also lies behind Jesus’ taking flight in Jn 6:15, when we are told that Jesus perceives that the crowd is about to make him king. In his portrayal of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in Jn 12:12–19, Jesus is portrayed as the humble king found in Zech 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.

This, we are told, is what the disciples at first do not understand. Jesus as “king” does not correspond to ordinary expectations found in contemporary writings of early Judaism in the first century. John will take up this question regarding what kind of king Jesus truly is when he stands before Pilate in Jn 18–19. For now, in the Preponed Trial of Jn 2:1–11:53, it suffices for John to tiptoe around the ‘king-question,’ while still allowing two decisive confessions to be made in 1:49 and 12:13–15. Much later, after the resurrection, the disciples will understand what actually happened, as 12:16 explains: “At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.”

7.6 The Son of Man The Fourth Gospel has twelve Son of Man sayings, ten of which occur in the range of the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53. The Son of Man sayings in Jn 12– 13 will be addressed in the section of the Passion Demi-Week in 11:54–13:38 under 7.8. The Son of Man saying in Jn 1:51 entails a programmatic statement which is introduced by Jesus’ prediction that “greater things” will be taking place in the future. The change from the second person singular to the plural calls our attention to Mt 26:63–64, with which John according to Thyen “plays,” combining it with Mt 16:27 to form a saying which is his own composition.14 Nathanael, who represents the ‘rest’ of Israel, will see angels ascending and 14

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 143–44.

7.6 The Son of Man

93

descending on a ladder connecting heaven and earth, which is based on Gen 28:12. We see the Son of Man as being himself this ladder in accordance with the LXX text (cf. Jn 14:6). The heavens are opened (note the perfect participle form) and stay this way, comparable to Jesus’ baptism in Jn 1:32. Thyen notes that in the Synoptics, the Son of Man with his angels are ordinarily associated with the Parousia and Final Judgment. Here however Jesus is just starting on his path together with his disciples. Thyen writes: Was Jesus Mt 26,64 mit dem Zitat von Dan 7,13 seinen Feinden als zukünftig – und öffentlich – sichtbares Geschehen verkündet, das verheißt er Johannes 1,51 denen, die an ihn glauben: Sie, die er 15,14 seine Freunde und österlich endlich seine Brüder (20,17) nennen wird, sollen an seiner irdischen Gegenwart seine Herrlichkeit sehen und erfahren.15

The key to understanding this verse in Jn 3:13, “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man,” lies in the proper understanding of the perfect form of the verb “ascended.” D. Burkett’s solution to this vexing problem involves recognizing the special character of statements in Prv 30:1–4. There one finds all the motifs of John 3:13 woven together: the man, the son, their ascension to heaven and their descent to earth. This translation of the LXX provides a rough idea of what Burkett has uncovered: My son, fear my words, and repent when you receive them; this is what the man says to those who believe in God: Now I stop, for I am the most foolish of all people and I have not the prudence of people. God has taught me wisdom, and I have gained knowledge of holy things. Who has ascended to the sky and come down? Who has gathered the wind in a fold? Who has wrapped the water in a garment? Who has taken control of all the ends of the earth? What is his name? Or the name of his children that you may know them?16

These penetrating questions allow one of two possible answers: the man, or the son of the man. This yields an exact and certainly not accidental correspondence between 3:13, “No one has ascended into heaven” and “but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” When one considers that this Old Testament passage presents itself as a riddle with a double meaning, which includes an enigmatic reference to God (i.e., “the man”), then the result can be summarized as Thyen does: Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 145–47. Translation from: M. Silva, translator: Esaias NETS Septuagint translation, http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/25-proverbs-nets.pdf, downloaded on 4 August 2022. Italics added by S.C.A. 15 16

94

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

All das heißt aber, daß Joh 3,13 in intertextuellem Spiel mit Prov 30 von solchen Gelegenheiten spricht, wo Gott nach einem Besuch auf Erden wieder aufsteigt in den Himmel und dabei diese Besuche der Irdischen für den υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Anspruch nimmt.17

Thus, Jesus’ statement in John 9:5 can be translated as it should: “As often (ὅταν) as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” This interpretation also permits understanding Jn 12:41 (“Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him.”) and 8:56 (“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.”) in terms of this background. Thus, this approach for interpreting Jn 3:13 makes sense: Jesus the Son of Man has been on earth and among humans before his present appearance. J. Frey views the quoting of Num 21:4–9 in the Son of Man saying in John 3:14 as part of how Jn emphasizes Jesus’ Passion by using Old Testament citations. This is seen by his use of Psalm 69:10 in John 2:17. At this point in Jn there is no recognizable polemic against Moses and the time of God’s saving acts during Israel’s sojourn in the desert. In both Jn 3:14 and 12:34 it is the crowd that questions what the meaning of the saying “the Son of Man must be lifted up” could be. In this way the complete ministry of Jesus stands under the sign of the cross and this saying has the quality of a programmatic statement. This is substantiated by John’s remark in Jn 18:32 that this was to fulfill the word which Jesus had spoken to show by what death he was to die. Frey emphasizes that the image of “lifting up” in Num 21 is one that John demonstrably wants to have understood in concrete terms. This can be seen for example when the Greeks wish to see Jesus in Jn 12:21. They desire to see the one who is lifted up on the cross who draws all persons to himself (12:32).18 Frey sees John exhibiting remarkable familiarity with scripture and traditions of the Old Testament as well as Synoptic gospel traditions, especially Isaiah 53. John sees to it that elements of the story of Jesus are brought together with words of scripture and are vital for the disciples’ process of recognition of who Jesus truly was.19 Scripture as a whole witnesses to Jesus (Jn 5:39): Moses (5:46), Abraham (8:56), Isaiah (12:41) and a word from the Psalms (10:34–36) are such. Frey sees John’s selection of scripture as anything but random. John makes use of certain christologically central and well-known early Christian tradition texts such as Isaiah 53, Ps 22 or Zech 12 and links them by using techniques like gezerah shawah. John’s use of Num 21 corresponds to Jewish traditions which were “intensively discussed.” For these reasons and others Frey sees John’s use of Num 21:4–9 together with elements of its history of reception as playing the key role for the christological revelation found in the passage Jn 2:23–3:36, which describes Jesus’ way in the specific form of the Johannine theology of the cross. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 206. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie 2, 141. 19 Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie (WUNT 117, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 3:141. 17 18

7.6 The Son of Man

95

In our own view we should add how important it is that John essentially ‘crosses’ the Son of Man with the mission of the Suffering Servant. The “must” which is also found in the Synoptic traditions of Mk 8:31, 9:31, and 10:32–34 and parallels, as well as the prediction that the Son of Man will “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45), reflect the influence of Isaiah 53 (cf. chapter 5) in these two Son of Man sayings in Jn 3:13 and 14. John has Jesus revealing what will lead to “heavenly things,” of which Nicodemus has no inkling. Firstly, the fact that the Son of Man has, on several occasions, already descended from heaven and returned there again in the past and has now descended once again. Secondly, that Jesus’ ascension this time will be precipitated by the necessity to be lifted up on the cross, similar to how Moses lifted up the snake in Num 21. Understanding this necessity will accompany the reader throughout the rest of the Fourth Gospel. The central question for interpreters of the Son of Man saying in Jn 5:27 is whether the expression “Son of Man” should be understood in terms of the apocalyptic background of this figure in Dan 7:3020 or rather as a “cryptogram” for the “Son of God” based on a word play in Prov 30:1–4.21 Frey observes that the resurrection of the dead and final judgment are traditionally God’s own work. This means that the eschatological authority of the Son in vv. 22 and 26f. is grounded in a conferred authority which at the same time becomes intrinsic and presently efficacious. The use of the verb δίδωμι (aorist v. 22, perfect v. 26) refers to the bestowal of authority as in John 17:2 (ἔδωκας). Due to this endowment the Son represents the Father as the Sent One armed with this eschatological authority. This includes the ability to “lay down his life“ as well as “to take it up again” (Jn 10:18).22 For this reason, the Son belongs being at God’s side for he has life in unity with the Father. In other words, he is God himself. It is in this sense that he exercises complete authority for divine purposes.23 Jn 5:27 adds (in the same order as found in vv. 21f.) to the positive side of life the negative side of judgment. What occurs is described as the bestowal of authority to judge in v. 22, “but has given all judgment to the Son,” ἀλλὰ τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκεν τῷ υἱῷ, which also occurs in verse 27, “because he is Son of Man,” ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. Frey sees here a “high christological and ontological” statement. The power to exercise judgment and thereby the function of the Son/the Son of Man is grounded in his being. As the Father’s Son he has life in himself. As the Son of Man he has been appointed to be the eschatological judge. The two christological titles Son and Son of Man are placed next to each other here as well as in 3:13–17, but no difference between Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie (WUNT 110, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 2:364–69. 21 Cf. Burkett, Son of the Man, 51–75 and Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 206–8. 22 Cf. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie 2, 364–65. 23 Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie 2, 365. 20

96

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

the two is made. When the Son of Man is the subject in Jn, he can be no other than the Son who is one with the Father and is the one sent into the world, that is, he has come from heaven.24 The connection between Jesus’ authority to judge and his identity as the Son of Man is made clear by the expression “he has given him authority to exercise judgment” as well as the reason which is added, “because he is Son of Man.” Frey sees this phrase being drawn from Dan 7, but he concedes that this requires a rather complicated explanation (365). He names three factors to support this view which can be briefly named here. First, in both the Aramaic and LXX texts of Dan 7, there appears to be a close relationship between the “Ancient of Days” and “one like a son of man.” Both figures participate in having authority to judge (367–368). Secondly, the LXX version of Dan 7 appears to go a step further than other versions: the Son of Man becomes a single figure and is no longer a representative of a collective. Thirdly, a further development is conceivable, one in which “the one like a Son of Man” appears as a “second power” in heaven, one very near to God. Therefore, Frey concludes that for a Christian teacher like John, who was aware of the connection between the Son of Man title and Jesus, the LXX text of Dan 7 was a passage of scripture that lent itself to understand the designation found in Dan 7:13, “Son of Man,” as both a heavenly figure and a divine being. This permitted John to perceive the eschatological authority granted Jesus as also including the authority to judge (369). Three Son of Man sayings occur in Jn 6:27, 53 and 62 as a part of Jesus’ Bread of Life passage in Jn 6:22–59, together with the closing of Jn 6 in Jn 6:60–71. Jesus’ double amen-saying poses a strong rebuke of those purporting to seek Jesus, one that as Thyen remarks does not tolerate any kind of rebuttal.25 The crowd’s fundamental mistake is that it overlooks the fact that the first manna miracle involves God himself having given and giving manna in the present. In this sense they “make their stomach to be their God.”26 Jesus exhorts the crowd in 6:27 not to waste their energy on things that spoil, but rather to receive the nourishment of eternal life. It is the Son of Man who will give this to them because God has set his seal upon him. Thyen27 sees here the continuing influence of the previous Son of Man sayings, particularly Jn 1:51. There heaven and earth, God and humankind are connected by a ladder, attended by angels ascending and descending upon it, which is the Son of Man himself. The ascending-descending motif is continued in 3:13 where an intertextual ‘game’ with Prov 30:1–4 results in involving the name of “the son of the man.” As we have already determined, Burkett and Thyen see this as a cryptogram 24 25 26 27

Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie 2, 365. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 343. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 343. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 343–44.

7.6 The Son of Man

97

for Jesus as the Son of Man. Jn 3:14 contributes the definitive statement that it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up. The new information that is communicated here in this bread of life passage is that not only does Jesus the Son of Man give food that does not perish, he is this bread himself. At this juncture Jn 6 reflects the profound influence of Isaiah 55:1–3, 10–11 on this passage as we described in chapter 3. Not only are the Prologue and the rest of Jn connected by this key text. Thyen rightly sees the Logos and the Son of Man connected here in John 6 by the key term “flesh.” The Prologue’s statement that the Word became flesh is taken up again and strongly emphasized here by John, evidenced by the fact that seven of 13 uses of the term flesh in Jn occur here in 6:51–56 and 63.28 This term “flesh” is that of which the Son of Man as both giver and what is given consists. It provides the reason why persons should not try to work for this bread of life. They should rather let it be given to them. This complex consisting of Isa 55 1–3, 10–11 and Jn 6 correctly leads Burkett to conclude that the Logos and the Son of Man are understood to refer to the same preexistent individual who has become incarnate as Jesus.29 It is this Jesus as the Son of Man upon whom God himself has set his seal, Greek ἐσφράγισεν. Liddell and Scott30 state that the meaning of this term σφραγίζω is to “accredit as an envoy” (cf. 2Cor 1:22). With respect to the Prologue, Thyen sees this accreditation as occurring at the beginning, but before all things were made through the Logos.31 Before “the Jews” start to dispute among themselves in v. 52 and the next Son of Man saying comes in v. 53, Jesus utters an important sentence for the bread of life discourse in verse 51c: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The expression “for the life of the world” calls attention to John’s many uses of ὑπὲρ in John (10:11, 15; 11:50 (18:14); 11:51f.; 15:13; 17:19; cf. 13:37f.), all of which refer to Jesus’ death. A double “amen” introduces the next Son of Man saying, which is made as a response to “the Jews” disputing among themselves in their attempt to understand Jesus’ statement in 6:51c. Jesus says in 6:53, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Arguing against an eucharistic understanding of the bread of life discourse as a whole and particularly regarding this verse, many interpreters hold that this statement needs to be understood metaphorically. Jesus lived as a Torah observing Jew and as such he could only make a statement like he does in 6:53 with metaphorical intent. Otherwise, the context of the statement, if it 28 29 30 31

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 344–45. Burkett, Son of the Man, 135. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1742. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 347.

98

Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week

were intended to be understood literally or in some eucharistic sense, would be wrong simply because the public would be the wrong one, i.e., Jewish and not Christian. This is not to say that this statement in particular does not involve a eucharistic reference. In dealing with these issues, Odeburg makes the helpful suggestion that Johannine scholars should not make the same mistake that Nicodemus does in Jn 3: In fact, one who understands the words of the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood to refer to the bread and wine of the Eucharist takes exactly the mistaken view of which Nicodemus in ch[apter] 3 and the Jews here are made the exponents, viz. that J[ohn]’s realistic expressions refer to objects of the terrestrial world instead of to objects of the celestial world.32

This Son of Man saying in Jn 8:28 is located in a charged context involving Jesus’ announcement that he will be soon departing and his listeners’ reaction, who don’t understand a thing. Does Jesus plan to kill himself? Who is this man, who is threatening them with the prospect that they will die in their sins? What has been said allegedly the whole time? Why – and to what purpose – does he purport always having spoken that which his father taught him? And who is his father? There is obviously so much at stake. This is especially reflected in Jesus’ statement in Jn 8:28 which holds promise – or threatens – to provide knowledge of whom Jesus is and therefore provide answers to these questions: “When you have lifted up the Son of Man then you will know that I AM and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.” How should this announcement be understood? There are those commentators who hold that it is a prediction of judgment. This interpretation sees Jesus’ hearers as being those in the future who will be responsible for “lifting up,” that is crucifying Jesus (note the transitive form of “lift up”), who then experience the horrifying realization that Jesus is in fact the I AM he has said he is. For them it is too late. Supporting this view is the portrayal of the Jews’ responsibility for Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion in John 18–19 (cf. especially 19:11–16). But there is also the position that Jn 8:28 can lead to salvation. Schnackenburg names four reasons for this. First, John’s use of the verb Greek γινώσκω for “know” is always used elsewhere in Jn in a positive sense, cf. Jn 7:17, 26; 8:32; 10:38; 14:31; 17:23. Second, the only verse in John that deals with the effect of the crucifixion on persons is the scripture quotation in Jn 19:37, “they will look upon him whom they have speared.” According to both Zech 12:10 and the context in Jn, the primary accent appears to be on the victorious, salvific power of the raised one, not on the judgment of the guilty. Third, Jesus’ statement in Jn 12:32 states that the raised up one will draw all persons to himself, which appears to be a word of universal promise (cf. 12:24). Fourth, at the close of this pericope in 8:21–29, many believe in Jesus after this an32

H. Odeburg, The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala, 1929/Amsterdam, 1974), 239.

7.6 The Son of Man

99

nouncement. Here the implication is that it will in later times not be too late to find faith in Jesus. Schnackenburg adds to these factors the thought that such a pronounced prophetic promise of salvation might be a view that is too optimistic given the threatening words in v. 21 and v. 24. Therefore, he opts for an explanation paraphrased in terms of Jesus speaking to his listeners in the first person: Jetzt seid ihr einer Erkenntnis völlig verschlossen; dann aber wird euch die Erkenntnis aufgehen, wer in mir spricht und handelt – und dann werdet ihr euch dieser Erkenntnis stellen müssen, ohne auszuweichen.

In this way everything stays open regarding the question at hand.33 Viewed in these terms nothing is already decided. This will occur later, and the result will either be faith and salvation or being hardened and forever lost. But in any event, “They shall look on him whom they have pierced” (Jn 19:37). The one raised up is the Son of God whom no one can overlook. This is the fundamental Johannine perspective. Jesus speaks and acts completely as his Father wishes. Schnackenburg’s perspective lends itself well to our determination that John has ‘tweaked’ Jesus’ words in Luke 22:67–69 and 70c, resulting in Luke’s words being as it were rephrased in Jn 8:25–28. The result is a theological equivalent of Jesus’ electrifying Son of Man saying in Lk 22:69 par. Again, it is highly significant that the Son of Man and the Ego Eimi occur together only three times in the entire New Testament: Mk 14:62, Luke 22:69–70 and John 8:28. Here we see such theophanic statements as in Mk 14:62 par, Jn 8:28 and Acts 7:56 making prophetic announcements (of a future theophanie) which can be experienced either positively or negatively by those directly or indirectly experiencing them. This is seen clearly in Stephen’s vision of the Son of Man. He, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven, saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55–56). Stephen, rejoicing, describes what he sees, but his adversaries cry out loud, stopping their ears and seizing Stephen to stone him. Stephen’s verbal description of his vision was by itself enough to fortify their unbelief. Jesus as the Son of Man also appears in John’s account of the healing of the man born blind in Jn 9. Commentators are generally agreed that this story is exceptionally well done. In the words of R. Brown, the internal construction of the story is done with consummate skill. The parallel portraits of increasing insight and hardening blindness are masterfully done.34 This story serves as a concrete example of what it means for Jesus to be the Light of the world (9:5). Jesus sees the urgent necessity to do the works of his Father as long as it is daytime, for his Hour is rapidly approaching. The healing he is about to perform will manifest the works of God in the man born blind. 33 34

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 256–57. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 376–77.

100 Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week His physical blindness has nothing to do with sin or anyone having sinned, as the rest of the story will make evident. The healing itself is accomplished quickly enough in two steps. A mixture of clay and spittle are applied to the man’s eyes, then he is instructed by Jesus to wash in the pool of Siloam, which translated means “sent.” This manner of healing involves Jesus having worked on the Sabbath and leads therefore to a series of interrogations in vv. 8–12. At first it is the man’s neighbors who want to know if the man now healed is really the man who was once blind. They also want to know who healed him. These neighbors bring the man to the Pharisees, who are more concerned with how Jesus healed the man than with the fact that he has been healed. The Pharisees have differing opinions about Jesus. There is a schism regarding the question whether Jesus is from God or not. The man virtually assumes the role of Jesus’ attorney.35 His opinion is that Jesus is a prophet. Dissatisfied with this result, the Pharisees turn to interrogating the man’s parents. They have identified the healed man as their son, but they refer the Pharisees to their son himself, who is of age. They do this because they fear “the Jews” and are afraid of being cast out of the synagogue (ἀποσυνάγωγος). Here we probably see the relatively recent, if not current, situation of John’s own readers reflected in this story. As Brown remarks, The parents’ fear of speaking represents the dilemma of those practicing Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah but who now (i.e., at the end of the first century) find that they can no longer profess this faith and remain Jews. Through the example of the blind man in v. 34 the gospel appeals to them that they allow themselves to be excommunicated, for Jesus will seek them out as he sought out the blind man in v. 35 and bring them to complete faith.36

The confession of Jesus as the Christ can have severe consequences for the believer. “The Jews” interrogate the man again. They demand that he “give God the glory.” This was an Old Testament phrase which not only involved the demand to give God alone the glory, but also that the person in question confess their own guilt, cf. Jos 7:19; 1Sam 6:5; 2Chr 30:8; Jer 13:16.37 In this way “the Jews” want the man to revoke his support for Jesus and testify against him. But the healed man remains steadfast and even more so when the disciples of Moses categorically assert what they “know” God has spoken to Moses, but they certainly cannot say the same for “this man” Jesus. The healed man states, “Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind” and “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (vv. 32–33). “The Jews” reject this view as well as the man himself, asserting that he was born in “utter sin” and cast him out. When Jesus hears of this, he searches the man, finds him, and asks, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (Jn 9:35). This John understands as Jesus fulfilling his task as described 35 36 37

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 313. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 380. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 318.

7.7 The Case for Recognizing John’s Preponed Trial

101

in stark contrast to “the Jews” in Jn 6:37: “All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.” Jesus wants to lead the man to full faith and does so by means of what Schnackenburg describes as a “dialogue encounter” similar to those found in Jn 4:23–36 (Samaritan woman), 20:27–29 (Thomas), and 11:21–27 (Martha). We would add 1:47–51 (Nathanael).38 The healed man gets an answer to his question, “And who is he, Sir, that I may believe in him?” in v. 35. Jesus answers in the third person form, which is typical for Son of Man sayings in the New Testament: “You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.” The man believes and worships Jesus (vv. 37–38). Jesus responds by summarizing what has essentially transpired in this story including the physical healing of the man born blind. Those who did not see, see, and those who see have become blind in a spiritual sense. In this manner Jesus answers the question of some of the Pharisees in vv. 40–41. Their guilt remains. Thus, this story illustrates how Jesus the Son of Man fulfills his mission: “For judgment I came into this world that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (v. 39, cf. 12:40). Clearly, it involves an extreme case when those judging according to appearance are blind.

7.7 The Case for Recognizing John’s Preponed Trial 1. John’s use of the five christological titles surrounding Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1:40–51 contributes profoundly to John’s goal of reversing the faulty verdict found in Synoptic narratives of the Sanhedrin Trial. 2. Overarching themes found in the Synoptic Passion Week narratives such as Jesus’ ‘sending,’ Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection and – very probably – Jesus’ singular ‘witness’ as found in the Lukan Sanhedrin trial narrative are fundamental for John’s portrayal of the juridical confrontation which center on the trials Jesus vs. “the Jews” as well as “the Jews” vs. Jesus, and are carried by these key concepts in Jn 2:1–11:53 (as well as beyond to the end of the gospel). 3. John has adapted a distinct prosecutorial form involving “the Jews” seeking to prosecute, arrest and even kill Jesus in Jn 2:1–11:53. The verbal form of this prosecution, ζητέω, is found only in the Synoptic Passion week narratives as opposed to a differing form which is, with one exception, found outside of this Passion Week narratives. This one exception demonstrates that John had a choice and did in fact consciously choose the verbal form using the juridical term ζητέω found in the Synoptic Passion Week narratives over and against the other one. The latter appears to place emphasis on juridical deliberations and decisions and not specifically on the concrete prosecutorial measures we

38

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 321.

102 Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week see portrayed in Jn. This prosecutorial form is far more suitable for the intense juridical confrontations characteristic of Jn 5–10. 4. It is highly probable that the correlation established between the elements found both in the Synoptic Passion Week narrative and the Sanhedrin Trial as well as Jn 2:1–11:53 is not coincidental. To obviate the need to rely solely on such an appeal, a counter-example examination (German: ‘Gegenprobe’) is necessary. What other christological titles besides the ones surrounding Nathanael’s confession also appear in Jn and are also portrayed by the Evangelist as cause for “the Jews” to challenge Jesus and his claims? The answer to this question is simple and to the point: none. For neither the ‘Logos’ (1:1, 14) nor ‘the Lamb of God’ (1:29, 36) nor ‘the Elect One of God’ (1:34) nor ‘Savior’ (4:42b) nor ‘Lord’ (6:23, 34, 68; 9:36; 11:2, 3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:13; 12:38; [13:6, 9; 20:18; 20:28]), nor in the I-am-words ‘Resurrection and Life’ (11:25), ‘Way, Truth and the Life’ (14:26), ‘True Vine’ (15:1), ‘Vine’ (15:5) are terms that are spoken and which then meet opposition by “the Jews” in Jn 2:1–11:53 or also even in Jn 1–20. There are three cases which could at first appear to be exceptions, but upon closer examination are not. One case is Jesus’ own term for himself, “Bread of Life” (6:48, 51), because this is given by the Son of Man and therefore belongs to this altogether different category, ‘Son of Man.’ Another is Jesus’ claim “I am the Light of the world” (8:12). Here “the Jews” do raise objections – but not against Jesus’ claim to be the Light per se, but on formal legal grounds, i.e., they object to how Jesus is testifying, namely to himself, allegedly without a prescribed second witness. Philo held that only God could give a self-authenticating witness. This could explain why Jesus claims in Jn that he could testify in his own case because of his divine origin.39 Lastly, Jesus’ statements speaking as the Good Shepherd (10:19) cause another schisma. Those disagreeing with Jesus assert that he has a demon and is mad. Virtually the same accusation is made in 8:48, 52. This demonstrates that the opposition raised in 10:19 is due to Jesus’ assertions that he is equal to God, not that he has claimed to be the Good Shepherd. The rest of the confrontation bears this out. Because Jesus (allegedly) makes himself the Son of God, “the Jews” accuse him of blasphemy (10:33). The total result of this counter-example examination clearly indicates that this test has been passed and that the Preponed Trial thesis has been thereby, to this extent, confirmed. 5. Thus we can substantiate that John’s Preponed Trial successfully serves the theological purpose for which John created it. The accusations against Jesus stemming from the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial are groundless. Jesus fulfills the expectations associated with the Prophet-like-Moses, and more. He is not a false prophet who misleads the people. Jesus, the Logos, is the Son sent from God and the Son of God, who has life in himself. Jesus is the promised King 39

Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 146–47.

7.8 The Johannine Passion Demi-Week

103

of Israel, whose reign needs to be properly understood. Jesus is, as the Son of Man from Mk 14:62 and appearing in the decisive role described in Jn 8:28, the justified and judging Son of Man. As such he brings salvation on the cross and therefore necessarily judgment as well. He is the Christ, in whom one hopefully will believe and thereby have eternal life (20:30–31). 6. Therefore it would appear that – up to this point – the attempt to establish Théo Preiss’ goal of “a more coherent system of ideas” by concentrating on Jn’s juridical aspect has been largely successful. 7. Having addressed vital issues arising from the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial narratives, John now needs to turn to still unanswered questions raised by the Jewish interrogation in Jn 18 and address very sensitive issues raised by the Roman trial. But first we must examine the Johannine Passion Demi-Week.

7.8 The Johannine Passion Demi-Week We have already demonstrated that John has drawn on the Synoptic Passion Week narrative in order to portray the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53. Here it will be shown that John has developed his own version of what we designate as the ‘Johannine Passion Demi-Week,’ which follows the decision of the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus in Jn 11:53. This demi-week begins with John’s description of events in 11:54ff. and continues up to, but not including, Jesus’ arrest in Jn 18:1. We should note that each Synoptic Gospel also has its own demi-week. After the foregoing recognition and “borrowing” of juridical words and events by John, the Synoptic portrayals of their demi-weeks consist largely of Jesus’ teachings, conversations, and disputes between Jesus and his opponents, as well as Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse, in i.e., Mk 13:1–37. When the two demi-weeks of Matthew and Mark are compared with John’s, our attention is drawn to a significant difference between the two types. In these Synoptic accounts, the anointing in Bethany occurs at the end of the “demi-week,” just before Jesus’ arrest. It serves thereby as the climax of the Synoptic demi-week. This anointing in Jn on the other hand takes place at the outset of John’s Passion Demi-Week, after the climax of the Sanhedrin verdict to kill Jesus. As a consequence, John’s Passion Demi-Week is characterized by the predetermined, divine course of the Hour of Glorification (cf. Jn 12:23) and its major forthcoming events are accordingly addressed. John’s purpose in doing so is to demonstrate that everything that is about to take place in Jesus’ Hour is foreseen and part of God’s saving plan. Believers should therefore be comforted and strengthened, both in the coming Hour when Jesus is crucified as well as afterwards, when the promise of eternal life (cf. 12:24–25) will be fulfilled. The dominant theme of the Johannine Passion Demi-Week is death. No less than six passages in Jn 12 refer to death and an additional five passages focus

104 Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week on Judas’ upcoming betrayal. After the Sanhedrin’s decision that Jesus should be executed, this should not come as a surprise. It does however call attention to John’s purpose with his Passion Demi-Week portrayal. In Jn 11:54–57 the reader is told that following the Sanhedrin’s decision, Jesus could no longer move freely since the High Priests and Pharisees declared Jesus to be a wanted person. Bekken sees P.Oslo II 17 describing how an accused person who has not appeared could be “proscribed” similar to what is described in Jn 11:56– 57.40 Such a person should be denounced (μηνύω) so that the authorities can arrest him. They desire to capture him with the goal of putting him to death. In Jn 12:1–8 Jesus is anointed in Bethany. This is a deed that Jesus defends as one which should be viewed in terms of his upcoming burial. A large crowd comes together to see both Jesus and Lazarus according to Jn 12:9–11. The reader is told that the high priests had decided to also kill Lazarus because of his role in bringing so many to believe in Jesus. In Jn 12:20–23 “Greeks,” that is, Gentiles, perhaps proselytes, announce their desire to “see” Jesus through Andrew and Philip. This prompts Jesus to suddenly pronounce, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” After this, Jesus tells the parable of the grain of wheat in Jn 12:24–26. It will bear much fruit if it dies – just as Jesus will now that his “Hour” has arrived. There follows the scene in Jn 12:27–30 where Jesus deliberates, but then immediately rejects the thought that the Father should save him from his “Hour” – contra the Synoptic version of this episode. Jesus has come precisely because of this “Hour” to die. Closely related to this theme of death are the five references to Judas’ betrayal, which will lead to Jesus’s detainment and death. These are found in Jn 13:2, 11, 18, 27, 30. Precisely in this connection John emphasizes that Jesus knows “that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God” (Jn 13:3). Jesus’ death will lead to his glorification. Glorify as a verb occurs in John 12 no fewer than eight times within a span of 26 verses. The reader is told that after Jesus’ death and glorification, the disciples will remember the reception that Jesus received during the Triumphal Entry in Jn 12:16. We see again in Jn 12:23 the arrival of Jesus’ “Hour,” which involves his being glorified as the Son of Man. We have seen that this scene begins with the appearance of Greeks who tell Phillip that they wish to see Jesus. Phillip and Andrew then tell Jesus of their desire. Thus, the scene mirrors the key scene in John 1:40–51, where the same disciples together with Jesus bring Nathanael as a true Israelite to his confession of Jesus. Here in John 12 there is no conversation with these Greeks, which could be explained in terms that the time for a true and spiritual conversation with Jesus would only take place “on the other side of the crucifixion.”41 In any event the Greeks represent (a part of) the Bekken, Lawsuit Motif, 115. Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed., London: SPCK, 1978), 422. 40 41

7.8 The Johannine Passion Demi-Week

105

“world going after Jesus” (12:19) and prompt Jesus to determine: “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (12:23). Jesus’ “Hour” or “time” was up to this point “not yet” (2:24; 7,6ff.; 7:30; 8:20), but is here now, here in 12:23, being stated as well as in 13:1 and 17:1 (cf. Mk 14:41). Jesus’ complete willingness to do what is necessary in his “Hour” leads to his prayer, “Father, glorify your name.” The response from heaven is: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” (Jn 12:28). In verse 31 Jesus equates his “lifting up” with “the ruler of this world being cast out.” Here the terrestrial, but also celestial aspects of Jesus’ crucifixion and glorification are involved. Thyen42 astutely observes that Jesus essentially identifies himself in verse 32 as the Son of Man with his announcement, “and I when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself.” This is new information which is intended to help John’s readers in their understanding of the Son of Man event. This, so that they can believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (20:31). The manner of Jesus’ death, the lifting up on a cross, is essential. Being stoned to death would not be appropriate, since being crucified is necessary for Jesus to take away the sin of the world (cf. 1:29, 36).43 This being “lifted up” is described in 3:14 and 8:28. The glorification here in 12:32 represents the entirety of salvation power in 6:62, 12:24, 13:32 and 17:1–2.44 As Schnackenburg states, the glorification of Jesus is seen here especially in terms of its universal abundance in its drawing to itself every one of those persons who are willing to believe.45 Therefore, Jesus’ being lifted up does not however mean that he is also immediately going to his Father. It means that Jesus will die at Golgotha. The crowd responds to Jesus’ pronouncement of how he will die as the Son of Man with a question asserting that the law stipulates that the Christ is to live forever. This question is most likely based on the statement in LXX Psalm 88:37 (cf. Ps 89:37). They immediately raise the question who the Son of Man is. Here the crowd equates the Son of Man with the Christ. As Brown points out, this equation also occurs in Mk 14:62.46 They find that this idea of a Messiah/Son of Man who does not remain forever absurd. The crowd therefore asks the second question regarding what kind of Son of Man Jesus is talking about: “Who is this Son of Man?” The puzzle of who the Son of Man is in John is an important question here, if not the question of the entire gospel. That only the Son of Man has ascended into heaven after having descended from heaven and that this Son of Man must be lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness are major factors defining to a certain extent even the heavenly things, and not just the earthly. Jesus considers them fundamentals that every Pharisee like Nicodemus 42 43 44 45 46

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 564. Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 427. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 479. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 477. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 478–79.

106 Chapter 7: The Preponed Trial in John and the Johannine Passion Demi-Week should understand. Jesus, having betrayed his Son of Man secret in Jn 12:32, makes it in principle possible to understand who the Johannine Son of Man is. He is both God’s instrument for taking away the sins of the world by dying on the cross as well as his agent of judgment. But this is an unfathomable idea for humans unless they should be enlightened by the Spirit. The reader is told in Jn 12:41 that Isaiah had already seen Jesus’ glory, which is a reference to Isa 6:1. Finally, John remarks in Jn 12:43 that some who believed in Jesus but feared being expelled from the Synagogue “loved the glory” of persons more than that of God. In 13:31–32 the verb for “glorify” is used five more times. After Judas has left the room, Jesus asserts, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified; if God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.” Jesus appeals to his hearers to take the opportunity he is offering to walk in the Light and to become children of Light. Jesus extends this invitation after Jn 8:12, and again in Jn 12:44–46. Those who choose to remain in the darkness will be judged by Jesus’ word, cf. Jn 12:44–50. In Jn 12:37–43 John cites the prophet Isaiah in summarizing the Preponed Trial (cf. LXX Isa 53:1 cited in Jn 12:38 and Isa 6:10 cited in Jn 12:40). In retrospect, it resulted in more unbelief than belief, but there were still notable exceptions, cf. Jn 12:42a. These Isaiah citations demonstrate the truth and reliability of the whole council of God. Everything has gone, and therefore will continue to go according to plan in this Hour of Glorification. These proceedings – the interrogation by Annas and the Roman trial before Pilate – will center on four of the five christological titles named or implied in Jn 12. They do this in a very similar, albeit discrete fashion with the five titles named in the scene surrounding Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1:40–51. These titles are 1.) “the King of Israel” in Jn 12:15, 2.) the “Son of Man” in 12:23, 3.) the “Son,” implied by Jesus addressing his Father in 12:27–28 and again in 12:49, 4.) the “Christ” in 12:34, and 5.) the “Prophet-like-Moses,” implied by this figure’s words taken from LXX Dt 18:18–19, which are clearly paraphrased in Jn 12:49.47 Four of these titles figured prominently in the Preponed Trial beginning in Jn 2:1. “King of Israel” did not play a role there because it is not an issue in the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial. Comparable to Nathanael and his confession, in Jn 12:20 it is the “Greeks” who, by means of their wish to “see” Jesus, essentially make a confession. Philip (and Andrew) is also present here, as is of course Jesus himself, who is named as such. Thus, it appears that however subtly, this scene parallels that of Nathanael’s confession (cf. also Philip’s invitation to Nathanael, “Come and see” with the desire of the Greeks to see Jesus). This encounter in Jn 12, after the close of the Preponed Trial, also functions as a confessional watershed event that prepares the reader for the forthcoming round of criminal prosecu47

Cf. 7.2 and Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 86–87.

7.8 The Johannine Passion Demi-Week

107

tion proceedings in Jn 18–19. There John will deal (again) with only four of the five christological titles named in Jn 12’s watershed event; the title “Christ,” as we will explain later, has no juridical relevance for the Roman trial (cf. 8.9). The scene where Jesus sets his hope on his Father in Jn 8:50, “Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge,” appears again in 12:28, where he appeals, “Father, glorify thy name.” Jesus expects that his being “lifted up,” i.e., crucified, will be the judgment of the world, involve the “casting out” of “the ruler of this world,” and result in Jesus “drawing all persons to himself.” As Schnackenburg remarks, “Das Kreuz ist für Joh schon so sehr der Ort der Verherrlichung und Beginn der Heilsherrschaft Jesu (vgl. 19,37), daß Jesus nicht nur zu sich ans Kreuz sondern auch in den himmlischen Bereich zieht.“48 The crucified and resurrected hope of Jesus in his Father will not be disappointed. His glorification will include his going to his Father and being justified before the heavenly tribunal (cf. Jn 16:7–11, esp. v. 10). Precisely because the threatening themes addressed in this Johannine Passion Demi-Week, John does not neglect to include an outlook on aspects that are intended to literally en-courage his disciples and strengthen their faith in chapters 13 through 17. In Jn 13:1–17 he institutes the humbling practice of foot washing, which is conceived to help his disciples appreciate what Jesus is about to do for them and all believers. According to Jn 13:19, the predictions that Jesus makes are intended to enable his disciples to believe Jesus (and probably to believe that Jesus is the ἐγώ εἰμί). Jesus gives the disciples the new command to love one another in Jn 13:31–38. The witness and comfort of the Spirit-Paraclete will fortify the disciples’ hearts and continue the conviction of the unbelieving world in Jn 14–16. In Jn 17 Jesus speaks his high priestly intercessory prayer for his own, whom Jesus must leave alone in the world. Since Jn 14–16 and 17 focus especially on the time after Jesus’ death and the resurrection, we shall now proceed first to Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial in the next chapter.

48

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 493.

Chapter 8

Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial In this chapter the arrest of Jesus, his interrogation by Annas, Peter’s denials, and Jesus’ trial before Pilate up until his verdict will be examined. In chapter 6 the thesis was posited that John has made special use of the christological titles surrounding and in Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1:40–51. He portrays a retrial of the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial narrative in the setting of Jesus’ mission, healing, teaching, and debating. John wishes to show in Jn 2:1–11:53 that crucial points of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin can and should be seen in an entirely different light. In these Synoptic Trial narratives, the central question is, “Are you the Christ?” In John’s view, the controversial designation of the “Christ” needs to be understood in terms of the Prophet-likeMoses (and above all not being viewed as being a false prophet), the Son of God, the King of Israel, and the Son of Man, all titles which we find – certainly not accidentally – in the one passage concerning Nathanael’s confession. This corrected portrayal of Jesus, together with words and events found in the Synoptic Passion week narratives, provides the subject matter for what we have called the Preponed Trial in chapter 7. Having addressed issues raised by the Synoptic Sanhedrin Trial, John turns to the challenges that the interrogation by Annas and the trial before Pilate present. Jesus is arrested in Jn 18 and brought first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. When attention is turned to this interrogation and Pilate’s trial in Jn 18–19, John is once again proceeding from Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1:40–51, as well as the Johannine Passion DemiWeek, but with two very different and important emphases. First, in the case of Annas’ interrogation in Jn 18:12–14 and 19–21, John portrays an interrogation and not a Sanhedrin trial – this has more or less already occurred in the Preponed Trial, climaxing in Jn 7:45–52 and 11:45–53. More, because the chief priests and the Pharisees have already decided to have Jesus killed (11:53); less, because Nicodemus justifiably objects in 7:51, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” Jesus is portrayed being heard in Annas’ interrogation, even though no attempt is made by Annas to actually “learn.” For this reason, we see John portraying Annas as defaulting here in a juridical sense. John demonstrates that the suspicion and charge in Jn that Jesus is a false prophet who is misleading the people has no legal foundation. This means that the decision of the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus (cf. Jn 11:53) is null and void. Therefore, the way is clear to

110

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

perceive Jesus to a certain extent in terms of the Prophet-like-Moses, of whom “Moses wrote in the law and the prophets” (Jn 1:45; cf. 5:46; Dt 18:15). Second, John portrays Pilate’s trial also as a retrial, but this retrial roughly retains the form of the original Synoptic trial here in Jn 18–19, if being much longer. It also remains approximately in the same place as in the Synoptic chronology. Here we find a trio of important christological titles. The first two christological titles, the Son of God, and the King of Israel, make up Nathanael’s confession and have been implicitly (“Son”) and explicitly (“King of Israel”) repeated in Jn 12, during the Johannine Passion Demi-Week. These appear in Jn 19:7 and Jn 18:33–19:22 respectively. The third title is the Son of Man, whom Jesus immediately names in 1:51 in his climatic prophetic response to Nathanael’s confession. This Johannine Son of Man appears, we will argue, in Jn 19:5 when Pilate says, “Behold the man!” as well as probably in Jn 19:13. These four aspects from a juridical-christological perspective will be the focus of this chapter as each step leading up to Pilate’s confirmation of his verdict of not guilty in 19:22, “What I have written I have written.”

8.1 Jesus’ Arrest: Jn 18:1–11 The ruler of this world is coming. Jesus thus forewarns his disciples in Jn 14:30 and then declares in 14:31, “Let us go.” The narrative only then resumes after Jn 15 and 16 in a garden which John does not name in 18:1. Judas knows this place as a meeting place for Jesus and his disciples. Judas is coming with a band of soldiers and some officers of the high priests and Pharisees. In this threatening situation we are informed in 18:4 that Jesus was “knowing all that was to befall him,” just as we were already told in Jn 13:3 and will be told in 19:28 that Jesus was “knowing that all was now finished.” As R. Brown comments, Jesus is here and at all times in Jn the master of his own fate.1 It is therefore consistent with this perspective that Jesus takes the initiative and identifies himself to those seeking him in Jn 18:4. It is likely that he shows himself to be the sovereign ἐγώ εἰμί during his arrest (cf. Dan 2:46, 8:18; Rev 1:17 and especially Isa 11:4). This theophany demonstrates the sovereign might of Jesus in the face of the high priests’ and Pharisees’ police, together with large numbers of Roman soldiers. The ruler of the world with all his vassals has no power over Jesus. This power of Jesus is also reflected in Jesus protecting his disciples by seeing to it that they are also not arrested and can go free. This is understood as a fulfillment of Jesus’ own word, probably that found in 17:12 (cf. 6:69). It is therefore totally inappropriate that Peter sees a need to use his sword. Jesus 1 R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Chapters 13–21, (AB 29A, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 818.

8.2 Annas’ Interrogation: Jn 18:12–14; 19–24

111

rebukes Peter and reaffirms his confidence in his Father’s plan. Jesus declares without hesitation – in clear contrast to the Synoptic scenes in Gethsemane (cf. Mt 26:27 par) – that he will “drink the cup” of suffering that the Father has given him. During his arrest and in the trial scenes that follow he is nonetheless always in control. This is because he – as always – does his Father’s will. As Barrett observes, “Jesus’ suffering is not the arbitrary and unfortunate result of circumstances, but the work appointed him by the Father.”2

8.2 Annas’ Interrogation: Jn 18:12–14; 19–24 Jesus is now not just led away as a suspect, he is “seized” and “bound” like a person who has already been formally accused. We are told that Jesus is brought to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. We are conspicuously reminded that it was Caiaphas who told the Sanhedrin that it would be “expedient,” literally “of advantage” (συμφέρει), that “one man should die for the people.” Annas questions Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Barrett thinks that this hearing is possibly improper but leaves the question open.3 It appears however far more likely that here Annas is interrogating Jesus due to a charge that Jesus is a false prophet as described in Dt 13:6: Now if your brother from your father or from your mother or your own son or daughter or the wife in your bosom or the friend who is like your own soul secretly (‫ַּבּ � ֵּ֣֣סֶתֶ ר‬/λάθρα) entreats you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods […].” 4

Jesus immediately defends himself with reference to the presumed charge of “speaking secretly“ in LXX Dt 13:6. First, he says in Jn 18:20 that he has always “spoken openly to the world.” Jesus is portrayed in Jn as teaching openly in temple precincts, as we see in Jn 2:14; 7:14; 7:28; 8:20; 10:23, and in the Capernaum synagogue in Jn 6:59. Secondly, Jesus expressly adds “I have said nothing in secret (ἐν κρυπτῷ),” which is like what we find in Dt 13:6 (‫ ַּבּ � ֵּ֣֣סֶתֶ ר‬/ λάθρα). Brown accurately observes that “in a certain sense Jesus did speak openly and plainly, but in another sense his words were obscure.”5 We have already seen how important this false prophet issue is in Jn. Nicodemus’ criticism at the meeting of (presumably) the Sanhedrin in 7:45–52 includes a demand to give Jesus a “hearing” and “learning what he does.” This corresponds to what we read in LXX Dt 13:12–14:

2 3 4 5

Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 522. Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 528. Italics added by S.C.A. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 825.

112

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

[Now if you hear …] Lawless men have gone out from among you and led all the inhabitants of their city astray, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods, whom you have not known, then you shall examine and ask and make a thorough investigation […].”6

Nicodemus had demanded a hearing for Jesus because the Law requires it. Now Jesus is being heard, examined, and asked, but it does not appear that Annas is learning very much. Quite the contrary. Annas does not respond to Jesus’ demand to have witnesses heard on his behalf, nor does he call any witnesses against him. Jesus is then struck by one of the officers, being rebuked for his demand to have witnesses called who can support his claim. According to Ex 22:28, “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.” Jesus has been very assertive, as the ἐγώ at the beginning of his statement in v. 20 reflects. In Jn 18:22 John understands Jesus’ being struck – probably against the background of the Suffering Servant – in terms of Isa 50:6, “I gave my back to the smiters.” The Greek term ῥάπισμα will be used again in Jn 19:6. Jesus’ self-assurance in Jn 18:22 before authority was probably astounding. Brown cites Josephus Ant 14.ix.4; #172: But everyone, whosoever he be, that comes to be tried by this Sanhedrin, presents himself in a submissive manner; and like one that is in fear of himself; and that endeavors to move us to compassion: with his hair disheveled; and in a black mourning garment.7

But here John is more likely thinking of the Servant in Isa 50:7–8: “therefore I have set my face like a flint” and “Who will contend with me? Let us stand up together. Who is my adversary? Let him come near to me.” Jesus challenges Annas to produce witnesses against his assertions in vain. John demonstrates that Annas thereby defaults in his inquiry as to whether Jesus is a false prophet misleading the people. Annas does not answer Jesus’ question, which can hardly be understood as just a rhetorical one. Annas’ answer, we can say, is to send Jesus to Caiaphas.

8.3 Peter’s Denials: Jn 18:15–18; 25–27 Annas has not only asked about Jesus’ teaching, but also firstly (!) and specifically about his disciples. They and other followers such as Lazarus are, like Jesus, also in danger. As Dt 13 makes clear, there were to be fatal consequences for being a follower of a false prophet. Peter denies Jesus thrice because he has been asked about his relationship with Jesus thrice. Seen from this perspective he has good reason to deny being involved with an alleged false prophet. 6 Septuagint translation from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/05-deut-nets.pdf, downloaded on March 9, 2022, italics added. 7 Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 826, cf. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-14. html, downloaded on March 9, 2022.

8.4 From Caiaphas to Pilate: Jn 18:28–32

113

But Peter shows – again – that he does not trust himself to Jesus’ claim to be the protector of the disciples. We may assume that the other unnamed disciple does. In contrast to Jesus’ I AM, Peter says “I am not” (18:17 and 25). Thus, Peter’s two episodes where he denies Jesus flank Jesus’ own encounter with Annas. Jesus is the one who bears witness to the truth.

8.4 From Caiaphas to Pilate: Jn 18:28–32 Jesus has been handed over by Caiaphas to Pilate. “The Jews” say that Jesus is an “evil doer” and that for this reason they have turned him over (παρεδώκαμεν) to Pilate to be executed by crucifixion. Even here in 18:30, before the Roman trial has begun, this act has a formal juridical quality. Commenting on the term’s renewed use in Jn 19:16, Brown notes: “All four gospels use this verb to describe Pilate’s final action. The verb is meant to have the juridical value of a condemnation, and this is made clearer in the later Gospels.”8

8.5 Jesus the Witness before Pilate: Jn 18:33–40 Pilate interrogates Jesus and appears satisfied with his replies to the question, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus asserts twice, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Jesus supports this claim with his statement that his servants will not act like soldiers. As Thyen notes, Jesus does not have ὑπηρέται, that is, servants who are willing to fight, he has μαθηταί, disciples who do not, or at least should not, fight. This contrast has already been illustrated during the arrest scene in this chapter. Jesus’ pacifistic behavior contrasts with Peter’s use of the sword.9 This is in keeping with Jesus being portrayed in terms of the Suffering Servant. Jesus is a king whose mission is to testify to the truth (cf. Isa 42:3, “He will bring forth truth for justice”). The Greek verb ἀκούω, hear, together with the genitive form for “my voice” shows that Jesus’ hearers need to listen with understanding and acceptance.10 Pilate’s reply shows that he cannot “hear” in this sense and thereby recognize the Truth even when he looks it in the face. Pilate goes out to “the Jews” again and declares his finding: he finds no crime in him. Pilate offers to release “one” because of what was perhaps an established custom at the time of Passover (cf. “one” in Jn 11:50!). This “one” should be Jesus, which Pilate expresses in a most provocative manner: “Will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?” “The Jews“ reject this of8 9 10

Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 884. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 717. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 854.

114

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

fer; they want Barabbas released, who was a robber. Thus, Pilate’s gamble in his attempt to free Jesus fails.

8.6 Behold the man!: Jn 19:1–6 Pilate has Jesus scourged, announces his decision to bring Jesus out to “the Jews” and declares, “Behold the man!” Who is this “man” whom Pilate so dramatically introduces? Commentators have considered a broad range of (christological) titles and figures, but no one solution has proved entirely satisfactory until now.11 This stalemate has led many to favor a theological approach to this “man.” Schnackenburg’s own solution is based on the larger context of the trial before Pilate. He understands the mocked and dishonored “man,” dressed in a royal robe and wearing a crown of thrones, as one who cannot be robbed of his highness. For this reason, the decisive scene comes later in 19:14b–15, where Jesus is condemned as King and certified as such in Jn 19:19.12 Bultmann prefers an even broader based, theological approach which includes the Prolog, as he has done with his often-heralded statement, “Das ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ist in seiner extremsten Konsequenz sichtbar geworden.”13 We wish to break this stalemate by making a case for the “man” in Jn 19:5 being the Son of Man who bears many traits of the Suffering Servant. We have argued in chapter 5 for the considerable influence of Isa 53 in Jn 1–12. After a brief review of these relevant passages from Isa 53 in Jn, here we will examine the influence of the Suffering Servant tradition as a whole in the interrogation before Annas, the trial before Pilate and biblical-theological factors that offer further support for this view. In this last section we will demonstrate how the Son of Man became the “man” in Jn 19:5. First, we need to note that it is necessary to carefully define the connection between the Son of Man and the Suffering Servant that we are proposing. Brown finds an equation with the “Son of Man” or the “man of sorrows” of Isa 53 not plausible.14 He wonders “whether the evangelist’s creative sense has not been controlled by some details that he found in his tradition.” In John’s use of “Behold the man!” Brown sees John as having “taken an expression of contempt that came with the tradition and […] reinterpreted it as an exalted

11 Cf. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 724f., for an overview of these solutions, which include 1.) the new Adam/messianic King, 2.) an anthropos-myth, 3.) the Son of Man as well as 4.) an eschatological King and their respective representatives. 12 R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III. Teil (HTKNT 4, 2nd ed., Freiburg: Herder, 1976, 386. 13 Bultmann, Johannes, 510. 14 Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 876.

8.6 Behold the man!: Jn 19:1–6

115

title.”15 Brown also adds elsewhere: “there is no need to think that in stressing kingship John has glossed over entirely the picture of the Suffering Servant.”16 As we outlined in chapter 5, five passages in Jn reflect the influence of Isa 53 on the Fourth Gospel. − John the Baptist cries, “Behold the Son of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” in Jn 1:29 and again in 1:36, “Behold the Lamb of God!” These verses offer clear allusions to the Lamb of Isa 53:7. These two behold!-sayings alert us to John having the speaker make a very important pronouncement about the person named (cf. Jn 1:46, 47; 12:15; 19:5 and 19:14). − The “necessity” of Jesus being raised up with the outlook of being glorified in Jn 3:14; 8:28 and 12:34 is founded on John’s allusion to the Servant being raised up and glorified in Isa 52:13. − Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy in Jn 11:50–52 speaks of Jesus as the “one man” (εἷς ἄνθρωπος) dying for the people being expedient. This reflects – from John’s perspective – vicarious atonement theology as in Isa 53. − Finally, we cited the quotation of Isa 53:1, “Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?“ This explains the failure of Jesus’ mission to convince “the Jews” as a fulfillment of this prophecy in Jn 12:38. − We have noted above in that in Jn 18:14 there is a conspicuous reminder of the unwitting prophecy of Caiaphas that it is better for one man to die for the whole nation. This is based on the concept of vicarious atonement like that which the Suffering Servant effects in Isa 53. In this sense the interrogation by Annas calls attention to three Servant of Second Isaiah allusions. − In Jn 18:22 Jesus is struck by one of the attending guards, whereby the term ῥάπισμα is used as in LXX Isa 50:6. − As we noted above, Jesus’ energetic complaint about being struck can be understood as an allusion to Isa 50:7–8: “therefore I have set my face like a flint” and “Who will contend with me? Let us stand up together. Who is my adversary? Let him come near to me.” − Isaiah 50:4–10 is one of the four Servant songs and therefore the scope of possible Johannine allusions stands expanded beyond Isa 53. This Isa 50:7–9 passage is especially significant since its setting is a juridical one. − The trial before Pilate offers several points of contact with the figure of the Suffering Servant. − At the outset of the trial the Jewish demands on Pilate are grounded in their wish that he condemn Jesus to death. This is associated by John with death by crucifixion and there he explains in 18:32, “This was to fulfil the word which Jesus had spoken to show by what death he was to die.” This “word” refers to the (scriptural) “necessity” that Jesus the Son of Man be “raised up” in 3:14; 8:28 and 12:34, which all allude to the Suffering Servant in Isa 52:13. 15 16

Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 890. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 863.

116

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

− In Jn 19:1 and 3 we find two allusions (ἐμαστίγωσεν, ῥαπίσματα) once again to Isa 50:6, “I have given my back to scourges (εις μάστιγας) and my cheeks to blows (εις ραπίσματα).” − When we simply compare the wording of Pilate’s “Behold the man (ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος)!” with Isa 53, we find a profoundly simple parallel in 53:3: “But his form was without honor, failing beyond all men, a man (Hebrew ‫ִאיׁש‬, ִ Greek ἄνθρωπος) being in calamity and knowing how to bear sickness; because his face is turned away, he was dishonored and not esteemed.”17 − The silence of Jesus in Jn 19:9c has a parallel in Isa 53:7: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.” Jesus’ silence is momentary in Jn, but as Brown comments, also in the Synoptics: “in the three Synoptics Jesus remains silent during the whole trial except for an answer to Pilate’s question about his being King.”18 Significant is the fact that in Jn 18–19, where Pilate is dealing with “the Jews,” Jesus does not say a single word in scenes outside of the Praetorium. − In Jn 19:14 Jesus is handed over to be crucified at the same time when the slaughter of lambs on the Passover day of Preparation has begun. Here Jesus is the Pascal Lamb who is the Suffering Servant in Isa 53:7: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” Barrett rightly sees that “the shedding of blood is the point of vital significance for John.”19 Barrett quotes Hoskyns: it is “vital to him [viz. John] that the blood of Jesus should be poured out for the salvation of the world […]. Crucifixion, therefore, not stoning fulfills the divine plan of salvation in the prophecies of the Lord.”20 − Jesus is in John’s view qualified to atone for the sins of the world because he is free from sin. In Jn 8:46 he poses the rhetorical question, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” Jesus will be able to free all who are bound by sin so that they can be free (cf. 8:24; 8:34–6). John has Pilate declare Jesus to be free of guilt not simply for juridical reasons but also for theological reasons. For the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, the Lamb must be flawless. − Here the Suffering Servant motif is clear: − Isa 53:5–6: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” − Isa 53:12e–f: “[…] yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

17 18 19 20

Italics added by S.C.A. Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 878. Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 535. E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (N. Davey, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 616–17.

8.6 Behold the man!: Jn 19:1–6

117

− Four biblical-theological factors help us to understand how John understands Jesus as “the man” in Jn 19:5. − The “man” is conceived by John as being the Son of Man who bears the traits of the Suffering Servant. John has already, in correspondence with the gospel tradition, clearly “crossed” these two christological figures with each other in Jn 3:14, 8:28 and 12:34. It is “necessary” that the Son of Man to be “lifted up” as the Suffering Servant (cf. Isa 52:13), as the “one man” whom Caiaphas unwittingly prophesizes in Jn 11:50 should die for the people. − Schnackenburg objects to identifying the “man” as the Son of Man, based on the assumption that a renewed instance of the “man” meaning something more than just a man requires Pilate making an additional unconscious, unwitting prophecy like that of Caiaphas in Jn 11:50. In our view, the “man” in Jn 19:5 is the same “man” of whom Caiaphas speaks: The Son of Man with traits of the Suffering Servant. John underscores the continuing importance of this “man” in 18:14 for good reason. The form of Pilate’s proclamation with “Behold!” designates a highly significant statement and presents a penultimate climax which is congruent with this line of John’s thinking. − The Son of Man is referred to in early Christian tradition as the “man” for the sake of Greek speaking and thinking believers in 1Tim 2:5c. 1Tim 2:5–6 demonstrates how the Son of Man found in Mk 10:45 could, in the process of being Hellenized for native speakers of Greek, become (the) “man:” For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

As P. Stuhlmacher observed, “Die vor allem von Joachim Jeremias herausgearbeitete Einsicht, daß in 1.Tim 2,5f. eine gräzisierte Variante von Mk 10,45 (Mt 20,28) vorliegt, ist heute Allgemeingut der Forschung.”21 Here in 1Tim we see this “man“ being the key figure in atoning for sins just as we are proposing for the concept of “the man” in Jn 19:5 and Jesus in the Fourth Gospel in general. The appearance of Jesus as a mock king does not pose a problem for John’s presentation of “the man” by Pilate in terms of the Son of Man who bears the traits of the Suffering Servant. A certain degree of what we can call “overlapping” of christological titles reflected a simple necessity for early biblical writers that all christological designations referred to the one Jesus (Christ). Therefore, we can cite two examples demonstrating why John apparently had no difficulty in portraying Jesus the mock king simultaneously as the “man” who fulfils the role of the Suffering Servant as the Son of Man. Firstly, in the 21 P. Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 29, citing Joachim Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil: Die Verkündigung Jesu (2nd ed., Gütersloher Verlagshaus: G. Mohn, 1971), 277–79.

118

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

“Judgment of the Nations” scene in Mt 25:31 the Son of Man says as king to those at his right hand, “Come, O blessed of my Father […].” Secondly, the Servant of the Lord in Isa 42 can be considered a royal figure, indeed a king: “Im 1. Gottesknechtslied wird der Knecht wie ein König präsentiert.”22 In trying to solve the quandary surrounding Pilate’s “Behold, the man!,” it is also possible to take the position that this figure can be understood as any figure but king, which Jn 18:38c–19:5 upon closer examination makes clear: Verses

Narrative

18:38c–f After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, “I find no crime in him.” 18:39–40 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?” They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barab′bas!” Now Barab′bas was a robber. 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. (Pilate takes the unusual step of scourging Jesus already at this point instead of immediately before crucifixion.) 19:2 And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; they came up to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands. 19:4 Pilate went out again, and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him.” 19:5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. 19:5 Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!” 19:6 After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, “I find no crime in him.”

Pilate’s Actions in Focus Pilate finds Jesus innocent of the charge of claiming to be a king.

Pilate scourges Jesus; this actually should indicate that he is finished with him. Despite Pilate’s verdict the soldiers are committed to upholding the ‘king’-accusation, just as “the Jews,” cf. 19:12. For a second time Pilate finds Jesus innocent of the charge of claiming to be a king.

For a third time Pilate finds Jesus innocent of the charge of claiming to be a king.

Pilate has declared Jesus to be innocent of the charge of claiming to be a king thrice and will want to release him shortly thereafter in 19:12. Just because the soldiers insist on making Jesus a mockery of a king does not mean that Pilate intends to present Jesus as a mock king with his words, “Behold the man!” Jesus’ horrific appearance corresponds to Pilate’s view of Jesus as a terribly mistaken, broken human being. Pilate wants to emphasize his view that Jesus 22 Cf. M. Gerhards, art. Mittler, https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/27901/, downloaded on May 1, 2022 [Translation by S.C.A].

8.7 The Son of God: Jn 19:7–12

119

is in any event not a king. At the same time Pilate’s call should be understood as an unwitting expression of John’s view that Jesus is the Suffering Servant/ Son of Man. In this section it has been demonstrated how John understands Jesus as the Son of Man in terms of Suffering Servant theology. This has been accomplished by means of a line that John has traced from the first chapter of Jn and extends throughout the Gospel. This has become apparent especially in the three Son of Man sayings, the unwitting prophecy of Caiaphas in Jn 11 and 18, in the portrayal of Jesus’ interrogation by Annas as well as in the trial before Pilate, where he proclaims, “Behold the man!” This “man” is none other than the Johannine Son of Man, since the example of 1Tim 2:5f. illustrates how this title could have been also Hellenized for the sake of John’s readers. At the same time Pilate’s announcement appears to be plausible coming out of the mouth of a pagan Roman.

8.7 The Son of God: Jn 19:7–12 “The Jews” respond to Pilate’s absolution of Jesus with a new accusation, which might be the true reason they want Jesus crucified.23 That “the Jews” bring a second charge against Jesus in this Roman trial is paralleled in Lk 23:2–5 by the bringing of three charges against Jesus: “And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.’” In Lk, Pilate ignores the first two charges and focuses on the charge of claiming to be “King of the Jews.” Here in Jn 19:7, the single charge “the Jews” expressly assert is, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God.” Pilate appears shaken by the charge here, whereby commentators have described what Pilate, as a Roman, could be thinking about – and fearing – who or what “the Son of God” could mean. For a proper interpretation of John’s intention here it is necessary to recognize that John is using the following passages concerning Jesus’ claim to be God’s Son as a backdrop for this exchange between Pilate and Jesus: 1. Jn 10:17–18: For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. 2. Jn 10:27–30: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. 3. Jn 10:33: The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 23

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 725.

120

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

After “the Jews” have accused Jesus of making himself God’s Son, Pilate asks him, “Where are you from?” with the Greek πόθεν for “from where.” On the face of it, Pilate would under normal circumstances certainly have some Roman-influenced ideas or beliefs regarding πόθεν, but here we need to see that John intends to use this term in accordance with its Johannine connotation. While it is plausible that Pilate poses this πόθεν-question, John commandeers the πόθεν term in order to initiate this crucial dialogue. John wants to use Pilate to demonstrate that Jesus is indeed the master of his own fate. Therefore, the course of this discussion between Jesus and Pilate is dictated by Jesus and not Pilate. This means that the three key terms πόθεν, ἐξουσίαν, and ἄνωθεν need to be defined in Johannine and not Roman terms. Even more important is the necessity to recognize that these three terms are – how could it be otherwise – at the same time christologically connotated. Thus, where we encounter πόθεν, “from where,” it brings in what the term means for Jesus: he is from the Father, from heaven, and therefore his testimony is true (cf. Jn 8:14, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.”) Jesus has already addressed this topic of his purpose and witness, but Pilate was not interested in Jesus’ truth in Jn 18:37–38. Therefore Jesus, having said what was to say, kept silent. This is similar to Jesus’ behavior when Annas wants to interrogate Jesus in 18:21 (cf. 12:36d). There is nothing more to say. In verse 10 we might at first only see Pilate, miffed at Jesus’ silence to his πόθεν-question, and asserting his “power” (ἐξουσίαν) to either release or crucify Jesus. But John is portraying Jesus as the faithful Son who, with his superior power, has been granted power from above to lay down his life and to take it up again. Jesus has been “charged” with his task and will voluntarily carry it out (Jn 10:17–18). For this reason, Pilate‘s power is therefore subservient to Jesus’ even if Jesus himself is, in the situation at hand, subject to Pilate’s decision over Jesus’ life or death. Where we see Jesus telling Pilate that the power given Pilate over Jesus is “from above,” Greek ἄνωθεν, this means that this empowerment is not founded on earthly terms but is conditioned by the salvific necessity of Jesus’ death on the cross. It is a basic fact in John that only the one who comes from above is above all – e.g., understands what really counts (cf. Jn 3:3, 7; 3:31 and 8:21– 28). Pilate is a necessary part of God‘s plan to have Jesus take away the sin of the world by dying on the cross and resurrecting to life. Power that has been given Pilate from above is power to be exercised in accordance with God‘s will – even unwittingly. Jesus comes from above and is therefore above all things. This includes having the spiritual insight to abide in the Father’s plan to atone for the sins of the world. Pilate, who is from below, is not able to have any say that his power to crucify Jesus is so conditioned.

8.8 Pilate’s Final Verdict: Jn 19:13–22

121

Thus, we can summarize John’s main points for his readers as follows: 1. The Jewish charge that Jesus is guilty of blaspheming God because of his claim “making himself to be God” (Jn 10:33; cf. 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”) shows once again that “the Jews” do not understand the fact that Jesus – as the Son – has a mission to fulfil (Jn 10:17–18). This rejection of him together with their repeated opposition to Pilate’s attempts to set Jesus free makes them more culpable than Pilate. 2. Pilate as prefect shows no interest in supporting the purported findings of the Jewish Law. He does not respect this demand, which he might have customarily been expected to do.24 After having declared Jesus not guilty thrice, Pilate wishes at the close of this conversation to release Jesus. 3. Pilate‘s presumptive questioning about Jesus’ power reveals his ignorance about Jesus’ power and his mission in which Pilate has a role to play as God‘s unwitting instrument. 4. Thus, John shows that Pilate is a necessary part of God‘s plan to have Jesus crucified and thereby set the stage for his resurrection. Pilate nevertheless has sin, even if he who delivered Jesus to him has the greater sin (19:11). Pilate allows himself to be extorted due to the accusation that he is no longer acting like one who is “Caesar’s friend.” This, because he has declared Jesus innocent of wrongdoing three times, and was, up to this point, determined to release him.25 Regardless of what being Caesar’s friend in an historical sense meant, it is clear that “the Jews” have found Pilate’s soft spot. Pilate capitulates and is thereby about to finalize a horrendous miscarriage of justice.

8.8 Pilate’s Final Verdict: Jn 19:13–22 John apparently deliberately leaves the answer to the grammatical question whether Pilate sets Jesus on the judgment seat, or himself, ambiguous. As Barrett26 writes, We may suppose then that John meant that Pilate did in fact sit on the βῆμα, but that for those with eyes to see behind this human scene appeared the Son of Man to whom all judgment has been committed (5:22), seated upon his throne.

Pilate declares, “Behold your King!” After renewed “Crucify!” calls Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified. Thoroughly convinced that Jesus is innocent of the charges made against him, Pilate lets “the Jews” have their way, none-

24 Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 891: “Beneath this assertion [i.e., 19:7] is the reminder that Roman provincial administrators characteristically respected regional religious practices.” 25 Cf. Greek ἀντιλέγω, “actively be against,” Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 725. 26 Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 544.

122

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

theless. He turns Jesus over as their would-be king. Jesus’ fate is sealed at this Hour when the priests at the temple began slaughtering the Pascal Lambs. Pilate deliberately formulates the inscription “The King of the Jews” to aggravate “the Jews.” John understands this as being an official proclamation. Pilate, in his own cynical way, has certified Jesus as the King of the Jewish people who actually poses no threat to the Roman Empire. He must die because of “the Jews.” Even at the cost of their own faith in, and allegiance to, the kingship of the God of Judaism, they demand that the alleged false prophet Jesus be crucified because of his claim to be the Son of God.

8.9 Chapter Summary Returning to Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1, it has been demonstrated that three christologically relevant titles and the flip side of a fourth one, i.e., the charge of being a false prophet, make up John’s four-fold focus in Jn 18–19. The Jewish “Christ” question plays no role in this Roman trial. John wishes to establish the innocence of Jesus, who as such, and because of God’s plan, lays down his life voluntarily to take away the sin of the world. John uses a brief interrogation of Jesus by Annas to demonstrate that Nicodemus’ demands that Jesus should first be “given a hearing” and “the Sanhedrin learn what he does” (7:51, cf. Dt 13:15) are at best only partially met in 18:19–24. Therefore, Annas defaults in the juridical sense of the term, the trial against Jesus is null and the verdict void. In John 18:12–19:9 John establishes Jesus as the “(one) man,” i.e., the “Son of Man,” who has traits of the Suffering Servant of Isa 53/50. He is the Son of God whose origin guarantees his truthfulness, has power that enables him to lay down his life and take it up again, and is “above all things.” This includes having the spiritual insight to abide in the Father’s plan to atone as God’s sinless Lamb for the sins of the world. He is the “innocent” King whose kingdom is from above and who fulfills his mission on the cross for the sake of his atoning work (Jn 19:30, cf. Isa 55:10–11). Clearly Jesus as king stands in the center of the Roman trial. This comes as something of a surprise when we consider how seldom elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is portrayed in such terms. To be sure, Nathanael’s confession “You are the King of Israel!” forms an inclusio with the triumphant entry into Jerusalem in Jn 12:13 and 15. This demonstrates that the christological king is of central importance for John. However, the incident in Jn 6:14–15 shows why he is reluctant to have this designation appear any more often than is necessary. There the people wish to take Jesus by force and make him king. Jesus, sensing their plan, reacts by withdrawing to a mountain. In the Roman trial the question of Jesus’ kingship becomes acute. “The Jews” have apparently accused Jesus of having “made” himself king and demand that Pilate sentence

8.9 Chapter Summary

123

him to death. Pilate asks Jesus point blank, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus, by responding that his kingship is not of this world and that therefore his servants were not (with one unfortunate exception, Peter) and will not be fighting to gain his release, takes an important step in defusing this dangerous situation. Jesus continues to do so when he somewhat coyly responds to Pilate’s leading question, “So you are a king” with “You say that I am a king.” Jesus adds that his purpose is to witness to the truth. Pilate responds with his famous rhetorical question, “What is truth?” Anyone who asks, “What is truth?” in this way cannot be especially concerned about this kind of king. Following this exchange Pilate is convinced that Jesus poses no threat. Therefore, he proposes Jesus’ release. Pilate makes a major miscalculation in trying to do so. “The Jews” demand the release of the robber Barabbas instead. Pilate takes the unusual step of scourging Jesus already at this point instead of immediately before crucifixion. Is this because of the Suffering Servant motif? Soldiers array him as a would-be king with a crown of thorns wearing a purple robe and strike him. The soldiers mock him saying “Hail, King of the Jews!” But Pilate presents this “man” in 19:5 to his accusers to reaffirm his assessment “I find no crime in him” a second time. This “man” is anything but a threat to Rome! After the Jews’ cries of “crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate reiterates that he can find no crime in Jesus. When the Jews accuse Jesus of having made himself the Son of God, Pilate asks Jesus with considerable uncertainty, “Where are you from?” There ensues a conversation between Jesus and Pilate where Pilate, due to his superficial understanding of things, satisfies himself that he has power over Jesus and that Jesus does not pose a threat. How John construes the upshot of this conversation is another matter, as we explained. In any event Jesus continues to present no danger to Pilate nor in the latter’s view to the Roman Empire. Things then turn however quickly in favor of “the Jews.” By threatening to accuse Pilate of being against Caesar by not being against Jesus, they break Pilate’s resistance. Jesus will be crucified not because he is the kind of king who is a menace to Rome, but because “the Jews” succeed in threatening to expose Pilate as allegedly no longer being a friend of Caesar. “The Jews” have succeeded in their efforts to get Jesus crucified, but Pilate takes revenge on them for coercing him to crucify a man he considers innocent. He taunts the Jews by presenting Jesus to them with the words, “Behold your King!” and “Shall I crucify your King?” and finally with the inscription “The King of the Jews,” which he refuses to alter into “This man said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’” In this way John presents his readers Jesus as the true King who fulfills his mission of atonement. The continuing importance of Jesus and kingship in the Fourth Gospel will again become apparent in chapters 9 through 11, when the work of the Spirit-Paraclete is outlined. There we shall need to examine Pilate’s trial from a

124

Chapter 8: Annas’ Interrogation and Pilate’s Trial

hermeneutical-christological perspective, namely the question of judging according to appearance and righteous judgment.

Part IV: Judging According to Appearance or Righteously? The Spirit-Paraclete, Isa 11:1–5, 10, and the Farewell Discourse

Chapter 9

The Background of the Paraclete Having previously conducted a brief review of the juridical background of παράκλητος in chapter 2, a broader investigation of its background and meaning in Jn is now necessary.

9.1 The Problem: Previous Attempts to Explain the Background of the Term παράκλητος The basic problem which many interpreters face with respect to the Paraclete in Jn is that the functions ascribed to this figure do not appear to correspond to those functions normally associated with the term outside of the Fourth Gospel. This situation has led to many suggestions regarding both the meaning of the term παράκλητος and its background. A review of these proposals and our own solution follows.

9.2 The Gnostic Helper Background According to R. Bultmann, who follows and develops the view of the historyof-religions school, the background of the Johannine Paraclete concept is to be found in proto-Mandaean Gnosticism. In his excursus on the Paraclete,1 Bultmann notes the importance of the fact that in Jn, the Paraclete follows Jesus as “another Paraclete,” who like Jesus is also “sent.” It is on this basis that Bultmann argues that the origin of such a view is to be found in Gnostic thought. Rejecting the possibility of Jewish intercessor concepts as providing an answer to the question of the Paraclete’s background, Bultmann argues that it is in the Mandaean writings that one finds a Revealer (or Revealers) whose title(s) can be legitimately translated with παράκλητος. This title is Jawar, which means ‘Helper.’ Together with the problems associated with Bultmann’s understanding of Jn in terms of gnostic Mandaean teaching, his understanding of the Paraclete in this regard has gained few followers. In summarizing the 1

Bultmann, Johannes, 437–41.

128

Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete

criticism of other scholars, R. Brown2 lists five objections: 1.) in Jn there are not a multitude of heavenly revealers as in Mandaean writings, 2.) Jesus and the Paraclete are a successive tandem, but the Mandaean revealers are simultaneous, 3.) the Mandaean revealers do not involve a juridical aspect as in Jn, 4.) the association of Mandaean ‘Helpers’ with the term παράκλητος is questionable and 5.) it has been objected that Jawar does not even mean ‘Helper.’

9.3 The Jewish Intercessor Background S. Mowinckel,3 followed by N. Johansson4 and J. Behm,5 understands John’s use of παράκλητος against the background of the widespread Jewish intercessor concept. The development of this concept in connection with the Spirit and particularly juridical settings enables Mowinckel to view the Paraclete’s activity of witnessing in Jn 15:26 in these terms. Together with 16:7–11, the Paraclete has a double function. One function is ‘internal,’ and the other is ‘external.’ The ‘internal’ function relates to the Johannine community. The Paraclete testifies to and reminds it of Jesus’ teaching, thereby bringing to completion what Jesus began. The ‘external’ function relates to the world. The Paraclete is witness and advocate, revealing the truth concerning Jesus and his adversary, the prince of the world, as well as proving the world wrong. Therefore, the Paraclete is not the advocate of the disciples but that of Jesus. While this position has been more positively received than Bultmann’s, it still is viewed as having major problems. While OT-Jewish intercessor concepts do parallel the thought of 1Jn 2:1 and to a certain extent that of Jn 15:26– 27, the rest of the Paraclete sayings seem to be quite different.6 But despite the widespread rejection of this view, several texts concerning ‘witness’ and ‘voucher’ (Job 16:19–20; 33:23, 26), the Spirit (Wis 1:7–9), and Gabriel (8:16; 9:21–23; 10:21) deserve attention, as Schnackenburg7 observes.

Brown, John: Chapters 1–12, 157–65. Mowinckel, Geist als Fürsprecher, 97–130. 4 Nils Johansson, Parakletoi (Dissertation Lund: Gleerupska, 1940). 5 Behm, art. Παράκλητος, 798–812. 6 Cf. Betz’ critique, Otto Betz, Der Paraklet: Fürsprecher im häretischen Spätjudentum, im Johannes-Evangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2, Leiden: Brill, 1963), and cf. G. Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (SNTSMS 12, Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1970), 98–99. 7 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 165. 2 3

9.4 The ‘Vorläufer-Vollender’/Son of Man Background

129

9.4 The ‘Vorläufer-Vollender’/Son of Man Background G. Bornkamm8 proposes that the relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete in Jn is to be understood in terms of OT and Qumran accounts, whereby a succession of figures is presented. Elija is the ‘Vorläufer’ of the Messiah, Moses that of the Messiah-Prophet of Dt 18:15, 18, and the Teacher of Righteousness that of the end-time Teacher in CD 6:11. In Jn, JtB is the ‘Vorläufer’ of Jesus, who is the ‘Vollender.’ In turn, Jesus is the ‘Vorläufer’ of the Paraclete, who is himself the ‘Vollender.’ The major objection to this view is that Jesus is not presented in Jn as a ‘Vorläufer.’9 Bornkamm’s other suggestion, that the Paraclete sayings bear a very close relationship to the Son of Man in apocalyptic Jewish thought, is developed by S. Schulz.10 This view is criticized by O. Betz11 with respect to the lack of a connection outside of the NT between the Son of Man and suffering, which is (implicitly) present in Jn, as well as with respect to the substance of the above seven motifs, which Schnackenburg describes as “unklar.”12

9.5 The Qumran Spirit of Truth and the Angel Michael O. Betz was one of the first proponents of the view that the Johannine Paraclete is to be understood against the background of the Qumran writings and more specifically the Spirit of Truth in 1QS 3–4 and Test Judah 20.13 Response to Betz’ view can in some respects be characterized as rather negative. His attempt to trace the background of John’s Paraclete concept directly from Qumran has found little or no acceptance. Some scholars also balk at seeing a (strong) link between Jn and Qumran with respect to the Spirit of Truth.14 Betz’ assertion that the Evangelist had the archangel Michael in mind as he composed the Paraclete sayings has also been criticized.15 But as negative as all this is, scholars have nonetheless recognized the general value of the background material which Betz has presented.16 Thus, while the specific reconstruction which Betz offers may not be correct, the general direction to which he has pointed, i.e., the function of angels in the OT and early Judaism, 8 G. Bornkamm, “Der Paraklet im Johannes-Evangelium,” FS R. Bultmann (Stuttgart & Köln: Kohlhammer, 1949), 12–35; revised version in: id., Geschichte und Glaube I (Gesammelte Aufsätze III; München: Kaiser, 1968), 68–69. 9 Cf. e.g., Betz, Der Paraklet, 32–35. 10 S. Schulz, “Die Parakletenvorstellungen im Joh-Ev” (ZThK 71 [1974]), 142–58, 31–77. 11 Otto Betz, Der Paraklet, 33–34. 12 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 164. 13 Betz, Der Paraklet, 213–15. 14 Cf. e.g., Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 438, 463. 15 Cf. Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete, 110, 116. 16 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 166.

130

Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete

is one which earned the support of many scholars. Two of these scholars are G. Johnston17 and R.E. Brown.18 Johnston’s view that John’s identification of “Paraclete” and “Spirit of Truth” was intended to counter a heretical view (viz., that an angel and not Jesus was the leader and protector of the Church) seems to have little to argue for it. On the other hand, Brown concisely summarizes the evidence which relates to the forensic functions of angels in Jewish literature, which enables him to assert, “Late Jewish angelology offers the best parallel for the forensic character of the Johannine Paraclete.”19 Another attempt to explain John’s Paraclete in terms of Qumran comes from A. Shafaat.20 Shafaat tries to show that the Geber (‘Man’) found in 1QH provides the background for John’s Paraclete. Shafaat’s view is certainly worth considering, but it would seem to be a bit too speculative. The fact that Geber is not identified with the Spirit of Truth appears to be an insurmountable hurdle, even if Shafaat acknowledges this and suggests that “at some stage of the development of tradition he may well have been thought of by some as the Spirit of truth in human form, or, at least, given the title in a hyperbolic way.”21

9.6 The Paraclete as an Inner-Christian Development Many scholars, having given up hope that a background for the Johannine Paraclete will ever be found, have turned to understanding this figure in terms of a Christian development which has expanded or changed the original meaning of the term. C.K. Barrett,22 for example, states, “It is not too much to say that the literature of the ancient world has been ransacked in the attempt to find an answer to this question, and it seems unlikely many relevant data have escaped notice.”23 Barrett allows the possibility that the term ‘paraclete’ was applied in a forensic sense by a contemporary of Paul to the Spirit, but that John then used the term in another sense, “the original sense being forgotten.”24 But the simpler hypothesis, Barrett contends, is that the term ‘paraclete’ should be explained in terms of early Christian use of the terms παρακαλέω and παράκλησις with respect to 1.) prophetic preaching and 2.) consolation. The reason for this is that the functions of the Spirit in Jn closely parallel those of Christian preaching with its central theme of messianic consolation. In making this sugJohnston, The Spirit-Paraclete, 119–54. Brown, John: Chapters 13–21, 1135–44. 19 Brown, John: Chapters 13–21, 1138. 20 A. Shafaat, “Geber of the Qumran Scrolls and the Spirit-Paraclete of the Gospel of John,” NTS 27 (1981), 263–69. 21 Shafaat, Geber of the Qumran Scrolls, 265. 22 C.K. Barrett, “The Holy Spirit and the Fourth Gospel,” JTS (New Series) 1 (1950), 1–15, 8. 23 Cf. also Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 463. 24 Barrett, Holy Spirit, 9. 17 18

9.6 The Paraclete as an Inner-Christian Development

131

gestion, Barrett is following others, for example, Bultmann.25 J.G. Davies26 develops Barrett’s suggestion that παράκλητος is to be understood in terms of the consolation expected in the messianic age. Davies compares the “complex of ideas” found in the Farewell Discourse with those found in the LXX and concludes, “the term παράκλητος must derive its primary significance from the meaning of παρακαλέω in the LXX complex, irrespective of voice (active or passive)” and that this meaning is that of ‫ָנַָחַם‬, “to comfort or console” (32). Thus, the term παράκλητος has assumed an active significance and […] its primary meaning is ‘comforter’ “despite its passive form.”27 H. Riesenfeld28 also goes in this direction. He writes: Finally, there remains the possibility of asking whether the term παράκλητος has been chosen not with regard to the significance which was proper to that term in a Greek-speaking environment and in a juridical setting but as a word which could be semantically discharged and secondarily filled with associations to some of the meanings inherent in the verb παρακαλέω. In this case παράκλητος would have got not a passive but an active sense.29

But Riesenfeld wishes to improve on Davies’ method, and instead of a “mere registration and enumeration of passages” in the LXX of παρακαλέω, Riesenfeld wants to find “a somewhat more profiled use” of the verb. He desires to find out whether the verb “expresses characteristic functions” which will enable him to see how παρακαλέω is related to παράκλητος. This profiled use is, Riesenfeld believes, to be found in Prv 8, as we will see below. Finally, U.B. Müller30 also wishes to understand the Paraclete in terms of the verb παρακαλέω due to the genre of the Farewell Discourse. His criticism of Barrett’s suggestion and others like it centers on the simple fact that neither παρακαλέω nor παράκλησις appear anywhere in Jn, nor for that matter in any other context where παράκλητος is used. The Aquilian and Theodotian translation of Job 16:2 is rightly seen as an anomaly. In both versions, the Hebrew participle ‫ָנַָחַם‬, “comforter,” is translated with παράκλητος. Since Aquila’s work is marked by extreme literalness, it is possible that this translation arose because the Greek equivalent of the underlying Hebrew term ‫ ָנַָחַם‬is παρακαλέω. How both versions arrived at the same translation is not clear. But Behm’s31 suggestion that they are the result of (incorrect) Christian exegesis of Jn and 1Jn is certainly very possible, so Müller.

R. Bultmann, Johannes, 438. J.G. Davies, “The Primary Meaning of ‘παράκλητος,’” JTS (New Series) 4 (1953– 1954), 35–38. 27 Davies, Primary Meaning, 38. 28 H. Riesenfeld, “A Probable Background for the Johannine Paraclete,” Ex orbe religionum: Studia G. Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 266–74. 29 Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 267. 30 Müller, Parakletenvorstellungen, 31–77. Müller’s own view will be presented below. 31 Behm, art. Παράκλητος, 804 n. 39. 25 26

132

Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete

R. Brown32 offers a different proposal which concerns the Paraclete’s development within the Johannine community itself. Brown views the background of the Paraclete as being best explained in terms of basic elements that are found “scattered” in Jewish thought.33 Proceeding further, Brown argues that “John presents the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit in a special role, namely as the personal presence of Jesus in the believer her-/himself while Jesus is with the Father.”34 Brown supports his view by showing that “Virtually everything that has been said about the Paraclete has been said elsewhere in the Gospel about Jesus.” In general, it can be stated that Brown’s view has been received rather well, because it 1.) takes an eclectic approach to the question of the Paraclete’s background and 2.) stands on the indisputable fact that almost everything said about the Paraclete is also said about Jesus in Jn. There is considerable hesitation, however, with respect to forcing the idea that the Paraclete is the presence of Jesus too far.35 The question of the Paraclete’s Sitz im Leben, with which Brown also deals, goes beyond the immediate scope of our inquiry. The view presented by E. Franck36 is also similar to Brown’s to the extent that it can be characterized as eclectic. Franck proposes a “multidimensional model” for the Paraclete which includes forensic, consoling and teaching concepts.37 He uses this model in an attempt to demonstrate a triad of teaching activity which involves Jesus, the Paraclete, and the Beloved Disciple. Here two major criticisms can be made regarding this view: 1.) Franck underestimates the importance of the question of the Paraclete’s traditional background and 2.) he forces too much of the Paraclete’s activity into the category of ‘teaching.’ R. Schnackenburg’s proposal is also similar to Brown’s in several respects.38 Schnackenburg holds that one certainly cannot expect a clear and certain derivation of the term παράκλητος, but nonetheless the influence of traditions and the first-century environment can be considered. He proceeds from the widely accepted assumption that the title ‘Paraclete’ for the Holy Spirit was a given in Christian tradition and therefore also for the Evangelist. A more certain point of departure is the saying concerning the Holy Spirit in Mk 13:11 par.39 Here one can with good reason suspect that the Holy Spirit was already at this point designated as the Paraclete. Schnackenburg proposes that the role and signifiBrown, John Chapters 13–21, 1139–41. Brown, John Chapters 13–21, 1139. 34 Brown, John Chapters 13–21, 1140. 35 Cf. e.g., Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 166 and Johnston, The SpiritParaclete, 92–96. 36 E. Franck, Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Lund: Gleerup, 1985). 37 Franck, Revelation Taught, 4. 38 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 157–73. 39 Cf. on Mk 13:9–11 par M. Miguens, El Paraclito (Studii Franciscani Analecta 2, PP. Franciscan: Jerusalem, 1963), who seems to go too far in trying to trace all aspects of the Paraclete sayings to this synoptic passage. 32 33

9.7 The Farewell Discourse Genre

133

cance of the Paraclete was then further developed and expanded as we now see in the Paraclete sayings. Part of this process would include contact and dispute with other views from apocalyptic sources and Qumran, for example with respect to the title ‘Spirit of Truth.’ Thus, Schnackenburg concludes that it hardly seems possible to find a fully adequate model for the Paraclete sayings in Jn.

9.7 The Farewell Discourse Genre U.B. Müller’s40 proposal for the Paraclete’s background is based on what he considers to be the only proper methodological approach to the problem: one has to examine the genre of the Farewell Discourse and search for paracletelike functions. Müller argues that the texts of the literary genre Abschiedsreden, that is, farewell speeches, have to be examined, rather than various texts that would seem to include figures having a similar function to that of the Paraclete. Looking then to the Farewell Discourse and similar texts in Jewish writings, Müller attempts to find figures in them comparable to John’s Paraclete. Central to Müller’s view is how he understands the role of this “other Paraclete” (Jn 14:16). The Paraclete, according to Müller, has two major functions. One is to assume the continuity of the revelation which Jesus brought; the other is to vouch for the truth of Jesus’ words. These functions can be found in farewell discourses in 4 Ezra 14; 2 Bar 44–46; 77–85; Pseudo-Philo’s Lib Ant and Ass Mos. In 4 Ezra 14 the ‘figure’ which guarantees continuity are the 94 books which Ezra writes by the power of the Spirit. Similarly, Baruch in 2 Bar 77–85 writes two letters of teaching to the “nine and one-half tribes” and to the exiles in Babylon before he departs. In Lib Ant 19–20, Ass Mos 1 and 2 Bar 44–46 there is the replacement of a departing leader, just as in Num 27:18, Dt 34:9 and 2Ki 2:9–15. On the basis of these texts, Müller concludes that the duties of a succeeding figure are to admonish, comfort and teach, which are all contained for example in the Latin term commonebit in 4 Ezra 14:19. This leads to his hypothesis that these functions should be understood in terms of the Greek παρακαλέω. Response to Müller‘s concept has been mixed. Most scholars recognize the value of his argument that one should pose the question concerning the form of the Farewell Discourse. But there is much less enthusiasm for Müller’s literary-critical approach to the Paraclete sayings, since he sees those sayings in chapter 14 as being radically different than those in chapters 15 and 16. Furthermore, his derivation of Paraclete from παρακαλέω is very questionable.

40

Müller, Parakletenvorstellungen, 31–77.

134

Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete

9.8 The Wisdom Background Two scholars have proposed that Wisdom has to some degree played a role in the concept of the Paraclete in Jn. R. Brown,41 prompted by suggestions made by R.L. Jeske, asserts in his commentary that the “figure of personified Wisdom, which offers a very important background for the Johannine Jesus, also offers background for the Paraclete.”42 Brown notes that Wisdom dwells in God’s people (Sir 24:12), brings understanding (Sir 24:26–27), pours out teaching (Sir 24:33), and is rejected by humans (1 Enoch 42:2). Furthermore, Brown draws attention to the fact that in Lk 21:14–15, which is parallel to Mt 10:19–20 and therefore related as well to Jn 14:26, it is wisdom which is given to the disciples. H. Riesenfeld43 has proceeded in a different direction. We already noted above that he wishes to improve on Davies’ method. Looking to the OT, Riesenfeld determines that the expected time of the Lord’s salvation meant that God’s people would be comforted. This concept is particularly prominent in Isa (cf. 40:1–2; 51:12; 57:18–19; 66:13). Thus, Riesenfeld states,44 “In Jewish eschatology of the Hellenistic period it is one of the conspicuous themes that God will comfort his people or members of it in the Messianic time of salvation […].” An examination of the LXX translation of ‫ ָנַָחַם‬with παρακαλέω ap� pears “somewhat peculiar” and it is possible to establish that “the translators were eager to let the concept of consolation stand out clearly in an eschatological perspective.”45 This importance of ‘consolation’ is also found in the NT. Having established the importance of God’s promise to ‘comfort’ his people in the OT and NT, Riesenfeld proposes that the discourse on personified Wisdom in Prv 8:4ff. is the key to understanding the Johannine Paraclete. This text is, in the first place, an echo of Isa 40:1ff., Prv 8:4 being an “intentional allusion” to Isa 40:1–2. Thus “Wisdom in her proper person is now considered an agent in the realization of the Messianic hope, the one who comforts.”46 With respect to the Paraclete’s activities in Jn 14–16, Riesenfeld notes that these are “strikingly parallel to the functions of Wisdom in Prov. 8” and that “the coincidence of the notions of consolation (παρεκάλειν-παράκλητος), of truth (ἀλήθεια), as well as refutation (ἐλέγχω), and finally of the divine Spirit (πνεῦμα) in Proverbs – and other sapiential texts – on the one hand and in the Fourth Gospel on the other is not a mere hazard.”47 For this reason, Riesenfeld

41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Brown, John: Chapters 13–21, 1139. Brown, John: Chapters 13–21, 1139. Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 266–74. Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 268–69. Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 269. Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 271. Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 272.

9.9 The Forensic/Juridical Background

135

asserts that sapiential texts which attribute comforting functions have “given rise to the idea as well as to the name of the Paraclete.”48 Apart from Riesenfeld’s attempt to derive ‘paraclete’ from παρακαλέω, it would appear that the suggestions from Brown and Riesenfeld that Wisdom could help explain the background of John’s Paraclete. It seems to be wellfounded, if only due to the breadth of this eclectic concept. Its major failing however is that the juridical aspect of the Paraclete has no distinct place. It is therefore necessary to turn to the perspective of the Paraclete represented by A. Schlatter and others.

9.9 The Forensic/Juridical Background A. Schlatter holds that the Paraclete in Jn is clearly a juridical figure. Schlatter emphasizes that this term was understood as being a passive one, i.e., ‘one called alongside’ in both Jn as well as non-Johannine sources. Schlatter asserts,49 “Der Sprachgebrauch zeigt deutlich, daß der Paraklet dann herbeigerufen wird und dann seine Dienste tut, wenn gegen den Menschen eine Anklage erhoben ist und das Urteil über ihn gefällt wird.” Schlatter sees in Jn a situation where the disciples are those who are being accused and threatened with conviction. During the time Jesus was on earth, he protected the disciples from all accusations. After Jesus goes to the Father, the Paraclete takes Jesus’ place regarding this role. The Paraclete is not an intercessor before the court of God because there already is such a one in Jesus (cf. 1Jn 2:1–2). It is in the context of conflict with the world that the disciples need a paraclete: In diesem Streit um das Recht und die Wahrheit unterliegen sie ohnmächtig, wenn nicht ein Beistand neben ihnen steht, der für sie spricht und ihr Recht erweist.

Central to Schlatter’s view is that the situation of Jesus’ disciples is already portrayed by John in chapter 14 in terms of the disciples vs. the world. Thus, the threat of persecution or legal prosecution, which becomes explicit in 15:18–16:6, is already present in Jn 14.50 A.R.C. Leaney51 also sees the Paraclete in Jn as a juridical figure. He points to Mk 13:11 as a reflection of the circumstances under which the doctrine of the Paraclete was produced. Turning to Jn 14:16–17, Leaney sees the role of the Spirit of Truth in Qumran to be like that in this passage: the Spirit of Truth Riesenfeld, A Probable Background, 273; Riesenfeld’s italics. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1930), 297–98. 50 Cf. Behm’s response to Schlatter's view; he sees it as being exaggerated, cf. Behm, art. Παράκλητος, 802 n. 28. 51 A.R.C. Leaney, “The Johannine Paraclete and the Qumran Scrolls,” J. H. Charlesworth, (ed.), John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), 38–61. 48 49

136

Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete

is the “constant helper” of the sons of light (57). Leaney concedes the fact that the Paraclete is not called the Spirit of Truth in 14:26, but he sees the same role in the phrase “he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you.” Leaney summarizes his view on the parallel function of the two figures as follows: The Spirit of Truth is as naturally attached by the Fourth Gospel to the Paraclete as it was in Qumran to the spirit who maintains the faithfulness of the Qumran covenanters. In the former he is the revealer and preserver of all that Christians need in order to defend themselves against and ultimately to convince the world, in the latter he is the power which keeps the covenanters faithful in the already long-accepted Law (58).

F. Porsch52 has a similar view of the Paraclete. He asserts that it is necessary to see a relation between the departure of Jesus and the resulting abandonment of the disciples. The Paraclete will function as an advocate in a trial between “the world” and Jesus, the disciples being Jesus’ representatives.

9.10 The Apocalyptic Final Judgment Genre A significant variant of the above forensic/juridical background is represented by H. Thyen53 and among others O. Betz54 and U.B. Müller.55 They understand the key Paraclete passage in Jn 16:7–11 in terms of its combination of ἐλέγχειν with “sin,” “righteousness,” and “judgment” as belonging to the genre of Jewish apocalyptic. Thyen cites as an example of this genre the citation of 1 Enoch in Jude 14–15: Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 56 ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς.

Similar examples are 4Esr 12:32–23, 13:37–38 and SyrBar 40:1–2. Adapting the view of B. Lindars,57 Thyen states, Dieser feste apokalyptische Zusammenhang zeigt, daß im eschatologischen Gericht die Scheidung der Sünder von den Gerechten erfolgt. Darum müssen die Lexeme ἁμαρτία und 52 F. Porsch, Pneuma und Wort: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (Frankfurt am Main: J. Knecht, 1974), 222. 53 Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 663. 54 Betz, Der Paraklet, 192ff. 55 Müller, Parakletenvorstllungen, 69–70f. 56 Italics added in both texts by S.C.A. 57 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John: Based on the 1972 Revised Standard Version (reprinted; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd., 1982), 502f.

9.11 The Synoptic Background

137

δικαιοσύνη auch in unserer Passage wohl der Bezeichnung dieser Alternative dienen. Auch die durch das Zeugnis des Parakleten heraufgeführte κρίσις scheidet also die Sünder von den Gerechten.58

Given this classic Final Judgment scenario with its separation of sinners and the righteous, Thyen sees the Paraclete defining the three nouns ἁμαρτία, δικαιοσύνη, and κρίσις in the ὅτι-phrases in terms of Jesus and his path to his Father.

9.11 The Synoptic Background We have seen that there are differing views as to whether the synoptic tradition as represented in Mk 13:9–13 par provided the major point of departure for John as he composed the Paraclete sayings and their contexts. Bultmann59 for example, does not see any Mk 13 influence reflected in Jn 15:26: “Mit Mk 13,11 par. […] hat v. 26 aber nichts zu tun.” Müller can avoid this question by dealing with this tradition at the same time as with other NT texts concerning the Spirit.60 On the positive side, the many points of contact between the synoptic tradition and Jn 15:18–16:4a have been conveniently arranged in a table by Brown.61 In general, it can be asserted that many scholars, including H. Sasse,62 H. Windisch,63 C.K. Barrett,64 R.E. Brown,65 B. Lindars,66 R. Schnackenburg,67and F. Porsch,68 view the synoptic tradition found in Mk 13:9–11 par as having influenced John’s Paraclete concept to some degree.69 Thus, it appears that we have a solid traditional starting point in the Synoptics (and Acts) for the Paraclete sayings. But the main question remains. Is Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 663. R. Bultmann, Johannes, 426 n. 5. 60 Müller, Parakletenvorstellungen, 43–52. 61 Brown, John: Chapters 13–21, 694. 62 H. Sasse, “Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium,” ZNW 24 (1925), 260–77. 63 H. Windisch, “Die fünf johanneischen Parakletsprüche,” FS A. Jülicher (Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), 110–37. 64 Barrett, Gospel, 21978, 487. 65 Brown, John: Chapters 13–21, 699–700. 66 Lindars, The Gospel of John, 496. 67 Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 167–68. 68 F. Porsch, Pneuma und Wort: ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (Frankfurt am Main: J. Knecht, 1974), 269. 69 The view that this synoptic tradition provided a basis which John then further developed accounts for the rejection of M. Miguens’ effort to understand the Paraclete sayings exclusively in terms of the Synoptic and other NT traditions. (Miguens, El Paraclito, passim). Schnackenburg (Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 168 n. 36) comments on Miguens’ attempt: “Das ist unzulänglich, weil es nicht das Besondere und Eigentümliche der joh. Aussagen erklärt. Im Unterschied dazu sollte hier nur ein Ausgangs- und Anknüpfungspunkt in der Tradition gesucht werden.” 58 59

138

Chapter 9: The Background of the Paraclete

there a basic or primary way to explain how these sayings came to be further developed, i.e., in terms of a history-of-religions or history-of-tradition interpretation, or are they to be understood purely as an inner-Johannine development? And if there is such a way of explanation, can such a development be understood in juridical terms?

9.12 Isa 11:1–5, 10 as the Background of the Paraclete When we are willing to adapt A. Schlatter’s juridical view of the Paraclete (cf. 9.9) as well as recognize the significance of the Synoptic tradition in Mk 13:9–11 par for Jn 15:18–16:4a (cf. 9.11), we acquire a foundation upon which an original solution for the question of the Paraclete can be proposed. In chapter 2 (2.6) we addressed the issue of whether a paraclete could have an earth-bound function. It was demonstrated that there are rabbinical examples where reference is to earth-bound paracletes who do not intercede before God. There would therefore be only one difference between the rabbinic traditions cited and John’s concept of the Paraclete: It is that which a paraclete actually does. But this difference is explicable if the above importance of the synoptic parallel Mk 13:9–11 par for Jn’s concept here in Jn 15–16 is recognized. Basic exegetical observations regarding this very passage, Jn 15:18–16:11, attracted our attention at the close of chapter 2, where five of six terms designated by Preiss as being juridical appear in this one context which arguably reflects a unified concept. Going a step further, we observe that there exists a remarkable correspondence of four key terms (or, as in the case of ἁμαρτίας in Jn 16:9, a synonym) between Jn 16:7–11 and Isa 11:1–5: Correspondences 1

Jn 16:7–11 (v.8) ἐλέγξει

2

(v.9) ἁμαρτίας

3 4

(v.10) δικαιοσύνης (v.11) κρίσεως/κέκριται

Isa 11:1–5 (v.3) ἐλέγξει (v.4) ἐλέγξει (v.4) ἀσεβῆ (cf. e.g., Ps 1: ἀσεβῶν and ἁμαρτωλῶν are synonyms) (v.5) δικαιοσύνῃ (v.3) κρινεῖ (v.4) κρίσιν

These correspondences, i.e., between Jn 16:7–11 and Isa 11:1–5, include all four Johannine key terms ἐλέγχειν, ἁμαρτίας (ἀσεβῶν as an equivalent), δικαιοσύνη, and κρίσις. Isa 11:1–5 presents a major factor that points to a central part of the Spirit (!)-Paraclete’s provenance: the eschatological revelation of the righteous Messiah in the context of righteous judgment. As Jn 15:26–27 indicates, this involves its continuation through the witness of the disciples

9.12 Isa 11:1–5, 10 as the Background of the Paraclete

139

due to the assistance of the Spirit-Paraclete. The presence of δικαιοσύνη demonstrates the positive core of both Isa 11:1–5 and Jn 16:7–11. The appropriate background genre of both texts is therefore not an apocalyptic Day of Reckoning at the Last Judgment which we find in the citation of 1 Enoch in Jude 14–15 (cf. Thyen, Müller and Betz above in 9.10). It is, as C. Westermann70 describes in Isa 11:1–5, a Heilsankündigung which is both future and present in describing a future state of salvation. John sees Isa 11:1–5 as being eschatologically fulfilled in Jn 16:7–11, using it to shape an apologetic appeal of the juridical decisions against Jesus. Having been justified by his Father, Jesus is to be witnessed to and justified in the eyes of all those who are willing to believe (cf. Jn 7:17–18). This observation warrants an examination of the reception of Isa 11:1–10, which will permit an understanding of interpretive parameters associated with this messianic prophecy. The visionary verses in Isa 11:6–9 of the shalom that the Messiah brings will be included for the sake of completeness.

70 Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 151–52: “Die Heilsschilderung ist futurisch-präsentisch, sie schildert einen Heilszustand in der Zukunft, malt aus, wie es einmal sein wird (z.B. Jes. 11:1–10).”

Chapter 10

Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception This chapter begins with a study of the texts and reception of Isa 11:1–10, which will enable us to better understand the contours of John’s own reception of Isa 11:1–5, 10. The results of this study will offer insights of illustrative, not causational nature. This will lead to an appreciation of the breadth and depth of John’s subtle but clear use of this messianic oracle not just for the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse, but also in Jn 1:32–20:23 and thereby practically for the whole of the Fourth Gospel.

10.1 Isa 11:1–10 Verse 1: “A shoot will come forth from the stump of Jesse” From the outset of this oracle, Isaiah is speaking about a promise, a future event due to the perfect tense of the verb “come forth.”1 Precisely when this event will come about is not defined, nor is how the promised descendent of Jesse will “come forth.” Reflecting his negative view of the current Davidic dynasty, Isaiah foretells not simply its renewal, but rather reaches back purposely to the father of David, Jesse (cf. Micah 5:1, where a new king will come forth from Bethlehem, the home of Jesse and David). This is shown by the fact that the shoot will grow out of the stump. The tree of David has been cut down and new growth is represented as coming out of Jesse. Thus, the prophet succeeds in foretelling the coming of a new king who is nonetheless descended from the royal family. In this way God is presented as still being true to his promise to the house of David even though the Davidic dynasty came to an end. Verse 1b: “and a branch shall grow out of his roots” If one accepts the Masoretic text as it stands, then the promise is made that the new king will bear fruit, that is, there will be restoration and prosperity as well.2 1 H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT X/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 446. 2 G.B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962), 216.

142

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

It is, however, more likely that from a contemporary academic perspective the text should be emended to read in accordance with the LXX ἀναβήσεται, Syr nafra’, Vul ascendet, “will shoot up.” Thus, v. 1b stands in synonymous parallelism to v. 1a. The promised new beginning will come suddenly, as well as unexpectedly. Kaiser3 notes 1Sam 16:1ff. and comments on this suddenness: “Wie einst David plötzlich aus der Unscheinbarkeit hervortrat, soll nun nach dem offensichtlich endgültigen Abdanken der Davididen seinem Volke ein zweiter David aus dem Geschlecht des Ahnherren entstehen.”4 Verse 2a: “And the Spirit of Yahweh will rest on him” The coming king is characterized as one upon whom the Spirit of the Lord rests. The presence of the Spirit makes a person “fit for exceptional achievements.”5 Craftsmen can be endowed with it (Ex 31:3; 35:31), it makes warriors mighty (Jdg 6:34; 11:29; 13:25 and 14:6, 19), it empowers prophets (Num 11:25–26; Isa 61:1), and it enables persons to interpret dreams (Gen 41:38). But especially the king, who has such a demanding role to fill, requires the power of God’s Spirit to meet the demands of his office (cf. 1Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13–14; 19:9; 20:23). The prophet emphasizes by use of the verb “rest” that the Spirit of God will not simply come upon this king, but that it will be resting upon him for a long duration (cf. Num 11:17; 25–26 and 2Ki 2:15). Thus, the coming king is an idealized figure whose reign will be characterized by a continuing presence of the Spirit. While the Spirit comes upon the king in 1Sam 10:1–10 and 16:1–13 by means of anointing with oil, here in Isa 11:2 it is not specifically stated how this will occur. What is described in the rest of v. 2 concerns the Spirit of God. Verse 2b: “a Spirit of wisdom and understanding” The first couplet describes the king as having two classic attributes of an ideal monarch, wisdom and understanding. David is compared by the woman of Tekoa in 2Sam 14:17 to an angel of God who discerns good and evil. Solomon of course is the wise king par excellence. In 1Kings 3:12 he asks the Lord for wisdom and understanding. Scholars generally view ‘wisdom’ as relating to

3 O. Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12 (ATD 17, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 241. 4 Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, 216. 5 Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, 216.

10.1 Isa 11:1–10

143

practical matters and ‘understanding’ as6 referring to the power of the mind.7 Noteworthy is the fact that Solomon’s wisdom is related to his ability to render just judgment in 1Ki 3:28. The same association between wisdom and righteous judgment is also found in Isa 11:3–4. Verse 2c: “a Spirit of counsel and might” A parallel combination of the terms “counsel” and “might” is found in the oracle in Isa 9:5, where the promised king is described as “wonderful counselor” and “mighty God.” Cf. also Prv 8:14, where the fruit of wisdom is described as counsel, ability, understanding and strength.8 The king who is endowed with wisdom and understanding also possesses the ability to act upon his insights. As Gray states,9 “the king receives power not only to discern [what is] right, but to execute it, to secure the weak their due, and to punish and put to death the guilty, however powerful (v. 4).” Wildberger10 argues that while the first Hebrew noun can mean ‘counsel’ (cf. e.g., 2Ki 6:8; Isa 19:11), the king himself does not give counsel. He rather takes counsel and then makes decisions, that is, he ‘plans.’ With reference to both counsel and might here, Wildberger11 further observes that while these terms often refer to the king preparing for war, this cannot be the case here.12 He notes that according to Isa 9:6, this king is the “prince of peace.” Prv 8:14 also demonstrates that this term pair can have a non-military connotation. Thus, the prophet transforms terms which are typically militaristic into terms of eschatological peace, which follows here in Isa 11:6–9. Verse 2d: “a Spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord” The ideal king will be one whose reign is based on belief in Yahweh. Here the prophet is apparently using terms belonging to wisdom tradition, cf. Prv 6 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 447, points out that the king speaks by the Spirit in 2Sam 23:2. Cf. 23:3, where the topic immediately becomes that of judging justly. 7 On “wisdom,” cf. H.-P. Müller, art. Weisheit, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, (2nd ed., Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Chr. Kaiser Theologischer Verlag, Zürich/ München 1979), 928–933, For “counsel,” cf. H. Ringgren, TWAT1 621–29. 8 Cf. M. Hengel, “Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie,” E. Jacob, ed., Sagesse et Religion (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979), 147–188. 9 G.B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962), 216. 10 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 449. 11 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 449. 12 Cf. also Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, 216, who takes the same view. Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12, 242, remarks that no reign can exist without the potential for the use of force and that such abilities are necessary in times of peace as well as war.

144

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

1:29 and 2:5–6.13 According to Jer 22:16, knowing the Lord means to judge the cause of the poor and needy. The fear of the Lord involves respect, piety,14 and, as David says in his last words in 2Sam 23:3, it is related intimately to ruling righteously over persons. This is illustrated by Prv 16:10, “Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in judgment.” Verse 3a: “and his enjoyment of the scent of fear of Yahweh”15 These initial words are, in the view of virtually all commentators, the result of dittography from v. 2d. This phrase is for all practical purposes not intelligible. For a review of suggested interpretations, cf. Gray and Wildberger.16 Verse 3b: “[and]17 he will not judge according to what his eyes see” Following the statement regarding the king’s spiritual endowments in v. 2 comes a description of his ruling activity in vv. 3–5. The coming king’s reign is described in terms of the judgment that he will carry out. This judgment will be righteous due to the wisdom and insight he possesses. While he will surely not ‘look upon the person’ in passing judgment (cf. Lev 19:15; Dt 1:17; 16:19; Prv 18:5; 24:23–25; Isa 2:9), there is more to the meaning here. Due to the endowment of the Spirit, this king will be able to perceive the reality of a matter despite outward appearance. In this manner the king will judge in the same way that God judges, cf. 1Sam 16:7 (cf. also 1Cor 4:3–5; 1Petr 1:17). Here both ‘what the eyes see’ as well as ‘what he hears‘ in the next phrase (v. 3c) relate to the judging activity of the king. The decisions which he will reach will be righteous ones due to his God-given ability to perceive the truth in every case. In Isa 2:4 it is God himself who will “judge between the nations and shall decide for many peoples.” With reference to this latter parallel to 11:2 and 11:3–4, Wildberger notes that this is not a contradiction, for the Davidic king represents the divine king Yahweh among his people.18

13 14 15 16 17 18

Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 449. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 450. This translation is adopted from Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, 217. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, 217, Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 437–38, 449. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 438, following the majority of MSS., drops this. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 86.

10.1 Isa 11:1–10

145

Verse 3c: “[and]19 he will not decide according to what he hears” The thought of v. 3b is expanded to include hearing as well as sight. Thus, the idea is reenforced that when parties come before this king, it will not only be on the basis of their behavior before him, material evidence, and oral testimony that he will judge. His spiritual wisdom will enable him to judge as the Lord himself judges. The implication here is that this king’s knowledge of the hearts and deeds of men corresponds to God’s. Citing 2Sam 14:20c (“But my Lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the angel of God to know all things that are on earth”), Duhm notes, “[…] der vom Geist geleitete Messias braucht nicht wie andere Richter mit leiblichen Augen und Ohren die Sachen zu untersuchen, er weiß unmittelbar, was vorgegangen ist.”20 Verse 4a: “and he will judge the poor in righteousness” The coming king will establish justice for the poor. Here “judging” can be conceived in terms of rescuing the poor21 (cf. 1Sam 24:16b; 2Sam 18:19, 31; Isa 1:17, 23; Ps 10:18; 72:4,22 and Prov 29:14. In the OT, God is portrayed as the protector of the weak, the poor, widows, and orphans (cf. e.g., Dt 10:18; Job 5:15–16; Ps 9:10; 68:6; 82:3–4; 146:9). As was the case in the rest of the Near East,23 this role of protecting the weak and disadvantaged was also assumed by the king in Israel (cf. Ps 72:2–4; 12–14; Isa 32:1ff.; Jer 21:1ff. and 23:5ff.). The prophet Isaiah has complained on several occasions already (cf. Isa 1:17; 5:20, 23; 10:2) that the legal rights of the poor have been abused. The king will 19

MSS.

Once again Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 438, who drops this, following the majority of

Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), 106. So Liedke, cf. G. Liedtke and C. Petersen, art. ‫ּתֹוָרה‬/tōrā/Weisung, ָ E. Jenni, ed., unter Mitarbeit von Westermann, C., THAT, (2nd ed., München: Chr. Kaiser/Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979) 1032–43, TWAT2, 1002. 22 Ps 72:1–4 is generally considered to have been composed before our text here in Isa 11, cf. for example Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 439, contra Murphy, R. Murphy, A Study of Psalm 72 (71) (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 82–83. The setting of the psalm was probably the enthronement of the crown prince, and it therefore anticipates a period of great salvation, cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 2. Teilband: Psalmen 60–150 (BKAT XV/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 657. Yahweh is called upon to give his judgments and righteousness to the king since Israel, as a part of the ancient orient, viewed God as the source of law and judgment, as in Dt 1:17 (cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 2. Teilband, 657). The poor especially will be the beneficiaries of this king's reign because of his righteous judgments. Since it is the poor who suffer the most from a judicial system which is not fair or just, and they are the last to realize any benefits from improvements, the extent to which a king judges righteously is ultimately measured by whether the poor receive justice or not. 23 Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 448, for examples. 20

21

146

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

remedy this situation by judging righteously. The association of “judgment” and “with righteousness“ here in v. 4 is paralleled in Isa 1:21. There the verse compares the present state of Jerusalem unfavorably to its past role, that of being the city of justice and righteousness, the location of Yahweh’s throne (Ps 97:2). In the OT there is a very close association between Jerusalem and righteousness.24 Verse 4b: “he will decide with equity for the poor of the earth” Following the LXX ταπεινοὺς, the Hebrew term for the “meek,” should in principle be amended to read “the poor.”25 Here “with equity” is parallel to “in righteousness” in v. 4a, although Wildberger26 maintains that the former emphasizes the actual moment of integrity. In any event it seems clear that v. 4a and 4b stand in synthetic parallelism to each other. Verse 4c: “and he will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth” The exegetical consensus is that the Hebrew term for the noun “ruthless” should be read for “earth.” This emendation removes the disturbing repetition which would otherwise exist, i.e., appearing at the beginning of this phrase as well as at the end of the previous one in v. 4b. It also creates a satisfying parallelism to v. 4d. The problem of what the significance of striking the earth could mean is thereby removed, at least for purposes of Old Testament research. We have left the text unchanged since ancient readers likely had the unamended text. The Hebrew verb is very common in the OT in the Hiphil and means “to strike.” Its meaning here is that the king will destroy the ruthless.27 The means by which he will do this is “with the rod of his mouth.” Wildberger28 sees this phrase as indicating an understanding of the Word as a dynamic power. This concept is also found in the OT in Hos 6:5, “I have slain them by the words of my mouth,” and in Isa 49:2, which reads, “He has made my mouth sharp like a sword.” That this phrase can be equated with the word of the king is indicated by Ps 33:6; 147:18; Judith 16:15; Syr Baruch 21:6; cf. also Acts 5:1–11, where Ananias and Sapphira are killed by the words of Peter. The scepter is the symbol of the king’s power and is associated with righteous judgment in Ps 45:7. Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 59. Cf. Isa 10:1–2, where we read, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!” 26 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 453. 27 Cf. O. Seesemann, art. Πατάσσω, G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., TWNT 5:939–40. 28 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 453. 24 25

10.1 Isa 11:1–10

147

In Ps 2:9 the king strikes his enemies with an iron scepter, breaking them like pottery. Therefore, it appears that a certain degree of spiritualization has taken place here;29 the scepter has become a scepter of the king’s mouth. Verse 4d: “and with the breath of his lips he will kill the wicked” Here Hebrew for “with the breath” stands parallel to “with the rod of his mouth” in v. 4c.30 The use of the root in the Hiphil for “kill” here substantiates the position taken above that v. 4c involves the destruction of the ruthless and not various degrees of punishment. Wildberger sees the wicked persons here in v. 4 as people who use force against the poor and weak. Verse 5a: “and there will be a belt of righteousness around his hips” Here the king is pictured in terms of power and preparedness. As Duhm notes,31 “Der König ist stark and leistungsfähig, weil er gerecht und treu ist.” A “belt” could be made of leather (2Ki 1:8), but cloth was usually used (cf. Jer 13:1–2).32 The concept is that righteousness is virtually indivisibly associated with the king, cf. the idea in Jer 13:11, “For as the waistcloth clings to the loins of a man, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me.” Verse 5b: “and truth [will be] the girdle of his loins” Wildberger33 holds that the definite article before “faithfulness” should be dropped to create correspondence to the term “righteousness” in v. 5a. Following G. Driver,34 “girdle” should be read due to 1.) the correspondence of the Hebrew to the Syrian ‘esur for “girdle” and 2.) the Vulgate reads cingulum and cinctorium, where the Hebrew as in v. 5a and v. 5b sound similar and yet are not identical, and 3.) the fact that the other suggestion, “belt,” is less attractive. The Hebrew terms often occur as parallel terms in the OT (cf. Ps 33:4–5; 36:6–7; 40:11; 88:12–13; 96:13; 98:2–3; etc.).35

Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 454. Cf. also the OT concept of the Word of Yahweh being (like) fire, Jer 5:14; 20:9; 23:29. 31 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 106. 32 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 224. 33 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 438. 34 G.R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX,” JTS 38, No. 149 (Jan. 1937), 36–50. 35 Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 455. 29 30

148

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

Wildberger36 notes however that these terms are never associated with an earthly king anywhere else in the OT, but rather are linked to Yahweh being celebrated as king and judge (cf. also Ps 89:2, 3, 6, 34, 50). Therefore, it can be said that this is another juncture where we find the thought that this king will be the representative of God. Verses 6–9: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” The king’s righteous judgment results in a reign in which the world has shalom. Beasts which otherwise need to be removed by God (cf. Ez 34:25ff.; Isa 35:9 and Lev 26:6, but also Hos 2:20 and Isa 65:25) behave in a remarkably tame manner. For particulars on these creatures, cf. Wildberger.37 There are at least three ways to interpret this scene. One is to understand it literally and view this period of peace in mythological terms. These creatures will behave in ways which are even physiologically impossible (e.g., a lion eating grass). Thus, the apocalyptic notion of a new world would be approached, one which will be like the original creation, cf. Gen 1:29–30, where all animals are portrayed as being vegetarian. Another way is to understand this text allegorically. The animals represent nations which will no longer be predatory or at odds in other ways with each other. A third way to interpret this scene is to view v. 9 as interpreting vv. 6–8.38 Zion, the “holy mountain,” is Jerusalem (cf. Ps 2:6; 3:5; 48:2; 99:9; Jer 31:23; Ps 78:54), the righteous judge is king. Therefore, evil has been eliminated and the strong and the weak can peacefully coexist. The former are held in check and the latter have assurance of protection. The “knowledge of the Lord” is the reason for this peace (cf. Hab 2:14). This last view appears to be the most attractive because of its simple nature and nearness to the text.

36 37 38

Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 455. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 456–57. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 458.

10.2 LXX Isa 11:1–10

149

Verse 10a–b: “And it will be in those days that the rod of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples.” The fact that this is an addition to vv. 1–9 is betrayed both by the introductory phrase “and it will be in those days” as well as the change from in v. 1 “shoot”/“branch” to “rod of Jesse” here in v. 10. The king is called a sign for the people, a place of gathering for the nations. Here there is a universal view of the king’s reign, whereas in vv. 1–9 it is limited to Israel as is indicated by the reference to the “holy hill,” Jerusalem.39 Verse 10c: “him shall the nations seek” In contrast to the idea that the nations bring tribute to the king (Ps 18:44ff.; 45:12ff.; 72:9ff.), here they seek his counsel. This verse bears a strong resemblance to Isa 2:2–4, where Yahweh teaches the peoples. Wildberger40 sees the nature of this counsel as relating to the king’s judging ability (cf. Ps 2:9; Num 24:17). Verse 10d: “and his dwellings shall be glorious.” Here Jerusalem is portrayed as a resting place for all the nations (cf. 1Ki 8:56; Isa 32:18; Hebr 4:1ff., cf. Dt 12:9; 28:65; Ps 95:11; Isa 28:12; Ps 132:8, 14; 1Chr 28:2). This scenario is probably to be conceived in terms of heavenly glory on earth.41

10.2 LXX Isa 11:1–10 Here instances where the LXX text of Isa 11 differs from the MT or changes its sense will be briefly noted. Verse 1a: Καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ῥάβδος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης Ιεσσαι, The use of the noun ῥάβδος for the Hebrew is unique in the LXX, but the latter translation occurs only twice there anyway. The noun ῥίζης, although used in the LXX more than forty times and used to translate seven Hebrew words, 39 So Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 458; cf. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX, 218, on v. 3, who sees the use of ‫ ֶאֶ ֶֶרץ‬as indicating the “world-wide sway of the king” (cf. Isa 9:6). 40 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 459. 41 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 459.

150

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

is used for the Hebrew here only one other time in the LXX (cf. Isa 40:24). Generally, ῥίζα translates the Hebrew ‫ֶׁשֶׁרׁש‬, ֶ as in vv. 1b and 10. Verse 1b: καὶ ἄνθος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης ἀναβήσεται. The noun ἄνθος is used 21 times in the LXX to translate Hebrew words. It is used for ‫ ֵנֵֶצֶ ר‬twice, cf. also Dan Theo 11:7. Since ‫ ֵנֵֶצֶ ר‬is translated only four times by a total of three words, the rare use of ἄνθος for ‫ ֵנֵֶצֶ ר‬need not be sig� nificant. The use of ἀναβήσεται for ‫ ִיִ ְפְ ֶֽר� ֽ ה‬does, however, draw attention. This Greek verb is used very often in the LXX. But it is used for ‫ ִיִ ְפְ ֶֽר� ֽ ה‬only this one time. This would suggest that the Hebrew text should be amended, as was noted above. Verse 2c: πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος, Although ἰσχύος is used more than two hundred times for thirty Hebrew roots, it translates ‫בּוָרה‬ ָ ּ‫ ְּג‬in the LXX only once. What if any significance this could have is not clear. Verse 3a: ἐμπλήσει αὐτὸν πνεῦμα φόβου θεοῦ. In the previous section on the MT it was already noted that this phrase is probably the result of dittography. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that a unique translation occurs here. As Olley42 notes, the LXX views v. 3a as another endowment of the Spirit, something that is markedly different than the MT. Verse 3b: οὐ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν κρινεῖ While δόξα is used very often in the LXX, here there is a unique use of the term for the Hebrew ‫ַמְַרֶאֶ ה‬. ְ This term is used a total of six times in the MT and physical sight is always indicated. Thus, it appears that the typical way to translate the Hebrew phrase would have been in terms of such physical sight. But the translator has apparently deliberately chosen not to do so, using the less concrete δόξα instead. Whether this is another example of the translator’s tendency to eliminate Hebraisms43 is not ascertainable.

42 J.W. Olley, Righteousness in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study. (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 8, Missoula, MT: Scholars’ Press, 1979), 95. 43 Cf. J. Ziegler, Isaias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939), 95.

10.2 LXX Isa 11:1–10

151

Verse 3c: οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν λαλιὰν ἐλέγξει, Just as in the case of δόξαν above, here the use of κατὰ τὴν λαλιὰν for the Hebrew is without precedent. Verse 4a: ἀλλὰ κρινεῖ ταπεινῷ κρίσιν The use of κρίσιν for the Hebrew is rather exceptional. The noun κρίσιν is used for ֙‫ְּבֶּ֙צ� ֶדֶ ֙ק‬ ֙ only twice, here and in Isa 51:7. Verse 4b: καὶ ἐλέγξει τοὺς ταπεινοὺς τῆς γῆς· No new terms are used here, but what is not translated here is significant, ‫יׁ֖שֹור‬ ֖ ‫ְּבּ ִִמ‬, ‘in equity.’ Ziegler44 notes that the translator of Isa generally attaches no particular value to parallel constructions and lists several examples of this. Verse 4c: καὶ πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ The use of τῷ λόγῳ for ‫ְּבֵּׁ֣שֶבֶ ט‬ ֣ � is a one-time occurrence in the LXX. This is a clear departure from the MT, reflecting an OT understanding of the power of the prophetic word.45 Verses 6–9: It can be said that the translation of vv. 6–9 does not differ significantly from the MT. Verse 10b: ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ιεσσαι καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, This rendering of ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ιεσσαι for ‫ ִיִ ַׁ֗ש�֗ ֹׁ֣ש�֣ ֶֶרׁש‬was seen in v.1. This use of καὶ for ‫ ֲֲאֶׁשֶ ר‬is very significant, because it makes what follows a second title for this messianic figure. Also, the rendering of ‫ ֵנֵס‬with ἄρχειν occurs only once in the LXX, representing a view clearly different from that which is otherwise found in the MT.

Ziegler, Isaia, 51. Cf. I.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 119. 44 45

152

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

Verse 10c: ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, Here another significant difference between the LXX and the MT appears. The nations will “hope upon” this leader instead of seeking him. Ziegler46 has pointed out parallel phrases in LXX Isa revolving around this idea of hope, cf. 26:8; 42:4; 51:5; and 60:9. Verse 10d: καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἀνάπαυσις αὐτοῦ τιμή. This rendition of the MT does not call for any comment except for the fact that while ‫ ָּכּבֹוד‬is usually rendered with δόξα and not τιμή in the LXX. Here the for� mer term would not have been appropriate since it originally meant “opinion” and could therefore not be used for the concept of power/honor.

10.3 The Qumran Text of Isa 11:1–10 As is well-known, the Qumran Isaiah scroll compares very favorably to the MT, and the case is no different with regard to the Qumran text of Isa 11. Except for some very minor variations, the texts are virtually identical, and there is no evidence that any changes have been made.

10.4 Pss Sol 17:21–18:947 The portrayal of the messiah in Pss Sol 17–18 has been strongly influenced by Isa 11:1–10.48 This is seen particularly in the description of the way the messiah will establish and carry out his rule, which is based in part on Isa 11:3–4.49 In v. 22 hope is expressed that the messiah will “shatter” the rulers and this thought is continued in vv. 23–25 and v. 36b. Due to the fact that the messiah

Ziegler, Isaia, 140–41. The verse numbering used here follows Rahlfs’ LXX text, cf. A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta Bde. I–II (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). 48 Cf. G. Davenport, “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17,” J. Collins and G. Nickelsburg, eds., Ideal figures in Ancient Judaism (Chico, CA: Scholars’ Press, 1980), 67–92, 72. 49 Cf. J. Collins, “‘He Shall Not Judge by What His Eyes See.’ Messianic Authority in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995), 145–64, 58: “The statement that he will destroy the unlawful nations with ‘the word of his mouth’ is drawn from the Septuagint translation of Isa 11:4 (the Hebrew has the more familiar ‘rod of his mouth’).” 46 47

10.4 Pss Sol 17:21–18:9

153

will “destroy the godless nations” in v. 24b, his activity can be characterized as being militant as well as his kingship being understood in a juridical sense.50 While this may strike modern readers as an odd combination, the fact must be remembered that a king in the Near East had the role of head warrior as well as that of chief judge in his realm. That the almost warlike nature of this king’s activity remains in the writer’s view is seen in vv. 33–34: For he shall not put trust in horse and rider and bow, /Nor shall he multiply for himself gold and silver for war, /Nor shall he gather confidence from a multitude for the day of battle. / The Lord himself is his king, the hope of him that is mighty through (his) hope in God.51

Thus, instead of Isa 11:3–4’s contrast between judging according to appearance/hearing and judging righteously, here there is a contrast between fighting with one’s hope based on external factors and fighting with one’s hope based on the Lord. The hope of Isa 11:3–4, which centers on righteous judgment, has been shifted to the hope of the restoration of Israel as an independent political entity (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). There are many other references to Isa 11:1–10 here besides those which only refer to vv. 3–4. While there is no reference to the “rod of Jesse,” the messiah in this passage is called a king who is the son of David (17:23; cf. v. 32, 42). There are also two specific references to the presence of the Spirit in this messiah in 17:37 and 18:7 (cf. Isa 11:2; in Ps Sol 18:7 the phrase “in the fear of his God” could be based on Isa 11:3a). Other concepts relating to Isa 11:2, ones associated with wisdom, are found in 17:23, 29, 43 and especially 17:32, where the messiah is described as “taught of God,” cf. Isa 54:17. This concept leads the writer to combine the theme of wisdom with the function of judging in 17:43, just as is done in Isa 11: His words (shall be) more refined than costly gold, the choicest; /In the assemblies he will judge the peoples, the tribes of the sanctified. /His words (shall be) like the words of the holy ones in the midst of sanctified peoples.52

As above in 18:7, the concept of the messiah having the characteristics of righteousness and faithfulness (cf. Isa 11:5) are also reflected in 17:32, where he is described as a “righteous king” (cf. also 17:23, 36). This link between the righteousness and spiritually endowed wisdom of the king here in Pss Sol corresponds to the view found in Isa 11. Finally, the period of messianic peace found in Isa 11:6–9 is roughly paralleled by Ps Sol 17:26–29 and 40–41.

Cf. Hengel, Jesus als messianischer Lehrer, 170. Translation of Pss Sol by R. H.·Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 Vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963–1964), 650–51. 52 Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 650–53. 50 51

154

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

10.5 1QSb 5 In what is often referred to as “The Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation,” Isa 11:1–10 plays a main role in the conception of the messiahs expected in this text by the Qumran community. A direct reference to the root of Jesse (Isa 11:1) as well as to Davidic descendance is lacking here, although it can be asserted that in Qumran at least one of the messiahs was conceived as being a Davidite (cf. e.g., 4QpIsaa; 4Qflor 1:11–13). In vv. 21–22 the kingdom of this prince is conceived in terms of the promise of a never-ending rule (cf. 2Sam 7) as well as judging the poor righteously, which is a reference to Isa 11:4. This reference is continued in vv. 24–25, which reads, “[May you smite the peoples] with the might of your mouth and ravage the earth with your scepter; may you bring death to the ungodly with the breath of your lips!” These verses are a very close paraphrase of Isa 11:4. Verse 25 continues with a reference to Isa 11:2: “with the spirit of counsel and with eternal power, with the spirit of knowledge and the fear of God.” As the context shows, the ability of this messiah to destroy his opponents is due to the power of the Spirit, which is wielded by him through his mouth as well as by his scepter. This scepter represents the power of a king to rule and command his armies. A reference to a third verse in Isa 11, v. 5, follows immediately at the end of v. 25–26a: “and righteousness will be the belt of your loins and truthfulness the belt of your hips.” These qualities are associated with the conquering power of the messiah just as the power of the Spirit is in v. 25. The foregoing indicates how this text centers on Isa 11:1–5, and that it focuses particularly on Isa 11:2, 4 and 5. A reference to Isa 11:1 is at best either taken for granted or a reference to it must be considered oblique. The contrast in Isa 11:3 that the messiah will not judge according to appearance or hearing, but will judge righteously, is totally lacking. This is because this messiah’s function is viewed not in juridical but rather in military terms. This is particularly evident in vv. 26b–29, where the expectation is expressed that the messiah will walk over people (non-Essenes) like dung. Rulers will submit themselves to his rule and the nations will serve him. Therefore, it can be asserted that the function of this messiah has been developed in these militaristic terms due to his role not as the priestly but as the eschatological messiah who concentrates on military/political emancipation and not on judicial relief. For this reason, the description of the messiah’s power focuses on an awesome ability to destroy his opponents to the total neglect of the concept in Isa 11:3, which concerns the messiah’s spirit-endowed ability to discern what is just. Thus, we see here that in Qumran two messiahs were expected, a Davidic and a priestly one. It is the priestly messiah who is attributed the task of judging, cf. e.g., 1QS 9:11. A major hope of the Essenes lay in the great eschatological battle in which they expected to take part, and they interpreted Isa 11:1–5 here accordingly. It is therefore not surprising that no trace of the messianic peace

10.6 4QpIsaa

155

of Isa 11:6–9, in which all creatures live in peace with one another and the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, appears here.

10.6 4QpIsaa This poorly preserved fragment is a pesher on Isa 11:1–5. Lines 11–16 presumably involve the text of Isa 11:1–5 and lines 17–24 concern its interpretation.53 The opening line of the pesher in l. 17 refers to Isa 11:4. What the “shoot of David” precisely involves cannot be determined due to a lacuna in the text. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that this shoot is considered as coming from David and not simply from his father Jesse.54 This reflects the prevailing view of the first centuries B.C.E. and B.C. that David was (practically) the ideal king himself due both to the promises of God to him (2Sam 7) as well as Israel’s greatness during his reign. In the following line (l. 18) there is some kind of reference to the enemies of this Davidite messiah as well as the assertion that “God will sustain him in the spirit of strength.” It seems reasonable to suppose based on 1QSb 5 that here in l. 18 this messiah will overcome his enemies due to the power of God’s Spirit. This reference to the Spirit probably involves Isa 11:2. In l. 19 there is mention of the messiah’s throne, his crown, and his royal clothing. That he will rule over the Gentiles and – presumably – do battle with and defeat Magog (cf. 1QM 11:16) is the subject of l. 20. This thought is continued in l. 21, where it says that the peoples will be judged by his sword. The end of this line, together with the following one, l. 22, quotes Isa 11:3b–c. The initial part of its interpretation is unfortunately missing, but in l. 23 we at least learn that this messiah will be taught what he needs to know to judge righteously: “and according to what they teach him so shall he judge, and according to their command […].” It is probable that it is the priests who do this teaching, as one of them is the subject of the last line (l. 24). This would correspond to the Qumran doctrine that the Davidic messiah is subordinate to the Aaronic messiah. Thus, it is clear that the messiah’s ability to judge is not viewed in this text as being predicated on the indwelling of the Spirit as in Isa 11:2–3. Based on what can be concluded from a text that is admittedly fragmentary, it seems that the contrast in the MT between judging according to physical perception on 53 Cf. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 63: “Whatever the precise wording, there can be little doubt that the reference is to an eschatological Davidic king.” 54 Regarding the so-called “dying messiah” in the War Rule (4Q285), Collins (Collins, Scepter and the Star, 65) asserts, “In view of the association with Isaiah 11, where the shoot of Jesse will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and kill the wicked with the breath of his lips, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the Prince/Branch is the subject of the verb to kill, not its object.”

156

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

one hand, and according to Spirit-empowered insight on the other, is ignored. The decisive factor in judging righteously is whether this messiah has been taught by the priests.55 It also appears that, as in 1QSb 5, the militaristic/political role of this messiah stands in the foreground.56 It is for this role that he is described as empowered by the Spirit of God. The juridical role does receive some attention, but again, it is more for the purpose of making this messiah’s dependence on and subordination to the priests clear than for the sake of this forensic activity as such.57

10.7 1 Enoch 49–51; 62 In the parables of Enoch there are two places where Isa 11:1–10 has exerted its influence. In chapters 49–51 the “Elect One” is described and the events which are associated with his coming or appearance are portrayed. R. Charles58 entitles chapter 49 “The Power and Wisdom of the Elect One.” Wisdom is portrayed as that which enables the Elect One to have the ability to judge “the secret things.” This wisdom comes via the indwelling of the Spirit, as 49:3 makes clear: “In him dwells the spirit of wisdom, the spirit which gives thoughtfulness, the spirit of knowledge and strength, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness.” While this verse is not a quote of Isa 11:2, the influence of this OT verse here is unmistakable. The indwelling of this Spirit of wisdom means that the Elect One “is mighty” in all the secrets of righteousness (49:2) and that he “shall judge the secret things and none shall be able to utter a lying word before him.” Here the influence of Isa 11:3–4 is very possible, especially since Isa 11:2 lies behind 49:2. It would be quite natural for the writer to continue in terms of Isa 11:3, and the idea that the “Elect One” shall “judge the secret things” compares very favorably with the thought in Isa 11:3, “he shall not judge according to his eyes, nor convict according to the hearing of his ears.” The concept of a ‘righteous judgment,’ key to the thought of Isa 11:3–4, apCollins (Collins, Not Judge by What His Eyes See, 157) comments: “Similarly in the pesher on Isaiah, the biblical phrase ‘He shall not judge by what his eyes see’ is taken to mean that the messiah will defer to the teachings of ‘the priests of renown.’” 56 Cf. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 68: “In view of the clear application of Isaiah 11 to the Prince of the Congregation in 1QSb 5b, there can be little doubt about the identification with the ‘Branch of David’ in 4Q285 and 4QpIsaa. All three texts have the same scriptural base in Isa 11 and share a common view of the warrior messiah.” 57 Cf. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 82: “Several other texts [besides 1QSa, note by S.C.A.] indicate that the royal messiah must defer to priestly authority.” Collins cites as examples 4QpIsaa, 4Q285, 1QSb, Florilegium 1:11 and CD 7:18. Collins, Scepter and the Star, 82–3, adds that all the major rule books support this bifurcation of authority in the messianic era. 58 Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 217. 55

10.7 1 Enoch 49–51; 62

157

pears somewhat later in 50:4, “and he is righteous also in his judgment.” It is possible that another phrase in this verse, “At this judgment the unrepentant shall perish before Him,” relates to Isa 11:4. But since here it is the “Lord of the Spirits” himself and not the “Elect One” who does this, the possible influence of Isa 11:4 here should be at best considered tangential. Looking to chapter 51, however, the influence of “the Spirit of wisdom” and the “Spirit of counsel” in Isa 11:2 as well as the phrase concerning the role of the king’s “mouth” in exercising judgment (cf. Isa 11:4; Ps Sol 17:24) seems to be evident in 51:3. In 51:4–5 a time of messianic peace is described which parallels the thought of Isa 11:6–9. Therefore, on the whole it is fair to conclude that Isa 11:1–10 has influenced 1 Enoch 49–51 to a considerable degree. The reference to Isa 11:2 in 49:3 and 51:3 is clear, the influence of 11:3 on 49:2, 4; and 11:4 on 50:4 and 51:3 is very possible; the period of messianic peace in 11:6–9 could be reflected in 51:4–5. There does not appear to be any word here concerning Davidic origin (Isa 11:1) for this messiah, and there is no explicit word here concerning the attributes of righteousness and truthfulness with respect to his person (but cf. for example 46:3 and 48:4, where the Son of Man is described in these terms). The second place in 1 Enoch where Isa 11:1–10 has apparently exercised some influence is in chapter 62. Here the “Elect One” is revealed to kings and rulers and enthroned by the Lord of Spirits. This engagement and its consequences are portrayed in vv. 2–3.59 And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of his glory And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face. And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, And the exalted and those who hold the earth, And they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory, And righteousness is judged before him And no lying word is spoken before him.60

Once again there is the concept that the oral utterances of the Elect One play a role in judgment. But in contrast to 51:3, the effect here in 62:2 is that these utterances will kill “all the sinners.” This is the same concept which is found in Ps Sol 17. However, the scene here does not appear to be militaristically conceived. What is emphasized here, in contrast to 1 Enoch 49–51, is the subjection of all ruling powers before the Elect One.61 His enthronement has the This translation is drawn Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 227. One is reminded here of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, where in Jn 4:17– 18 it is not possible for her to lie to Jesus about her marital status. 61 Cf. L. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism,” S. Porter, ed., The Messiah in the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 90–113. Cf. pp. 99–100 n. 18, where he observes, “The application to 59 60

158

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

broadest possible political consequences conceivable. This concept has already appeared in many of the texts examined, but here it seems to be portrayed apart from any militaristic-nationalistic imagery.

10.8 4 Ezra 13 The thirteenth chapter of 4 Ezra concerns the sixth vision of this apocalypse, “the Man from the Sea.”62 This figure bears a very strong resemblance to the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7. Stone63 concludes that in the vision itself, the Son of Man is involved due to Dan 7 (and 2:45) imagery. In the interpretation which follows, however, this “man” is understood substantially in terms of the messiah as portrayed in chapters 11–12 (cf. 12:31–34 to Isa 11:3–4). A multitude of men challenges the authority and power of this man, who is described in v. 4 as one whose voice melted those who hear it: “and whenever his voice issued from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as wax melts when it feels fire.” The image of wax melting comes from such passages as Micah 1:4 and Jdt 16:15, but the notion that this man’s voice has such awesome power probably drawn from Isa 11:4. This is indicated by the reference to Isa 11:4 later in the chapter, in v. 10: […] but I saw only how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a stream of fire, and from his lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm of sparks.64 […] nisi solummodo uidi Quomodo emittet de ore suo sicut fluctum ignis, et de labiis eius spiritum flammae, et de lingua eius emittebat scintillas tempestatis.65

The connection between this verse and Isa 11:4 appears to extend, however, only to the power of this figure’s mouth. The outworking of this power is described in terms of apocalyptic imagery, e.g., “flaming breath” and “a storm of sparks.”66 Instead of a contrast between “judging according to eye and ear” and “judging righteously” (as in Isa 11), here a contrast is made between fightthe Chosen One of traditions from Isa 11:4b and Psalm 110 in 1 Enoch 62 (where in v. 2 ‘the Spirit of righteousness is poured out upon him and the word of his mouth kills the sinners,’ and in v. 3 ‘he sits on the throne of his glory’) may suggest that he is being understood as a judge in the royal messianic tradition.” 62 Cf. M. Stone, “The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra,” J. Neusner, ed., Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. Goodenough (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 295–312. 63 Regarding the question as to whether this “man” should be understood as the Son of Man, cf. Stone, The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra, 307–09. 64 Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 617. 65 R.L. Bensly, The Fourth Book of Ezra (University Press: Cambridge, 1895), 64. 66 Stuckenbruck, Messianic Ideas, 107, asserts: “The author’s use of Isaiah 11 is more elaborate than that of Psalms of Solomon. The result described, however, is every bit what one could expect from military engagement: the multitude is completely burned, leaving only ‘the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke’ (13:11).”

10.8 4 Ezra 13

159

ing with conventional weapons and unconventional weapons, i.e., the flaming breath of the man’s mouth.67 Thus, at least here in the vision of chapter 13, militaristic features predominate, and juridical ones are lacking. The concept that this figure’s power is due to the dwelling of God’s spirit on him (cf. Isa 11:2) is not present. One also fails to find any mention about qualities of righteousness and truth (cf. Isa 11:5) with respect to his person. In vv. 12–13 there follows the destruction of the figure’s opponents and the calling of another group which is not warlike. Some are described as joyful, others are sorrowful, some are bound, and others are apparently the holders of those bound. The phrase “and call to him another multitude which was peaceable” in v. 12 is somewhat reminiscent of the theme of peace in Isa 11:6–9. A remaining question is whether this figure is of Davidic descent. Stone68 is correct in his assertion that the messiah in 4 Ezra is not presented as a king, nor is his rule explicitly described in terms of kingship. But his view that “the reference to the Davidic descent of the messiah in 12:32 should probably be regarded as a traditional element and not at all central to the concepts of the book” is open to question. Stone himself remarks that the lion as a symbol for the messiah in chapters 11–12 could indicate a royal messiah (cf. the “lion of Judah” in Gen 49:9–10).69 The description of the messiah’s activity in 12:32–33 is itself very similar to that found in the interpretation of the vision in 13:37–38. Stone considers this interpretation in chapter 13 to be “central” to the book,70 the vision belonging to the “non-central” traditions. But both in this interpretation in 13:37 and in the “traditional element” of 12:32 the messiah will “reprove” or “denounce” the wicked (12:32) or his opponents (13:37). Therefore, the Davidic messiah in chapter 12 has at least this much in common with the “man” in the interpretative section of chapter 13.71 In the passage which follows in vv. 21–36, certain discrepancies between it and the preceding vision are apparent. These discrepancies are probably best explained as resulting from the different traditions which make up this work. Stone72 sees the view of the messiah in this interpretation as corresponding to the Eagle vision in chapter 12. This leads him to conclude that the author of the book composed this understanding in chapter 13, while the vision itself represents an originally independent work. The major difference between the vision and its interpretation is that the warrior role of the man in the vision is downplayed greatly, being portrayed 67 Here Collins, Scepter and the Star, 208, points out the parallels found in Psalm 2 and Isa 11. 68 Stone, The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra, 311. 69 Stone, The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra, 311 n. 1. 70 Stone, The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra, 306 on chapter 13: “the author here is writing his own interpretation to a previously existent allegory.” 71 4 Ezra 12:32–33 could be an allusion to Isa 11:3–4 due to this reference to Davidic descendance and the judging power of his oral pronouncements. 72 Stone, The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra, 310.

160

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

more in juridical terms (cf. vv. 37–38). Here it appears that the writer comes closer to the ideas in Isa 11:3–4. The “son” will “reprove” (arguet) and “reproach” (inproperabit) the assembled nations. The fact that the “evil thoughts” of the nations will be known by this messiah at least hints at some kind of supernatural power behind which the spiritual endowments of Isa 11:2 could lie. But the concepts of torments and destruction cannot be directly traced to Isa 11. Clearly, this vision and its interpretation involve traditions and themes besides those found in Isa 11. What the phrase “and he will destroy them without effort by the Law” precisely means is difficult to determine, but it does bear some resemblance to Isa 11:4, “he will strike them with the rod of his mouth.”

10.9 2 Baruch Scholars proceed on the theory that the author of 2 Baruch composed his work soon after 4 Ezra and it has much in common with that work.73 In 2 Bar 40:1 we read, The last leader of that time will be left alive, when the multitude of his hosts will be put to the sword, and he will be bound, and they will take him up to Mount Zion, and My Messiah will convict him of all his impieties, and will gather and set before him all the works of his hosts.74

Here we have a clear allusion to Isa 11:4. In 2 Baruch 73:1–74:4 we find an extended allusion to Isa 11:6–8, for example in 71:6: And wild beasts shall come from the forest and minister unto men. And asps and dragons shall come forth from their holes to submit themselves to a little child.75

10.10 New Testament Apart from the Gospel of John, the Scripture index to the Nestle-Aland76 text lists fifteen references to Isa 11:1–10 as occurring in the NT. Three of these references relate to Isa 11:1. The first is the problematic statement in Mt 2:23, “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a NazaCf. for example Stuckenbruck, Messianic Ideas, 108. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 481–524. 75 Cf. Stuckenbruck, Messianic Ideas, 112: “Third, the Messiah will sit down ‘on the throne of his kingdom […],’ inaugurating a reign of bliss during which is described in details inspired by Gen 3:16–18 and Isa 11:6–8.” 76 Kurt Aland, et al, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 2012), 758–59. 73 74

10.10 New Testament

161

rene.’” Opinion varies widely as to just where such a prophecy in the OT might be, and it is beyond the scope of this study to attempt to settle this matter. Suffice to say that many scholars consider a word play on ‫ ֵנֵֶצֶ ר‬here to be likely, and that there is thus a reference – however oblique it might seem – to Isa 11:1. In Heb 7:14a, “for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judea,” one can of course cite Isa 11:1 as corresponding to this idea, but it is difficult to see a firm connection between the two verses. What is lacking in this passage appears very clearly in Rev 5:5. There an elder says to the visionary: “Weep not: behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loosen the seven seals thereof.” This is a reference to Isa 11:1, 10. Interestingly enough, it is said in this context that this is the one who has conquered, which corresponds to Jesus’ word in Jn 16:33, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον. The descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism in Mt 3:16 par is probably based on Isa 11:2 (cf. Test Levi 18:6–7; Test Judah 24:2–3). It is this Spirit which prepares Jesus for his ministry and drives him into the wilderness, where his confrontation with Satan takes place. In Eph 1:17 Paul expresses the hope that God would give the Ephesians πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ. This description of the spirit corresponds to a certain degree with Isa 11:2. In 1Pet 4:14 there is a quote of Isa 11:2: “If you are reproached for the name of Christ you are blessed, because the glory and Spirit rests upon you.” Here it is asserted that those suffering persecution will have the Spirit of God, who comes as, L. Goppelt writes, “als Beistand zur Hilfe und gibt ihnen Teil an der Herrlichkeit Gottes.”77 Goppelt78 points to Mt 5:11–12 as providing the background of the first half of this verse, while the second half probably reflects the tradition concerning the promise of the Spirit to the disciples in Mk 13:11 par. Goppelt79 views this second half as reflecting the phraseology of Isa 11:2, but the text has been contemporized in terms of Moses commissioning the seventy in Num 11:25–26. This verse in 1Peter is clearly parallel to the ideas found in Jn 15–16, where Jesus warns his disciples of coming persecution but promises at the same time the help of the Spirit-Paraclete. The reference to the “seven spirits” of Isa 11:2 in Rev 1:4 could be explained in terms of the six spirits of Isa 11:2 being counted together with the “spirit of fear” in 11:3a or simply in terms of Isa 11:2 itself, where one can count seven genitives which are used with πνεῦμα.80 For the same number of spirits, cf. 1 Enoch 41:11; Jus Dial 39,87 and Cohort ad Gentiles 32.

L. Goppelt, Der Erste Petrusbrief (KEK XII/I, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 307. 78 Goppelt, Der Erste Petrusbrief, 305–6. 79 Goppelt, Der Erste Petrusbrief, 306 n. 32. 80 I owe this observation to Prof. Stuhlmacher. 77

162

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

Apart from Jn 7:24 there are apparently no NT references to Isa 11:3. In 2Thess 2:8 there is a reference to Isa 11:4. The appearing of the lawless one will result in his being slain by the Lord (Jesus) with the breath of his mouth. The author has combined Isa 11:4c with v. 4d, applying the LXX collective singular ἀσεβῆ to the Antichrist. In Rev 19 there are three references to Isa 11:4. In 19:11 Jesus appears on a horse, is named faithful and true (cf. Rev 1:5; 3:7) and he “judges in righteousness and makes war.” Here a distinction between judging and militaristic functions of the messiah is not being made because the expressions are parallel. This allows the Seher to only describe the militaristic side of the Word’s activity which follows in vv. 12–15. This is borne out by the scene that follows in vv. 12–15, which appears to be strictly militaristic. In 19:15 we find Isa 49:2 as a combination of the Servant of the Lord and the messianic king. Verse 21 is a reference to the imagery presented in v. 15. In Eph 6:17 (a reference not in the Nestle-Aland index), the phrase καὶ τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασθε καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ probably alludes to Isa 11:481 due to the association in v. 17 of “the word of God” with “breath/spirit.” In the same context, where the believer is fitted out with the weapons (and battle garments) of God for the fight against the devil, reference is made in 6:14 to Isa 11:5. The Ephesians are told to have their loins girded with the truth. Direct references to Isa 11:6–9 are apparently lacking in the NT. There are three NT allusions to Isa 11:10, in Mt 12:21, Rom 15:12 and Rev 5:5. In Mt 12:21 the (loose) quotation of Isa 42:1–4 includes the phrase in 42:4, which echoes LXX Isa 11:10. The LXX text of Isa 11:10 appears in Rom 15:12, which is the fourth in a series of OT citations (LXX Ps 17:50/2Sam 22:50; LXX Dt 32:43; Ps 117:1). Paul, seeing this text as having been fulfilled in Christ’s coming, therefore leaves out the phrase “in the day.” The reference in Rev 5:5 to Isa 11:10 is the same one we saw for 11:1. These references to Isa 11:1–10 in the NT (outside of Jn) indicate that while certain verses of Isa 11 were considered to be of major importance for particular occasions, there was no effort to portray Jesus as this messianic king in a more or less thoroughgoing fashion in terms of this text. The only such possibility in this respect could be the Revelation, but the reference to Isa 11:2 in Rev 1:4 is questionable and at best oblique; the others are certainly more substantial. With respect to the Gospel of John, it is noteworthy that no other NT text refers to Isa 11:3.

81

Cf. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium III, 254, n. 18.

10.11 Christian references to Isa 11:1–10 in the ‘Post’-NT Period

163

10.11 Christian references to Isa 11:1–10 in the ‘Post’-NT Period Christian references to Isa 11:1–10 seem to be almost totally lacking during the end and immediately following the NT period. The single exception is Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. In 86:4 Justin cites Isa 11:1 (or 10) and in 87:1 Trypho responds to this, expanding the quote to include 11:2–3a. Trypho wants to know why the Christ would need the powers of the Spirit if he was pre-existent.

10.12 Summary: Isa 11:1–10 Texts and their Reception The results of this survey of Isa 11:1–10 texts and their reception can be summarized as follows. In the MT of Isa 11, emphasis is being placed on 1.) the sudden future appearance of a new king of Davidic origin, who received as time went by the designation ‘messiah,’82 2.) the endowment of the Spirit, which is often associated with the wisdom of the king in the OT, 3.) the effect that possession of this Spirit entails, i.e., the king will judge righteously and not according to external factors, he will judge by the power of the Word, 4.) the personal righteousness of this king is emphasized, 5.) a period of peace will accompany his reign (in vv. 6–9) and 6.) a universal aspect that appears no later than in v. 10, where the Gentiles will seek the messiah. In the LXX we saw how some of these elements were sometimes reshaped and even given new meanings. The various interpretations which allude to this text evidence even more variety. On the basis of this review of Isa 11 texts together with their reception in early Judaism and Christianity, we can emphasize the following factors which will be important for the rest of our study. First, we note that Isa 11 has become a part of the basic messianic expectation in early Judaism. It would not be exaggerating to say that Isa 11 was perhaps the most important messianic OT text during this time.83 As such, it should be seen in terms of general messianic expectations and not simply as an isolated text. Such messianic expectations involve those concerning the Son of Man, who is related to Isa 11-influenced concepts in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra 13, in 1 Enoch and (as the ‘child’/‘pais’) in 4 Ezra 13 (cf. also Rev 19:15). This messianic expectation also includes the ‘king’ as one of its more important titles, as for example in Pss Sol 17–18. AnAs seen for example in the Psalms of Solomon 17. Hengel, Jesus als messianischer Lehrer, 168. Hengel states that Isa 11:1–4 was “der wohl wichtigste Schriftbeleg für die jüdische Messiaserwartung […]” and “dessen Wirkung sich auch im N.T. niedergeschlagen hat […].” 82 83

164

Chapter 10: Isaiah 11:1–10: Texts and Their Reception

other factor is that the Davidic background of this messiah was often (but not always) conceptualized or even emphasized.84 Having the Spirit is sometimes linked to knowing the secrets of human hearts (cf. 1 Enoch 49:4 and 4 Ezra 13:38). Also associated with this concept is the idea that the messiah/king will be “taught by God” (Ps Sol 17:32). This being “taught” is related as well to righteous judgment in 4QpIsaa, where we are told that this messiah will be taught (presumably) by priests. He will learn that which he needs to know to judge righteously. Righteous judgment is emphasized in 1QSb 5:21–22, 1 Enoch 50:4; 61:9; 62:3 and Rev 19:11 (cf. Ps Sol 17:29). The means of this righteous judgment are portrayed in many instances as being accomplished by the “word” of Isa 11’s figure (cf. for example Ps Sol 17:24, 36; 1 QSb 5:24–25; 1 Enoch 51:3; 62:23; 4 Ezra 13:38 and 2Thess 2:8). This action is often associated with the verbs ἐλέγχειν/arguo (cf. e.g., Isa 11, LXX Isa 11, Ps Sol 17:25 and 4 Ezra 12:32; 13:37). Very frequently, the power of the word is portrayed in (quasi-)militaristic terms85 (cf. e.g., Ps Sol 17:22–25, 36; 1QSb 5:26–29; 4QpIsaa; 4 Ezra 13:4 and Rev 19:11).86

Interesting is the fact that Isa 11 is associated with the anointing of David in 1Sam 16 in Rabbinic traditions, e.g., in Mid rabba Gen 97. Both Isa 11:2 and 1Sam 16:13 involve anointing with the Spirit (cf. bSan 93b). 85 Cf. Hengel, Jesus als messianischer Lehrer, 170, who describes this as a “Skopusverschiebung” which is present in almost all interpretations of Isa 11. 86 Stuckenbruck, Messianic Ideas, 112, makes the following determination regarding early non-Christian Jewish writings: “We have considered [in a survey of the term ‘Messiah’ in four non-Christian Jewish writings, insertion by S.C.A.] a number of motifs held in common by more than one of these writings in relation to a ‘Messiah’ figure: Davidic lineage, preexistence, effects of his disclosure or coming; warrior activity; the interpretation of certain biblical texts (esp. Psalm 2, Daniel 7, and Isa 11); and other designations that apply from the narrative contexts (e.g., ‘Son,’ ‘Son of Man,’ ‘Chosen One’).” We can make the same observation regarding the Fourth Gospel. 84

Chapter 11

Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete The preceding overview of Isa 11:1–10 texts and their reception demonstrate a broad range of possible interpretive approaches taken by many early Jewish and Christian theologians. The breadth and depth of this variety prompt us to take note of the two clear examples of allusions to Isa 11:1–5, 10 in Jn. When we therefore consider the possibility that John has made additional, similar allusions in his Fourth Gospel, we determine that John has in fact done so and offer the following thesis: John has very subtly but clearly continued his reference to Isa 11:1–5 (and as will be seen, v. 10) beyond the Paraclete saying in Jn 16:7–11 and the Farewell Discourse to also include the breadth of his gospel from Jn 1 to 20.1

11.1 Allusions in Jn 1:32–20:23 to Isa 11:1–5, 10 11.1.1 Isa 11:2 – Jn 1:32 In Jn 1:32 JtB testifies that the Spirit descends on Jesus and that this Spirit “remains” on him. Jesus will carry out his mission in the power of this Spirit, as John writes, “For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit.”2 Those who believe in Jesus are to be endowed with the Spirit when Jesus is glorified according to a remark for the sake of John’s readers in Jn 7:39. This promise is renewed in the Paraclete sayings in Jn 14:16–17; 14:26; 15:26–27; 16:7–11; 16:13–15 and fulfilled in Jn 20:22. 11.1.2 Isa 11:3 – Jn 7:24, cf. 1Sam 16:7 The phrase “according to appearance,” κατ’ ὄψιν, corresponds dynamically to the MT’s ‫ַמְַר � ֵ֤֤אה ֵֵעיָנָי֙ו֙ ִיִ ְְׁש ֔ �ֹּ֔פוט‬ ְ ְ‫ ְוְ ֹֽֽל �א־ְל‬in Isa 11:3. As we saw in 10.1, the future king in Isa 11 will be able to perceive the reality of a matter despite outward appearance due to the endowment of the Spirit. By doing so the messianic king will Jn 1:32 to 20:22, to be precise. This latter phrase, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα, reflects the description of the endowment with the Spirit in LXX Isa 11:4a, “the Spirit of the fear of God will fill him,” ἐμπλήσει αὐτὸν πνεῦμα φόβου θεοῦ. 1 2

166

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

judge in the same way that God judges. Here in Jn 7:24 Jesus calls his listeners to judge him according to the standards that the arrival of the messianic age demand, for Jesus himself does no less. Most commentators appear to have overlooked the simple fact that 1Sam 16:7 is listed as a cross reference to Jn 7:24 in the margin note of the NestleAland text. It is however more than just this, for it involves the “how” of recognizing God’s chosen one, which leads to David’s anointing. In this narrower sense it is a most fitting parallel to Jn 7:24. Samuel is to anoint Saul’s future successor as king and is told not to look upon the appearance of Jesse’s sons. He must realize that God looks upon the heart. He needs to listen to God’s voice, which will tell him whom he should anoint. Thus, we see how John is using the events and principles of 1Sam 16 as a parallel for the christological and hermeneutical issues which are the core of the controversies in Jn 7. Jn 7:24 is a call to “Do it like Samuel!” 11.1.3 Isa 11:4 – Jn 8:16 and 18:6 The allusion in Jn 8:16 to Isa 11:4 is parallel to Jn 7:24. It is key because it is Jesus as the Christ who fulfills the Isa 11 prophecy with the words, “Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true.” With the advent of the messianic age Jesus judges righteously or truly (cf. Jn 5:30) because he “hears his Father“ and can claim “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” This standard of righteous judgment applies both to Jesus the sent one of the Father as well as all who encounter him. These persons are challenged to also judge righteously. They must decide whether Jesus is righteous and that he thereby judges righteously. This decision will only be correct if those who hear Jesus have the will to do God’s will (Jn 7:17), are “taught by God” (6:45) and thereby “hear” him, cf. 8:47a, “He who is of God hears the words of God” (cf. 18:37). With Schnackenburg3 we see the scene in Jn 18:6 as quite possibly reflecting the influence of early Jewish and Christian interpretations of Isa 11:4 when we read, “When he said to them, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground.” As A. Dauer4 states, “Gewiß sind die sprachlichen Unterschiede zu Joh 18,6 sehr groß, doch die Vorstellung, die hinter beiden Stellen steht, ist die gleiche: der Messias tritt in herrscherlicher Macht.” 11.1.4 Isa 11:5 – Jn 16:10 We determined that the genre of Jn 16:7–11 is not, as in the opinion of for example Thyen, Müller and Betz, an apocalyptic Day of Reckoning at the Last Judgment (cf. 9.10). The presence of δικαιοσύνη represents a positive core in this passage just as in Isa 11:1–5. As previously stated, it is a Heilsankündigung which is both future and present in describing a future state of salvation, 3 4

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 254. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte, 42.

11.1 Allusions in Jn 1:32–20:23 to Isa 11:1–5, 10

167

to use the words of C. Westermann.5 We have argued before (in 9.12) that John sees Isa 11:1–5 as being eschatologically fulfilled in Jn 16:7–11. The purpose of this latter passage is not to separate sinners from the righteous. It is to declare the righteousness of Jesus. The proper understanding of δικαιοσύνη is not to be understood as the property of a believer or believers who have both faith as well as corresponding practice which comes from that faith.6 The only Gerechter, the only righteous one who is the subject of Jn 16:8–10, is Jesus himself. Therefore, we can see that the righteousness of Jesus in Jn 16:8 and 11 can and should be understood as an allusion to the righteousness of the future messianic king in Isa 11:5: “Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist,” καὶ ἔσται δικαιοσύνη ἐζωσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ. These are the only two occurrences of δικαιοσύνῃ in Jn. In our view this essentially singular use of δικαιοσύνη in Jn 16:10a is due to this allusion to Isa 11:5. While there are no occurrences regarding Jesus’ δικαιοσύνη per se elsewhere in the NT, there are many cases where Jesus is designated as the Righteous One. These will be surveyed when we examine Jn 16:7–11 later here in chapter 11. 11.1.5 Isa 11:10 – Jn 12:20–21 In Jn 12:20–21 we find what we consider a clear allusion to Isa 11:10, “In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.” In this key Johannine passage some “Greeks” approach Philip with the request, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” If we may equate these Gentiles in Jn with “the nations” that seek the prophesized king in Isa 11:10, this is yet another allusion to this central OT passage (viz. Isa 11:1–10) in Jn. In our view it offers the best possibility for explaining what lies behind Jesus’ sudden proclamation in Jn 12:23, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” The arrival of this Hour means that the time has come for nothing less than the birth of the children of God, cf. Jn 1:12. Therefore, this is what we wish to designate as a clear allusion to Isa 11:10. John has also been influenced by Isa 11 in his exegesis of the Son of Man saying in Jn 3:14. J. Frey7 sees the influence of a messianic understanding of Isa 11:10 and 12 on John’s comparing the Son of Man to the snake Moses lifted up as a sign of salvation in Jn 3:14: Isa 11:10 (see above) and 11:12, “He will raise We refer once again to Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 51–52. Cf. Lindars, The Gospel of John, 503, summarized by Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 664: “Wie in den apokalyptischen Prätexten sieht Lindars δικαιοσύνη als das positive Gegenüber von ἁμαρτία, so daß nur derjenige sich im Gericht – d.h. hier: im ἐλέγχειν des Parakleten – als Gerechter erweisen wird, der an die Vollendung des göttlichen Erlösungswerkes durch Jesu Hingehen zum Vater glaubt und diesen Glauben durch die ihm entsprechende Praxis sichtbar macht.“ 7 Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie 3, 128–30. 5 6

168

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” Frey sees John using the exegetical method gezera schawa with the Hebrew texts Num 21 and Isa 11 for building a bridge between them. Thereby the “sign” of the place of eschatological salvation is described and creates a parallel between the “sign” and the cross. 11.1.6 Isa 11:1 and Jn 7:40–44 The similarity of Isa 11:10 and 11:1 lead us to consider Isa 11:1 to be an ‘implicit allusion’ on John’s part. He therefore avoids making such an allusion. At the same time, he is not above addressing the issue of the promised Messiah in Jn 7:40–44 and questions revolving around his descent from David and his origin from Bethlehem/Galilee in an indirect way. Such an ‘implicit allusion’ presupposes that John himself is convinced that – in contrast to the usual interpretation of this passage – Jesus was a descendant of David and born in Bethlehem. This is a view that Thyen,8 following Lightfoot, Zahn and Barrett,9 and in opposition to Meeks, represents when he says, Jedenfalls aber vermögen wir in dem Einwand, den diese erzählten jüdischen Opponenten gegen Jesu messianischen Anspruch erheben – anders als Meeks (Meeks, The Prophet-King, 41) – keinerlei Polemik des Evangelisten “against the Davidic Judean ideology of the eschatological redeemer” [Meeks] zu erkennen.

Barrett summarizes: We may feel confident that John was aware of the tradition that Jesus was born at Bethlehem (for the probability that he knew of the doctrine of the virgin birth see on [Jn] 1.13); he writes here in his customary ironical style. The critics of Jesus ignorantly suppose that because he was brought up in Galilee he was also born there.”

Whether Jesus was a king was a loaded question both for the historical Jesus himself as well as later for Johannine Christians. A political, and especially a militarized concept of a ‘king’ would have led to a brutal reaction from the Romans and therefore disaster. The fear of this danger most likely lies behind Jesus’ taking flight in Jn 6:15 when we are told that Jesus perceives that the crowd is about to make him king. In Jn 18:36 John addresses the problem wisely in that Jesus asserts, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from world.” This definitive answer satisfies Pilate and leads him at this point to find no guilt in Jesus.

8 Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 407–9 [Thyen’s italics], cf. R.H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel (C.F. Evans, ed., Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1956), 184, T. Zahn, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (KNT 4, 6th ed., Leipzig, 1921, Nachdruck: Wuppertal, 1983), 401. 9 Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 330.

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context

169

But it would be premature to write off the importance of this question of Jesus’ kingship for John. Jesus is portrayed as the humble king found in Zech 9:9 in Jn 12 and this is what the disciples remember after Jesus’ resurrection – and they recognize the meaning of this portrayal. We must also recall Nathanael’s confession in Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” John is very much convinced that Jesus is the true king of Israel, a king who is humble and whose kingdom is a kingdom of the Spirit, and in this sense not of this world. But precisely as a spiritual kingdom it plays a decisive role in the cosmic trial that begins already in Jn 1 and continues after Jesus’ trials through the inspiration and work of the Paraclete. The way the Paraclete does this is formulated by John in terms of a seemingly unlikely source: the prophecy of the future messiah/king of Isa 11:1–5, 10. John shows on the basis of Isa 11:1–5, 10 by means of clear allusions as well as what we consider a discrete allusion, that Jesus was the King of Israel who was falsely tried and put to death, even though this was, at the same time, the Father’s plan for saving the world. For John himself, it could be that he would personally find these references to Isa 11:1–5, 10 to be anything but oblique for his readers – at least for those who know Scripture. For those not familiar with it, not least pagan Romans, John might have considered this intertextual understanding and portrayal of Isa 11:1–5, 10 to be in itself of considerable advantage.

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context of the Fourth Gospel Jesus’ statement in Jn 7:24, “Do not judge by appearance, but judge with right judgment,” represents a programmatic challenge directed towards Jesus’ opponents. It alludes, as we have seen above and in accordance with the marginal note in the Nestle-Aland text, to Isa 11:3 as well as to 1Sam 16. The imperative in the phrase μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν needs to be understood in terms of “the force of the present imperative in a prohibition,” as Barrett10 notes, citing Moulton.11 It is translated accordingly by Zerwick and Grosvenor with “do not keep judging.”12 This means that the phrase κατ’ ὄψιν, properly understood, needs to be interpreted not only in terms of its immediate context. It also should be understood as a matter of exegetical consequence in the broad context of the Fourth Gospel. What does it mean for John that Jesus’ opponents Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 321. J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (2nd ed., with corrections and additions, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 122–26. Barrett also prefers the reading κρίνατε in v. 24b. 12 M. Zerwick and M. Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, I. (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1974), 309. 10 11

170

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

are judging him according to appearance? Jesus wants his opponents to stop such judging on this false basis, and start judging righteously (τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε, present imperative), or judge righteously (aorist imperative, τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνατε). We can begin to understand what Jesus means with the phrase κατ’ ὄψιν when we look to Jn 8:15, “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.” This phrase κατὰ τὴν σάρκα is properly understood as being parallel to κατ’ ὄψιν in 7:24. When we wish to interpret the meaning of σάρξ here in Jn 8:15, we should best turn to John’s fundamental statement in Jn 3:6, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.13 The conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus in Jn 3 is characterized by the hermeneutical dichotomy between “flesh” and “spirit” as well as other appositional key term pairs such as “being born of water” and “being born from above” (ἄνωθεν), “where he comes from” (πόθεν ἔρχεται) and “where he goes” (ποῦ ὑπάγει), “earthly things” (τὰ ἐπίγεια) and “heavenly things” (τὰ ἐπουράνια), as well as “going up” and “coming down” (οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν and εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς). Nicodemus himself represents a Pharisee who is struggling not to judge Jesus according to appearance. This still does not prevent Jesus at this point from having to accuse Nicodemus of not accepting his witness. When we look closer at the development of the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, we see how his high position, the somewhat foreboding interview/interrogation circumstances at night (cf. Mk 12:14a–b in 6.1), his curiosity, his at times simplistic or literal understanding of statements, his questions, and his bewilderment mark the course of their conversation. These characteristics can be viewed following basic literary analysis. In Jn 3 we find categories reflecting how Nicodemus, to a large extent, judges Jesus in Jn 3:1–13 according to appearance. We propose applying these categories found in this key text Jn 3:1–13 to analyze the series of controversies in Jn 5–10. It will be seen that this proves fruitful in determining to what extent others besides Nicodemus also judge Jesus according to appearance. Looking then at Jn 3:1–13 from this perspective, a literary analysis of this passage yields the following categories which characterize Jesus’ and Nicodemus’ exchange: 1. Context: interrogation-like 2. Classification made (e.g., teacher) 3. Purported knowledge 4. Phenomena (e.g., signs) 5. Determination, Reaction 6. Objection to Jesus’ statement 7. Literal/earthly understanding 8. Questions 13

Cf. also the use of σάρξ in Jn 1:13–14 and 6:51–63.

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context

171

The following comparison of Jn 5:10–47; 7:10–24; 7:25–29; 7:32–52 and 8:12–29 with the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus offer the first of two samplings of these controversies which can be made fruitful for illustrating what it means “to judge according to appearance” in John’s view. Analyses of Jn 6:1–40; 6:41–59; 6:60–71; 8:30–47; 8:48–59; 9; and 10:19–42 were also conducted and follow here in the second table. Chapter 6 passages produced fair results, those of some of the passages that follow in this second table are just as helpful as those in the first. At the end of the second table a summary follows.

[2b] “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God”

[2c–d] for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.

Classification made (e.g., teacher)

Purported knowledge

Context: interrogation-like

Jn 3:1–12 Nicodemus [1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. [2a] This man came to Jesus by night

Jn 8:12–29 [13] The Pharisees then said to him, “You are bearing witness to yourself”

“The Jews” are totally befuddled with regard to who or what Jesus is. Cf. “Questions.”

Jn 7:32–52 [32] The Pharisees heard the crowd thus muttering about him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to arrest him.

[40] When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.” [41] Others said, “This is the Christ.”

[13] “[…] your [41c] But some said, “Is the Christ testimony is not true.” to come from Galilee? [42] Has not the scripture said that the Christ is

Jn 7:25–29 [25] Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said,“Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?”

[26b] Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?

[27] Yet we know where this man comes from; and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.

Jn 7:10–24 [11] The Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying, “Where is he?” [12] And there was much muttering about him among the people. [13] Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him. [20] The people answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?”

[12b] While some said, “He is a good man,” others said, “No, he is leading the people astray.”

Jn 5:10–47 [15] The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. [16] And this was why the Jews persecuted [better: prosecuted] Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. [18c] but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God

[39] You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear wit ness to me;

Table 1: Judging According to Appearance

172 Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

that you do, […]

Phenomena (e.g., [2c–d] for no one can do these signs signs)

Jn 3:1–12 Nicodemus

[20] For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. [36] But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.

[40] yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Jn 5:10–47

[21] Jesus answered them, “I did one deed, and you all marvel at it.”

Jn 7:10–24

[26] And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him!

Jn 7:25–29 descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” [52c] “Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee.” [37] On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. [38] He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’”

Jn 7:32–52

The “lifting up” of Jesus can be construed as a sign that will take place in the future .

Jn 8:12–29

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context

173

Jn 7:10–24

[4] Nicodemus said [28a] Jesus states, to him, “How can a “Do not marvel at man be born when this.” he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”

Literal/earthly understanding

[10b] “It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet.”

[4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” [15] The Jews marveled at it, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” [23] “If on the sabbath a man

[20] The people answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?”

[18] This was why [Jesus has broken the Sabbath law.] the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jn 5:10–47

Objection to Jesus’ statement/ action

Determination, Reaction

Jn 3:1–12 Nicodemus […] unless God is with him.

[28c] “You know me, and you know where I come from?”

[30] So they sought to arrest him;

[26b] Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?

Jn 7:25–29

[35] The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we shall not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among

[44] Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. [45] The officers then went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him? [48] Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?

Jn 7:32–52

[22] Then said the Jews, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come?’” [27] They did not understand that he

[13] “[…] your testimony is not true.” [Cf. also under “Questions” the three rebuttal-like questions in response to what Jesus says.]

Implication that some would have wanted to arrest Jesus: [20] but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.

Jn 8:12–29

174 Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

Questions

[4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” [9] Nicodemus said to him, “How can this be?”

Jn 3:1–12 Nicodemus

[12] They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk?’”

Jn 5:10–47 receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man's whole body well?” [15] The Jews marveled at it, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” 20b “Who is seeking to kill you?” [25] Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?”

Jn 7:10–24

[31] Yet many of the people believed in him; they said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?”

Jn 7:25–29

Jn 8:12–29

[36] What does he mean by saying, “You will seek me and you will not find me,” and, “Where I am you cannot come?”

[19] They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” [22] Then said the Jews, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come?’” [25] They said to him, “Who are you?”

the Greeks and spoke to them of teach the Greeks?” the Father.

Jn 7:32–52

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context

175

Classification made (e.g., teacher)

Context: interrogationlike

Jn 6:1–40 [14] the prophet

Jn 6:41–59 [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”

Jn 6: 60–71 [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?”

Jn 8:48–59 [48] The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”

Cf. above, “Samaritan,” “demon”

Jn 8:30–47 [37] I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.

[41] They said to him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”

Table 2: Additional Examples Judging According to Appearance Jn 9:1–40 [13] They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. [16] Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was a division among them.

[20] Many of them said, “He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?” [21] Others said, “These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

Jn 10:19–42 [19] There was again a division among the Jews because of these words.

176 Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

Purported knowledge

Jn 6:1–40 Jn 6:41–59 [14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”

Jn 6: 60–71

Jn 8:30–47 [33] They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one.” [39] They answered him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jn 8:48–59 Cf. above, “Samaritan,” “demon”

Jn 9:1–40 [17] So they again said to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, “Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner.” [28] And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. [29] We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” [34] They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?”

Jn 10:19–42 [20] “He has a demon.” [21] “These are not the sayings of one who has a demon.”

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context

177

Jn 6:1–40 [2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform?” Determination, [2] a multitude folReaction lowed him

Phenomena (e.g., signs)

[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jn 6:41–59 Jn 6: 60–71 [60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Jn 8:30–47

Jn 8:48–59

Jn 10:19–42 [32] Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?”

[34] And they cast him out.

[9] Some said, “It is he;” others said, “No, but he is like him.” He said, “I am the man.”

[33] The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; [18] The Jews did not believe that he had been because you, being a man, make blind and had received his sight, until they called yourself God.” the parents of the man who had received his sight

Jn 9:1–40 So he went and washed and came back seeing. [8] The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, “Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?”

178 Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

Literal/earthly understanding

Objection to Jesus’ statement/ action

Jn 6:1–40 [15] Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king […]

[52] […] saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jn 6:41–59 52] The Jews then disputed among themselves

Jn 6: 60–71

Jn 8:30–47 [33] They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one.”

Jn 8:48–59 Jn 9:1–40 [52] The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, ‘If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.’” [59] So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Jn 10:19–42 [31] The Jews took up stones again to stone him. [39] Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

11.2 Judging According to Appearance in the Broader Context

179

Questions

Jn 6:1–40

Jn 6:41–59 […] saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jn 6: 60–71

Jn 8:30–47 How is it that you say, “You will be made free?'”

Jn 8:48–59 [53] Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be? [57] The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”

Jn 9:1–40 [2] And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” [19] and [the Pharisees] asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” [26] They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” [36] He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” [40] Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?”

Jn 10:19–42 [24] So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

180 Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

11.3 Summary: Judging According to Appearance in Jn 5–10

181

11.3 Summary: Judging According to Appearance in Jn 5–10 1. Context interrogationlike: 2. Classification made (e.g., teacher):

Encounters with Jesus usually take place in an aggressive, legalistic atmosphere. Classifications of Jesus’ christological person are routinely presented as being made by each of one or two parties. This often leads to a schism. 3. Purported knowledge: Such classifications are generally based on would-be facts which one of the parties considers a given. 4. Phenomena (e.g., Some parties are quick to call upon signs and works which signs): Jesus has allegedly done. They prove to be difficult to interpret correctly. 5. Determination, Reac- These signs and works lead to parties making determinations tion: relating to Jesus’ person and/or taking action against Jesus. Such reactions include decisive opposition, persecution, and even attempts to kill Jesus. 6. Objection to Jesus’ The parties involved often object to Jesus’ revelatory statestatements: ments regarding earthly and heavenly things for a variety of reasons. 7. Literal/earthly under- The parties often (mis-)understand one of Jesus’ statements in standing: a literal manner or from a human perspective. 8. Questions: The parties often pose questions which however are seldom the right ones.

This review of the results of our analysis of several controversies in the heart of the Fourth Gospel lead us to conclude that John has portrayed in these contexts how others, in addition to Nicodemus, judge Jesus according to appearance. Indeed, they far surpass the extent to which Nicodemus did so. Since the time of his conversation with Jesus in Jn 3, at least he has learned quite a bit regarding how one should judge Jesus righteously. We see this when he questions his fellow Pharisees in Jn 7:51, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” In our view, it appears probable that these controversies are at least an unconscious reflection of John’s mind-set regarding this important theme. They are however more likely the result of his structuring them in this fashion by design. In either case, we are enabled to recognize that a major focus of the Fourth Gospel as a whole centers on the task of judging Jesus not according to appearance but righteously. This is an insight which corresponds to much of what we have already established regarding John’s trial concept thus far. Together with for example the Preponed Trial and John’s allusions to Isa 11:1–5, 10 in Jn 1–20, this perspective permits us to recognize the thoroughly apologetic nature of the Fourth Gospel.

182

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

11.4 “Judging by Appearance” in Jn 18–19? An allusion to Isa 11:3–4 in the trial narrative of Jn 18–19 such as those we have seen elsewhere in Jn appears to be absent. Thematically however we can make a case that “judging by appearance” is present in Jesus’ trial before Pilate. After closer examination of the portrayal of events of this trial, indications are not lacking that John’s dichotomy “judging according to appearance/judging justly” is at work here in a reserved but significant manner. The thesis we wish to put forward and support is that the controversy of Jn 7:24, centered on the phrase “according to appearance” (κατ’ ὄψιν), is reflected in Jn 19:7 from the perspective of “the Jews.” We see this in the following table based on metaphoric medallions. Depicted is a metaphoric obverse and a metaphoric reverse side for each of three perspectives: Perspective Medallion 1: Jesus’ view (imperative verb) Jn 7:24: paraphrased Medallion 2: Jesus’ view Jn 8:15–16 (indicative verb) quote/paraphrased Medallion 3: View of “the Jews” Jn 19:7 quote /paraphrased

obverse “Stop judging the appearance of what I am doing according to a too strict interpretation of the Law: healing on the Sabbath is permitted!” (μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν,) “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.”

reverse “Reach the just verdict: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God!” (cf. Jn 20:29)

(ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε) “Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judges but I and the One who sent me.” ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα. (16) καὶ (ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε) ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγώ, ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ ἀληθινή ἐστιν […] “We have a law, and by that Law he “Jesus is a false son of God and a must die, because he made himself false king; he must be crucified!” the Son of God.” “Crucify him!” (κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν) (σταύρωσον αὐτόν. 19:15)

“The Jews” are thoroughly convinced that they are demanding a just verdict from Pilate. The narrative of the trial before Pilate emphasizes accusations made by “the Jews” of what Jesus has allegedly “done.” Such deeds, so their view, make Jesus culpable of capital crimes because they represent egregious violations of the Law. The trial narrative makes clear that “the Jews” have already found Jesus guilty according to the Law, ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν (Jn 19:7). We have previously observed that in Jn 7:24 and 8:15 we find parallel constructions alluding to Isa 11:3–4 (cf. 11.1.2 and 3, which John uses to portray the conflict centering on the question of

11.4 “Judging by Appearance” in Jn 18–19?

183

Jesus’ messianic person. The contexts of both verses, Jn 7:24 and 8:15, involve disputes arising because of different interpretations of the Law. In Jn 7:19 Jesus, speaking in the imperative, criticizes “the Jews” with respect to their keeping the Law and in 7:23 argues for understanding healing on the Sabbath as allowed by the Law. This leads to his demand in 7:24 μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε. In 8:14 “the Jews” dispute Jesus’ claim that his testimony to himself is legitimate. Jesus argues that his claim to be the Light of the world is valid because his Father also bears witness to him. This leads to Jesus’ programmatic criticism (using the indicative) in 8:15, ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα. The phrases κατ’ ὄψιν and κατὰ τὴν σάρκα reflect one perspective, that of Jesus, the other perspective, κατὰ τὸν νόμον in Jn 19:7, that of “the Jews.” The static understanding of the Law in strict terms on the part of “the Jews’” has led them in Jn 18–19 to say that they have judged Jesus according to this Law and thereby in Jesus’ view according to appearance (as well as according to the flesh). Due to their dependance on their interpretation of the Law they are tragically locked out from the revelation that comes from hearing Jesus’ voice (Jn 18:37, cf. 1:23; 3:8, 29; 5:28, 37; 10:3, 4, 5, 16, 27; 11:43; 12:28, 30) and from the insight of where Jesus comes from and where he is going (cf. 8:14). We see Pilate’s groping in the dark due to this case despite the power he has and the verdicts he reaches. Pilate clearly does not judge justly. He allows the appearance of political danger and the potential loss of his office to back down from his verdicts absolving Jesus of any guilt. His cynical statements, e.g., “What is truth?” and actions, e.g., the wording of the titulus, indicates that he makes no claim to judge justly. The first part of the dichotomy contained in the phrase κατ’ ὄψιν in Jn 7:24 (as well in 8:15 κατὰ τὴν σάρκα) characterizes the bitter confrontation centering on a conflict between a would-be orthodox interpretation of the Law and Jesus’ interpretation of it as the totally faithful transmitter of his Father’s will. The opposing perspective of “the Jews” is brought to expression in Jn 19:7 with the similarly constructed phrase κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Consequently, we conclude that the controversy of Jn 7:24 is reflected in Jn 19:7 from the perspective of “the Jews.” They do not judge justly because of their conviction that Jesus has “done” what is against the Law and is therefore deserving of death. They have a rigid understanding of the Law and categorically reject Jesus’ attempts to broaden its interpretation. The result is that we see “the Jews” also judging by appearance when they fail to recognize “the man” in 19:5, the Son of God in 19:7 and the “king” in 19:14 for who he is: the Johannine Son of Man and the King of Israel, the Son of God (cf. 1:49–51 and 19:7). The horror of their failure also results in their pledge of allegiance to the Roman Caesar.

184

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

11.5 Summary: Isa 11:1–5, 10 and the Fourth Gospel The scope of Isa 11’s impact on Jn goes beyond the context of the Farewell Discourse due to the series of (near-) allusions in Jn 1:32–20:23 to Isa 11:1–5, 10. Seen from this perspective, we see the subtle but clear eschatological and theological realization of the Isa 11:1–5, 10 oracle in John’s Gospel. The broader context of John and the Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel is its apologetic character, with the Spirit-Paraclete carrying on where the incarnate Jesus left off. This activity and its presentation must necessarily be subtle due to their political explosiveness as evidenced by Isa 11’s Jewish and Christian reception (cf. 10.1–10.12 above in addition to the previously named verses Jn 6:14–15 and 18:37). The broad arch of the Isa 11 theme judging not by appearance, but righteously, involves central juridical issues in Jn. They will be ultimately resolved by Jesus’ justification (cf. chapter 12). Given this perspective, we can view the Fourth Gospel itself – the whole of it – as the result of the inspiration and activity of the Spirit-Paraclete. The narrower context consists of the five Paraclete sayings in the Farewell Discourse, which concentrate on what the Spirit-Paraclete will do for Jesus’ witnesses, who are in their hour of abandonment, sadness, and endangerment. They are nonetheless called upon to be faithful witnesses to the righteousness of Jesus (cf. Jn 16:10, Isa 11:5) and his justification (cf. Isa 52:13; 53:11b). This is the subject of what follows.

11.6 Persecution and Prosecution of Jesus’ Disciples In the Farewell Discourse in Jn 14–16 Jesus attempts to prepare his disciples for the time after his death. The juridical nature of Jn 15:18–27, where the disciples will be “witnesses,” is clear. The question that confronts us here is to what extent Jesus’ words, promises, and above all the figure of the Paraclete in the other four sayings, are to be juridically construed. The following exposition seeks to demonstrate how thoroughly this is in fact the case. We will see that the Farewell Discourse will not be done justice by a sentimental understanding of these factors. The continuation of Jn after the first twelve chapters portrays how the conflict against “the world” will be continued after Jesus’ death – and that of “the world” against the disciples. The trial itself is understood as a continuing phenomenon, as Jn 3:19 demonstrates: “And this is the judgment.” We find already in Jn 1–12 indications that the Johannine Christians, in the aftermath of Jesus’ death, see themselves as those who continue this trial which he began. This might be reflected in “we” sayings, where the reader would ordinarily expect a singular form. In Jn 3:11 for example Jesus says, “we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what

11.6 Persecution and Prosecution of Jesus’ Disciples

185

we have seen.” Here a possible interpretation is that the voice of the Johannine community is coming through in these words (cf. Jn 1:14, 16). Another, more certain example is the story of the man born blind and his anachronistic being made ἀποσυνάγωγος by Pharisees (Jn 9:22; cf. 12:42; 16:2). Jesus expressly commissions his disciples to be his emissaries in Jn 17:18 and 20:21. Jn 13 together with 14:1–15:17 demonstrate that Jesus already considers his disciples to be his emissaries just as he is his Father’s. This status will have unpleasant consequences for them, especially when Jesus is no longer with them. − The disciples should view themselves as humble servants in the aftermath of the foot washing (Jn 13:4–11) and follow his example – as his ‘sent ones:’ “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (13:16). − They should also follow in Jesus’ footsteps as emissaries by being recognized as such: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (Jn 13:34–35). − In Jn 14 the intimate relationship between Jesus and his disciples as emissaries is reflected regarding the deeds that Jesus has done and those which will be done by the disciples: “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father (Jn 14:12). − Jn 15:16 names the disciples to be those whom Jesus has “elected.” This verb for election in Jn is used in four of five instances in a way that shows that here the disciples are already Jesus’ emissaries (Jn 13:18, 20; 15:19). − Jn 15:18–27 predicts that the “the world” will hate the disciples because they are his emissaries who witness to Jesus. When we examine Jn 13:1–15:17 closely, we see that their situation shows them to be already exposed to “the world’s” hostility. − Several passages in Jn indicate that being a disciple of Jesus is associated with fear of or even actual persecution (Jn 4:1–3; 6:66–67; 9:28; 11:16; 12:10–11; 12:42. Cf. also 18:17–19; 19:38). − That Jesus will soon leave his disciples aggravates their already precarious situation. If Jesus is not with them, he can no longer protect them (cf. 17:12). − The context of Jn 13, where the impending “glorification” of Jesus is the subject, shows that the disciples are threatened because of their association with Jesus. When Jesus says in 13:35, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another,” the consequences of being known as Jesus’ disciples to outsiders, i.e., to “the world,” are serious. For all concerned, it can even be a matter of life or death. − There is a close association in Jn between the Greek expression for “follow,” ἀκολουθείτω, and death (12:26; 13:36, 38. Cf. 18:15; 21:19).

186

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

− The use of the Greek term “to be troubled” in Jn 14:1 is associated both in the Psalms (Ps 6 and 10) and in Jn 11:33; 12:27; 13:31; 14:27 with persecution and/or death. − Jesus and his disciples are diametrically opposed by “the world.” As we will see shortly, the disciples can receive the Spirit of Truth, the Paraclete, but “the world” cannot (Jn 14:16–17). The peace that the world gives is the opposite to that which Jesus gives (14:27, cf. 17:14). It is therefore only natural that the disciples are subject to persecution. The man born blind also deserves mention in his own right. The seriousness of the disciples‘ situation in the Farewell Discourse is reflected in Jn 9 (cf. 7.6), where the account of the healing of the man born blind and his path to faith also reflect the hateful opposition of “the Jews,” which leads to him being cast out of the synagogue. Having described the risk-filled situation of the disciples and fellow believers in Jesus, we can now turn to the Paraclete sayings themselves.

11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings 11.7.1 The First Paraclete Saying (Jn 14:16–17) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and is in you. (NIV)

In the first Paraclete saying in Jn 14:16–17, the Paraclete is introduced as “another Paraclete.” Jesus will ask his Father to give him to the disciples. The best way to determine to what this designation “another Paraclete” refers is to see what kind of paraclete Jesus was for his disciples. In Jn 17:12 we read that Jesus says, “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” We see Jesus guarding his disciples in Jn 18:8–9, where he says, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” We established that the disciples in Jn 13:1–15:17 are already exposed to hate and persecution because they are Jesus’ followers. Now the situation will become acute when Jesus leaves them. The Paraclete to come is described with the designation “the Spirit of Truth,” a term whose background is best explained in terms of angelology (cf. 9.5) in 1QS 3–4 and Test Judah 20. That the term can have a juridical connotation is grounded in the fact that in these passages this figure is found in forensic situations. “The world” cannot receive, see, or know the Paraclete, but the disciples can, because he dwells with them, indeed, he is even in them.

11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings

187

11.7.2 The Second Paraclete Saying (Jn 14:25–26) All this I have spoken while still with you. But the advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (NIV)

As v. 25 reflects, Jesus’ “time” is coming and therefore the opportunities he will have to speak with his disciples are rapidly getting fewer. Verse 26 contains three descriptions of the Paraclete, and all three are juridically conditioned. The first description is that the Paraclete will be “sent.” We have already established that Jn’s sending-Christology is thoroughly juridically grounded, and so will the Paraclete’s activity be as well. Second, the Paraclete will teach the disciples “all things.” This kind of instruction needs to be understood in terms of the tradition in Lk 12:11–12, where Jesus’ disciples are told: And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very Hour what you ought to say.

Third, the Paraclete will “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” One Greek term used here (μιμνήσκομαι) for remembering appears in Jn 2:17, 22; and 12:16. Each time it refers to the disciples remembering an event involving Jesus and understanding it in light of his resurrection. Here in Jn 14:26 we see that it is the Paraclete that will enable the disciples to remember an event itself, as well as recognize its significance for the question of righteous judgment in Jn. A second Greek term for “remembering” (μνημονεύω) is found in Jn 15:20, 16:4 and 16:21. All three uses occur in contexts involving persecution and remembering that Jesus had foreseen what these situations would demand of them. The teaching which the disciples receive and their ability to remember are due to the Paraclete’s activity and these are factors vital for the continuing trial against “the world.” 11.7.3 The Third Paraclete Saying (Jn 15:26–27) But when the advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. (NIV)

Here we see that the Paraclete will be sent by Jesus from the Father. According to Jn 7:39, the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus was not yet glorified. With the coming of the Spirit-Paraclete in Jn 14–16, the cosmic trial is one case richer. The trial event narratives in Jn will find their continuance in the work of the Paraclete, and Jesus will thereby be glorified. After his death and resurrection, he will be justified by the work of the Paraclete through the witnessing of the disciples. As the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about Jesus together with his disciples. They will be credible witnesses because they have been together with Jesus from the beginning.

188

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

The figure of the Paraclete is best understood with A. Schlatter14 as being a juridical figure. He states that the general use of the term clearly shows that a paraclete will be called upon to serve persons when they are accused and are to be convicted of an offense. In the view of 1Jn, Jesus is seen being a paraclete before the heavenly court (cf. 1Jn 2:1–2). In the Fourth Gospel, the SpiritParaclete speaks on the earthly plane through and for the sake of the disciples in the setting conflict with the world. The context here in Jn 15:26–27 is clearly juridical. Parallels to this Paraclete saying found in Mk 13:9–11 and Isa 43:10 illuminate this as well.15 In chapter 7 the parallels between these traditions and the dramatic narrative about the man born blind in Jn 9 demonstrated the fundamental importance of this motif for the Fourth Gospel (cf. 7.6). 11.7.4 The Fourth Paraclete Saying (Jn 16:7–11) But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (NIV)

Jesus states in Jn 16:7 that it is to the disciples’ “advantage” that he “goes,” i.e., that he dies, because he will then send the Paraclete. As we have previously established, this sending will be part of the integral foundation for the Fourth Gospel’s continuing trial. The fundamental aspect of this advantage consists of Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection. In this immediate context in 16:7 the Spirit-Paraclete’s coming is an additional, but great advantage, for this Paraclete will be the Spirit of the vindicated King described in Isa 11:1–5, 10. He acts on behalf of Jesus on earth and therefore for the disciples as they witness to him. The literary genre of Jn 16:7–11 is Isa 11:1–5. This is due to correspondences between Jn 16:7–11 and Isa 11:1–5 that include all four Johannine key terms ἐλέγχειν, ἁμαρτίας (ἀσεβῶν as a synonym), δικαιοσύνη, and κρίσις. These terms describe the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete (cf. Isa 11:2!). The positive core of this passage is demonstrated by the presence of δικαιοσύνη. The genre is therefore not an apocalyptic Day of Reckoning at the Last Judgment (contra Thyen, Müller and Betz above in 9.10), but, as C. Westermann16 describes Isa 11, a Heilsankündigung. Isa 11:1–5 presents a major factor that points to a Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, 297–98. Mk 13:9–11: And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Isa 43:10: “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.” 16 Cf. again Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 51–52. 14 15

11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings

189

central part of the Paraclete’s provenance: the eschatological revelation of the Messiah in the context of righteous judgment. John sees Isa 11:1–5 as being eschatologically fulfilled in Jn 16:7–11. He uses it to shape an apologetic appeal of juridical decisions against Jesus. In this summation of the future work of the Paraclete, the continuation of the trial event is portrayed using these four key eschatological terms: convict, sin, righteousness, and judgment. The meaning of ἐλέγχω, which is a rather elastic verb often associated with some kind of judging, needs to fit into this framework. In 2.5 we saw that W. Bauer17 defines the term under a second definition with “convict another person of an offence, prove someone guilty of an offence.” This definition corresponds to John’s goals in the context of the controversies which characterize the Fourth Gospel. The Paraclete convicts all those who reject the witness of Jesus’ disciples. It is a spiritual process that is only fully apparent to those with the eyes of faith. Therefore, the convicting work of the Paraclete can, but need not be consciously experienced. His work through the disciples is such that those who listen to the disciples’ witness may well not ‘hear’ the Word in the Johannine sense of the term (cf. Jn 18:37). As a result, they will not necessarily realize that they are being found guilty of not having ‘heard.’ Given this understanding, the best translation of the verb ἐλέγχω is ‘convict’ in this qualified sense of the term. As Blank observes, the witness of the disciples in Jn 15:26–27 is directed to the outside world in need of faith, even if the reaction it receives is full of hate, the desire to harm, and even kill. Blank recognizes the following fundamentally important development that then occurs: “Dann wird das μαρτυρεῖν von selbst zum ἐλέγχειν, wovon 16,4b–11 die Rede ist.“18 In weighing the pros and cons of three options regarding how one should interpret περὶ and ὅτι in Jn 16:9–11, Barrett observes that if περὶ is translated with ‘in regard to,’ the ὅτι-clauses “can hardly have any other meaning than being explicative.”19 This leads Barrett to see John portraying a convincing and “sufficiently” Johannine view of the Paraclete’s work, which centers on the world having “wrong notions of all three” elements sin, righteousness, and judgment.20 But then he rejects this option because he sees it as conflicting with John’s use of ἐλέγχει […] περὶ in Jn 8:46: τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας; There it must mean according to Barrett, ‘Which of you convicts me of sin (i.e., shows me to be a sinner)?’ and cannot possibly mean ‘Which of you convicts me of having wrong views of sin?’21

Bauer, Wörterbuch, 494 (paraphrased by S.C.A.). Blank, Krisis, 332: “Then the witnessing will automatically become the conviction, which is the subject of 16:9–11.” [Translation by S.C.A.] 19 Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 487. 20 Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 487. 21 Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 487. 17 18

190

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

But it is not necessary to reject the option Barrett describes, especially due to his admission that a “neat connection” of 16:9 with the next two verses (i.e., 16:10’s positive term δικαιοσύνη and 16:11’s negative term κρίσις) for the other two interpretive options that Barrett suggests is not to be had.22 It might well be that John has taken some liberties with the expression ἐλέγχει […] περὶ that need to be tolerated. We can envision that the disciples’ witness in Jn 15:26–27 centers on Jesus as well as sin, righteousness, and judgment. When rejected, John carried over all three elements into 16:7–11 (cf. Blank’s view in above). What is necessary is to interpret Jn 16:8–11 in Johannine eschatological categories, which place these elements in the center of the Spirit-Paraclete’s convicting work. Thus, the passage does in fact deal with controversy centering on correct and incorrect views of the three elements sin, righteousness, and judgment. These are centered on the question of judging according to appearance or judging righteously. In this sense the Greek preposition περί with a genitive noun that follows is best translated with “in regard to” or “regarding.” Therefore, in terms of the dichotomy of judging according to appearance/judging righteously in Isa 11:3–4 and Jn 7:24, we propose the following paraphrase of Jn 16:8–11: The Paraclete will, despite appearance, convict the world regarding the true meaning of sin, which consists in not believing in Jesus. The Paraclete will, despite appearance, convict the world regarding the true meaning of righteousness, which consists in Jesus being the Righteous One who is justified, going to his Father and therefore is no longer to be seen by you. The Paraclete will, despite appearance, convict the world regarding the true meaning of judgment, which consists in the ruler of this world having already been judged and expelled.

Jesus demands from his opponents in Jn 7:24 that they not judge by appearance, but that they judge with “right judgment.” This issue provides the framework for this Paraclete saying. This framework involves fundamental questions of the trial drama behind 16:9a, 10a and 11a. They are: What is sin? What is righteousness? and What is judgment? John has answers to these questions from his own perspective, his opponents from theirs. For John, the answer to the question “What is sin?” involves not believing God and his agent and therefore clinging to evil deeds (Jn 3:18–20). For this reason, such persons who do not believe will die in their sins (Jn 8:24). For “the Jews” (and “the world”), sin involves not adhering to the precise dictates of the Law of Moses (cf. e.g., Jn 5:16; 7:23; 8:49; 9:16; 10:33). In Jn 5 Jesus breaks the Sabbath, in Jn 7 he is considered to be leading the people astray like a false prophet, in Jn 9 he is called a sinner, and in Jn 10 he is considered as having committed blasphemy. 22 Barrett, Gospel, 2nd ed., 1978, 488. Cf. Barrett’s paraphrase for his option ‘b:’ “The sense is, he will convict the world of the fact of sin (in men) of the fact of righteousness (in me) and of the fact of judgment in which sin and righteousness stand side by side.”

11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings

191

John’s view regarding the question “What is righteousness?” in this context is that it involves Jesus’ truthfulness and obedience as an emissary. Jesus’ opponents have a completely different understanding. While his enemies imagine they know where he comes from (Jn 7:27), they have no idea where he might be going (7:35–36). They consider themselves to be the obedient children of their father Abraham and maintain that as children of Abraham, they are free (8:33, 39). In Jn 16:8a (and 10a) we see an allusion to Isa 11:5, “Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins.” This righteousness has a present quality in that it characterizes the incarnate Jesus. From the perspective of several NT passages, Jesus is considered by early believers to have been the Righteous One already during the time while he lived on earth: Acts 3:14: But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you […]. Acts 7:52: Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered […]. Acts 22:14: And he said, “The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth.” 1Pet 3:18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Additionally, there are those statements that come from the mouths of others who are not decidedly believers: Mt 27:19: Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his [Pilate’s] wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream.” Lk 23:47: The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” (NIV)

In order to recognize this allusion to Isa 11:5, it is a matter of understanding that 16:8a is based on the metaphorical wording of Isa 11:5 in non-metaphorical language. Regarding the question “What is judgment?,” the Johannine perspective of judgment is cosmic in scope, and the trial it involves is ongoing, precisely because Jesus’ death involves the pivotal event named in Jn 16:11. For John’s opponents, ‘judgment’ refers to allegedly rightful ‘casting out,’ convictions, as well as executions which are the result of investigations, deliberations, and trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (5:16, 18; 7:1, 32, 45–52; 8:59; 9:34; 10:39; 11:45–53, 57; 12:10–11; 18:3, 12–13, 19–24, 28–19:16). They will consider Jesus’ physical absence to be a sign of his condemnation in the eyes of God and will rejoice (16:20b). Specific aspects arising from the fundamental framework of the trial concept are addressed by John in dependent clauses in Jn 16:9b, 10b, 10c and 11b.

192

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

We determined above that these are best understood as explanatory, not causal, clauses. In the dependent clause in Jn 16:9b, John addresses the concrete sin of Jesus’ opponents: they do not believe in Jesus (cf. Jn 3:18–21; 8:21–24; 15:22–24). Jesus’ going to the Father in the dependent clause in 16:10b recalls for John the fact that Jesus has always known where he comes from and where he is going (Jn 6:62). When the Paraclete comes, Jesus has fulfilled his mission to gather his elect and save them (12:32, 19:30). The clause in 16:10c is best understood from the Johannine perspective as involving two aspects: First, it describes the pre-Easter perspective regarding the true advantage of the disciples no longer being able to see Jesus: Their sadness will be turned into joy (Jn 16:16–22). The second, post-Easter perspective corresponds with the perception of figures like Henoch, Elia, and the righteous in Wisdom 3:1–4. The fact that they are they are no longer to be seen is a sign of their righteousness, even if not a sign for “the world:” But the souls of the upright are in the hands of God, and no torment can touch them. To the unenlightened, they appeared to die, their departure was regarded as disaster, their leaving us like annihilation; but they are at peace. If, as it seemed to us, they suffered punishment, their hope was rich with immortality.

In contrast to this statement in Wisdom, the Fourth Servant Song in Isa 53 focuses on one specific individual, the Servant of the Lord. M. Hengel has called attention to this figure’s importance due to the LXX translation of the Masoretic text in Isa 53:11b, which reads, “to justify a righteous one who is well subject to many.” As we will outline below in 12.6., Hengel23 sees this LXX translation as “the root for the view of resurrection as justification of the crucified one in the New Testament (1Tim 3:16; Jn 16:10; cf. Rom 4:25).” It is based on the view that God will establish justice for this truly righteous person. Therefore, we understand Isa 53:11b as the cradle of Jesus’ justification in the Fourth Gospel. The one “man” justified here is the one who secures the justification of the “many” named in 53:11b. In the same way Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is justified in his claim and secures the “taking away” of the sins of the world. Hengel summarizes the result of his analysis with the following words that also apply to this aspect of the Fourth Gospel: The “justification” of 53:11 is the justification of the one who, although considered ungodly in the eyes of sinners, was in fact the only truly righteous one. It is therefore the precondition of the justification of real sinners, which the servant effects through his vicarious death.24 23 Martin Hengel, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit,“ B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996/2010), 49–91, 80. 24 Martin Hengel with Daniel P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the PreChristian Period,” B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 128, italics added by S.C.A.

11.7 The Five Paraclete Sayings

193

It is upon this foundation of LXX Isa 52:13 and 53:11b that John sees in Jn 16:10b–c the formerly incarnate Righteous One, Jesus, having become the risen Jesus who goes to his Father and therefore is no longer to be seen by the disciples. In this way the righteousness of Jesus in Jn 16:10 has, besides a present quality, also a future quality. It is Jesus returning to his Father as a sign of his righteousness. This heavenly-spiritual perspective is brought to expression by the author of 1Jn: Jesus is the Righteous One in heaven, as we see in three passages: 1Jn 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1Jn 2:1: My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1Jn 2:29: If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him.

“Judgment” in Jn 16:11b is in specific terms for John the “casting out” of the “ruler of this world.” This ruler has no power over Jesus (14:30), but by voluntarily dying on the cross, Jesus, as the Lamb of God, will be empowered to “draw” all to him. The ruler will be stripped of his place and power (cf. also 12.5). 11.7.5 The Fifth Paraclete Saying (Jn 16:13–15) But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.

“The Spirit (of Truth)” will help make up for the fact that Jesus cannot say all the things he would like to because the disciples could not bear to hear them. This Spirit will “guide” the disciples. The Greek term ὁδηγήσει is in biblical sources often associated with the guidance of Wisdom (e.g., Wisdom 9:17; 10:10). This guidance will encompass help for the disciples to remember and to understand what Jesus said and did, recognize the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and he will communicate what Jesus still wants to say. The expression “he will lead you in the truth” is most likely a deliberate reference to a very similar phrase in LXX Ps 24:5. There the psalmist is suffering from persecution. That the Spirit will lead into the same truth as Jesus is predicated on the faithfulness of both Jesus (cf. Jn 8:40 and 18:37) and the Spirit himself. The two are the Father’s faithful agents. In the phrase “he will proclaim to you the coming things,” we see again references in Jn to Second Isaiah: Isa 41:23 Isa 44:7b

Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.

194

Chapter 11: Judging According to Appearance and the Paraclete

This Spirit of Truth will also glorify the resurrected Jesus, demonstrating in the continuation of the cosmic trial that he is the justified Son of Man, who is the Christ – and the true King of Israel. The Paraclete, according to Jn 16:14–15, will glorify Jesus because he will make known to the disciples what he receives from Jesus, which is that which comes from the Father. The disciples will understand certain events and words after Jesus’ death and resurrection due to their enlightenment. This is effected by the Paraclete, as we see for example in Jn 2:22, cf. 20:9. We previously observed above that this is also the case following the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in Jn 12:16: “At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.” They recognize the vindication of the Son of God as the King of Israel, whose Kingdom is not of this World.

Part V: Conclusion

Chapter 12

Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification The purpose of John’s gospel is clearly stated in Jn 20:31. His goal is that readers should believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that they, through faith, will have life in his name. To this end, John makes the issue of righteous judgment the central focus of his gospel. Jesus is portrayed in the Johannine Hour of Justification to be all that he claims. John’s goal is to revisit the trials against Jesus and show him not only to be innocent of the charges made against him and therefore exonerated. John wishes to demonstrate that Jesus is vindicated with regard to his claims associated with being the Sent One of his Father and is therefore the Christ. Jesus is glorified and therefore juridically justified by his Father before the heavenly tribunal. The trial Jesus carries out amid being tried himself is continued by the Spirit-Paraclete on behalf of the justified King of Israel in the aftermath of Jesus’ departure and resurrection. This activity involves the glorification of Jesus (Jn 16:14), and this theme has already permeated all stages of Jesus’ ministry as well as the trials focused on him. In order to properly assess Jesus’ claims in John, special attention needs to be given to the cosmic dimension of the confrontation between Jesus and “the Jews”/”the world.” The term ‘cosmic’ shall be used, as was established in chapter 1, in the sense of involving the transcendental realm that is described in mythological biblical categories.

12.1 The Issue of Righteous Judgment (Jn 7:24; 8:15–16) In the preceding chapter we discussed John’s addressing the fundamental question of righteousness in 16:10a and the specifics regarding it in 16:10b and 10c. This corresponds to two scenes set in the controversies taking place in Jn 5, as well as in Jn 7 and 8. In Jn 5:30 Jesus asserts that his judgment is just because he listens to the Father and seeks his will. Jesus speaks in a similar vein when he says in Jn 8:16 that his judgment is true because he judges together with the one who has sent him, i.e., the Father. In Jn 7:24 Jesus defends his having healed the man in chapter 5 with the demand: “Do not go on judging by appearance, but judge with right judgment.” Here we see again that the question

198

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

of righteous judgment is of critical importance for John. His apologetic efforts that we have outlined can be best understood as having been inspired by the claim of Jesus to be the Johannine Son of Man. He will, in the future, judge those who are currently judging him as in Mk 14:62 (cf. Jn 1:51 and 8:28). For John’s Gospel, this Hour is not just coming, it is now and will continue as Jesus goes to the Father. Thus, the confrontation between Jesus and his adversaries reflects an adversarial trial concept which permeates the Fourth Gospel: Jesus is on the one side; his opponents are on the other. This is a trial where one side will win, and the other will therefore automatically lose. As in the Synoptic trial scenes, Jesus is being judged by his opponents once again in Jn 1–19, but this time it is Jesus as the Johannine Son of Man who simultaneously has the authority to judge not only in the future but already presently through his teaching and deeds in the Fourth Gospel. The implicitly threatened judgment by the Son of Man in Mk 14:62 becomes reality in the Johannine present in the sense of the Johannine phrase “the Hour is coming and now is” (Jn 5:30). Given this issue and the fact that John’s goal for his readers is that they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the criteria for judging righteously are of paramount importance. − Righteous judgment involves realizing that the christological titles Messiah/ Christ, Prophet-like-Moses , Son of God, King of Israel, and Son of Man in the Synoptic trial tradition are legitimately applied to Jesus (cf. Jn 1:41–51 and the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53). − Only those who have been born anew have the Spirit and will therefore be able to judge righteously (cf. Jn 3:3, 5–8). This involves “being from above” and understanding the “heavenly things” as well as the “earthly things” (3:12). − This “being from above” calls our attention to the key Johannine term πόθεν, “from where.” This term is used thirteen times in Jn, and all of these uses appear to relate either to the question of Jesus’ origin, the question of the Spirit’s work, or the question of the origin of an upcoming result of a miraculous work by Jesus. The latter aspect involves four examples: In Jn 1:48, where Nathanael asks Jesus, “From where do you know me?” In 2:9 the reader is told that the steward of the feast did not know the source of the wine. In 4:11 the Samaritan woman asks Jesus from where he has water that is living. In 6:5 Jesus asks Phillip from where he is going to get bread. Thus, πόθεν then can be used to refer to Jesus as a source of wine, water, and bread in the messianic age, or to supernatural, divine knowledge. It can also refer to the question of Jesus’ origin, as in 7:27 (twice), 28; 8:14 (twice); 9:29, 30; and 19:9, as well as to the Spirit in 3:8. − Judging righteously means recognizing that Jesus comes from above and not from below. His path into the world is only the first leg of his redemptive journey. He will return to the Father having completed his mission in perfect

12.1 The Issue of Righteous Judgment (Jn 7:24; 8:15–16)

−

−

−

−

−

− −

199

obedience, which in principle can lead to salvation for all humans (cf. e.g., Jn 3:31–36; 8:23; 13:1). Jesus’ judgment is righteous because the ultimate goal of Jesus’ incarnation, ministry, and death on the cross is to save the world from its sin, which under the reign of the “ruler” of this world leads to death. The penultimate consequence of this love is that those who reject this offer of salvation are already judged. This judgment, viewed from this perspective, is also righteous. Recognizing the legitimacy of the variety of witnesses which support Jesus’ claim to be the Sent One, the Father’s Son, is a fundamental aspect in judging righteously (cf. Jn 5:31–47). This list of human witnesses includes John the Baptist in Jn 1, the Samaritan woman and “many more” Samaritans in Jn 4:1–42, the official in Jn 4:43–54, and the man born blind in Jn 9. Righteous judgment in terms of Jn 7:24 and 8:15–16 involves recognizing Jesus’ unorthodox, dynamic interpretation of the Law (for example healing on the Sabbath and his Father as a legitimate second witness) as being congruent with the charge he received from his Father. Judging righteously means acknowledging that a central accusation against Jesus is false (cf. Jn 7:12, 47). Jesus is not a false prophet who seduces the people. On the contrary: Jesus fulfills the expectations associated with the Prophet-like-Moses, and even exceeds them, since he is far more than just this awaited figure which is described in Dt 18:15 (cf. Jn 1:45, 48–49; 2:25; 4:17–19; 5:46). Righteous judgment is also dependent on receiving the Spirit-Paraclete, whose role is outlined in the Paraclete sayings. This includes gaining insight into the deeds of Jesus which is only possible with the help of the Paraclete after Jesus’ resurrection. This Spirit-Paraclete is the Spirit of the vindicated and justified King who acts on his behalf on earth based on the messianic prophecy found in Isa 11:1–5, 10. Johannine believers exercise righteous judgment when they recognize Jesus’ no longer being seen as a sign of his vindication and justification (Jn 16:10b– c, cf. Isa 53:11b). Living from and in the love of God, and witnessing faithfully to Jesus despite persecution, is also an integral part of judging righteously (cf. Jn 13:34–35; 15:18–27).

These criteria demonstrate that the transcendental factor of the Spirit is of decisive importance in understanding and exercising righteous judgment. But other important elements reflecting the cosmic character of the Fourth Gospel do not come to the fore here. Therefore, it is now necessary to expand the scope of this examination, which will complement John’s juridical thought in a fundamental way.

200

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

12.2 The Challenge of Jesus’ Temple Saying After Jesus has ‘cleansed’ the temple in Jn 2:13–17, “the Jews” asked him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” Jesus replies, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus’ adversaries here do not understand this statement. John’s readers are told that his disciples will only comprehend it after his resurrection. But these readers get the benefit of the explanation that Jesus is speaking of his own rising from the dead. This leads the disciples to later believe the (modified) Scripture verse in Ps 69:10, “Zeal for thy house will consume me.” The relocation of both the temple cleansing and Jesus’ statement about the destruction of it have been addressed in chapter 6. Thyen1 describes the central importance of John’s adaptation of these elements and their connection with the initial scene involving John the Baptist and his interrogators in Jn 1:19–34. Here at the end of this first act of the gospel (i.e., Jn 1:19–2:22) it is “the Jews” who are challenging Jesus. Thyen sees John as having undertaken three steps to make this scene in Jn 2:13–22 the opening of the trial against Jesus, which has its climax in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. First, John relocates the pericope of the temple cleansing to this first act of the confrontation between Jesus and “the Jews.” Secondly, he combines this account with the temple saying found in the Synoptic account of the Sanhedrin trial. Thirdly, he modifies the temple saying so that it both becomes a prediction of Jesus’ death and victorious resurrection after three days as well as a hidden identification of “the Jews” as those who will be made responsible for his death. Thus, through this scene, all that now follows in this gospel is placed in the light of the glorification of Jesus through his death and resurrection. At the same time, answers to the questions as to who is truly the accuser and judge, and who is actually the accused, are already indicated here.

12.3 Jesus’ Confidence in his Justification (Jn 8:50) The significance of God’s tribunal for the Fourth Gospel becomes particularly visible in Jn 8. Towards the end of this chapter a bitter fight between Jesus and “the Jews” comes to a climax. Schnackenburg asks: Who can prevail in this confrontation which appears to be stalemated, involving accusation against accusation? Jesus cannot allow himself to be dishonored by the Jews, so he appeals to the forum of God. God is the one who conducts a juridical inquiry and passes down a verdict: “there is one who seeks it (i.e., Jesus’ glory) and he will be the judge” (8:50).2

1 2

Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 180. Cf. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium II, 294.

12.4 Glorification as Justification

201

John’s use of the same verb, ζητέω, for both the juridical investigations that Jesus’ Father here and those that “the Jews” employ in Jn 5:18; 7:1; 7:19; 7:30; 8:37; 10:39 demonstrate the decisive quality of this scene as well as the Fourth Gospel as a whole. When Jesus accuses “the Jews” of “dishonoring” him, this may well be an allusion to Isa 53:3f., “he was dishonored and was not considered.” Jesus has no doubt that God’s decision in this case will result in his vindication and the conviction of his opponents. This trial is already underway as the present tense here indicates (Greek present tense verb ἐστιν). The representatives of unbelief can only seem to triumph in this struggle. Jesus will be the actual victor before God’s tribunal, which provides the necessary background of this passage.3 God’s judgment occurs paradoxically precisely where Jesus is judged by persons firstly when he is on the cross, upon which Jesus will be lifted up (Jn 12:31), and secondly through the Paraclete’s work, who will reveal the righteousness of Jesus as well as the judgment of the world that does not believe (Jn 16:10–11).

12.4 Glorification as Justification To this end, John recounts the story of the Word that became flesh and lived among human beings at the outset of his gospel. During this time, his glory as the only begotten Son of his Father was revealed (Jn 1:14). This glory of the Son plays a major role in John’s attempt to prove his case regarding the question of righteous judgment. This corresponds with P. Stuhlmacher’s observation that the word group δόξα/δοξάζειν, which is so dominant in the Fourth Gospel, upon examination has a pronounced legal quality. This is demonstrated by the fact that God’s glory and righteousness are often times clearly used as parallel expressions, as in Ps 97; 85:10ff.; Isa 58:8 as well as 1 Enoch 50:3f.; 62:2f.; 4 Esra 7:42 (cf. with 8:21, 30, 36); 1QS 11:12; 11:15, 19f.; and especially 1QM 4:6. The same holds for the verbal forms of these nouns, i.e., justify/be justified and glorify/be glorified (also confess), which are often used interchangeably, cf. Ps 86:12; Isa 5:16; 49:5 (cf. with 50:8); Pss Sol 3:3; 5:19; 10:5–7; 8:26 (cf. with 15:2; 17:5); and 1QS 11:15 as well as especially 1QM 11:14f.). Stuhlmacher argues that John uses the Greek word group for glorify/be glorified as a dominant one for his theology. He uses concepts whose origins are based on an Old Testament inspired, early Jewish-apocalyptic foundation which is influenced by creation-based early Jewish legal thought. This makes these terms

3 Thus Asiedu-Peprah’s insistence that the confrontations in Jn 5–10 are only bilateral is incorrect, cf. Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, passim.

202

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

exceptionally well-suited for bringing God’s power and Jesus’ authority to expression in the trial which characterizes the Fourth Gospel’s eschatology.4 John’s uses of the terms for ‘glory’ and ‘glorification’ reflect this fundamental quality. There are references to Jesus’ previous state in glory, i.e., his being with the Father (Jn 17:5 and 24). Following his incarnation, the gospel recounts how Jesus’ disciples and others experienced the glory of Jesus’ “signs” that he performed (Jn 2:11; 12:41). Jesus bases his case for being the true emissary of his Father on the fact that he seeks the glory of his Father and not his own (Jn 7:18; 9:24; 11:4; 12:28; 14:13, 15; and 17:4). His Father in turn honors him with glory during his ministry (Jn 8:54; 11:4; and 12:28). Jesus does not accept glory from humans because they do not have love in themselves (Jn 5:41). Those who do not believe Jesus love human praise, i.e., human glory, more than the glory which comes from God. Therefore, there cannot be any “reciprocal” glorifying like that between Jesus and his Father (Jn 5:44; 12:43). Where there are those who love and believe, such persons, for example the disciples, receive glory from Jesus (Jn 17:22). This leads to Jesus being “glorified” by the disciples because of this very love and belief in him (17:10). This “glory”-dynamic of emissary faithfulness, humility, belief, and love find their fulfillment in the predictions of Jesus’ glorification. John explains that the coming of the Spirit is contingent on Jesus’ being glorified (7:39). He also sees Jesus’ glorification as being the condition for understanding the significance of the Triumphal Procession (Jn 12:16). Upon learning that the “Greeks” are seeking him, Jesus declares, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23). The ongoing process of Jesus being glorified by his Father is the subject of Jn 12:28. The ‘reciprocal’ glorification of the Father and Jesus is again reflected in Jn 13:31–32. John begins Jesus’ intercessory prayer in Jn 17 by having Jesus request the Father to glorify him in the Father’s presence with the glory he had with him before the world began (Jn 17:1–5). After Jesus’ death, the Spirit-Paraclete will glorify Jesus because he will make known to the disciples what he receives from Jesus (Jn 16:14). The Spirit-Paraclete does this in terms of the classic messianic prophecy found in Isa 11:1–5, 10, as has been demonstrated above in chapter 11. The programmatic statement in Jn 1:51, although it does not contain one of the terms “glory” or “glorification,” presupposes an eschatological event that reveals God’s glory. We read in Jn 14:12 that Nathanael and his fellow believers will do “greater works” after Jesus has gone to the Father. They will “see” what it means for the glory of the Word to be revealed. This theophanypromise in Jn 1:51 presents the glory of the heavens opening and God’s angels attending to the Son of Man. He is portrayed as the holy connector between the divine and God’s creation together with its human beings. This Son of Man 4 P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (FRLANT 87, 2nd ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965, 1966), 196.

12.5 Satan as the Cosmic Adversary

203

will reveal glorious “greater things” (Jn 1:50) to the disciples and others who believe, which the review of the terms “glory” and “glorified” above has illustrated (cf. also 7.6). John’s cosmic trial includes the universal aspect of Jesus’ saving work that will benefit all of God’s children (cf. 11:52). This is why the “Greeks” seeking Jesus is the decisive event that prompts Jesus to declare, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23, cf. Isa 11:10). The glorification of the Son of Man is the theme of sayings concerning the “necessity” that the Son of Man be “lifted up” (Jn 3:14; 8:28 and 12:32, 34). John explains in Jn 12:33 that Jesus uses the expression “to be lifted up” to signify the kind of death he will suffer: crucifixion. According to Jn 3:14 this is necessary because all who believe in Jesus will thereby be saved.

12.5 Satan as the Cosmic Adversary The larger scope of the Fourth Gospel’s juridical confrontations is framed by the struggle between Jesus’ witness to the truth and the murderous lies of the figure often referred to as the devil in Jn. M. Theobald5 has described the frequency and significance of terms and events surrounding this figure in John. The ‘devil’ is described by several different terms: three times διάβολος, once σατανᾶς and again once πονηρός. On three further occasions there is the figure called “the ruler of the world.” Theobald argues that this expression is also used by John for the devil. When Jesus announces the coming of the ruler of the world in 14:30, John is clearly thinking of Judas in whom Satan, according to 13:27, entered Judas. It is Judas who sees to it that Jesus is arrested in John 18:2ff. The expression “ruler of the world” is very much a designation that was a well-founded term in early Jewish and primitive Christian circles, as witnessed by similar constructions involving “lord” or “prince.” Besides these similar expressions Theobald also calls attention to numerous texts in which the devil is portrayed as a ruler and/or his reign is the subject. This is very frequently the case in texts of Qumran. Theobald concludes that it was not all that uncommon in early Jewish and primitive Christian contexts to assign Satan the status of a ruler (Greek ἄρχων), which John does. Theobald concludes that John’s use of multiple terms for these “metaphysical negative beings“ demonstrates his desire to bring the universality of devilish works as well as the devilish reign itself to expression. He sees it as being no accident that these designations of the devil begin in the Fourth Gospel for the first time in Jn 12:22–36. There the passage begins with the desire of the Greeks to see Jesus, which reflects an expanded universal perspective. Jesus responds to their request with the pronouncement, “Now is the judgment of this world, 5 F. Theobald, Teufel, Tod und Trauer: Der Satan im Johannesevangelium und seine Vorgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), NTOA 109:150–51.

204

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (12:31–32). Jesus’ arrest in Jn 18 by the servants of the high priests, Pharisees and a cohort of Roman soldiers also reflects this universal orientation. Theobald therefore concludes that the emphasis on the universal nature of the reign of Satan serves to underscore the universality of the salvation which Jesus brings. He will draw all to himself, including the Greeks, as the one who is lifted up. But first the power of the ruler of this world must be broken.

12.6 Biblical-theological Contours of Justification and Intercession Here we will describe the biblical-theological contours of justification and intercession, which form the theological underpinnings of Jesus’ Hour of Justification in the Fourth Gospel. This paradox of crucifixion and glorification is also the subject of M. Hengel’s analysis of the relationship between the Masoretic text of Isaiah 52–53 and its LXX translation. Hengel6 calls attention to the translator’s rendition of Isaiah 53:11b, which reads, “to justify a righteous one who is well subject to many.” Hengel’s comment alerts his readers to the theological consequences of this translation for LXX Isaiah 53 as well as its influence on early Christian christology. According to Hengel, here lies the root for the view of resurrection as justification of the crucified one in the New Testament (1Tim 3:16; Jn 16:10; cf. Rom 4:25). This leads to a very impressive portrayal of God’s working in and through his servant. It is God’s will that the servant be rescued from his suffering and the path leading to death. He thereby shows him light that is eternal light in the fellowship of God, blessing him with supernatural knowledge and even creating him anew. The phrase “to fill him with understanding” in LXX Isaiah 53 refers back to the beginning of LXX Isa 52:13, the understanding of one who is raised up to God. God will establish justice for this truly righteous person. This concept involves the justification of one who in the eyes of the sinners was the godless one, but in reality, the one who was truly righteous. This precisely entails the prerequisite for the justification of the real sinners which the Lord’s Servant achieves through his atoning death.7 Therefore, when we for our part turn to Jn, we can with good reason view Isa 52:13 and 53:11b as the cradle of justification in the Fourth Gospel. The one “man” justified here is the one who secures the justification of the “many” named in 53:12, just as Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is justified in his claim and secures the “taking away” of the sins of the world. 6 7

Hengel, Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53, 80. Hengel, Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53, 80

12.6 Biblical-theological Contours of Justification and Intercession

205

According to P. Stuhlmacher,8 justification is in biblical thought a legal act of the God of creation and therefore a new act of creation. As a result of this, the justified gain a share in the existence of glory and righteousness before God. The conception of justification has its origins in the Old Testament and early Judaism. The Lord’s servant asserts in Isa 50:7–9 that God will stand him by during a juridical proceeding despite the presence of his many enemies. God will enable him to attain justice. “Justify” and “be justified” involve legally based acts. They can be of historical and contemporary nature. They can also be eschatologically conceived. Jesus speaks of “to be justified” in the sense of forgiveness of sins in Luke 18:14. Paul is also very much familiar with this kind of speaking about justification in the present, but he always connects it with an end time perspective. The justification experienced in the present precipitates the hope and assurance of justification at the Final Judgment. Paul’s language in this regard most resembles in early Judaism that of the Qumran community (cf. 1QS 11:9–12). Paul’s use of the active form of justify is reserved for God (Gal 3:8, Rom 3:26). The passive form can designate the recognition which the sinner must give God at the Final Judgment (Rom 3:4). This can also involve the act of being invested with divine rights which are bestowed upon the reviled Christ when he is raised to God’s right hand (cf. 1Tim 3:16 with LXX Isa 53:11). But more often the passive designates the acceptance by God that humans experience in judgment (for example in Gal 2:16f.). When God issues his verdict “Righteous!” (cf. Ezechiel 18:9) or reckons to a person something for righteousness, for example faith (cf. Gen 15:6), he opens up new life for her/him (e.g., Gal 3:6, Rom 4:2). Paul states in 2Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” Reconciliation through Christ as a new creation and justification for the sake of Jesus’ atoning death go hand in hand in Christian circles already before Paul. The early Jerusalem Christians understood justification occurring as with the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:11. For the sake of Jesus’ vicarious death, which he suffered for sinners, they will be acquitted by God at (the Final) judgment. Paul follows this view completely. The counterpart to Stuhlmacher’s outline of biblical justification is his description of the Last Judgment scenario which best provides the background for Rom 8:31–39 and mutatis mutandis for the Fourth Gospel. Rom 8 places the believing reader in precisely this situation before the Heavenly Tribunal. The scene is based on Isa 50:7–9. In this passage God enables the reviled and tortured Servant of the Lord to get justice. In the passage at hand (Rom 8:31– 39), it is the children of God whom he helps to attain justice. He does this in direct opposition against all who accuse them before God’s throne of judgment, wishing to have God’s children be condemned. Paul here is probably thinking of Satan and his so-called penal angels. Their accusations will be rejected by 8 P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer (NTD 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 59–61.

206

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

Christ as he stands at God’s right hand and intercedes for his believers (cf. Zech 3). Paul sees those believing in Christ here as the suffering ones who are justified. Their suffering is described in the list found in Rom 8:35 as well as in other so-called catalogs found in contemporary early Jewish writings. Paul and his fellow believers in Christ must suffer because of their witness to him. While they still live in God’s creation, they are nonetheless surrounded and threatened by subterranean and celestial powers (cf. e.g., 1Pet 3:19). Despite their ability to launch such attacks, they are far inferior compared to the love of God which has been established by Christ. The certainty of faith already described in vv. 28–30 is expanded upon in vv. 31ff. These verses explain how believers can retain this assuredness in faith despite the trials and tribulations threatening them. Paul poses the question, “What then shall we say to this?” This then is followed by another question, “If God is for us, who is against us?” Because God is in Christ and he is the helper and attorney for those who stand under his protection, who is going to raise up against them? The intended answer is: no one! Here there are two aspects of Paul’s confidence. One aspect is that God did not spare his son but made him, precisely as the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:12, to die vicariously for them, so as to save them from God’s final judgment. The second aspect is the answer to the question, “Who will accuse Christ’s believers and try to deny them sharing in their inheritance?” That could be Satan and his helpers, but they will not succeed in this because God is judge, and the risen and justified Christ will intercede as an attorney on their behalf (Rom 8:26). Both Romans 5:8–10 and 8:33–34 demonstrate that justification is not only a legal act in God’s court of law. It is above all the fact that and in what way Jesus’ vicarious death truly leads once and for all to the justification by God of those who believe. Because of Christ’s sacrifice and continuous activity as intercessor, those believing in Christ cannot be separated from his love (Rom 8:35–37), regardless of whether they are subjected to “tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword.” The things to which Christ the Servant of the Lord was subjected to will also be the things to which his followers will be subjected. But precisely such sharing in the passion experiences of their Lord makes them, as witnesses of faith, invincible. Thanks to Christ’s support, especially the strengthening and supporting power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:4–17; Mk 13:11 par), the witnesses of faith overcome all dangers and persecutions. They become conquerors as in Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26, etc., cf. Jn 16:33. The love of Christ in witnesses of faith defies the hate of the world. The evil subterranean and celestial powers cannot rob them of salvation. Nothing can separate these believers from the love of God in Christ Jesus the Lord (Rom 8:39).9 Given this background, we can appreciate the central role of the heavenly tribunal for John’s Trial concept and the Fourth gospel as a whole, despite the fact that it rarely comes to the fore there. 9

Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, 126–29.

12.6 Biblical-theological Contours of Justification and Intercession

207

O. Cullmann10 views the concept of Jesus being an interceding high priest as playing a significant role in the Fourth Gospel. It is one which is very similar to that found in Hebrews. Whether this portrayal in Jn is due to the beloved disciple’s being known to the high priest according to Jn 18:15 cannot be said with any certainty. It could however explain John’s desire to portray Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament priesthood. Early Christology’s use of Psalm 110:4, where the king is also a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and the influence in this regard of Jesus himself, are well-known. This gives Cullmann sufficient reason to see this designation as being important for John. It becomes readily apparent in Jn 17, which has been rightly called Jesus’ high priestly prayer. This designation arose only in the 16th century but is “exegetically quite correct.”11 Jesus directs this prayer to the Father before he brings his offering, asking that those given him may be sanctified by his Father in order to be able to receive the fruits of the offering.12 Examples for this kind of thinking are the requests for the sanctification of his own in Jn 17:7 and for their separation from the world in 17:11ff. Jesus is sanctified by the Father (Jn 10:36), his own shall also be sanctified. The Fourth Gospel in the Farewell Discourse additionally develops a particular aspect of this thinking found in Hebrews. Jesus as “leader and forerunner” goes before his people and therefore continues to exercise his office of mediation as high priest in the present. This explains why Jesus prays in Jn 17:24 that those whom God has given him may be with him where he is. In this sense, Jesus’ saying in Jn 14:2ff. about preparing a place in his Father’s house corresponds to the preparing of a city found in Hebrews 11:16, where Jesus himself is high priest. Cullmann asserts, “With the exception of Hebrews, no other New Testament writer emphasizes so strongly as the Johannine literature the sinlessness of Jesus” (cf. 8:46; 1Jn 3:5; 3:7). He also sees the concept of the Paraclete being especially related to the high priest concept. His juridical role is associated with the high priestly role of mediation (1Jn 2:1; cf. Heb 7:25 and 9:24). For this reason, Cullmann states: According to the application of Psalm 110 to him, Jesus continues to work in the present from the right hand of God; according to the Gospel of John he comes to earth in the Paraclete for his own. It is his highest priestly function, the summary of all high priestly prayers which he brings before God in the present, that he “will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor, to be with you forever” (Jn 14:16). This Counsellor fulfills on earth the mediation of sanctification. He is the “Spirit whom the world cannot receive,” who will lead those belonging to Christ into all truth. […] Christ continues his high priestly work after his ascension by bringing their prayers before God in heaven.13 10 11 12 13

Cullmann, The Christology, 105. Cullmann, The Christology, 105–6. Cullmann, The Christology, 105–6. Cullmann, The Christology, 106–7.

208

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

This explains why the disciples are commanded to pray in Christ’s name.14 The fundamental importance of these cosmic developments resulting from Jesus’ death and resurrection is underlined by the earthly ‘advantages’ coming from Jesus’ justification. Jesus asserts in Jn 16:7, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away.” The “advantage” of which Jesus speaks in a narrower sense of the term does refer, based on the immediate context, especially to the coming of the Paraclete, but not exclusively. The other two occurrences of the Greek term συμφέρω in Jn, Jn 11:50 and 18:14, which involve Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy regarding “one man” dying for the sake of the nation, alert John’s readers to the broader scope underlying this advantage in 16:7. Thus, it is possible to briefly list these advantages in the broader sense of the term. First, there is the clear gain for the believers due to the decisive Johannine event. Jesus’ death and resurrection result in their justification. Secondly, the sorrow that Jesus’ disciples are experiencing will be transformed into joy. When they see Jesus again, after his death, they will experience eschatological joy that no one will be able to take away from them (Jn 16:22). Thirdly, this joy comes to full expression with the empowering of those who believe in Jesus to become children of God (Jn 1:12, cf. 1Jn 3:1). Jn 11:52 also refers to these children of God, who will be “gathered into one,” due to Jesus’ “death for the nation.” Fourthly, the disciples will be enabled to carry on the confrontation against the “world” and its “ruler” in Jesus’ stead. This involves direct assistance by the Spirit-Paraclete. Finally, recognizing and experiencing these advantages in these narrower and broader senses will be facilitated by the Paraclete himself.

12.7 Conclusion: Glorification as the Cosmic Trial Concept’s Common Denominator Pursuing a properly understood Cosmic Trial Concept rather than, for example, a one- or bidimensional terrestrial lawsuit has proven to be a fruitful path for understanding the Hour of Justification in the Fourth Gospel. In doing so eight juridical trials as well as one interrogation were first recognized and then examined. 1.) The first one is the path and return of the Word of Isa 55:10–11 due to its juridical consequences, 2.) two rîb-scenarios in Second Isaiah together with Isa 42:1–4, 6, 3.) Isa 53 (and 50), 4.) the Preponed Trial in Jn 2:1–11:53, 5.) Annas’ interrogation, 6.) the trial before Pilate, 7.) the hermeneutical-christological theme judging according to appearance/judging righteously, 8.) The juridical-apologetic work of the Spirit-Paraclete which permeates the whole of the Fourth Gospel, and 9.) God’s heavenly tribunal (Jn 16:10). 14

Cullmann, The Christology, 106–7.

12.7 Conclusion: Glorification as … the Common Denominator

209

This list of juridical measures gives us pause to ask: Is there a common aspect or denominator for these juridical cases besides John’s own goal of fostering belief that Jesus is the Christ? Here it is P. Stuhlmacher’s15 observation that the word group glory/glorification is so very dominant in the Fourth Gospel, evidencing a pronounced legal quality, that offers an answer to our question. We saw in 12.4 that God’s glory and righteousness are often used in the OT as parallel expressions. Such is also the case for the verbal forms of these nouns justify/be justified and glorify/be glorified, which are often used interchangeably. This OT background offers an answer for what John has done in his gospel: all these trials and interrogation in the Fourth Gospel share a juridical concept of glorification. 1. The first case is actually not a trial, because it has to do with the salvific arch of God’s Word in Isa 55:10–11. But, as applied to Jesus, when the Logos returns after accomplishing its journey, there will be the necessity of juridical consequences for (not) believing. The journey of the “Word” in Isa 55:5 that comes down from heaven and returns is closely associated with the beginning of Second Isaiah in Isa 40:5 due to similar phraseology. Both texts share the phrase “the mouth/word of the Lord.” The Word of the Lord in Isa 55:10–11, it is assured, “shall go forth from his mouth” and accomplish its mission. In Isa 40:5 the revelation of the glory of the Lord will most certainly be revealed “for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Thus Isa 55:10–11 and 40:5 share the same fulfillment horizon. The fact that the Word of God has been spoken ensures its fulfillment. Given this same fulfillment horizon we understand the revelation of God’s glory as also being shared. Thus Isa 55:10–11 can also be understood as revealing God’s glory. 2. In Second Isaiah the two rîb trials between God and the nations/Israel both involve the goal of glorification of God, as in Isa 40:5; 42:12; and 46:13. 3. Glorification is clearly a central theme of Isa 53. 4. The Preponed Trial found in Jn 2:1–11:53 is focused on the five christological titles found in Jn 1:40–51. The last of these titles involves the key figure of the Johannine Son of Man, whose crucifixion and glorification are based on Isa 53. The promised “greater things” in this context refer to the glorious things Jesus shall cause to occur during and in the aftermath of his mission. 5. Annas’ interrogation reflects in particular the charge that Jesus was convicted by the Sanhedrin of being a false prophet and condemned to die. This scene depicts Jesus being struck in terms of Isa 50 and being verbally abused and thereby dishonored as in Isa 53:3f. (cf. Jn 8:49). The Servant in Isa 50 is confident that he will not be put to shame but justified. The servant in Isa 53 is a figure who will in any event be glorified (Isa 52:13). 6. Jesus’ trial before Pilate shows Jesus being presented as the Johannine Son of Man. He has the calling and the traits thereby of the Suffering Servant in Isa 53 (cf. chapter 8; Jn 19:5). 15

Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 196.

210

Chapter 12: Judging Righteously: Glorification and the Hour of Justification

7. The confrontation between ‘the Jews’ and Jesus, which centers on ‘judging according to appearance‘ and ‘judging righteously,’ will be resolved in Jesus’ favor. He is convinced that his Father is already seeking Jesus’ glory and will be the judge who justifies his Son, as we read in Jn 8:50. 8. The juridical work of the Spirit-Paraclete who takes up his work as the continuation of the trial against “the world” is expressly described with Jesus’ words “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” in Jn 16:14. The conflict between judging by appearance and righteous judgment will continue due to the Spirit-Paraclete working through the disciples and others who believe in Jesus. 9. Jesus has complete confidence that he will prevail before his Father’s heavenly forum. The confidence that we see in Jn 8:50 (see point 7. above) also comes to expression in Jesus’ words (aorist imperative!) in 12:28, “Father, glorify thy name.” Then we are told that a voice came from heaven, saying “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” The justification of Jesus in his Hour, which will climax in his going to the Father, is also founded here on a juridical concept of glorification. In the Hour of Justification John demonstrates that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God who is justified by his Father before this heavenly tribunal. There he assumes the role of advocate for those who believe in him, for those who, thanks to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, have themselves been justified. They have received authority to count themselves children of God, thanks to the One who in his Hour was justified, and who justifies all who believe, Jesus Christ, the Righteous.

Bibliography Ådna, Jostein, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (WUNT 2/119, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Aland, Kurt, et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012). Amador, S.C., Gerechtes Gericht und Gerechtigkeit im Vierten Evangelium: Eine exegetische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (PhD diss., Tübingen, 1986). art. prepone, www.dictionary.cambridge.org, downloaded on May 1, 2022. Asiedu-Peprah, Martin, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy (WUNT 2/132, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Barrett, C.K., “The Holy Spirit and the Fourth Gospel,” JTS (New Series) 1 (1950), 1–15. –, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1955). –, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Second Edition, London: SPCK, 21978). Bauer, Walter, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (5th ed., Berlin: Töpelmann, 1971). Becker, Jürgen, “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium,” ThR 47 (1982), 279–304, 305–347. –, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 1–10 (ÖTK 4,1, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1979). –, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 11–21 (ÖTK 4,2, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984). –, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (AGAJU 8, Leiden: Brill, 1970). Behm, Johannes, art. Παράκλητος, G. Kittel/G. Friedrich, eds. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1954), TWNT 5:798–812. Bekken, Per Jarle, The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel from New Perspectives: Jesus Christ, Crucified Criminal and Emperor of the World (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Bensly, R.L., The Fourth Book of Ezra (University Press: Cambridge, 1895). Betz, Otto, Der Paraklet: Fürsprecher im häretischen Spätjudentum, im Johannes-Evangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2, Leiden: Brill, 1963). Beutler, Johannes, Martyria: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes (FTS 10, Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1972). Billerbeck, P. and H. Strack, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Band 2: Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas und Johannes und die Apostelgeschichte (10th ed., München: C.H. Beck, 2009). Blank, Josef, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1964). Blass, F., and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf (14th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). Boismard, M.-E., review of M. Miguens, El Paráclito (Jn 14–16), (Studii Biblici Franciscani Analecta 2, Jerusalem: PP. Franciscan, 1963), RB 71 (1964), 130–31.

212

Bibliography

Borgen, Peder, Bread from Heaven (SupplNovT X, Leiden: Brill, 1965). –, “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel,” in: J. Neusner, ed., Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 137–48. Bornkamm, G., “Der Paraklet im Johannes-Evangelium,” FS R. Bultmann (Stuttgart & Köln: Kohlhammer, 1949), 12–35, revised version in: id., Geschichte und Glaube I (Gesammelte Aufsätze III, München: Kaiser, 1968), 68–69. Botterweck, J. and H. Ringgren, eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, I–IV (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973–2000). Brande, W., The Midrash on Psalms (2 Vols., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959). Brown, R.E., “‘Paraclete’ in the Light of Modern Research,” StEv 4, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968), 158–65. –, “The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 13 (1966–1967), 113–32. –, The Gospel According to John: Chapters 1–12; translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary (Anchor Bible, 29, 2nd ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966). –, The Gospel According to John: Chapters 13–21; translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary (Anchor Bible, 29A, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970). –, The Epistles of John (The Anchor Bible, 30; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982). Bühner, J.-A., Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4.Ev. (WUNT 2/2, Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1977). Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Ergänzungsheft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957). –, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). –, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (9th ed., Tübingen: Mohr, 1948–1953, 1984). Burkett, D., The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991). Carmignac, J., “Les horoscopes de Qumran,” RQ 18 (1965), 199–217. Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 Vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963–1964). Charlesworth, J. H., ed., John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972). –, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a supplement (Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, Vol. 7, Chico, CA: Scholars’ Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1981). –, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: 1 and 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985). Chevallier, M.A., L’Esprit et le Messie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958). Chibici-Revneanu, N., Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: Das Verständnis der doxa im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/231, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Cohen, A., Midrash Rabbah Lamentations (London: Solano Press, 1951). Collins, J., “‘He Shall Not Judge by What His Eyes See.’ Messianic Authority in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995), 145–64. –, The Scepter and the Star (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). Cook, Johann, translator, A New English Translation of the Septuagint. 25 Proverbs, (http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/25-proverbs-nets.pdf, downloaded on 3 July 2024). Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (2nd ed., London: SCM Press, 1963). –, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, Mohr: 51975). Culpepper, R. A., “The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” NTS 27 (October 1980), 1–31. Dahl, N.A., “The Johannine Church and History,” W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder, eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper (London: SCM Press, 1962), 124–42. Danby, J., The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933, 1954 printing).

Bibliography

213

Dauer, A., Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18,1–19,30 (München: Kösel, 1972). Davenport, G., “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17,” J. Collins and G. Nickelsburg, eds., Ideal figures in Ancient Judaism (Chico, CA: Scholars’ Press, 1980), 67–92. Davies, J.G., “The Primary Meaning of ‘παράκλητος,’” JTS (New Series) 4 (1953–1954), 35–38. Dodd, C.H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953). –, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963). Driver, G.R., “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX,” JTS 38, No. 149 (Jan. 1937), 36–50. Duhm, Bernhard, Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). Fitzmyer, J.A., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971). –, A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI [and others]: Eerdmans, 2008). Franck, E., Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Lund: Gleerup, 1985). Freedman, H. and M. Simon, Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1939). Frey, Jörg, Die johanneische Eschatologie, Bd. 1 (WUNT 96, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). –, Die johanneische Eschatologie, Bd. 2 (WUNT 110, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). –, Die johanneische Eschatologie, Bd. 3 (WUNT 117, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Gerhards, M., art. Mittler, https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/27901/, downloaded on May 1, 2022. Goldschmidt, L., Der babylonische Talmud, Bde. 1–12 (Berlin: Verlag Biblion, 1929–1936). Goppelt, L., Der Erste Petrusbrief (KEK XII/I, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). Gray, G.B., The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX (ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962). Grayston, K., “The Meaning of PARAKLETOS,” JSNT 13 (1981), 67–82. Harvey, A.E., Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1976). Hengel, M., “Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie,” E. Jacob, ed., Sagesse et Religion (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979), 147–188. –, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit,” B. Janowski, and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996/2010), 49–91. Hengel, Martin, with Bailey, Daniel P., “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 75–146. Hofius, O., “Die Sammlung der Heiden zur Herde Israels (Joh 10:16–11:51f.),” ZNW 58 (1967), 289–91. Holm-Nielsen, Svend, Die Psalmen Salomos (JSHRZ IV/2, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1977). Hooker, M., “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue,” NTS 16 (1969/70), 354–58. Hoskyns, E., The Fourth Gospel (N. Davey, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1947). Janowski, B., and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). –, Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996/2010). Jenni, E., and C. Westermann, eds., THAT (2nd ed., München/Zürich, 1978–1979). Jeremias, Joachim, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil: Die Verkündigung Jesu (Gütersloher Verlagshaus: G. Mohn, 1971), 277–79.

214

Bibliography

Johansson, Nils, Parakletoi (Dissertation Lund: Gleerupska, 1940). Johnston, G., The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (SNTSMS 12, Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1970). Jonge, M. de, ed., Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha III, Leiden: Brill, 1975). Josephus, Flavius, Jewish Antiquities (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-14.html, downloaded on May 1, 2022). Kaiser, O., Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12 (ADT 17, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). Kee, H.C., “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Bd. 1, Garden City, N.Y., 1983). Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, eds., TWNT 1–9 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1973). Klijn, A.F.J., Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse (JSHRZ V/2, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976). Kraus, H.-J., Psalmen 2. Teilband: Psalmen 60–150 (BKAT XV/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Lausberg, H., Minuscula philologica (V): Jesaja 55,10–11 im Evangelium nach Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). –, Minuscula philologica (VII): Das Epiphonem des Johannes-Prologs (J 1,18), NAWG.PH. I (Jg. 1982, Heft 7). –, “‘Prolog J 1,1–18 und Corpus narrativum‘ J 1,19–20,29 als grundständig einander zugeordnete Teile des Johannes-Evangeliums” (Rhetor. Befunde, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987). Lauterbach, J., Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the MSS and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933). Leaney, A.R.C., “The Johannine Paraclete and the Qumran Scrolls,” J. H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), 38–61. Liddell, H.G., and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Supplement (Revised and augmented by H.S. Jones, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, 1978). Liedtke, G., and C. Petersen, art. ‫ּתֹוָרה‬/tōrā/Weisung, ָ E. Jenni, ed., unter Mitarbeit von C. Westermann, (2nd ed., München: Chr. Kaiser/Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979), THAT, 1032–43. Lightfoot, R.H., St. John’s Gospel (C.F. Evans, ed., Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1956). Lincoln, Andrew, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000). Lindars, B., The Gospel of John: Based on the 1972 Revised Standard Version (reprinted, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd., 1982). Meeks, W., Review of J. Beutler, Martyria, JBL 93 (1974), 139–41. –, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (SupplNovT XIV, Leiden: Brill, 1967). Meyer, P.W., “‘The Father:’ The Presentation of God in the Fourth Gospel,” R.A. Culpepper and C.C. Black, eds., Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 255–73. Miguens, M., El Paraclito (Studii Franciscani Analecta 2, Jerusalem: PP. Franciscan, 1963). Moloney, F.J., The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina Series 4, D.J. Harrington, ed., Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2016). Moloney, F.J., The Johannine Son of Man (Biblioteca di scienze religiose 14, Roma: LAS, 1978).

Bibliography

215

Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (NICNT 4, London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1971). Moulton, J.H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (2nd ed., with corrections and additions, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908). Mowinckel, S., “Die Vorstellungen des Spätjudentums vom heiligen Geist als Fürsprecher und der joh. Paraklet,” ZNW 32 (1933), 97–130. –, Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956). Müller, H.-P., art. Weisheit, THAT (2nd ed., Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Chr. Kaiser Theologischer Verlag, Zürich/München 1979), 928–33. Müller, U.B., “Die Parakletenvorstellungen im Joh-Ev,” ZThK 71 (1974), 31–77. Murphy, R., A Study of Psalm 72 (71) (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1948). Nielsen, K., Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978). Odeburg, H., The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala, 1929/Amsterdam, 1974). Olley, J.W., Righteousness in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 8, Missoula, MT: Scholars’ Press, 1979). Porsch, F., Pneuma und Wort: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (Frankfurt am Main: J. Knecht, 1974). Potterie, I. de la, Review of M. Miguens, El Paráclito (Jn 14–16) (Studii Biblici Franciscani Analecta 2, Jerusalem: PP. Franciscan, 1963), Biblica 45 (1964), 578–79. Preiss, Théo, “La justification dans la pensee johannique,” Hommage et Reconnaisance. Recueil de travaux publies a loccasion du soixantieme anniversaire de Karl Barth (Cahiers Théologiques de lactualité Protestante, Hors Série 2, Neuchatel and Paris: Delechaux & Niestle, 1946), 100–118. –, La Vie en Christ, with an Introduction by Roger Mehl (Neuchatel und Paris: Delechaux & Niestle, 1951). 46–64. –, “Justification in Johannine Thought,” id., Life in Christ, translated by H. Knight (Studies in Biblical Theology 15, London: SCM Press, 1954), 9–31. –, “Die Rechtfertigung im johanneischen Denken,” übersetzt von R. Pfisterer, EvTheol 16 (1956), 289–310. Rahlfs, A., ed., Septuaginta Bde. I-II (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). Richardson, A., The Gospel according to St. John (London: TBC, 1959). Riesenfeld, H., “A Probable Background for the Johannine Paraclete,” Ex orbe religionum: Studia G. Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 266–74. Ringgren, H., art. “counsel,” TWAT1, 621–29. Salier, W.H., The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2/186, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Sanders, J.N., and B.A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (Black’s New Testament Commentaries, London: Black, 1968). Sasse, H., “Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium,” ZNW 24 (1925), 260–77. Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1930). Schlier, H., “Jesus und Pilatus nach dem Johannesevangelium,” id., Die Zeit der Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1956), 56–74. Schlütz, K., “Isaias 11,2 (die sieben Gaben des Hl. Geistes) in den ersten vier christlichen Jahrhunderten,” (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen XI/4, Münster i. W.: Aschendorf, 1932), 443–45. Schnackenburg, R., “Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium,” Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: FS J.Schmid, Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 240–46.

216

Bibliography

–, “Die Ecce-homo-Szene und der Menschensohn,” (FS A.Vögtle, Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1975), 371–386. –, Das Johannesevangelium I-IV. Teile (HTKNT 4, Freiburg: Herder, 1965–1985). –, Der Brief an die Epheser (EKK X, Zürich: Benzinger, 1982). Schreiner, J., Das 4. Buch Esra (JSHRZ V/4, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981). Schulz, S., “Die Parakletenvorstellungen im Joh-Ev,” ZThK 71 (1974), 31–77. Schulz, S., Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957). Schwank, B., Evangelium nach Johannes: praktischer Kommentar (St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 32007). Seeligmann, I.L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Seesemann, O., art. Πατάσσω, G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1954), TWNT 5:939–40. Shafaat, A., “Geber of the Qumran Scrolls and the Spirit-Paraclete of the Gospel of John,” NTS 27 (1981), 263–69. Silva, M., translator, Esaias NETS Septuagint translation, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/, downloaded on May 1, 2022. Sperber, D., A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984). Stauffer, E., Jesus, Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern: Francke Verlag, 1957). Stone, M., “The Concept of the Messiah in 4 Ezra,” J. Neusner, ed., Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. Goodenough (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 295–312. Strack, H.L., Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch: mit einem Vorwort und einem bibliogr. Anh. von G. Stemberger (München: Beck, 61976). Strobel, A., Die Stunde der Wahrheit (WUNT 1/21, Tübingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980). Stuckenbruck, L., “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism,” S. Porter, ed., The Messiah in the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 90–113. Stuhlmacher, P., “Jes 53 in den Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte,” B. Janowski, and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996/2010), 93–105. –, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992 [3., neubearbeitete und ergänzte Auflage], 32005). –, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 2: Von der Paulusschule bis zur Johannesoffenbarung: Der Kanon und seine Auslegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). –, Der Brief an die Römer (NTD 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). –, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (FRLANT 87, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965, 21966). –, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Theisohn, J., Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zur traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort des Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des äthiop. Henoch (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 12, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). Theobald, F., Teufel, Tod und Trauer: Der Satan im Johannesevangelium und seine Vorgeschichte (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, Band 109, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

Bibliography

217

Thyen, Hartwig, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6, 2nd ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2 2015). Trites, A.A., The Concept of Witness in the New Testament (MSSNTS 31; Cambridge: University Press, 1977). Uhlig, S., Das äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ V/6, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984). Woude, A. S. van der, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (Assen [NL]: van Gorcum & Comp./Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung, 1957). Volz, P., Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr, 21934). Westermann, Claus, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66 (NTD 19, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). –, Sprache und Struktur der Prophetie Deuterojesajas (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1981). –, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen (Bd. 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). Wildberger, H., Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT X/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972). Windisch, H., “Die fünf johanneischen Parakletsprüche,” FS A. Jülicher (Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), 110–137. Wünsche, A., Der Midrasch Bemidbar Rabba (Leipzig: Schulze, 1885). –, Der Midrasch Bereschit Rabba (Leipzig: Schulze, 1885). –, Der Midrasch Ruth Rabba (Leipzig: Schulze, 1885). –, Der Midrasch Schemot Rabba (Leipzig: Schulze, 1885). –, Der Midrasch Schir Ha-Schirim (Leipzig: Schulze: 1885). Midrasch Tehillim: 2 Bde. in einem (Trier: Mayer, 1892). Zahn, T., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (KNT 4, 6th ed., Leipzig, 1921, Nachdruck: Wuppertal, 1983). Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963). Zerwick, M., and M. Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Vol. I. (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1974). Ziegler, J., Isaias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939).

Index of References Old Testament Genesis  28:12

93

Exodus 12 24,8 24:8 17:1–7 22:28

26 66 51 45 112

Numbers 21 21:4–9 27:18

94–95, 168 94 133

Deuteronomy 13 85, 112 13:2–4a 85 13:6LXX 111 17:8–13 49 18 85 18:15 21, 83, 110, 129, 199 18:15–19 21 18:15–22 83 18:18 21, 84, 106 18:18–19LXX 106 18:18–19 21, 84, 106 18:19 84 31:9 21 31:26 21, 45 32 41, 162 34:9 133 Joshua 7:19

100

1 Samuel 6:5 16:1ff. 16:7

100 142 144, 165–66

2 Samuel 14:20

125

2 Kings 2Ki 2:9–15

133

2 Chronicles 30:8

100

Nehemiah 9:26

61

Job 9:33 10 13:3 13:10 15:6 22:4 23:1–7 33:23 39:32 39:34 40:2

21 21 21 21 21 21 41 25–26 21 21 21

Psalms 10:18 22 24:5LXX 69:9LXX 69:10

145 94 193 59 200

220

Index of References

72:1–4 145 82:6 87 85:10ff. 201 86:12 201 88:37LXX 105 97 201 118:22–23 61 110:4 207 Proverbs 8:4ff. 30:1–4

134 93, 95–96

Isaiah 5:16 201 6 54 6:1 106 6:10 31, 38, 106 10–12 54 10–11 46 11 136, 168 11:1–5 10–11, 125, 138–39, 141, 154–55, 165–67, 169, 181, 184, 188–89, 199, 202 11:1–5, 10 11, 125, 138–39, 141, 165, 167, 169, 181, 184, 188, 199, 202 11:1–10 45, 139, 141, 149, 152–53, 156–57, 160, 162–63, 165, 167 11:1–10LXX 149, 151 11:1–10Q 152 11:2 10, 142, 153–57, 159–62, 164–65, 188 11:3 143, 152–54, 156, 158–60, 162, 165, 169, 182, 190 11:4 110, 152, 154–55, 157–58, 160, 162, 166 11:5 11, 153, 159, 162, 166–67, 184, 191 11:10 10, 162, 167–68, 203 29:21 22 40–55 41–43, 45, 49–50, 52, 54 40:3 43, 60 41:1–5 41, 46 41:1–5 46

41:21–27 46 41:23 193 42:1 46, 49, 162, 208 42:1–4 45 42:3 113 42:6 44, 46 42:18–25 41 43:3–4 50 43:10 18, 188 44:6–8 41 44:7b 193 45:18–25LXX 42 45:19 44 48:1–5 41 48:21 45 49:2 146, 162 49:5 201 49:6 46 50 209 50:4–9 8 50:6 112, 116 50:6LXX 115 50:7–8 112, 115 50:7–9 115, 205 50:8 201 50:1–3 41–42 52:13–53:12 44–46 52:13 39, 44, 52, 115, 117, 184, 204, 209 52:13LXX 193, 204 52:13–53:12 44 53 8, 50–51, 54, 66, 115–16, 208–9 53:1 31, 43, 49–50, 115 53:1LXX 106 53:3f. 209 53:3 116, 201, 209 53:4 54 53:5, 11 51 53:7 51, 54, 115–116 53:10 51, 65 53:10–12 51 53:11–12 50 53:11LXX 11, 205 53:11b 192, 199, 204 53:12 44, 51, 204, 206 53:12e–f 116 54:13 43 55:1 33–35, 39, 86, 88

221

Early Jewish Literature 55:1–2 34 55:1–3 34–35, 39, 88, 97 55:1–11 31–35, 39, 86 55:2 34 55:3 34 55:10–11 7, 33, 88, 97, 122, 208–9 55:11 32, 34, 35 56:7 58 56:8 53 57:8 54 58:8 201 60:3 44 Daniel 7 7:13

8, 93, 95–96, 158 96

Hosea 2:20 4; 5 6:5

148 41 146

Amos 5:10

21–22

Micah 6:1–8 4:3

41 21

Zephaniah 3:12–13 81 Haggai 2:14

22

Zechariah 3 9:9 12 12:10

206 92, 169 94, 98 98

Early Jewish Literature 1 Enoch 1:9 14–15 (in Jude) 50:3f. 51:2 62:2f. 62:8 2 Baruch 40:1 44–46 40:1–2 55:8 71:6 73:1–74:4 160 77–85 4 Esra 7:42 8:21 8:30 8:36 14

22 136, 139 201 63 201 63 160 133 22 22 160 133 201 201 201 201 133

13:37 12:31–32

22 22

Mos. 2:214–218 85 2:218–219 89 Philo Legatio 353–368 89 De specialibus legibus 1:54–57 90 1:315–318 90 2:252–253 90 3:96 90 Psalms of Solomon 3:3 201 17:25 22

222

Index of References

Qumran Caves Scrolls 1QH 130 1QM 4:6 201 1QM 11:14f. 201 1QS 3–4 129, 186 1QS 11:9–12 205 1QS 11:12 201 1QS 11:15 201 1QS 19f. 201 Test Judah 20

Test Levi 18:6–7

129

Wisdom 1:8 3:1–4 4:20b 9:17

21 192 21 193

129, 186

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Terumoth 4:4

15

Aboth 4:11

24

Palestinian Talmud Hagigah 76d 16 Babylonian Talmud Erubin 31b–32a 15

Qiddushin 41a 42b 43a

16 15 14

Baba qamma 70a

15–16

Midrashim Exodus Rabba 18:3

26

Siphre to Numbers 12:9 14

Greco–Roman Literature Demosthenes De falsa legatione 19.1 24

New Testament Matthew 2:23 3:16 5:11–12 10:40 12:14

160 161 161 16 75

12:21 16:27 18:5 25:31 25:31–46 26:3–4

162 92 16 63, 118 63 76

223

New Testament 26:28 26:63–64 27:1 27:19

51 92 75 191

Mark 3:2 20 3:6 64, 75 8:31 51–52, 95 9:31 51–52, 95 10:32–34 51–52, 95 10:45 51, 53, 95, 117 11:12–14 58 11:15–17 51, 58–59, 77 11:15–19 9, 57 11:18 59, 76, 78 11:18a 37 11:20–26 59 11:27–33 37, 59–61, 77 11:31 9, 60 12:1–12 61, 77 12:12 76, 78 12:13–14b 61, 77 12:14a–b 62, 170 13:1–2 63 13:1–37 103 13:9–11 26, 132, 137–38, 188 13:9–13 63, 78, 137 13:11 132, 135, 161, 206 14:1 64, 76, 78 14:3–9 65 14:10–11 65 14:12–17 65 14:18–21 65 14:18–25 65 14:22, 24 51 14:24 51 14:32–42 6, 78 14:58 74 14:62 69, 72, 99, 103, 105, 198 14:64 74–75 14:65 69 15:1 75 15:4 20 15:34 31

Luke 6:11 10:16 12:11–12 18:14 21:15 22:35–38 22:66–68 22:67 22:67–68 22:67–69 22:67–70 22:69–70 22:70c 22:71 23:1–2 23:2 23:3 23:34 23:47

75 16 87 205 26 51 9, 57 69 67 99 68–69 69, 72 99 17, 73 75 71, 119 71 51 191

John 1 9, 32 1–20 8, 102, 181 1:1 32, 35 1:1–5 35 1:4 46 1:6–8 18, 36 1:6–8, 15 36 1:7; 30 60, 77 1:9 46 1:9–11 37 1:12 8, 37, 167, 208 1:12–13 37 1:12b 38 1:14–18 38 1:19–2:22 200 1:19–34 200 1:19–36 18, 36 1:23 43 1:25 82 1:29 8, 36, 53–54, 60, 115 1:29–34 36 1:32 11, 93, 141, 165, 167, 184 1:34 45–46, 49, 60 1:36 53–54, 115 1:40–51 9–10, 81, 101, 106, 109, 209

224

Index of References

1:41 83, 198 1:44–45 10 1:45 83, 110, 199 1:45 199 1:47–51 101 1:47 85 1:48–49 199 1:48 85, 198 1:49 71, 91, 169 1:50 38, 85, 203 1:51 92, 96, 198, 202 2:1–11:53 8–10, 57, 79, 81, 84, 86, 91–92, 101–3, 109, 198, 208–9 2:4 33, 85 2:9 198 2:11 202 2:13–17 58, 60, 77, 200 2:13–22 9, 57, 200 2:14 111 2:17 187 2:18 59, 74, 77 2:18–19 74 2:18–22 59, 77 2:19, 22 85, 105 2:22 187 2:23–3:36 94 2:24 85 2:25 62 3 4, 77, 98, 170, 181 3:2 62, 77 3:3, 7 120 3:6 170 3:7 52 3:8 183 3:12 198 3:13–17 95 3:13 93–95 3:14 39, 94, 97, 115, 117, 167, 203 3:16–18 37 3:16 27, 54 3:17 87 3:18 9, 20, 185, 190, 192 3:19 23, 36, 39, 184 3:19–21 23, 36, 39 3:21 23 3:28 82 3:29 183

3:31 36, 199 3:31–36 36, 199 3:34 45, 87 4:1–3 185 4a 85 4:11 198 4:17–19 85, 199 4:20 52 4:21 33 4:23 101 4:23–36 101 4:25 44, 82 4:29 82, 85 4:34 16, 33, 87 4:39 18, 85 4:42 44 4:50 85 5 4, 8, 21, 45, 89, 190, 197 5:7–8 19 5–8 18 5–10 70, 76, 102, 170, 181, 201 5:10–47 171–75 5:16 75, 90, 190 5:16–17 89 5:16, 18 191 5:17–18 89 5:18 76, 201 5:22 20, 121 5:23 14, 87 5:24 20, 88 5:27 8, 95 5:28 183 5:28, 37 183 5:30 20, 166, 197–98 5:31 20 5:31–47 18, 199 5:33–36 18, 36 5:36 33 5:38 88 5:39 94 5:42 85 5:45 27, 45 5:45–47 27, 45 5:46 83 6 65–66, 97 6:1–13 83 6:1–40 171, 176

New Testament 6:14 83, 122, 184 6:15 9, 71, 92, 168 6:22–59 96 6:22–65 66 6:27 34–35, 39, 96 6:27–71 34–35, 39 6:28 34 6:29 34, 88 6:33 34 6:35 34 6:37 101 6:38 35, 86 6:39 15 6:41–59 176–80 6:44 87 6:45 43 6:51–56 97 6:51–59 66 6:51c 66, 77 6:51c–58 66, 77 6:53 65, 97 6:57 88 6:59 111 6:60–71 65, 96 6:62 192 6:66–67 185 6:69 110 6:70 77, 85 6:70–71 77 7 82–83, 197 7:1 76, 191, 201 7:10–24 171–75 7:12 70, 84, 199 7:12, 47 199 7:14 111 7:16 15 7:17 98, 139, 166 7:17, 26 98 7:18 11, 44, 202 7:18a 87 7:18b 87 7:19 76, 183 7:23 183, 190 7:24 8, 27, 45, 162, 165–66, 169, 182–83, 190, 197, 199 7:25–29 172–75 7:26 82 7:27 191

225

7:28 86, 90 7:29 88 7:30 76 7:31 82 7:32 191 7:32–52 172–75 7:33 32, 85, 88 7:34 85 7:35–36 191 7:39 165, 187 7:40 168 7:41 82 7:45–52 64, 78, 109, 191 7:47 70 7:51 10, 70, 181 7:6, 8 33, 85 8 4, 61, 63, 8:6 21 8:12 46, 106, 172–75 8:12–30 19 8:12–29 172–175 8:13–14 73 8:13–18 18 8:13–20 20 8:14 120 8:15 20, 45, 170, 182–83, 185, 197, 199, 8:15–16 182 8:16 166, 197 8:18 19 8:19 90–91 8:20 33, 105, 111 8:21 85, 98, 120, 192. 201 8:24 44, 68, 73, 116, 190 8:26 15, 20, 72, 87 8:28 7, 39, 52, 68–69, 72–73, 85, 98–99, 103, 105, 115, 117, 198, 203 8:29 7, 32, 86, 88 8:30–47 176–180 8:32 89 8:32–33 51 8:33, 39 191 8:37 76 8:42 15, 86 8:44 23 8:46 23, 116, 189 8:47a 165

226

Index of References

8:48–59 176–180 8:49 209 8:50 8, 11, 76, 87, 107, 200, 210 8:56 94, 8:58–59 72, 91 8:59 73 9 18, 78, 91, 99, 186, 188, 190 9:1–41 63 9:4 33 9:5 44, 46, 94, 143 9:16 190 9:22 185 9:28 185 9:34 191 9:35–38 9 10 81–82 10:3 4, 5 183 10:7–21 64 10:11 54, 97 10:15 54, 97 10:16 53, 64, 78, 183 10:17–18 91, 119–21 10:17 54 10:18 95 10:19–42 171, 176–80 10:23 111 10:24 9, 57, 67–68 10:24–25 9, 57, 67 10:25–30 18 10:27 183 10:27–30 119 10:30 36, 73, 91 10:31 68–69 10:33 74, 119, 121 10:35–36 87 10:35 87 10:36 70, 74, 207 10:39 70, 75–76 10:41 18, 36, 60, 77 11 85 11:9 33 11:10 46 11:11 85 11:14 85 11:16 185 11:21–27 101 11:27 9

11:33 186 11:42 88 11:43 183 11:45–53 64, 78, 109, 191 11:47–48 92 11:47–53 49, 53, 64, 11:50 113, 115, 117, 208 11:50–52 115 11:51f. 53, 97 11:52 64, 78, 208 11:53 103, 109 11:54–13:38 91–92 11:54–57 104 11:57 8, 191 12 4, 104, 106–7, 110 12:1–8 104 12:9–11 104 12:10–11 185, 191 12:12–19 92 12:13 71, 122 12:15 71, 106 12:16 71, 104, 194, 202 12:16. 104 12:20–21 167 12:20–23 104 12:20d 10 12:21 94 12:22–36 203 12:23 66, 103–4, 167, 202–3 12:24 104 12:24–25 103 12:24–26 104 12:26 185 12:27 66, 78, 86, 104 12:27–28 86 12:27–30 104 12:28 105, 202 12:30 183 12:31 5, 15, 20, 46, 78, 85, 158, 201, 204 12:32 5, 15 12:32–34 39 12:32 39, 44, 52, 64, 78, 85, 94, 98, 105–6, 192, 203 12:34 52, 83, 94, 106, 115, 117, 203 12:35 44, 43 12:36 44

New Testament 12:37–43 12:38 12:39–41 12:40 12:41 12:42 12:44 12:44–46 12:44–50 12:45 12:46 12:47 12:47–48 12:49 13 13:1 13:1–15:17 13:1–17 13:2 13:3 13:4–11 13:11 13:15, 16 13:16 13:18, 20 13:19 13:20 13:26–29 13:27 13:31 13:31–32 13:31–38 13:32 13:33 13:34–35 13:36 13:37f. 13:38 14–16 14:1 14:1–15:17 14:6 14:12 14:16–17 14:19 14:24 14:26 14:27 14:29

106 31, 43, 49, 106, 115 38 106 94, 106 185 14, 39, 106 106 39, 106 14 46 21, 84 20–21 11, 15, 84, 88, 106 185–86, 199, 202 33, 107, 185–86 185 107 65, 77, 104 85, 104, 110 185 85 43 15 185 44, 107 14, 16 77 85, 203 107, 202 39, 44, 106, 202 107 105 85 185, 199 85, 185 97 185 107, 134, 184, 187 186 185 93 185, 202 18, 135, 165, 186 85 15 63, 78, 134, 187 185 85

227

14:30 110 14:31 98, 110 15 25, 78, 110, 15–16 26, 138, 161 15:2 201 15:13 97 15:16 185 15:18–27 184–85 15:19 185 15:20 187 15:21 185 15:25–27 25 15:26 5, 18–19, 26–27, 128, 137–38, 187–90 15:26–16:11 18–19, 27 15:26–27 5, 20, 25–27, 128, 138, 165, 187–90 15:27 18 16:2 78, 85 16:7 5, 8, 10, 23, 107, 136, 138–39, 165–67, 188–89, 208 16:7–11 8, 10, 20, 23, 25–27, 107, 128, 136, 138–39, 165–67, 188–90 16:7–14 5 16:8 6, 23, 167, 190 16:10 6, 11, 166, 184, 192–93, 201, 204, 208 16:11 18–20, 27, 38, 46, 138, 190–91 16:11b 193 16:13 193 16:14 194, 197, 202, 210 16:15 44, 193–94 16:16–22 192 16:21 33, 187 16:22 208 16:25 33 16:30 86 16:32 33, 85 16:33 5, 38, 161, 206 16:38 85 17 202, 207 17:1 202 17:3 83, 88 17:4 33 17:5 201 17:6 15

228

Index of References

17:7 207 17:8 88 17:11ff. 207 17:12 186 17:14 186 17:18 16, 86, 185 17:19 97 17:21 86 17:23 33, 88 17:24 207 17:25 88 18 54, 109 18–19 10, 71, 91–92, 107, 109–10, 116, 122, 182–83 18:1 103, 110 18:1–11 110 18:4 110 18:5 44, 73 18:5, 8 44 18:6 166 18:8–9 186 18:12–14 8, 109, 111 18:14 53–54, 97, 115, 117, 208 18:15 112, 207 18:15–18 112 18:17–19 185 18:19–24 8, 10, 19, 78, 84, 111, 122 18:20 44, 111 18:22 112, 115 18:25–27 112 18:28–19:16 8 18:30 113 18:32 94 18:33–40 113 18:37 18, 120, 183, 189 19:1–6 114 19:5 110, 114, 117, 209 19:7 8, 36, 70, 110, 119, 182–83 19:7–12 119 19:9c 116 19:13 8, 110, 121 19:13–22 121 19:14 116 19:15 182 19:16 113

19:24 19:28 19:30 19:35 19:36 19:37 19:38 20:9 20:17 20:21 20:22 20:22–23 20:23 20:27–29 20:29 20:30–31 20:31 21:19 21:24

191 33, 85 31–33, 39, 85, 122 18 54 98–99 18 85, 194 11, 53 16 18, 165 18 11 101 182 69 82, 197 185 18

Acts 2:42 3:14 3:22 6:10 7:52 7:55–56 7:56–57 8:32–33 22:14

51 191 83 26 191 99 26 51 191

Romans 3:4 4:25 5:8–10 8 8:12–14 8:31–39 8:33–34 8:35–37 15:12

205 51, 192, 204 206 4, 38, 205 4 205 206 206 162

1 Corinthians 5:7 15:3b–5

54 51

2 Corinthians 1:22 5:17

97 205

229

Early Christian Literature I Peter 3:18 3:19 4:14

Galatians 4:14

16

Ephesians 1:17 6:17

161 162

2 Thessalonians 2:8

162, 164

1 Timothy 2:5–6 2:5f. 3:16 5:20 6:13

117 119 192, 204–5 22 73

Hebrews 7:14a

161

James 2:9

22

191 206 161

1 John 1:9 193 2:1 4, 25–26, 54, 128, 135, 188, 193, 207 2:1–2 54, 135, 188 2:29 193 3:1 208 4:10 54 Revelation 1:5 2:7 2:11 2:17 2:26 3:7 5:5 19:15

162 206 206 206 206 162 161–62 163

Early Christian Literature Barnabas 20:2

24

Didache 5:2

24

New Testament Papyri P.Oslo II 17

104

Minus Fragment of the British Museum §1894 24

Index of Modern Authors Ådna, J.  58 Aland, K.  160 Amador, S.C.  12 Asiedu-Peprah, M.  6, 42, 201 Barrett, C.K.  18, 104–5, 111, 116, 121, 129–131, 137, 168–69, 189–90 Bauer, W.  13, 17, 19–21, 23, 76, 189 Behm, J.  23, 25, 128, 131, 135 Bekken, P. J.  6, 37, 42, 79, 85, 87, 89–90, 102, 104 Bensly, R.L.  158 Betz, O.  11, 128–29, 136, 139, 166, 188 Beutler, J.  17 Blank, J.  6, 123, 189 Borgen, P.  14–15, 89 Bornkamm, G.  129 Brown, R.E.  52–53, 99–100, 105, 110–16, 121, 128, 130, 132, 134–35, 137 Bühner, J.-A.  89 Bultmann, R.  26, 32, 50, 114, 127, 129, 131, 137 Burkett, D.  34–35, 93, 95–97 Charles, R.H.  153, 156–58, 160 Charlesworth, J. H.  135 Chibici-Revneanu, N.  38 Collins, J.  152, 155–56, 159 Cullmann, O.  83–85, 207–8 Culpepper, R. A.  5, 38 Dahl, N.A.  6 Dauer, A.  32, 166 Davenport, G.  152 Davies, J.G.  131 Dodd, C.H.  32, 72 Driver, G.R.  147 Duhm, B.  145, 147

Franck, E.  132 Frey, J.  5, 84, 94–96, 167–68 Gerhards, M.  118 Goppelt, L.  161 Grayston, K.  24 Harvey, A.E.  6, 49, 60, 84, 89–90, 106 Hengel, M.  143, 153, 163–64, 192, 204 Hofius, O.  53 Hooker, M.  36 Hoskyns, E.  116 Janowski, B.  50, 54, 192 Jeremias, J.  117 Johansson, N.  128 Johnston, G.  128–30, 132 Kaiser, O.  129, 142–43, 145 Kraus, H.-J.  145 Lausberg, H.  32 Leaney, A.R.C.  135–36 Liedtke, G.  145 Lightfoot, R.H.  168 Lincoln, A.  5–6, 19, 41–47, 49, 60 Lindars, B.  136–137, 167 Meeks, W.  17, 84, 168 Meyer, P.W.  5 Miguens, M.  132, 137 Moloney, F.J.  52, 59 Morris, L.  66 Moulton, J.H.  169 Mowinckel, S.  25, 128 Müller, H.-P.  11, 25, 131, 133, 136–37, 139, 143, 166, 188 Müller, U.B.  11, 25, 131, 133, 136–37, 139, 143, 166, 188 Murphy, R.  145

232

Index of Modern Authors

Nielsen, K.  41–42 Odeburg, H.  98 Olley, J.W.  150 Porsch, F.  136–137 Preiss, T.  3–7, 12–13, 15, 35, 46, 79, 138 Rahlfs, A.  152 Riesenfeld, H.  131, 134–35 Salier, W.H.  6 Sasse, H.  137 Schlatter, A.  135, 188 Schnackenburg, R.  18, 23, 26, 45, 50, 98–101, 105, 107, 114, 117, 128–29, 132–33, 137, 162, 166, 200 Schulz, S.  129 Scott, R.  13, 17, 19–21, 23, 97 Seesemann, O.  146 Shafaat, A.  130 Silva, M.  93 Sperber, D.  26 Stauffer, E.  32

Stone, M.  59, 68–69, 74, 91, 99, 119, 158–59, 178–79 Strobel, A.  70 Stuckenbruck, L.  157–58, 160, 164 Stuhlmacher, P.  50–51, 53–54, 65–66, 117, 161, 192, 201–202, 205–206, 209 Theobald, F.  203–204 Thyen, H.  6, 11, 32, 34–38, 45, 52, 66, 88, 92–97, 105, 113–14, 119, 121, 136–37, 139, 166–168, 188, 200 Trites, A.A.  6, 41 Volz, P.  22 Westermann, C.  11, 45–46, 139, 145, 167, 188 Wildberger, H.  141, 143–49 Windisch, H.  137 Zahn, T.  168 Zerwick, M.  169 Ziegler, J.  150–52

Index of Subjects Above  36, 39, 46, 77, 86, 120, 122, 198 Abraham  72, 91, 94, 176–77, 179–80, 191 Acceptance  6, 113, 129, 205 Accusation/Accuser  4, 24, 39, 41–43, 45, 68, 70, 74, 78, 84–85, 89, 102, 118, 119, 121, 123, 135, 182, 199–200, 205 Adaptation  46 Advantage  15, 24, 49–50, 52–54, 111, 169, 188, 192, 208 Adversary  8, 26, 99, 112, 115, 128, 198, 200, 203 Advocate  23–24, 128, 136, 186–88, 193, 210 Agency/Agent  14–16, 87, 90, 106, 134, 190, 193 ἀλήθεια  27, 134 ἁμαρτία  10, 23, 136–138, 167, 188–89 Anachronistic  185 Angelology/Angel  24, 26, 63, 92–93, 96, 129–30, 142, 145, 186, 202, 205 Annas  8, 10, 44, 55, 84–85, 106–7, 111–15, 119–20, 122, 208–9 Anointing  65, 103, 142, 164, 166 Apocalyptic/Jewish-apocalyptic 10, 95, 129, 133, 136, 139, 148, 157–58, 166, 188, 201 Apologetic  8, 11, 42, 139, 181, 184, 189, 198, 208 Appeal  20, 100, 102, 106–7, 139, 189, 200 Arrest  10, 31, 54, 61, 63–65, 75–78, 90–91, 98, 101, 103–4, 109–11, 172, 174, 179, 204 ασεβής  10, 22, 136, 138, 162, 188 Atonement  44, 50–51, 54, 66, 115, 123 Attorney  100, 206 Authority  8, 19, 37, 42, 50, 59–61, 64, 68, 72, 75–77, 79, 87–88, 95–96, 98, 104, 112, 152, 156, 158, 172, 174, 187, 198, 202, 210

Barabbas  114, 123 Belief/Believers 10, 20–21, 39, 43–44, 50–51, 62, 66, 103, 106–7, 117, 120, 143, 167, 186, 191, 199, 202, 206, 208–209 Below  36, 39, 46, 77, 120, 198 Betrayal  63, 65, 77, 85, 104 Birth  34, 167–68 Blasphemy  9, 74–75, 78, 89–90, 102, 119, 178, 190 Blood  14, 18, 37, 66, 77, 97–98, 116 Bread of Life  34–35, 39, 66, 77, 96–97, 102 Caiaphas  8, 10, 53–54, 64, 76, 109, 111–13, 115, 117, 119, 208 Charge  20, 22, 36, 49, 70, 75, 84, 86, 89, 91, 109, 111, 118–19, 121–22, 197, 199, 209 Children  8, 37–39, 46, 53, 64, 78, 93, 106, 167, 191, 193, 203, 205, 208, 210 Christ/Christ-Question  3, 6, 9–10, 38, 54, 60, 63, 66–67, 69, 71–73, 77–78, 81–84, 86, 88, 100, 103, 105–7, 109, 117, 119, 122, 161–63, 166, 172, 174–76, 180, 182, 191, 193–94, 197–98, 205–10  Christology  13, 15, 49, 84, 88, 187, 204, 207–8 Claim  8, 10, 15–16, 18–19, 21, 36–40, 44, 57, 67–68, 75, 77, 86, 88–91, 102, 112–13, 119, 121–22, 166, 180, 183, 192, 197–99, 204 Cleansing  9, 57–59, 62, 77, 81, 200 Coming  20, 23, 36–37, 44, 60, 62–63, 71–72, 78, 82, 103, 110, 119, 141–42, 144–45, 155–56, 161–62, 164, 170, 185, 187–88, 191, 193, 198, 202–3, 208 Command/Commandment  15, 17, 84, 88, 107, 154–55, 185

234

Index of Subjects

Confession  9–10, 51, 73, 81, 83–84, 89, 91–92, 100–102, 104, 106, 109–10, 122, 169 Conflict/Confrontation  6, 16, 19, 39, 42, 68, 78, 86, 89, 101–2, 135, 161, 182–84, 188, 197–98, 200–201, 203, 208, 210 Conquerors 206 Consolation  3, 43, 130–31, 134 Controversy  6, 8–9, 41, 43, 46, 73, 82–83, 166, 170–71, 181–83, 189–90, 197 Conversation  103–4, 121, 123, 170, 181 Conviction  18, 21, 107, 135, 183, 189, 191, 201 Cosmic  3–8, 10, 12, 20–21, 29, 42, 44–47, 54, 63, 77, 89, 169, 187, 191, 194, 197, 199, 203, 208 Counsel  75–76, 143, 149, 154, 157 Court  4, 15, 19, 23, 42, 49, 135, 188, 206 Covenant  21, 39, 41, 51 Cradle  192, 204 Creation  148, 201–2, 205–6 Crime  10, 65, 89, 113, 118, 123, 182 Cross  38–39, 46, 51, 54, 61, 66–67, 94–95, 103, 105–6, 120, 122, 166, 168, 193, 199, 201 Crucified one/Crucifixion 192, 204   31, 44, 50, 52–53, 85, 98, 104–5, 113, 115–16, 118, 123, 200, 203–4, 209 Cryptogram  95–96 Darkness  4, 36–37, 39, 106 Death  4–5, 8, 10, 25–26, 32–33, 38, 44, 46, 49–51, 53–54, 59, 61–63, 65–66, 74–75, 77, 83, 86, 89–90, 94, 97, 103–5, 107, 115, 120, 123, 143, 154, 169, 179, 183–88, 191–94, 199–200, 202–6, 208 Deeds  22–24, 39, 42, 136, 145, 182, 185, 190, 198–99 Deliberations  53, 57, 64, 75, 78, 101, 191 Demi-Week  10, 81–82, 84, 86, 88, 90–92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102–7, 110 Denials  109, 112 Denounced 104 Departure  8, 12, 18, 20, 53, 63, 87, 132, 136–37, 151, 192, 197 Descent  93, 159, 161, 168 Determination  66, 86, 99, 164, 170, 174, 178, 181 Devil  65, 162, 203

Dialogue  50, 101, 120, 163 Dichotomy  36, 170, 182–83, 190 δικαιοσύνη  6, 10–11, 137–39, 166–67, 188, 190 Disciples  16, 18–20, 25–26, 33, 43, 50, 52, 59, 63, 66, 71–72, 81, 85–88, 92–94, 100, 104, 107, 110–13, 128, 134–36, 138, 161, 169, 177, 180, 184–90, 192–94, 200, 202–3, 208, 210 Distress 206 Drama  5, 190 Elect/Elect One 19, 45–46, 49, 60, 63–64, 78, 102, 156–57, 185, 192 ἐλέγχω  10, 21–23, 25, 27, 134, 136, 138, 151, 164, 167, 188–90 Emissary  8, 16, 18, 37, 61, 82, 89, 185, 191, 202 Empowerment  38, 120 Endowment  95, 144, 150, 160, 163, 165 Enemies  59–61, 88, 147, 155, 191, 205 Ensign  149, 167–68 Envoy 97 Equal  37, 73, 75, 85, 89–90, 102, 172, 174 Eschatology  4–7, 20, 134, 202 Examination  7, 9, 16, 23, 26, 35, 38–39, 43, 45, 50, 57, 84, 102, 118, 134, 139, 182, 199, 201 Execution  31, 39, 191 Existence/preexistence/pre-existence 37, 39, 89, 164, 205 Expiation  54 Faith/Faithfulness 3, 10, 44, 51, 77, 83–84, 99–101, 107, 122, 136, 147, 153, 167, 186, 189, 191, 193, 197, 202, 205–6 Father  4–5, 10–11, 14–16, 18–20, 25, 31, 33–34, 36, 38–39, 46, 51, 53, 58, 61, 63, 66–68, 70, 72–74, 77–78, 84, 86–91, 94–96, 98–99, 101, 104–7, 109, 111, 118–22, 132, 135, 137, 139, 141, 155, 166, 169, 172–78, 180, 183, 185–88, 190–94, 197–99, 201–2, 207, 210 Fear  37, 61, 85, 92–93, 100, 112, 143–44, 153–54, 161, 165, 168, 172, 185 ‘finish’-verbs  33 ‘finish’-(τελ-)words  39 Flesh  14, 20, 22, 37–39, 66, 77, 89, 97–98, 170, 179–80, 182–83, 191, 201

Index of Subjects Follower  18, 44, 85, 112, 127, 186, 206 Forgiveness  50–51, 205 Forum  200, 210 Fulfillment  43, 46, 77, 87, 110, 115, 202, 207, 209 Geber 130 Genre  10, 23, 45, 131, 133, 136, 139, 166, 188 Gentiles  46, 104, 155, 161, 163, 167 Gethsemane  66–67, 78, 111 Glorification/Glory 5, 10, 33, 38–39, 43–44, 46, 52, 63, 66–67, 71–72, 87, 92, 94, 99–100, 103–107, 115, 149, 157–58, 161, 165, 167, 185, 187, 194, 197–98, 200–205, 208–10 Gnosticism 127 God  4–5, 8–10, 14–17, 19–22, 26–27, 31–32, 34–39, 42–46, 49, 51–54, 60–62, 64, 70–71, 73–75, 78, 81–91, 93–97, 99–100, 102–6, 109–12, 115–17, 119–23, 134–35, 138, 141–45, 148, 153–56, 159, 161–62, 164–67, 169, 172, 174, 176–78, 182–83, 190–94, 197–210 Greeks  10, 78, 94, 104, 106, 167, 175, 202–4 Halakha 90 Hate  14, 21, 23, 185–86, 189, 206 Healing  38, 63, 89, 91, 99–101, 109, 182–83, 186, 199 Hearing  64, 70, 88, 90, 109, 111–12, 122, 145, 153–54, 156, 181, 183 Hearts  38, 107, 145, 164 Heilsankündigung  11, 139, 166, 188 Helper  127–28, 136, 206 Honor  5–6, 14, 87, 116, 152, 202 Hope  13, 33, 39, 62, 107, 130, 134, 152–154, 161, 192, 205 Hour  7, 10–11, 33, 66–67, 74, 78, 85–86, 90–91, 99, 103–6, 122, 167, 174, 184, 187–88, 197–98, 200, 202–4, 206, 208, 210 I AM  4, 9, 14–15, 17, 33, 42–44, 53, 64, 68, 70, 72–74, 78, 82, 88, 91, 93–94, 97–98, 102, 105, 113, 118, 120, 123, 166, 173–76, 178, 182, 185–86, 188, 193, 204

235

Inclusio  43, 122 Indictment 42 Innocence  24, 122 Inquiry  112, 132, 200 Inspiration  9, 11, 57–74, 76–78, 169, 184 Intercessor  23, 26, 38, 54, 63, 127–28, 135, 206 Interrogation  7–8, 10, 55, 78, 84–85, 103, 106–7, 109–12, 114–16, 118–20, 122, 124, 170, 172, 176, 181, 208–9 Investigation  7, 69, 76–77, 191, 201 Isaiah  8, 29, 31, 38, 39, 41–46, 49, 51, 106, 115, 141, 145, 152, 156, 193, 208–9 Israel  9, 17, 41–44, 46, 51–53, 65, 71, 81, 91–92, 94, 103, 106, 109–10, 122, 145, 147, 149, 153, 155, 168–69, 183, 194, 197–98, 209 Jawar 127–28 Jesus  4–11, 15–21, 23, 25, 27, 31–41, 43–47, 49–54, 57–78, 81–107, 109–123, 127–30, 132–37, 139, 143, 153, 157, 161–74, 176, 178–79, 181–94, 197–210 Jews  8, 10, 16, 20–21, 23, 27, 36, 52, 59, 62–63, 70–71, 74, 76, 78, 82, 87, 89–91, 97–98, 100–102, 113–16, 118–23, 168, 172, 174–76, 178–80, 182–83, 186, 190, 197, 200–201, 210 John the Baptist  9, 16, 18, 33, 36, 46, 49–50, 53–54, 59–60, 77, 82–83, 88, 115, 199–200 John the Witness  9, 37, 39 Joy  192, 208 Judaism  92, 122, 129, 152, 157, 163, 205 Judas  65, 77, 104, 106, 110, 203 Judge/Judging/Judgment  4–5, 7–8, 11–12, 15–16, 19–22, 24–27, 36–39, 41–44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 64, 70, 72, 77–78, 81, 84, 86–87, 93, 95–96, 98, 101, 103, 106–7, 109, 118, 121, 124–25, 136–39, 143–46, 148–49, 152–59, 162–66, 168–84, 186–94, 197–206, 208, 210 Justice  4, 16, 21, 23–24, 45–46, 51, 54, 113, 121, 145–46, 184, 192, 204–5 Justification/Justified  3–7, 10–11, 35, 46, 60, 67, 74, 81, 103, 107, 139, 184, 187, 190, 192, 194, 197, 199–201, 204–6, 208–10

236

Index of Subjects

Kill  23, 36, 59–61, 64–65, 75–76, 88–90, 98, 101, 103–4, 109, 147, 155, 157–58, 172, 174–76, 181, 189 King  8–11, 14, 45, 71–72, 78, 81, 83–84, 91–92, 102, 106, 110, 113–14, 116–19, 121–23, 141–49, 153–55, 157, 159, 162–69, 179, 182–83, 188, 194, 197–99, 207 − King of Israel  9, 71, 81, 91, 106, 109–10, 122, 169, 183, 194, 197–98 Knowledge  43, 85, 88–89, 93, 98, 143, 145, 148, 154–56, 170, 177, 181, 198, 204 Krisis  6, 23, 189 κρίσις  10, 19–22, 27, 95, 136–38, 151, 170, 182–83, 188, 190

Messiah  11, 22, 68, 70, 82–83, 100, 105, 129, 138–39, 152–60, 162–64, 168–69, 189, 198 Mission  7, 13, 15–16, 31–34, 38–39, 44, 50–51, 57, 78, 85–87, 89, 95, 101, 109, 113, 115, 121–23, 165, 192, 198, 209 μονογενής  38 Monotheism 43–44 Moses  17, 21, 26–27, 38, 40, 45, 81, 83–86, 94–95, 100, 102, 106, 110, 129, 161, 167, 175, 177, 190, 198–99 Motif  5–6, 37, 42, 45, 47, 49, 79, 85, 87, 90, 93, 96, 102, 104, 116, 123, 129, 164, 188 Mythological  148, 197 − Anthropos-Myth 114

Lamb  8, 19, 46, 51, 53–54, 60, 102, 115–116, 122, 148, 193, 210 Law  4, 6, 8, 21–22, 24, 38, 40–41, 45, 61–62, 70, 83, 85, 89–91, 105, 109–12, 119, 121, 136, 145, 160, 174–75, 181–83, 190, 199, 206 Lawsuit  5–7, 19, 37, 41–47, 79, 85, 87, 90, 102, 104, 208 Lazarus  53, 64, 83, 104, 112 Life  3–4, 18, 20, 34–39, 50–51, 53–54, 59, 64–66, 73, 77, 82–83, 88, 91, 95–97, 102–3, 119–20, 122, 172–73, 185, 197, 205 Light  4, 23, 27, 35–37, 39, 43–46, 60, 73, 94, 99, 102, 106, 109, 136, 183, 187, 200, 204 Literal  170, 174, 179, 181 Logos  18, 32, 34–39, 44, 86–87, 97, 102, 209 Lord  11, 21–22, 31, 49, 51, 53, 71, 83, 85, 91, 102, 115–16, 118, 134, 136, 142–45, 148, 152–53, 157, 161–62, 188, 192, 203–6, 209 Love  3–4, 15, 88, 91, 107, 119, 173, 185, 199, 202, 206

Nathanael  9–10, 38, 71, 81, 83–84, 91–92, 101–2, 104, 106, 109–10, 122, 169, 198, 202 Nations  22, 41–44, 46, 58, 118, 144, 148–49, 152–54, 160, 167–68, 209 Necessity  7, 49–50, 52–54, 95, 99, 115, 117, 120, 203, 209 Nicodemus  10, 62, 64, 77, 95, 98, 105, 109, 111–12, 122, 170–72, 174–75, 181

“man”  51, 114, 117, 119, 123, 158–59, 192, 204 “many”  192, 204 Melchizedek 207

Obedience  11, 15, 191, 199 Objection  64–65, 102, 128–29, 170, 174, 179, 181 Offering  4, 106, 207 Old Testament  19, 41, 43, 49, 93–94, 100, 128–29, 134, 145–48, 151, 153, 156, 161–63, 167, 201, 205, 207, 209 Oneness  39, 44, 87 Opposition  24, 61, 89, 102, 121, 168, 181, 186, 205 Origin  5, 37, 43, 50, 81–82, 86, 102, 122, 127, 157, 163, 168, 198, 201, 205 Parable  61, 76–77, 89, 104, 156 Paraclete  4, 7, 10–11, 16, 18, 23–27, 38, 44, 54, 127–38, 141, 165, 169, 184, 186–90, 192–94, 199, 201, 207–8 − Spirit-Paraclete  5, 8, 10–11, 18–20, 25–26, 63, 107, 123, 125, 128–30, 132, 139, 161, 184, 187–88, 197, 199, 202, 208, 210

Index of Subjects παράκλητος  23–27, 127–28, 131–32, 134–135 Parallel/Parallelism 12, 15, 25–26, 32–35, 44, 57–58, 60–62, 78, 88–89, 95, 99, 106, 116, 128, 130, 134, 136, 138, 143– 44, 146–47, 151–52, 157, 159, 161–62, 166, 168, 170, 182, 188, 201, 209   142, 146 Parousia 93 Passion  8–10, 31, 51–52, 54, 57–58, 60, 63–66, 75–78, 81, 86, 91–92, 94, 101–4, 107, 109–10, 206 Passover  33, 44, 64–65, 113, 116, 118 Payment  51 Peace  16, 143, 148, 153–55, 157, 159, 163, 186, 192 Persecuted/Persecution  63, 78, 85, 113, 135, 161, 172, 181, 184–87, 193, 199, 206 Peter  50, 66, 83, 109–13, 123, 146 Pharisee  53, 61–62, 64, 70, 73, 75, 77, 85, 92, 100–101, 104–5, 109–10, 170, 172, 174, 176, 180–81, 185, 204 Phenomenon/Phenomena  170, 173, 178, 181, 184 Phillip  104, 198 Philo  14, 85, 89–90, 102, 133 φῶς  27 Pilate  5, 8, 10, 18, 20, 36, 39, 47, 55, 70– 71, 73, 75, 89, 91–92, 106–7, 109–10, 112–24, 168, 182–83, 191, 208–9 Plan  51, 65, 87, 98, 103, 106, 111, 116, 120–22, 143, 169 Poor  24, 144–47, 154 Power  8, 18, 20, 37, 63, 72, 91, 95–96, 98, 105, 110, 119–23, 133, 136, 142–43, 146–47, 151–52, 154–56, 158–60, 163–65, 183, 193, 202, 204, 206 Praise  62, 177, 202 Prayer  58, 88, 105, 107, 202, 207 Preaching  25, 85, 130 Prediction  42–44, 51–52, 59–60, 62–63, 74, 77–78, 83, 85, 92, 95, 98, 101, 107, 200, 202 Preexistence  39, 164 Priest/Priesthood  8, 20, 37, 49, 53, 59–60, 64–65, 69, 73, 75–76, 78, 85, 92, 104, 109–10, 122, 155–56, 164, 172, 174, 204, 207

237

Prince  128, 143, 145, 154–56, 188, 203 Procedure  8, 45, 79, 81, 89–90 Proclamation  18, 42, 117, 122, 167 Prologue  3, 18, 31–32, 35–40, 46, 77, 97 Pronouncement  11, 105, 115, 159, 203 Prophecy/Prophesy  34, 46, 53–54, 64, 69, 78, 115–17, 119, 139, 161, 166, 169, 199, 202, 208 Prophet  9–10, 21, 31, 60–61, 63–64, 70, 81–86, 100, 102, 106, 109–12, 122, 129, 141–43, 145, 160, 168, 172–73, 176–77, 180, 190–91, 198–99, 209 − Prophet-like-Moses/Prophet-King see Moses Proscribed 104 Prosecutor 41–43 Protection  148, 206 Protector  113, 130, 145 Provenance  3, 11, 138, 189 Provocation 77 Punishment  21, 42, 78, 147, 192 Qumran  129–30, 133, 135–36, 152, 154–55, 203, 205 Rabbi  14, 24, 62, 71, 89, 169, 172, 180 Ransom  25, 51, 53, 95, 117 Realization  11, 98, 134, 184 Realm  26, 86, 153, 197 Reciprocity 87 Recognition  52, 81, 94, 103, 205 Reign  46, 103, 142–45, 148–49, 155, 160, 163, 199, 203–4 Rejection  37, 39, 43, 121, 128, 137 Religions  14, 32, 127, 138, 158 Remembering/-brance 187 Reminder  42, 54, 115, 121 Resurrection  4, 38, 50–51, 59, 62, 85, 92, 95, 101–2, 107, 121, 169, 187–88, 192–94, 197, 199–200, 204, 208 Retrial 109–110 Revealers 127–128 Revelation  11–12, 38, 43, 45, 85, 94, 132–133, 138, 162, 183, 189, 209 Revision 81 Rîb  41–43, 45–46, 49, 208–9 Riddle 93 Righteous/-ness  11, 25, 27, 54, 124, 129, 136–38, 143–48, 150, 153–54, 156–59,

238

Index of Subjects

162–64, 166–67, 184, 187–93, 197–99, 201, 204–5, 209–10 Rights  15, 145, 205 Ruler  15–16, 20, 22, 38, 46, 62–63, 77, 82, 105, 107, 110, 112, 152, 154, 157, 172, 187, 190, 193, 199, 203–4, 208 Sacrifice  44, 51, 54, 206, 210 Salvific Arch 31–33, 35, 39, 86, 209 Salvation  11, 40, 42–43, 98–99, 103, 105, 116, 134, 139, 145, 166–68, 199, 204, 206 Sanctification  207 Sanhedrin  8–10, 49, 53, 57, 67–75, 78, 81, 85, 101–4, 106, 109, 111–12, 122, 191, 200, 209 Satan  4–5, 77, 161, 203–6 Scenarios/rîb-scenarios 13, 16, 208 Schism  100, 181 Scribes  37, 49, 59, 64, 75–76, 78 Seek  76, 78, 87, 96, 100, 107, 149, 163, 166–67, 172, 175–76, 184, 186, 197, 200, 202 Sending/sending-Christology 13, 16, 61, 87, 89, 101, 187–88  187 Sent/Sent One/Ones 44, 7, 14–16, 18, 31–36, 43, 54, 60–62, 70, 74, 77, 82–84, 86–90, 95–96, 100, 102, 127, 158, 165–66, 172–73, 182, 185, 187, 191, 197, 199 Separation  137, 207 Servant/Servant-witness 8, 10–11, 14, 31, 43–47, 49–54, 61, 66–67, 77, 95, 112–19, 122–23, 162, 168, 185, 188, 192, 204–6, 209 Shaliah 61 Shalom  139, 148 Sign  6, 21, 38, 58–60, 62–63, 74, 82–83, 85, 92, 94, 149, 167–68, 170, 172–73, 175–78, 181, 191–93, 199–200, 202 Sin  8, 19, 22, 24–25, 42, 46, 50–51, 53–54, 61, 89, 98, 100, 105–6, 115–17, 120–22, 136, 144, 177, 188–90, 190–93, 199, 204–5 Sinlessness/Sinners 11, 207   25, 136–37, 157–58, 167, 192, 204–5 Slaughter  51, 54, 116 Son − father-son 91

− Son of David  153 − Son of God  8–10, 17, 70, 74–75, 78, 81–83, 87, 89–91, 95, 99, 102, 105, 109–10, 115, 119–20, 122–23, 169, 182–83, 194, 197–98, 210 − Son of Man  4–5, 8–10, 14, 35, 49, 51–53, 63–64, 66, 68–69, 72–73, 75, 77–78, 81, 83, 92–106, 109–10, 114–15, 117–19, 121–22, 129, 157–58, 163–64, 167, 183, 194, 198, 202–3, 209 − Son-Question  70, 78 Sorrow  114, 208 Source  4, 14, 16, 19–20, 24–25, 67–74, 81, 133, 135, 145, 169, 192–93, 198 Spirit  4–5, 7–8, 10–11, 18–21, 24–26, 31, 45–46, 52, 60, 63, 87, 99, 106–7, 123, 125, 128–30, 132–39, 142–44, 150, 153–59, 161–65, 169–70, 184, 186–88, 190–91, 193–94, 197–99, 202, 206–8, 210 Spirit-Paraclete  5, 8, 10–11, 18, 20, 25–26, 63, 107, 123, 125, 128–30, 139, 161, 184, 187–88, 190, 197, 199, 202, 208, 210 Stealth  64, 76 Succession  4, 129 Suffering  42, 46, 51, 111, − Suffering Servant  8, 10, 44, 49–54, 66, 95, 112–17, 119, 122–23, 192, 205–6, 209 Sühnopfer  50 Summaries/-tion  51, 189 Supper  51, 65–66, 77 Sword  110, 113, 146, 155, 160, 206 Synagogue  63, 78, 83, 100, 106, 111, 176, 186–187 Synoptics  9–10, 17, 65, 75, 77–78, 93, 116 System  4, 7, 79, 103, 145 Teach/Teaching  14–15, 50–51, 57, 59, 62, 75–76, 87–88, 91, 103, 109, 111–12, 127–28, 132–34, 136, 149, 155–56, 175, 177, 187, 198 τελέω  31, 33, 39 Temple  9, 51–52, 57–60, 62–63, 73–75, 77–78, 81, 86, 91, 111, 122, 179, 200 Testimony  17–19, 22, 33, 36, 63, 73–74, 88, 117, 120, 145, 172, 174, 183 τετέλεσται see τελέω

Index of Subjects Theology  3, 54, 61, 66, 89, 94, 115, 119, 201 Theophany  44, 110 Throne  114, 121, 146, 155, 157–58, 160, 205 Time  3–5, 11–13, 16–17, 21–22, 32–33, 36, 42, 44, 49–50, 52, 57, 60–64, 71–72, 78, 82–83, 87, 91, 94–95, 98–99, 104–7, 110, 113, 116–21, 123, 129, 134–35, 137, 143, 149–51, 157, 160–61, 163, 167–70, 174–75, 177, 181, 184, 187, 191, 198, 200–1, 203, 205 Titles  9–10, 67, 69, 78, 81, 84, 95, 101–2, 106–7, 109–10, 114, 117, 122, 163, 198, 209 Titulus  46, 183 Tradition  17, 21, 25–26, 44, 49–54, 57, 61, 65, 69, 72–73, 76, 78, 84, 94–95, 114, 117, 130, 132, 137–38, 143, 158–61, 164, 168, 187–88, 198 Trial  3–10, 12, 17, 19–21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 35–36, 41–43, 45–47, 49, 52–55, 57–79, 81–82, 84, 86, 88–92, 94, 96, 98, 100–104, 106–7, 109–16, 118–20, 122– 24, 136, 169, 181–82, 184, 187–191, 194, 197–98, 200–203, 206, 208–10 Tribulation  63, 206 Tribunal  8, 10–11, 20–21, 26–27, 38–39, 107, 197, 200–201, 205–206, 208, 210 Truth  4–6, 18–19, 21, 27, 38, 41, 43–44, 46, 52, 60, 62, 88, 102, 106, 113, 120, 123, 128–30, 133–36, 144, 147, 159, 162, 183, 186–87, 193–94, 203, 207–8 Truthfulness  122, 154, 157, 191 Verdict  10, 39, 41–42, 57, 71, 81, 85, 101, 103, 109–10, 118, 121–22, 182–83, 200, 205 Victims  24, 54 Victory 38–39 Vigilante  85, 90 Vindication  194, 199, 201

239

Voice  53, 60, 113, 119, 131, 158, 166, 183, 185, 191, 210 Vollender 129 Vorläufer 129 Water  18, 32, 34, 58, 93, 148, 170, 173, 198 Weapons  159, 162 Week  8–10, 31, 57–61, 63–66, 75–78, 81–82, 84, 86, 88, 90–92, 94, 96, 98, 100–107, 109–10 Winegrower  61 Wisdom  93, 134–35, 142–45, 153, 156–57, 163, 192–93 Witness  4–11, 17–22, 25, 27, 33, 36–39, 41–44, 46, 51, 60, 62–63, 73, 77–78, 82, 88, 94, 101–2, 107, 112–13, 120, 123, 128, 138, 170, 172–73, 183–85, 187–90, 199, 203, 206 Witnessing  19, 46, 128, 187, 189, 199 Word  3, 5, 7, 9, 14–17, 19–20, 22, 24–25, 31–35, 37–39, 44–45, 50–51, 59–60, 62, 66, 70, 83–91, 93–95, 97–99, 102–3, 106, 109–11, 115–16, 118, 123, 131, 133, 144, 146–47, 149–53, 156–58, 161–67, 172, 176, 179, 184–85, 189, 191–92, 194, 201–2, 208–10 Work  3, 6–8, 12, 14–16, 22, 24, 31, 33–34, 41–42, 44, 46, 50–52, 57, 74, 87–91, 95, 97, 99, 111, 119, 122–23, 131, 159–160, 169, 173, 178, 181–82, 185, 187, 189–90, 198, 201, 202–3, 207–8, 210 World  4–6, 8, 15–16, 18–20, 23–25, 27, 33–34, 37–38, 43–44, 46, 52–54, 61, 63–64, 70, 74, 78, 83–84, 86–89, 94, 96–102, 105–7, 110–11, 113, 115–16, 120, 122–23, 128, 130, 135–36, 148–49, 168–69, 177, 183–90, 192–94, 197–99, 201–4, 206–8, 210 Yahweh  41–46, 142–49