Water as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature) [New ed.] 9781433164071, 9781433164088, 9781433164095, 9781433164101, 1433164078

Table of contents :
Cover
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Introduction
Relation Between the Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation
1 Water Passages in Johannine Literature
2 Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers
Johannine Water Imagery in Early Church Writers Including the Apostolic Fathers
Johannine Water Imagery in More Recent Writers
Summary
3 A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament and Ancient Jewish Writings
Water Imagery in the Old Testament
Water Imagery Relating to the Spirit
Water Flowing from God’s Temple
Water as Human Words or Wisdom
Water as an Image of Life or Salvation
Purification
Living Water in the Old Testament
Water Imagery in the Second Temple Literature
Water Imagery Relating to the Spirit
Water Flowing from God’s Temple
Water as Human Words or Wisdom
Water as a Symbol of Torah
Water as an Image of Life
Purification or Atonement
Living Water in Ancient Jewish Writing
Conclusion
4 Symbolism in Johannine Literature
The Definition and Nature of Symbol
Symbolism in the Gospel
Classification of Symbols in the Gospel
Relationship and/or Tension Between Literal and Symbolic Readings
Symbolism in Revelation
Summary
5 Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery
Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators from Passages Where Scholars Generally Agree That Water Represents the Spirit
John 7:37–39
John 1:33
Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators from Passages Where Scholars Generally Agree That Water Does Not Represent the Spirit
Passages in the Gospel Where the Water Image Has a Possible Symbolic Meaning, But Not Relating to the Spirit
Passages in Revelation Where the Water Image Has a Specific Symbolic Meaning
Passages in the Gospel Where Scholars Agree the Water Imagery Is Purely Literal
Passages in Revelation Where the Water Image Has No Specific Independent Symbolic Sense Even Though It Occurs within a Larger Symbolic Vision
Conclusion
6 Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages
1 John 5:6–8
Exegetical Analysis
How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to 1 John 5:6–8
Revelation 22:1–2
Exegetical Analysis
How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to Revelation 22:1–2
John 3:5
Exegetical Analysis
How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 3:5
John 4:10–14
Exegetical Analysis
How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 4:10–14
John 6:35
Exegetical Analysis
How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 6:35
John 19:34
Exegetical Analysis
How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 19:34
7 Summary and Conclusion
Summary and Implications with Respect to the Exegetically Significant Indicators
Summary and Implications with Respect to My Exegetical Conclusions on the Six Disputed Water Passages
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

SEUN G - I N S O N G

Water as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

studies in biblical literature | 171

The central aim of Water as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature is to propose two sets of indicators that can be used to assess the symbolic reference of water imagery in the Johannine literature. The first set, comprised of five indicators, can be used to decide whether a given instance of water imagery in the Johannine literature represents the Spirit. The other set, comprised of six indicators, can be used to determine whether a given instance of water imagery has a symbolic meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. The validity of these indicators is demonstrated by applying them to six disputed water passages (1 John 5:6–8; Rev. 22:1–2; John 3:5, 4:10–14, 6:35, and 19:34). The author draws on narrative and exegetical methodologies to stage new claims that will incite further debate and discussion regarding the role of water imagery—and symbolic devices more broadly—in the Johannine texts.

“Whereas scholars often identify Johannine water imagery as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, Seung-In Song not only resists this assumption but derives a rubric for determining its suitability. He categorizes texts which clearly affirm this imagery to derive a method by which disputed texts can be examined. This, alongside a carefully derived definition of ‘symbolism’ and attention to Old Testament parallels, equips Song to identify with greater clarity where Johannine water imagery is symbolic of the Holy Spirit and where it is not.” Daniel M. Gurtner, Ernest and Mildred Hogan Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Seung-In Song received his PhD from Gateway Seminary in Ontario, California. He teaches at Chongshin University in Seoul, South Korea. His publications include the article “Seeing Johannine Last Meal as a Covenant Meal (John 13 and Exodus 24)” in Biblica (2019).

www.peterlang.com

Cover image: Woman at the Well by Carl Heinrich Bloch; public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Water as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 171

The Studies in Biblical Literature series is part of the Peter Lang Humanities list. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Seung-In Song

Water as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Song, Seung-In, author. Title: Water as an image of the spirit in the Johannine literature / Seung-In Song. Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2019. Series: Studies in biblical literature; vol. 171 | ISSN 1089-0645 Revision of author’s thesis (doctoral)-----Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015. Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019007255 | ISBN 978-1-4331-6407-1 (hardback: alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-4331-6408-8 (ebook pdf) | ISBN 978-1-4331-6409-5 (epub) ISBN 978-1-4331-6410-1 (mobi) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. John-----Criticism, interpretation, etc. Water-----Religious aspects-----Christianity. | Water in the Bible. Symbolism in the Bible. | Holy Spirit. Classification: LCC BS2615.6.W33 S66 2019 | DDC 226.5/064-----dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019007255 DOI 10.3726/b14936

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the ‘‘Deutsche Nationalbibliografie’’; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2019 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

To Jinhee, Saerome, and Seyoung

Table of Contents

Foreword Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction Relation Between the Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation

xi xiii xv xix 1 3

1

Water Passages in Johannine Literature

2

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers 15 Johannine Water Imagery in Early Church Writers Including the Apostolic Fathers 15 Johannine Water Imagery in More Recent Writers 18 Summary 23

3  A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament and Ancient Jewish Writings Water Imagery in the Old Testament Water Imagery Relating to the Spirit Water Flowing from God’s Temple

9

27 28 28 30

viii | Table

of Contents Water as Human Words or Wisdom 32 Water as an Image of Life or Salvation 33 Purification 33 Living Water in the Old Testament 34 Water Imagery in the Second Temple Literature 34 Water Imagery Relating to the Spirit 35 Water Flowing from God’s Temple 36 Water as Human Words or Wisdom 36 Water as a Symbol of Torah 37 Water as an Image of Life 37 Purification or Atonement 38 Living Water in Ancient Jewish Writing 38 Conclusion 39

4

Symbolism in Johannine Literature 45 The Definition and Nature of Symbol 46 Symbolism in the Gospel 48 Classification of Symbols in the Gospel 48 Relationship and/or Tension Between Literal and Symbolic Readings 52 Symbolism in Revelation 56 Summary 57

5  Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators from Passages Where Scholars Generally Agree That Water Represents the Spirit John 7:37–39 John 1:33 Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators from Passages Where Scholars Generally Agree That Water Does Not Represent the Spirit Passages in the Gospel Where the Water Image Has a Possible Symbolic Meaning, But Not Relating to the Spirit Passages in Revelation Where the Water Image Has a Specific Symbolic Meaning Passages in the Gospel Where Scholars Agree the Water Imagery Is Purely Literal

65 66 66 67 68 68 71 73

Table of Contents | ix Passages in Revelation Where the Water Image Has No Specific Independent Symbolic Sense Even Though It Occurs within a Larger Symbolic Vision 75 Conclusion 76 6

7

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages 1 John 5:6–8 Exegetical Analysis How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to 1 John 5:6–8 Revelation 22:1–2 Exegetical Analysis How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to Revelation 22:1–2 John 3:5 Exegetical Analysis How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 3:5 John 4:10–14 Exegetical Analysis How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 4:10–14 John 6:35 Exegetical Analysis How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 6:35 John 19:34 Exegetical Analysis How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 19:34

81 81 82 85 87 87 93 95 95 99 100 101 105 107 107 112 113 113 118

Summary and Conclusion Summary and Implications with Respect to the Exegetically Significant Indicators Summary and Implications with Respect to My Exegetical Conclusions on the Six Disputed Water Passages

141 141

Bibliography Index

149 161

146

Foreword

Seung-In Song’s examination of water imagery in John, 1 John, and Revelation stands at the intersection of two major areas of scholarly interest, Johannine symbolism and Johannine pneumatology. Everyone agrees that symbolism plays an important role in the Johannine writings, but this symbolism comes in a variety of forms and in many cases the meaning of an image—the message the writer sought to convey or the feelings they sought to evoke—remains a matter of debate. In some cases, especially with objects, actions or characters in the narrative passages of the Gospel, there is disagreement over the prior question of whether a particular element is actually intended to carry symbolic meaning at all. Given the bioslike generic features of the Fourth Gospel, under what conditions should a detail that functions well enough at the narrative’s surface level be judged to carry an additional meaning at the level of symbol? With respect to the important Johannine image of water, then, the question is first which references to water function as symbols and, second, whether those that do always allude to the same thing. These questions are important for Johannine pneumatology because they help us determine the range of material that addresses that theme. They also contribute to our overall understanding of Johannine symbolism, because lessons learned from a careful examination of the single image of water can fruitfully inform our understanding of the broader range of imagery within these writings.

xii | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

The criteria for identifying and interpreting John’s symbols may not be neat and perfect, but Seung-In Song’s patient, systematic search for patterns successfully identifies a number of exegetically significant factors that enable firmer conclusions about disputed passages. In the process he provides strong arguments concerning which Johannine water passages refer to the Spirit and which do not. Timothy Wiarda Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Gateway Seminary

Preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. This volume, a revision of Seung-In Song’s Ph.D. dissertation, explores the various indicators that could serve to identify the water imagery in the Johannine literature as to whether such imagery refers to the Holy Spirit. The author notes that there are two such explicit references (1:33 and 7:37). There are however six passages in particular (John 3:5; 4:10−14; 6:35; 19:34; I John 5:6−8; Rev 22:1−2) with water imagery that are disputed as to whether or not they refer to the Spirit. In this study, Song examines what are the possible indicators to determine whether water imagery in these texts refer to the Spirit. There are five potential characteristics that

xiv | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the author examines in this regard: (1) Water that is given by Jesus; (2) Water linked to the crucifixion of Jesus; (3) Water imagery in Old Testament texts relating to the Spirit; (4) Vocabulary in other New Testament texts where there is reference to the Spirit; (5) The Spirit is mentioned in immediate proximate texts. Using exegetical and narrative methodologies, with copious notes and a carefully crafted argument, the author establishes the various indicators. This study will undoubtedly add to the literature in this field, and the conclusions drawn here will certainly be reckoned with as the scholarly research on this significant area continues. It is a study that is certain to generate ongoing discourse, and will not only further expand the biblical horizon, but will do so in a direction that invites further conversation. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

Acknowledgments

First of all, I offer heartfelt thanks to God who has given me his wisdom and has meticulously guided me throughout this whole project. This project could not have been completed without his grace and mercy. He has answered my prayers whenever I prayed at my apartment at Gateway Seminary and Yonghyundong Church in South Korea. This book is a revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation that was submitted to Gateway Seminary in 2015. My special interest in the Gospel of John began last semester of my Th.M. program with Dr. Gerry Wheaton’s class at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. I was initially interested in Pauline theology when I studied at Chongshin University. So, at Gordon-Conwell, I was looking for a dissertation topic on Paul’s theology, mainly taking courses on the Letters of Paul from Drs. Scott Hafemann, Roy E. Ciampa, and Sean McDonough. However, as I listened to the lecture of Dr. McDonough on Revelation, my interest moved to Johannine literature and Dr. Wheaton’s class on the Gospel of John was decisive. Dr. Wheaton analyzed and interpreted the Gospel verse by verse in its original language (as all other Professors at Gordon-Conwell did), and I was immersed in the narrative world of John’s Gospel. Through this encounter with Dr. Wheaton, I decided to pursue my doctoral studies in this Gospel.

xvi | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

My Ph.D. advisor Dr. Timothy Wiarda is the one who led such interest to a specific and viable dissertation topic. At the time of my two-year Ph.D. coursework at Gateway Seminary, I was still not sure on which topic to choose for my doctoral studies. When I had to submit my doctoral prospectus to the Ph.D. committee, I was fascinated by the intertextuality between the Gospel of John (Jesus’ promise to flow rivers of water from the believers’ heart in John 7:38 and 153 fish in John 21) and Ezekiel 47 (eschatological temple that issues water from its threshold in vv. 1–2 and fishermen in v. 10). When I mentioned this idea to Dr. Wiarda, he suggested me to write about water image in Johannine literature. That was how I had begun this project. Ever since I began this project with him, I have learned a lot. It was time to learn how to use a methodology, how to analyze the text, how to interact with other scholars, and how to arrive at a robust and convincing argument. Even today, the advisor’s meeting with him remains to me as an unforgettable and precious memory. With a cup of coffee on a regular basis, we met at his office. Even after I returned to South Korea after my Ph.D. program, Dr. Wiarda gave me practical advice via email regarding on what I need to publish my dissertation. The fruit of these continued dialogues with him and research is this book. Graciously, he also wrote foreword of this book. I cannot thank him enough. This project owes much to several other people and institutions for their support. I had an opportunity to take a Ph.D. seminar from Dr. Mary L. Coloe at Graduate Theological Union, who taught as a visiting Professor from Australian Catholic University during the sabbatical year of Dr. Sandra M. Schneiders. This seminar, early in my development as a scholar, deeply influenced me. My readers were Dr. Daniel M. Gurtner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Dr. R. Michael Kuykendall (Gateway Seminary). Their thoughtful interactions and comments significantly improved my dissertation. After reviewing my manuscript, Dr. Gurtner proposed to strengthen and revise chapter four (“Symbolism in Johannine Literature”). This suggestion made my dissertation sharper and more persuasive. This revision process was done through an independent study with Dr. Paul D. Wegner (Gateway Seminary) who interacted with me regarding Johannine symbolism. I am deeply indebted to the Professors at Chongshin University who have laid the foundations of my theology. Special thanks go to Drs. Han-Soo Lee, Sang Beop Shim, Sang-Hoon Kim, Jichan Kim, Hyeon Woo Shin, Hyung Dae Park, and Poong-In Lee who have helped me have an opportunity to teach at Chongshin when I returned to South Korea after my Ph.D. program. I am also grateful to the Professors at Gordon-Conwell who have helped me equip with biblical

Acknowledgments | xvii languages and various exegetical methods. I owe an immense debt of gratitude to Drs. Richard R. Melick, John W. Taylor, Paul D. Wegner, R. Michael Kuykendall, George H. Guthrie, R. Gregg Watson, David Howard, and Tremper Longman at Gateway Seminary who have helped deepen my enthusiasm for biblical research and scholarship. I am grateful to Dr. Hemchand Gossai (General Editor of Studies in Biblical Literature Series) for including my dissertation in the Series. I am profoundly grateful to Drs. Gurtner and Gossai who have generously accepted to write endorsement and preface respectively. I also remember with gratitude, Drs. Sukmin Cho (Ezra Bible Institute for Graduate Studies), Yoon Man Park (Daeshin University), Daehoon Kang (Reformed Graduate University), Sung Soo Kwon (Dong Shin Church), Eung-Yul Ryoo (Korean Central Presbyterian Church), and Young Ho Ahn (The Light of Life Church) helping and encouraging me various ways. I am also thankful to the staffs at Gateway Seminary Library and GTU Library. Thanks go to Meagan Simpson, Liam McLean, Janell Harris, and Rachel Raiola at Peter Lang. I am also grateful to Boston Central Church, Richmond Baptist Church, and Yonghyundong Church. I am deeply appreciative of the love and prayers of my parents, PanDol Song and BongSoon Park, and my parents-in-law, YoungTae Park and JongOk Choi. They have supported me both financially and spiritually during the course of this project. Much appreciation goes to my beloved and long-suffering wife, Jinhee, who has always been with me, has spent many hours solving stylistic and formatting problems, and has taken care of our two daughters, Saerome and Seyoung. They have been a source of joy and strength. Whenever I was tired of my research, they made me smile and refreshed. This work is dedicated to Jinhee, Saerome, and Seyoung. I hope my humble study can be used as a little tool for God’s kingdom. Soli Deo Gloria! February 11, 2019 Chongshin University, South Korea

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ATN Acta Theologica Danica BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed. BI Biblical Interpretation Bib Biblica BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentary BSac Bibliotheca sacra BTS Biblical Tools and Studies BU Biblische Untersuchungen BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Cant Canticles, Song of Solomon CBNT Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series CBQM Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CD Damascus Document

xx | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

CDC Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document EBíb Estudios bíblicos ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary En. Enoch ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses EUS European University Studies ExpT Expository Times FGB Festschrift für Günter Bornkamm zum FRLANT  Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FTS Frankfurter Theologische Studien HCHCB Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HJ Hibbert Journal HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTRHDR Harvard Theological Review Harvard Dissertations in Religion IBCTP Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching ICC International Critical Commentary IVPNTC IVP New Testament Commentary JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies Jub Jubilees LA Liber Annuus LCL Loeb Classical Library Lev Rab Leviticus Rabbah LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LTP Laval théologique et philosophique LTPM Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs LXX Septuagint Macc Maccabees Midr Rab Gen Midrash Rabbah Genesis

Abbreviations | xxi MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary MTZ Münchener theologische Zeitschrift Mut. De Mutatione Nominum NAC New American Commentary NBBC New Beacon Bible Commentary NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NCC New Covenant Commentary Series NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary Series NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testament Supplements NTL New Testament Library NTM New Testament Message NTMon New Testament Monographs NTS New Testament Studies OTL Old Testament Library PC Pentecostal Commentary PCNT Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary 1QH Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns 1QM Qumran War Scroll 1QS Qumran Community Rule (Manual of Discipline) RBS Resources for Biblical Study RevThom Revue Thomiste RNTS Reading the New Testament Series RSV Revised Standard Version RTR Reformed Theological Review SA Studia Anselmiana SBFLA Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLABib Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica SBLD Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBT Studies in Biblical Theology Sir. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament SNTSM Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

xxii | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

SP Sacra Pagina SPCB Sacra pagina; miscellanea biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter TB Theologische Bücherei TD Theologische Dissertationen TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament TrinJ Trinity Journal TU Texte und Untersuchungen TynB Tyndale Bulletin VTQ St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly WBC Word Biblical Commentary Wisd. of Sol. Wisdom of Solomon WMANT  Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WPC Westminster Pelican Commentaries WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to identify a set of indicators that will help us determine whether a passage using water imagery in a Johannine writing symbolizes the Holy Spirit. While there are two passages in the Gospel of John where water is clearly used as a reference to the Spirit (7:37 and 1:33),1 there are also some water passages in this book where it is uncertain whether water refers to the Spirit although the Spirit is frequently suggested as one of its references. For instance, some think that “living water” in John 4:10–14 refers to the Spirit,2 while others see it as a reference to Jesus’ teaching.3 Some believe that “water” in John 19:34 symbolizes the Spirit,4 whereas others argue that water should be primarily interpreted as literal water.5 Some argue that “the water of life” in Rev. 22:1 symbolizes the Spirit,6 while others see it as a reference to eternal life.7 The question of whether water symbolizes the Spirit is especially disputed in six water passages in the Johannine literature (John 3:5; 4:10–14; 6:35; 19:34; 1 John 5:6–8; Rev. 22:1–2). Even though, as these examples show, scholars frequently suggest the Spirit as a reference to water in the Johannine literature, there are no clear indicators for determining whether or not a reference to water symbolizes the Spirit. Thus, this study will begin with a research question: “Are there any valid indicators that can be used to determine which Johannine water passages symbolize the Spirit?”

2 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

In order to establish valid indicators that can be used to determine which Johannine water passages symbolize the Spirit, I will first divide all of the Johannine water passages into three basic categories: (1) passages where, in general, scholars agree that water represents the Spirit (John 7:37–39 and 1:33); (2) Johannine passages where researchers generally agree that water does not represent the Spirit; and (3) Johannine passages where scholars’ opinions significantly differ (chapter one). Then, following surveys of literature (including early church writers), water imagery in the OT and ancient Jewish writings, and John’s wider use of symbolism (chapters two, three, and four), I will carefully analyze two water passages, John 7:37–39 and 1:33, that are generally agreed to symbolize the Spirit (chapter five, part one). Next, I will survey all of the water passages that are generally agreed not to refer to the Spirit (chapter five, part two). These last two steps will provide two sets of preliminary indicators. One is indicators showing that water symbolizes the Spirit and the other is indicators that help us determine whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. Then, I will examine the six debated passages, John 3:5, 4:10–14, 6:35, 19:34, 1 John 5:6–8, and Rev. 22:1–2 in light of the indicators discerned from looking at the clearer passages (chapter six). Through this examination I will test the validity of these preliminary indicators discerned in chapter five by observing how they relate to the exegetical analysis of the six disputed passages and how significant a role they play in their exegesis (chapter six). As the last step, I will confirm or revise my original indicators (chapter seven). As my study began with a research question with a strategy for answering it, I had no predetermined thesis to be proved. But if I had to state a thesis retrospectively, it might be something like: Five characteristics are typically positive indicators that a Johannine water passage symbolizes the Spirit.

• The water is given by Jesus. • The giving of water is linked to Jesus’ crucifixion. • The water involves parallels to OT passages relating to the Spirit. • Vocabulary that is associated with the Spirit in other context is present. • The Spirit is mentioned in the immediate context. In addition there are six typical indicators that help us determine whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning.

Introduction | 3

• Whether the water or water-related imagery makes sense literally. • Whether the proposed interpretation (literal or symbolic) coheres well with its immediate context. • Whether other symbolic expressions are present in context. • Whether water is highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs. • Whether relatively detailed geographic or chronological information is present in the immediate context. • Whether vocabulary suggesting the use of symbols is present.

A spin-off result of working through my strategy is that firmer conclusions can now be drawn concerning six disputed Johannine water passages. Some of these firmer conclusions come from applying the five positive indicators that a Johannine water passage symbolizes the Spirit. Some come from applying the six indicators that an instance of water imagery functions literally rather than symbolically. The present study fills a gap in Johannine scholarship by offering valid indicators that can be used to determine which Johannine water passages symbolize the Spirit. This research also makes some contributions to the study of symbolism in the Gospel and Revelation, especially the question of how to know whether a certain image or word has a symbolic meaning or not. In following the steps outlined above, I will employ standard historical-grammatical exegetical methods. I will also use narrative critical methods in connection with passages in the Gospel and Revelation. I will also utilize a comparative method to examine the relationships among water passages in the Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation.

Relation Between the Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation In order to utilize a comparative method, I need to state my starting point assumptions regarding the relation between these three books. Although scholars have different opinions regarding the relation between the Gospel and 1 John, it is generally agreed that these two books are closer to each other than any other NT books in terms of vocabulary, style, and theology.8 Their similarities can be observed by considering three categories: linguistic parallels, common style, and common themes. First, these two books have many linguistic parallels. A. E. Brooke lists 51 instances from H. Holtzmann’s article. Some of them include: ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν (“so that we may know him who is true”) in 1 John 5:20 and ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν

4 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν (“that they know you, only true God”) in John 17:3, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (“the Spirit of truth”) in 1 John 4:6 and τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (“the Spirit of truth”) in John 16:13, and οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (“we do not the truth”) in 1 John 1:6 and ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (“but he who does the truth”) in John 3:21. It is also worth noting that both books are using a limited number of vocabulary and share two words that do not appear elsewhere in the NT (ἀνθρωποκτόνος [“murderer,” 1 John 3:15; John 8:44] and παράκλητος [“Paraclete,” 1 John 2:1; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7]).9 Second, these two books share similar styles. For example, they are common in not using “the relative” frequently. Instead of using it they prefer οὐ…ἀλλὰ construction (John 1:8, 13; 1 John 2:2, 16, 21), “disconnected sentences” (1 John 1:8, 9, 10; John 3:18), or “positive and negative expression of a thought” (1 John 1:5 and John 1:3). These two books are also common in having a sentence structure that begins with a demonstrative (ἐν τούτῳ or αὕτη) and adds an explanatory clause led by ἵνα, ἐὰν, or ὅτι (e.g., 1 John 3:11; 5:9; 4:9; 2:3; John 15:12; 3:19; 9:30; 13:35).10 Third, these two books share the following themes: (1) the incarnation of Jesus (1 John 4:2; John 1:14); (2) Jesus is both the source of life (1 John 5:11; John 1:4; 5:26; 6:33, 35) and the life itself (1 John 1:1, 2; John 11:25); (3) the dwelling of God’s word in people (1 John 2:14, 24; John 5:38); (4) God showed his love by sending his one and only Son (1 John 4:9; John 3:16); and (5) the command to love one another (1 John 3:23; John 13:34). Another important characteristic they share is dualistic forms of expression: light and darkness, life and death, truth and falsehood, God and the devil, love and hate.11 Although these similarities do not necessarily mean that they were written by the same author, they lead us to assume that these two books have literary and theological connections. In the case of the Apocalypse, scholars offer a range of opinions on its relationship to the Gospel. At the one end of this range, there are a group of scholars who reject or question their relationship.12 For instance, David E. Aune totally rejects their connection: It is valid to ask whether there is any connection between the Corpus Johanneum and Revelation apart from the use of the name “John,” which was original with Revelation but was secondarily added to the titles of the Gospel and Letters of John.13

At the other end of this range, there are a group of scholars who insist on their close connection.14 For example, Stephen S. Smalley states:

Introduction | 5 There are obvious similarities between the language and thought of the Fourth Gospel and 1, 2, 3 John; and, although this is often disputed (as by Charles 1, xxix–1; Roloff 11–12), it is also possible to argue that sufficient subtle but clear affinities exist between John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse as to suggest that both documents came from the same Christian circle, if not from the same hand.15

As these two comments indicate, even though scholars often have different opinions on this issue, Revelation and the Gospel seem to have some linguistic and conceptual similarities. For instance, after thorough examination of linguistic evidence between these two books, R. H. Charles lists the following phrases: οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι in Rev. 2:2 and οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν in John 16:12, ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν in Rev. 20:6 and ἔχεις μέρος μετ᾽ in John 13:8, ποιῶν ψεῦδος in Rev. 22:15 and ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν in John 3:21, ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω in Rev. 22:17 and ἐάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω in John 7:37.16 Although it is not included on his list, the water imagery in these two books can be another example of their linguistic similarities because Rev. 21:6 (“the fountain of the water of life”) and John 4:14 (“a fountain of water welling up to eternal life”) share three words (πηγή, ὕδωρ, ζωή) and Rev. 22:1 (“a river of water of life”) and John 7:38 (“rivers of living water”) also share three words (ποταμός, ὕδωρ, ζωή). Regarding their thematic similarities Grant Osborne comments: The only two books in the NT to argue for the deity of Christ on the basis of the “oneness motif ” between God and Jesus are John and the Apocalypse. Also, there is a similar mission theme between them, as God seeks to bring the world to repentance.17

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a certain degree of literary relationship exists between the Gospel and the Apocalypse.18 As we have noted thus far, since the Gospel, 1 John, and Revelation have some literary relationship, it is valid to use a comparative method in my research on the water image in these books.

Notes 1. The evangelist explicitly states that “rivers of living water” refer to the Spirit in 7:39. In 1:33 John the Baptist evidently links water imagery (baptizing) with the Spirit by witnessing that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit in contrast with his water baptism after he sees the Spirit come down and remain on Jesus. 2. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 233–34; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

6 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

2010), 244; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 2:182. 3. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 184; F. Porsch, Pneuma and Wort: Ein eegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums, FTS 16 (Frankfurt: Knecht, 1974), 140–44; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 117. 4. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 29a (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 950; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:1153–54; Edward Malatesta, “Blood and Water from the Pierced Side of Christ (Jn 19:34),” in Segni e sacramenti nel vangelo di Giovanni, ed., P. R. Tragan, SA 66 (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1977), 175. 5. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 623–24; Barrett, John, 556; G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco: Word Press, 1987), 356–57. 6. Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation of John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 562; Joseph L. Mangina, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010), 245; Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, Indices (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 298. 7. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1104; G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, HNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 280; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 769. 8. Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, trans. Linda M. Maloney, ed., Harold Attridge (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), xxxv; Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 30 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 21; John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, SP 18 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 44. 9. A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1948), ii–vii. 10. Ibid., v–vi. 11. Ibid., viii–ix. 12. David E. Aune, Revelation, WBC 52 (Waco: Word Press, 1997), 1:liv–lvi; R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John: With Introduction, Notes, and Indices, ICC 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), xxix–xxxii; E. Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 3rd ed. HNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1970), 4–7. 13. Aune, Revelation, 1:lv.

Introduction | 7 14. Osborne, Revelation, 4–6; Smalley, Revelation, 4–5; Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 18–26. 15. Smalley, Revelation, 4. 16. Charles, Revelation, xxxii. 17. Osborne, Revelation, 5. 18. Robert H. Mounce, Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 14; Ben Witherington III, Revelation, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 3.

1

Water Passages in Johannine Literature

As a step toward identifying factors that can help with interpreting Johannine passages using water imagery, I will first divide all Johannine water passages into three basic categories: (1) passages where, in general, scholars agree that water represents the Spirit (Spirit passages); (2) passages where scholars generally agree that water does not represent the Spirit (non-Spirit passages); and (3) passages where scholars have significant differences of opinion as to whether water represents the Spirit (disputed passages). Categories one and three are simple to establish. John 7:37–39 and 1:33 are the only two passages that belong to category one, passages where it is agreed that water represents the Spirit.1 In the former passage Jesus invites those who are thirsty to come to him and drink, and the evangelist clearly mentions that the living water the believers will receive is the Spirit. In the latter John the Baptist evidently links water imagery (baptizing) with the Spirit by witnessing that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit in contrast with his water baptism after he sees the Spirit come down and remain on Jesus. Six water passages belong to category three, the category of Johannine passages where it is disputed on whether water represents the Spirit: John 3:5, 4:10–14, 6:35, 19:34, 1 John 5:6–8, and Rev. 22:1–2. John 3:5 is Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus’ question regarding the possibility of being born again of an old man

10 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

in v. 4. Jesus says that only those who are born of water and the Spirit can enter the kingdom of God. Three main interpretations of water in this verse are the Spirit, baptism, and physiological water. John 4:10–14 addresses Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus says that the water he offers will become “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4:14) in the person who drinks it. The Spirit and Jesus’ teaching are the two principal views on this spring of water. In John 6:35 Jesus promises to quench forever the thirst of those who believe in him. Three main options for interpreting Jesus’ promise of quenching in this verse link it to the Spirit’s quenching in John 4:14 and 7:37, to the quenching of wisdom (e.g., Sir 24:21), and to the image of drinking Jesus’ blood in John 6:53–56. John 19:34 contains the evangelist’s eyewitness account of seeing blood and water issue from Jesus’ side when a soldier pierced Jesus’ side with his spear. Three major candidates for the meaning of water in this verse are literal water, a reference to the Spirit, and a reference to baptism. In 1 John 5:6–8, Jesus Christ is introduced as the one who came by water and blood. Two key interpretations of water in this passage are baptism and the Spirit. Rev. 22:1–2 contains a description of the river of the water of life that flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Three principal views on the water of life in this passage are the Spirit, eternal life, and literal water. Three additional water passages in Rev. 7:16–17, 21:6, and 22:17, though not highly debated passages, will be addressed along with Rev. 22:1–2, since they share similar words and concepts. Most water passages in the Johannine literature belong to category two, the category of Johannine passages where it is generally agreed that water does not represent the Spirit. In discussing this category, I will address the Gospel and the Apocalypse separately because of the difference in their genres. With respect to passages mentioning water in the Gospel, two further sub-categories may be distinguished: those passages in which the water image is purely literal and those in which the water image has a possible symbolic meaning, but not relating to the Spirit. I will classify ten water passages in the Gospel (1:25–32; 3:22–26; 4:1–2; 4:6–9; 5:1–15; 6:16–22; 10:40; 11:35; 18:1; 21:1–7) as “the water image is purely literal.” I need to note two qualifications to my classification. First, not all Johannine scholars would agree with this classification. A good example is the pool of Bethesda in John 5:1–15. Although a few scholars do see symbolism in this water,2 the majority of scholars do not consider it to be symbolic.3 Second, the baptism in John 1:25–32 is literal baptism, even though baptism itself, of course, is a symbolic action because its washing ritual is not related to external cleansing but to an internal one, the washing of sins.4 However, I classify this passage in the “purely literal” sub-category because

Water Passages in Johannine Literature | 11 the water in this passage does not play any symbolic role in the narrative in which it belongs. The second sub-category of the Gospel passages, “water image has a possible symbolic meaning, but not relating to the Spirit,” comprises 2:1–11, 4:46, 9:1–12, 13:1–17, 18:11, and 19:29. The various forms of water in these passages might have symbolic meaning, but they do not represent the Spirit. Compared to the sub-category of “water image is purely literal,” more scholars suggest that references to water in these passages are symbolic. For example, scholars often contend that the water in John 2:7 represents “Jewish purification”5 or “the old order of Jewish law and custom.”6 However, others do not recognize any symbolic meaning of water in this passage and argue that what the evangelist emphasizes in this passage is not Jewish purification but an enormous amount of water, which implies the greatness of Jesus’ miracle. For them, the most natural explanation of the evangelist’s mention of the six stone jars in this passage is to see it as a reflection of his presence there as an eyewitness.7 In the case of John 9:1–12, many scholars assert that the water in the pool of Siloam has a symbolic meaning. The two major proposals suggest that it symbolizes baptism8 or salvific bath.9 However, many commentators do not consider the pool to be symbolic. For instance, according to Craig S. Keener, the primary reason John emphasizes that Jesus uses the water in the pool of Siloam is that it is the same water Jesus uses at the Festival of Tabernacles in John 7 because this water was recognized as holy water.10 In the case of John 13:1–17, most scholars see the footwashing functions at two levels of meaning, that is, literal and symbolic. With regard to its symbolic level, many scholars propose that the action of Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet symbolizes “Jesus’ work of purifying sins on the cross.”11 As addressed thus far, besides the case of 13:1–17, scholars often have divergent opinions on whether water has an extra symbolic meaning. John 13:1–17 is the only case where scholars generally agree that the water imagery also has an additional symbolic level of meaning. Moving on to category two water passages in Revelation, two sub-categories must be addressed as well: those where the water is literal but occurs within a larger symbolic vision and those where the water image has a specific symbolic meaning of its own. One detail should be noted for this category. Since the genre of Revelation is apocalyptic and thus full of symbolic visions, in one sense no single passage can be classified as purely literal. Nevertheless, water sometimes functions as literal water in a symbolic vision. The sub-category of passages where the water image is literal but occurs within a larger symbolic vision includes fifteen occurrences: 1:15, 5:13, 7:1–3, 8:8–11, 9:14, 10:2–8, 11:6, 14:2, 14:7, 16:3–5, 18:17–19, 18:21, 19:6, 20:8, and 21:4.

12 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

A good instance of this sub-category is the references to the sea in Rev. 18:17–19. This chapter mentions ships loaded with various luxury goods and sailors who are overwhelmed and in deep sorrow from observing the sudden collapse of the great city of Babylon. “Sea” in this passage works as a literal sea because the sea has no symbolic meaning in this narrative. However, at the same time, this whole narrative is a vision that John has seen, inviting the entire passage to be interpreted symbolically. Chapter 18 contains John’s vision that shows more concretely how God’s punishment of Babylon, which is mentioned briefly in 17:16, will be executed. This vision shows that God’s judgment on the great Babylon, which represents Rome and all of the nations throughout history that have opposed God,12 will come with fire (v. 8), and three groups of the people (“the kings of the earth” [v. 9], “the merchants of the earth” [v. 11], and “the sea captains and the sailors” [v. 17]) will lament when they see the smoke from the burning city. Thus, this vision does not seem to describe what happened or will happen literally. Rather, it is a symbolic vision. The inclusion of the three laments in 18:9–20 also supports this symbolic interpretation. These expressions of grief might be adapted from ritual laments in the OT (Ezek. 26–27),13 and this seemingly intentional allusion may be a clue for the literary or symbolic characteristics of this passage. Types of water mentioned in the sub-category where the water image is literal but occurs within a larger symbolic vision may be classified according to eight groups: (1) sea or rivers as God’s creation (7:1–3; 8:9; 10:6; 14:7); (2) a description for loud voices (1:15; 14:2; 19:6); (3) echoes of the plague of blood in Exodus (11:6; 16:3–5); (4) the sea with ships headed for Babylon loaded with merchandise (18:17–19); (5) an angel throws a boulder into the sea (18:21); (6) the great size of the army of Gog and Magog being like the sand on the seashore (20:8); (7) God’s promise of wiping every tear from believers’ eyes (21:4); and (8) passages where it is uncertain whether the water itself has a symbolic meaning in the narrative to which it belongs (5:13; 8:8, 10–11; 9:14; 10:2–8).14 The sub-category of passages where the water image has a specific symbolic meaning includes nine occurrences: 12:12, 12:15–16, 12:18, 13:1, 16:12, 17:1, 17:15, 20:13, and 21:1. Like the previous sub-category, most of these passages (if not all) belong to symbolic visions. However, this sub-category differs from the former in that water here has a specific symbolic meaning in itself. A good instance is the water in Rev. 12:15–16. The larger passage in which these verses are contained, Rev. 12:1–17, is the so-called vision of the woman and the dragon. This passage is a symbolic vision. In this vision when the woman, who represents the church, flies away from the dragon in the wilderness, the serpent, the identical character with the dragon, pours out a great torrent of water from his mouth to

Water Passages in Johannine Literature | 13 drown her (v. 15). In this vision the water functions as literal water. However, the water spewing from the serpent’s mouth may also have a symbolic meaning. It may represent the “false teaching or deception” of the devil. Unlike most elements in Rev. 18:1–24, such as various merchants, sailors, the smoke, and the music of various musicians, which are literal, most elements in Rev. 12:1–17, such as the woman, her baby, the red dragon, and the desert, are symbolic in their own right. Whereas the sea in Rev. 18:17 only functions literally, the water in Rev. 12:15–16 has a symbolic meaning as well.

Notes 1. Even though there are three other Johannine passages in which scholars interpret water as the Spirit (John 2:7; 9:7, 11), their arguments are not convincing. In the case of John 2:7, based on “parallels from the water motif ” in 1:33, 3:5, and 7:37–39, Craig S. Keener claims that the water jars are related to Jewish purification, and that water in this pericope symbolizes the Spirit. He even argues that keen readers will pick up on this connection between water and the Spirit in 2:6–7 after having read 1:33 (“The Function of Johannine Pneumatology in the Context of Late First-Century Judaism” [PhD diss., Duke University, 1991], 130). In the case of John 9:7, J. Ramsey Michaels sees the pool of Siloam as a reference to the Spirit and proposes three reasons for this interpretation. First, he points out that the word, sent, which is used in 9:7, is used not only with respect to Jesus but also with respect to John, the disciples, or the Spirit in the Gospel. Second, he also argues that the water of Siloam is similar to the “water and Spirit” mentioned in 3:5, in that this water “will give the man born blind another birth, and therefore new eyes,” just as the water and Spirit in 3:5 give men new life. Lastly, he comments that participle forms of the word send are used in John 9:7 and 1 Pet. 1:12, and this word is associated with the Spirit in 1 Pet. 1:12 (John, 547). In the case of John 9:11, Keener sees the possibility of a symbolic reading centered on the word anoint. Based on the fact that Jesus used dirt with his saliva to make mud in John 9:6 along with Jesus’ breathing out the Spirit in John 20:22, Keener argues that the saliva is intended to echo the incident of God’s creating the first man from dirt in Gen. 2:7. He also contends that the word anoint might be used symbolically in John 9:11 by pointing out that this word is often used with pouring out the Spirit on believers for mission in the NT (John, 1:779–81). 2. Oscar Cullmann, “Sabbat und Sonntag nach dem Johannesevangelium (Joh. 5.17),” in In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, ed., W. Schmauch (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlag, 1951), 127–31; Wai-yee Ng, Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation, Studies in Biblical Literature 15 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 62.

14 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

3. Carson, John, 242–43; Keener, John, 1:638–39. 4. Michael G. Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 24. 5. Brown, John i–xii, 104. 6. Carson, John, 173. 7. J. Ramsey Michaels, “By Water and Blood: Sin and Purification in John and First John,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, ed., Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, JSNTSup 234 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 148–49; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 96–98. 8. Brown, John i–xii, 380–82. 9. Carson, John, 365. 10. Keener, John, 1:781–82. 11. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 195; Carson, John, 466. 12. Beale, Revelation, 924. 13. Aune, Revelation, 3:978–79. 14. A good example is Rev. 8:8–11. Several words in this passage are related to water, including sea, rivers, springs, and waters. This passage describes the vision that John sees when the second and third angels blow their trumpets. The blowing of these two trumpets is followed by disasters that pollute various sources of water on earth, resulting in the death of many sea creatures and people. Some scholars see these as literal bodies of water, and others see them as symbolic. For instance, Osborne takes essentially the literal approach to the references to water in this passage by interpreting these plagues in light of natural disasters such as a volcanic eruption or the falling of a meteorite (Revelation, 352–55). Beale, to the contrary, takes the symbolic approach and interprets the sea in verses 8–9 and the water imageries in verses 10–11 as “unbelieving nations” and “divine punishment” respectively (Revelation, 477).

2

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers

In this chapter, I will survey how the image of water in the Johannine literature has been interpreted throughout the history of scholarship. Because of length limitations, this chapter will deal with the interpretations of the Apostolic Fathers (to approximately A.D. 200) and some early church writers, and with the interpretations of more recent scholars. Generally, the Apostolic Fathers include Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Papias, the authors of Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. However, length limitations are not the only reason I will devote a separate section to the Apostolic Fathers. The more important reason is their accessibility to the Johannine author(s). The Apostolic Fathers lived and wrote during or shortly after the time of the Johannine author(s). Thus, their works have special significance for the exegesis of the image of water in the Johannine literature.

Johannine Water Imagery in Early Church Writers Including the Apostolic Fathers In discussing early church writers’ works, the first question I will address is: “Does any early church writer interpret water as a symbol of the Spirit in the Johannine literature, especially the six disputed passages?”1 Irenaeus was not an Apostolic

16 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Father. However, he was an early church writer who lived shortly after the Apostolic Fathers (approximately, A.D. 130–202). Wherefore both (our bodies and souls) are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God, our Lord compassionating that erring Samaritan woman ̶ ̶ ̶ who did not remain with one husband, but committed fornication by [contracting] many marriages ̶ ̶ ̶ by pointing out, and promising to her living water, so that she should thirst no more, nor occupy herself in acquiring the refreshing water obtained by labour, having in herself water springing up to eternal life. The Lord, receiving this as a gift from His Father, does Himself also confer it upon those who are partakers of Himself, sending the Holy Spirit upon all the earth.2

In this passage Irenaeus brings up the incident of the Samaritan woman (John 4:10–14) and possibly interprets the living water Jesus promises to the woman as the Spirit.3 The two most common interpretations of the early writers, including the Apostolic Fathers, on the water in John 3:5, 19:34, and 1 John 5:6–8 are baptism and evidence of the humanness of Jesus. Especially among the six disputed passages, the water in John 3:5 is almost exclusively interpreted as baptism by an Apostolic Father (Similitude 9.12.4; Similitude 9.16.1–4)4 and Justin Martyr (First Apology 61), and the references to water in John 19:34 and 1 John 5:6 are regarded by Tertullian as having a connotation of baptism as well (On Baptism 16). Justin Martyr (A.D. 110–165) clearly cites John 3:3–5 in the context of the need for baptism.5 For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all.6

The first sentence of this passage explains how baptism was practiced in Justin Martyr’s community. The context of this passage also explains the importance of baptism for Christians to be cleansed from their sins and to be regenerated. Thus, since Justin uses John 3:3–5 in the context of emphasizing the importance of baptism, we can assume that Justin understands water in John 3:5 as baptism. Tertullian (A.D. 145–220) also interprets the water in 1 John 5:6 and John 19:34 as “baptism” in On Baptism 16.

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers | 17 For He had come “by means of water and blood,” just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.7

In this text Tertullian quotes 1 John 5:6 and connects Jesus’ coming by water and blood in this verse first with Jesus’ baptism by John and his crucifixion respectively. Then Tertullian calls these two incidents “two baptisms” and also connects these two baptisms with the incident of the blood and water issuing from Jesus’ side in John 19:34 by pointing out that Jesus’ pierced side served as the source of these two baptisms. The next common interpretation of the early Church Fathers on water in the Johannine literature is to see it as the evidence of the humanness of Jesus. This interpretation is only related to John 19:34 and was aimed to refute heresies of that time which denied that Jesus lived on the earth as a human being who had flesh and blood. Two early authors, Irenaeus and Hippolytus,8 interpret John 19:34 in this way. …nor, when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork (Against Heresies 3.22.12).9

In this passage, Irenaeus considers Jesus’ blood and water issuing from his side as one of “tokens of the flesh which has been derived from the earth.” His being hungered and being wearied with the journey are also mentioned in the context as signs of the flesh. Thus, it is obvious that the reason he uses this incident is to underline that Jesus was a real human who had blood and water like every human being. The survey in this section can be summarized into two points. First, interpreting water in the Johannine literature as the Spirit has existed since the second century (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.17.2). Second, among the six disputed passages, water in John 3:5 has primarily been interpreted as referring to baptism (Justin Martyr. The First Apology of Justin 61), and the issuing of water from Jesus’ side in John 19:34 was often considered as the evidence of his humanity (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22.12).

18 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Johannine Water Imagery in More Recent Writers In more recent studies, the analysis of water imagery has typically been focused on the Gospel. The significance of this imagery has been noticed by many interpreters.10 Many scholars have studied Johannine water imagery,11 but I will concentrate on only five of them which seem to be the most relevant for my research. In his article, Dale C. Allison Jr., focuses on the living water in the Gospel (4:10–14; 6:35; 7:37–39). Allison argues that water in these three passages refers to the Spirit. The main interpretive indicator he offers for this interpretation is background of the living water. Allison claims that water is frequently associated with the Spirit in the OT, ancient Jewish literature, and the NT. Allison contends that, even though it is possible that John had several referents in his mind, its primary background is Zech. 13:1, 14:8, Joel 3:18, and Ezek. 47, where God promises to give abundant water from his temple in the last days. He also argues that the idea of tying water with the Spirit intimately can be found in both ancient Jewish literature (1 QS 4:21–22; y. Sukk 5,55a,42) and the NT (Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 12:13; Titus 3:5–6). Allison observes a number of linguistic and conceptual parallels between the living water in the Gospel and waters of life in Revelation and, based on these parallels, asserts that waters of life in the Apocalypse also refer to the Spirit.12 In his book, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, Craig R. Koester covers all of the uses of symbolism in the Gospel. He allocates one chapter for the image of water and analyzes how it is developed throughout the Gospel. Koester argues that the water in John is closely related to washing and drinking, and the evangelist uses these two functions of water back and forth as he develops water imagery in the Gospel. Koester also asserts that the primary function of the water in John is to reveal Jesus’ identity. Koester divides water passages in John into three sections: “baptism with water and the Spirit” (chs. 1–3), “living water” (chs. 4–7), and “blood and water at the crucifixion” (19:34). Based on his analysis, Koester concludes that the key message the evangelist delivers through this water image is that humanity’s two fundamental problems (sin and a broken relationship with God), which are described as the images of uncleanness and thirst in the Gospel, can be solved through Christ and the Spirit especially through Christ’s death.13 Koester frequently proposes multiple meaning. For example, Koester interprets the Spirit as the primary symbol of the water in John 19:34 and, based on this interpretation, also suggests additional three levels of symbolism: (1) the water has a power of cleansing sins; (2) the water confirms Jesus’ identity as prophet and Messiah; and (3) the water implies “Jesus’ unity with God.” Koester

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers | 19 proposes symbolic meanings to almost every reference to water in the Gospel.14 Although Koester takes a both-and approach to the water in John 19:34 by not excluding the possibility of seeing the water as the sign of Jesus’ death, his main emphasis is on the symbolic meanings. He does not give due attention to its literal interpretation. Koester’s five hermeneutical principles for his symbolic interpretations are “incongruity or absurdity at the literal level,”15 the context, background of the OT and ancient Jewish literature, the interpretation of earlier water passages, and the presence of vocabulary suggesting symbolic interpretation. He does not explicitly provide his hermeneutical principles (except the incongruity or absurdity at the literal level). However, these principles can be observed from his symbolic interpretations. First, Koester states that not making sense literally is the easiest way to recognize symbol. The symbols that are easiest to identify appear in the form of metaphors. Metaphors can be recognized because an incongruity or contradiction results when a person speaks of one thing in terms of another. For example, the statement “I am the bread of life” (6:35), taken at face value, means that Jesus is claiming to be a baked mixture of flour and water, which is absurd. This incongruity or absurdity at the literal level forces readers to make sense of the statement in a nonliteral way.16

Second, Koester frequently depends on the context. In his interpretation of the water in John 3:5, for instance, Koester sees it as a reference to baptism and bases his ground on the fact that baptism is mentioned several times in the context (the Baptist’s water baptism in John 1:25–33, Jesus and his disciples’ water baptism in 4:1–2), especially in John 3:22–26.17 Third, Koester often counts on the OT background, ancient Jewish literature, or the traditions of both Jewish and Samaritan people for his symbolic interpretations. For example, Koester contends that one of the symbolic meanings of living water in John 4:10–14 is Jesus’ revelation and brings his support for this argument from the OT and the Samaritan tradition suggesting some connections between this water and Moses’ miracle of providing water for Israel in the desert (Exod. 15:3; 17:3, 6; Num. 20:4, 10–11; 21:16–17; Memar Marqah 4.4; 4.8; 5.3; 6.3) and from various ancient Jewish texts showing that water stands for the law or wisdom (Memar Marqah 6.3; 2.1; CD VI, 2–5; III, 12–17a; XIS, 32–35; Philo, Drunkenness 112–13; Dreams 2.271).18 Fourth, Koester contends that symbolic interpretations of earlier water passages in the Gospel paves a way for later symbolic interpretations. He claims that

20 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

since the connection between water and cleansing is already made by earlier water passages in the Gospel (e.g., the juxtaposition of the Baptist’s water baptism and his identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world in John 1:29–34; 2:1–11; 13:1–11), readers are ready to pick up the same connection when they read water of John 19:34. Fifth, the presence of suggestive vocabulary is another factor Koester suggests. Koester proposes that the water in 19:34 confirms Jesus’ identity as prophet and Messiah because it fulfills his promise of giving living water in John 4 and 7 and finds his ground for this interpretation from a suggestive vocabulary in 4:14 (“spring up”). According to Koester, this language Jesus uses reminds of “the well the prophet Moses provided for Israel.”19 As this survey shows, Koester is inclined to adopt multiple meaning for the six disputed passages (“a gift that can erode the barrier between the two people,” “revelation,” and “the Spirit”20 for 4:10–14 and four symbolic meanings for 19:34). His implied hermeneutical principles for identifying symbolism are: (1) not making sense at literal level, (2) the context, (3) background, (4) the interpretation of previous water passages, and (5) the presence of suggestive vocabulary. In 1995 Larry Paul Jones wrote his doctoral dissertation on this topic. After a brief survey of Johannine symbolism and of the previous studies of other scholars, he exegetes all of the water passages in the order they appear in the Gospel. One distinctive point he makes on this topic is that the Johannine water imagery forces the reader to make a decision between the old benefits water provides through Jewish rituals or traditions and the new and superior benefits Jesus provides. Jones asserts that water in John constantly demands readers to respond with faith by choosing the latter.21 Jones also takes a both-and approach on the water in 19:34 and, although he admits the possibility of the literal interpretation, his emphasis is obviously on its symbolic meanings. This may explain why the soldier pierced Jesus’ side. He wanted further verification of his death…The historicity of the event portrayed, however, has less significance than what it means to the narrator…22

As Koester does, Jones also proposes multiple meaning. His tendency of allowing multiple meaning is based on his understanding of multivalent nature of symbol and this assumption is stated from the beginning. Rather than distilling the meaning and function of the symbol to one particular or primary referent, I hope to indicate not only what it presents most vividly but also the

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers | 21 breadth of that which it symbolizes. This seems particularly appropriate in light of the theories that suggest that a symbol expands or deepens in meaning as a narrative unfolds.23

As this quotation patently indicates, Jones suggests three meanings for the water in John 19:34 by noting that “water symbolizes the cleansing, the new life, and the gift of the Spirit that manifests such life and makes it possible.”24 Jones appears to overuse symbol. He tends to seek symbolic meaning(s) for almost all water references in the Gospel. According to Jones, plentiful water in Aenon near Salim (3:23) “represents both what John has to offer and what he lacks.” He remarks that Cana in 4:46 “symbolizes what happens when people accept what Jesus has to offer” and also comments that water in this verse (“he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine”) is “a symbol of new beginning.”25 Jones does not explicitly state his hermeneutical principles either. However, four hermeneutical principles can be discerned from his symbolic interpretations. First, he argues that the interpretation of the water in 19:34 as the Spirit is convincing based on its connection with clearer passages (4:14; 6:35, 55), especially 7:38–39.26 Second, the context is another hint. Jones suggests that some clues in the context of water in 19:34 work as a hint for symbolic interpretation. In his view, blood and water in 19:34 symbolize “a new reality that is now at work in the world” and several clues in the context for the Passover theme such as “the mention of the Passover” (19:14), “the use of hyssop” (19:29), and unbroken bones of Jesus (19:33) pave a way for this symbolic interpretation because “the blood of the Passover lamb…paves the way for a new life” in Exodus.27 Third, grammatical consideration is another principle. Based on his understanding of καὶ in John 3:5 as an epexegetical conjunction, Jones contends that this water represents the Spirit.28 Fourth, Jones connotes that “the implied contrast” can be another factor. He claims that a reference to Jesus’ baptizing activity in 3:22 and “much water” in 3:23 have symbolic meanings and sees the contrast between Jesus’ baptism and John’s baptism in terms of their places (Judea in 3:22 against Aenor near Salim in 3:23) and quantity of water (no mention of the quantity of water in 3:22 against the mention of plentiful water in 3:23) as a clue for this symbolic interpretation.29 As this discussion indicates, Jones often proposes multiple meaning of the six disputed water passages as well. His main implied hermeneutical principles are: (1) connection with clear water passages, (2) the context, (3) grammatical considerations, and (4) the implied contrast.

22 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Another scholar who significantly contributed to this topic is Wai-Yee Ng. She divides all references of water in John into five categories: random references (3:22–24; 4:46; 10:40), ambiguous references between literal use and symbolism (5:1–15; 6:35, 55; 9:1–12), clear symbolism in chapters 1–3 (1:14–34; 2:1–11; 3:1–15), double symbolism in chapters 4 and 7 (4:1–42; 7:37–39), and elusive use in the later chapters (9:1–12; 13:1–17; 19:31–37).30 Although Ng does not explicitly discuss her hermeneutical principles that she uses to establish these categories, one hermeneutical principle for literal interpretation appears to be lied behind her interpretations: coherence with immediate context. She contends that literal reading of water in 3:22–24 fits well with both its previous episode (1:19–28; 2:1–11) and ensuing episode (3:25–30).31 Regarding her symbolic interpretations Ng renders four grounds. First, earlier pattern is a clue. Ng claims that the symbolic interpretation of the water in 5:7 becomes evident when consistent “juxtaposition of water with what Jesus brings about” in John 1–4 is taken into consideration. Second, suggestive vocabulary is another hint. In Ng’s view, the facts that the evangelist gives the meaning of Siloam in 9:7 (“Sent”) and that “the sent one” refers to Jesus throughout the Gospel are another hint. Third, explicit statements of Jesus or the evangelist that directly point to symbolic use of water is another factor (7:37–39). Ng remarks that water in John 4:10 “is directly used by Jesus as a symbol alluding to eternal life.” Fourth, Ng considers a sign of emphasis on water imagery (repetition of words) as another factor. Ng notes that “the ensuing dialogue on water, with the repeated use of words such as πηγή and φρέαρ (4:7–15), confirms that Jacob’s well is an introductory symbol, introducing Jesus’ symbolic use of ὕδωρ.”32 As this survey shows, Ng also proposes multiple symbolic meanings for the six disputed passages (e.g., spiritual cleaning, baptism, and the Holy Spirit for the symbolic meanings of water in 3:5)33 and shows excessive use of water symbolism.34 Her implied hermeneutical principles are: (1) immediate context (favoring a literal interpretation), (2) earlier pattern (symbolism), (3) the presence of suggestive vocabulary (symbolism), (4) explicit statements of Jesus or the evangelist (symbolism), and (5) emphasis on water imagery (symbolism). Jonathan Moo is the only one who examines water imagery in the book of Revelation. Moo briefly surveys how the sea imagery has been utilized throughout this book and proposes six categories. First, Moo points out that some references to sea in Revelation refer to the literal sea “as a part of creation” (5:13; 7:1–3; 8:8–9; 10:2–8; 12:12; 14:7; 16:3). Second, Moo states that the sea in Rev. 4:6 refers to “a vast, glassy expanse forming…the floor of heaven and… the ceiling above the earth.” Third, from the sea imagery in 12:9 and 13:1, Moo

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers | 23 contends that the sea in the Apocalypse sometimes stands for “abyss and origin of the beast.” Fourth, according to Moo, the sea in this book is often used as a reference to “the mass of peoples who are opposed to God” (17:1, 15). Fifth, Moo classifies the sea images in Rev. 17–18 as “medium of Babylon’s trade” and claims that these references are intimately connected with judgment and death based on the image of throwing a millstone into the sea (18:21) which is employed to describe the destruction of Babylon. Sixth, Moo proposes that the sea in the Apocalypse also has some associations with death and Hades (20:13).35

Summary From this brief survey of previous studies on the subject of water imagery in the Johannine literature, six observations can be drawn. First, regarding the criteria for identifying whether water or water-related imagery in Johannine literature represents the Spirit or for deciding whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, each one has evidenced his or her own exegetical grounds in interpreting the water passages in the Johannine literature. However, none of the scholars surveyed in this chapter provide any systematic discussion of criteria. Thus, throughout this research I will attempt to fill in the gap by establishing systematic and valid criteria of water imagery in the Johannine literature (ch. 5). Second, this survey indicates that scholars pay more attention to symbolic meanings than to literal meaning. As this analysis of more recent scholars clearly shows, some scholars in this chapter propose symbolic meanings for nearly all water references in the Gospel that appear to be used as simple narrative details (e.g., “much water” in 3:23, “Jacob’s well” in 4:6, “water jar” in 4:28, “the water” in 4:46, etc.). In the case of the water in John 19:34, although scholars admit that the water also has a literal meaning, they frequently move their attention to its symbolic meanings without giving enough consideration to its literal meaning. Further discussion on this issue will be continued in chapter four of this dissertation. Third, a number of scholars suggest the possibility of multiple symbolic meanings for each water reference in the Gospel. This tendency might create exegetical confusion. This issue will be more thoroughly discussed in chapter four of this study. Fourth, not many scholars (with the exception of Allison) pay attention to the connection between water imagery in the Gospel and those in Revelation. Fifth, as this survey outlines, many scholars appeal to the OT or ancient Jewish literature when they exegete water passages in the Gospel. However, they

24 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

often propose different referents for the water images (e.g., the Spirit, wisdom, Torah, eternal life, etc.). Thus, these various opinions on the background of Johannine water imagery establish a rationale for the next chapter which will deal with diverse water themes in the OT and ancient Jewish literature. Sixth, with respect to the Apocalypse, although this book contains a lot of water references, as far as I know, no work has specifically examined how water imagery is employed throughout the whole book (except in Ng’s brief study).36 Even though Moo examines water image in Revelation, his work is limited to the image of the sea. As this survey shows, since there have been not many studies on water imagery in Revelation, I will carefully look at the way the author uses the image of water in his book.

Notes 1. For the survey of how the Apostolic Fathers used the Fourth Gospel see Charles E. Hill, “‘The Orthodox Gospel’: The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior to Irenaeus,” in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Tuomas Rasimus, NovTSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 233–95. 2. Against Heresies 3.17.2, ANF 1:445. Parenthesis is mine. 3. After Irenaeus, Chrysostom (Homilies on St. John, 32.I), Theodore (63.18–23), and Augustine (Tract. Joh. 15, 16) also interpreted the living water in John 4:10–14 as the Spirit. In the case of Rev. 22:1, Andrew of Caesarea (6 c) interprets “the river of the water of life” in this verse as the Spirit. See Carol Rotz, Revelation: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, NBBC (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2012), 304. In the case of John 3:5, Origen is the first writer who pursued this interpretation (The Commentary of Origen on St. John’s Gospel, ed. A. E. Brooke [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896], 2:249f ). 4. One of the Apostolic Fathers, who authored The Shepherd of Hermas, seems to have been influenced by John 3:5 in Similitude 9.12.4 and 9.16.1–4, which are intimately related to baptism. 5. However, J. N. Sanders thinks that this expression is from early oral tradition (The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church: Its Origin and Influence on Christian Theology up to Irenaeus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943], 27–28). 6. The First Apology of Justin 61, ANF 1:183. 7. ANF 3:677. 8. Hippolytus (A.D. 160–235), who was the disciple of Irenaeus, also presented this incident as one of the episodes revealing the true humanity of Jesus during his earthly life (On Psalm 2). 9. ANF 1:454–55.

Johannine Water Imagery in Ancient and Recent Writers | 25 10. R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 121; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 137–38. 11. Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1929); Günter Stemberger, La symbolique du bien et du mal selon saint Jean (Parole de Dieu. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970), 149–70; Birger Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1–11 and 4:1– 42, trans. J. Gray, CBNT 6 (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), 212–18; Lawrence Sciberras, “Water in the Gospel of St John According to the Greek Fathers & Writers of the Church” (PhD diss., Pontificia Universitas Antoniana, 1975); Enrique Becerra, “Le symbolisme de l’eau dans le Quatrième Évangile” (PhD diss., Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, 1982); J. A. Kowalski, “‘Of Water and Spirit’: Narrative Structure and Theological Development in the Gospel of John” (PhD diss., Marquette University, 1987). 12. Dale C. Allison Jr., “The Living Water (John 4:10–14; 6:35c; 7:37–39),” VTQ 30 (1986): 144–53. Based on these parallels, he proposes that the three living water texts in John (4:10–14; 6:35; 7:37–39) and Rev. 22:17 are common in describing living water even as a present reality while the living water in Rev. 7:16–17, 21:6, and 22:1 is described as a future expectation. From this connection between the three texts in John and Rev. 22:17, Allison claims that the image of the living water of the New Jerusalem in Revelation lies behind the image of the living water in John. Allison also contends that the present aspect of the living water in the Gospel and Rev. 22:17 is closely related to the eucharist because the notion that the presence of the Spirit is closely linked to this ritual has existed throughout church history and John 6:35 and Rev. 22:17 seem to have an eucharistic implication. 13. Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 175–206. 14. Ibid., 201–2. 15. Ibid., 8. 16. Ibid. This is the most common and helpful way of identifying symbolism. See also Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John, BI (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 7–8. 17. Ibid., 183–84. 18. Ibid., 189–90. 19. Ibid., 202. 20. Ibid., 187–91. 21. Larry Paul Jones, “A Study of the Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1995), 219–31. 22. Ibid., 209–10. 23. Ibid., 34.

26 | Water

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35. 36.

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Ibid., 217. Ibid., 84–121. Ibid., 210. Ibid., 211–12. Ibid., 74. Ibid., 84. Wai-Yee Ng, Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation, Studies in Biblical Literature 15 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 58–85. Ibid., 59–60. Ibid., 62–135. Ibid., 70. Ng comments that “water from Jacob’s well stands for a Samaritan tradition of eschatological expectations” and the water jar in 4:28 “symbolizes all that she held to prior to her conversation to Jesus.” She also sees Jesus’ visiting Samaria in John 4 as “part of a geographic framework that suggests a preference of Galilee and Samaria over against Judea.” Ibid., 76–134. Jonathan Moo, “The Sea That is No More: Rev 21:1 and the Function of Sea Imagery in the Apocalypse of John,” NovT 51 (2009): 148–67. Ng, Water Symbolism, 187–91.

3

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament and Ancient Jewish Writings

In this chapter, I will examine how water imagery is used in the OT and ancient Jewish writings, especially in the writings of the Second Temple period. Many scholars suggest a close relationship exists between the Fourth Gospel and these writings, especially the OT. Even though this Gospel includes fewer explicit OT quotations than the Gospel of Matthew, the influence of the OT is significant if one considers its frequent use of allusions, echoes, themes, and backgrounds from the OT. This apparent close relationship with the OT brings the expectation that John’s water imagery may also be heavily influenced by the imagery in the OT and ancient Jewish writings. I will divide this chapter into two parts. The first will deal with water imagery in the OT and the second with water imagery in the Second Temple literature. Since water imagery occurs in so many places in the OT and the Second Temple literature, my primary focus will be limited to water themes that are closely connected to the water imagery in the Johannine literature.

28 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Water Imagery in the Old Testament In this section, six themes or motifs associated with OT water imagery will be addressed: the Spirit, the eschatological temple, human words or wisdom, life or salvation, purification, and living water.

Water Imagery Relating to the Spirit Even though it is not explicitly stated that water represents the Spirit, water and the Spirit are tightly linked in the OT. Eight passages in the OT relate water to the Spirit.1 The key passages are Isa. 32:15, 44:3–4, and Ezek. 36:25. The imagery in these passages is often thought to lie in the background of four Johannine passages: John 3:5, 4:14, 7:38, and 19:34, which will be examined in this dissertation. There are three reasons to assume that water is closely related to the Spirit in the OT. First, the writers of the OT sometimes use the words “pour out” (‫ערה‬, ‫שפך‬, ‫)יצק‬2 when they describe the giving of the Spirit (Isa. 29:10; 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 39:29; Joel 2:28–29; Zech. 12:10). Joel 2:28–29 says: And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out (‫ )אשפוך‬my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.3

In this passage the word ‫“( שפך‬pour out”), which “denotes the vigorous movement of a solid or liquid,” is used. Even though this word is often used with different objects, such as oil,4 this verb seems to have a close connection with water in Joel 2:28 because the pouring out of the Spirit in this verse parallels with the pouring down of “abundant rain” in Joel 2:23.5 Seemingly, the author of Joel intentionally placed the pouring down of rain and the pouring out of the Spirit side by side as God’s two ways of bestowing blessings on Israel (physical and spiritual). The word ‫“( ערה‬pour out”) is used in Isa. 32:15. Isaiah connects the imagery of water and the Spirit more tightly by portraying changes that the pouring out of the Spirit will bring to Israel with a picture of changing the land in terms of adding many plants in their land (“until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest”). Isaiah 32 is a prophecy regarding the restoration that will happen when “a king” (the Messiah) will reign (v. 1). Isaiah lists the outpouring of God’s Spirit as one of the blessings the king will bring and likens the Spirit to rain when he

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 29 portrays the result of pouring out God’s Spirit (v. 15). He writes that the earth will be changed from barrenness to fruitfulness as the Spirit comes on it.6 The word ‫“( יצק‬pour out”) is used both of water and the Spirit in Isa. 44:3–4. This passage also uses the image of water in describing the work of the Spirit. For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. They shall spring up like grass amid waters, like willows by flowing streams.

In this text, the restoring work of the Spirit is likened to the function of water to plants. In this verse Isaiah uses the giving of water and the giving of the Spirit together (v. 3) and likens those who receive the Spirit to plants growing well due to a sufficient supply of water (v. 4). It is also worth noticing that the first half and second half of verse 3 make a parallel, and water corresponds to the Spirit in this parallel. ‫כי אצק־םים על־צםא ונזלים על־יבשה‬ ‫אצק רוחי על־זרעך וברכתי על־צאצאיך׃‬

7

John N. Oswalt even connects Isa. 55:1 with Isa. 32:15 and 44:3 and argues that the invitation to drink water in Isa. 55:1 is the invitation of receiving the Spirit of God.8 Second, water and the Spirit are often mentioned together in the OT (Ezek. 36:25–27; Isa. 44:3–4). As previously indicated, water and God’s Spirit occur together in Isa. 44:3–4. Similarly, “water” and “my (God’s) Spirit” are referred together in Ezek. 36:25–27. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

This passage conveys what God will do to the Israelites when he brings them to their own land from all of the nations where they had been exiled (v. 24). God promises that he will cleanse them by sprinkling clean water on them and will put his Spirit in them when they return to their own land. From this close placement of water and the Spirit, an assumption can be made that these two have a close relationship in this passage. Third, the close relationship between water and the Spirit can be also seen from the fact that both perform similar functions (cleansing sins and removing

30 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

idols) in the writings of the prophets (Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1–2; Isa. 4:4).9 Ezek. 36:25 says that the purpose of sprinkling water is to cleanse (‫ )טהור‬the people “from the defilement (‫ ”)טםאה‬and from the sin of idolatry (36:18). Zechariah also prophesies that a fountain will be opened “for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (13:1),” which is “for sin and uncleanness (‫ ”)ולנדה‬and immediately adds the removing of the idols from the land of Israel as its result (13:2). Interestingly, Isaiah also seems to connect these two with the work of the Spirit (4:4). when the Lord shall have washed away (‫ )רחץ‬the filth (‫ )צאת‬of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.

Isaiah introduces these two as the work of “a spirit of judgment” and “a spirit of fire (4:4).” Although scholars often disagree on how to interpret these two phrases, a major interpretation is that they refer to the Spirit of Yahweh.10 Even though slightly different words are employed to describe God’s purifying work in Isa. 4:4, Ezek. 36:25, and Zech. 13:1,11 these passages are common in closely linking God’s cleansing work to his Spirit. Interestingly, as the sin that God cleanses through his Spirit is firmly related to the sin of idolatry in Ezek. 36:25 and Zech. 13:2, the idolatry is also listed as the Israel’s sin in Isa. 2:6–20. It is also worth noting that all of the passages mentioned thus far (Ezek. 36:25–27; Zech. 13:1–2; Isa. 4:4) are often considered eschatological events.12 These commonalities among these three texts strongly lead us to assume that water and the Spirit have an intimate relationship in the OT. In conclusion, based on the observations addressed thus far (the language of pouring out, the employment of water imagery in describing the giving of the Spirit, the mentioning of water and the Spirit together, and the portrayal of water and Spirit serving two identical functions), we can assume that water and the eschatological Spirit have a close tie in the OT.

Water Flowing from God’s Temple Three key passages in the OT, Ezek. 47:1–12, Joel 3:18, and Zech. 14:8 picture water flowing from the temple. The imagery in these passages is often suggested as the background of three Johannine passages which will be discussed in this dissertation, John 7:37–39, 19:34, and Rev. 22:1–2. The temple or Jerusalem is often described as a place of abundant water in the OT and the description is often related to the image of the garden of Eden

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 31 (Ps 46:4–5; Isa. 33:20–21).13 Even though these passages portray the temple or Jerusalem as the place of abundant water, no mention is made that water actually flows from the temple or Jerusalem. However, three OT prophets, namely Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, prophesy that water will flow from Jerusalem or the temple in the future (Ezek. 47:1–12; Joel 3:18; Zech. 14:8). Joel writes that “in that day…a fountain will come forth from the house of the Lord and water the valley of Sittim”14 (3:18). Joel introduces this incident as one of the blessings that Israel will receive from God as a result of his presence among his people (mountains with new wine, hills with milk, and sufficient water in all the ravines). Even though scholars are uncertain about exact time when this incident will happen and suggest various backgrounds for this image, most scholars agree that the prophet saw it as an event that will happen in the future because of its eschatological atmosphere.15 According to Zechariah, “living waters,” instead of “a fountain” in Joel, appear (14:8). On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter.

These two seas where this living waters flow refer to the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea respectively. Unlike the waters in Joel and Ezekiel that flow only one direction, this water flows two directions. Compared to Joel 3, Zech. 14 has even more eschatological tone. Ezek. 47:1–12 gives a longer description of this incident. In Ezekiel’s vision, the water flows “from under the threshold of the temple” (v. 1), runs eastward, and reaches to the Dead Sea (v. 8). This water starts small and becomes a big river. Especially, this water is related to the work of restoration. It gives life wherever it goes and makes both the fish in the river and the trees beside the river to thrive. When this river flows into the Dead Sea, it also makes the sea fresh (vv. 8–9). To what do these waters refer? The prophets’ writings point to similar eschatological events, and the incident of flowing water from the temple or Jerusalem is one of the key eschatological events.16 Some argue that the water in these passages refers to the Spirit.17 Even though this water has a special power to restore plants, the Dead Sea, and sea creatures inside the sea, it seems that these prophets do not use this water flowing from the temple as a symbol of the Spirit because giving the Spirit and offering water from the temple are pictured as two separate incidents in these books (Ezek. 37:6; 47:1–12; Joel 2:28; 3:18; Zech. 12:10; 14:8). Therefore, it is more natural to see this incident as the restoration of Israel by employing the image of the garden of Eden in Gen. 2:8–14. Both the garden of Eden and the

32 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

temple are described as the places of God’s presence. As the place of the presence of God, the garden was the source of living water which gave life to trees in the garden. The prophets use this image and envision that the temple, as the center of the world and the place of the presence of God, will be the source of living water, and this water will give life to his creatures.18 The prophets portray the last day of the world as the time of returning the land to the perfect state at the beginning of God’s creation.

Water as Human Words or Wisdom Six passages in Proverbs use water as a picture of human words or wisdom.19 The key passages are 13:14 and 18:4. The imagery in these passages is often proposed as the background of two Johannine passages that will be discussed later, John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39. In Proverbs water is a symbol of “words” or “wisdom.” The author of this book seems to distinguish between words of ordinary men and words of the wise by using different water images. In Proverbs, water, especially “deep waters,” is likened to “words of men” and “a fountain of life”, “a gushing stream”, and “the fountain of wisdom” are closely linked to “the teaching of the wise.” The first one (a fountain of life) is explicitly identified with the teaching of the wise in 13:1420 and the latter two are mentioned in 18:4. The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a gushing stream. (Prov. 18:4)

Although the interpretation of this verse is disputable,21 it seems that the phrase “deep waters” refers to words of ordinary men whereas “a gushing stream” refers to the wisdom of the wise. The phrase “the words of a man’s mouth” in the first half seems to correspond to “the fountain of wisdom” in the second half because “deep waters” in the first half corresponds to “a gushing stream” in the second half. It seems that “deep waters” and “a gushing stream” are contrasted in this verse in terms of their locations and accessibility: deep waters are hard to access because they are located in the deep underground, but a gushing stream can be easily accessed because it is located on the surface of the earth. Therefore, we can assume that “the words of a man’s mouth” and “the fountain of wisdom” are contrasted as well. It would seem that the author of this proverb implies through this imagery that whereas ordinary men’s words do not provide much benefit to those who listen to them (just as people cannot drink deep waters easily), the words of the wise provide many benefits to those who listen to them (just as people can

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 33 easily drink water from a gushing stream). In summary, three water imageries (“a fountain of life,” “a gushing stream,” and “the fountain of wisdom”) are used in connection with wisdom in Proverbs.

Water as an Image of Life or Salvation Two passages in the OT use water as an image of life and salvation: Ps. 36:8–9 and Isa. 12:3. The imagery in these passages, which is often thought to lie behind the image of water in John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39, will be addressed in this dissertation. The expressions “river of delight” and “the fountain of life” in Ps. 36:8–9 seem to be related to the life that Yahweh provides from his temple. They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.

The phrase “The fountain of life” in this passage has the exact same words as those of four Proverbs (10:11; 13:14; 14:27; 16:22). However, unlike the case of Proverbs, this phrase does not seem to be related to wisdom. The two water images in Psalm 36 are tightly linked to God’s temple by the use of phrases such as “the shadow of your wings” (v. 7) and “the fatness of your house” (v. 8), which might refer to “the image of the outstretched wings of the cherubim” and “the fat pieces of flesh of the sacrifices” in the temple respectively.22 Even though it is uncertain whether “fountain of life” refers to a literal fountain or is a simply symbolic expression representing the source of life, this phrase obviously introduces God as the source of life and his offering of water from the river of God’s delights is closely connected to his temple. Water is also linked to God’s salvation through his Messiah in Isa. 12:3.23 Here Isaiah sings of a day when people “will draw from the wells of salvation.”

Purification Seven passages in the OT speak of water as a means of purification: Exod. 19:10– 15, 29:4, 30:18–21, Lev. 8:6, Lev. 11–15, Num. 8:6–7, and Num. 19. The imagery in these passages is often suggested as the background of John 19:34 that will be examined later in this dissertation. Jonathan D. Lawrence classifies ritual washing in the OT into the following three categories: “general washing, priestly washing, and washing for theophanies.”24 First of all, as he suggests, water is used for the Israelites to cleanse

34 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

themselves ritually in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. In Lev. 11–15 various situations (contact by unclean animals in ch. 11, child birth in ch. 12, etc.) that could cause a person to be unclean are mentioned and washing of water is often required as one of the procedures that must be practiced to be cleansed ritually before God.25 Second, water is also used as a means of ritually cleansing for Aaron, his sons (Exod. 29:4; 30:18–21; Lev. 8:6–7), and the Levites (Num. 8:6–7). For instance, in Num. 8:6–7, the Levites are supposed to be not only washed by water (their body and clothes) but also sprinkled by “the water of cleansing.”26 Third, one passage refers God’s requiring the Israelites to wash with water before they meet him (Exod. 19:10–15).27

Living Water in the Old Testament Three Greek phrases, ὕδωρ ζῶν (John 4:10), τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν (John 4:11), and ὕδατος ζῶντος (John 7:38), are often translated as “living water” in the English translations. Their corresponding Hebrew words are ‫“( הםים החיים‬living waters”), and this Hebrew phrase occurs eight times in the OT: Lev. 14:6, 51, 52, 15:13, Song of Songs 4:15, Jer. 2:13, 17:13, and Zech. 14:8. In Lev. 14:6, 51, and 52, the Hebrew words used have the meaning of “running water.” In these verses, the reference to running water is related to the ritual of cleansing the lepers and their houses. The priest is commanded to kill a bird in running water (ὕδατι ζῶντι) and to sprinkle its blood with hyssop. In Lev. 15:13 it is connected to the cleansing of a person who “has a discharge from his body” (v. 2). This Hebrew phrase also appears in Jer. 2:13 and 17:13. The LXX of Jer. 2:13 introduces God as πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς (“fountain of living waters”) which is very close to πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (“a spring of water welling up to eternal life”) in John 4:14.28 This Hebrew phrase (‫ )הםים החיים‬also occurs in Zech. 14:8 (ὕδωρ ζῶν). Song of Solomon likens a woman to a garden that has “a well of living water (φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος)” inside of it (4:15).

Water Imagery in the Second Temple Literature In this section water imagery connecting with seven themes or motifs will be discussed: the Spirit, the eschatological temple, human words or wisdom, Torah, life, purification or atonement, and living water.

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 35

Water Imagery Relating to the Spirit Three passages in the Second Temple literature link water to the Spirit (1 QS 3.7–9, 1 QS 4.21–22, T. Jud. 24:2). Two key passages are 1 QS 3.7–9 and T. Jud. 24:2. Water imagery in these passages seems to have some connections with John 1:33 and 3:5 that will be discussed later in this dissertation. 1 QS 3.7–9 mentions both the water and the Spirit together. Water and the Spirit are mentioned together with respect to the cleansing of sins in this passage.29 Both have an important role in cleansing sins in this passage.30 And by the spirit of holiness which links him with his truth he is cleansed of all his sins. And by the spirit of uprightness and of humility his sin is atoned. And by the compliance of his soul with all the laws of God his flesh is cleansed by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and being made holy with the waters of repentance.31

This text explains the procedure that the Qumran community used when candidates wanted to become members of their community. According to this passage, one of the requirements they needed was to be sprinkled with “cleansing waters” because the cleansing rituals that they had received in the past had no effect of atoning and cleansing their sins any more.32 The word spirit appears twice in this passage (“the spirit of holiness” and “the spirit of uprightness and of humility”). It is generally agreed that among these two, the former refers to God’s Spirit, and the latter refers to a human characteristic.33 According to B. E. Thiering, the so-called covenant renewal ceremony narrated in this passage includes two rituals. One ritual is related to the cleansing of sins of the inner person, and the other is related to the cleansing of the outer person; the first two sentences in this passage correspond to the former, and the last sentence of this passage corresponds to the latter. However, these two rituals are practiced together as one ceremony once a year because they are closely connected to each other.34 Thus, this passage says that atoning and cleansing of sins are possible through God’s Spirit and “cleansing water,” and their close placement in this passage implies their intimate relationship. This passage seems to be closely related to Ezek. 36:25, John 1:33, and John 3:5, where water and the Spirit are also mentioned together.35 T. Jud. also uses the image of water in describing the giving of the Spirit (24:2), and this pouring out of the Spirit is also described as “the fountain that gives life to all mankind” (24:4). And the heavens will be open to him to pour out the spirit as a blessing of the Holy Father. And he will pour the spirit of grace on you, and you shall be sons in truth, and

36 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

you will walk in his first and final decrees. This is the Shoot of God Most High; this is the fountain for the life of all humanity.36

“The spirit” in the first sentence of this passage seems to refer to the Holy Spirit for several reasons: (1) This spirit comes from “the heavens” (v. 2); (2) It is described as “the blessing” from “the Holy Father” (v. 2); (3) It “gives life to all mankind” (v. 4).

Water Flowing from God’s Temple Although, unlike in the OT, there is no reference in the Second Temple literature to water’s flowing from God’s temple in the last days, some passages describe the temple or God’s high mountain as a place of abundant water (NJ. 7.1–5, 1 En. 13:7–8, 1 En. 26:2, 1 QH 6.15–18, 1 QH 8.4–8).37 The key passage is the New Jerusalem Scroll 7.1–5. The imagery in these passages is often thought to lie in the background of three Johannine passages, John 7:37–39, 19:34, and Rev. 22:1–2, which will be examined in this dissertation. The New Jerusalem Scroll 7.1–5 says there will be abundant water in the temple of the New Jerusalem. This passage contains a description of the temple that an angel shows to the author. (…and the he)ight of its four sides (twelve) cubits VACAT (and he showed me the chan) nel near the wall which surrounds the (…) living water (and he measured its width) two (cubits) and its height two cubits (…) a well this wall is pure gold (…) is beautiful and is all of pure gold (…) and water wells up from (…)38

This water seems to be “the House of the Laver” that was used for the priests when they took a bath or needed a ritual purification.39 Two phrases in this passage, “living water” and “wells up,” remind us of John 4:10–11 and 4:14, respectively.

Water as Human Words or Wisdom Five passages in the Second Temple literature relate water to human words or wisdom (Sir. 15:1–3; Sir. 24:21; Wisd. of Sol. 7:24–25; 1 En. 48:1; 1 En. 49:1). The key passages are Sir. 15:1–3 and 24:21. The imagery in these texts is often considered as the background of John 4:10–14, 6:35, and 7:37–39 that will be discussed in this dissertation. As in Proverbs, wisdom is described in Sirach as a lady who gives “the bread of learning” and “the water of understanding” to those who come to her (15:1–3).

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 37 He who fears the Lord will do this; he who is practiced in the Law will come to Wisdom. Motherlike she will meet him, like a young bride she will embrace him, nourish him with the bread of learning, and give him the water of understanding to drink.40

In this passage, the learning and understanding that wisdom provides are represented as bread and water. It is said that those who eat and drink them “will thirst for more” because they are “sweeter than honey,” which means that those who learned from wisdom will be eager to learn more (Sir. 24:21). This idiom might be an expression to emphasize the goodness of wisdom. Sir. 24:21 is often considered as the primary background of John 6:35.

Water as a Symbol of Torah Three passages in the Second Temple literature connect water to Torah (CD 3:16– 17; 6:5; 19:33–35). The key text is CD 6:5. The imagery in these passages is often thought to surface in the background of two Johannine passages, John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39, which will be examined in this dissertation. The Qumran Scrolls often use a well as the symbol of the law and liken the interpretation of the leaders of the community on Torah to the action of drawing living waters from the well. In CD 6:2–11 the author reinterprets Num. 21:18, which gives an account of Moses and the leaders of the Israelites’ digging a well during their journey in the wilderness. And they dug the Well: the well which the princes dug, which the nobles of the people delved with the stave (Num. xxi, 18). The Well is the Law, and those who dug it were the converts of Israel who went out of the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus (v. 5).41

In this passage the author interprets the well as the law, and its diggers as “the converts of Israel” who will leave Judah and move to Damascus. Ben Zion Wacholder writes that “the water of the well stands for the words of the Torah, and its diggers are its transcribers and instructors.” As he points out, this Qumran text implies that the interpretation of the Torah by the old leaders of Israel misled the people, and God would raise new leaders from the Qumran community in the future to build his new people by offering them perfect interpretation of the law through the new leaders.42

Water as an Image of Life 1 En. 96:6 relates water to life. This passage is often suggested as the background of John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39 that will be discussed later in this study.

38 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Woe to you who drink water (from every fountain); for quickly you will be repaid, and cease and dry up, because you have forsaken the fountain of life.43

Obviously, both drinking water “from every fountain” and deserting “the fountain of life” in this verse are symbolic expressions. Even though it is uncertain to what these two expressions exactly refer, they might denote the sins of pursuing life from other idols and of deserting God respectively. The author warns his readers that the result of drinking water from every fountain would be sudden death by using the imagery of a fountain that ceases and dries up quickly. The expression, “you have forsaken the fountain of life” in this verse echoes Ps. 36:9–10 or Jer. 2:13 and indicates that “the fountain of life” refers to God who is the source of life.44

Purification or Atonement Lawrence contends that water in the Second Temple literature has similar functions to that of the OT (“general washing” and “priestly washing”). Lawrence claims, however, that with respect to ritual washing, one important role of water in the Second Temple literature is added in this period compared to the OT: it is used “as part of initiation.” He additionally observes that water in this period is also used in the context of “prayer, hand-washing, and defecation,” which are not related to water in the OT.45 Water is used as an important tool of purifying the people in the Qumran community. As already addressed, water and the Spirit are spoken of by this community as two essential tools that can give them a ritual purity, the forgiveness of sins, and the power of terminating their inner struggle between the two spirits. The water of purification had to be used to be accepted as a member of the community.46

Living Water in Ancient Jewish Writing Six passages in the Second Temple literature include the expression “living water.”47 The key passages are 4Q 512 and CD 19.33–35. The imagery in these texts is often thought to surface in the background of four Johannine passages, John 4:10–14, 7:37–39, 19:34, Rev. 22:1–2, which will be examined in greater detail in this dissertation. The references to living water in the Qumran Scrolls are used to refer to literal water or the interpretation of the leaders of the community on the Law. First,

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 39 living water is used as a reference to literal water by being employed as a means to purify men who have genital emission (4Q 512).48 On the third day (…) He will start speaking and sa(y: Blessed) be you, God of Israel, (who commanded the temporarily impure to purify themselves from the impurity of ) (…) the soul with the atonement (…) holy ash (…) (…) in the water of (…) in constant streams and the lustral water (‫הםים החיים‬, “living waters”)49 for temporary purification (…) his clothes and afterwards (they will sprinkle over him) the waters of sprinkling to purify him, and all (…)50

Second, living water is also employed as a symbol of the interpretation of the leaders of the Qumran community on the Law in Qumran Scrolls. The temple and obedience to the Law had a great significance for the community. Since the community thought that the Jerusalem temple had been defiled by the wicked priests, the community considered themselves as the new temple and also believed that the community owes its existence to correct interpretation of the Law. The “new” temple is the community; the firm and secure foundation of this temple is the “truth,” that is, the exposition of the Law and the revelations to which the community owes its existence.51

CD 19.33–35 is a good example of such understanding. And thus, all the men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus and turned and betrayed and departed from the well of living waters, shall not be counted in the assembly of the people and shall not be inscribed in their [lis]ts, from the day {of the session of him who te‹aches› / of the teacher}52

In this text the expression, “the well of living waters,” is used to refer to the interpretation of the leaders of the community on the Law.

Conclusion In this chapter, I examined how water imagery is used in the OT and ancient Jewish writings. As we observed, water imagery is associated with various themes or motifs in the OT and ancient Jewish writings (the Spirit, the eschatological temple, human words or wisdom, life or salvation, Torah or its interpretation, and purification or atonement). Among these diverse usages of water imagery, what draws our attention is its intimate relationship with the eschatological Spirit. The language of pouring out and God’s activity of supplying water are employed to

40 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

portray the giving of the Spirit in the OT (Isa. 29:10; 32:15; 44:3–4; Ezek. 39:29; Joel 2:28–29; Zech. 12:10). Similarly, the image of water is used to describe the endowment of the Spirit in the Second Temple literature (T. Jud. 24:2). Water and the Spirit are often mentioned together in both bodies of literature (Ezek. 36:25–27; Isa. 44:3–4; 1 QS 3.7–9; 4.21–22). Water and the Spirit serve two identical functions (cleansing sins and removing idols) in the OT (Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1–2; Isa. 4:4). From these observations we can draw some implications. First, the close relationship between water and the Spirit in both bodies of literature leads us to expect that water in the six disputed water passages to be addressed later may well be tightly linked up to the Spirit. Second, considering background of the OT and Second Temple literature of water images in the Gospel and the Apocalypse can work as only a secondary hermeneutical principle for determining whether water functions as a symbol for the Spirit or whether or not an instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. Water imagery in the OT and ancient Jewish literature has various associations with different themes. Therefore, although taking into account many possible backgrounds of water images in the Gospel and Revelation appears to be one of the necessary interpretive procedures for these two decisions, this cannot outweigh the importance of the literary context in which the water image belongs. Third, these divergent usages of water imagery in both literatures also hint that it is not easy to determine which water theme or motif lies behind the water imageries in the six disputed water passages. As we have seen in chapter two, many scholars frequently base their symbolic interpretations of water imageries in the Gospel on their arguments that these images are influenced by varied themes of water in the OT or ancient Jewish literature. However, each of these arguments should be carefully examined because, as this survey indicates, water imagery in the OT and ancient Jewish literature is joined to various themes.

Notes 1. Isa. 4:4, 32:15, 44:3–4, Ezek. 36:25, 39:29, Joel 2:28–29, Zech. 12:10, and 13:1. 2. These words are used in describing pouring out liquid such as water or oil. 3. All English translations of the Bible in this dissertation are from RSV unless otherwise noted. 4. TDOT, s.v. “‫שפך‬.”

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 41 5. Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 368. 6. Willem A. M. Beuken, Isaiah II, HCOT, trans. Brian Doyle (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 233; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 435. 7. BHS. 8. Joachim Begrich contends that this water is related to Lady Wisdom in Prov. 9:1, 3–6 (Studien zu Deuterojesaja, ThB 20 [München: C. Kaiser, 1963], 59f ). John D. W. Watts connects it to God’s invitation to the wedding in Matt. 22:8–10 (Isaiah 34–66, WBC [Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005], 817). 9. Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 166–67. 10. George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: I–XXVII (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 1–27, 80. Some argue that they refer to a hot, searing wind or they should be understood as the process of burning and judgment. R. E. Clements holds the former interpretation (Isaiah 1–39 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 54). Oswalt holds the latter (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 148). This interpretation can also be supported by the fact that judgment and burning are closely related to Yahweh in Isaiah (28:6; 30:27–28; 66:15–16). Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), 158. 11. Two words, ‫“( רחץ‬wash away”) and ‫“( צאה‬the filth”), are used in Isa. 4:4. Two words, ‫“( טהר‬cleanse”) and ‫“( טםאה‬the defilement”), are used in Ezek. 36:25. The word ‫נדה‬ (“menstruation, impurity”) is used in Zech. 13:1. 12. Even though the interpretation of “the Branch of the Lord” in Isa. 4:2 is disputed, the overall context of 4:2–6 gives weight to this interpretation (Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 106–7). Carol L. Meyers views Zech. 13:1 as an eschatological event. Meyers points out that Israel’s political situation during Yehud’s reign does not fit the description of the restoration of the Davidic kingdom in Zechariah. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 398–99. Although most scholars see Ezek. 36:24 as the event which happened in Babylonian exile, Lamar Eugene Cooper argues that Ezek. 36:25 is related to the gathering of the Israelites after A.D. 70 based on the expression, “will gather you from all the countries,” in 36:24 because the gathering that happened in 535 B.C. was related to only three countries (Ezekiel, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994], 17, 316). 13. The Psalter speaks of a river that flows through Jerusalem, and its streams make this city glad. Similarly, Isaiah describes Jerusalem as the place of abundant water where even a “mighty ship” cannot easily “sail.” 14. The location of “the valley of Sittim” is disputable. If Sittim means “the valley of acacia,” then the verse refers to the Kidron Valley where acacias grow. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 395. This valley is connected with the Dead Sea. If this interpretation

42 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

is correct, the direction this water flows is the same as the direction of the river in Ezek. 47:1–12. 15. James L. Crenshaw, Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 198; Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 265. Especially, Crenshaw points out that “and in that day” in Joel 3:18 also occurs in Zech. 12–14 (12:3, 9; 13:2, 4; 14:6, 8, 13) and that Joel 3 and Zech. 12–14 share similar ideas (Joel, 198). 16. In general, all of them are related to God’s promise of the future restoration of Israel. However, it seems that the restoration being portrayed is not limited to Israel as a country because at least some of the incidents in Joel 3, Zech. 14, and Ezek. 38–48 seem to be related to changes that will affect regions beyond Israel. For example, regarding Zech. 14:6 Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers comment that “the natural order of the cosmos itself will be turned upside down.” Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 431. 17. Ng, Water Symbolism, 178. 18. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 435–95. 19. 10:11; 13:14; 14:27; 16:22; 18:4; 20:5. 20. The phrase “fountain of life” occurs total five times in the OT (Ps. 36:9; Prov. 10:11; 13:14; 14:27; 16:22) and four of them appear in Proverbs. The author of Proverbs likens “the mouth of the righteous” (10:11), “the teaching of the wise” (13:14), “the fear of the Lord” (14:27), and “understanding” (16:22) to “a fountain of life.” From the fact that these four expressions are likened to “a fountain of life,” the author seems to present these four things as the sources of life to men. In other words, the author presents them as things that can provide life to those who listen to the teaching of the righteous or the wise or to those who have these virtues (understanding or the fear of the Lord). Among these four, at least three expressions (“the teaching of the wise,” “the fear of the Lord,” and “understanding”) are closely related to wisdom in Proverbs. Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs, WBC 22 (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 135. The first one, “the teaching of the wise,” clearly refers to wisdom. The second one, “the fear of the Lord,” is closely related to wisdom in Proverbs (1:7; 9:10; 15:33). The phrase, “the fear of the Lord,” is “essence” or “a prerequisite” of wisdom (Murphy, Proverbs, 5). Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 68. Bruce K. Waltke also claims that “the fear of the Lord” and “a fountain of life” are synonyms in 14:27 because the LXX uses them interchangeably (The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 604). The last one, “understanding,” is introduced as one of the virtues that the wise possess in Prov. 16:21. 21. If the relationship between the first and second half is continuous, then “deep waters” should be interpreted positively and could indicate the profoundness of the words of the wise. Murphy, Proverbs, 135. If the relationship is a contrast, then it should be interpreted negatively and could indicate the vagueness of ordinary men or the

A Survey of Water Imagery in the Old Testament | 43 evil intent of the wicked. Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 71–72. 22. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 399. 23. The expression “in that day” in 12:1 also appears in 11:10 where it is clearly related to the Messiah in the context. Through the words such as “the nations” (12:4) and “all the earth” (12:5), it seems that drawing water from the well of salvation in 12:3 is related to not only Israel but also all nations in the world (Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 294). 24. Jonathan D. Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, SBLABib 23 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 26–42. 25. 11:25, 28, 32, 40; 13:54–58; 14:5, 9, 47, 50; 15:5–13, 16–18, 21–22, 27. In Num. 19 the phrase “the waters of purification” is also related to the washing of the Israelites (v. 9). Num. 19 introduces the way to prepare the ashes of the red heifer. The ashes become a material for “the waters of purification,” which are used to cleanse the Israelites who become unclean (Num. 19:9, 17–21). 26. Hannah K. Harrington, “Purification in the Fourth Gospel in Light of Qumran,” in John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, ed. Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 121. 27. Lawrence, Washing, 31–32. 28. Jer. 17:13 uses πηγὴν ζωῆς, and this phrase refers to Yahweh as well. However, the Hebrew words for these two phrases are exactly the same. 29. Geert W. Lorein, “The Holy Spirit at Qumran,” in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 384–86. 30. Pierpaolo Bertalotto, “Immersion and Expiation: Water and Spirit from Qumran to John the Baptist,” Henoch 27 (2005): 168. 31. Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 5. 32. Yonder Moynihan Gillihan, Civic Ideology, Organization, and Law in the Rule Scrolls: A Comparative Study of the Covenanters’ Sect and Contemporary Voluntary Associations in Political Context (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 284–87. 33. Bertalotto, “Immersion,” 167–71. 34. Barbara E. Thiering, “Inner and Outer Cleansing at Qumran as a Background to New Testament Baptism,” NTS 26 (1980): 267–71. 35. 1 QS 4.21–22 also mentions water and the Spirit together. “The spirit of truth,” which refers to God’s Spirit, is likened to lustral water in this passage. Thiering, “Cleaning,” 271. Meanwhile, God will refine, with his truth, all man’s deeds, and will purify for himself the configuration of man, ripping out all spirit of deceit from the innermost part of his flesh, and cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every irreverent deed. He will

44 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

sprinkle over him with the spirit of truth like lustral water (in order to cleanse him) from all the abhorrences of deceit and from the defilement of the unclean spirit. In this way the upright will understand knowledge of the Most High, and the wisdom of the sons of heaven will teach those of perfect behavior.

The quotation is from Martínez, Dead Sea Scrolls, 7. 36. H. C. Kee, “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 801. 37. In 1 En. 26:2 Jerusalem is descried as a place having “a holy mountain,” and water flows under this mountain. In 1 En. 13:7–8 water (“the waters of Dan”) and a high mountain (“Hermon”) are mentioned together. Two Qumran documents also have similar understanding. In 1 QH 6.15–18 “an eternal planting,” which refers to the Qumran community, is described as a place of abundant water. The Qumran community understood themselves as the “everlasting Plant” or the “New Jerusalem” that will be restored in the last days. Another reference to “eternal planting” with plentiful water (the image of Eden) occurs in 1 QH 8.4–8. 38. Michael Chyutin, The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 18. 39. Ibid., 42–43. 40. Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 262. 41. Géza Vermès, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Translated with an Introduction and Commentaries by Géza Vermès and illustrated by Shraga Weil (New York: Heritage Press, 1967), 131. 42. Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 217–19. 43. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 1:467. 44. Ibid., 472. 45. Lawrence, Washing, 47–79. 46. Harrington, “Purification,” 121. 47. 4Q 512, 4Q 277.2.2, 4Q 213a 11.6–10, 4Q 418.103.2.2–6, CD 19.33–35, 1QH 16.4–21. 48. See also 4Q277.2.2 and 4Q213a 11.6–10. 49. This parenthesis is mine. 50. Martínez, Dead Sea Scrolls, 442. 51. Bertil E. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 27. 52. Martínez, Dead Sea Scrolls, 46.

4

Symbolism in Johannine Literature

Understanding symbolism is not an easy task. Regarding this difficulty David W. Wead states: Symbolism within the Gospel of John must be approached with extreme caution. Not only is there very little agreement as to what should be considered symbolism but also there are many other good reasons why the search for the symbolic interpretation brings trouble to the exegete.1

As Wead points out, scholars often have different opinions on symbolism. This diversity seems to result from different definitions, different methods to identify symbol, and different classifications. Thus, this chapter has two purposes: (1) to define symbolism as used in this dissertation and (2) to see how many and what kind of symbols are used in the Johannine literature, especially in the Gospel. Since symbolism in the Epistles is not as an important feature as in the Gospel or Revelation,2 we will focus on the Gospel and Revelation.

The Definition and Nature of Symbol For the purpose of this dissertation the following basic and simple definition of symbol will be used: “an image, a word, an action, or a person that stands for

46 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

something or someone other than itself.” Scholars often provide somewhat differing definitions. Sandra M. Schneiders defines it as “(1) a sensible reality (2) which renders present to and (3) involves a person subjectively in (4) a transforming experience (5) of the mystery of the Transcendent.”3 But do all symbols have a transforming experience? And do they all speak of the Transcendent? Koester seems to agree with Schneiders and begins his study of Johannine symbolism with a question: “How do people know God?” Koester claims that Jesus came down from heaven to earth to reveal who God was and that Jesus used “earthly images” that people could understand when he revealed God through his “speech and actions.” Koester then defines symbol as “an image, an action, or a person that is understood to have transcendent significance.” In Koester’s view, these three things can be a symbol when they have transcendent significance by conveying the message about “transcendent realities” such as God, Jesus, God’s revelation, and God’s power.4 But once again not all symbols are about God. For example in the book of Revelation sometimes star or lampstand represents an angel of a church or a church (1:20). Jones may be closer to a suitable definition when he says: First, we can define a symbol as a literary device that points beyond itself to something that defies clear and definitive perceptual expression, that is, it points to something far greater than itself. Secondly, a symbol in some way “embodies” that which it represents, that is, it does not merely bear revelation, it is revelation itself.5

More recently, Adesola Joan Akala takes the idea even further and defines a symbol as: “A figure of speech that embodies certain characteristics of its literal meaning, and leads to a transcendent meaning that is significant within its narrative context and transformative in its theological purpose.” By using the word “transformative” in this definition Akala argues that “the theological aim of Johannine symbolism is not only to bring hearer-readers to belief in Jesus as the Son of God, but also to lead them into the experience of eternal life, through a relationship with the Father and the Son.”6 As we can see from these four definitions, although their definitions are somewhat different each other, they are common in contending that symbol has transcendent significance and transformative power. But, these definitions are too narrow because not every symbol in the Gospel has transcendent significance. For example, branches in John 15:2–5 refers to Israel or the disciples and do not really have “transformative significance.”7 Furthermore, defining a symbol having transforming power also is inaccurate because something is still a symbol even if it does not produce any change in the reader. For instance, rivers of living water in John 7:38 do

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 47 not lose its symbolic force even if this image does not make any difference in the reader’s heart. Scholars also have divergent views on the relation between symbol and metaphor. Some argue that these two cannot be sharply distinguished,8 while others believe that they must be distinguished.9 This dissertation will not sharply distinguish these two, since scholars often use them without significant distinction.10 For example, D. A. Lee rightly points out: The distinction between symbol and metaphor creates too many problems, both literary and theological. In the Johannine worldview, at least the two clearly belong together.11

Although some scholars claim that a symbol should be differentiated from sign,12 this distinction seems to be overstated. Scholars also often contend that a symbol can mean various things at once in a single passage.13 Considering various possible associations for an image seems to be a necessary interpretive process. However, assuming multiple meaning for one symbol at once appears to be unconvincing. R. Alan Culpepper acknowledges the possibility of multivalent nature of symbols. But he also points out that a symbol can also deliver only one meaning to those who share common history and theology. …whereas a symbol may point to many things, to be effective, a sign can point to only one. Symbols or metaphors can be used as signs, however, by a group of people who share the same expressions of a common ideology or theology. In such cases, the work of inferring the meaning of the metaphor or symbol is taken for granted. The use of metaphors or symbols as signs…gives the language of a community an “in-group” value and meaning which can be discerned by outsiders only by recovering the original metaphorical or symbolic functions of the community’s language and deciphering it in the light of their common history and theology.14

Although I do not agree with Culpepper’s idea that a symbol and sign should be distinguished, he seems to be right in pointing out the possibility that a symbol refers to only one thing in the text in which it belongs. Moreover, as Grant R. Osborne rightly comments, it is more convincing to think that the task of interpreters is choosing the most probable meaning after careful assessment of various possible meanings. The sources for interpreting them come from the OT, intertestamental literature, and the Greco-Roman world―in other words, in the common world of the original readers in

48 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the province of Asia. We have to sift the various possibilities and see which background best fits the context.15

As this brief survey indicates, scholars have various opinions on the definition and nature of symbols. Since their definitions appear to be too narrow, the definition used throughout this dissertation, as noted above, will be: “an image, a word, an action, or a person that stands for something or someone other than itself.”

Symbolism in the Gospel The Fourth Gospel is known as a book rich in symbolism, and water is one of its major symbols. Concerning the Gospel’s rich symbolism, G. H. C. Macgregor comments that, “No understanding of the Gospel is possible without an appreciation of the part played by symbolism.”16

Classification of Symbols in the Gospel Even though scholars generally agree on John’s heavy use of symbols, they often have different views on what Johannine symbolism includes and have different classifications of Johannine symbolism.17 In this study symbols in the Gospel will be classified into five categories: symbolic images, symbolic words, symbolic actions, representative figures, and proposals that do not fit any one of the preceding categories. Symbolic Images According to Culpepper, three major symbolic images appear in the Gospel: light, bread, and water.18 These three are used more frequently than other images. Light and water symbolism appears throughout the Gospel while the symbol of bread appears only in chapter 6. Regarding Johannine water symbolism, Culpepper writes that “while water is a dominant motif and expanding core symbol, it is less unified and more variable than either light or bread.”19 As Culpepper points out, among these three major symbols, water is the most complicated symbol in the Gospel. It is relatively easy to recognize what light and bread represent. In the case of water, however, it is frequently not easy to recognize what it represents. Most references to water in John occur in chapters 1–13; this image occurs less frequently after chapter 13. The image of water in John will be discussed more thoroughly when examining the six disputed passages (ch. 6).

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 49 Besides these major symbols, there are many minor symbols in the Gospel: the lamb of God (1:29, 36), dove (1:32), wine (2:3, 9, 10), food (4:31–34), eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood (6:51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58), sheep, door, the gate, thieves, robbers, the good shepherd (10:1–16), the way (14:6), vine, gardener, branches, fruit, fire (15:1–6), and cup (18:11). Symbolic Words Some words used symbolically in the Gospel scholars have suggested are: again/ from above (3:7, 31; 19:11), lifted up (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), come (5:40; 6:35, 37; 7:37), follow (8:12; 12:26; 21:19, 22), walk or remain in the darkness (8:12; 12:35, 46), remain (1:37; 8:31; 14:10, 17; 15:4–10), see (6:40; 9:39), world (9:39; 12:31), fall asleep (11:11), wake him up (11:11), wash (13:8), clean (13:10–11), bear fruit (15:5), and tend/shepherd (21:15–17). Some scholars consider a few of these symbolic words to have a double mean20 ing. For instance, E. Richard notes that double meaning and symbolism have a close relationship in the Gospel. He classifies the double meanings in John into seven categories, and one of them is “figurative expressions,” which consist of words having a figurative meaning as one of their double meanings.21 Next we are led to consider in a more general way a large variety of “expressions of double meaning” whose structural function would demand attention in a more detailed study than this one (ambiguous terms).22 Some expressions are more properly symbolic (“night”, “light”, “darkness”, “water”, etc.); others are figurative (e.g. the euphemism “asleep” in 11.11, “food” in 4.32, “blind” in 9.39, “free” in 8.32, etc.). The full meaning of these terms can only be appreciated in their narrative contexts…the terms lend themselves readily to symbolic use.23

As Richard notes, some words having a double meaning have a literal meaning as one of their double meanings and have a symbolic meaning as the other. For example, among the words listed above, the word νίπτω (“wash”) in 13:8 has a double meaning, which refers not only to Jesus’ action of washing the disciples’ feet (literal meaning) but also seems to refer to his action of cleansing Peter’s sins through his crucifixion (symbolic meaning).24 However, some words on the previously mentioned list seem to not have a double meaning. For instance, the language of “coming” in this book seems to be used literally in some passages but symbolically in other passages. Andreas J. Köstenberger argues that coming to Jesus is synonymous with believing in him when it is used symbolically (6:35), and John’s use of this language moves “from

50 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

more literal (1:39–6:5) to more figurative meaning (5:40–7:37)” as the narrative flows.25 Some words in the Gospel have a double meaning. Some words in the Gospel are used literally in one passage, and the same words are used symbolically in different passages. This possibility of having literal and symbolic meanings together in the Gospel makes the interpretation of the Gospel much more difficult. Moreover, since some of the words listed above such as again/from above (3:7), come (5:40; 6:35, 37; 7:37), wash (13:8), and clean (13:10–11), are related to water image in the Gospel or the six disputed water passages, this makes our task of determining whether water in the Gospel is used literally or symbolically and of interpreting water in the six passages more complex. Symbolic Actions Although scholars have differing opinions on how many symbolic actions are present in the Gospel, most scholars agree that some actions can be symbolic.26 For example, Koester lists some examples of symbolic actions in the Gospel and considers all the signs in the Gospel as symbolic actions.27 A sign (σημεῖον) is one of the distinctive Johannine terms referring to six or seven actions of Jesus in the Gospel, and it is often suggested that its primary purpose is to lead the readers to have faith in Jesus by revealing his glory through the miracles he performed. Signs are considered as symbolic actions because they are not just intended to show Jesus’ miracles but to display the true identity of Jesus as the only one who can represent God and as the one who has a unique relationship with God through his miracles. Even though scholars often disagree on how many signs are present in the Gospel, they generally agree that these six are at least Johannine signs: the changing of water into wine (2:1–11), the healing of the royal official’s son (4:46– 54), the healing of the lame man (5:1–15), the feeding of the multitude (6:1–15), the healing of the blind man (9:1–41), and the raising of Lazarus (11:1–57).28 Among these six, three are somehow related to water (2:1–11; 5:1–15; 9:1–41). Additionally, even though footwashing in 13:1–17 is not considered as a Johannine sign, it is also considered as a symbolic action.29 Therefore, these four water passages in the Gospel are considered as symbolic actions in general and will be examined in detail later. Representative Figures When considering the Johannine characters, scholars’ opinions are more divided. Are these characters historical figures or fictional characters or both? Are they symbols or not?30 These questions continue to be debated. This issue will be discussed

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 51 later in this chapter when I examine the relationship and/or tension between literal and symbolic readings. Regarding this issue, one common term scholars often use is representative figures.31 A representative figure means that “a character represents someone or a group.” For instance, Koester prefers the term “representative figures” to symbols and views almost every major character in the Gospel as highly symbolic in the sense that each character represents a group to which he belongs or even all human beings although he does not deny the historicity of them.32 Figures who are often viewed as representative are the disciple(s), the twelve, the Beloved Disciple, Peter, Judas Iscariot, Thomas, Andrew, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the royal official, the man born blind, and Martha.33 Proposals That Do Not Fit Any One of the Preceding Categories Lee claims that there are six symbolic narratives in the Gospel. The six narratives are the narratives of Nicodemus (John 3), the Samaritan woman (John 4), the healing of the lame man (John 5), the feeding of the crowd (John 6), the healing of the blind man (John 9), and the raising of Lazarus (John 11). Regarding the definition of symbolic narrative Lee states: I have used the term “symbolic narrative” in a quite specific and defined sense for these six narratives, not simply as a vague reference to John’s overall narrative, but as a technical term for a literary form that is unique to certain parts of the Fourth Gospel.34

After providing this definition, Lee contends that these six narratives are common in having “five narrative stages.” These five stages are “foundational image or sign,” “misunderstanding,” “struggle for understanding,” “attainment or rejection of symbolic understanding,” and “confession of faith or statement of rejection.” She argues that as at the first stage these six narratives bring the image of water or bread or the Johannine sign. As Lee analyzes John 3, she presents the words γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (“born from above/again”) in 3:3 as its primary symbol. She claims that this word has a double meaning, and one of its meanings is related to literal meaning (born again referring to natural birth) and the other is related to symbolic meaning (born from above referring to spiritual birth). She comments, “The issue is whether Nicodemus has embraced or rejected Jesus’ explication of the image of birth as a symbol for eternal life.” She also states, “Nicodemus and the Judaism he represents are…faced with the choice…between a literal and a symbolic understanding.” Lee asserts that since Nicodemus only understands its literal meaning and does not understand its symbolic meaning, Jesus tries to teach him its symbolic meaning through the expression, “born of water and the Spirit”

52 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

in 3:5. However, although it is true that ἄνωθεν in 3:3 has a double meaning, it seems obvious that Jesus does not intend to deliver literal and symbolic meanings when he says this word. In other words, no matter which meaning Jesus meant through this word between these two, it is obvious that he meant the same thing (spiritual birth through the Spirit). Therefore, what Jesus wants from Nicodemus is not to make a choice between literal meaning and symbolic meaning but to understand that he needs a spiritual birth. Lee also contends that Nicodemus understood the symbolic meaning of spiritual birth when he witnessed that water comes from Jesus’ side in 19:34.35 However, Nicodemus is not listed as one of the people who was near Jesus’ cross (19:25–26). Also there is very little evidence to confirm her interpretation that Jesus’ issuing water in 19:34 is related to spiritual birth. Wayne Meeks contends that Jerusalem, Galilee, and Samaria have symbolic roles in the Gospel. According to this scholar, Jerusalem is a symbol of “the place of judgment and rejection,” and Galilee and Samaria are “the places of acceptance and discipleship.”36 Carson claims that the evangelist intentionally shows that Bethany is the place where Jesus’ ministry begins (1:28) and ends (10:40) to emphasize the atoning significance of his ministry with the phrase “the lamb of God” (1:29) and to emphasize the placement of the incident of raising Lazarus in John 11.37 I have examined five categories of symbolism in the Gospel. As this survey shows, scholars often have different views on whether a certain image, word, action, figure, or place in the Gospel has an additional symbolic meaning. Therefore, there is a need to draw a distinction between valid types of symbolism and invalid (or at least debatable) categories of symbolism.

Relationship and/or Tension Between Literal and Symbolic Readings One important issue relating to Johannine symbolism is the question of whether a literal referent excludes a symbolic referent or whether both be present. Many interpreters consider it perfectly normal that narrative details in the Fourth Gospel might carry an additional symbolic meaning, and that to posit such a meaning creates no tension with the underlying literal reading. But there are others who insist that it is actually not so common for John to add a level of symbolic meaning to random narrative details, and that to do so often does create tensions with respect to the literal level narrative meaning. For example, Timothy Wiarda holds the latter position and offers a convincing argument on this issue in his discussion of Nicodemus episode. He claims that “by night” in

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 53 John 3:2 and Nicodemus in John 3 should be understood literally without any additional symbolic meaning and also contends that in some passages interpreters need to make a choice between literal and symbolic readings for these two readings seem to be in tension each other. Many commentators argue that “by night” in John 3:2 has both literal meaning and symbolic meaning. For example, Raymond E. Brown notes: John consistently recalls this detail (xix 39) because of its symbolic import. Darkness and night symbolize the realm of evil, untruth, and ignorance (see ix 4, xi 10). In xiii 30 Judas leaves the light to go out into the night of Satan; Nicodemus, on the other hand, comes out of the darkness into the light (vss. 19–21). On a purely literal level, the nighttime visit may have been a stealthy expedient “for fear of the Jews” (xix 38); or it may reflect the rabbinic custom of staying up at night to study the Law. (StB, II, p. 420)38

As this quotation clearly shows, scholars often take a both-and approach to this image (affirming both literal and symbolic meanings simultaneously). However, Wiarda insists that “this symbolic reading stands in tension to concrete reading” and proposes that “by night” should be read only literally as a random narrative detail indicating “Nicodemus’ desire for secrecy”39 without any extra symbolic level of meaning.40 Wiarda states: The most common concrete reading sees it (by night detail) as an indication of Nicodemus’s desire for secrecy, and concludes that the narrator thereby characterizes him as one who is attracted to Jesus but must struggle with the fear of alienating his colleagues in the Sanhedrin. This interpretation treats the narrative as a realistic scene; it explains Nicodemus’s timing within the nexus of physical and social rules that govern human action. It also views the time note as a purposeful part of the narrator’s shaping of the story, a detail that points beyond itself to show us something about Nicodemus as a person.41

First, according to Wiarda, this literal interpretation receives substantial support both from the NT and the Gospel itself. He notes that “night is viewed as the typical time for carrying out secretive acts” in the NT (Matt 2:14; 10:27; 24:43; 28:13; Luke 12:3). Wiarda also points out that this literal reading coheres well with other Nicodemus stories in the Gospel (7:45–52 and 19:38–42) because Joseph of Arimathea is introduced as a secret believer who was fearful of the Jews (19:38) and Nicodemus appears in this scene as his helper in burying Jesus’ body (19:39) and the communication between Nicodemus and other Jewish rulers in 7:45–52 reflects well the seriousness of the enmity between Jesus and the Jewish leaders and peer pressures Nicodemus experiences.42 Wiarda also contends that this enmity between Jesus and the Jewish leaders is an overarching theme in the

54 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Gospel and Jesus’ temple cleansing in 2:12–25, which precedes 3:1–21, enhances the probability that enmity between Jesus and the Jewish ruler group already existed.43 Second, Wiarda proposes that there are some tensions between the symbolic reading and the literal reading. Regarding this tension Wiarda makes the observation that scholars who take the symbolic approach tend to leave no room for the literal approach. Francis J. Moloney’s interpretation is good example. He pays no attention at all to the literal approach and only focuses on its symbolic meaning by interpreting Nicodemus’ night visit as “a significant movement toward believing” in light of John 1:4–5 where Jesus is introduced as the light that shines in the darkness.44 Wiarda also speaks of this tension when he examines Nicodemus in John 3. Turning to a second issue involving a choice between concrete and symbolic/allegorical interpretation, is Nicodemus an individual character, or a representative figure, or perhaps both? A concrete reading can only see Nicodemus as an individual: he is a single person, not a group; he belongs to the time of Jesus, not to any other generation. An allegorical approach, by way of contrast, opens the way for viewing Nicodemus as a figure who stands for a group. Most who view Nicodemus in this way suppose that he represents a group of Jews in the time of the evangelist (secret believers in the synagogue? partial believers?); others think he typifies a particular kind of response to Jesus (misunderstanding? openness? sign-based faith? hesitant faith?). Either way, the figure of Nicodemus becomes a doorway out of the scenes in which he appears, into other times and places inhabited by other people.45

To highlight the necessity of making a choice between these two readings, Wiarda suggests four ways in which a symbolic reading can create tension for a literal reading. First, as we can observe from the above citation, one of the possible problems that seeing Nicodemus as a representative figure could cause is detracting from the time-of-Jesus narrative setting by assuming that he stands for a group who lived in the evangelist’s time. For example, J. L. Martyn views Nicodemus as “a symbolic figure representing a local Jewish leader at the time John was writing, a figure who secretly believed but who needed encouragement to step out and make his faith public.”46 The Gerousia with which he (John) is acquainted is dominantly loyal to the authority of Pharisaic Jamnia…The Jamnia Loyalists who enforce the Benediction Against Heretics are, for all practical purposes, the Gerousia. But John knows that even among members of the Gerousia there are secret believers (12:42), and he may have employed a term (“the

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 55 rulers”) by which he can speak about them…Nicodemus is a “ruler of the Jews” (3:1), and it is obvious that for John he is typical of those in the Gerousia who secretly believe.47

In this case, Nicodemus is no longer viewed as a figure who visited Jesus at night. He becomes John’s character representing typical type of people in his community. The second way in which a symbolic reading can create tension for a literal reading Wiarda suggests is failing to describe Nicodemus as a dynamic character who can change his attitude toward Jesus “from uncertainty to discipleship” as the narrative unfolds.48 He observes that those who pursue the symbolic reading tend to portray the last scene Nicodemus appears (19:38–40) negatively and finds the reason for this in their symbolic approach because they often stick to the initial negative description of Nicodemus in John 3:1–21.49 As Wiarda points out, those who view Nicodemus as a representative figure typically find no significant change in his attitude towards Jesus as the narrative develops. For instance, Jouette M. Bassler writes: Marginality seems a better category for understanding Nicodemus, for one peculiar feature we have noted about this figure is that he shows no real movement in the narrative. He is no more clearly a disciple at the end of the Gospel than at the beginning; he remains throughout a tertium quid.50

The third way in which a symbolic reading can create tension for a literal reading Wiarda addresses is “limitation of focus.” He argues that the symbolic reading often fails to “acknowledge a variety of traits and qualities” by focusing on only a trait relevant to the symbolic reading. If we quickly identify Nicodemus as a figure designed to represent a particular group of quality we may become less perceptive of nuances of characterization that do not relate to the group we have fixed upon. If I determine that Nicodemus typifies sign-based faith, for instance, I may overlook details that highlight the social pressures he has to contend with. Viewing a character as an individual, by way of contrast, makes it easier to acknowledge a variety of traits and qualities.51

For instance, Culpepper states that “Nicodemus seems to represent the many Jews in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus because they saw the signs he was doing” and limits his focus on Nicodemus’ failures in confessing his faith in Jesus (7:50–52) and in having the faith of Jesus’ resurrection (19:39–42).52 The last way in which a symbolic reading can create tension for a literal reading Wiarda comments on is that readers who adopt Nicodemus as a representative

56 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

figure become “less sensitive to narrative hints concerning his inward person.” He contends that the literal approach can be more sensitive to Nicodemus’ inward person such as his feelings than the symbolic approach by giving more attention to his words in the narrative. Is it legitimate to ask what Nicodemus’s words to the Pharisees reveal about his feelings, for instance? I think readers who view Nicodemus as a concrete individual will be more willing to consider questions of this kind than those who see him as a representative figure.53

As we have observed thus far, scholars tend to emphasize symbolic or representative characteristics of the Johannine figures at the expense of their historicity or roles in the literary context in which they belong.54 These points convincingly lead us to be cautious about adding an additional symbolic meaning to a narrative detail that functions well at a literal level. There might be some exceptions (e.g., 13:30). But each instance must be carefully examined with no strong assumption that this particular type of symbolism (adding a level of symbolic meaning to random narrative details) is common or normal in this Gospel. This will be important to keep in mind when we examine John 19:34 and assess the common view that the water in that verse functions simultaneously at a literal and a symbolic level.

Symbolism in Revelation Even though scholars have differing opinions on how many portions in the Apocalypse should be interpreted symbolically, most of them generally agree that this book is full of symbols.55 Simon J. Kistemaker divides the symbols in this book into five categories: (1) nature (the tree of life [2:7; 22:2, 14, 19], a strong wind [6:13; 7:1], and earthquake [8:5; 11:19; 16:18], etc.); (2) persons and names (Antipas [2:13], Balaam [2:14], and Sodom and Egypt [11:8], etc.); (3) numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12, etc.); (4) colors (white, red, scarlet, and black, etc.); and (5) creatures (horse, lamb, and lion, etc.).56 Compared to the Gospel this book uses a lot of numbers symbolically. Major numbers that often thought to be used symbolically in the Apocalypse are 3, 4, 7, and 12.57 G. K. Beale claims that most of Revelation should be interpreted symbolically. We are told in the book’s introduction that the majority of the material in it is revelatory symbolism (1:12–20 and 4:1–22:5 at the least). Hence, the predominant manner by

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 57 which to approach the material will be according to a nonliteral interpretative method. Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgment should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.58

According to Beale, most portions of this book where John describes what he has seen in the vision (except the beginning and end of this book [1:1–11 and 22:6–21] and the letters to the seven churches [2:1–3:22]) should be primarily interpreted symbolically. As he insists, although most of the vision should be interpreted symbolically, it is important to note that not every detail in the vision is symbolic. Nevertheless, not every detail is symbolic and in need of interpretation. Explaining the content of Revelation, we keep in mind the central message of a passage and consider detail as pictorial and descriptive. The message is primary, the details secondary. Unless the message demands an interpretation of the individual parts, we should refrain from looking for a deeper meaning for each component. Not all the information in the Apocalypse is symbolic. If the writer states that the grass is green (8:7) and that a breastplate is red, blue, and yellow (9:17), he merely describes the objects. When words like green, blue, or yellow occur only once in a given context, we have no basis to suspect symbolical language.59

As this quotation indicates, Kistemaker rightly points out that we must be cautious not to add symbolic meaning to every detail in the vision unless there is enough contextual evidence for doing this.

Summary We have surveyed how symbols are used in the Johannine literature. This analysis can be summarized into the following three points. First, there can be tensions between literal reading and symbolic reading. As Wiarda persuasively demonstrates through his analysis of “by night” in John 3:2 and on the character of Nicodemus in John 3, depending on the strategy they adopt (literal or symbolic), interpreters will go in significantly different directions and will arrive at different interpretations and conclusions concerning this scene. Therefore, these tensions between literal and symbolic readings suggest we should be cautious about adding a symbolic level of meaning to narrative details. This point will be especially important when we deal with one of the six disputed passages (the water reference in John 19:34 in ch. 6).

58 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Second, since scholars often disagree on whether a certain image has symbolic meaning, there is a need to draw a distinction between valid types of symbolism and invalid (or at least debatable) categories of symbolism. As we have discussed in the cases of “by night” in John 3:2 and of Nicodemus in John 3, this tendency stands out especially in the cases of involving investing random narrative details with an extra level of reference (by night) and involving representative figures (Nicodemus). Accordingly, in order to make a sound exegetical decision on each of water references in John, especially the six disputed passages, we should not be too hasty in adding a symbolic meaning to it until we have adequate exegetical evidence that supports the symbolic meaning. Third, in the case of the Apocalypse, as we discussed previously, although most of the vision should be interpreted symbolically, it is important to note that not every detail in the vision is symbolic. This observation also supports my classification in chapter one. We distinguished all water references in Revelation into two categories: passages where water functions literally within a larger symbolic narrative and passages where water carries an independent symbolic value in their own right.

Notes 1. David Wayne Wead, The Literary Devices in John’s Gospel, TD 4 (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970), 27. 2. However, a few symbols can be found in 1 John. For example, light and darkness (1:5–7), the word anointing (2:20, 27), and “his (God’s) seed,” (3:9) are used symbolically. 3. Sandra M. Schneiders, “Symbolism and the Sacramental Principle in the Fourth Gospel,” in Segni e sacramenti nel Vangelo di Giovanni, ed. Pius –Ramon Tragan, SA 66 (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1977), 223. 4. Koester, Symbolism, 1–5. 5. Jones, The Symbol of Water, 19. 6. Adesola Joan Akala, The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John, LNTS 505 (London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2014), 26–57. 7. Barrett, John, 473–74. 8. D. A. Lee, Flesh and Glory: Symbol, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad Publications, 2002), 23; Koester, Symbolism, 6; Beale, Revelation, 56. 9. Culpepper, Anatomy, 181; Jones, The Symbol of Water, 14; Akala, Son-Father Relationship, 11–13. Those who adopt this view tend to pay more attention to their differences although they also acknowledge that symbol and metaphor are related each

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 59 other. One of the differences between the two they suggest is the presence or absence of the tenor. Scholars often use two terms, tenor and vehicle, to explain how metaphor functions in a sentence although there is no clear definition for them. Regarding the difficulty of defining these terms see Eva Feder Kittay, Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 16. Beale provides a simple but helpful explanation for these terms: There are three crucial parts of a metaphor: the literal subject (tenor), the figurative subject (vehicle), and the resulting point of comparison. The figurative subject always explains the literal subject in some way. The figurative subject is a filter or lens through which the main point (or points) of comparison is (or are) deduced and applied to the literal subject. The point of comparison usually carries both cognitive and emotional elements. If “George is a wolf ” is said in a context in which George is understood to be a dangerous criminal, then we understand better through the picture of wolf that George is someone who hurts people, and this image evokes a feeling of fear. (Revelation, 55)

In the sentence, “George is a wolf,” George is the tenor (literal subject) and a wolf is the vehicle (figurative subject). As Beale explains, the vehicle (a wolf ) is the figurative image that is employed by the author to make a point of comparison with the tenor (George). In other words, a wolf as the vehicle is an image that is used by the author to explain some characteristics of George (the tenor) such as cunningness, cruelness, or tenacity. This distinction between them is generally agreed among scholars and seems to be valid. Culpepper, Anatomy, 181; Koester, Symbolism, 6–7; Jones, The Symbol of Water, 14; Akala, Father-Son Relationship, 11–13. Akala lists more elements for differentiating between symbol and metaphor. Akala, Father-Son Relationship, 12. 10. Koester, Beale, and Ng do not distinguish these two sharply. Koester correctly stresses their continuity by noting that “symbols and metaphors are not identical, but are related on a continuum.” Koester, Symbolism, 6. 11. Lee, Flesh and Glory, 23. 12. It is frequently argued that whereas “a sign can point to only one (thing)” “a symbol may point to many” and its meaning often “remains somewhat mysterious.” Culpepper, Anatomy, 182. Parenthesis is mine. See also Ng, Water Symbolism, 46 and Schneiders, “Symbolism,” 224–25. 13. Culpepper, Anatomy, 182. 14. Ibid. 15. Osborne, Revelation, 17. 16. G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John, MNTC (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), xxv. 17. Culpepper divides them into “personal” and “impersonal” symbols, then divides the latter into “core symbols” and “peripheral symbols.” He considers the characters of the Gospel including Jesus as personal symbols. In Culpepper’s view, water, light, and bread are three core symbols and the rest of the symbols in the Gospel are peripheral

60 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

symbols (“the Lamb of God” in 1:29, “a dove” in 1:32, Jesus’ temple cleansing in 2:14–22, “the good shepherd” in 10:11, etc.). Culpepper, Anatomy, 189–98. Koester includes “the images, the actions, and representative figures” as symbols by stating that these three “function similarly” in the Gospel and divides Johannine symbols into “core symbols” and “supporting symbols” according to how often they appear. Koester introduces light, water, bread, and the vine (15:1–17) as some of core symbols and classifies darkness, day, night, sight, and blindness as supporting symbols because they “play an important supporting role through their relationship to light.” Koester, Symbolism, 4–5. Ng argues that symbolism “can be associated with a number of literary skills” and classifies Johannine symbolism into eight categories: “metaphorical symbolism,” “narrative symbolism,” “double meaning,” “misunderstanding and irony,” “sacramental symbolism,” “representational symbolism,” “thematic symbolism,” and “scriptural symbolism.” Ng, Water Symbolism, 5–22. 18. Culpepper, Anatomy, 189. 19. Ibid., 192–93. 20. A good example is “lifted up” in 3:14. See Köstenberger, John, 128. 21. The seven categories are “misunderstanding,” “irony,” “use of technical terms (in a general context),” “ambiguous terms (in a specific context),” “figurative expressions,” “Christological titles,” and “double meanings that transcend particular literary techniques.” E. Richard, “Expressions of Double Meaning and Their Function in the Gospel of John,” NTS 31 (1985): 97. 22. The parenthesis is mine. 23. Ibid., 102, 105. 24. Köstenberger, John, 406. 25. Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 176–77. 26. Koester, Symbolism, 4; Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 158; Culpepper, Anatomy, 198. 27. Koester, Symbolism, 79. Köstenberger also considers all the signs in the Gospel as symbolic actions (Theology, 158). However, David Wayne Wead objects to see them as symbolic (The Literary Devices in John’s Gospel, 29). 28. Köstenberger, Theology, 324–28. 29. Ibid., 158. Jesus’ breathing on his disciples in 20:22 is often regarded as a symbolic action as well. Carson, John, 652–53. 30. Scholars such as Schneiders and Culpepper even see Jesus as symbol. Schneiders, “Symbolism,” 224; Culpepper, Anatomy, 189. Even though Koester does not call Jesus a symbol, he calls Jesus a “primary representative figure.” Koester, Symbolism, 33.

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 61 31. Raymond F. Collins, These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel, LTPM 2 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990), 118–32; Koester, Symbolism, 33–77. 32. Koester, Symbolism, 33–77. Koester considers “Jesus, Nicodemus, Samaritan Woman, royal official from Capernaum, invalid at Bethzatha, crowd in Galilee, crowd in Jerusalem, Nathanael, man born blind, Martha, Mary, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Thomas, Judas Iscariot” as representative figures. 33. Raymond F. Collins considers fifteen characters in the Gospel as representative figures. The fifteen characters include John the Baptist, Nathanael, Mary (the mother of Jesus), Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the royal official, the lame man, Philip, the man born blind, Lazarus, Judas, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple. He contends that these characters were chosen by the evangelist to be used as “types of faith,” and the purpose of these types was to encourage the believers in the Johannine community to have their faith in Jesus. Collins, These Things Have Been Written, 7–8, 14, 16. However, C. F. D. Moule claims that one can see a high degree of individualism from the characters in John’s Gospel (“The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel,” NovT 5 [1962]: 171–90). 34. Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup 95 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press/JSOT, 1994), 11. 35. Ibid., 12–57. 36. Wayne Meeks, “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 85 (1966): 169. 37. Carson, John, 147. However, Keener comments that the reference to Bethany in 1:28 “is likely a matter of historical rather than theological interest.” Keener, John, 1:450. 38. Brown, John x–xii, 130. See also Beasley-Murray, John, 47; Keener, John, 1:536. Scholars often assume that “by night” should be interpreted symbolically based on John’s symbolic use of “darkness” in the same episode (3:19–21) and the symbolic use of “night” in 13:30. Koester contends that the symbolic overtone of this descriptive detail is clear from John’s symbolic use of “darkness” in the same episode. He notes: The full symbolic force of the night emerges only later, when Jesus says, “the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (3:19–21)

Koester, Symbolism, 9. However, Wiarda rightly comments: …what is said about darkness in 3.19–21 doesn’t quite mesh with the portrayal of Nicodemus throughout the preceding scene. Though Nicodemus displays confusion and doubt in the face of strange new concepts, he is not portrayed as someone filled with the kind of darkness described in vv. 19–21, which purposely hides evil deeds and is associated with evil.

Timothy Wiarda, “Scenes and Details in the Gospels: Concrete Reading and Three Alternatives,” NTS 50 (2004): 171.

62 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Juan Leal argues that the evangelist might give symbolic meaning if he provides a trivial circumstance in the narrative which seems to have little or no historical value. Leal claims that the mention of night in John 13:30 appears to have no historical value because the readers might have already knew that Passover meal begins at sunset. Juan Leal, “El Simbolismo Historico del IV Evangelio,” EBíb 19 (1960): 345. This method does not work well because determining whether a chronological detail has historical value or not is not always simple. 39. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 168–71. 40. F. P. Cotterell summarizes its four main views (“a simple chronological marker,” “a desire for anonymity on the part of Nicodemus,” “the redactor’s concern with the symbolism of ‘night’ over against ‘day,’” and “custom of the Rabbis of using the night for theological discussion”) and considers by night in 3:2 as “a simple chronological marker” based on the fact that the evangelist does not put much emphasis on it. F. P. Cotterell, “The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal,” ExpT 96 (1984–85): 238–39. 41. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 168–69. Parenthesis is mine. 42. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 169. Urban C. von Wahlde also makes similar point (The Gospel and Letters of John, 2:115). Similarly, although Leon Morris does not totally reject the possibility of multiple meaning, he points out that seeing Nicodemus’ intent of night visit in 3:2 as his desire for secrecy fits well with 7:50–51 and 19:39 because Nicodemus is described as a timid and passive figure in these texts. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 187. 43. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 169. 44. Moloney, John, 91. See also Koester, Symbolism, 47, 151 and Jones, The Symbol of Water, 68. 45. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 172. See also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987), 1:365; John Henry Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928), 99. Many commentators take a both-and approach to Nicodemus by insisting that he can be both a historical figure and a representative figure. Culpepper, Anatomy, 135; Brown, John i–xii, 129; Moloney, John, 94. Scholars contend that the incidents in the Gospel are both historical and symbolic. Maurice F. Wiles, “Historicity and Symbolism,” in The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 22–40; Xavier Leon-Dufour, “Towards a Symbolic Reading of the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 27 (1981): 439. 46. Carson, John, 185. 47. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 87–88. Parenthesis is mine. Influenced by Martyn, Herman C. Waetjen also comments that Nicodemus is “representative of the post-70 rabbinic leadership that has established itself at the academy of Jamnia.” Herman C.

Symbolism in Johannine Literature  | 63 Waetjen, The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple: A Work in Two Editions (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 143. 48. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 173. J. A. Brant also points out that “when a character is burdened with symbolic value, he or she tends to appear as an allegorical figure rather than as an actual person” and views Jesus, the Samaritan woman, and Mary as unique individuals. J. A. Brant, “Husband and Hunting: Characterization and Narrative Art in the Gospel of John,” Biblical Interpretation 4 (1996): 210–11. 49. D. D. Sylva, “Nicodemus and His Spices (John 19:39),” NTS 34 (1988): 148–51; Marinus de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and Christians in Johannine Perspective, trans. and ed. John E. Steely (Missoula: Scholars Press for SBL, 1977), 32–3. 50. Jouette M. Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 108 (1989): 646. 51. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 173. 52. Culpepper, Anatomy, 135–36. 53. Wiarda, “Scenes and Details,” 173. 54. Wiarda contends, based on his study on the portrayal of Peter in the four Gospels, that at least in their portrayals of Peter, the evangelists were conservative in preserving the tradition from the eyewitnesses of Jesus. His analysis shows that the characterization of Peter in the Gospels meets three criteria (“the criterion of multiple attestation,” “the criterion of embarrassment,” and “the criterion of discontinuity or originality”) of evaluating the authenticity of gospel material. Timothy Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship, WUNT 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 211–28. 55. Paige Patterson, Revelation, NAC 39 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2012), 34; Beale, Revelation, 52; Smalley, Revelation, 13. However, John F. Walvoord insists that this book should be interpreted literally unless there is an explicit mention of using symbols in the text (The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary [Chicago: Moody Publication, 1966], 15–23). 56. Kistemaker, Revelation, 12–16. 57. Beale, Revelation, 58. For more in-depth study see Adela Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Apocalyptic Literature,” ANRW II. 21.2 (1984): 1221–87. 58. Beale, Revelation, 52. 59. Kistemaker, Revelation, 16. See also W. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), 52.

5

Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery

In this chapter, I will attempt to identify indicators that are significant for interpreting Johannine water imagery, particularly with respect to determining whether water functions as a symbol for the Spirit. I will do this by examining texts in the first two categories presented in chapter one: the passages where there is general agreement that water does represent the Spirit (Spirit passages) and the passages where there is general agreement that it does not represent the Spirit (non-Spirit passages). By observing the various indicators that pertain to these non-debated passages, I hope to identify indicators that will be helpful for interpreting the debated passages. I will divide this chapter into three parts. First, I will examine John 7:37–39 and 1:33, where almost everyone agrees that water represents the Spirit. Second, I will examine all of the water passages where almost everyone agrees it does not. Finally, I will summarize what I have found in the first and second parts.

66 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators from Passages Where Scholars Generally Agree That Water Represents the Spirit John 7:37–39 and 1:33 are two passages where scholars generally agree that water or water-related imagery represents the Spirit.

John 7:37–39 Five indicators show that water symbolizes the Spirit in this passage. The first is the evangelist’s explicit statement that “streams of living water” refer to the Spirit (v. 39). Given that John directly states the water represents the Spirit, none of the other indicators I will discuss is really necessary. But addressing the other four can help establish indicators for identifying passages in which water symbolizes the Holy Spirit. Even though this indicator is strong, it does not help us in the cases of the six disputed passages because none of them includes an explicit statement comparable to John 7:39. A second indicator is that this water is given by Jesus (“come to me and drink” in v. 37 and “out of his [the believer’s]1 heart shall flow rivers of living water” in v. 38). This indicator coheres well with John’s overall theology because Jesus is introduced as the giver of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel (15:26; 16:7). Moreover, the one who gives the Spirit to the disciples is the risen Christ in 20:22. Even though it is uncertain whether Jesus’ action of breathing out in 20:22 is literal or symbolic, as Carson comments, “the gift of the Holy Spirit is certainly dependent on Jesus” in this Gospel.2 Therefore, if the water in the six disputed passages is given by Jesus, then it might refer to the Spirit because the Spirit is given by Jesus in the Gospel. A third indicator is the evangelist’s connecting the moment of the giving of the Spirit to the moment of Jesus’ crucifixion in 7:39.3 This connection also coheres with John’s overall theology. Jesus connects the coming of the Paraclete to his departure (16:7). It is also the resurrected Jesus who gives the Spirit to the disciples (20:22). Thus, if the giving of water is connected to Jesus’ crucifixion in the six disputed passages, then it would be a strong indicator favoring that water represents the Spirit. A fourth indicator involves Jesus’ citing a passage from the OT which the evangelist connects to the Spirit (vv. 38–39). Jesus includes the expression “καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή (as the Scripture has said)” to indicate that his promise of giving rivers of living water is the fulfillment of the OT. The cited words are “out of

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 67 his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” Scholars often suggest that the OT background is Isa. 12:3, Num. 29, Ezek. 47:1–12, Zech. 13:1, or 14:8. Thus, if water in the six disputed passages involves OT parallels and these OT parallels are related to the Spirit, then it would be an indicator favoring that water represents the Spirit. A fifth indicator is the presence of suggestive vocabulary. Two words in 7:37– 38, διψάω (“thirst”) and ῥέω (“flow”), might have functioned as OT echoes for the original readers and seem to be closely linked with the Spirit. The word διψάω in John 7:37 is used in close connection with the Spirit in Isa. 44:3 and 55:1 (see my discussion in chapter 6). The word ῥέω is used in the NT only in John 7:38. However, the LXX uses this word to describe the land flowing with milk and honey (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27; Jer. 11:5; 32:22; Ezek. 20:6, 15, etc.), flowing water from the rock by Moses (Pss. 77:20; 105:41), and water flowing from the temple (Joel 3:18). Milk is also mentioned in Joel 3:18, which recalls the promise of the land of milk and honey.4 Thus, Jesus’ promise of giving living water might allude to the fulfillment of the promises of giving a land of milk and honey and of giving water from the temple to the Israelites.5 With this background in mind, the invitation to water, wine, milk, and bread in Isa. 55:1–2 also seems to be tied up with Joel 3:18 because water, wine, and milk are mentioned in both passages. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is introduced as the one who gives wine (2:1–11) and water (4:10–14; 7:37–38). Thus, both Joel and Isaiah prophesy that abundant water, wine, and milk will be given to God’s people in the future, and the evangelist seems to show that this promise is fulfilled through Jesus in the Gospel. Among these three (water, wine, and milk), water is especially closely connected to the Spirit because water in Isa. 55:1 seems to symbolize the Spirit (see my discussion in chapter 6). Thus, if any suggestive vocabulary that is closely related to the Spirit appears in the six disputed passages, then it would be an indicator favoring that water represents the Spirit.

John 1:33 Two indicators favor that water (specifically baptism, which involves immersion in water) symbolizes the Spirit in this passage. First, Jesus is directly said to baptize with the Spirit, in contrast to John, who baptizes with water. But this indicator does not help us in the cases of the six disputed passages because none of them includes such a direct statement. Second, the Spirit is mentioned twice in the immediate context (the Spirit is likened to a dove in 1:32, and the Spirit is said to come down and remain on

68 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Jesus in 1:33). The Baptist sees that the Spirit comes down on Jesus and remains on him (1:32). So the appearance of the Spirit in the immediate context of a passage with water imagery may be identified as an indicator favoring that water represents the Spirit.

Identifying Exegetically Significant Indicators from Passages Where Scholars Generally Agree That Water Does Not Represent the Spirit The main purpose of this section in which we analyze agreed non-Spirit passages is to identify indicators that can help determine whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. These non-Spirit passages, which I divided into four sub-categories in chapter one, will now be divided into two groups. A first group includes those water passages in the Gospel where scholars often argue that the water imagery functions symbolically, even if what it symbolizes is something other than the Spirit, together with those passages in Revelation where the water image has a specific symbolic meaning other than the Spirit. From these two sub-categories, I expect to identify indicators that can help determine when the water image has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. The other group includes passages where scholars generally agree that water is used literally: passages in the Gospel where the water image is purely literal and passages in Revelation where the water image has no specific independent symbolic sense even though it may occur within a larger symbolic vision. From these last two categories, I expect to identify indicators that can help determine when water imagery is used purely literally without any symbolic level of meaning.

Passages in the Gospel Where the Water Image Has a Possible Symbolic Meaning, But Not Relating to the Spirit Water passages in this category are 2:1–11, 4:46, 9:1–12, 13:1–17, 18:11, and 19:28. I will attempt to identify (1) indicators that lead many scholars to conclude there is symbolism and (2) indicators that enable interpreters to identify that which is symbolized. If we can identify indicators that enable interpreters to know one specific thing is symbolized, even if it is not the Spirit, some of these same indicators may be at work in Spirit passages.

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 69 I will briefly examine each of the six passages in this category. Scholars often suggest that water in John 2:7 represents “Jewish purification”6 or “the old order of Jewish law and custom.”7 The three main reasons why they suggest symbolism in this verse are: (1) the presence of the evangelist’s comment in 2:6 that the water jars are for a Jewish purification rite; (2) the number of the stone jars;8 and (3) the structure of this passage in relation to chapters 2–4. These three arguments are often used in combination. Scholars often view the evangelist’s comment concerning the six water jars in 2:6 as his sign of bringing the theme of replacement, which is thought to be found in John 2:1–4:54.9 According to these scholars, John 2:1–11 must be understood in light of this overall structure that contrasts old Jewish customs with Jesus’ new covenant. With this structure in mind, they see water as a symbol of the old gift of Jewish purification and think that the evangelist introduces Jesus’ action of turning water into wine as a symbolic action of replacing this old gift with his new and better gift. I see the water in 2:7 is literal water and also has an extra symbolic meaning. In the case of John 9:1–12, scholars often propose that water in verse 7 symbolizes “the believer’s salvific bath”10 or baptism.11 There are four main arguments for detecting symbolism in this passage: (1) the evangelist offers the meaning of the word Siloam in 9:7;12 (2) based on the word ἀπεσταλμένος (“sent”) in 9:7, it is suggested that water in this verse might represent salvific bath;13 (3) the early church read this passage when they baptized and expressed it through art with a baptismal image; and (4) the evangelist seems to imply that sins can be removed by baptism by tying the blind man’s blindness to his sin (vv. 2–3, 34, 41).14 In my opinion, the pool of Siloam has no additional symbolic meaning. In the case of John 13:1–17, scholars state that Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet symbolizes “Jesus’ work of purifying sins on the cross.”15 Two main arguments for suggesting the use of symbols in this passage are: (1) some words in this passage (vv. 8, 10, 11), especially 13:8, do not make sense literally16 and (2) two words in the narrative, τίθημι (“lay down,” “take off” in v. 4) and λαμβάνω (“take,” “put on” in v. 12), might allude Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection respectively because Jesus uses these two words to refer to his actions of laying down his life for his people and of taking up his life again when he portrays himself as the good shepherd in John 10 (vv. 11, 15, 17, 18). Accordingly, an assumption that Jesus hinted his atoning sins on the cross through his footwashing appears to be reasonable. In the case of 18:11, Jesus mentions his suffering and death that he will experience soon using the metaphor of drinking from a cup.17 The expression in this

70 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

verse, “shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?” does not make sense if taken literally. In the case of 19:28, scholars often disagree whether Jesus’ words in this verse, “I am thirsty,” are literal or symbolic. As Carson notes, these words Jesus spoke would seem to be natural for a person who experiences dehydration on the cross.18 The fact that the people around him offer him wine vinegar in the next verse also invites us to take his words literally. However, some consider these words as symbolic. J. Ramsey Michaels, for instance, connects them with John 4:7, 10, 14 and the Psalms (42:1–2; 63:1). Then he claims that Jesus “thirsts for God, and for eternal life,” not for water.19 Brown links these words with John 18:11 and contends that this is a symbolic expression indicating Jesus’ eagerness to fulfill God’s will by drinking completely the cup of suffering and death given by the Father.20 Simply taking Jesus’ words in a literal sense seems more convincing to me. From the above analysis, we can identify the following four indicators that many scholars affirm as favoring that water is used symbolically. First, some references to water or water-related imagery in this category do not make sense literally (13:8, 10, 11; 18:11). In other words, there is incongruity or contradiction when water or water-related imagery is taken as having a literal meaning. Jesus relates his washing to having part with him in 13:8. This does not make sense literally. The expression in 18:11, “shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?” also does not make sense literally. Thus, the fact that water or water-related imagery in some passages in this category does not make sense literally could be an indicator that the evangelist did intend to use the references to water symbolically in these passages.21 Second, other symbolic expressions appear in the immediate context (John 2:1–7; 13:1–17). The expression in John 2:6, “six stone jars,” is a good example. Scholars often argue that “the number six may connote imperfection as falling one short of the perfect number seven.”22 Thus, the presence of a symbolic number (six) in John 2:6 invites us to interpret water-related imagery in this verse (stone jars) symbolically. Another good example is footwashing in John 13:4–12. Many potentially symbolic expressions such as “wash” (v. 8), “he who has bathed” (v. 10), “his feet” (v. 10), and “clean” (v. 10) appear in this passage. These symbolic expressions also strongly lead us to interpret Jesus’ footwashing in John 13:4–12 symbolically. Therefore, if there are many symbolic expressions in the immediate context, then it would be an indicator favoring that water is used symbolically. However, it should be noted that these water-related imageries in John 2:6 and 13:4–12 function at a literal level as well as at a symbolic level. In other words, narrative details in these passages such as the six stone jars, water in the jars, and

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 71 water that Jesus uses to wash his disciples’ feet primarily function at a literal level so that they must be understood as physical objects that the evangelist actually saw. Additional symbolic level of meaning is added to this primary literal sense. Third, suggestive vocabulary in close connection with water imagery is used. John 9:1–12 and 13:1–17 include the terms (ἀπεσταλμένος [“sent”] in 9:7, τίθημι [“lay down,” “take off”] in 13:4, and λαμβάνω [“take,” “put on”] in 13:12). These suggestive terms invite us to interpret water or water-related imagery in these passages symbolically. Consequently, if a suggestive vocabulary tightly linked with water imagery is employed, then it would be an indicator favoring that water is used symbolically. Fourth, some references to water or water-related imagery in this category are highlighted in the narrative in which they belong (2:1–7; 9:1–12; 13:1–17). In some passages the evangelist seems to highlight water by giving information about details related to it (“Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification” in 2:6; “which means Sent” in 9:7). In the case of 13:1–17, the evangelist seems to highlight water-related imagery (footwashing) in the narrative by describing it in detail.23 Thus, if water or water-related imagery in the six disputed passages is highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs, this might be an indicator favoring a symbolic interpretation.

Passages in Revelation Where the Water Image Has a Specific Symbolic Meaning The water passages in this category are 12:12, 12:15–16, 12:18, 13:1, 16:12, 17:1, 17:15, 20:13, and 21:1. As in the last section, my purposes in this section are to find indicators that (1) show the presence of symbolism, and (2) enable interpreters to identify what is symbolized. The passages in this category fall into four groups: (1) passages where water symbolizes the realm of evil; (2) a passage where water symbolizes Satan’s false teaching; (3) a passage where water symbolizes “the multitudes of Babylon’s religious adherents throughout the world”24 or “the natural barriers between nations and tribes”;25 and (4) a passage where water symbolizes followers of Satan. The first group includes five passages (12:12, 18; 13:1; 20:13; 21:1), all of which refer to the sea. The sea and the earth are introduced as the places where the devil comes down after he is expelled from heaven when he is defeated in the battle against the angels (12:12). The dragon stands on the shore of the sea to fight against the rest of the woman’s offspring (12:18). A beast comes out of the sea (13:1). In these three cases, scholars think that the sea in these verses

72 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

symbolizes the realm of the devil for two main reasons.26 First, the sea is a place where the dragon, a symbol of the devil (12:9), stands to fight against the woman’s offspring in 12:17. The sea is also the place from which the beast, which is obviously a symbol of “the Antichrist figure”27 or “the powers of evil,”28 comes (13:1). Second, the people on the earth and sea are contrasted with the people in heaven in chapter 18.29 In the case of 20:13, the sea gives up the dead during God’s eternal punishment and the fact that the sea is mentioned together with death and Hades, which have a negative connotation in this book (6:8), is a main reason for suggesting symbolism in this verse. In the case of 21:1, it is stated that “there is no longer any sea,” and two main reasons for detecting symbolism in this verse are: (1) compared to the first heaven and the first earth that will pass away, a more tragic destiny for the sea is stated by telling that “there is no longer any sea” and this is a hint that this sea represents the realm of evil; and (2) the sea has been primarily used with a negative connotation throughout the book.30 Water in 12:15–16 is often thought to be a symbol of the devil’s false teaching. In this passage, when the serpent (the devil) spews a large amount of water from his mouth to attack the woman (the church), the earth opens its mouth and swallows this water to help her. Two main arguments for suggesting symbolism in this passage are: (1) this passage does not make sense literally, and (2) this interpretation can be supported by its immediate context. Regarding the latter argument, we notice that the battle between the devil and the saints is closely related to the words in the immediate context of 12:15–16. Satan’s attack on the brothers (Christians) is described as accusing (12:10). It is also said that the brothers’ victory over Satan was made by their testimony (12:11). The opposition of the beast, who comes out from the sea, to God and the saints in heaven is also described as acts of saying “proud words and blasphemies” and of slander against God and his people (13:5–6). Thus, interpreting the water in 12:15–16 as Satan’s accusation and blasphemies coheres well with its immediate context (12:10–11; 13:5–6).31 A majority of scholars view “the great river Euphrates” in 16:12 as a reference to literal water. They interpret that the drying up of this river helps the kings from the east cross it and gather together for the war against God (v. 16).32 However, some interpret this river symbolically.33 For example, Beale sees this river as a symbol of “the multitudes of Babylon’s religious adherents throughout the world.” He argues that 16:12–16 has a tight link with chapter 17 and even comments that “17:15−18 is a specific amplification of 16:12.” Thus, based on this tight link, Beale insists that since “many waters” in 17:1 is symbolized, one can also expect that “the great river Euphrates” in 16:12 has a symbolic meaning as well.34 Taking this water as a reference to literal water seems more compelling to me.

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 73 “Many waters” in 17:1 symbolizes followers of the devil. In 17:1 the great prostitute sits on many waters, and this reference to water is interpreted as “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” in 17:15. From the above analysis, we can identify four indicators that may help us to determine whether water imagery has a specific symbolic meaning. First, Rev. 17:15 explicitly explains what the expression “many waters” in 17:1 symbolizes. Second, some references to water in this category do not make sense literally (12:15–16; 13:1; 17:1, 15). For example, the expression that the serpent spews a large amount of water from his mouth does not make sense literally (12:15). Third, some symbolic interpretations of water in this category cohere well with their immediate contexts, and this would be used as an indicator favoring that water is used symbolically. A good example is Rev. 12:15–16. Interpreting the water in this passage as the devil’s false teaching fits well with its immediate context (12:10–11; 13:5–6). A symbolic interpretation should be reconsidered if it breaks the natural logic of the context in which it belongs. In the case of Rev. 12:15–16, the symbolic interpretation does not have to be reconsidered because it coheres well with its immediate context. Fourth, many symbolic expressions appear in the immediate context (12:12, 15–16; 13:1; 17:1, 15). A good example is water in 12:15–16. Many symbols such as the serpent (a symbol of the devil, 12:15), the woman (a symbol of the church, 12:15), and the dragon (a symbol of the devil, 12:17) appear in its immediate context. Another excellent example is the sea in 13:1 (“the beast,” “ten horns,” “seven heads,” and “ten crowns” in 13:1; “the dragon” in 13:2).

Passages in the Gospel Where Scholars Agree the Water Imagery Is Purely Literal The water passages in this category are John 1:25–33, 3:22–26, 4:1–2, 4:6–9, 5:1–15, 6:16–22, 10:40, 11:35, 18:1, and 21:1–7. Five indicators show that in these cases water is used in a simple literal sense. First, water in these passages makes good sense when taken literally. In other words, there is no incongruity or contradiction when the water is taken as having a literal meaning. Thus, the fact that water in this category does make sense literally could be an indicator that the evangelist did not intend to use the references to water symbolically in these passages. Thus, if water in the six disputed passages makes good sense when taken literally, then it would be an indicator favoring that water is used in a simple literal sense. This indicator is flipside of the indicator that water does not make sense (favoring symbolism). However, it does not mean

74 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

that all of the water references that make good sense when taken literally do not have an extra symbolic meaning. In some instances, many scholars accept a literal interpretation but at the same time add a symbolic level. A good example is the sea in 6:16–21. This sea certainly functions at a literal level in the narrative as a literal sea across which the disciples’ boat set off and Jesus walks on. However, this sea is also frequently claimed to have an extra symbolic meaning such as chaos or disorder by being associated with the exodus theme. Second, interpreting water in these passages as literal water fits well with its immediate context. A good example is “the Sea of Tiberias” in 21:1. Interpreting this reference to water as literal water coheres well with its immediate context. In its preceding narrative (20:24–29), the disciples’ house is mentioned as a physical place where the resurrected Jesus appeared to them (20:26), and the Sea of Tiberias is also mentioned as another physical place where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples again (21:14). Since the sea of Tiberias is mentioned as a physical place where Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, it is natural to see it as literal water. Moreover, narrative details in this narrative such as getting into a boat (21:3), catching fish (21:3–6), Peter’s jumping into the water (21:7), also strongly invite us to interpret this sea literally. Even though I examined only one passage in this category, this indicator can also be applied to all of the other water references in this category. This indicator is flipside of the indicator that a symbolic interpretation coheres well with its immediate context (favoring symbolism). Third, most of the water references in these passages function merely as background in the narrative or serves as a foil to highlight something else. For example, John’s water baptism in 1:25–33 serves as a foil to highlight Jesus’ Spirit baptism in 1:33. Jacob’s well in 4:6–9 also serves such a role. The water in 6:16–25 (the sea) is background, used only as the means of revealing the divine character of Jesus. The water in 10:40 (the Jordan and water baptism) is background. The references to water in 11:35 (“Jesus wept”), 18:1 (“over the ravine of the Kidron”), and 21:1–7 (“the sea of Tiberias”) are also background. Thus, if water in the six disputed passages functions merely as background or serves as a foil to highlight something else, then it would be an indicator favoring water’s being used in a simple literal sense. This indicator is closely related to the indicator that we discussed earlier (if water is highlighted in the narrative, this would be an indicator favoring that water is used symbolically) because water’s functioning merely as background in the narrative or serving as a foil to highlight something else implies that this water is less highlighted in the narrative. Fourth, relatively detailed geographic or chronological information is given in the immediate context of these passages (“Bethany on the other side of the Jordan”

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 75 [1:28], “Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside” [3:22], “Aenon near Salim” [3:23], “a town in Samaria called Sychar” [4:5], “Jacob’s well” [4:5], “sat down by the well” [4:5], “it was about the sixth hour” [4:6], “near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades” [5:2], “when evening came” [6:16], “set off across the lake for Capernaum” [6:17], “three or three and a half mile” [6:19], “Jesus went back across the Jordan” [10:40], “went…over the ravine of the Kidron” [18:1], “by the Sea of Tiberias” [21:1], and “about a hundred yards” [21:8]).35 Some of these geographic or chronological details are tightly connected to water (1:28; 3:23; 4:5; 5:2; 6:17; 10:40; 18:1; 21:1). Fifth, not many symbolic expressions appear in the immediate context. A good example is the incident of Jesus’ walking on water in John 6:16–21. Although many scholars notice an extra level of symbolic meaning in this passage in light of OT allusion to sea, since this sea has a basic literal sense and there is no other symbolic expression in this passage, this is another indicator favoring the sea’s having a basic literal sense in this passage. This indicator is good for affirming literal sense but not so strong for eliminating a secondary symbolic meaning.

Passages in Revelation Where the Water Image Has No Specific Independent Symbolic Sense Even Though It Occurs within a Larger Symbolic Vision The water passages in this category are 1:15, 5:13, 7:1–3, 8:8–11, 9:14, 10:2–8, 11:6, 14:2, 14:7, 16:3–5, 18:17–19, 18:21, 19:6, 20:8, and 21:4. These passages can be divided into eight groups: (1) the sea or rivers as God’s creation (7:1–3; 8:9; 10:6; 14:7); (2) water as a part of a description for loud sound (1:15; 14:2; 19:6);36 (3) water echoing the plague of blood in Exodus (11:6; 16:3–5); (4) the sea as the setting for a ship of Babylon loaded with merchandise (18:17–20); (5) the sea into which an angel throws a boulder (18:21); (6) the army of God and Magog like the sand on the seashore (20:8); (7) the tears God promises to wipe away (21:4); and (8) passages where it is uncertain whether the water itself has a symbolic meaning in the narrative to which it belongs (5:13; 8:8, 10–11; 9:14; 10:2–8).37 Two indicators show that the water image has no specific independent symbolic sense in these passages. The first is that the references to water in this category make sense literally. This strong indicator favors the water image having no specific independent symbolic sense. A second indicator is that not many symbolic expressions can be found in the immediate context. A good example is the sea in Rev. 18:17–21. There might

76 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

be some symbolic expressions in its immediate context (e.g., “Babylon the Great” in 18:2). However, if we compare Rev. 18 with passages in Revelation where the water image has a specific symbolic meaning (e.g., the sea in Rev. 13:1), we can observe that far fewer symbolic expressions appear in the immediate context of the sea in Rev. 18:17–21.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have examined passages in the first two categories presented in chapter one (the generally agreed Johannine Spirit passages and generally agreed non-Spirit passages) hoping to identify indicators that may be useful for interpreting the six debated passages. From the two Spirit passages where scholars are agreed (John 7:37–39 and 1:33), I identified five indicators whose presence may indicate that water represents the Spirit. First, if water is given by Jesus (John 7:37–38; 1:33), this would be a strong indicator because this coheres well with John’s overall theology (John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22). Second, if the giving of water is linked to Jesus’ crucifixion (John 7:39), this would be a strong indicator because this also coheres with John’s overall theology or the wider NT theology (John 16:7; 20:22; Acts 1:5). Third, if water involves OT parallels and these OT parallels are related to the Spirit (John 7:38–39), this would be a strong indicator. I label this indicator the indicator of “parallels to OT passages relating to the Spirit.” Fourth, if the Spirit is mentioned in the immediate context (John 1:33), this would be an indicator. Fifth, if any suggestive vocabulary that has a close tie to the Spirit appears (e.g., διψάω and ῥέω in John 7:37–39), this would be an indicator. I label this indicator “suggestive vocabulary.” From the passages that scholars agree do not refer to the Spirit, I was able to identify six indicators to help determine whether water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. First, if water or water-related imagery does make sense literally, this would be a strong indicator favoring a literal interpretation. I label this indicator “coherence when taken literally.” Second, if either a symbolic or literal interpretation of water coheres well with its immediate context (e.g., Rev. 12:15–16; John 21:1), this would be a

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 77 strong indicator for that particular interpretation. I label this indicator “contextual coherence.” Third, if there are (or are not) many symbolic expressions in the immediate context (e.g., John 2:1–11; 13:1–17; Rev. 12:15–16; 13:1; John 6:16–22; Rev. 18), this would be an indicator. I label this indicator “the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context.” Fourth, if the water is highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs, this would be an indicator favoring symbolism, while lack of highlighting would favor a literal interpretation. I label this indicator “highlighting.” Fifth, if relatively detailed geographic or chronological information is given in the immediate context (John 1:28; 3:22, 23; 4:5, 6; 5:2; 6:16, 17, 19; 10:40; 18:1; 21:1, 8), this would be an indicator favoring that water is used literally. I label this indicator “geographic and chronological detail in the immediate context.” Sixth, if vocabulary suggesting the item thought to be symbolized is present in the immediate context (John 9:7; 13:4, 12), this would be an indicator favoring that water is used symbolically (the indicator of suggestive vocabulary). Based on the above analysis, we can identify five useful indicators in identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized: (1) the water is given by Jesus; (2) the giving of water is linked to Jesus’ crucifixion; (3) the water involves OT parallels, and these OT parallels are related to the Spirit; (4) the presence of suggestive vocabularies; and (5) the references to the Spirit in the immediate context. We can also identify six useful indicators in determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning: (1) coherence when taken literally (whether the water imagery makes sense if interpreted in a literal way); (2) contextual coherence (whether the interpretation coheres well with the immediate context of the passage); (3) the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context; (4) highlighting (whether or not the water is highlighted); (5) geographic and chronological detail in the immediate context; and (6) the presence of vocabulary suggesting the item thought to be symbolized.

Notes 1. Depending on how one punctuates 7:37, αὐτοῦ (“his”) in the next verse can refer to either the believer or Jesus. If one places a full stop at the end of verse 37 (καὶ πινέτω, [and drink]), this punctuation leads us to understand that the rivers of living water

78 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

flow from the believer. This interpretation has been adopted since early church. The strongest argument for this view is that Jesus seems to be the speaker of verse 38 because, based on John’s uses of “by this he meant” in the Gospel, this expression in verse 39 most likely refers to Jesus’ words. If this expression refers to Jesus’ words, then αὐτοῦ cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus himself is the speaker of verse 38. This view is also supported by external evidence such as one of the oldest manuscripts (P66) and the works of nearly all the Greek Fathers. Carson, John, 324–25. This view also coheres well with John 4:14 where Jesus says that the water he will give to the believer will “become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” If one places a comma after “πρός με” (to me) in verse 37 and does not place a full stop at the end of this verse, this punctuation leads one to think that the rivers of living water flow from Jesus. If one takes this punctuation, then “As the Scripture has said, ‘out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’” in verse 38 can be understood as the evangelist’s comment, not Jesus’ words. This interpretation is suggested more recently and is called Christological interpretation because this interpretation considers that αὐτοῦ refers to Christ. Three major arguments favoring this view are: (1) “John would cite Scripture with a Christological interpretation than that he would apply it to the believer”; (2) this view also coheres well with 7:39 where the believers are said to receive the Spirit after Jesus’ glorification (Keener, John, 1:729); and (3) this view also fits better with John’s overall theology because Jesus is introduced as the giver of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel (15:26; 16:7). Taking αὐτοῦ in 7:38 as a reference to the believer seems more compelling. 2. Carson, John, 652. 3. Jesus’ being glorified refers to his death and resurrection (ascension) in the Fourth Gospel. 4. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 395. 5. The evangelist implies that Jesus is the new temple (John 2:21). 6. Brown, John i–xii, 104. 7. Carson, John, 173. Even though Keener argues that it represents the Spirit, his argument is not convincing (John, 1:493). 8. Moloney, John, 68. 9. Brown, John i–xii, 104. Brown opposes any attempts to find symbolism regarding the six stone jars and sees this entire incident of Jesus’ turning water into wine as a symbolic action of Jesus that was intended to replace the ritual ceremony of the OT. He sees John 2–4 as the juxtaposition of Jewish customs or traditions and Jesus as the person who replaces these Jewish customs or traditions. Köstenberger views the reference to the six stone jars as the results of “eyewitness testimony” and also sees the possibilities of using the number six as a symbolic number and of using symbolism relating to Jewish purification (John, 96–97). Gerry Wheaton focuses on the attitude of the evangelist toward Judaism and the Jews in John 2–4 (The Role of Jewish Feasts

Significant Indicators Relating to Johannine Water Imagery  | 79 in John’s Gospel, SNTS.MS 162 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015], 13–82). 10. Bruce Grigsby, “Washing in the Pool of Siloam ̶ a Thematic Anticipation of the Johannine Cross,” NovT 27 (1985): 227–35; Carson, John, 365. 11. Brown, John i–xii, 380–82. 12. Carson, John, 364–65. 13. Ibid., 365. Michaels argues that the word sent is a clue for interpreting this water as a reference to the Spirit. However, it is more convincing to see this word as an implication to imply that Jesus is the one who can really heal the blind man because “Jesus is described as the one who has been sent by God” in this Gospel (4:34; 5:23, 37; 7:28; 8:26; 12:44; 14:24). Michaels, John, 546–47. 14. Brown, John i–xii, 380–82. 15. Carson, John, 466; Brown, John xiii–xxi, 558–59. Regarding John 13 see the extensive discussion in J. C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community, JSNTSup 61 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). See also Seung-In Song, “Seeing Johannine Last Meal as a Covenant Meal (John 13 and Exodus 24),” Bib 100.2 (2019): 292. In this article, I investigate “structural and thematic similarities between John 13 and Exodus 24: (1) the representatives of each group were invited to a meal, and they saw God and ate before him; (2) the groups received divine commandments; (3) the groups responded positively at first but soon failed to obey; (4) both narratives include or imply a blood ritual; and (5) there was an intermediary among the participants who had a more intimate relationship with God. These elements invite us to understand John 13 as a covenant meal.” 16. Carson, John, 463–64. 17. Brown, John xiii–xxi, 813. 18. Carson, John, 619. 19. Michaels, John, 961. 20. Brown, John xiii–xxi, 930. 21. Koester says that one can expect the use of symbolism when the text does not make sense literally (Symbolism, 8). 22. Köstenberger, John, 96; Moloney, John, 68. 23. Verses 4 and 5 are its good example (“Jesus…rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded”). 24. Beale, Revelation, 828. 25. Osborne, Revelation, 591. 26. Jean-Pierre Ruiz, “Taking a Stand on the Sand of the Seashore: A Postcolonial Exploration of Revelation 13,” in Reading the Book of Revelation: A Resource for Students, ed. David L. Barr, RBS 44 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 119–36; Beale, Revelation, 1034. 27. Osborne, Revelation, 495.

80 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

28. Beale, Revelation, 682. 29. Osborne, Revelation, 478. 30. Beale, Revelation, 1034–43. 31. This interpretation also coheres well with the entire book of Revelation because the words of Jesus are often described as the sword coming out from his mouth in Revelation (1:16; 2:16; 16:11, 21). The battle between God (or his people) and the devil is closely related to words or teaching in the Apocalypse. For example, the church in Ephesus is blamed for the behavior of keeping the false teaching (2:14). Osborne, Revelation, 483; Beale, Revelation, 671–74. 32. Mounce, Revelation, 298; Aune, Revelation, 2:890–91. 33. Beale, Revelation, 828; Osborne, Revelation, 590–91. 34. Beale, Revelation, 828. 35. Richard Bauckham contends that providing topographical and chronological information was often regarded as important element of writing good historiography in Graeco-Roman historiography and also argues that the Gospel of John has this element (“Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John,” NTS 53 [2007]: 17–36). 36. The great sound that abundant water makes when it flows is often used to describe loudness of sound. 37. These passages are indefinite as to whether water itself has a symbolic meaning in the narrative in which it belongs.

6

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages

In this chapter, I will examine the six disputed water passages in the Johannine literature, focusing on the specific issue of how the water image functions. In examining each of these passages I will consider whether any of the indicators identified in chapter five as being exegetically significant are present. I will also consider whether any new exegetically significant indicators emerge. I will begin with 1 John 5:6–8, which is the least debated passage, then address Rev. 22:1–2, and then examine the debated water passages in the Gospel following the order in which they appear in the text.

1 John 5:6–8 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with water only, but with water and with blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement [εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν].1

82 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Exegetical Analysis This is the only passage where water is mentioned in 1 John. It is generally agreed that the author wrote this passage to oppose his opponents. Thus, in order to interpret this passage it is necessary to look over the passages in 1 John that describe the opponents and their false Christological teaching. The author of 1 John calls them “antichrists” (2:18) or “false prophets” (4:1). They were once the members of the community of 1 John but had separated themselves from the community for some reason (2:19). According to the author, they denied that Jesus was the Christ (2:22) and had come in the flesh (4:2). 1 John 5:6 seems to provide one more clue in identifying their teaching. The author introduces Jesus Christ as the one who came by water and blood and adds the expression, “not with water only.” Then he repeats that Jesus Christ came with water and blood.2 Thus, the author is trying to make a special point that Jesus came by blood. Then he brings up the theme of witnesses. The Spirit is mentioned as a witness who testifies that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 5) through his coming by water and blood in verse 6, then two more witnesses for Jesus’ being God’s Son (the water and the blood) are added in verse 8.3 Then the author says that their witness agrees (v. 8).4 There are debates on the interpretation of “water” in verse 6. Most think it refers to baptism,5 others believe it symbolizes the Spirit.6 Six arguments support the view that the water in 1 John 5:6 represents baptism.7 First, the historical situation in which this letter was written is an important factor. It is generally agreed that this letter was written to refute the opponents of the author of this letter. Even though scholars have suggested various opinions on the identity of the opponents, two major opinions are (1) they were heavily influenced by gnostic-type ideas, and (2) they were a group that had a significantly different view from the author of 1 John on the interpretation of the Gospel of John.8 The former is a view that the teaching of the opponents was close to gnostic-type ideas, especially the teaching of Cerinthus. Although it is doubtful that full-fledged Gnosticism existed in the NT period, it is quite possible to assume that there was some type of primitive Gnosticism in this period, and the opponents were influenced by this primitive Gnosticism. Gnostic thinking distinguished spirit and matter and regarded the former as good and superior and the latter as bad and inferior. Naturally, this tendency of neglecting matter led them to reject the incarnation of Jesus and to argue that Jesus did not have flesh but only seemed to have flesh (docetism). Cerinthus was one who offered this kind of argument and believed that the divine Christ descended upon the human Jesus while he was being baptized and left him before

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 83 his crucifixion.9 Thus, one can assume that for Cerinthus, only Jesus’ baptism by John was important, and Jesus’ crucifixion was relatively undermined. This teaching of Cerinthus fits well with 1 John 5:6. The opponents who were influenced by this or similar teachings only emphasized Jesus’ coming by water (Jesus’ baptism by John) and, in opposition to their teaching, the author asserts that both Jesus’ coming by water and his coming by blood (his crucifixion) are important. A second approach holds that the conflict described in 1 John 5:6 originated from different readings of the Fourth Gospel. For example, Brown argues that the opponents interpreted the Gospel of John quite differently from the author of 1 John. Brown assumes that the opponents linked Jesus’ incarnation (“the Word became flesh” in John 1:14) to the baptism of Jesus (John 1:33). For them, Jesus’ coming by water in 1 John 5:6 meant Jesus’ becoming incarnate at the time of his baptism. Brown assumes that they connected Jesus’ incarnation with John’s baptism based on the mention of John the Baptist in the prologue of the Gospel (1:6– 8, 15). Brown conjectures that this interpretation led the opponents to believe that baptism was the only thing they needed to be saved because they believed that Jesus was declared as the Son of God when the Spirit descended on him when he was baptized. Thus, Brown contends that the author of 1 John emphasized the importance of Jesus’ death by stating that Jesus came by water and blood.10 I think that 1 John 5:6 fits better as a response to the Cerinthian teaching described in Irenaeus’ writings (Against Heresies 1.26.1–2) than Brown’s hypothesis because Brown does not receive any support from writings of early church fathers. But on either of these views, the historical situation behind 1 John 5:6 supports the interpretation that the water in 1 John 5:6 refers to Jesus’ baptism. A second factor that supports the view that water refers to baptism is that it is difficult to see the water in 1 John 5:6 as a reference to the Spirit because the Spirit and water are mentioned together as two of the three witnesses in 1 John 5:8. In other words, since they are listed as two of the three witnesses in this verse, it is more natural to view them as two different entities. Third, there is no symbolic expression in the immediate context of 1 John 5:6–8. If the blood is literal, the water is most likely literal as well. Blood is literal, although through metonymy, it stands for death. Water and blood in 1 John 5:6 would function in similar way. In other words, it is more natural to see water and blood standing metonymously for Jesus’ baptism and death than to see the water’s symbolizing the Spirit and blood standing for his death. The latter interpretation would make the water and blood function as two different figures of speech. Fourth, the language of 1 John 5:6–8 is closely linked to the language of John 1:31–34.11

84 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

The close literary relationship between these two passages is based on the following three points: (1) they share three words together (“water,” “the Spirit,” and “witness”), (2) the phrase, ἐν ὕδατι (“with water”), occurs both in 1 John 5:6 and John 1:29–34 (vv. 31, 33),12 and (3) the statement, “Jesus is the Son of God,” appears both in 1 John 5:5 and John 1:34. Assuming their intimate literary relationship can also explain well the witness of the Spirit and water in 1 John 5:6–8. First of all, the Spirit’s being the witness in verses 6 and 8 fits well with the Spirit’s role in John 1:32–34. It can be said that the Spirit testifies to Jesus’ being the Son of God because seeing the Spirit descending on Jesus led the Baptist to proclaim this statement (John 1:32–22). Regarding the testimony of the water in 1 John 5:8, one can say that the water testifies of Jesus’ being the Son of God because, according to the Gospel, the Baptist stated this fact during Jesus’ baptism (John 1:34). Therefore, this literary relationship between the two passages supports the argument that the water in 1 John 5:6 refers to baptism. Fifth, water in 1 John 5:6–8 makes good sense when taken literally as a reference to baptism. As we discussed in chapter five, making sense literally is an indication showing that water has a literal sense. Sixth, Jesus’ baptism by John was considered as the starting point of his public ministry and as an important requirement for the witness of Jesus in the Synoptics and Acts (Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; Acts 1:21–22). According to Acts 1:22, staying with Jesus from the moment of his baptism by John was required as the condition to be selected as a replacement for Judas. This requirement implies that Jesus’ baptism was widely understood to be the starting point of Jesus’ public ministry.13 A second major interpretation is that the water in 1 John 5:6–8 refers to the Spirit.14 Three principal arguments support this view. First, it is often suggested that this passage has a close literary relationship with John 19:34. This relationship is based on the fact that 1 John 5:6–8 and the immediate context of John 19:34 share several words together (“water and blood,”15 “witness,” and “the Spirit”), and the theme of belief is mentioned in the immediate context of both passages (1 John 5:4–5 and John 19:35).16 Based on this literary relationship, some scholars assume that the water in 1 John 5:6–8 refers to the Spirit because the water in John 19:34 is often interpreted as the Spirit. It is suggested that the interpretation of two early church writers, Tertullian and Augustine (Baptism 16; Homilies on the First Epistle of

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 85 John 10:354–430)17 also supports this view. But Tertullian also connects the water and blood in 1 John 5:6 with Jesus’ baptism by John and his death respectively, and Augustine’s work is relatively late. It is also not easy to reach a firm conclusion based on the relationship between 1 John 5:6–8 and John 19:34 because the interpretation of the water in John 19:34 is itself debated.18 Many think that the water in John 19:34 refers to literal water (see the following discussion). Second, some contend that “water” in 1 John 5:6–8 refers to the Spirit because water is the primary symbol of the Spirit in the Gospel.19 But even though water often symbolizes the Spirit in the Gospel (3:5; 4:10–14; 7:37–39), there are also many instances where water is non-symbolic (1:25–31; 3:22–26; 4:1–2, 6–9; 5:2–7; 6:16–22; 10:40; 21:1–7). Thus, this factor cannot be decisive as an indicator of identifying the water as a reference to the Spirit. Third, the Spirit is mentioned three times in 1 John 5:6–8. However, in this case, these references to the Spirit actually work against the view that water in 1 John 5:6 represents the Spirit because water and the Spirit are mentioned as two separate entities in 1 John 5:6–8. Although οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν in 1 John 5:8 sound like identifying these two because this expression can be literally translated as “the three are to the one,” this does not mean that they are identical. It is more reasonable to take this statement as the agreement of their witnesses that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5). Accordingly, we can conclude that the appearance of the Spirit in 1 John 5:6–8 works against the Spirit view. To summarize my discussion in this section, I have examined two major interpretations and their supporting arguments. Based on this examination, it is more convincing to interpret the water in 1 John 5:6–8 as a reference to baptism. Among the six arguments in favor of the baptism view, I think the first and second arguments are the most important: (1) the type of teaching described in Irenaeus’ writings (Against Heresies 1.26.1–2) fits well with the historical situation in which 1 John 5:6 was written, and (2) it is difficult to account for water’s referring to the Spirit because water and the Spirit are mentioned together as two of the three witnesses in 1 John 5:8.

How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to 1 John 5:6–8 We may now consider how the factors observed in connection with 1 John 5:6–8 relate to those discussed in chapter five. Out of the five exegetically significant indicators for identifying the Spirit as being symbolized, only one indicator came up in the exegetical analysis section: the indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context. But as argued in the previous exegetical analysis section,

86 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

although the Spirit is mentioned three times in 1 John 5:6–8, in this case, these references actually work against the Spirit view, because the Spirit and water are two separate entities in 1 John 5:6–8. Therefore, this indicator does not work well in 1 John 5:6–8. Out of the six exegetically significant indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, three indicators came into play while I was exegeting 1 John 5:6–8. As I discussed in the exegetical analysis section, the indicator of coherence, when taken literally, worked as an indicator favoring that water in 1 John 5:6–8 refers to baptism, because the water makes good sense when taken as a metonymy for baptism. So this indicator proved to be valid in 1 John 5:6–8. The indicator of contextual coherence worked as a strong indicator showing that water in 1 John 5:6–8 does not represent the Spirit. As I have already stated, since interpreting the water in 1 John 5:6–8 as a reference to the Spirit breaks the natural logic of the context in which it belongs, this symbolic interpretation should be rejected. In other words, in this case, lack of contextual coherence speaks against this symbolic reading. First of all, because the water in 1 John 5:6 is associated with Jesus’ coming and the Spirit in 1 John 5:7 is introduced as the witness who witnessed this incident, the former cannot refer to the latter. Moreover, the Spirit and the water are listed together as witnesses in 1 John 5:8. Thus, these two cannot be the same. Accordingly, we can conclude that this indicator works well in 1 John 5:6–8. The indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context matches the point made in the exegetical analysis section: There is no symbolic expression in the immediate context of 1 John 5:6–8, and if blood is literal, water is most likely literal as well because both function metonymously. The absence of other symbolic expressions in the context lends weight to the argument that water in 1 John 5:6–8 is used literally. Therefore, we can evaluate this indicator as being helpful in 1 John 5:6–8. From the above analysis, we have found that four indicators observed in chapter five relate to the exegesis of 1 John 5:6–8. Three of them worked as indicators supporting my exegetical conclusion (coherence when taken literally, the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context, and contextual coherence). The indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context was not helpful in this passage. Therefore, we can conclude that three indicators identified in chapter five proved valid in 1 John 5:6–8.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 87

Revelation 22:1–2 And he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. And on either side of the river were the trees of life, bearing twelve [kinds] of fruits, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the trees were for the healing of the nations.20

Exegetical Analysis This passage belongs to the last chapter of the Apocalypse and describes one of John’s visions. In this vision John saw the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (v. 1) and running down the middle of the street of the New Jerusalem (v. 2).21 He also saw trees of life22 standing on both sides of the river and producing twelve kinds of fruits every month (v. 2). John also saw that the leaves of the trees are used for the healing of the nations (v. 2). We need to consider three matters before we begin to examine the main interpretations of “water of life” in this passage. The first is that this vision is tightly linked with the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2–27) because this river flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb, which is situated in this city. While the focus of the vision that John saw in 21:2–17 is mainly on the appearance, measurements, and material of the New Jerusalem (especially its gates and foundations), the focus of the vision in 22:1–2 is on the river and trees of life in this city. Second, there are three other references to “living water” or “water of life” in Revelation (7:17; 21:6; 22:17). Even though scholars do not pay much attention to their relationship to 22:1–2,23 they are actually intimately related. The following four points strongly support their close relationship: (1) The phrase, “living water” (7:17) or “water of life” (21:6; 22:1, 17) appears in all four passages; (2) The Father and/or the Lamb are the ones who guide or provide this living water (7:17; 21:5–6; 22:1), and the throne is also mentioned in three of these passages;24 (3) “Spring” (7:17; 21:6) and “river” (22:1) are used in connection with living water in Revelation, and these two words are also linked to living water in the Fourth Gospel (“spring” in 4:14 and “river” in 7:38); and (4) “Spring(s) of living water” and “water of life” are promised in 7:17 and 21:6, and the angel shows John how this promise will be actually fulfilled in 22:1.25 A third issue to consider is the relationship between Revelation and the Gospel of John. As I discussed in the Introduction, I assume that these two books have some literary relationship because it is generally agreed that the Apocalypse was written later than the Gospel, and the two books share some distinctive language and concepts.

88 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

There are three main interpretations of what the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 represents: the Spirit, eternal life, and literal water.26 Eight factors support the view that this phrase symbolizes the Spirit.27 First, Rev. 22:1 and 22:17 have close ties to John 7:37–39. Even though slightly different words and forms are employed, Rev. 22:1 and John 7:37–39 share three linguistic parallels: “water of life/living water” (ὕδατος ζωῆς in Rev. 22:1 and ὕδατος ζῶντος in John 7:38), “flow” (ἐκπορευόμενον in Rev. 22:1 and ῥεύσουσιν in John 7:38), and “river(s)” (ποταμὸν in Rev. 22:1 and ποταμοὶ in John 7:38). These linguistic parallels make one assume that the water of life in Rev. 22:1 also refers to the Spirit, since the evangelist explicitly states that the living water in John 7:38 refers to the Spirit (v. 39). I noted earlier that Rev. 22:1–2 has a tight connection with Rev. 22:17. By comparing Rev. 22:1 and 22:17 with John 7:37–39, one can find additional linguistic parallels such as “water of life/ living water” (ὕδατος ζωῆς in Rev. 22:1, ὕδωρ ζωῆς in Rev. 22:17, ὕδατος ζῶντος in John 7:38), “come” (ἔρχου in Rev. 22:17, ἐρχέσθω in John 7:37), and “thirsty” (διψῶν in Rev. 22:17 and διψᾷ in John 7:37).28 It is also possible, though awkward, to interpret the water of life in Rev. 22:17 as the Spirit. Interpreting this water to symbolize the Spirit would mean that the Spirit is inviting those who are thirsty to drink of himself. However, we also need to consider John 6:35 where Jesus introduces himself as the bread of life and invites the crowd to come and eat this bread. Thus, it is not odd to interpret Rev. 22:17 as the invitation of the Spirit and the Bride to the thirsty to drink of the Spirit himself. Thus, these additional linguistic parallels further strengthen the close connection between the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 and the living water in John 7:37–39. Second, the water of life comes out from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev. 22:1). This statement supports the view that the water of life represents the Spirit because the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son in the Fourth Gospel (7:37–39; 15:26; 20:22).29 The image of the water of life flowing from the throne of the Lamb links back to John 7:37–39 and the wider NT picture of Pentecost following Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, and the Spirit as poured out by the risen Jesus because the images of the Lamb and of the throne imply Jesus’ death and ascension, respectively. This notion also fits well with three other references to living water or water of life in the Apocalypse. The throne of God or the throne of the Lamb are also mentioned in 7:17 and 21:5–6, and either God or the Lamb is also mentioned as the giver of this water or the guider to this water in these two passages. Third, the primary background of Rev. 22:17 is Isa. 55:1, and water in Isa. 55:1 is closely tied to the Spirit.30

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 89 Fourth, the water of life is described as “bright as crystal” in Rev. 22:1, and Beale remarks that this description “indicates the purifying nature of the water.”31 If this interpretation is correct, then this description coheres well with the purifying nature of the Spirit in the Gospels (Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire in Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16; John 20:22–23). Especially, in John 20:22–23, Jesus seems to imply that one of the Spirit’s ministries through his disciples will be to forgive or retain other’s sins because Jesus says that they will have the authority of forgiving or retaining other’s sins right after he speaks that “receive the Holy Spirit.”32 Fifth, the New Jerusalem is best interpreted symbolically, which means that the river of the water of life should also be interpreted symbolically. There are two main interpretations on the New Jerusalem.33 One is to see the city as a symbol of the church.34 The other is to see it as a description of heaven with a topological concept or an ideal physical city that God will build in the last days in this world.35 Obviously, the scholars who hold the former view tend to interpret the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 symbolically, while the scholars who have the latter view tend to interpret it literally. The New Jerusalem most likely symbolizes the church. The strongest argument for this interpretation is that two words in 21:2 and 21:9, νύμφη (“bride,” “young wife”) and γυνὴ (“woman,” “bride,” or “wife”), have been employed as references to the church throughout the Apocalypse. The word γυνὴ is used as a symbol for the church in 12:1. The same word is used in 19:7 to refer to the church as the bride of the Lamb.36 In 21:9 one of the seven angels uses the expression τὴν νύμφην τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀρνίου (“the Bride, the wife of the Lamb”) to refer to the New Jerusalem’s coming down from heaven when he carries John away to a high mountain to show it. Second, the presence of many symbolic expressions in its immediate context (bride, twelve gates, 12,000 stadia, 144 cubits, etc.) also supports this symbolic interpretation. As a result, symbolic aspects of the New Jerusalem add substantial weight to the argument that the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 has a specific symbolic level of meaning of its own within the larger vision.37 Sixth, the Spirit is mentioned in the near context of Rev. 22:1–2 (v. 17). As I stated in chapter five, the reference to the Spirit in the context favors that water has a specific symbolic level of meaning of its own within the larger vision. Seventh, the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 is highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs. As I pointed out in chapter five, if water is highlighted, it lends weight to the argument that water is used symbolically.

90 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Eighth, this interpretation is also undergirded by early church writers and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Andrew of Caesarea (the sixth century) is the earliest writer who clearly interpreted the water as the Spirit.38 But the river of God, filled up with waters, namely, the Holy Spirit, flows through the Jerusalem above, flowing from God the Father through the Son…For in him (Christ) is the Spirit, and he is worshiped in Spirit, and he is the supplier of the Spirit, and through him the twelve fruits of the apostolic chorus give to us the inexhaustible fruit of the knowledge of God.39

Prior to Andrew, this river of water of life is often interpreted as Christ, the gifts of Christ, or baptism. But Andrew comments that baptism is the work of the Spirit, and this river refers to the Holy Spirit.40 The Spirit view may also be supported by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed because the same word ἐκπορευόμενον (“flowing”) in Rev. 22:1 is also employed in this Creed to express the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.41 Thus, it is possible that the author of the creed had Rev. 22:1 in mind when he wrote the creed. This evidence shows that the Spirit view existed at a relatively early time in the church. Even though this factor cannot be a decisive one, it does lend additional support to this view. A major alternative to the view that the water of life represents the Spirit is that it represents eternal life.42 Although this view interprets the water symbolically, it does not see it as representing the Spirit. Those who hold this view have offered four arguments. First, Beale proposes that Rev. 21:24 and 21:27–22:1–2 have some similarities with Isa. 35:6–9 (“the unusual combination of water metaphors with urban portrayals” and “the picture of a new creation”). He contends that, based on these similarities, it is more compelling to interpret the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 as eternal life that can be earned through the fellowship with God because the Isaianic passage focuses on God’s salvation for his people in the last days and on the joy and rest they will experience due to this salvation.43 Even though the appearance of water and street in both Rev. 22:1–2 and Isa. 35:6–9 suggests the possibility of Rev. 22:1–2’s indebtedness to Isa. 35:6–9, John 7:37– 39 seems to provide a better background. First of all, the image of water flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb in Rev. 22:1 fits better with Jesus’ invitation to the thirsty to come to him and drink in John 7:37 because the sources of the water in both passages are Jesus. But water gushes forth in the wilderness in Isa. 35:6. In addition, John 7:37–39 makes better linguistic parallels with Rev. 22:1 and 17 (“water of life/living water,” “flow,” “river(s),” “come,” and “thirsty”) than Isa. 35:6–9.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 91 Second, Beale also claims that Rev. 22:3–5 “develops” 22:1–2, making it more natural to interpret the water of life in Rev. 22:1 as a reference to “the life of eternal fellowship with God and Christ.”44 He argues that water is also used in the context of eternal fellowship with God in later Judaism (Midr. Rab. Gen. 48.10; the LXX of Ps 45(46):5a[4a]). For example, Beale insists that the expression “bright as crystal” in Rev. 22:1, which is employed to describe the water of life, “indicates the purifying nature of the water” (Rev. 22:14), and this water prepares people to have an intimate fellowship with God (Rev. 22:3–5) by cleansing their sins.45 However, it is more convincing to tie this purifying nature of the water to the Spirit than eternal life because one of the Spirit’s functions in the Gospels seems to be related to purifying sins (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 20:22–23). Third, Osborne argues that the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 is a combination of various images in Ezek. 47:1–12, Zech. 14:8, John 4:10–14, 7:37–39, Rev. 7:17, and 21:6 and water or living water in these texts is depicted as in having the power of giving life.46 Although, as he points out, Rev. 22:1–2 seems to be influenced by many texts, the close linguistic parallel between ποταμὸν ὕδατος ζωῆς (“the river of water of life”) in Rev. 22:1 and ποταμοὶ…ὕδατος ζῶντος (“rivers of living water”) in John 7:38 strongly suggest seeing John 7:38 as the primary background of Rev. 22:1. The fact that the water in both passages flows from Jesus also strengthens this connection. Since the evangelist explicitly interprets living water in John 7:38 as referring to the Spirit (v. 39), interpreting the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 as a reference to the Spirit and the Spirit being symbolized as the river of the water of life in this passage, which has the power of giving life (growing the trees of life and the healing of the nations in 22:2),47 seems to be more compelling than seeing it as representing eternal life.48 One more important exegetical issue to consider when comparing the Spirit view to the eternal life view is the nature of the genitive ζωῆς in Rev. 22:1. On the view that the water symbolizes eternal life, the genitive might be either an appositional genitive (“water, which is life”) or attributive genitive (“water having the quality of life”).49 On the view that the water symbolizes the Spirit, the genitive would probably have to be an attributive genitive or a genitive of product (“water that produces life”). While the eternal life view seems to exclude seeing the river as a direct symbol of the Spirit, the Spirit view automatically includes the idea that the water produces life since the water is identified as the “water of life.” In other words, the Spirit view is more specific because it claims that the vision specifically pictures the Spirit’s giving life. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that the Spirit and life have a close connection in John 3:5 (“unless one is born of water and

92 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”) and 6:63 (“It is the Spirit that gives life”) and that the giving of the Spirit is linked to life in Isa. 44:3–4 and T. Jud. 24:2. In the former, the result of the giving of the Spirit to Israel is likened to “the grass” that “springs up amid waters” and, in the latter, the pouring out of the Spirit is described as “the fountain for the life of all humanity.” Thus, these two passages reflect the thought that using water imagery for the Spirit indicated that giving life was one of the Spirit’s functions. Therefore, the three arguments that support the eternal life view are not really arguments against the Spirit view. Actually, they are arguments that partially support the Spirit view because they affirm that the water relates to life, and the Spirit gives life. A final alternative is to see this water of life as literal water.50 Five arguments are sometimes cited in support of this view. First, some commentators argue that the larger vision of the New Jerusalem is literal.51 However, as I discussed earlier, the New Jerusalem is best interpreted symbolically because a bride, which is used to refer to this city in 21:2 and 21:9, has been used as a symbol of the church throughout the Apocalypse and because of the fact that many symbolic expressions appear in its immediate context (bride, twelve gates, 12,000 stadia, 144 cubits, etc.). Second, D. Georgi claims that the description of the water of life and trees of life in Rev. 22:1–2 are modeled on ancient Hellenistic ideal cities.52 However, regarding the background of Rev. 22:1–2, scholars have differing opinions (Ezek. 47:1–12; Gen. 2:9–10; Isa. 35:6–9).53 Moreover, even if we admit that John was influenced by ancient Hellenistic ideal cities in his description of Rev. 22:1–2, we cannot exclude a possibility that John added a symbolic meaning to this description. Third, the water in Rev. 22:1–2 makes good sense when taken literally. As I discussed in chapter five, this favors that this water is used in a simple literal sense. Fourth, relatively detailed geographic information is given in the immediate context of the water in Rev. 22:1–2 (“flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city” in 22:1 and “on either side of the river” in 22:2). As I observed in chapter five, these geographic details favor that this water is used in a simple literal sense. To summarize, I have examined three major interpretations and their supporting arguments. I have argued that it is most convincing to interpret that the water in Rev. 22:1–2 as a reference to the Spirit. Among the eight factors in favor of the Spirit view, the two most important are: (1) Rev. 22:1 and 22:17 are closely tied to John 7:37–39 and (2) the water of life comes out from the throne of God

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 93 and the Lamb (Rev. 22:1) reflects the picture of the Father and Son as sources of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel (7:37–39; 15:26; 20:22).

How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to Revelation 22:1–2 We may now consider how the factors observed in connection with Rev. 22:1–2 relate to those discussed in chapter five. All five exegetically significant indicators for identifying the Spirit as being symbolized showed up during my exegesis. The indicator that water is given by Jesus played a significant role because, as pointed out in the exegetical analysis section, the water of life flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev. 22:1). Therefore, this indicator supports the Spirit view and proved valid in Rev. 22:1–2. The indicator of linking the giving of water to Jesus’ crucifixion works well in Rev. 22:1–2. This indicator matched the point made in the exegetical analysis section: that the water of life flows from the throne of the Lamb implies that this water is related to Jesus’ crucifixion. So this indicator adds significant weight to the Spirit view and turns out to be effective in this passage. The indicator of suggestive vocabulary came into play while I was analyzing Rev. 22:1–2. As I discussed previously, two words that are closely associated with the Spirit (ἐκπορεύομαι and διψάω) are used in Rev. 22:1 and 22:17, respectively. Therefore, we can assess that this indicator adds a considerable weight to the Spirit view, and this association enhances the usefulness of this indicator because this indicator works well in Rev. 22:1–2 as it did in the agreed passages. The indicator of parallels to OT passages relating to the Spirit was actively engaged in my exegesis because, as I have already stated, the primary background of Rev. 22:17 is Isa. 55:1, and water in Isa. 55:1 has a close connection with the Spirit. So this indicator favors viewing the water in Rev. 22:1–2 as a reference to the Spirit, and this extra example in Rev. 22:1–2 confirms the reliability of this indicator. The indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context appeared. As I previously stated, the Spirit is mentioned in the immediate context of Rev. 22:1–2 (v. 17). Even though this indicator does not lend much weight to the Spirit view, it also works as an indicator favoring the Spirit view and proved helpful in Rev. 22:1–2. Out of the six exegetically significant indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, five indicators were actively engaged in my

94 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

exegesis. The indicator of highlighting proved to be useful in Rev. 22:1–2. As I discussed in the exegetical analysis section, the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 is highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs. Accordingly, this indicator works as an indicator favoring the Spirit view and proved valid in Rev. 22:1–2. The indicator of contextual coherence matches the point made in the exegetical analysis section: even though interpreting the water of life in Rev. 22:17 as the Spirit seems to break the natural logic of this verse at the first glance, it does not actually do so because it can be taken as the invitation of the Spirit and the Bride toward the thirsty to drink of the Spirit himself when one considers Jesus’ invitation to eat the bread of life, which refers to Jesus himself, in John 6:35. So this indicator cannot be considered as an indicator working against the Spirit view and works well in Rev. 22:1–2. The indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context played a significant role in supporting the Spirit view. As I have already noted, the presence of many symbolic expressions in the immediate or near context of Rev. 22:1–2 invites us to interpret the water of life symbolically. Thus, this indicator shows itself to be a valuable indicator, since it appears here as well as in chapter five. The indicator of coherence when taken literally did not work well in Rev. 22:1–2 because, as I observed in the exegetical analysis section, the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 makes good sense when taken literally. Thus, this indicator lends weight to the literal water view and turns out to be unsupportive in Rev. 22:1–2. The indicator of geographic and chronological detail came into play while I was examining Rev. 22:1–2. As I discussed above, relatively detailed geographic information is given in the immediate context of Rev. 22:1–2. So this indicator adds weight to the literal water view and does not work well in Rev. 22:1–2. This may be because the detail of the river’s flowing from the throne could be seen as a highly important symbolic/theological description more than a matter of geography. Ten exegetically significant indicators were engaged in the exegesis of Rev. 22:1–2. Eight of them worked as indicators supporting my exegetical conclusion. This support not only proves their validity and usefulness in Rev. 22:1–2 but also enhances the reliability of these indicators because these additional examples give them extra weight. Although the indicator of coherence when taken literally and the indicator of geographic and chronological detail did not work well in Rev. 22:1–2, this does not mean that they are invalidated. Rather, these two cases simply show that these indicators do not always work in every case.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 95

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”54

Exegetical Analysis This verse is a part of conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. Their dialogue begins as Nicodemus visits Jesus by night (v. 2) and consists of Nicodemus’ words or questions (vv. 2, 4, 9) and Jesus’ replies (vv. 3, 5–8, 10–21). John 3:5 is Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus’ question, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (v. 4). This question reflects his misunderstanding of Jesus’ words γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (“born from above”) in 3:3.55 Through the use of these two words, Jesus means that a man needs a spiritual birth to see the kingdom of God, but Nicodemus misunderstands them as meaning reentering his mother’s womb. Jesus clarifies what he meant by “born from above” in verse 3 by speaking of being “born of water and the Spirit” in verse 5.56 This expression seems to be another way of saying “born from above.” In the next verse, Jesus contrasts “born of the flesh” with “born of the Spirit” by saying that “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (v. 6). “Born of the Spirit” in verse 6 also seems to parallel “born of water and the Spirit” in verse 5 because “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” in verse 6 seems to be Jesus’ response to Nicodemus’ question in verse 4. In other words, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that entering a second time into his mother’s womb (a natural birth) can give a man only a natural life. Thus, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” in verse 6 seems to make the same point he just made in verse 5 again (a man needs a spiritual birth to enter the kingdom of God). In verse 7, Jesus again uses the expression, “born from above” which he used in verse 3. He further explains what he meant by these words by drawing an analogy between the wind and the Spirit in verse 8. Jesus rephrases “born from above” in verse 7 with “born of the Spirit” in verse 8. Thus, even though Jesus uses three different expressions in John 3:3–8 (“born from above,” “born of water and the Spirit,” and “born of the Spirit”), all these seem to mean the same thing, the spiritual birth. Let’s turn to the question of water in John 3:5. There are three main interpretations concerning its reference: some think it refers to the Spirit, some to baptism, and still others to the physiological water associated with birth.57 Seven factors support the view that the water in John 3:5 symbolizes the Spirit.58 First,

96 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

“born of water and the Spirit” in 3:5 refers to only one birth because this expression parallels “born from above” in 3:3.59 Second, as I discussed in chapter three, water and the Spirit are tightly linked each other in the OT and ancient Jewish literature. The following three OT texts seem to lie behind this expression.60 In Isa. 32:15, the imagery of water and the Spirit are tightly connected. Isaiah uses the image of supplying abundant water to the land to describe God’s blessing of pouring out the Spirit in the last days for his people. Ezek. 36:25–27 describes what God will do to the Israelites when he brings them to their own land from all of the nations where they had been exiled (v. 24).61 God promises that he will cleanse them from all their impurities and idols by sprinkling clean water on them, and that he will put his Spirit in them when they return to their own land. Isa. 44:3–4 is the most important passage. For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. They shall spring up like grass amid waters, like willows by flowing streams.

In this passage “I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground” and “I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring” make a parallel, and water and the Spirit are juxtaposed in this parallel (v. 3). Moreover, Isaiah likens the function of the Spirit on God’s people to the function of water to plants by describing those who receive the Spirit as plants growing well due to a sufficient supply of water (v. 4). It is also important to note that water and the Spirit are not only mentioned together, but they are also closely related in this passage. These three OT texts clearly show that water is used as an image of the Spirit that God will pour out in the last days on his people. Thus it is highly probable that Jesus had these OT backgrounds in his mind when he says “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. Jesus calls Nicodemus “Israel’s teacher” (3:10), and this title for Nicodemus also encourages us to find the background of “born of water and the Spirit” from the OT.62 Third, interpreting water in John 3:5 as baptism does not cohere with its immediate context or John’ overall theology because the evangelist emphasizes the saving work of the Spirit in the Gospel, not water baptism. The expression, “born of the Spirit,” is mentioned twice in the immediate context (vv. 6, 8) and the evangelist often put emphasis on the saving work of the Spirit by contrasting flesh and the Spirit in the Gospel (3:6 and 6:63). The contrast between “born of the will of the flesh” and “born of God” in John 1:13 also makes the same point.63

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 97 Fourth, only one preposition ἐξ (“of ”) governs two words (ὕδατος and πνεύματος) and these two words have no articles.64 Fifth, the fact that water is used as the primary symbol of the Spirit elsewhere in the Gospel (7:38–39) also supports this view. For example, Keener comments “Although the grammatical argument by itself is not decisive in 3:5, John’s explicit explanation of ‘water’ as the Spirit in 7:39 invites us to read the more ambiguous 3:5 as a hendiadys.”65 Sixth, there are relatively many symbolic expressions in the immediate or near context of John 3:5 (three symbolic expressions, “lift up” in v. 14; “the light” in vv. 19–21; “darkness” in v. 19). As we discussed in chapter five, the presence of many symbolic expressions in the immediate context favors that water is used symbolically. Seventh, only one piece of chronological information is given in the immediate context of John 3:5 (“This man came to Jesus by night” in 3:2), and even this information is unspecific. As I pointed out in chapter five, scarcity of chronological and geographic detail favors that water is used symbolically. A second major interpretation of the water in John 3:5 is that it refers to baptism as a metonymy.66 Those who hold this view offer four arguments. First, one of the most obvious arguments favoring baptism is that, in terms of simple grammatical structure, “of water and the Spirit” sounds like a reference to two things. However, the fact that only one preposition ἐξ governing two words (ὕδατος and πνεύματος) seems to indicate that John considered them as “a unit in concept or reality.”67 Second, scholars often claim that the water in verse 5 would have instantly reminded the early Christian readers of baptism.68 But this assumption is not very convincing because, as addressed in chapter three, water is associated with various themes in the OT and ancient Jewish literature and is especially used in connection with the Spirit. Third, it is often suggested that references to baptism in John (1:26–34; 3:22–26; 4:1) and a possible reference to the Lord’s Supper in John 6 support this view.69 John 1:26–34, where John’s water baptism and Jesus’ Spirit baptism are juxtaposed, is often selected as having a close tie with this passage. However, this connection is not convincing. First of all, although water and the Spirit lie in a contrasting relationship in John 1:26–34, these two seem to have a coordinating relationship in John 3:5 because they are governed by one preposition and are connected by καὶ.70 Moreover, even though water is associated with baptism in John (1:26–34; 3:22–26; 4:1), it seems better to link water in John 3:5 with its more immediate context, 3:5–8, where the Spirit is mentioned three times.

98 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

In addition, the evangelist’s comment that it was not Jesus but his disciples who actually baptized the people (4:2) also weakens this argument. Fourth, water in John 3:5 is not highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs because no other reference is made to water in the immediate context. As I discussed in chapter five, if water is not highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs, this absence would be an indicator favoring that water is used in a simple literal sense. There are additional weaknesses to this view.71 If one takes water in John 3:5 as baptism, three possibilities concerning the kind of baptism come into view: Christian baptism, John’s baptism, or the Jewish water ritual. Taking the first option would result in making Jesus’ statement anachronistic because Nicodemus could have not understood Christian baptism. Taking the water as a reference to John’s baptism is not convincing because there is no explicit statement or implication of Jesus that people need John’s baptism to enter God’s kingdom. Conversely, we receive the impression that Jesus does not overly emphasize John’s baptism because Jesus himself or his disciples baptize people (3:22; 4:2). If one assumes a reference to Jewish water ritual, then one might have expected that water and the Spirit in verse 5 to be a contrasting relationship because those who hold this interpretation usually suggest that Jesus is arguing against Jewish water ritual. However, grammatically, water and the Spirit in verse 5 are not contrasted but have a coordinating construction.72 A third major interpretation of this passage is that water in John 3:5 refers to physiological water.73 Three arguments can be cited in support this view. First, some scholars argue that water often symbolizes physiological water in the OT and ancient Jewish literature (Prov. 5:15–18; Cant. 4:12–15; 3 En. 6.2).74 However, it is not compelling to conclude that water in John 3:5 refers to physiological water because, as Keener notes, “it (embryonic fluid) is a very rare description in extant early Jewish texts.”75 Second, it is suggested that this interpretation makes a close parallel with John 3:6.76 Two things can be said in response, however: (1) water and the Spirit seem to have a coordinating relationship in John 3:5 while flesh and the Spirit have a contrasting relationship in John 3:6; (2) as I stated earlier, it is more natural to see Jesus’ words, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (3:6), as his response to Nicodemus’ question in John 3:4. Third, some contend that this interpretation is the most natural interpretation when one considers Nicodemus’ reference to the womb in verse 4.77 However, it seems more natural to link verse 4 with “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” in verse 6 than with the water in verse 5.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 99 There are two additional weaknesses to this interpretation. First, the strongest argument against the physiological view seems to be that Jesus does not need to tell Nicodemus about natural birth because he already has it.78 Second, Paul Julian comments that “if Jesus wanted to speak of physical birth, it is reasonable to assume that he would have used either ‘γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς’ (3,6) or ‘γεννηθῇ ἐξ αἱμάτων’ (‘born of blood’―1,13).”79 Of the three major interpretations, it is most convincing to interpret the water in John 3:5 as a reference to the Spirit. Among the seven factors cited in favor of the Spirit view, three are most important: (1) “born of water and the Spirit” in 3:5 refers to only one thing because this expression makes a parallel with “born from above” in 3:3; (2) water and the Spirit are closely related in the OT and ancient Jewish literature (Isa. 32:15: 44:3–4; Ezek. 36:25–27); and (3) interpreting water in John 3:5 as baptism does not cohere with its immediate context or John’s overall theology because the evangelist emphasizes the saving work of the Spirit in the Gospel, not water baptism (3:6, 8; 6:63).

How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 3:5 We may now consider how the factors observed in connection with the exegesis of John 3:5 relate to those discussed in chapter five. Out of the five indicators for identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized, two indicators played a significant role in the exegesis of John 3:5. The indicator of OT parallels appeared while I was examining John 3:5. As I mentioned above, the primary background of the expression in John 3:5, “born of water and the Spirit,” is the OT (Isa. 32:15; 44:3–4; Ezek. 36:25–27) and water and the Spirit have a close link in these OT passages. Since this indicator lends considerable weight to the Spirit view, we can evaluate this indicator as a valid indicator in John 3:5. The indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context showed up during my exegesis: the references to the Spirit occur two times in the immediate context of John 3:5 (vv. 6, 8). The presence of these references to the Spirit in the immediate context of John 3:5 works as an indicator supporting the Spirit view. Therefore, this indicator turns out to be useful in John 3:5. Out of the six indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, four indicators were engaged in the exegesis of John 3:5. The indicator of contextual coherence showed up during my exegesis and played an important role because, as I have already pointed out, interpreting water in John 3:5 as baptism does not coheres well with its immediate context or John’s overall

100 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

theology. As a result, we can conclude that this indicator proved very helpful in John 3:5. As I mentioned in the exegetical analysis section, the indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context came into play. There are a number of symbolic expressions in the immediate or near context of John 3:5 (“lift up” in v. 14; “the light” in vv. 19–21; “darkness” in v. 19). This adds further weight to the conclusion that the water in John 3:5 is used symbolically, and thus favors the Spirit view. This indicator served as a useful indicator in John 3:5. The indicator of geographic and chronological detail showed up. As I noted in the exegetical analysis section, only one unspecific chronological detail is given in the narrative (“This man came to Jesus by night” in 3:2). So this indicator may speak against interpreting water in John 3:5 in a simple literal sense and thus indirectly supports the Spirit view. Therefore, we can assess that this indicator worked well in John 3:5. The indicator of highlighting did not prove helpful in the case of John 3:5. Water in John 3:5 is not highlighted in the narrative in which it belongs because no other reference is made to water in the immediate context. From the above analysis, we have found that six indicators observed in chapter five were actively engaged in the exegesis of John 3:5. As we have seen thus far, five of them worked as exegetically useful indicators (OT parallels, the references to the Spirit in the immediate context, contextual coherence, the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context, and geographic and chronological detail). Only one of them did not work well in the case of John 3:5 (the indicator of highlighting). Based on these results, we can conclude that five indicators discussed in chapter five performed well and proved to be as reliable indicators in John 3:5.

John 4:10–14 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket and the well is deep; where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”80

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 101

Exegetical Analysis This passage contains a portion of dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman that takes place by Jacob’s well (4:7–26). Their dialogue relates to two themes: living water (vv. 7–15) and proper worship (vv. 20–26). Their conversation begins as Jesus asks the woman for some water from the well (v. 7). When the woman is surprised by Jesus’ question, he introduces himself as the one who can give her living water (v. 10). Jesus contrasts the living water he can offer with water from Jacob’s well by saying that the water from Jacob’s well can merely quench a person’s thirst temporarily, whereas his living water will satisfy one’s thirst forever and will be a source of water welling up to eternal life inside the one who drinks it (vv. 13–14). However, as is the case of Nicodemus, this woman also misunderstands Jesus’ words. Jesus uses the expression “living water” symbolically, but she takes it literally. What does this living water symbolize? There are two main views: some think the living water represents the Spirit; others think it pictures Jesus’ revelation or teaching.81 Seven factors support the view that the living water symbolizes the Spirit.82 First, the living water in John 4:10–14 is closely bound up with that of John 7:37–39.83 Their tight connection can be established by the following four points. First, these two passages have linguistic or conceptual parallels. The expression “living water” is very close in both texts (ὕδωρ ζῶν in 4:10, τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν in 4:11, and ὕδατος ζῶντος in 7:38), and these two passages are only two places in the Gospel where living water appears.84 The words διψάω (“thirst” in 4:13, 14; 7:37) and πίνω (“drink” in 4:13, 14; 7:37) are used in both passages. The word πιστεύω (“believe”) is said by Jesus in the near context of John 4:10–14 (v. 21) and 7:38.85 Jesus himself says or implies that he is Messiah/the Christ in the near context (4:25–26; 7:27–29).86 Second, just as Jesus is the source of the living water in John 7:37–39, he is also the source of the living water in John 4:10–14 because this water is promised by Jesus (vv. 10, 14). Third, it is common that water flows from inside of a person in 4:14 and 7:38. The water is described as coming from a believer (ἐν αὐτῷ, “in him”) in 4:14, while the water is described as coming from the belly (“κοιλίας”) of a believer or Christ in 7:38.87 Fourth, both passages are related to Jewish institutions. John 4:10–14 is connected to Jacob’s well, and John 7:37–39 is linked with the festival of Tabernacle. By comparing Jesus with Jewish institutions, the evangelist seems to show that Jesus is the one who replaces or supersedes them. I think, based on these connections, the intimate relationship between John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39 is very clear, and this is the strongest

102 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

argument supporting the view that the living water in John 4:10–14 refers to the Spirit because John 7:39 clearly states that the living water refers to the Spirit. Second, water’s quenching thirst is frequently employed as a symbol of the Spirit in the OT and ancient Jewish literature. Especially, the thirst language in John 4:13–14 seems to be closely linked to the OT prophecies that promise to pour out the Spirit in the last days.88 The language of thirst in John 4:13–14 recalls Isa. 44:3 (“I will pour water on the thirsty land…I will pour my Spirit on your offspring”) and 55:1 (“everyone who thirsts, come to the waters”). The water in these two texts is tightly connected to the Spirit (regarding the water in Isa. 55:1 see the discussion below). The concepts that water comes into a human being (“in him”) and works in the man (“welling up to eternal life”) in John 4:14 seem to be related to the concept of pouring out the Spirit on human beings (“I will put my spirit within you” in Ezek. 36:27 and “I will pour out my spirit on all flesh” in Joel 2:28) and the concept of inner transformation of the Spirit in Ezek. 36:25–27 (helping them observe God’s laws). As we discussed in chapter three, the water in Ezek. 36:25–27 and Joel 2:28 is closely tied up with the Spirit. Thus, it is convincing to view Jesus’ promise of giving the living water in John 4:10–14 as the fulfillment of these OT promises that God will pour out the Spirit on his people in the last days. Third, the word δωρεα (“gift”) in John 4:10 is used to refer to the Holy Spirit in Acts and Hebrews (Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17; Heb. 6:4). Jesus uses the expression, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the gift of God”), in John 4:10, and this phrase has a close connection with the living water because these two phrases are used interchangeably by Jesus in this verse. The word δωρεα occurs eleven times in the NT,89 and all of its references in Acts and Hebrews refer to the Holy Spirit. For example, in Acts 2:38 “the gift (δωρεὰν) of the Holy Spirit” is promised by Peter to be given to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Especially, the exact same phrase with John 4:10, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ, also appears in Acts 8:20 where Peter blames Simon when he tries to buy the authority of the giving of the Holy Spirit with money. Peter uses this expression when he refers to this authority of the giving the Holy Spirit.90 Fourth, the word πνεῦμα (“spirit”) occurs three times in the near context of 4:10–14, and two of these references (“in the Spirit and truth” in 4:23–24) most likely refer to the Holy Spirit.91 One can assume that some connections exist between John 4:10–14 and 4:23–24 because these two passages are parts of the discourse between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Fifth, two sayings of Jesus in its near context (“the hour is coming” in 4:23 and “I who speak to you am he” in 4:26) also support this view. Jesus says that “the hour” of worshipping God “in the Spirit and truth” is coming92 and identifies himself as

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 103 the Messiah when the woman mentions about the Messiah. In this Gospel the word ὥρα (“hour”) in 4:23 is tightly linked to Jesus’ death and resurrection (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:2, etc.), and Jesus’ giving of the Spirit is also firmly connected to his death and resurrection (7:39; 16:7). Thus, it is most likely that through the expression, “the hour is coming,” Jesus hints that true worship in the Spirit and truth will be soon enabled through his gift of the Spirit whom he will send after his resurrection (20:22).93 It is also important to note that these words contain his eschatological claim pointing to the Spirit as an eschatological promise. Moreover, Jesus’ words, “I who speak to you am he,” also imply that he recognizes himself as the Messiah who would make this true worship possible by sending the Spirit because “the Spirit was the mark of the messianic age.”94 If these interpretations are correct, one can assume that Jesus’ sayings about the living water (4:10–14) and true worship in Spirit and truth (4:23–24) are closely connected each other, which also strengthens the argument that the living water in 4:10–14 refers to the Spirit. Sixth, if the water in 4:10–14 refers to the Spirit, then the expression, “a spring of water welling up to eternal life,” in 4:14 can have similar idea with the expression, “It is the Spirit that gives life,” in John 6:63.95 This life-giving power of the Spirit can also be found in John 3:5, 6, and 8. Seventh, ἅλλομαι (“leap, well up”) in 4:14 is used in relation to the work of the Spirit in the LXX.96 This word is employed to describe the motion of welling up of the spring of water that Jesus would give believers in 4:14.97 In the LXX this word is used to refer to the work of the Spirit in Samson or Saul with clear references of God’s Spirit such as phrases πνεῦμα κυρίου (“Lord’s spirit” in the LXX of Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14) or πνεῦμα θεοῦ (“God’s spirit” in 1 Sam. 10:10). These usages indicate that ἅλλομαι is intently connected to the work of the Spirit in the NT and the LXX. A major alternative to the view that the living water represents the Spirit is that it represents Jesus’ revelation or teaching.98 Those who hold this view have offered three arguments. First, scholars contend that water is often used as a symbol of law or teaching in the OT (Prov. 13:14; 18:4; Isa. 55:1) or ancient Jewish literature (Sir. 24:21–29; CDC 19:34). First of all, one should admit that it is difficult to decide whether water in John 4:10–14 refers to Jesus’ teaching or the Spirit by comparing which one has more references than the other because both of them have sufficient cases. Scholars who hold this position often suggest Prov. 13:14 as one of the parallels of living water in John 4:10–14 (“The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life [πηγὴ ζωῆς], that one may avoid the snares of death”). The following two points support their relationship: (1) two words, πηγὴ (“fountain” or “spring”) and ζωή (“life”), in Prov. 13:14 also appear in John 4:14, and (2) As “the teaching of

104 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the wise” is likened to “a fountain of life” in Prov. 13:14, Jesus’ wisdom, which is revealed in the continuing dialogue with the woman (4:15–26),99 is also symbolized as “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” in John 4:14. Even though the living water in John 4:10–14 seems to be somewhat related to Prov. 13:14, it is more convincing to see that the water in John 4:10–14 refers to the Spirit because the parallels between John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39 seem to be stronger than the parallels between John 4:10–14 and Prov. 13:14. Second, some argue that the contexts of John 4 and John 7–8 support this interpretation. Scholars who hold this view often pay attention to the following facts: (1) The Samaritan woman misunderstands Jesus’ words (4:11, 15) and gradually comes to know who Jesus really is (4:19, 29);100 (2) Jesus is called as “a/the prophet” (4:19; 7:40)101 or “Messiah/the Christ” (4:25; 7:31, 41) in the Gospel; (3) Jesus teaches the woman about true worship (4:21–24); (4) Two words, ἀναγγέλλω (“show, make know”) and διδάσκω (“teach”), which seem to be related to the revelation of Jesus, occur many times in the Gospel (4:25; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:2, 20);102 and (5) “The Messiah (Taheb) expected by the Samaritans was to be a teacher-belief which is reflected in v. 25.”103 However, even though the Messiah the woman expected probably was a powerful teacher (4:25), what Jesus meant by recognizing himself as the Messiah (4:26) was most likely presenting himself as the one who will give the Spirit in order to make worshipping in the Spirit and truth possible (4:23–24). Third, Severino Pancaro claims that the living water in John 4:10–14 and the bread of life in John 6:35 have a close relationship and, based on their relationship, insists that the living water in John 4:10–14 also refers to Jesus’ teaching because the bread of life in John 6:35 refers to Jesus’ teaching.104 He suggests the following four points as the ground of their firm connection: (1) Just as the living water Jesus offers sates his thirst forever in 4:14 (οὐ μὴ διψὴσει), the bread Jesus offers satisfies his hunger forever in 6:27 and 35 (οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ);105 (2) “Both have their OT counterparts: the manna and the water of Jacob’s well”; (3) There are some parallels in 4:15 and 6:34, and (4) Jesus is identified as “the prophet-like-Moses, the Messiah” in both passages.106 However, it is crucial to consider that Jesus says “I am the bread of life” in 6:35 ̶ not “I will give it.” In addition, what symbolic meaning or background was intended by Jesus when he identified himself with the bread of life in John 6:35 is disputed, so this factor is not that strong. I think that Jesus implies that he fulfills God’s promise of giving water and bread to his people through his Messiah which is prophesized in Isa. 55:1–2 (see the discussion below). I have examined two major interpretations. It is more convincing to interpret the living water in John 4:10–14 as a reference to the Spirit. Among the seven

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 105 factors cited in favor of the Spirit view, three are most important: (1) its close relationship with John 7:37–39; (2) water quenching thirst is frequently used as a symbol of the Spirit in the OT and ancient Jewish literature (Isa. 44:3; 55:1–3); and (3) the expression, “the gift of God,” in John 4:10 is firmly tied up with the Spirit in the NT.

How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 4:10–14 We may now consider how the factors observed in connection with John 4:10–14 relate to those discussed in chapter five. All of the five exegetically significant indicators for identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized showed up during my exegesis and turned out to be valid in John 4:10–14. The indicator that water is given by Jesus came into play. As I mentioned previously, we can say that Jesus is the source of living water because this water is promised by Jesus. Thus, this indicator supports the Spirit view and proved very helpful in John 4:10–14. The indicator of linking the giving of water to Jesus’ crucifixion appeared as a significant indicator during my exegesis. As argued in the exegetical analysis above, since the word ὥρα (“hour”) in 4:23 is closely connected to Jesus’ death and resurrection in this Gospel (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:2, etc.), Jesus seems to hint that his promise of giving living water is tightly linked with his crucifixion through his expression, “the hour is coming,” in 4:23. Consequently, we can conclude that this indicator proved valid in John 4:10–14. The indicator of OT parallels matches the point made in the exegetical analysis section: the living water in John 4:10–14 is closely related to that of John 7:37–39, and water’s quenching thirst is frequently used as a symbol of the Spirit in the OT and ancient Jewish literature. Since a number of OT passages seem to provide a primary background of living water in John 4:10–14 (Isa. 44:3; 55:1; Ezek. 36:25–27; Joel 2:28) and these passages are linked with the Spirit, this indicator lends significant weight to the Spirit view and turned out to be useful in John 4:10–14. The indicator of the presence of suggestive vocabularies came up. As I stated in the exegetical analysis section, the word διψάω is used twice in John 4:13–14, and this word seems to be firmly associated with the OT prophecies that promise to pour out the Spirit in the last days (Isa. 44:3; 55:1). Therefore, this indicator favors the Spirit view and works well in John 4:10–14. The indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context was actively engaged in my exegesis. As I discussed in the exegetical analysis section,

106 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the word πνεῦμα (“spirit”) occurs three times in the near context of 4:10–14, and two of these references (“in the Spirit and truth” in 4:23–24) most likely refer to the Holy Spirit. So, this indicator adds weight to the Spirit view and works as a valid indicator in John 4:10–14. Out of the six exegetically significant indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, four indicators proved very helpful in John 4:10– 14. Only one of them is mentioned in the exegetical analysis section. The other three were not mentioned because the symbolic nature of living water in John 4:10–14 is so obvious. The indicator of contextual coherence came into play while I was analyzing John 4:10–14. As I commented above, two sayings of Jesus in the near context of John 4:10–14 (“the hour is coming” in 4:23 and “I who speak to you am he” in 4:26) seem to imply that Jesus identifies himself as the Messiah who makes true worship in the Spirit and truth possible through his gift of the Spirit whom he will send after his resurrection. Even though some argue that the immediate context of John 4:10–14 hints Jesus as a teacher or a prophet who enlightens the Samaritan woman with his divine wisdom, as I discussed in the exegetical analysis section, the former option is more convincing. Although this indicator was listed as one of the indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, it works as the indicator for identifying the Spirit as what is symbolized in this case. Accordingly, we can evaluate that this indicator supports the Spirit view and proved valid in John 4:10–14. I did not discuss the indicator of coherence when taken literally in the exegetical analysis section because the symbolic nature of living water in John 4:10–14 is evident. However, this indicator performs well in this passage because Jesus’ words in 4:14 do not make sense literally. Even though I did not address the indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context while examining John 4:10–14 because the symbolic nature of living water is clear, this indicator favors the Spirit view because many symbolic expressions can be found in the near context of 4:10–14 (“I have food to eat of which you do not know” in 4:32, 34; “the harvest” in 4:35; “the fields are already white for harvest” in 4:35; “wages” in 4:36; “gathers fruit for eternal life” in 4:36; “sower and reaper” in 4:36). As a result, we can evaluate that this indicator proved very reliable in the study of John 4:10–14.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 107 Although the indicator of highlighting was not discussed in the exegetical analysis section because the symbolic nature of living water is apparent, this indicator supports the Spirit view since living water is highlighted in the narrative. This indicator also turned out to be valid in John 4:10–14. Even though the indicator of geographic and chronological detail was not considered during my exegesis, it is the only indicator that does not apply well in John 4:10–14. Many details relating to place and time can be found in the immediate context of this passage (“So he came to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph” in 4:5; “Jesus…sat down beside the well” in 4:6; “It was about the sixth hour” in 4:6), and the presence of these details favors that living water is used literally. In this section, we have observed that ten indicators discussed in chapter five were actively engaged in the exegesis of John 4:10–14. Nine of them worked as significant indicators supporting my exegetical conclusion. Accordingly, these results demonstrate that these nine indicators are reliable because they also work well in John 4:10–14.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”107

Exegetical Analysis John 6 can be divided into four parts: Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the multitude (vv. 1–15), Jesus’ miracle of walking on the water (vv. 16–21), the discourse of the bread of life (vv. 22–58), and the disciples’ response to the Jesus’ words (vv. 59–71). John 6:35 consists of Jesus’ words to the crowd who followed him to Capernaum. Jesus leaves for Capernaum after he fed the crowd with the miracle of five loaves and two fish (6:1–15). When Jesus remarks that God’s work is believing the person whom God has sent (Jesus, v. 29), the multitude requests a sign as a proof of his identity to help them believe in him (v. 30) and mentions the miracle of manna that Moses provided to their fathers (v. 31). Jesus answers by describing manna as “bread from heaven” and states that this bread was not given by Moses but by God (v. 32) and declares that he, Jesus, is the bread of life (v. 35). In John 6:35 Jesus speaks that he is the bread of life and anyone “who comes to” him “shall not hunger” and anyone “who believes” in him “shall never

108 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

thirst.” In this verse, Jesus’ words regarding thirst are somewhat unexpected because only bread has been mentioned so far in this discourse (vv. 25–34), and the reference to drinking does not appear again until verse 53. In 6:53–56, the languages of eating and drinking appear together, and they are related to Jesus’ flesh and blood. Is the expression “shall never thirst” in John 6:35 related to the Spirit? Three main interpretations address this expression: (1) that it is related to the Spirit, (2) that it shows that Jesus is superior to wisdom, and (3) that it looks ahead to the drink imagery of 6:53–56.108 Three arguments support the view that “shall never thirst” is related to the Spirit.109 First, John 6:35 is firmly connected to John 4:14 and 7:38. Their close connection can be explained with three points. It is significant that οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε (“shall never thirst”) in 6:35 and οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“will never thirst”) in 4:14 are very close linguistically. Thus, Jesus’ promise of eternal quenching in 6:35 clearly reminds us of the living water Jesus promises to offer in 4:14. It is also important to note that the word διψάω (“thirst”) is used a total of six times in the Gospel (4:13, 14, 15; 6:35; 7:37; 19:28) and, except for 19:28, the other four occurrences are used in relation to the living water in John 4 and 7. I concluded that the living water in John 4:10–14 symbolizes the Spirit in the earlier section, and the living water in John 7 is explicitly linked to the Spirit by the evangelist. Thus, the use of διψάω in 6:35 leads us to expect that the thirst language in this verse is also related to the Spirit. Secondly, the exact same words, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ (“he who believes in me”), are used both in 6:35 and 7:38,110 and Jesus’ promise of satisfying thirst is given to those who believe in him in 6:35 and 7:37–38. Lastly, Jesus identifies himself with the bread of life in 6:35, and this identification fits well with “shall not hunger” but does not coincide with “shall never thirst” in the same verse. This association causes us to assume that these two expressions should be differentiated, and Jesus had something other than himself in mind when he said “shall never thirst.” Similarly, Jesus does not identify himself with the living water in the Gospel. It is something other than himself (the Spirit that Jesus will give, 4:10–14; 7:37–39). Second, even though many scholars connect John 6:35 with wisdom texts such as Sir. 24:21 or Prov. 9:5, Isa. 55:1–11 provides a better background for John 6:35.111 The invitation to drink water in Isa. 55:1 seems to be an invitation to receive the Spirit. Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 109 your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Hearken diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in fatness.

The following six points support a closer and better connection. First, these two passages have linguistic parallels such as “bread” (ἄρτος in John 6:35 and ‫לחם‬ in Isa. 55:2, 10), “come” (ἔρχομαι in John 6:35 and πορεύομαι in Isa. 55:1), and “thirst” (διψάω in John 6:35 and Isa. 55:1). Prov. 9:5 does not include the language of “thirst.” Second, even though water is not explicitly mentioned in John 6:35, it is indirectly hinted by the expression, “shall never thirst.” Water is mentioned in Isa. 55:1. What the Lady Wisdom offers to drink in Prov. 9:5 is not water but wine. Third, as the bread of life and water that Jesus will give will satisfy people’s hunger and thirst forever in John 6:35, Isa. 55:1–2 also presupposes that anyone who responds to God’s invitation will have their hunger and thirst satisfied. However, there is no such promise in Sir. 24:21. Actually, Sir. 24:21 is contradictory of John 6:35 because those who eat and drink of the Lady Wisdom will ask for more, implying that they still remain hungry and thirsty. Prov. 9:5 also does not include a promise of quenching thirst. Fourth, water and bread in Isa. 55:1–2 are mentioned as the blessing that the Davidic Messiah will bring in the last days (vv. 3–5).112 Fifth, listening to God’s word is mentioned in the near context of John 6:35 (v. 45) and in Isa. 55:1–11 (vv. 2, 3, 8–11).113 Sixth, both passages include a warning against working for food that “spoils” or “does not satisfy” (John 6:27; Isa. 55:2). These points strongly support the close link between John 6:35 and Isa. 55:1–11. Based on this strong connection, one more important fact to note is that, as the bread and water are differentiated in John 6:35, Isaiah also seems to differentiate these two and connects bread with God’s word and water with the Spirit. Bread is closely related to God’s word in Isa. 55:1–11. God’s word is likened to “the rain” and “the snow” that “come down from heaven” and eventually provide “bread” to people (vv. 10–11). This image is similar to the image of “the true bread from heaven” that Jesus uses to refer to himself in John 6:32.114 Moreover, the fact that bread was used as a symbol of wisdom or the Torah in the OT (Prov. 9:5) and ancient Jewish literature (Sir. 24:21; Genesis Rabba; Philo in Mut. 253–263) also supports this connection.115 The water in Isa. 55:1 seems to refer to the Spirit because water or water imagery is employed as a symbol of the Spirit in Isa. 32:15 and 44:3.116 The following two points make this argument even stronger: (1) the same word ‫“( צםא‬thirsty,” διψάω or δίψος in the LXX) is used in both Isa. 55:1 and 44:3, and (2) the Spirit is associated with the Davidic Messiah and the Servant in Isaiah (11:2; 42:1; 61:1), and the water in Isa. 55:1 is related to the blessing that the Davidic Messiah will bring (55:3–5).117 Thus, it is

110 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

convincing to see that the bread and water in 55:1–11 symbolize God’s word and the Spirit respectively as God’s blessings that he will bring through his Messiah in the last days. Jesus seems to employ these two images in Isa. 55:1–11 and hint that he as the true bread from heaven, will satisfy their spiritual hunger forever, and the Spirit that he will give soon will quench their spiritual thirst forever in John 6:35. Third, the words τὸ πνεῦμα (“the Spirit”) and πνεῦμα (“spirit”) occur in the near context of John 6:35 (“It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” in 6:63). Thus, these references to the Spirit in 6:63 also add weight to the interpretation that the language of thirst in John 6:35 is connected to the Spirit.118 A second major interpretation of the expression, “shall never thirst,” is that the phrase shows Jesus’ superiority to wisdom.119 This view sees that through his words in John 6:35 Jesus implies that he, as divine wisdom, can satisfy their spiritual hunger and thirst through his teaching. One principal argument supports this view. Scholars who hold this view often suggest Sir. 24:21 as the closest parallel of John 6:35.120 Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more.

Sir. 24:21 has three linguistic parallels (“come [ἔρχομαι in John 6:35 and προσέρχομαι in Sir. 24:19],” “hunger [πεινάω],” and “thirst [διψάω]”) with John 6:35. The fact that the Lady Wisdom invites people and provides herself to be eaten as food and drink is identical to Jesus’ being given as the bread of life in John 6:35.121 However, even though Sir. 24:21 has some parallels with John 6:35, there are significant differences between these two passages. The word bread is not used in Sir. 24:21. More significant difference between John 6:35 and Sir. 24:21 include Jesus’ identifying himself with bread but not with water in John 6:35. Lady Wisdom, on the other hand, identifies herself with bread and water by inviting people to eat and drink herself in Sir. 24:21. It is also different that the bread of life and water that Jesus will give will satisfy people’s hunger and thirst forever but those who eat and drink the Lady Wisdom will ask more. A third major interpretation of the expression, “shall never thirst,” is that it looks ahead to the drink imagery of 6:53–56.122 The scholars who hold this view contend that “shall not hunger” and “shall never thirst” in John 6:35 are related to the language of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in 6:53–56. There are two major interpretations on the language in 6:53–56: (1) they refer to the

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 111 eucharist,123 and (2) they are symbolic expressions representing coming to Jesus and believing in his sacrificial death on the cross, respectively. First, in regard to this interpretation, it is often suggested that the miracle of feeding the multitude (vv. 1–15) includes some expressions that imply the eucharist. Especially, the participle εὐχαριστήσας (“when he had given thanks”) in 6:11 used to describe Jesus’ behavior of giving thanks to God for the loaves is often suggested as clear evidence of this implication.124 However, it is doubtful whether there are implications of the eucharist in this episode because giving thanks to God for a meal probably was a common Jewish custom in Jesus’ time,125 and because this word began to be used as an exclusive term for evoking the eucharist in the second century.126 Second, Moloney proposes that “shall not hunger” and “shall never thirst” in 6:35 hint the eucharist because these two expressions refer to the future. Thus, he contends that they can be understood as Jesus’ promise, and this promise seems to be fulfilled through the eating and drinking languages in 6:53–54 where Jesus seems to imply the eucharist.127 Regarding these two arguments that interpret 6:35 as the eucharist, one of their weaknesses is that even though the language of eating the bread or Jesus’ flesh, which could be taken as implying the eucharist, occurs many times in 6:50–58, it does not occur in 6:35–49.128 Third, although some also suggest that the thirst language in 6:35 is a clue to connect this verse with John 6:53–56, according to these scholars, eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in 6:53–56 refer to coming to Jesus and believing in his sacrificial death, respectively, instead of the eucharist.129 For example, Köstenberger claims that the hunger and thirst languages in 6:35 look ahead to the eating and drinking imageries of 6:53–56 and contends that coming and believing in 6:35 make clear somewhat ambiguous meanings of “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” in 6:54, respectively.130 However, each one of these three arguments that connect the thirst language in 6:35 with the language of drinking Jesus’ blood in 6:53–56 have the following two weaknesses: first, no mention of the blood appears in 6:35,131 and secondly, the word “thirst,” which occurs in 4:13, 14, 6:35, and 7:37, does not appear in 6:53–56. Thus, it is more convincing to link the thirst language in 6:35 with the living water in John 4:10–14 and 7:37–39 than to link it with 6:53–56. As addressed earlier, “he who believes in me (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ)” and “shall never thirst (οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε)” in 6:35 are match exactly or are very close to “he who believes in me (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ)” in 7:38 and “will never thirst (οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα)” in 4:14.

112 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

In conclusion, it is compelling to interpret the thirst language of John 6:35 as being related to the Spirit. John 6:35 seems to be tightly connected to John 4:14 and 7:38, and Isa. 55:1–11 provides a better background of John 6:35 than Sir. 24:21 or Prov. 9:5.

How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 6:35 We may now consider how the factors observed in connection with John 6:35 relate to those discussed in chapter five. Out of the five exegetically significant indicators for identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized that I addressed in chapter five, four indicators came into play while I was exegeting John 6:35. The indicator of OT parallels appeared in my exegesis on John 6:35: the primary background of the thirst language in 6:35 is Isa. 55:1–11, and the invitation to drink water in Isa. 55:1 seems to be an invitation to receive the Spirit. As Isa. 55:1–11 is the primary background of John 6:35 and the water in Isa. 55:1 is closely associated with the Spirit, this indicator effectively supports the Spirit view in John 4:10–14. The indicator that water is given by Jesus played a significant role during my exegesis: John 6:35 is closely related to John 4:14 and 7:38. Jesus’ words in John 6:35, “he who believes in me shall never thirst,” presuppose that he will give abundant water to those who believe in him. John 6:35 thus reinforces the thought that mention of Jesus as the source of the water is a strong indicator indicating reference to the Spirit. The indicator of suggestive vocabulary came in view. As I pointed out in the exegetical analysis section, the word διψάω, which might have evoked the Spirit to the original readers, is employed in John 6:35. So this indicator is present and proved useful in John 6:35. The indicator of references to the Spirit in the immediate context came into play. This appearance of reference to the Spirit in the near context of John 6:35 (6:63) favors the view that the thirst language in John 6:35 is closely linked with the Spirit. This indicator can also be considered useful in John 6:35. Even though they were not discussed in the exegetical analysis section because the symbolic nature of the thirst language in John 6:35 is evident, out of the six exegetically significant indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, four indicators are present in John 6:35, and two of them proved valid. The indicator of coherence when taken literally works well in John 6:35 because Jesus’ words in John 6:35, “he who believes in me shall never thirst,” do

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 113 not make sense literally. As I observed in chapter five, if water or water–related imagery does not make sense literally, it would be an indicator favoring that water is used symbolically. Therefore, we can consider this indicator valid in John 6:35. The indicator of the presence or absence of symbolic expressions are present and works well in John 6:35 because many symbolic expressions can be found in the immediate context of John 6:35 (“I am the bread of life” in 6:35, 48; “I am the living bread that came down from heaven” in 6:51; “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” in 6:53, etc.). Since the presence of these symbolic expressions in its context favors that the expression in John 6:35, “shall never thirst,” is used symbolically, this indicator is legitimate in John 6:35. The indicator of geographic and chronological detail does not work well in John 6:35 because relatively detailed geographic or chronological information is given in the near context of John 6:35 (“on the next day” in 6:22; “the people who remained on the other side of the sea” in 6:22; “boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread” in 6:23; “went to Capernaum” in 6:24; “This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum” in 6:59). As we discussed in chapter five, these aspects lean toward the argument that the thirst language in John 6:35 is used in a simple literal sense. The indicator of highlighting does not perform well in John 6:35 because the thirst language is not highlighted in the narrative. As I noted in chapter five, this indicator should favor the use of water in a simple literal sense. But there is no question of the water being symbolic here. In this section, we have observed that eight indicators identified in chapter five are present in John 6:35. Six of them proved valid. Thus, these results supply further evidence for the reliability of these indicators. Although two of them did not apply in John 6:35, their lack of relevance does not mean that they are invalidated.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water.132

Exegetical Analysis After Jesus and the other two men are crucified, the Jews ask Pilate to break their legs to make sure that they are dead before their bodies are removed from the cross because it was the day of Preparation (v. 31). As requested, the soldiers first go to the two men who are crucified with Jesus and break their legs (v. 32). But

114 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

when they come to Jesus, they do not break his legs because they find that Jesus is already dead (v. 33). Instead of breaking his legs, one of them pierces Jesus’ side with his spear, and the text says that blood and water immediately come out from his side (v. 34). Right after this incident of the issuing blood and water, the evangelist’s witness follows.133 The evangelist states that he bears a witness of what he saw, and his testimony is true (v. 35). In the next two verses the evangelist quotes two OT passages (vv. 36–37). One is related to the regulation of the Passover that prohibits the breaking of the bones of the Passover lamb (Exod. 12:46). The evangelist says the soldier did not break Jesus’ legs in fulfillment of this Scripture. The other is Zech. 12:10, which relates to the incident of the piercing of Jesus’ side. Many discussions have resulted on the interpretation of this water in John 19:34 because the issuing of water from Jesus’ side is somewhat unexpected.134 There are three main interpretations on the water in this verse: literal water, the Spirit, and baptism.135 However, it should be noticed that the latter two views do not necessarily exclude the first. Virtually all of the scholars who hold the latter two views also admit that the water in John 19:34 is literal water. The first major interpretation is that the water is literal.136 There are two views concerning the evangelist’s reason for mentioning this literal water: (1) he wishes to emphasize Jesus’ real humanity; (2) he emphasizes Jesus’ actual death. Eight arguments support literal water. First, the evangelist’s witness in 19:35 supports this view. The evangelist testifies that he saw that blood and water came from Jesus’ side and even confirms that this testimony is true.137 Some words in this verse such as “he who saw (ὁ ἑωρακὼς),” “has borne witness,” “testimony,” “true,” “the truth,” and “may believe” seem to emphasize that the evangelist is an eyewitness of the scene. Being an eyewitness was considered as one of the important requirements in writing a history in Graeco-Roman historiography, and the word ὁράω (“see”) in 19:35 was regarded as a word of great importance in composing historical writings by ancient Greek and Roman historians.138 Moreover, the word ὁράω also occurs in 19:33 (“they…saw [εἶδον] that Jesus was already dead”) and 19:37 (“They will look on [ὄψονται] him whom they have pierced”). These two additional references seem to show that the evangelist makes a historical claim for Jesus’ death and the incident of the issuing of blood and water because the references indicate that not only John but also the soldiers and the Jewish leaders saw Jesus’ death (v. 33) and his side being pierced (v. 37).139 Second, taking the water in 19:34 as literal water is most natural interpretation when one considers the flow of the narrative. Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 115 are described in John 19, and finally, his death is narrated in 19:30 (“he bowed his head and gave up his spirit”). Jesus’ death is also mentioned in 19:33. Since John 19:31–34 describes what had happened after Jesus died and his death is repeated in the context (vv. 30, 33), taking the water in 19:34 as literal water, as a sign of his death, fits well with the narrative flow. Third, this interpretation fits well with the historical situation in which the evangelist wrote the Gospel. It is highly probable that the influences of docetism were present in the evangelist’s community at the time when this Gospel was written, and this evangelist’s reference to blood and water was intended to oppose this docetic influence by highlighting that Jesus had blood and water as a human being.140 This argument also coheres well with the statement that “the Word became flesh (John 1:14).”141 It also should be noted that Irenaeus mentions Jesus’ issuing of blood and water with his experience of hunger and of being wearied with the journey (Against Heresies 3.22.2). …nor would He have hungered…But Jesus, being wearied with the journey…when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth…142

This quotation evidently indicates that he understood the issuing of blood and water from Jesus’ side as a sign of his humanity. Fourth, it looks like the evangelist highlighted the water and blood in order to prove that Jesus was already dead, thus explaining why the soldiers did not break his bones, with the result that Scripture was fulfilled (19:36), which might well explain why he bothers to mention water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side. Fifth, water imagery that refers to the Spirit is attractive and appealing. In all of the other passages when water imagery symbolizes the Spirit (Rev. 22:1–2; John 3:5; 4:10–14; 6:35; 7:37–39), the water is attractive and appealing. In John 19:34, however, this image is repulsive. Sixth, no symbolic expression appears in the immediate context of John 19:34143 and the blood in John 19:34 is certainly literal. Therefore, it is more natural to interpret the water in 19:34 as a reference to literal water as well. It also should be pointed out that this argument does more than support a literal reading. It also undermines the possibility of an additional symbolic reading. Seventh, water in 19:34 makes good sense when taken literally. As I noted in chapter five, this is an indication showing that water is used in a simple literal sense. Eighth, relatively detailed geographic or chronological information is given in the immediate or near context of John 19:34 (“So they took Jesus…to the place

116 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha” in 19:17; “the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city” in 19:20; “after this” in 19:28; “it was the day of Preparation” in 19:31; “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid” in 19:41; “So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there” in 19:42). As we discussed in chapter five, this information supports the water in 19:34 being used in a simple literal sense. A second major view is that the water in John 19:34 represents the Spirit.144 Those who hold this view have offered two arguments. First, it is often asserted that one must interpret John 19:34 as the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise of giving the living water in 7:37–39.145 This connection can be made by two points: (1) the evangelist explicitly states that the living water refers to the Spirit in 7:39 and water flows from Jesus’ side (from his belly in 7:38), and (2) the evangelist implies that Jesus’ giving of the Spirit will be done through Jesus’ death (7:39).146 However, this argument has a weakness. Unlike the living water promised by Jesus in John 4:10 and 7:38, what issues from Jesus’ side in John 19:34 is simply water―not living water. Second, scholars who hold this view argue that when the evangelist quoted Zech. 12:10 in John 19:37 (“They shall look on him whom they have pierced”), the context of Zech. 12:10 was also in his mind.147 God’s promise of pouring out “a spirit of compassion and supplication” is referred to in Zech. 12:10. A few verses later, Zechariah says that “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (13:1). The vision of flowing living waters from Jerusalem is narrated in 14:8. The scholars who hold this view claim that some or all of these in Zechariah are related to John 19:34. For example, Sebastian A. Carnazzo proposes that Jesus fulfilled Zech. 13:1 and 14:8 through his issuing of blood and water. In particular, with respect to the connection between John 19:34 and Zech. 13:1, Carnazzo argues that “sin and uncleanness” in Zech. 13:1 are closely linked to “blood and water” in John 19:34 because “blood” and “water” in John 19:34 parallels with “sin” and “uncleanness” in Zech. 13:1, respectively, and “blood of sin” (Exod. 30:10; Lev. 4:25, 34; 5:9; Ezek. 45:19) and “water of uncleanness” (Num. 19:9, 13, 20, 21; 31:23) are employed as technical terms in the OT. Then he also contends that “fountain” in Zech. 13:1 and “living waters” in Zech. 14:8 are tightly linked because both passages begin with “on that day,” and both have a concept that water flows from the temple in the last days. Carnazzo also insists that it is highly possible that the evangelist had Zech. 14:8 in his mind when he wrote John 19:34 because this verse seems to be used in John 4:10, 11, and 7:38 as well. Based on these arguments, Carnazzo concludes that Jesus’ issuing blood

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 117 and water is the fulfillment of God’s promises of opening the fountain to cleanse sin and uncleanness in Zech. 13:1 and of flowing living waters from Jerusalem in the last days in 14:8. He also concludes that the water in 19:34 symbolizes the Spirit because the Spirit is described as the one who cleanses sin and uncleanness in the Gospel (1:33; 3:5; 20:22–23), and the living water symbolizes the Spirit in the Gospel (4:10–14; 7:37–39).148 However, it is doubtful that the evangelist had the context of Zech. 12:10 in his mind when he cited this verse in 19:37.149 The evangelist’s purpose of quoting Zech. 12:10 seems to be not related to Jesus’ giving of the Spirit150 but seems (1) to show that the piercing of Jesus’ side fulfills prophecy and (2) to affirm the historicity of this incident by pointing out that not only John (19:35) but also the soldier who actually pierced Jesus’ side and the Jewish leaders who indirectly participated in this piercing by handing Jesus over to Pilate151 saw this incident (19:37). Another weakness of the argument from Zech. 12:10 might be that if the evangelist had wanted to call attention to the Spirit in 19:34, he would have cited Zech. 12:10a (“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication”) instead of only 12:10b (“They will look on me, the one they have pierced”). It is also worth noting that in Zechariah the “spirit of compassion and supplication” produces mourning for the one slain, which is not an effect of the Spirit that the evangelist emphasizes. A final major view is to see this water as a reference to baptism.152 This view connects the blood and water in John 19:34 with the eucharist and baptism, respectively and sees that Jesus’ death establishes and reinforces these two sacraments. The scholars who hold this view often interpret the water in John 3:5 and the blood in 6:53–56 as baptism and the eucharist, respectively.153 Moloney, for instance, claims that the reason why the evangelist mentions the blood and water in John 19:34 is not only because blood and water actually came out from Jesus’ side but also because the evangelist wanted his readers, who had no physical presence of Jesus with them, to know that they could have the presence of Jesus through baptism and the eucharist.154 However, there is no passage in the NT where blood alone refers to the eucharist.155 Second, the context of 19:34 does not support this interpretation.156 Third, the interpretation of John 3:5 and 6:53–56 is controversial. As I have already argued, the water in John 3:5, for example, most likely refers to the Spirit. The most compelling of the three major interpretations is to deduce that the water in John 19:34 is an exclusive reference to literal water. Of the eight factors cited in favor of the literal water view, two are most significant: (1) the evangelist’s comment in the next verse (v. 35) was added to confirm the historicity of the

118 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

incident of the piercing of Jesus’ side; and (2) taking the water in 19:34 as literal water is the most natural interpretation when considering the flow of the narrative.

How the Indicators Identified in Chapter Five Relate to John 19:34 We may now consider how the factors observed in connection with John 19:34 relate to those discussed in chapter five. Although three of the indicators for identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized (water is given by Jesus, linking the giving of water to Jesus’ crucifixion, and OT parallels) support the Spirit view in the case of John 19:34, the four indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning seem to far outweigh the three indicators in favor of the Spirit view. Especially, the indicator of contextual coherence and the indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context add a substantial weight to the literal water view. Normally the three indicators for identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized support the Spirit view, however, here they are not a decisive indicator because other indicators in support of the literal water view that I will discuss below outweigh these indicators. The other two indicators for identifying the Spirit as the thing symbolized were not relevant in the case of John 19:34. The indicator of suggestive vocabulary appears pertinent to John 19:34 because διψάω that which is closely related to the Spirit appears in the immediate context of John 19:34 (v. 28). However, this indicator is not applicable to John 19:34 because, unlike other cases in the disputed passages where water and διψάω are placed closely (John 4:13–14; 6:35; 7:37), they are placed relatively far from each other in the case of John 19:34. It is also different that Jesus is described as the one who is thirsty in John 19:28 whereas Jesus is described as the one who will quench people’s thirst in Rev. 22:17, John 4:14, 6:35, and 7:37–38. The indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context is irrelevant to the case of John 19:34 because there is no other reference to the Spirit in the context, although there is a reference to Jesus’ spirit (19:30). Among the six exegetically significant indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, five indicators were actively engaged in the exegesis of John 19:34, and four of them proved very relevant. The indicator of contextual coherence came into play. This indicator matches the factor identified in the exegetical analysis section: taking the water in 19:34 as literal water is the most natural interpretation when considering the flow of

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 119 the narrative. Therefore, this indicator is a strong indicator supporting the literal water view and turns out to be useful in John 19:34. The indicator of geographic and chronological detail showed up in my exegesis of John 19:34: many circumstantial details are given in the immediate or near context of John 19:34 (six references). Accordingly, this indicator works as an indicator in support of the literal water view and proved helpful in John 19:34. The indicator of coherence when taken literally came up. Since water in 19:34 makes good sense when taken literally, this indicator lends weight to the literal water view and is valid in John 19:34. The indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context matches the point made in my exegesis of John 19:34: since the blood in John 19:34 is certainly literal, it is more natural to interpret the water in 19:34 as a reference to literal water as well. It is also important to note that this indicator does more than support a literal reading. It also undermines a symbolic reading. The indicator of highlighting came up while I was analyzing John 19:34: The evangelist testifies that he saw that blood and water came out from Jesus’ side and even confirms that this testimony is true. Although the evangelist seems to highlight this incident of issuing water from Jesus’ side through his comment in the next verse, this indicator is not decisive because it is more convincing to think that his main purpose of this highlighting was to confirm the historicity of this incident rather than to add a symbolic meaning to the water in 19:34. It is also not clear that this comment was intended to highlight the water in 19:34. Unlike the cases of John 2:6, 9:7, and 13:1–17 where it is very clear that water or water-related imagery in these passages is highlighted in the narrative in which they belong, the connection between the evangelist’s comment in John 19:35 and the water in 19:34 is unclear because no mention of water or water-related imagery is made in 19:35. Therefore, we can conclude that even though this indicator is present in John 19:34, it does not play an important role. While I was analyzing John 19:34, two new indicators that I did not identify in chapter five emerged. One is an indicator for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning: narrative details that serve a clear rhetorical function at the literal level are less likely to carry an additional symbolic meaning. When interpreters cannot formulate a reason why a narrator mentions a descriptive detail (e.g., the reference to green grass in Mark 6:39), they tend to look for an allusion or symbolic meaning. However, when it is easy to identify a motive for the detail, there is less pressure to turn to non-literal interpretation. It looks like

120 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the evangelist highlighted the water and blood in order to prove that Jesus was already dead, thus explaining why the soldiers did not break his bones, with the result that Scripture was fulfilled (19:36). This might well explain why he bothers to mention water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side. The other new indicator emerged in John 19:34 is an indicator for determining whether water functions as a symbol for the Spirit. In all of the other passages when water imagery symbolizes the Spirit, the water is attractive and appealing. The river of the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2, living water in John 4:10–14, the thirst language in John 6:35, and rivers of living water in John 7:37–39 are positive images (quenching thirst). Water in John 3:5 is also positive image (engendering life). In John 19:34, however, this image is repulsive. Thus far we have examined twelve indicators (ten indicators identified in chapter five and two new indicators) and found that six of them had a significant role in supporting my exegetical conclusion (contextual coherence, the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context, geographic and chronological detail, coherence when taken literally, narrative details that serve a clear rhetorical function at the literal level are less likely to carry an additional symbolic meaning, and water imagery is attractive and appealing). We also observed that four indicators identified in chapter five worked against my exegetical conclusion (water is given by Jesus, the giving of water is linked to Jesus’ crucifixion, OT parallels, and highlighting). As we can see from these results, even though the number of the indicators that support the literal water view is little more than those of the Spirit view, the difference is small. These results reveal why this verse is a center of debate. However, of great importance is perceiving that all of these twelve indicators do not have equal weight. The six indicators supporting the literal water view seem to far outweigh the four indicators in favor of the Spirit view. As a result, we can conclude that six indicators identified in chapter five are valid and useful in John 19:34. In this chapter we have explored the six disputed passages and reached exegetical conclusions that, among the six water references, the water or water-related imagery in Rev. 22:1–2, John 3:5, 4:10–14, 6:35 represents the Spirit. The water in 1 John 5:6–8 and John 19:34 does not refer to the Spirit. The former refers to the baptism of Jesus by John, and the latter is a reference to literal water. We have also examined how the indicators identified in chapter five were actually engaged in the exegesis of the six disputed passages. Although most of the indicators were actively engaged in my exegesis, they are not equally effective. Most of them turned out to be effective because they worked as important and/or consistent indicators. In particular, the role of the indicator that water is given by Jesus and

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 121 the indicator of contextual coherence was striking. But some of them turned out to be less effective: the indicator of geographic and chronological detail, the indicator of highlighting, and the indicator of suggestive vocabulary for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. These three indicators did not appear or work consistently in the cases of the six disputed passages. Thus, they need to be handled with care.

Notes 1. This is my translation. 2. Although the author uses a different preposition (ἐν, “with”) from the earlier one (δι᾽, “by”) and adds the article in front of both water and blood when he repeats these two words in this verse, I think that these changes are simply stylistic variation. Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 304. Georg Strecker focuses on this change of the preposition and argues that the author distinguishes the water in 6a from the water in 6b through this change. He argues that the former refers to Jesus’ baptism by John and the latter refers to baptism that the early church practiced. Based on this argument, Strecker assumes that the issue between the author and the opponents was related to baptism and the eucharist and the opponents accepted the former but rejected the latter (The Johannine Letters, 183–85). M. Miguens also concentrates on this change of preposition. From the use of the preposition διὰ in 1 John 5:6a, he connects this verse to the LXX of Isa. 43:2 and Ps. 66:12. “When you pass through the waters (δι᾽ ὕδατος) I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire (διὰ πυρός) you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you” (Isa. 43:2). “We went through fire and through water (διὰ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος)” (Ps. 66:12). Miguens points out that the preposition ‫“( ב‬in”) is used in front of the words, “water” and “fire,” in the Hebrew text of Ps. 66:12 and connects this preposition in the Hebrew text with the use of the preposition of ἐν (“with, in”) in 1 John 5:6c. Miguens also pays attention to the concept of victory in 1 John 5:4–5 and claims that 1 John 5:6–8 should be interpreted in light of these verses. Based on these arguments, he understands “came by water and blood” as references to affliction and suffering and argues that Jesus’ victory was brought by his suffering (“Tres testigos: Espiritu, agua, sangre,” LA 22 [1972]: 74–94). One more issue related to grammatical details is the use of aorist tense of ἔρχομαι (“come”). This is often thought to be an indicator that Jesus’ coming by water and blood in 1 John 5:6a refers to a past event. Georg Richter, “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b),” in Studien zum Johannesevangelium, ed. J. Hainz, BU 13 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1977), 122. I think this aorist tense is an

122 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

indicator of a past event. Similarly, T. M. Manson also pays attention to the change of tenses in 1 John 5:1–6 (perfect in 5:1, aorist in 5:4, and present in 5:6). Manson interprets the Spirit, water, and blood as referring to the giving of the Spirit during the Pentecost, Jesus’ baptism, and his death respectively (“Entry into Membership of the Early Church,” JTS 49 [1947]: 27). 3. I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of St John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 234. 4. One reason why he cites three witnesses is to show that it fulfills the requirement of the Mosaic Law for a valid number of witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). 5. “Water” is mentioned both in verses 6 and 8. Some think it refers to the same thing in each verse, either Jesus’ baptism or the baptism practiced by the community of 1 John. Others think that “water” refers to Jesus’ baptism in verse 6 and to the baptism that the community of 1 John practiced in verse 8. I think that the water refers to the same thing in both verses, namely, Jesus’ baptism by John (Marshall, The Epistles of John, 237). But it is important to notice that on either of these views the water image refers to some form of baptism. 6. In addition to the two principal views listed above, there are also some minor views. F.-M. Braun thinks that water of 1 John 5:6 refers to both baptism and the Spirit. Braun suggests John 7:37–39 as the primary background of water in 1 John 5:6 and argues that many other themes, such as the baptism of John, the gift of the Spirit, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and the incident of Moses’ striking rock, also influenced John’s understanding of water in this passage (“L’eau et l’Esprit,” RevThom 49 [1949]: 29). Scholars who think that the water refers to Jesus’ incarnation include Georg Richter, Ben Witherington III, and Rick Williamson. Richter points out that Jesus’ coming is mentioned in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 and insists that his coming in these two passages is closely related to the statement that Jesus Christ is a real person. He also argues that coming by blood was considered by the Jewish people as being born as a real human. Richter contends that John 1:13 also reflects this concept. Based on these arguments, Richter argues that “came by water only” refers to docetist’s view that Jesus Christ had a heavenly body, and “came by blood” implies that Jesus Christ was a real person who was born in the same way with other ordinary men (“Blut und Wasser,” 120–42). Based on water image in the OT and other ancient texts (Prov. 5:15–18; Cant 4:12–15; 4 Ezra 8:8; Qolasta 33; 3 En. 1.315; 1 QH 3.9–10), Witherington argues that the water in 1 John 5:6 refers to “physical birth” and the water in 1 John 5:8 refers to Jesus’ incarnation (“The Waters of Birth: John 3.5 and 1 John 5.6–8,” NTS 35 [1989]: 155–60). See also Rick Williamson, 1, 2, & 3 John: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, NBBC (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2010), 161–62. Manson connects this passage with the process of obtaining membership in early Syrian churches (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem). He claims that

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 123 the Syrian churches followed this procedure when unbelievers came to the church. First, they were given the Spirit. Second, they were baptized. Last, they were allowed to participate in the eucharist. He argues that the order of 1 John 5:8 reflects this practice (“Entry into Membership of the Early Church,” 25–29). Wolfgang Nauck focuses on the order of the three witnesses and argues that the backgrounds of the three witnesses in 1 John 5:8 are 1 QS 3:6–12, 6:2–4, Joseph and Aseneth 8:3–6, T. Levi 8:2, 4–10. Nauck points out that the cleansing of the Spirit is preceded by cleaning by the water and unbaptized people were not allowed to the table fellowship in the Qumran community (Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Taufe im Urchristentum und in der Alten Kirche, WUNT 3 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957], 167–73). Ignace de la Potterie also links the initiation rite of 1 QS 3.6–12 with the order of the Spirit and water in 1 John 5:8 (“La notion de Témoignage dans saint Jean,” SPCB 2 [1959]: 204). Matthew D. Jensen proposes that water and blood in 1 John 5:6 refer to “the crucified body of Jesus” (Affirming the Resurrection of the Incarnate Christ: A Reading of 1 John, SNTSMS 153 [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012], 184). 7. The interpretation of “water” as baptism takes three forms: (1) Jesus’ baptism by the Baptist, (2) the activity of baptism that Jesus practiced in his earthly ministry (John 3:26; 4:1), and (3) baptism that the early church practiced. Scholars who hold the first view include Tertullian, De Baptismo 16; Brooke, Epistles, 135; de la Potterie, “La notion,” 203; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 231; Pheme Perkins, The Johannine Epistles, NTM 21 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979), 61; Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, WBC 51 (Waco: Word, 1984), 265; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Reginald and Ilse Fuller (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1992), 232–33; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 303–9; Robert W. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 282; Daniel R. Streett, “They Went Out from Us: the Identity of the Opponents in First John” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008), 413; Timothy Wiarda, Spirit and Word: Dual Testimony in Paul, John and Luke, LNTS 565 (London: Bloomsbury/ T&T Clark, 2017), 184–88. Scholars who hold the second view include Martinus C. de Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer: 1 John 5:5–8 and the Gospel of John,” JBL 107 (1988): 87–106, Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 177, and John Christopher Thomas, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, PC (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 251. De Boer pays attention to the preposition ἐν in 1 John 5:6 and argues that ἐν τῷ ὕδατι (“with water”) in verse 6 should be interpreted as an action that Jesus actively does as well. He finds the ground of this argument from the connection between 1 John 5:6 and 1:7. He claims that ἐν τῷ αἵματι in 1 John 5:6 should be interpreted as an action Jesus does because 1 John 1:7, where only other reference of blood appears in 1 John, describes Jesus’ action of purifying our sins through his blood. Based on this connection, de Boer argues that ἐν τῷ ὕδατι in 1 John 5:6 should be understood

124 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

as an action that Jesus actively does as well. He argues that “came by water” in 1 John 5:6 refers to the baptism that Jesus practices in John 3:22, 26, and 4:1–3. I think that ἐν τῷ ὕδατι refers to Jesus’ baptism by John. Scholars who hold the last view include Strecker, The Johannine Letters, 182–86, Oscar Cullman, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance, SBT 10 (Chicago: H. Regnery, 1953), 110, and B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John: The Greek Text with Notes, 4th ed. (Abingdon: Marcham Manor Press, 1966), 182. 8. For various opinions concerning the identity of the opponents see Brown, The Epistles of John, 49–68. Based on the close connection between water and the Spirit in the Gospel, Urban C. von Wahlde contends that the controversy between the author of 1 John and the opponents was related to pneumatology. He argues that what the author of 1 John intended through 1 John 5:6 is to emphasize that the importance of Jesus’ death not only lies on the giving of the Spirit but also lies on the atoning power of his blood that he shed on the cross. Von Wahlde assumes that there are three editions in the Gospel of John and claims that the main purpose of the author of the second edition is to show that the main purpose of Jesus’ coming is to give the Spirit at his death. According to von Wahlde, three passages in John, 4:10–15, 7:37–39, and 13:4–11, where water is used as a symbol of the Spirit, are added to the first edition by the author of the second edition. He also claims that the author of the second edition links Jesus’ promise of giving (living) water to the moment of his death in John 7:37–39. Von Wahlde assumes that this is the view that the author of the second edition and the opponents of 1 John had and 1 John 5:6–8 was written to correct this unbalanced reading of the opponents. In other words, the opponents only focused on the giving of the Spirit at the moment of Jesus’ death. Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 3:187–88. However, this argument is not that strong because von Wahlde’s arguments that the Gospel has three editions and that the opponents aimed at 1 John 5:6–8 had an identical view of the author of the second edition rely too much on speculations. Issues relating to the compositions of the Gospel and 1 John, such as their composition order or how many editions they have, are in debate and are based on much speculation. 9. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1–2. 10. Brown, The Epistles of John, 77–78, 578. Brown also assumes that the water in 1 John 5:6a (“not with the water only”) refers to the baptism of Jesus and the water in 1 John 5:6b (“but with water and with blood”) refers to the water in John 19:34. 11. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 306. See Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 58–73 and Köstenberger, Theology, 127–35 for their literary relationship. 12. Kruse, The Letters of John, 175. 13. Streett, “They Went Out from Us,” 384. 14. Scholars who hold this interpretation include Marianne Meye Thompson, 1–3 John, IVPNTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 134–35 and Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 3:191–92.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 125 1 5. The order they are mentioned in the texts are opposite. 16. Michaels, “By Water and Blood,” 159–60. Thomas argues that “came by water and blood” in verse 6 refers to one event because only one preposition διά is used. Based on this grammatical consideration, he contends that this expression alludes to “blood and water” in John 19:34 (1 John 2 John 3 John, 252). However, the following two facts undermine this argument. First, the Spirit, the blood, and the water are presented as three witnesses in verse 8 (Painter, 1, 2, 3 John, 307). Second, the preposition ἐν and definite article are placed in front of water and blood in the latter part of 1 John 5:6. Thus these two facts make us to see that water and blood refer to two different events instead of one event. 17. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 305. 18. For example, even though Hermann-Josef Venetz sees a close relationship between 1 John 5:6 and John 19:34, he does not interpret water in John 19:34 as the Spirit. He interprets blood and water as two sacraments, baptism and the eucharist (“‘Durch Wasser und Blut gekommen’: Exegetische Überlegungen zu 1 Joh 5,6,” in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Eduard Schweizer, ed. Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 345–61). Rayner Winterbotham presents three weaknesses to this argument: (1) John 19:34 does not cohere with the expression “came by water and blood” in 1 John 5:6; (2) the present tense of witnessing of water and blood in 1 John 5:8 does not cohere with John 19:34 because flowing blood and water from Jesus’ side in John 19:34 is a past event; and (3) the order of blood and water in these passages is opposite (“The Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood,” Expositor, Eighth Series, vol. 2 [1911]: 63). 19. Thomas, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, 251–54; Thompson, 1–3 John, 133–34. 20. This is my translation. 21. One issue related to this passage is “Where do we connect the phrase ‘in the middle of its street’”? Grammatically, this prepositional phrase can be connected either to τοῦ ἀρνίου (“of the Lamb”) and makes the end of the sentence in verse 1 or can be connected to καὶ (“and”) and makes the first phrase of the sentence in verse 2. I prefer the first option. This translation issue has no relevance to the question of the water symbolism. 22. Even though the word ξύλον (“a tree”) in Rev. 22:1 is singular, it is reasonable to think that this singular is “a collective reference to ‘trees’” because it is difficult to understand that one tree is located on both sides of the river. Aune, Revelation, 3:1139. 23. The interpretation of living water in these passages is the same as the interpretation of living water in Rev. 22:1–2. Scholars, who interpret living water in Rev. 22:1–2 as eternal life, interpret living water in Rev. 7:16–17, 21:6, and 22:17 as eternal life as well (Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development, JSNTSup 93 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press/ JSOT, 1994], 262; Osborne, Revelation, 332, 739; Beale, Revelation, 442, 1056) and

126 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

scholars, who interpret living water in Rev. 22:1–2 as literal water, interpret living water in these passages as literal water as well (J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 38 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1975], 345). 24. “The Lamb in the midst of the throne” is the one who “will guide them to springs of living water” (7:17). “He who sat upon the throne (the Father)” promises to give water “from the spring of the water of life” (21:6). “The river of the water of life” flows “from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). 25. Daria Pezzoli-Olgiati views the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 as the fulfillment of the promise of giving living water in Rev. 7:17 and 21:6 (Täuschung und Klarheit: Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Vision und Geschichte in der Johannesoffenbarung, FRLANT 175 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997], 178). 26. In addition to the three principal views listed above, there are also some minor views. J. J. Comblin argues that “the river of 22:1–2 refers to the water rite which accompanied the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles” (“La liturgie de la Nouvelle Jerusalem,” ETL 29 [1953]: 27, 35–37). The quotation is from David Mathewson, A New Heaven and a New Earth: the Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5, JSNTSup 238 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 199. Kistemaker claims that it refers to “a steady stream of blessings to all the saints” (Revelation, 580). Ian Boxall connects this passage with John 19:34 and contends that these two passages have a close connection because Christ is described as the true temple and Tabernacle in the Gospel. Based on this connection, Boxall also argues that living water in Rev. 22:1–2 can be interpreted as baptism as well because he thinks that water coming out from Jesus’ side in John 19:34 refers to baptism (The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC [London: Hendrickson, 2006], 310). 27. Scholars who hold this interpretation include Michael Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened (London: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 212; Swete, The Apocalypse of St John, 298; Homer Hailey, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 422; Stephen S. Smalley, “‘Paraclete’: Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 294–95; Mangina, Revelation, 245. 28. Allison argues that the living water in Revelation and the Gospel have some linguistic and conceptual parallels. He suggests the following parallels: διψάω (“thirst” in Rev. 22:17; John 4:13–14; 6:35; 7:37), ἔρχομαι (“come” in Rev. 22:17; John 6:35; 7:37), δίδωμι and δωρεάν (Rev. 21:6; 22:17; John 4:10, 14), πηγή (“fountain” in Rev. 7:17; 21:6; John 4:14), the promise of eternal quenching (Rev. 21:6; John 4:14; 6:35), αιών (John 4:14; Rev. 22:5), ποταμοί (Rev. 22:1; John 7:38), έκπορεύω and ρέω (Rev. 22:1; John 7:38), and λαμβάνω (Rev. 22:17; John 7:39). Allison, “The Living Water,” 148–49. Regarding the relationship between Rev. 22:1–2 and John 7:37–39,

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 127 J. P. M. Sweet also suggests the following two points: (1) the setting of John 7:37–39 is “the harvest festival of ingathering (John 7:2; Exod. 23:16; Zech. 14:16)” and the nations come to the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24, 26), and (2) as this festival is related to water and light, these two appear in Rev. 22:1–5 as well (water in vv. 1–2 and light in v. 5). J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation, WPC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 311. 29. Smalley proposes that there are some commonalities between pneumatology of the Gospel and Revelation (“Pneumatology,” 292–96). 30. See my discussion in John 6:35 in this chapter. 31. Beale, Revelation, 1104. 32. Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, NAC 25b (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 309–11; Carson, John, 655–56. 33. This is closely related to how one interprets the entire book of Revelation. There are four main ways of interpretation (Preterist, futurist, idealist, and already-not yet). See Joseph L. Trafton, Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological Commentary, RNTS (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 214. 34. Scholars who see the New Jerusalem symbolically include Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, HTRHDR 9 (Missoula: Scholars, 1976), 230; Stephen W. Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure and Exegesis, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 209; Aune, Revelation, 3:1187; Beale, Revelation, 1045–46; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, IBCTP (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 219. 35. Scholars who interpret the New Jerusalem literally include Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 348–50; Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Rockville: Assurance Publication, 1974), 289–92; Thomas Witulski, Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalpyse, FRLANT 221 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 300–1; Osborne, Revelation, 733; Patterson, Revelation, 363. Schüssler Fiorenza argues that the New Jerusalem and the bride in Revelation 21 are not the same (Priester für Gott, 348–50). Aune summarizes Schüssler Fiorenza’s arguments. Aune writes that “(1) Rev 21:2 compares the city to a bride: the city cannot be that bride. (2) Rev 21:7 mentions that the saints will inherit the city; they cannot be the city. (3) The city is described as a place where the saints dwell (21:24–26).” Aune, Revelation, 3:1122. Thomas Witulski adds two additional reasons. First, the eschatological community is living on earth when the New Jerusalem is coming down from the sky. Second, unlike Rev. 19:7 and 21:9, only the word νύμφη (“bride”) without the words, τοῦ ἀρνίου (“of Lamb”) or αὐτοῦ (“his,” 19:7), which identifies them as νύμφη τοῦ ἀρνίου (“bride of the Lamb”) thus as an eschatological community, is used in Rev. 21: 2. Instead, a wedded man is simply called ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς (“her husband”) without any reference to the Christian community of the end times in Rev. 21:2. This indicates that what the seer saw is the appearance of

128 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the New Jerusalem in a general sense with the appearance of a bride, who is adorned for her husband. Witulski, Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian, 301. 36. Beale, Revelation, 1045. 37. Two additional reasons why scholars see the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 symbolically include: (1) it is difficult to interpret it literally, and (2) the word “show” in 22:1 is a clue of showing its symbolic nature. Regarding the first reason, W. W. Reader writes that “Moreover, the presence of a river (22:1) or a fountain (21:6) is hard to imagine in the absence of a sea (21:1)” (Die Stadt Gottes in der Johannesapocalypse [Göttingen: George August Universitat, 1971], 40–44). Regarding the second reason, Brian K. Blount thinks that the word ἔδειξέν (“showed”) in Rev. 22:1 is an important key of indicating that this vision should be interpreted symbolically (Revelation: A Commentary, NTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009], 395). This verb also occurs in Rev. 1:1, 4:1, 17:1, 21:9, 22:6, and 22:8. 38. For various interpretations of early church writers on Revelation see William C. Weinrich, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament 12: Revelation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 387–88. 39. Ibid., 388, 390. 40. Another interesting interpretation of this passage by an early writer is that of Apringius of Beja’s (the sixth century). Although he interprets this water of life as Christ, Beja connects it with the living water in John 4:10–14. Weinrich, Revelation, 388. Thus, his interpretation indicates that the attempt to connect the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 with the living water in the Gospel existed at least in the sixth century. 41. Mangina, Revelation, 246. 42. Scholars who hold this interpretation include George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 286; Mathias Rissi, The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11–22.15, SBT 2:23 (Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, 1999), 80; Mathewson, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 196; Felise Tavo, Woman, Mother and Bride: An Exegetical Investigation into the “Ecclesial” Notions of the Apocalypse, BTS 3 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2007), 334; Blount, Revelation, 396; Laszlo Gallusz, The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation, LNTS 487 (London: T & T Clark, 2014), 170. 43. Beale, Revelation, 1105. 44. Beale points out that expressions such as “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, his servants will serve him, they will see his face” (vv. 3–4) are indicating fellowship between God and his people. 45. Ibid., 1104. 46. Osborne, Revelation, 769. 47. The Spirit’s power of giving life is also described in John 6:63, Isa. 44:3–4, and T. Jud. 24:2. In John 6:63, Jesus clearly states that “it is the Spirit that gives life.” The giving of the Spirit is also connected to life in Isa. 44:3–4 and T. Jud. 24:2. In the former, the result of the giving of the Spirit to the Israel is likened to “grass” that “springs

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 129

48.

49.

50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

up” “amid waters” and, in the latter, the pouring out the Spirit is described as “the fountain for the life of all humanity.” J.-W. Taeger insists that the word ζωή (“life”) in Rev. 22:1 is closely related to “eternal life” throughout the Apocalypse (Johannesapokalypse und johanneischer Kreis: Versuch einer traditionsgeschiechtlichen Ortsbestimmung am Paradigma der Lebenwasser-Thematik, BZNW 51 [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989], 59–60). This word is mentioned 17 times in Revelation (2:7, 10; 3:5; 7:17; 11:11; 13:8; 16:3; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:6, 27; 22:1, 2, 14, 17, 19). The two expressions, “the crown of life” (2:10) and “the book of life” (3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27), especially seem to be tightly linked to eternal life. From the context, it seems obvious that the crown of life in 2:10 is closely connected to the resurrected life of Christ in which faithful Christians in the church in Smyrna will participate in Christ (2:8) and eternal life (“even to the point of death” in 2:10 and “will not be hurt at all by the second death” in 2:11). Beale, Revelation, 243. Regarding the book of life in 3:5, Osborne comments that “Later apocalyptic ideas associated this register with eternal life and fellowship with God (1QM 12.3; Jub 19.9; 36.10).” Osborne, Revelation, 180. However, this argument is weak because of the references to life which do not seem to be related to eternal life (e.g., Rev. 11:11; 16:3). Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 86–107. Beale prefers adjectival genitive (Revelation, 1103–4). From the expression, “life-giving water,” it seems that Osborne prefers the genitive of product (Revelation, 769). Scholars who hold this last interpretation include Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, 292; Ford, Revelation, 345; Pezzoli-Olgiati, Täuschung und Klarheit, 178–79; Patterson, Revelation, 375–76. On the whole, these scholars correspond to those who view the entire New Jerusalem as describing a place. Patterson argues that the living water in Rev. 22:1–2 is God’s promise to provide abundant and clean water to his people in the last days. Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, 289–92. D. Georgi, “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22,” in Kirche, FGB 75, ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr, 1980), 351–72. Aune, Revelation, 3:1176–77; Beale, Revelation, 1105; Boring, Revelation, 214. This is my translation. The expression, γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, can be translated either as “born anew” or “born from above.” I prefer the latter. Misunderstanding is one of John’s favorite literary devices. See D. A. Carson, “Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel,” TynB 33 (1982): 59–91. This interpretation can be supported by the fact that Jesus’ words in these two verses make almost exact parallels. Two differences between Jesus’ words in John 3:3 and 3:5 are changes from ἄνωθεν (“from above” in v. 3) to ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος (“of water and the Spirit” in v. 5) and from ἰδεῖν (“see” in v. 3) to εἰσελθεῖν εἰς (“enter

130 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

into” in v. 5). Sang-Hoon Kim writes that “Vv. 3 and 5 (A-A’ of I6) share the exactly same pattern of sentences. In this sense, we may grasp that ‘born again’ is namely ‘born of water and the Spirit’ (c’); ‘he cannot see the kingdom of God’ (d) is, in other words, ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ (d’).” Sang-Hoon Kim, Sourcebook of the Structures and Styles in John 1–10: The Johannine Parallelisms and Chiasms (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 92. However, Patrick James Bayens argues that “see” and “enter” in these verses are not identical. He distinguishes “see” in verse 3 from “enter” in verse 5 and contends that the former refers to “spiritual recognition” while the latter refers to “participating in the divine life.” Thus, for him, “born from above” in verse 3 is not the same with “born of water and the Spirit” in verse 5. Rather, the former is prerequisite for the latter (“Begotten of Water and Spirit [John 3:5]: Baptism in the Johannine Tradition” [PhD diss., Marquette University, 1993], 300–2). I think that “he cannot see the kingdom of God” in verse 3 and “he cannot enter the kingdom of God” in verse 5 have the same meaning. 57. In addition to the three principal views listed in the text, there are also some minor views. (1) Michaels writes that “if both water and Spirit mean ‘life’ in the Gospel of John, then birth from ‘water and Spirit’ means the beginning of new life ‘from above’ or what this Gospel calls ‘eternal life’” (John, 185). (2) The religion of the Jews. W. B. Robinson, “Born of Water and Spirit: Does John 3:5 refer to Baptism?” RTR 25 (1966): 20–21. (3) Torah (see the discussion in Carson, John, 193). 58. Scholars who hold this view include Wiarda, Spirit and Word, 149–56; Linda Belleville, “Born of Water and Spirit,” TrinJ 1 (1980): 134; Paul Julian, Jesus and Nicodemus: A Literary and Narrative Exegesis of Jn. 2,23–3,36, EUS 23, Theology 711 (Frankfurt am Main: Europäischer Velag der Wissenschaften, 2000), 101; Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT 148 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 172; William H. Bates, “Born of Water,” BSac 85 (1928): 235; Carson, John, 194; Morris, John, 192–93; Keener, John, 1:550. I think the καὶ which connects ὕδατος (“water”) and πνεύματος (“the Spirit”) in as functioning epexegetically (“water, which is the Spirit”). Some argue that even though water and the Spirit in John 3:5 are conceptually identical, they are two separate things (see Belleville, “Born of Water and Spirit,” 140 and Carson, John, 194). Although this view is slightly different from the earlier one, I consider these two views as much the same. 59. Carson, John, 194. 60. Gary M. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 162. 61. Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom, 170–71. Scholars interpret the water in these passages differently. See Bayens, “Begotten of Water and Spirit,” 9–117 for the discussion of various views. Bayens argues that some passages from the OT and

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 131 ancient Jewish literature mention washing and the giving of the Spirit in the last days together and some of these passages connect this washing with baptism. 62. Carson, John, 194. 63. Wiarda comments that “There are problems with the view that Jesus refers to baptism here, and particularly to the view that this baptism is instrumental to new birth by the Spirit. In 3.8 Jesus emphasizes that the Spirit’s action lies outside of human control. Furthermore, in both 3.6 and 1.13, merely human actions stand in stark contrast to divine birth or begetting. It is thus unlikely that the human act of baptism would be depicted as a co-factor with the Spirit in the process of effecting new birth in 3.5.” Wiarda, Spirit and Word, 155. 64. Carson, John, 194. Murray J. Harris writes that “Generally speaking, a prep. tends to be repeated before a series of nouns joined by kai more frequently in biblical Gk. than in non-biblical Gk. Sometimes, therefore, the non-use of a second or third prep. in NT Gk. may be theologically significant, indicating that the writer regarded the terms that he placed in one regimen as belonging naturally together or as a unit in concept or reality” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], 1178). However, Witherington sees water and the Spirit in John 3:5 as referring to two events. He claims that one preposition governing two words does not always refer to one event and presents 1 John 5:6–8 as its example (“The Waters of Birth,” 159). 65. Keener, John, 1:550. 66. This interpretation takes three forms: Christian baptism, John’s baptism, and Jewish water ritual. Scholars who hold the first view include Barrett, John, 209; Schnackenburg, John, 1:369; Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 2:123. Scholars who hold the second view include Beasley-Murray, John, 48–49; Bayens, “Begotten of Water and Spirit,” 302; B. F. Westcott, Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 108–9. Scholars who hold the last view include Robinson, “Born of Water and Spirit,” 20–21 and Wilbert Francis Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation, 3rd ed. (London: Epworth Press, 1945), 206. 67. Harris, Dictionary, 1178. 68. Schnackenburg, John, 1:369; Brown, John i–xii, 141–42. 69. Barrett, John, 174. 70. Carson, John, 192. 71. See Keener, John, 1:548–49. 72. Carson, John, 193. 73. Some who hold this view think the water refers to embryonic fluid or semen. Scholars who hold the former view include Sandra M. Schneiders, “Born Anew,” Theology Today 44 (1987): 192; M. Pamment, “John 3:5: ‘Unless One Is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God’,” NovT 25 (1983): 190; R. Fowler, “Born of Water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5),” ExpT 82 (1971): 159. Scholars who hold the latter view include Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 48–71.

132 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

74. Witherington, “The Waters of Birth,” 155–58; Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 54–71; Barrett, John, 209. 75. Keener, John, 1:547. 76. D. Spriggs, “Meaning of ‘Water’ in John 3:5,” ExpT 85 (1974): 150. 77. Ibid. 78. Keener, John, 1:547–48. 79. Julian, Jesus and Nicodemus, 98–99. 80. This is my translation. 81. In addition to the two principal views listed above, there are also some minor views. 1. “The Law” Barrett, John, 195. 2. “The gifts of God, including the gift of Christ himself, and all the eschatological gifts that he bestows” Wai-Yee Ng, “Johannine Water Symbolism and Its Eschatological Significance: With Special Reference to John 4” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), 195. 3. “Torah” Ruben Zimmerman, “From A Jewish Man to the Savior of the World: Narrative and Symbols Forming a Step by Step Christology in John 4,1–42,” in Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert van Belle, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Geert van Oyen, Michael Labahn, and Reimund Bieringer, BEThL 265 (Louvain: Peeters, 2014), 113–14. 4. “Sanctifying grace” Francis J. McCool, “Living Water in John,” in Bible in Current Catholic Thought, ed. J. L. McKenzie (New York: Herder & Herder, 1962), 226–33. 5. “Baptism” Paul Niewalda, Sakramentssymbolik im Johanneevangelium? (Limburg: Lahn-Verlag, 1958), 126; Ernst Haenchen, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, ed. Robert W. Funk with Ulrich Busse, trans. Robert W. Funk, HCHCB 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 220. 6. “Love” Zimmermann, “From A Jewish Man,” 113. 82. Scholars who hold this view include François-Marie Braun, “Avoir soif et boire (Jn 4,10–14; 7,37–39),” in Mélanges Bibliques en homage au R. P. Béda Rigaux, ed. Albert Descamps and André de Halleux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970), 249–51; Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, rev. ed. (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 119; Michaels, John, 244; Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 2:182; Barrett, John, 233–34; Allison, “The Living Water,” 152–53; Burge, The Anointed Community, 98. Even though some argue that the living water in John 4:10–14 refers to “eternal life mediated by the Spirit,” I consider that this view belongs to the Spirit view. Scholars who hold this view include Carson, John, 219; Beasley-Murray, John, 60; Keener, John, 1:603. 83. McCool, “Living Water in John,” 228. 84. Similar expressions appear in Revelation (7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17).

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 133 85. Jesus urges the woman to believe in his words about the proper worship place in 4:21 and rivers of living water is promised to be given to those who believe in Jesus in 7:38. 86. Burge, The Anointed Community, 97. The Samaritan woman or the crowd calls Jesus the prophet or the Christ after they talked with Jesus (4:19; 7:40). 87. As I discussed in the section of identifying exegetically significant factors from passages where scholars generally agree that water represents the Spirit in chapter five, I take the former view. First of all, taking αὐτοῦ as a reference to the believer coheres well with 7:38 because Jesus seems to be the speaker of this verse. The expression “by this he meant” in 7:39 most likely refers to Jesus’ words. If this expression refers to Jesus’ words, then αὐτοῦ in 7:38 cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus himself is the speaker of 7:38. This view is also supported by external evidence such as one of the oldest manuscripts (P66) and the works of nearly all the Greek Fathers. Carson, John, 324–25. Nevertheless no matter which view one takes, the image of water flowing from inside of a person is similar. The former view greatly strengthens the argument for taking the living water in 4:10 as a reference to the Spirit. 88. Carson, John, 220. We can assume that the evangelist had several relevant passages from the OT or ancient Jewish literature in mind when he composed the living water in John 4:10–14 because there is no passage that exactly matches with this passage. Zimmermann proposes that Joel 3:1 is its primary background (“From A Jewish Man,” 115). Brown and Morris claim that 1QS 4:21 is its primary background (Brown, John i–xii, 179; Morris, John, 230). 89. Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17; Heb. 6:4; Rom. 5:15, 17; 2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 3:7; 4:7. 90. James D. G. Dunn, “A Note on dōrea,” ExpT 81 (1969–70): 349–51. However, Severino Pancaro comments that “δωρεὰ τοῦ θεου is a technical term for the gift of the Law.” See his discussion on the background of this term. Severino Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John, NovTSup 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 473–74. 91. Burge, The Anointed Community, 193. John 4:23 says that “the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and truth” and 4:24 says that “those who worship him must worship in the Spirit and truth.” Even though some scholars see πνεύματι in these verses as a reference to the human spirit (see Morris, John, 239 and Bernard, John, 1:149), it most likely refers to the Spirit. First, most of its references in the Gospel refer to the Spirit rather than the human spirit (Keener, John, 1:615). Second, Jesus says that he will replace the temple (2:19) so that this fits well with the idea that the worship in the Spirit given by Jesus will replace the worship in Jerusalem or on Gerizim (Brown, John i–xii, 180). 92. McCool, “Living Water in John,” 228. 93. Carson, John, 224. 94. Burge, The Anointed Community, 98. 95. Brown, John i–xii, 179. 96. Michaels, John, 244.

134 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

97. Interestingly, John 4:14 is the only place where ἅλλομαι is used in connection with water. Bernard, John, 141. This word is used total 13 times (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 10:2, 10; Job 6:10; 41:17; Wis. 5:21; 18:15; Isa. 35:6; John 4:14; Acts 3:8; 14:10) and none of them but John 4:10 is used in connection with water. Different word ἐξάρχετε (“spring up”) is employed in the LXX of Num. 21:17 where Israel sings before the well (“Then Israel sang this song: ‘Spring up, O well! ̶ Sing to it! ̶ ”). 98. Scholars who hold this view include Porsch, Pneuma und Wort, 140–44; Pancaro, The Law, 479; Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–42, WUNT 2nd ser. 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 96–97; Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 90; Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 168–69; Bultmann, John, 184–86; Moloney, John, 117. Brown and Koester argue that the living water refers to both the Spirit and the revelation (Brown, John i–xii, 179; Koester, Symbolism, 191). 99. Jesus reveals his omniscience by telling her that she had five husbands in the past. Jesus also reveals his wisdom by giving wise answers to the woman’s question about the worship place. That the woman calls Jesus “a prophet” (v. 19) or “the Christ” (v. 29) tells us that she is very impressed by his wisdom. 100. Bultmann, John, 180–82. Similarly, Neyrey contends that John 4:7–15 shows a pattern of “statement-misunderstanding-clarification” and comments that “knowledge plays a significant role in this conversation.” Neyrey, John, 90–91. 101. Sukmin Cho notes that “In Jesus’ saying, the living water in relation to his identity is, therefore, reminiscent of the prophetic image, like Moses and Elisha” (Jesus as prophet in the Fourth Gospel, NTMon 15 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006], 175). 102. Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 216. 103. J. Bowman, “Early Samaritan Eschatology,” JJS 6 (1955): 63–72. 104. Pancaro, The Law, 454–72. 105. McCool, “Living Water in John,” 229. 106. Pancaro, The Law, 477–78. 107. This is my translation. 108. In addition to the three principal views listed above, there are also some minor views. Talbert connects John 6:35 with Joseph and Aseneth 8–49 (Reading John, 142). Vernon Ruland contends that the language of thirst in John 6:35 is related to “the eschatological banquet imagery (2 Baruch 29:8–30:2).” Vernon Ruland, “Sign and Sacrament: John’s Bread of Life Discourse (Chapter 6),” Interpretation 18 (1964): 456. Susan E. Hylen links this passage with the manna story because both food and water are mentioned in the context (Exod. 15:22–27; 16:1–3; 17:1–7; Num. 11:4– 9; 20:2–13). Susan E. Hylen, “Seeing Jesus John’s Way: Manna from Heaven,” Word & World 33.4 (2013): 344–45. Similarly, Thomas R. Valletta comments that “The events precipitating the discourse on the ‘Bread of Life’ are patterned after Exodus themes.” Valletta finds the parallels of the following five themes of John 6,

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 135 “the multitude follows Jesus,” “the miraculous feeding of the five thousand,” “crossing the sea,” “the bread of life sermon,” and “Peter testifies that Jesus is the Christ” from Exodus story (“The ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse in the Context of Exodus Typology,” in Proceedings [Grand Rapids: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society, 1991], 129–43). 109. Scholars who hold this view include Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 2:307; Michaels, John, 374–75; Allison, “The Living Water,” 143–44; Von Wahlde insists that “the bread of life” in 6:35 refers to “the gift of life through the Spirit” and connects the thirst language in 6:35 with the living water in 4:10–15 and 7:37–39. Michaels links the thirst language in John 6:35 with the living water in John 4:10–14 and contends that the former is Jesus’ another promise of giving living water. 110. Slightly different words, οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (“which those who believed in him”), are employed in 7:39 as well. 111. Brown, John i–xii, 273. 112. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 439. The promise of making an everlasting covenant with God’s people in Isa. 55:3 appears to refer to the new covenant that God will make through the Davidic Messiah and Isa. 55:4–5 is likely referring to the Messiah. 113. Carson, John, 289. John 6:25–58 contains the conversation between Jesus and the multitude, and Jesus’ words take the most of this passage. Jesus says that “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” in John 6:45, and he also says that “he who comes to me shall not hunger” in John 6:35. If we connect these two passages, hearing from the Father leads to Jesus who satisfies their hunger forever. Similarly, water and bread are promised to be given to those who listen to God’s word in Isa. 55:1–2. 114. Brown, John i–xii, 273–74. 115. Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven; An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, NovTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 148–58. 116. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 435. Oswalt notes that “Elsewhere in this book, water is associated with the giving of the Spirit, poured on the ground that has been parched by sin and disobedience (32:15; 44:3).” 117. Ibid. 118. John 6:63 can be taken as the continuation of the earlier discourse (6:22–58) because 6:59–71 is the response of the disciples to the Jesus’ words (6:22–58). 119. Scholars who hold this view include Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 154–58; E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of First-Century Thought (London: SPCK, 1961), 203–7; Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, JSNTSup 71 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 119; Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 149–50; Jo-Ann A. Brant, John, PCNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 122; Jey J. Kanagaraj, John: A New Covenant Commentary, NCCS 4 (Eugene: Cascade, 2013),

136 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

69; Keener, John, 1:683; Moloney, John, 214; Beasley-Murray, John, 92; Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom, 199. 120. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 154–55. Borgen asserts that the language of “coming,” “eating,” and “drinking” in John 6:35 is influenced by wisdom tradition, especially from Prov. 9:5 or Sir. 24:21. He points out three points: “First, Sirach 24, 21 identifies wisdom itself with food and drink, just as presupposed in John 6, 35. Second, the context of Sirach 24, 19.21 explicitly identifies wisdom with the Torah (v. 23), a combination which 6, 35 also presupposed. In midrashic interpretations, moreover, Prov. 9, 5 is made to refer to the Torah. Third, the promise in John 6, 35 is much more radical than that in Sirach 24, 21, since it tells about cessation of hunger and thirst instead of continuation.” However, this argument is not strong because Isa. 55:1–11 also includes the words of coming and eating like Prov. 9:5 or Sir. 24:21 (“come to the waters” and “come, buy and eat” in 55:1). 121. Prov. 9:5 is another text that scholars often propose as its parallel. Prov. 9:5 says, “Come (ἔλθατε), eat of my bread (ἄρτων) and drink of the wine I have mixed.” This verse makes two linguistic parallels (ἔρχομαι and ἄρτος) with John 6:35. Prov. 9:5 also includes the images of “eating and drinking,” which are somewhat related to the images of hunger and thirst in John 6:35. However, Prov. 9:5 does not include the references of “hunger” and “thirst” and what Lady Wisdom offers to drink is not water but wine. It is also different that Jesus himself is the bread of life in John 6:35, but Lady Wisdom invites people to her food, not herself, in Prov. 9:5. 122. Scholars who hold this view include Köstenberger and Carson (Köstenberger, John, 210; Carson, John, 288). Carson comments that “The image of ‘thirst’ is added to ‘hunger’, thereby anticipating vv. 53ff” (John, 288). 123. Francis J. Moloney, “The Function of Prolepsis in the Interpretation of John 6,” in Critical Readings of John 6, ed. R. Alan Culpepper, BI 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 142–47; M. Roberge, “Le discours sue le pain de vie, Jean 6,22–59. Problémes d’interprétation,” LTP 38 (1982): 265–99; M. J. J. Menken, “John 6,51c–58: Eucharist or Christology,” Bib 74 (1993): 1–6. However, David Gibson does not take this passage as eucharistic (“Eating Is Believing? On Midrash and the Mixing of Metaphors in John 6,” Themelios 27 [2002]: 5–15). 124. Brown, John i–xii, 274. See Brown, John i–xii, 246–49 for the eucharistic features of the miracle of feeding five thousand. 125. Carson, John, 270. 126. Borchert, John, 254. 127. Moloney, John, 214, 221–22. 128. Brown, John i–xii, 273. 129. Carson, John, 288–89; Köstenberger, John, 210. 130. Köstenberger, John, 210. 131. Michaels, John, 374. 132. This is my translation.

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 137 133. Contextually it is most natural to think that the witness is the Beloved Disciple in verse 26, and the pronoun ἐκεῖνος (“he”) in verse 35 also refers to the Beloved Disciple. 134. There have been many discussions on the issue of whether water coming out of a dead body is medically possible. See John Wilkinson, “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34,” SJT 28 (1975): 149–72 for this discussion. 135. In addition to the three principal views listed above, there are also some minor views. 1. This water is related to the Passover. M. Miguens, “‘Salió sangre y agua’ (John 19, 34),” SBFLA 14 (1963–64): 20; J. Massyngberde Ford, “‘Mingled Blood’ from the Side of Christ (John XIX.34),” NTS 15 (1968–69): 337–38. Ford proposes that the hyssop (v. 29), the unbroken bones (vv. 33, 36), and the mingled blood (v. 34) are allusions that imply this connection. Heb. 9:19 is often suggested as the background of this connection because blood, water, and hyssop are mentioned together. In Lev. 14:6 the priest is commanded to kill a bird in running water (ὕδατι ζῶντι) and to sprinkle its blood (τὸ αἷμα) with hyssop (ὕσσωπον). Three words (ὕσσωπος, αἷμα, ὕδωρ) in this verse are also employed in John 19:29–34, and running water in Lev. 14:6 is similar to the flow of water from Jesus’ side in John 19:34. 2. This might recall the divineness of Jesus to Greeks. Keener, John, 2:1152. 3. This is connected to the image of Christ’s giving birth to a church in the Middle Ages. They thought that as Eve came out of Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21), Christ, as the New Adam, gave birth to a church from his side and blood. The grounds of this connection are two: (a) Water comes out of a woman during the delivery of a baby, and (b) The same word πλευρά (“side”) is used in John 19:34 and the LXX of Gen. 2:21. Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, “Genesis I-III and St. John’s Gospel,” JTS 21 (1919): 213; Deborah Sawyer, “Water and Blood: Birthing Images in John’s Gospel,” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed, ed. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. Watson, JSOTSup 195 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 300–1. 4. “A portent of impending doom” C. W. Lucan, The Civil War, trans. J. D. Duff, LCL 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916), 614–15. 5. This incident is closely linked to the incident of Moses’ striking the rock. T. Francis Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, SBT 40 (Naperville: Allenson, 1963), 52–53. He cites Exodus Rabbah 122a and the Palestinian Targum on Num. 20:11. 6. This indicates that Jesus was still alive. W. B. Primrose, “A Surgeon Looks at the Crucifixion,” HJ 47 (1949): 386. 136. Scholars who hold this view include H. P. V. Nunn, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (Windsor: Alden & Blackwell, 1952), 13; E. L. Allen, “The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 94 (1955): 92; Georg Richter, “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b),” MTZ 21 (1970): 14; Borchert, John 12–21, 276–77; Bernard, John, 2:647; Barrett, John, 556; Morris, John, 724; Carson, John, 623; Beasley-Murray, John, 356–57; Talbert, Reading John, 254; Wilkinson, “Incident,” 171; Bultmann, John, 678.

138 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

137. Even though it is not clear to what exactly the evangelist’s witness in verse 35 refers, it is most natural to think that his witness refers to verses 32–34. 138. Heraclitus’ saying, “Eyes are surer witnesses than ears,” clearly shows this notion (Thucydides 1.73.2). Samuel Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History, WUNT 123 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 48–65. Bauckham also takes this verse as the reflection of the evangelist’s being an eyewitness and remarks that “When John uses the language of ‘seeing’ in a way that correlates with testimony it has empirical and temporal aspects that bring it to that extent close to the language of ‘seeing’ in historiography.” Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 406. 139. Keener, John, 2:1156–57. 140. Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School, trans. Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], 235. It is also important to note that the concept that man consists of water and blood can be found in both the ancient Jewish and Hellenistic literature (Lev. Rab. 15, 115c; 4 Macc. 9:20; Iliad 5.340–41; Moralia 180e). For example, Leviticus Rabbah 15 comments that “Man returns the balance; he is one half water and one half blood.” The quotation is from H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 2 (Munich: Beck, 1922–1961), 582. Iliad 5.340–41 also says: …the spear pierced the flesh on the wrist above the palm, and out flowed the immortal blood of the goddess, the ichor, such as flows in the blessed gods, for they eat not bread nor do they drink ruddy wine, and so they are bloodless, and are called immortals. (Homer, Homer Iliad: Books 1–12, with an English translation by A. T. Murray; Revised by William F. Wyatt, LCL 170 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999], 231)

The text says that “the ichor” came out from the goddess’ wound when she was pierced by a lance. These two references may imply that coming out blood and water from the wound was considered as a sign of the humanity in the ancient Jewish and Hellenistic thought. Thus, the fact that blood and water came out from Jesus’ body could be a sign of his humanity. See the discussion in E. Schweizer, “Das Herrenmahl im Neuen Testament,” in Neotestamentica (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963), 382–83. 141. Wilkinson, “Incident,” 169. 142. ANF 1:454–55. 143. Although some argue that “I am thirsty” in 19:28 is a symbolic expression, it seems more convincing to take these words as literal. 144. Scholars who hold this view include Malatesta, “Blood and Water,” 175; Matthew Vellanickal, “Blood and Water,” Jeevadhara 8 (1978): 221–22, 228; James McPolin, John, NTM 6 (Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1979), 249; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John:

Exegesis of the Six Disputed Water Passages | 139 Based on the Revised Standard Version, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 587; Ignace de la Potterie, “Le Symbolisme du sang et de l’eau en Jn 19,34,” Didaskalia 14 (1984): 211–13; Josef Heer, “The Soteriological Significance of the Johannine Image of the Pierced Savior,” in Faith in Christ and the Worship of Christ, ed. Leo Scheffczyk (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986), 33–46; Mary L. Coloe, God dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001), 209; Sebastian A. Carnazzo, “Seeing Blood and Water: A Narrative-Critical Study of John 19:34” (PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 2011), 123; Koester, Symbolism, 181; Keener, John, 2:1153–54; Brown, John xiii–xxi, 949–50. 145. Coloe, God Dwells with Us, 208. Michaels connects this verse with John 4, 6, and 7 (John, 969). Scholars who hold this view often argue that water is used as a symbol of the Spirit (Lindars, John, 587) or that water and the Spirit are frequently mentioned together in the Gospel or the OT. 146. The punctuation of John 7:37–39 is debatable. It is also suggested that the incident of Moses’ striking the rock, which is often suggested as the background of John 7:37– 39, also supports this view. This incident is mentioned in Midrash Rabbah 3.13 and, according to this interpretation, Moses strikes the rock twice, and blood comes out at the first time and water comes out at the second time. Brown suggests two more reasons for this view: (1) “you also may believe” in 19:35 makes better sense with this view because the Spirit “is the source of faith” and (2) “Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV 14:2; SC 100:544, says that in many passages water represents the Spirit of God.” Brown, John xiii–xxi, 949–50. 147. Carnazzo, Seeing Blood and Water, 98–99; Lindars, John, 590–91. Coloe connects John 19:34 with Ezek. 47:1–12 (God Dwells with Us, 206–9). 148. Carnazzo, Seeing Blood and Water, 37–107. 149. Michaels, John, 977–78. 150. Even if it is related to Jesus’ giving of the Spirit, the connection may be the idea that Jesus’ death opens the way for the coming of the Spirit (a Johannine idea), not that the water refers to the Spirit. 151. Keener, John, 2:1156–57. 152. Scholars who hold this view include Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel by the Late Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, ed. Francis Noel Davey, 2nd ed. (London: Faber & Faber, 1947), 533; Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 114–16; Jean Zumstein, “L’interprétation johannique de la mort du Christ,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, BEThL 100, ed. Frans van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden, vol. 3 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2132–33; John Paul Heil, Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18–21, CBQMS 27 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1995), 108; Lightfoot, John, 320; Moloney, John, 505–6; Westcott, John, 2:328–33. 153. Brown, John xiii–xxi, 951; Heil, Blood and Water, 105–9. Heil argues that John 19:34 gives answer to the meaning of the water in John 3:5 and also sees John 19:34 as the

140 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

fulfillment of Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit in John 1:33. John 6:53–56 is also suggested as one of the proof texts because this passage is only another reference of blood in the Gospel and the blood in this passage is often interpreted as in having a eucharistic tone. 154. Moloney, John, 505–6. 155. Beasley-Murray, John, 357. 156. Wilkinson, “Incident,” 169.

7

Summary and Conclusion

Summary and Implications with Respect to the Exegetically Significant Indicators This study began with one main purpose. It was to find a useful set of indicators that can help interpreters decide whether water in the Johannine literature represents the Spirit. This purpose was achieved by identifying five exegetically significant indicators. While I was pursuing this purpose, I additionally identified six exegetically significant indicators that can assist interpreters in determining whether or not an instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. In this chapter, I will evaluate how helpful these indicators proved to be in determining whether water imagery represents the Spirit in the six disputed passages. I will make two main divisions: (1) indicators helpful for determining whether specific reference to the Spirit are present; and (2) indicators useful for determining whether symbolism are present or not. Then I will group the indicators within each division according to how crucial they were in helping me come to an exegetical decision. With respect to the indicator for identifying the water as the Spirit, I evaluated the indicator that water is given by Jesus, the indicator of linking the giving of water to Jesus’ crucifixion, and the indicator of OT parallels as three significant indicators. I concluded that the indicator of the references to the Spirit in

142 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

the immediate context and the indicator of suggestive vocabulary were two less significant indicators. The indicator that water is given by Jesus was applied to Rev. 22:1–2, John 4:10–14, 6:35, and 19:34 and turned out to be valid in most of these passages. In the cases of Rev. 22:1–2 and John 4:10–14, this indicator was especially profitable. In the former, this indicator played an important role in identifying the water of life as the Spirit because this water flows from the throne of the Lamb (22:1). In the latter, this indicator clearly pointed that living water represents the Spirit because Jesus promises to give this water (4:10, 14). In the case of John 6:35, although this indicator did not work as effectively as in the earlier two cases, it also turned out to be valid because Jesus’ promise of eternal quenching leads us to assume that he will give plentiful water to those who believe in him. This indicator did not work well in reference to John 19:34 however. Therefore, this indicator is not an absolute guarantee that the water will always represent the Spirit. But since this indicator proved valid and useful in both the agreed passages and the disputed passages, we can evaluate this indicator as being generally reliable. The indicator of associating the giving of water with Jesus’ crucifixion was pertinent to Rev. 22:1–2, John 4:10–14, and 19:34 and demonstrated its validity in the first two passages. This indicator proved very helpful in Rev. 22:1–2 because the image of throne of the Lamb from which this water flows connotes Jesus’ crucifixion. This indicator was also substantially helpful in identifying living water in John 4:10–14 as the Spirit because “the hour” in 4:23 is closely linked with Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gospel. This indicator did not work well in John 19:34 although the earlier two cases lead us to assess this indicator as a substantial indicator. The indicator of parallels to OT passages relating to the Spirit was applied to Rev. 22:1–2, John 3:5, 4:10–14, 6:35, and 19:34 and, with the exception of John 19:34, worked as a significant indicator. For example, the Spirit and the bride’s invitation to the thirsty in Rev. 22:17 evidently evokes Isa. 55:1 where God urges the thirsty to come to the waters. The juxtaposition of water and the Spirit in John 3:5 seems to be heavily influenced by Isa. 44:3 where these two appear very closely aligned, and the Spirit is also likened to water. It also seems apparent that Jesus had God’s promise of quenching the thirst of his people in Isa. 55:1 in his mind when he promised eternal quenching in John 4:10–14 and 6:35. As we can clearly observe from these examples, this indicator was confirmed as a valid indicator in the disputed passages. The fact that this indicator showed up in other Spirit passages helped me identify the Spirit as the referent in these disputed passages as

Summary and Conclusion | 143 well. However, this indicator did not work well in John 19:34. Thus, the presence of this indicator does not always indicate Spirit symbolism. The indicator of the references to the Spirit in the immediate context is relevant to 1 John 5:6–8, Rev. 22:1–2, John 3:5, 4:10–14, and 6:35 and proved valid with the exception of 1 John 5:6–8. Out of these four cases, what draws our attention is its significant role in John 3:5 and 4:10–14. In these two passages, the Spirit is mentioned two times in the immediate context (John 3:6, 8) or near context (John 4:23–24). This indicator played a relatively less significant role in Rev. 22:1–2 and John 6:35 (only one reference to the Spirit in their near context, Rev. 22:17 and John 6:63).1 This indicator did not work well in 1 John 5:6–8. Therefore, although we should admit that this indicator did not always work as an indicator favoring water’s representing the Spirit, its role in the other four cases allows us to say that this indicator works well in most cases. The indicator of suggestive vocabulary was engaged in the exegesis of Rev. 22:1–2, John 4:10–14, and 6:35. In particular, this indicator was greatly helpful in identifying the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 as a reference to the Spirit because two terms, ἐκπορεύομαι and διψάω, which are closely associated with the Spirit, occur in the immediate or near context (Rev. 22:1, 17). The presence of διψάω in John 4:13–14 and 6:35 also led me to identify the water in these passages as the Spirit.2 Consequently, we can reasonably conclude that it is a useful indicator. Although it was not identified in chapter five, one new indicator for determining whether water functions as a symbol for the Spirit emerged while I was exegeting John 19:34. It should also be noted that in four passages where water represents the Spirit the water is a positive image, such as quenching thirst (John 4:10–14; 6:35; Rev. 22:1–2) or engendering life (John 3:5). Living water in John 7:37–39 is also a positive image (satisfying thirst). When the Johannine author(s) used water imagery positively, he employed it to describe two functions of the Spirit: satisfying spiritual thirst forever and generating spiritual life. In other words, he chose an image of water for the Spirit and, through this image, he expressed the Spirit as a medium through which believers can quench their spiritual thirst forever and as a medium through which believers can be regenerated. Conversely, the water in John 19:34, which is unrelated to the Spirit, is a negative image because this water is deeply engaged in Jesus’ death and pain and naturally evokes negative feelings. Concerning the indicators for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning, I concluded that the indicator of contextual coherence, the indicator

144 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context, and the indicator of coherence when taken literally were crucial factors. The indicator of geographic and chronological detail, the indicator of highlighting, and the indicator of suggestive vocabulary appear to be less important indicators. A special emphasis should be given to the indicator of contextual coherence. This indicator played a decisive role in exegeting 1 John 5:6–8, John 3:5 and 19:34. In 1 John 5:6–8 this indicator led me to reject the Spirit view because identifying water in this passage as the Spirit breaks the natural logic of its context. Similarly, the principle reason for reconsidering the baptism view of John 3:5 was that taking the water in this verse as a reference to baptism does not cohere well with its immediate context (3:3–8) or John’s overall theology (1:13; 6:63). This indicator was also present in John 19:34 as a significant indicator because interpreting the water in this verse as literal water is the most natural interpretation when considering the flow of the narrative. Although its role was not as impressive as the earlier three cases, this indicator was also valid in Rev. 22:1–2. As a consequence, I evaluate this indicator as being the most significant. The indicator of the presence or absence of other symbolic expressions in the immediate context was confirmed as a reliable indicator because it was actively engaged in the exegesis of the six disputed passages. In particular, this indicator played a significant role in 1 John 5:6–8, Rev. 22:1–2, and John 19:34. The absence of symbolic expression in the immediate context of 1 John 5:6–8 strongly suggested that water is used literally. The presence of many symbolic expressions in the immediate or near context of Rev. 22:1–2 firmly favors that the water of life is symbolic. The fact that no other symbolic expression is used in the immediate context of John 19:34 also substantially supported the view that the water is literal water. Although this indicator did not have the same impact as on the earlier three passages, it was also valid in John 3:5, 4:10–14, and 6:35. Based on these results, I evaluate this indicator as an important indicator. The indicator of coherence when taken literally was applied to 1 John 5:6–8, Rev. 22:1–2, John 4:10–14, 6:35, and 19:34 and proved helpful in most cases (except Rev. 22:1–2). This indicator especially worked well in 1 John 5:6–8 and John 19:34 because these water references make good sense when taken literally. From these results we can conclude that, even though we should acknowledge that this indicator is not applicable to every passage (e.g., Rev. 22:1−2), this indicator is valid and useful in most cases. The indicator of geographic and chronological detail in the immediate context showed up in Rev. 22:1–2, John 3:5, 6:35, and 19:34. This indicator proved

Summary and Conclusion | 145 valid in John 19:34 because the presence of many circumstantial details in its immediate context favors that the water is literal. This indicator was also useful in identifying the water in John 3:5 as the Spirit because only one unspecific chronological detail is given in its immediate context (“by night” in 3:2). However, this indicator did not work well in Rev. 22:1–2 and John 6:35. We can consider why it did not work well in these two cases. In the case of Rev. 22:1–2 the detail of the river’s flowing from the throne could be seen as a highly important symbolic/ theological description more than a matter of geography. In the case of John 6:35 the presence of circumstantial detail does not seem relevant, because the detail comes in the evangelist’s narrative description of the setting while the reference to water forms parts of Jesus’ teaching. The indicator of highlighting showed up in Rev. 22:1–2, John 3:5, 4:10–14, 6:35, and 19:34. This indicator turned out to be valid in Rev. 22:1–2 and John 4:10–14. The water of life in the former seems to be underlined in the narrative because this water seems to be the climax of both the vision of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1–22:5) and the entire book of Revelation. This river is presented as the last scene of the vision, and the author of the Apocalypse also closes his book with this image by narrating the invitation of the Spirit and the Bride to the thirsty to drink of the water of life in 22:17. This indicator was also helpful in identifying living water in John 4:10–14 as the Spirit because this water’s being highlighted in the narrative is evident. As I discussed in chapter five, Jacob’s well in this passage serves as a foil to emphasize living water. Consequently, this indicator proved valid in these two passages. However, this indicator did not work well in the cases of John 3:5, 6:35, and 19:34. As a result, I evaluate this indicator as an indicator that does not function well in the cases of the six disputed passages. The indicator of suggestive vocabulary for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning was not helpful in the cases of the six disputed passages because none of them includes any suggestive vocabulary implying that water is used symbolically. Although it was not identified in chapter five, one new indicator for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning emerged while I was exegeting water in John 19:34: narrative details that serve a clear rhetorical function at the literal level are less likely to carry an additional symbolic meaning. When interpreters cannot formulate a reason why a narrator mentions a descriptive detail, they tend to look for an allusion or symbolic meaning. However, when it is easy to identify a motive for the detail, there is less pressure to turn to non-literal interpretation.

146 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Even though most of the indicators identified in chapter five were actively engaged and played a significant role in the exegesis of the six disputed passages, it is noteworthy that they do not carry the same weight. In particular, the indicator that water is given by Jesus and the indicator of contextual coherence carried a substantial weight. Since their validity and effectiveness were proven both in the agreed passages and the six disputed passages, it is very convincing to evaluate them as two most crucial indicators. However, three of the indicators need to be used with caution: the indicator of geographic and chronological detail, the indicator of highlighting, and the indicator of suggestive vocabulary for determining whether or not instance of water imagery has a symbolic level of meaning instead of or in addition to its literal meaning. Based on their role in the agreed passages, we can still evaluate these three as valid indicators, although their role in the six disputed passages leads us to assess them as indicators that should be used attentively. I expect most of these indicators can also be used when interpreting many other images besides water in the NT or in the Bible. For instance, the indicator of contextual coherence may be employed in the case of the image of darkness in John 3:2, where the evangelist says that Nicodemus visited Jesus at night. Scholars often disagree whether this image has a symbolic meaning. The indicator of contextual coherence can be applied to this case by examining which interpretations receive better support from its immediate context. However, some of these indicators cannot be employed in other images. For example, the indicator that water is given by Jesus and the indicator of linking the giving of water to Jesus’ crucifixion appear to be used as specific indicators that are valid only in the cases of Johannine water passages.

Summary and Implications with Respect to My Exegetical Conclusions on the Six Disputed Water Passages As a spin-off result of working through my strategy for pursuing the primary purpose of this dissertation I made an exegetical decision on each of the six debated water passages as to whether water in these passages represents the Spirit. I can draw some observations and implications from these exegetical conclusions. First, when the Johannine author(s) connects water image with the Spirit’s function of quenching spiritual thirst, he frequently uses two similar expressions: living water and the water of life (John 4:10–14; 7:37–38; Rev. 7:16–17; 21:6; 22:1, 17). These two phrases are used by the Johannine author(s) as technical

Summary and Conclusion | 147 terms for referring to the Spirit throughout the Johannine literature. Even though scholars often suggest that these two phrases represent different things as they are used in different passages,3 my study shows that they are consistently used as a reference to the Spirit throughout the Johannine literature. This observation also throws light on the relationship between the Gospel and Revelation. As I discussed in chapter five, many linguistic parallels exist among John 4:10–14, 7:37–39, Rev. 22:1–2, and 22:17.4 Based on these linguistic parallels, the facts that living water or the water of life has the same symbolic meaning (the Spirit) throughout the Johannine literature and water in John 4:10–14, 7:37–39 and Rev. 22:1–2 is given by Jesus add extra weight to their close relationship. Therefore, it is compelling to argue that their literary closeness and common theology that Jesus is the giver of the Spirit (John 4:10–14; 7:37–39; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Rev. 7:17; 22:1) support the intimate relationship between the Gospel and the Apocalypse. Second, John 4:10–14, 6:35, and 7:37–39 are firmly linked to each other. When I analyzed John 6:35 in chapter six, I proposed that these three texts have striking linguistic parallels.5 This leads us to assume that the theme of living water is used consistently and prominently throughout the Gospel. Third, Johannine water image is deeply influenced by the OT. During my exegetical analysis on the six disputed passages, I suggested many OT passages as their primary background. I proposed that the primary background of Rev. 22:17 is Isa. 55:1. I also suggested that Isa. 32:15, 44:3–4, and Ezek. 36:25–27 are three OT texts that seem to lie behind the expression, “born of water and the Spirit,” in John 3:5. I noted that the image of water’s satisfying thirst in John 4:10–14 is greatly indebted to those in Isa. 44:3–4 and 55:1. I also proposed that the primary background of John 6:35 is Isa. 55:1–11. As these examples show, Johannine water image’s indebtedness to the OT is outstanding. In addition, among these OT texts, Isa. 44:3–4 and 55:1, in particular, draw our attention because these two are mentioned more frequently than the rest. In the former, God’s promise of pouring water on the thirsty land and his promise of pouring his Spirit on his people are juxtaposed. In the latter, God promises to give abundant water to everyone who thirsts through his Messiah. The Johannine author(s) seems to show that these God’s promises are fulfilled in Jesus by implying that Jesus is the one who can truly quench the spiritual thirst of his people through his gift of the Spirit (John 4:10–14; 6:35; 7:37–39; Rev. 22:17). This Johannine water image’s heavy dependence on the OT also adds weight to the contention that the primary background of the Gospel and the Apocalypse is the OT.

148 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Notes 1. In the case of John 19:34, since the word τὸ πνεῦμα in 19:30 does not refer to the Spirit, this factor is inapplicable to 19:34. 2. Although διψάω is used in the near context of John 19:34, I concluded that this factor was not applicable to this case because this word does not seem to be related to the Spirit in this case. 3. For example, as I discussed in chapter six, living water in John 4:10–14 and the water of life in Rev. 22:1–2 are often suggested as references to Jesus’ wisdom and eternal life respectively. 4. Their linguistic parallels are “water of life/living water” (ὕδατος ζωῆς in Rev. 22:1; ὕδωρ ζωῆς in Rev. 22:17; ὕδωρ ζῶν in John 4:10; ὕδατος ζῶντος in John 7:38), “flow” (ἐκπορευόμενον in Rev. 22:1; ῥεύσουσιν in John 7:38), “river(s)” (ποταμὸν in Rev. 22:1; ποταμοὶ in John 7:38), “come” (ἔρχου in Rev. 22:17; ἐρχέσθω in John 7:37), and “thirsty” (διψῶν in Rev. 22:17; διψήσει in John 4:14; διψᾷ in John 7:37). 5. The phrase οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε (“shall never thirst”) in 6:35 is very close to οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“will never thirst”) in 4:14. The exact same words, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ (“he who believes in me”), are used in both 6:35 and 7:38. The word διψάω (“thirst”) is employed in 4:13–14, 6:35, and 7:37.

Bibliography

Akala, Adesola Joan. The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John. LNTS 505. London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2014. Allen, E. L. “The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 74 (1955): 88–92. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “The Living Water (John 4:10–14; 6:35c; 7:37–39).” VTQ 30 (1986): 143–57. Aune, David. E. Revelation. WBC. 3 vols. Waco: Word Press, 1997, 1998. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978. Bassler, Jouette M. “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 108 (1989): 635–46. Bates, William H. “Born of Water.” BSac 85 (1928): 230–36. Bauckham, Richard. “Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John.” NTS 53 (2007): 17–36. ———. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Bayens, Patrick James. “Begotten of Water and Spirit (John 3:5): Baptism in the Johannine Tradition.” PhD diss., Marquette University, 1993. Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. WBC 36. Waco: Word Press, 1987. Becerra, Enrique. “Le symbolisme de l’eau dans le Quatrième Évangile.” PhD diss., Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, 1982. Begrich, Joachim. Studien zu Deuterojesaja. TB 20. München: C. Kaiser, 1963. Belleville, Linda L. “Born of Water and Spirit.” TrinJ 1 (1980): 125–41.

150 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Bennema, Cornelis. The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. WUNT 148. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Bernard, John Henry. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928. Bertalotto, Pierpaolo. “Immersion and Expiation: Water and Spirit from Qumran to John the Baptist.” Henoch 27 (2005): 163–81. Beuken, Willem A. M. Isaiah II. Translated by Brian Doyle. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Blount, Brian K. Revelation: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Borchert, Gerald L. John 12–21. NAC 25b. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NovTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Boring, M. Eugene. Revelation. IBCTP. Louisville: John Knox, 1989. Bowman, J. “Early Samaritan Eschatology.” JJS 6 (1955): 63–72. Boxall, Ian. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC. London: Hendrickson, 2006. Brant, Jo-Ann A. “Husband and Hunting: Characterization and Narrative Art in the Gospel of John.” Biblical Interpretation 4 (1996): 205–23. ———. John. Paideia: Commentaries on New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Braun, François-Marie. “L’eau et l’Esprit.” RevThom 49 (1949): 5–30. ———. “Avoir soif et boire (Jn 4,10−14; 7,37−39).” In Mélanges Bibliques en homage au R. P. Béda Rigaux, edited by Albert Descamps and André de Halleux, 247–58. Gembloux: Duculot, 1970. Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. AB 30. New York: Doubleday, 1982. ———. The Gospel according to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2 vols. AB 29–29a. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966, 1970. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Burge, Gary M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. WUNT 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. HNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Carnazzo, Sebastian A. “Seeing Blood and Water: A Narrative-Critical Study of John 19:34.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 2011. Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. “Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel.” TynB 33 (1982): 59–91. Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John: With Introduction, Notes, and Indices. ICC. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920. Cho, Sukmin. Jesus as Prophet in the Fourth Gospel. NTM 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.

Bibliography | 151 Chyutin, Michael. The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Apocalyptic Literature.” ANRW II. 21.2 (1984): 1221–87. ———. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HTRHDR 9. Missoula: Scholars, 1976. Collins, Raymond F. These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel. LTPM 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Coloe, Mary L. God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001. Comblin, J. J. “La liturgie de la Nouvelle Jerusalem.” ETL 29 (1953): 5–40. Cooper, Lamar Eugene. Ezekiel. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Cotterell, F. P. “The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal.” ExpT 96 (1985): 237–42. Crenshaw, James L. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. Translated by A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. ———. “Sabbat und Sonntag nach dem Johannesevangelium (Joh. 5. 17).” In In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, edited by W. Schmauch, 127–31. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlag, 1951. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. De Boer, Martinus C. “Jesus the Baptizer: 1 John 5:5–8 and the Gospel of John.” JBL 107 (1988): 87–106. Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Dunn, James D. G. “A Note on dōrea.” ExpT 81 (1969–70): 349–51. Fekkes, Jan. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development. JSNTSup 93. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press/JSOT, 1994. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. Ford, J. Massyngberde. “‘Mingled Blood’ from the Side of Christ (John XIX. 34).” NTS 15 (1968– 69): 337–38. ———. Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 38. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975. Fowler, R. “Born of Water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5).” ExpT 82 (1971): 159. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Gallusz, Laszlo. The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation. LNTS 487. London: T & T Clark, 2014. Garrett, Duane A. Hosea, Joel. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997. Gärtner, Bertil E. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Georgi, D. “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22.” In Kirche, FGB 75, edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker, 351–72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980.

152 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Gibson, David. “Eating Is Believing? On Midrash and the Mixing of Metaphors in John 6.” Themelios 27 (2002): 5–15. Gillihan, Yonder Moynihan. Civic Ideology, Organization, and Law in the Rule Scrolls: A Comparative Study of the Covenanters’ Sect and Contemporary Voluntary Associations in Political Context. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Glasson, T. Francis. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. SBT 40. Naperville: Allenson, 1963. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: I–XXVII. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Grigsby, Bruce. “Washing in the Pool of Siloam ̶ A Thematic Anticipation of the Johannine Cross.” NovT 27 (1985): 227–35. Haenchen, Ernst. John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edited by Robert W. Funk with Ulrich Busse. Translated by Robert W. Funk. HCHCB. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Hailey, Homer. Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Harrington, Hannah K. “Purification in the Fourth Gospel in Light of Qumran.” In John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, edited by Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, 117–38. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Harris, Murray J. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Heer, Josef. “The Soteriological Significance of the Johannine Image of the Pierced Savior.” In Faith in Christ and the Worship of Christ, edited by Leo Scheffczyk, 33–46. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986. Heil, John Paul. Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18–21. CBQM 27. Washington: Catholic Bible Association of America, 1995. Hendriksen, W. More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. 5th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949. Hill, Charles E. “‘The Orthodox Gospel’: The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior to Irenaeus.” In The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, edited by Tuomas Rasimus, 233–95. NovTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Homer. Homer Iliad: Books 1–12. English translation by A. T. Murray and Revised by William F. Wyatt. LCL 170. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Hoskyns, Edwyn Clement. “Genesis I–III and St. John’s Gospel.” JTS 21 (1920): 210–18. ———. The Fourth Gospel by the Late Edwyn Clement Hoskyns. Edited by Francis Noel Davey. 2nd ed. London: Faber & Faber, 1947. Howard, Wilbert Francis. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation. 3rd ed. London: Epworth Press, 1945. Hylen, Susan E. “Seeing Jesus John’s Way: Manna from Heaven.” Word & World 33 (2013): 341–48. Jensen, Matthew D. Affirming the Resurrection of the Incarnate Christ: A Reading of 1 John. SNTSM 153. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Jones, Larry Paul. “A Study of the Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1995. Jonge, Marinus de. Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and Christians in Johannine Perspective. Translated and edited by John E. Steely. Missoula: Scholars Press for SBL, 1977.

Bibliography | 153 Julian, Paul. Jesus and Nicodemus: A Literary and Narrative Exegesis of Jn. 2,23–3,36. EUS 23, Theology 711. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Europäischer Velag der Wissenschaften, 2000. Kanagaraj, Jey J. John: A New Covenant Commentary. NCC 4. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013. Kee, H. C. “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 775–828. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Keener, Craig S. “The Function of Johannine Pneumatology in the Context of Late First-Century Judaism.” PhD diss., Duke University, 1991. ———. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Kim, Sang-Hoon. Sourcebook of the Structures and Styles in John 1–10: The Johannine Parallelisms and Chiasms. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Kittay, Eva Feder. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. ———. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. ———. The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Kowalski, J. A. “‘Of Water and Spirit’: Narrative Structure and Theological Development in the Gospel of John.” PhD diss., Marquette University, 1987. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Lawler, Michael G. Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1987. Lawrence, Jonathan D. Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. SBLAB 23. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Leal, Juan. “El Simbolismo Historico del IV Evangelio.” EBib 19 (1960): 329–48. Lee, D. A. Flesh and Glory: Symbol, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John. New York: Crossroad, 2002. ———. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. JSNTSup 95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press/JSOT, 1994. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. “Towards a Symbolic Reading of the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 27 (1981): 439– 56. Lightfoot, R. H. St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

154 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Lohse, E. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 3rd ed. HNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1970. Lorein, Geert W. “The Holy Spirit at Qumran.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, edited by David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, 371–95. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011. Lucan, C. W. The Civil War. Translated by J. D. Duff. LCL 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916. Macgregor, G. H. C. The Gospel of John. MNTC. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928. Malatesta, Edward. “Blood and Water from the Pierced Side of Christ (Jn 19:34).” In Segni e Sacramenti nel Vangelo di Giovanni, edited by P. R. Tragan, 164–81. SA 66. Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1977. Mangina, Joseph L. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010. Manson, T. M. “Entry into Membership of the Early Church.” JTS 48 (1947): 25–33. Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of St John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Mathewson, David. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5. JSNTSup 238. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. McCool, Francis J. “Living Water in John.” In Bible in Current Catholic Thought, edited by J. L. McKenzie, 226–33. New York: Herder & Herder, 1962. McPolin, James. John. NTM 6. Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1979. Meeks, Wayne A. “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 85 (1966): 159–69. Menken, M. J. J. “John 6,51c–58: Eucharist or Christology.” Bib 74 (1993): 1–26. Meyers, Carol L., and Meyers, Eric M. Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “By Water and Blood: Sin and Purification in John and First John.” In Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, 149–62. JSNTSup 234. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Miguens, M. “‘Salio sangre y agua’ (John 19,34).” SBFLA 14 (1963–64): 5–31. ———. “Tres testigos: Espiritu, agua, sangre.” LA 22 (1972): 74–94. Moloney, Francis J. “The Function of Prolepsis in the Interpretation of John 6.” In Critical Readings of John 6, edited by R. Alan Culpepper, 129–48. BI 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998. Moo, Jonathan. “The Sea That is No More: Rev 21:1 and the Function of Sea Imagery in the Apocalypse of John.” NovT 51 (2009): 148–67. Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. NICNT. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Moule, C. F. D. “The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel.” NovT 5 (1962): 171–90. Mounce, Robert H. Revelation. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Murphy, Roland E. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Nelson, 1998. Nauck, Wolfgang. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Taufe im Urchristentum und in der Alten Kirche. WUNT 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957.

Bibliography | 155 Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Ng, Wai-Yee. “Johannine Water Symbolism and Its Eschatological Significance: With Special Reference to John 4.” PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997. ———. Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation. Studies in Biblical Literature 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Niewalda, Paul. Sakramentssymbolik im Johanneevangelium? Limburg: Lahn-Verlag, 1958. Nunn, H. P. V. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Windsor: Alden & Blackwell, 1952. Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic World. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1929. Okure, Teresa. The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–42. WUNT 2:32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Olsson, Birger. Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1–11 and 4:1–42. Translated by J. Gray. CBNT 6. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. Origen. The Commentary of Origen on St. John’s Gospel. Edited by A. E. Brooke. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Painter, John. 1, 2, and 3 John. SP 18. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008. Pamment, M. “John 3:5: ‘Unless One Is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God’.” NovT 25 (1983): 189–90. Pancaro, Severino. The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John. NovTSup 42. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Pattemore, Stephen W. The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure and Exegesis. SNTSM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Patterson, Paige. Revelation. NAC 39. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2012. Perkins, Pheme. The Johannine Epistles. NTM 21. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979. Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria. Täuschung und Klarheit: Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Vision und Geschichte in der Johannesoffenbarung. FRLANT 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Porsch, F. Pneuma und Wort: Ein eegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums. FTS 16. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1974. Potterie, Ignace de la. “La notion de Témoignage dans saint Jean.” SPCB 2 (1959): 193–208. ———. “Le Symbolisme du sang et de l’eau en Jn 19,34.” Didaskalia 14 (1984): 201–30. Primrose, W. B. “A Surgeon Looks at the Crucifixion.” HJ 47 (1949): 382–88. Reader, W. W. Die Stadt Gottes in der Johannes-apocalypse. Göttingen: George August Universitat, 1971. Richard, E. “Expressions of Double Meaning and Their Function in the Gospel of John.” NTS 31 (1985): 96–112. Richter, Georg. “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b).” MTZ 21 (1970): 1–21.

156 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

———. “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b).” In Studien zum Johannesevangelium, edited by J. Hainz, 120–42. BU 13. Regensburg: Pustet, 1977. Rissi, Mathias. The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11–22.15. SBT 2:23. Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, 1999. Roberge, M. “Le discours sue le pain de vie, Jean 6,22–59. Problémes d’interprétation.” LTP 38 (1982): 265–99. Robinson, D. W. B. “Born of Water and Spirit: Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism?” RTR 25 (1966): 15–23. Rotz, Carol. Revelation: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. NBBC. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2012. Ruiz, Jean-Pierre. “Taking a Stand on the Sand of the Seashore: A Postcolonial Exploration of Revelation 13.” In Reading the Book of Revelation: A Resource for Students, edited by David L. Barr, 119–36. RBS 44. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Ruland, Vernon. “Sign and Sacrament: John’s Bread of Life Discourse (Chapter 6).” Interpretation 18 (1964): 450–62. Sanders, J. N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church: Its Origin and Influence on Christian Theology up to Irenaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943. Sawyer, Deborah M. “Water and Blood: Birthing Images in John’s Gospel.” In Words Remembered, Texts Renewed, edited by Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. Watson, 300–9. JSOTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. 3 vols. Translated by Kevin Smyth. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987. ———. The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Reginald and Ilse Fuller. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1992. Schneiders, Sandra M. “Born Anew.” Theology Today 44 (1987): 189–96. ———. “Symbolism and the Sacramental Principle in the Fourth Gospel.” In Segni e sacramenti nel Vangelo di Giovanni, edited by Pius-Ramon Tragan, 221–35. SA 66. Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1977. Schnelle, Udo. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Schweizer, E. “Das Herrenmahl im Neuen Testament.” In Neotestamentica: Deutsche und englische Aufsätze 1951−1963. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963. Sciberras, Lawrence. “Water in the Gospel of St. John According to the Greek Fathers and Writers of the Church.” PhD diss., Pontificia Universitas Antoniana, 1975. Scott, Martin. Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. JSNTSup 71. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Sidebottom, E. M. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of First-Century Thought. London: SPCK, 1961. Skehan, Patrick W. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC 51. Waco: Word Press, 1984.

Bibliography | 157 ———. “‘Paraclete’: Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse.” In Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black, 289–300. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. ———. The Revelation of John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007. Song, Seung-In. “Seeing Johannine Last Meal as a Covenant Meal (John 13 and Exodus 24).” Bib 100.2 (2019): 282–92. Spriggs, D. “Meaning of ‘Water’ in John 3:5.” ExpT 85 (1974): 149–50. Stemberger, Günter. La symbolique du bien et du mal selon saint Jean. Parole de Dieu. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970. Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1961. Strecker, Georg. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. HCHCB. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Streett, Daniel R. “They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John.” PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. WBC. Dallas: Word Press, 1987. Sweet, J. P. M. Revelation. WPC. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, Indices. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951. Sylva, D. D. “Nicodemus and His Spices (John 19:39).” NTS 34 (1988): 148–51. Taeger, Jens Werner. Johannesapokalypse und johanneischer Kreis: Versuch einer traditionsgeschiechtlichen Ortsbestimmung am Paradigma der Lebenwasser-Thematik. BZNW 51. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989. Talbert, Charles H. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. Rev. ed. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Tan, Paul Lee. The Interpretation of Prophecy. Rockville: Assurance Publication, 1974. Tavo, Felise. Woman, Mother and Bride: An Exegetical Investigation into the “Ecclesial” Notions of the Apocalypse. BTS 3. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Thiering, Barbara E. “Inner and Outer Cleansing at Qumran as a Background to New Testament Baptism.” NTS 26 (1980): 266–77. Thomas, John Christopher. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. JSNTSup 61. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ———. The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. PC. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Thompson, Marianne Meye. 1–3 John. IVPNTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. ———. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Trafton, Joseph L. Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Valletta, Thomas R. “The ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse in the Context of Exodus Typology.” In Proceedings, 129–43. Grand Rapids: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society, 1991. Van der Watt, Jan G. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John. BI. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

158 | Water

as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature

Vellanickal, Matthew. “Blood and Water.” Jeevadhara 8 (1978): 219–30. Venetz, Hermann-Josef. “‘Durch Wasser und Blut gekommen’: Exegetische Überlegungen zu 1 Joh 5,6.” In Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Eduard Schweizer, edited by Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder, 345–61. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Vermès, Géza. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Translated with an Introduction and Commentaries by Géza Vermès and illustrated by Shraga Weil. New York: Heritage Press, 1967. Von Wahlde, Urban C. The Gospel and Letters of John. 3 vols. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Waetjen, Herman C. The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple: A Work in Two Editions. New York: T & T Clark, 2005. Wallace, Daniel. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. ———. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary. Chicago: Moody Publication, 1966. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. WBC. Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005. Wead, David Wayne. The Literary Devices in John’s Gospel. TD 4. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970. Weinrich, William C. ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament 12: Revelation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Westcott, B. F. Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. ———. The Epistles of St John: The Greek Text with Notes. 4th ed. Abingdon: Marcham Manor Press, 1966. Wheaton, Gerry. The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel. SNTSMS 162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Wiarda, Timothy. Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship. WUNT 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ———. “Scenes and Details in the Gospels: Concrete Reading and Three Alternatives.” NTS 50 (2004): 167–84. ———. Spirit and Word: Dual Testimony in Paul, John and Luke. LNTS 565. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Wilcock, Michael. I Saw Heaven Opened. London: InterVarsity Press, 1975. Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Wilkinson, John. “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19,34.” SJT 28 (1975): 149–72. Williamson, Rick. 1, 2, & 3 John: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. NBBC. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2010. Winterbotham, Rayner. “The Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood.” Expositor 8:2 (1911): 62–71. Witherington, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. ———. Revelation. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———. “The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1 John 5:6–8.” NTS 35 (1989): 155–60.

Bibliography | 159 Witulski, Thomas. Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalpyse. FRLANT 221. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Yarbrough, Robert W. 1–3 John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Press, 2008. Zimmerman, Ruben. “From A Jewish Man to the Savior of the World: Narrative and Symbols Forming a Step by Step Christology in John 4,1–42.” In Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert van Belle, edited by Joseph Verheyden, Geert van Oyen, Michael Labahn, and Reimund Bieringer, BETL 265, 99–118. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Zumstein, Jean. “L’interprétation johannique de la mort du Christ.” In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, BETL 100, edited by Frans van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden, 2119–38. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.

Index

A Acts, 76, 84, 102, 133–34 Akala, Adesola Joan, 46, 58–59 Allen, E. L., 137 Allison, Dale C., 18, 23, 25, 126, 132, 135 Andrew of Caesarea, 24, 90 Apostolic Fathers, 15–16, 24 Apringius of Beja, 128 Augustine, 24, 84–85 Aune, David, 4, 6, 14, 80, 125, 127, 129

B Baptism, 5, 9–11, 16–22, 24, 67, 69, 74, 82–86, 89–90, 95–99, 114, 117, 120–26, 131–32, 140, 144 Barrett, C. K., 5, 6, 58, 131–32, 137 Bassler, Jouette M., 55, 63 Bates, William H., 130

Bauckham, Richard, 80, 138 Bayens, Patrick James, 130–31 Beale, G. K., 6, 14, 56–59, 63, 72, 79, 80, 89–91, 125, 127–29 Beasley-Murray, G. R., 6, 61, 131–32, 136–37, 140 Becerra, Enrique, 25 Begrich, Joachim, 41 Belleville, Linda L., 130 Beloved Disciple, 51, 61, 137 Bennema, Cornelis, 130, 136 Bernard, John Henry, 62, 133–34, 137 Bertalotto, Pierpaolo, 43 Beuken, Willem A. M., 41 Blount, Brian K., 128 Borchert, Gerald L., 127, 136–37 Borgen, Peder, 135–36 Boring, M. Eugene, 127, 129 Both-and approach, 19–20, 53, 62 Bowman, J., 134 Boxall, Ian, 126 Brant, Jo-Ann A., 63, 135

162 | Index

Braun, François-Marie, 122, 132 Bread, 36–37, 48, 51, 59–60, 67, 104, 107–11, 113, 135–36, 138 of life, 19, 88, 94, 104, 107–10, 113, 134–36 Bride, 37, 88–89, 92, 94, 127–28, 142, 145 Brooke, A. E., 3, 6, 24, 123 Brown, Raymond E., 6, 14, 53, 61–62, 70, 78–79, 83, 124, 131, 133–36, 139 Bultmann, Rudolf, 6, 134, 137 Burge, Gary M., 130, 132–33 Byrskog, Samuel, 138

C Caird, G. B., 6 Carnazzo, Sebastian A., 116, 139 Carson, D. A., 6, 14, 52, 60–62, 66, 70, 78–79, 127, 129–33, 135–37 Cerinthus, 82–83 Characters, xi, 12, 50–51, 54–55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 74 Charles, R. H., 5–7 Cho, Sukmin, 134 Chrysostom, 24 Chyutin, Michael, 44 Clements, R. E., 41 Collins, Adela Yarbro, 63, 127 Collins, Raymond F., 61 Coloe, Mary L., 139 Comblin, J. J., 126 Cooper, Lamar Eugene, 41 Corinthians, 18, 133 Cotterell, F. P., 62 Crenshaw, James L., 42 Crucifixion, xiv, 2, 17–18, 49, 66, 69, 76–77, 83, 93, 105, 114, 118, 120, 141–42, 146 Cullmann, Oscar, 13, 139 Culpepper, R. Alan, 14, 47–48, 55, 58–60, 62–63 Cyril of Jerusalem, 122

D De Boer, Martinus C., 123 Deuteronomy, 122 Docetism, 82, 115 Dodd, C. H., 25 Double meaning, 49–52, 60 Dunn, James D. G., 133

E Eating and drinking, 108, 111, 136 Enoch, 36–37, 44, 98, 122 Ephesians, 133 Eucharist, 25, 111, 117, 121, 123, 125 Exodus, 12, 19, 21, 33–34, 67, 74–75, 79, 114, 116, 127, 134–35 Exodus Rabbah, 137 Ezekiel, 12, 18, 28–31, 35, 40–42, 67, 91–92, 96, 99, 102, 105, 116, 139, 147 Ezra, 122

F Fekkes, Jan, 125 Footwashing, 11, 50, 69–71 Ford, J. Massyngberde, 126, 129, 137 Fowler, R., 131 Fox, Michael V., 42

G Gallusz, Laszlo, 128 Genesis, 13, 31, 91–92, 109, 137 Garden of Eden, 30–31, 44 Garrett, Duane A., 41, 78 Gärtner, Bertil E., 44 Georgi, D., 92, 129 Gerousia, 54–55

Index | 163 Gibson, David, 136 Gillihan, Yonder Moynihan, 43 Glasson, T. Francis, 137 Gnosticism, 82 Graeco-Roman historiography, 80, 114, 138 Gray, George Buchanan, 41 Grigsby, Bruce, 79

H Haenchen, Ernst, 132 Hailey, Homer, 126 Harrington, Hannah K., 43–44 Harris, Murray J., 131 Hebrews, 102, 133, 137 Heer, Josef, 139 Heil, John Paul, 139 Hendriksen, W., 63 Heraclitus, 138 Hermeneutical principles, 19–22, 40 Hill, Charles E., 24 Hippolytus, 17, 24 Historicity, 20, 51, 56, 117, 119 Homer Iliad, 138 Hoskyns, Edwyn Clement, 137, 139 Howard, Wilbert Francis, 131 Hylen, Susan E., 134

I Irenaeus, 15–17, 24, 83, 85, 115, 124, 139 Indicator of coherence when taken literally, 3, 70, 73–74, 76–77, 86, 94, 106, 112, 119–20, 144 of contextual coherence, 3, 73, 76–77, 86, 94, 99–100, 106, 118, 120–21, 143–44, 146 of geographic and chronological detail, 3, 77, 94, 97, 100, 107, 113, 115, 119–21, 144–46

of highlighting, 3, 71, 74, 77, 89, 94, 98, 100, 107, 113, 119–21, 144–46 of linking water to Jesus’ crucifixion, 2, 66, 76–77, 93, 105, 118, 120, 141–42, 146 of OT parallels, 2, 67, 76–77, 93, 96, 99–100, 105, 112, 118, 120, 141–42 of references to the Spirit, 2, 67–68, 76–77, 85–86, 89, 93, 99–100, 102, 105–6, 110, 112, 118, 141–43 of suggestive vocabulary, 2, 3, 20, 22, 67, 71, 76–77, 93, 105, 112, 118, 121, 142–46 of symbolic expressions, 3, 70–71, 73, 75–77, 83, 86, 89, 92, 94, 97, 100, 106, 113, 115, 118–20, 144 that water is given by Jesus, 2, 66, 76–77, 93, 105, 112, 118, 120, 141–42, 146 Isaiah, 28–31, 33, 40–41, 67, 88, 90, 92–93, 96, 99, 102–5, 108–10, 112, 121, 128, 134–36, 142, 147

J Jensen, Matthew D., 123 Jeremiah, 34, 38, 43, 67 Jerusalem, 30–31, 39, 41, 44, 52, 55, 61, 90, 116–17, 133 Jews, the, 53–55, 78, 113 Job, 134 Joel, 18, 28, 30–31, 40, 42, 67, 102, 105, 133 John’s theology, 66, 76, 78, 96, 99–100, 144, 147 Jones, Larry Paul, 20–21, 25, 46, 58–59, 62 Jonge, Marinus de., 63 Joseph and Aseneth, 123, 134 Joseph of Arimathea, 53 Jubilees, 129 Judges, 103, 134 Julian, Paul, 99, 130, 132 Justin Martyr, 16–17

164 | Index

K

M

Kanagaraj, Jey J., 135 Kee, H. C., 44 Keener, Craig S., 6, 11, 13–14, 61, 78, 97–98, 130–33, 136–39 Kim, Sang-Hoon, 130 Kistemaker, Simon J., 7, 56–57, 63, 126 Kittay, Eva Feder, 59 Koester, Craig R., 18–20, 25, 46, 50–51, 58–62, 79, 134, 139 Köstenberger, Andreas J., 14, 49, 60, 78–79, 111, 124, 136 Kowalski, J. A., 25 Kraus, Hans-Joachim, 43 Kruse, Colin G., 123–24

Maccabees, 138 Macgregor, G. H. C., 48, 59 Malatesta, Edward, 6, 138 Mangina, Joseph L., 6, 126, 128 Manson, T. M., 122 Mark, 84, 119 Marshall, I. Howard, 122–23 Martínez, Florentino García, 43–44 Martyn, J. Louis, 54, 62 Mathewson, David, 126, 128 Matthew, 18, 27, 41, 53, 84, 89, 91 McCool, Francis. J., 132–34 McPolin, James, 138 Meeks, Wayne A., 52, 61 Menken, M. J. J., 136 Messiah, 18, 20, 28, 33, 43, 101, 103–4, 106, 109–10, 135, 147 Metaphor, 47, 58–59, 69 Metonymy, 83, 86, 97 Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M., 41–42 Michaels, J. Ramsey, 5, 13–14, 70, 79, 125, 130, 132–33, 135–36, 139 Midrash Rabbah, 91, 109, 137–39 Miguens, M., 121, 137 Misunderstanding, 51, 54, 60, 95, 101, 104, 129, 134 Moloney, Francis J., 6, 54, 62, 78–79, 111, 117, 134, 136, 139–40 Moo, Jonathan, 22–24, 26 Morris, Leon, 62, 130, 133, 137 Moses, 19–20, 37, 67, 104, 107, 122, 134, 139 Moule, C. F. D., 61 Mounce, Robert H., 7, 80 Murphy, Roland E., 42

L Ladd, George Eldon, 128 Lawler, Michael G., 14 Lawrence, Jonathan D., 33, 38, 43–44 Leal, Juan, 62 Lee, D. A., 47, 51–52, 58–59, 61 Leon-Dufour, Xavier, 62 Leviticus, 33–34, 116, 137 Leviticus Rabbah, 138 Life eternal, 1, 5, 10, 16, 22, 24, 34, 46, 51, 70, 78, 88, 90–92, 100–4, 106, 125, 129–30, 132, 148 fountain of, 5, 32–33, 35–36, 38, 42, 92, 103–4, 129 Light, 4, 33, 48–49, 53–54, 58–61, 97, 100, 127 Lightfoot, R. H., 25, 139 Lindars, Barnabas, 138–39 Lohse, E., 6 Lorein, Geert W., 43 Lucan, C. W., 137 Luke, 53, 84, 89, 91

N Narrative details, xi, 23, 52–53, 56–58, 61–62, 70–71, 74–75, 77, 92, 94, 97, 100, 107, 113, 115, 119–20, 145

Index | 165 Nauck, Wolfgang, 123 New Jerusalem, 25, 36, 44, 87, 89, 92, 127–29, 145 Neyrey, Jerome H., 134 Ng, Wai-Yee, 13, 26, 42, 59–60, 132 Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, 90 Nickelsburg, George W. E., 44 Nicodemus, 9, 51–58, 61–62, 95–96, 98–99, 101, 146 Niewalda, Paul, 132 Night, 49, 52–55, 57–58, 60–62, 95, 97, 100, 145–46 Numbers, 56, 69–70, 78 Nunn, H. P. V., 137

O Odeberg, Hugo, 25, 131–32, 134 Okure, Teresa, 134 Olsson, Birger, 25, 134 Opponents, the, 82–83, 121, 124 Origen, 24 Osborne, Grant R., 5–7, 14, 47, 59, 79–80, 91, 125, 127–29 Oswalt, John N., 29, 41, 43, 135

P Painter, John, 6, 121, 123–25 Pamment, M., 131 Pancaro, Severino, 104, 133–34 Parallels, 2–3, 13, 18, 25, 28–29, 67, 76–77, 88, 90–91, 93, 95–96, 98–101, 103–5, 109–10, 112, 116, 118, 120, 126, 129, 134, 136, 141–42, 147–48 conceptual, 18, 101, 126 linguistic, 3, 18, 88, 90–91, 101, 109–10, 126, 136, 147–48 Passover, 21, 62, 114, 137 lamb, 21, 114 Pattemore, Stephen W., 127 Patterson, Paige, 63, 127, 129

Perkins, Pheme, 123 Peter, 49, 51, 61, 63, 74, 102, 135 Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria, 126, 129 Porsch, F., 6, 134 Potterie, Ignace de la, 123, 139 Primrose, W. B., 137 Proverbs, 32–33, 36, 41–42, 98, 103–4, 108–9, 112, 136 Psalms, 24, 31, 33, 38, 42, 70, 91, 121 Purification, 11, 13, 28, 33–34, 36, 38–39, 43, 69, 71, 78

Q Qumran community, 35, 37–39, 44, 123 Community Rule (1QS), 18, 35, 40, 43, 123, 133 Damascus Document (CD), 19, 37–39, 44 eternal planting, 44 New Jerusalem Scroll (N. J.), 36 Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), 36, 44, 122 War Scroll (1QM), 129

R Reader, W. W., 128 Replacement theme, 69 Representative figures, 48, 50–51, 54–56, 58, 60–62 Revelation, 20, 39, 46, 134 of Jesus, 19, 101, 103–4 Richard, E. 49, 60 Richter, Georg, 121–22, 137 Rissi, Mathias, 128 Roberge, M., 136 Robinson, W. B., 130–31 Romans, 133 Rotz, Carol, 24 Ruiz, Jean-Pierre, 79 Ruland, Vernon, 134

166 | Index

definition, 45–48 major, 48–49 minor, 49 multiple meaning of, 18, 20–21, 47, 62 symbolic action, 10, 48, 50, 60, 69, 78 symbolic expression, 3, 33, 38, 70, 73, 75–77, 83, 86, 89, 92, 94, 97, 100, 106, 111, 113, 115, 118–20, 138, 144 symbolic image, 48–49 symbolic narrative, 51–52, 58 symbolic number, 56, 70, 78 symbolic place, 52 symbolic vision, 11–12, 68, 75 symbolic word, 48–50, 56

S Salvation, 17, 28, 33, 39, 43, 90 Samaritan woman, 10, 16, 51, 61, 63, 101–2, 104, 106, 133 Samuel, 103, 134 Sanders, J. N., 24 Sawyer, Deborah, 137 Schnackenburg, Rudolf, 62, 123, 131 Schneiders, Sandra M., 46, 58–60, 131 Schnelle, Udo, 138 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, 127 Schweizer, E., 138 Sciberras, Lawrence, 25 Scott, Martin, 135 Second Temple literature, 27, 34–38, 40 Septuagint, 34, 42, 67, 91, 103, 109, 121, 134, 137 Shepherd of Hermas, 15, 24 Sidebottom, E. M., 135 Signs, 47, 59 in John’s Gospel, 50–51, 54–55, 60, 107 Sirach, 36, 136 Skehan, Patrick W., 44 Smalley, Stephen S., 4, 6–7, 63, 123, 126–27 Smith, Gary V., 41 Song of Songs, 34 Song, Seung-In, 79 Spirit of holiness, 35, 43 of uprightness and of humility, 35 Spriggs, D., 132 Stemberger, Günter, 25 Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., 138 Strecker, Georg, 6, 121, 124 Streett, Daniel R., 123–24 Stuart, Douglas, 42 Suggestive vocabulary, 20, 22, 67, 71, 76–77, 93, 105, 112, 118, 121, 142–46 Sweet, J. P. M., 127 Swete, Henry Barclay, 6, 126 Sylva, D. D., 63 Symbolism classification, 45, 48–52, 58

T Taeger, J.-W., 129 Taheb, 104 Talbert, Charles H., 132, 134, 137 Tan, Paul Lee, 127, 129 Targum, 137 Tavo, Felise, 128 Temple, 18, 30–33, 36, 39, 54, 60, 67, 78, 116, 126, 133 eschatological, 28, 34, 39 of New Jerusalem, 36 Tertullian, 16–17, 84–85, 122–23 Testament of Levi, 123 Theodore, 24 Thiering, Barbara E., 35, 43 Thirst language, 102, 108, 111–13, 120, 135 Thomas, J. C., 79, 123, 125 Thompson, Marianne Meye, 41, 124–25 Titus, 18 Torah, 24, 34, 37, 39, 109, 130, 132, 136 Trafton, Joseph L., 127

V Van der Watt, Jan G., 25 Valletta, Thomas R., 134

Index | 167 Vellanickal, Matthew, 138 Venetz, Hermann-Josef, 125 Vermès, Géza, 44 Von Wahlde, Urban C., 6, 62, 124, 131–32, 135

W Wacholder, Ben Zion, 37, 44 Waetjen, Herman C., 62–63 Wallace, Daniel B., 129 Waltke, Bruce K., 42–43 Walvoord, John F., 63 Water and blood, 10, 17, 81–85, 115, 120–23, 125, 138 deep, 32, 42 living, 1, 5, 9, 16, 18–20, 24–25, 28, 31–32, 34, 36–39, 46, 66–67, 77–78, 87–88, 90–91, 100–8, 111, 116–17, 120, 124–26, 128–29, 132–35, 142–43, 145–48 of life, 1, 5, 10, 24, 87–94, 120, 126, 128, 142–48 physiological, 10, 95, 98–99 river, 5, 10, 12, 14, 24, 31, 33, 41–42, 46, 66–67, 72, 75, 77–78, 87–92, 94, 120–21, 125–26, 128, 133, 145, 148 running, 34, 137 sea, 12–14, 22–24, 31, 41, 71–76, 113, 128, 135 spring, 10, 14, 34, 78, 87, 100, 103–4, 126 Watts, John D. W., 41 Wead, David Wayne, 45, 58, 60 Weinrich, William C., 128 Westcott, B. F., 124, 131, 139 Wheaton, Gerry, 78 Wiarda, Timothy, 52–55, 57, 61–63, 123, 130–31 Wilcock, Michael, 126 Wiles, Maurice F., 62 Wilkinson, John, 137–38, 140 Williamson, Rick, 122

Winterbotham, Rayner, 125 Wisdom, 10, 19, 24, 28, 32–34, 36–37, 39, 42, 44, 104, 106, 108, 110, 134, 136, 148 Lady, 36, 41, 109–10, 136 fountain of, 32–33 of Solomon, 36 Witherington, Ben, 7, 122, 131–32, 135 Witness, 5, 9, 52, 81–82, 84–86, 114, 125, 138 eyewitness, 10–11, 78, 114, 138 of the evangelist, 10–11, 63, 114, 138 three, 83, 85, 122–23, 125 Witulski, Thomas, 127–28

Y Yarbrough, Robert W., 123

Z Zechariah, 18, 28, 30–31, 34, 40–42, 67, 91, 114, 116–17, 127 Zimmerman, Ruben, 132–33 Zumstein, Jean, 139

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department 29 Broadway, 18th floor New York, NY 10006 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM