New Interpreter's Bible (12 Vols.) - Pre-Publication Examples

At the risk of repeating myself in this thread, and as a Bump I am once again posting this.

12 Gems from the 12 Volumes of the New Interpreter's Bible. I realize one person's gems may well be another persons, stones to be scattered but I hope you enjoy. Two very good reasons to get this commentary are: 1) It's covering the full Alexandrian cannon of scripture (i.e. Roman Catholic). 2) This is not only a decent historical/critical commentary but it is also a very good devotional commentary.

I believe all of my Gems below are taken from the reflections section (which contain applications and homiletical suggestions). This commentary could well be described as Interpretation commentary on steroids. Most everything covered in the Interpretation series is far more thoroughly covered in the NIB. The NIB is a moderate commentary generally respecting other views with top scholars from all theological persuasions. This is honestly the only decent series that covers the Apocrypha, yes anchor covers the books and is an excellent Critical commentary but has few theological insights, IMHO. 

https://www.evernote.com/pub/danielwilliamfrancis/nibsamples And here has a sample from every book of the Bible/deutrocanon (apocryphal books of the Bible found in the Catholic Church).

-Dan

-----------------
In Leviticus, the people of God are called to be holy, not because holiness is an arbitrary religion game that God wants played, but because God is holy. Because God is holy, God’s people are to be holy by being like God in the world. We can, therefore, do away with all the cartoon pictures of the sanctimonious holy person wearing a halo and a prudish glare. To be holy is not to be narrow-minded and primly pious; it is, rather, to imitate God. To be holy is to roll up one’s sleeves and to join in with whatever God is doing in the world. --Leviticus: Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Volume 1

The songs of mothers remind us that our story as the church is a part of what God has been doing since creation itself (1 Sam 2:8b), since the first giving of God’s promise to raise up a people (Luke 1:55). The history of God’s salvation does not originate with Jesus or with the church. The church is a part of the larger activity of God from creation onward. To be the community of Jesus as the Messiah is to be related to a God whose story is always larger than the church’s story. It is to be related to a God whose transforming power on behalf of the powerless does not originate in Jesus Christ but was already known to Hannah and simply finds new expression in the song Mary sings for the church. --The First and Second Books of Samuel: Bruce C. Birch, Volume 2

Along with other stories pertaining to Elijah, the miracles in this chapter have been commemorated in music and in art. In these re-creations of the story, attention is invariably drawn to the supramundane origin of Elijah's experiences. That is, indeed, the main point of the passage: It is the Lord, the God of Israel, who brings about these wonders. So, too, we dare to believe that things that seem impossible to human beings can be brought about by the Lord: Birds of prey may provide nourishment; the poor may have their victuals wondrously replenished; and even the dead may be resurrected. It is the Lord and no other god who performs such miracles. So we are called to believe as well. --The First and Second Books of Kings: Choon-Leong Seow, Volume 3

The Misfit represents what Psalm 1 and the rest of the psalter call wickedness—the conviction that we are doing all right by ourselves, that we need no help. It is not surprising that the Misfit’s words conclude the story: “ ‘It’s no real pleasure in life.’ ” He is telling the truth. Failing to trust God and to make connection with God as the source of life, persons cannot be “happy.” It is not surprising that contemporary societies of isolated selves consistently fail to produce people who are “happy,” even though these societies are among the wealthiest, healthiest, and most educated in human history. In biblical terms, to be autonomous, to be alienated from God and other people, is to “perish.” --Psalms: J. Clinton McAnn Jr., Volume 4

The appearance of wisdom and achievement of the aged is not to be confused with virtue. As with the earlier cases of the tragic death of a virtuous person and the apparent fruitlessness of a barren person, the author calls for an examination of the true nature of human strength and wisdom. What appears to be a tragic loss of life in the case of the wise youth indeed is not. Presumably the author could have chosen other figures to signify human strength, such as people of wealth or those with educational and political might. Instead he uses three extreme examples of human misfortune to highlight with clarity the significant values of virtue and justice for determining the dignity of human beings. The true failures, tragedies, and disasters in life are not what the wicked think they are. Moral vacuity expressed through a life of evasive pleasure, exploiting the weak, and perpetrating violence brings on a death and destruction that is far more devastating than the experience of mortality, which all human beings encounter. --Book of Wisdom: Michael Kolarcik, Volume 5

Pastoring is not, however, the sole responsibility of ordained ministers. To the contrary, authentic leadership requires “pastoral” care. Everyone who, in one way or another, in one arena or another, exercises authority and influence would do well to consider how the shepherd metaphor might impact his or her mindset and actions. Pastoring begins with the psalmist’s full awareness that “the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it,/ the world, and those who live in it” (Ps 24:1). As leaders and caretakers, we are not to use persons, things, and situations to personal advantage. Neither exploitation nor neglect is acceptable. Rather, we are to act as God’s stewards, protecting and providing for those who are entrusted to our care, but belong to God. Ezekiel 34 has much to say to leaders of every ilk, be they politicians, health care providers, supervisors, teachers, pastors, or parents.--Book of Ezekiel: Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Volume 6

Amos was inspired to recognize that the daily life of Israel had completely given up the ethical standards of the Yahwistic religion. Whether he thought in terms of “covenant theology” or not, he clearly saw the treatment of the poor in Israel as a fundamental rejection of the relationship that Yahweh had established with Israel, which required obedience not only in worship but also in the maintenance of a just society. We might describe his evaluation in this way: It was an unhealthy society, so sick it could not survive much longer. But Amos spoke in terms of God’s activity in history. The death of Israel would not be from “natural causes”; it would be God’s work. We must not then conclude that God prefers to work via killing and burning.52 God allows human beings to chart their own courses, then finds ways to work through, or in spite of, what they do. --Amos: Donald E. Gowan, Volume 7

The move to the future tense indicates that the life of the kingdom must wait for ultimate validation until God finishes the new creation. The future tense of the beatitudes resists all notions that Christianity is a “philosophy of life” designed to make people successful and calm today, in the present moment. Christianity is not a scheme to reduce stress, lose weight, advance in one’s career, or preserve one from illness. Christian faith, instead, is a way of living based on the firm and sure hope that meekness is the way of God, that righteousness and peace will finally prevail, and that God’s future will be a time of mercy and not cruelty. So, blessed are those who live this life now, even when such a life seems foolish, for they will, in the end, be vindicated by God. --Matthew: Eugene Boring, Volume 8

The Word becoming flesh is the decisive event in human history—indeed, in the history of creation—because the incarnation changes God’s relationship to humanity and humanity’s relationship to God. The incarnation means that human beings can see, hear, and know God in ways never before possible. The Father-Son relationship of God and Jesus is the key to this changed relationship. God’s Son, because he is the incarnate Word, derives his identity from God (1:1, 18). The relationship between divine and human is transformed, because in the incarnation human beings are given intimate, palpable, corporeal access to the cosmic reality of God. --John: Gail R. O’Day, Volume 9

Shared worship, indeed, is central to Paul’s vision. He does not say that one should wait to share in worship until all aspects of belief and practice have been hammered out. On the contrary. He sees the mutual welcome, allowing people from very different backgrounds literally to worship together with one voice, as of the essence of the quest for a deeper unity. When we read this alongside Gal 2:11-21, we discover that this is not just a bit of good advice; it grows directly from the doctrine of justification by faith itself. The point of that doctrine is that all who confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead belong in the same worshiping family, and at the same table. Shared eucharistic fellowship should not be the reward awaiting us at the end of ecumenical negotiations and agreements. It should be a central means by which we travel together along that road. --The Letter to the Romans: N. T. Wright, Volume 10

Whatever the reason for the special reference to those who held office in the Philippian church, the letter is addressed to the whole community. All are “in Christ Jesus” and so belong to the fellowship of God's people. Once again, the terms have become so familiar that we no longer appreciate their real significance. We think of “saints” as very special people and forget that we are all called to be saints—to be members of God's people and, therefore holy, like God. This new status belongs to those who are “in Christ,” who claim their new relationship with God because of their relationship with Christ. It is because Christ is God's holy one that those who belong to him are “saints” (the Greek word a{gioi [hagioi] means “holy ones”). Our proper emphasis on individual responsibility has tended to make us think of sanctity as something personal and private, but Christianity is primarily a calling to belong to a community. The church is not simply a group of individuals who happen to have responded to the gospel; it is the community of God's people, whose corporate life is an essential expression of their divine calling. Paul would certainly have endorsed John Wesley's maxim that “Christianity is essentially a social religion; and that to turn it into a solitary religion, is indeed to destroy it.” Paul's emphatic “all” (1:4, 7-8) will remind us how important this idea is. --The Letter to the Philippians: Morna D. Hooker, Volume 11

In contemporary America, the “appearances” of race and gender are instantly recognizable, for they have, through titanic struggles, finally been brought to general consciousness. On these fronts, the church's record has been mixed; despite some strong efforts toward genuine inclusiveness, racial and gender discrimination is still a reality within most denominations. The sort of discrimination of the poor person that James describes is less easy to see, partially because denominations tend to sort themselves out along socioeconomic lines. But to imagine a dirty and bewildered street person wandering into a Sunday morning fellowship seeking warmth and coffee is in most cases also to imagine a deeply uncomfortable fellowship. Such instances—and it is easy to multiply the ways in which people can, because of appearance, size, gender, sexual orientation, and status, seem to be “poor by the world's standards”—challenge the church's recollection that it is supposed to be a “kingdom” made up of just such inconvenient and unacceptable persons. When the poor cannot find a place in a Christian church, that church no longer has any connection to Jesus. --The Letter of James: Luke Timothy Johnson, Volume 12

Super Tramp said:

Feel free to keep posting, Dan.

I will post a few more try to put things up a couple times a week...

Here is the full treatment of the 64th Psalm.

PSALM 64:1-10, WHAT GOD HAS DONE

Link to: NIV-NRSV

<Page 929 Ends><Page 930 Begins>

COMMENTARY

Psalm 64 shows the characteristic features of a prayer for help or individual lament/complaint. Petition (vv. 1-2) is followed by complaint, which takes the form of a description of the enemy (vv. 3-6). Verses 7-9 consist of an affirmation of faith in God’s activity, and v. 10 calls for joyful trust and praise. As usual, it is impossible to determine the precise circumstances of origin and use. To be sure, destructive speech is employed to threaten the psalmist. But how and by whom? It is possible that the persecuted psalmist has sought refuge in the Temple from persecution or false accusation (see Psalms 5; 7; 61; Introduction), and it is possible that Psalm 64 was used in some sort of restoration ritual within a family or small-group setting. We simply do not know. As Tate judiciously suggests, “In any case, the psalm is a literary entity, apparently without any strong ties to a specific ancient context. The text generates its own context in interaction with the reader.”254 64:1-2. The psalmist characterizes this prayer as a complaint (v. 1a), and it apparently arises out of a frightening, threatening situation (v. 1b). The need to be hidden (v. 2a) reinforces the urgency of the threat (see 2 Kgs 11:2; Pss 17:8; 27:5; 31:20; Jer 36:26). The word that the NRSV translates “secret plots” (dws sôd) usually designates consultation for good purposes, but clearly not in this case (see also Ps 83:3). The NIV’s translation of v. 2b is probably more accurate, and by suggesting a sort of mob scene as opposed to a quiet conspiracy, it makes v. 2b a more all-encompassing request. 64:3-6. Verse 3 is similar to Pss 57:4 and 140:3, which suggest that the wicked use words as weapons. The bow-and-arrow imagery of v. 3b continues into v. 4. The word “ambush” in v. 4 is from the same Hebrew root (rts str) as “hide” in v. 2; thus the wicked do their own sort of hiding, but the psalmist desires to be hidden by God. The wicked may shoot (see Ps 11:2), but the psalmist trusts that God shoots back (see v. 7). In short, the psalmist entrusts his or her life to God. Such trust is the real essence of being blameless or innocent (see Commentary on Psalms 15; 18). In contrast to the psalmist’s dependence upon God, the wicked trust their own plans (v. 5a). They are convinced that they can do things secretly (v. 5b); the question in v. 5c further indicates their belief that they are autonomous (see Commentary on Psalm 1) and thus are accountable to no one (see Ps 10:13). Therefore, they continue to pursue “injustice” (v. 6a; see also Ps 58:2 NIV), convinced that they can do so with impunity (v. 6b) because of their own human capacities (v. 6c). Verse 6ab is made emphatic by the threefold repetition of a Hebrew root (cpj hpZ) translated “plot,” “devised,” or “plan,” and v. 6c prepares for the rest of the psalm. The word “heart” (bl leb) anticipates the final line of the psalm, and the affirmation of human capacity sharply contrasts with the psalmist’s focus on God, which begins in v. 7. 64:7-9. The shift at v. 7 is also marked by a reference to God in the third person, which gives the affirmation of faith in vv. 7-9 a sort of instructional tone. The repetition in vv. 7-10 of several words from vv. 3-6 serves to sharpen further the contrast between the psalmist’s faith in God and wicked persons’ faith in themselves. For instance, the words “shoot,” “arrow,” and “suddenly” in v. 7 recall vv. 3-4. God has arrows, too (see Ps 7:12-13). Thus the irony is that those who “shoot suddenly” will be “wounded suddenly.” Verse 8a is difficult, but the word “tongue” (@wvl lAsôn) recalls v. 3. Again, what the wicked perceive as their strength will be the cause of their undoing. The word “see” (har rA )â) in v. 8b recalls the question in v. 5b ; that is, those who thought they could not be seen will become a public spectacle. Those who improperly had no fear (v. 4b) will engender a proper fear in others (v. 9a), and the crowning irony is that the lives of those who fancied themselves all-powerful will end up leading others to proclaim and wisely recognize God’s powerful activity (v. 9bc). 64:10. The reversal between vv. 7-9 and vv. 3-6 is matched by the reversal between v. 10 and vv. 1-2. The psalmist’s complaint has become an invitation for others to “rejoice” and “glory” (see Ps 34:2). The righteous (see Pss 1:5-6; 97:11) and the “upright in heart” (see Pss 7:10; 11:2; 32:11; 36:10; 94:15; 97:11) <Page 930 Ends><Page 931 Begins> are those who live in dependence upon God rather than self. As the psalter has suggested from the beginning, to take refuge in God is the true source of happiness and joy (see Ps 2:12; Introduction). As with the other prayers for help, the movement from complaint to praise is not sequential or chronological; indeed, trust in God allows the psalmist to experience God’s protection and to rejoice amid ongoing threat and the continuing reality of evil. In short, the perspective is eschatological, summoning readers in every time and place to trust and to have joy in the midst of human self-assertion that threatens both individuals and the security of our society and the world.

REFLECTIONS

The talk of swords and arrows and snares, as well as the portrayal of God’s taking direct retributive action against the wicked, makes Psalm 64 seem rather far-removed from our contemporary world. Tate proposes, however, that it is more relevant than we might care to realize: “The psalm communicates a sense of anxiety and perplexity about the nature of human society that is at home in every generation. The supposed sophistication of modern society is not immune to deep awareness of destructive forces which threaten to reduce our semi-ordered world to chaos.”255 In fact, the bold affirmation of human capacity and autonomy in vv. 5b-6 characterizes the way that most people, including Christians, routinely operate. Individual decision making and public policy making rarely include consideration of anything beyond our own interests. Although we may not be quite as crass as the wicked are in v. 5b, we seldom make accountability to God and others a major factor in our deliberations. This, of course, goes a long way toward explaining the existence of the “destructive forces” that Tate mentions—poverty and the unrest it breeds, oppression of women and minorities and the hostility it generates, warfare to protect ethnic claims or national interests and the chaos it produces, and so on. In a real sense, Psalm 64 calls us to recognize and to confess the evil within ourselves and our society. It is also a call to faith—not to trust our own inclinations or capacities but to entrust our abilities and destiny to God. The structure of the psalm belies any facile understanding of divine retribution. For Christians, of course, the cross is a constant reminder that God does not exercise power by suddenly eliminating all evil and opposition. Rather, God’s power is made perfect in weakness (see 1 Cor 1:25; 2 Cor 12:9-10). For Christians, the resurrection is the sign of God’s victory, but we are called to live as people of the cross as well as of the resurrection (see Commentary on Psalms 13; 22; Introduction). Like the psalmist, we shall always find ourselves pleading and complaining as we confront the reality of evil (vv. 1-6), but because we ultimately trust God’s power rather than human power (vv. 7-9), we shall also find that even now joy is possible (v. 10). We trust that evil is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and we greet signs of evil’s unraveling as what God has done (v. 9). Indeed, trusting God rather than self, we find the joy that liberates us for praise. <Page 931 Ends><Page 932 Begins>

James R Harlan said:

one missing resource that would make Logos just about complete.

That's just it…. Logos has almost everything you could need or want but NIB, the New Interpreter's Bible may not be for everyone, but i know a lot who have it alone, and for me personally if I could have only one commentary I would take the NIB in a heart beat. To me the NIB not being in Logos is like a grocery store without milk… Something important is missing. It seems like a no brannier that Logos should be working their hardest on getting this in their Library ASAP, but they have their pre pub system and apparently I am in a minority among Logos users. My only hope is the growing number of Catholic users may help generate more interest.

-Dan 

James R Harlan said:

I generally appreciate and understand the pre-pub system, but this is a resource that should warrant some different thinking, perhaps.

Bob Pritchett <bob@logos.com> If people like me who feel passionate about this politely write Bob and explain why they feel this way perhaps Bob will do something. I wouldn't hold my breath but if he gets numerous emails making a good case, perhaps we can convince him.

-Dan

PS: My last plea just led to him examining it closer and things being moved back so I don't hold a ton of hope, but I have no illusion about being powerfully persuasive, and I am just one person, although even the persistent widow can wear down a judge.

Sleiman said:

True, but there's a condition: the judge has to have God-like manners. Otherwise he'd be really annoyed!

“Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Grant me justice against my opponent.’ For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, ‘Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.’” And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”” Luke 18:1-8,  NRSV.

This weeks sample….

EPHESIANS 1:15-23

THANKSGIVING PRAYER REPORT COMMENTARY

The thanksgiving of Pauline letters often signals themes taken up in what follows. The second, long periodic sentence in Ephesians serves that function. Ephesians combines phrases from Colossians (Col 1:3-4, 9, 18) with its own emphasis on knowledge of God's saving power in Christ to create its thanksgiving. Rhetorically, the thanksgiving can be a way of gaining the goodwill of one's audience. The eulogy joined author and audience in the praise of their common benefactor, God (v. 13). Now the thanksgiving assures Christians who had not known the apostle Paul that their reputation for faith and love has won them a place in his prayers. Paul used a similar strategy in addressing Christians in Rome, whom he had not yet visited (Rom 1:8-15). The thanksgiving falls into three sections: (a) the formal thanksgiving and prayer report (vv. 15-16); (b) the content of Paul's intercession (vv. 17-19); and (c) a christological expansion on God's energizing power in the exalted Christ (vv. 20-23). The intercessory report asks for insight and wisdom (vv. 17-19). The content of that knowledge returns to phrases from the eulogy: (a) Spirit, wisdom, revelation, and one's ability to “come to know” (ejn ejpignw"sei en epignosei) in v. 17 echo the wisdom, insight, and making “known <Page 380 Ends><Page 381 Begins> to us the mystery” (musth"rion mysterion) of vv. 8-9; (b) hope, riches, and inheritance in v. 18 pick up the earlier “first to set our hope” (v. 12), wealth (v. 7), and inheritance (v. 14). Many commentators detect a hymnic formula describing the exaltation of Christ in vv. 20-21, which has been expanded by a scriptural proof text (Ps 110:1) and its application to Christ and the church. Emphasis on the role of the church in God's plan (v. 22) is an addition peculiar to Ephesians.83 The combination of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:6 describes the eschatological triumph of the Lord independently of ecclesial imagery elsewhere in the NT (see 1 Cor 15:25-27; Heb 2:8-9).84 The image of the risen Christ as head of the church derives from Col 1:18. The puzzling concluding clause (v. 23c), “the fullness of him who fills all in all” (to; plh"rwma tou' ta" pa"nta ejn pa'sin plhroume"nou to pleroma tou ta panta en pasin pleroumenou), reformulates the mystery of God's plan from v. 10. 1:15-16. The prayer report combines Col 1:3-4 and Phlm 4-5. Pauline thanksgivings make it clear that the appropriate response to evangelization is a reputation for Christian faith. The apostle's preaching would not be successful if his churches did not become known to others as places of faith and mutual love (see 1 Thess 1:3-12). 1:17-19. The thanksgiving modulates into the prayer wish for the readers in these verses. The theocentric focus of the eulogy continues. A key element in the praise of God was “glory” (do"xa doxa, vv. 12, 14). This emphasis leads to a reformulation of the title for God. The earlier “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 3) becomes “God of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “Father of glory” (v. 17a). The phrase “Father of glory” (oJ path"r th' do"xhv ho pater tes doxes) is not a common expression for God. Paul refers to Jesus as “the Lord of glory” in 1 Cor 2:8. The phrase “God of glory” occurs in Ps 28:3 (LXX), where “glory” (doxa) is associated with the storm-god theophany tradition. James 1:17 refers to the “Father of lights” as the source of every good gift, a sentiment similar to that in Eph 1:3. The initial content of the petition also reminds readers of the earlier emphasis on wisdom and knowledge of God's plan (vv. 8-9, 17b). Given the earlier reference to believers as being “marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit” (v. 13), the expression “spirit of wisdom” (pneu'ma sofi"av pneuma sophias) probably intends more than human perception of divine wisdom. God's Spirit is the source of all wisdom and knowledge among the elect. The author is not thinking of particular charismatic gifts that are possessed only by some members of the community, such as the special insight possessed by the apostle (3:3, 5). Verse 18 describes the result of wisdom as “the eyes of your heart enlightened” (pefwtisme"nou"v tou"v ojfqalmou;v th"v kardi"av pephotismenous tous ophthalmous tes kardias). This expression resembles the Essene language of election as in the blessing pronounced over those who enter the covenant: “May he illuminate your heart with the discernment of life and grace you with eternal knowledge.”85 By the second century, baptism was commonly described as enlightenment.86 Ephesians 4:18 speaks of Gentiles who do not know God as “darkened in their understanding.” The addressees are warned not to return to that state. Ephesians treats the darkness-to-light image as a reference to the moral conversion associated with turning to God. The fact that individuals might revert to darkness shows that illumination of the heart is not a transformation that becomes permanent as soon as someone becomes a Christian. Although the OT regularly uses “heart” (bl leb) for the seat of human understanding (Ps 10:11; Prov 2:2), the phrase “eyes of your heart” (tous opthalmous tes kardias) has no biblical antecedents. However, Prov 20:27 (LXX) speaks of the breath of humans as the light of the Lord searching out hidden storerooms of the belly. Other Jewish texts refer to the darkened or clouded eye as equivalent to a depraved will.87 These examples suggest that the expression “eyes of your heart” is associated with change in conduct. Greek moralists may have contributed to <Page 381 Ends><Page 382 Begins> such expressions. Matthew 6:22-23 also refers to an “eye” (ojfqalmo"v ophthalmos) that is healthy and one that is evil or diseased. This saying refers to the inner light required for ethical discernment. Platonic and Stoic philosophers commonly link that light with reason. Matthew challenges the philosophic assumption that humans can rely on such inner light, since the eye can be darkened.88 The content of enlightenment reiterates earlier statements about Christian hope (vv. 18b, c, 14a). Since the passage speaks of “his [God's] glorious inheritance,” some commentators presume that the meaning of “saints” (a{gioi hagioi) has shifted from saints as God's elect to saints as “the holy ones”—that is, angels (so Deut 33:2-3; Ps 89:6, 8; Dan 8:13). On this reading, Ephesians would be similar to the Essene writings in claiming that the heritage of the elect lies with the angelic hosts.89 Against this interpretation of v. 18, v. 15 has used “saints” (hagioi) for those who are fellow Christians within the audience. Verse 19 shifts from knowledge of one's place among God's elect to recognition of the power of God at work in those who believe. An echo of Col 1:11, the phrase is replete with words for power. The author does not focus on the cosmological manifestations of divine power.90 Just as the eulogy's account of God's activity in creation (vv. 3-5) was not cosmological but soteriological, so also v. 19 describes the power of God as “for us who believe” (eijv hJma"v tou"v pisteu;ontav eis hemas tous pisteuontas). Verse 19b shifts from “you” (plural) to the inclusive “we” in order to set up the parallelism between God's work in the believer and what God has done in raising Christ (v. 20).91 The expression “working of his great power” connects v. 19b with v. 20a. Some interpreters treat it as the introduction to the next section.92 Colossians 1:29b speaks of God's powerful energy at work in the struggles of Paul's ministry. Colossians 2:12 speaks of God's power (“energy”) to raise the dead. Since Ephesians uses expressions associated with divine energy and power to connect God's activity within believers and the resurrection of Christ, the phrase may be derived from earlier Christian formulae. 1:20-23. The concluding section of this chapter is widely recognized as the development of a creedal formula. Attempts to isolate the specific words of a hymn have not been persuasive.93 Verse 20 alludes to the ancient tradition of resurrection as heavenly exaltation at God's right hand (Dan 12:2-3; Acts 2:32-33; Phil 2:9-11). The audience already knows that Christ serves to mediate God's gracious blessings from the heavens (v. 3). Ephesians treats the exaltation of Jesus rather than the cross as the focus of God's saving power.94 Paul links the resurrection of Jesus and divine power in contexts that contrast resurrection with the cross (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 13:4; Phil 3:10). Ephesians may have shifted the traditional emphasis in order to highlight the permanent victory of God's power. Hellenistic Jewish court tales celebrated exaltation as the victory of a righteous sage over the enemy (see Daniel 1:1–7). Daniel 7:13-27 depicts a human figure ascending to God's throne. With his ascent comes vindication for the righteous and eternal dominion for the “holy ones of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). With the corporate interpretation of the heavenly figure as representative of the righteous, Dan 7:13-27 provides a key to the connection between heavenly exaltation of a figure to God's throne and the eventual triumph of God's elect. This apocalyptic scenario also includes two other elements that are represented in Ephesians: (a) use of the “holy ones” (Dan 7:18, 21, 25, 27) in a way that could refer to the righteous or the angelic hosts95 and (b) exaltation as victory over powers that threaten human and divine order (Dan 7:23-25). The exaltation christology of Ephesians requires that Christ be superior to all the heavenly powers (v. 21). The text does not indicate whether the reader should consider this catalog of powers as hostile (so Daniel) or angelic (so Heb 1:3-4). Colossians 1:16 associates a list of powers with the affirmation that the cosmos was created in Christ, “whether thrones or dominions or rulers <Page 382 Ends><Page 383 Begins> or powers” (ejxousi"a exousia). Ephesians 1:21a omits “thrones” and includes du"namiv (dynamis; NRSV, “power”; for exousia the NRSV shifts to “authority”). Similar lists in apocalyptic texts can be associated with angels96 or with Satan's cohorts.97 Ephesians concludes the list of powers with the statement that Christ has the name above every name. This topos appears elsewhere in early christological formulae (see Phil 2:9-11, “Lord”; Heb 1:4-5, “Son”). The concluding phrase (v. 21c) evokes the apocalyptic picture of present and future ages. Just as the Son of Man and the holy ones in Dan 7:13-27 receive an eternal dominion, so also the exalted Christ enjoys eternal rule. This affirmation raises a theological question when this passage is compared with Paul's account in 1 Cor 15:23-28. There the Second Coming will be needed to complete the Son's domination of all the powers. At that point, Christ will hand dominion over to the Father. Though Ephesians focuses on the Father in its depiction of divine power, the author does not anticipate a “handing over” of the kingdom to God. The scenario in Ephesians cannot be squared with the historical perspective of apocalypses like Daniel, which correlate heavenly or symbolic figures with political powers. In such historical apocalypses no claim to dethrone hostile powers could be sustained without the corresponding defeat of evil in its sociopolitical manifestations. The significance of language about Christ's exaltation over the powers in Colossians and Ephesians remains contested. Ephesians refers to an angelic leader of the hostile powers (2:2; 6:11). If the powers of this list are hostile, then Christ is a victorious conqueror.98 Others have highlighted the reference to Christ's superior name. They suggest that Ephesians is concerned with the use of angelic names in magical texts. The Christ whose name is superior to those of any such powers has rendered the powers of magic impotent.99 When Ephesians is read over against the ideology of the Roman emperor cult, its encomium to the exalted Christ (esp. 2:11-22) appears to copy the style of speeches in praise of the emperor.100 Identification of the list of powers with causes of sociopolitical or individual evil presumes that the powers in this list are the demonic powers referred to later in Ephesians. Since the eulogy and the thanksgiving both depend upon traditional formulaic phrases for divine blessing, the positive use of angelic powers and name formulae in christological acclamations and hymns seems to be more appropriate in this section. God has made all things subject to the risen and exalted Lord (1 Cor 15:25). That same power will be effective in the resurrection of the faithful (Phil 3:21). In the earlier Pauline letters, references to the future completion of salvation indicate that the present subjection of all things remains a stage in an ongoing process: (a) Christ turns all things over to the Father (1 Cor 15:28); (b) believers are transformed into the image of the risen one (Phil 3:21). Unlike these examples, Ephesians remains focused on the present evidence of salvation. Verse 22b takes from Ps 110:1 the image of Christ as head over the universal church: “He has put all things under his feet.” This motif picks up the earlier statement that God's preordained plan was to bring all things together in Christ (v. 10). Ephesians consistently uses “church” (ejkklhsi"a ekklesia) in the universal sense found in Colossians (e.g., Col 1:18, 24). In 1 Cor 12:12-27 (and Rom 12:4-5) Paul adopts a common philosophical image for the political community as a body in which each has an assigned role. Differences in status, activity, and power are necessary for the well-being of the whole. Paul's appropriation of this image to promote concord in the Corinthian community also fits common philosophical usage.101 Colossians 1:18 has universalized the image by alluding to philosophical traditions that transferred the communal sense of “body” (sw'ma soma) to the harmonious coordination of the cosmos. The universe was considered to be a living being. Hence the move to describing it as a body was not as great <Page 383 Ends><Page 384 Begins> as it would be for today's readers.102 For Colossians, the image of Christ as head of the body makes a natural transition between the creation of all things in Christ and the church that comes into being through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Ephesians has adopted the imagery of Colossians for a different purpose: to express the completeness of salvation. Christ's superiority to the powers of the cosmos makes the existence of the church possible. However, Ephesians distinguishes the subjection of the powers from the function of Christ as head of the church. Christ is not a distant potentate ruling the church.103 The concluding description of the “body” (soma) as “fullness” (plh"rwma pleroma) involves several exegetical difficulties. Is “fullness” in apposition to “body” or to Christ (as in Col 1:19; 2:9)? In Ephesians, “fullness” (pleroma) makes better grammatical sense as a reference to the body. The meaning of the term “fullness” (pleroma) is more problematic. Elaborate discussions of a divine “fullness” as the goal of salvation appear in gnostic writings from the second and third centuries CE. There “fullness” refers to the realm of divine light that is permanently separated from the darkness, chaos, and evil of this world. A primordial fall led to elements of that light being held captive in this world by the rulers of the planetary spheres (often equated with the OT God). Christ, or some other redeemer figure, must break into this world in order to provide the souls that possess light with the means to return to the “fullness.”104 Gnostic texts often suggest that when all the light has been restored the “deficiency”—that is, the lower world—vanishes.105 However, Ephesians shows no evidence of the gnostic dualism.106 Therefore, it is more probable that Ephesians has taken the term from a hymnic tradition like Col 1:19.107 The noun “fullness” (pleroma) can have an active sense (“that which fills”) or a passive sense (“that which is filled”); it can also refer to the activity of filling. In the OT the noun is used in the active sense (Pss 95:11; 23:1; 49:12; Jer 8:6; Ezek 12:19; 19:7; 30:12). Ephesians 1:23 echoes OT descriptions of God or a divine attribute filling all things (Isa 6:3; Jer 23:23-24 LXX; Isa 6:3; Wis 1:7; 7:24). Later in the epistle, both Christ (4:10) and the Spirit (5:18) are agents of filling. Since Eph 4:10 refers to the ascent of Christ above the heavens in order to fill (plhro"w pleroo) the universe, the phrase “fullness of him who fills all in all” probably belongs to the same tradition. Nothing remains outside the Christ who fills all.108 Ephesians does not indicate how the church as Christ's fullness is related to his presence to all things. The ecclesial conclusion of the thanksgiving sounds a motif that will reappear in the letter. Christ's body, the church, experiences the divine life and power of God that fills all things. Readers sometimes assume that the equation between the church and “fullness” (pleroma) is a call to action, that the Christian mission is responsible for filling the world with Christ. Ephesians does not identify the church with the “all things” (pa"nta panta) of the cosmos. Instead, without explaining how the two activities of “filling” are related, this section of Ephesians suggests a special relationship between the church and Christ by using the image of head and body. The opening of the thanksgiving period gave a more conventional picture of the addressees as the community of the elect. They have become known to others as a community that has faith in the Lord Jesus and demonstrates that faith in love. They believe that the risen Lord has been exalted at God's right hand and have experienced God's power in their lives. When the prayer report turns to imagery of the cosmic power of Christ, Ephesians moves beyond the world as structured by human powers and communities to a world that includes the heavens and ranks of angelic (or demonic) powers. Verse 21 insists that Christ has the name greater than any other, not only in the present age but also in the future. Whether involved in magical practices or not, many persons in the first century CE would have agreed that proper knowledge of angelic or magical names <Page 384 Ends><Page 385 Begins> was critical to one's life. Magicians could use the knowledge of such names to enlist the aid of cosmic powers. Angelic powers might be named to facilitate the soul's journey into the heavens either at death or as part of a mystical vision. For the apocalyptic visions of the rise and fall of earthly rulers, the angelic or demonic figures behind the human community were also perceived as a real threat. Consequently, the vision of Christ's exaltation found in Ephesians removes believers from the influence of all other powers. The lists of powers in Colossians and Ephesians aim to embrace all forces that are thought to control humans and events in the cosmos. Since neither angelic nor magical names are used, the claims made for God's effective power in the risen Christ are not wedded to a particular mythological scenario. A modern list of cosmic powers could be substituted for the ancient examples.109 Perhaps the ambiguity over whether the powers are demonic or angelic was also deliberate. Ephesians intends to fold all “powers” in the cosmos into the power of God expressed through the exalted Christ. Christians should not assume that other powers in the cosmos, or in the political order, stand between them and salvation. Nor do other powers contribute positive benefits to human life. The “filling” (pleroo) already exists as a divine reality (v. 23). Christians are not subject to powers that must be overcome, as was the case for those who thought that heavenly powers stood between the soul and salvation in the heavens. If Christians recognize the presence and power of God in all things, they have a secure basis for the hope for the “riches of [God's] glorious inheritance” (v. 18). The theology of election in Ephesians reminds Christians that God is the source of their hope and faith. Hope (ejlpi"v elpis) as a Christian virtue is not a psychological trait but a response to what God is.110 Finally, Ephesians challenges the tendency to define the church from the perspective of its existence as a sociopolitical institution. It stands the earlier Pauline usage of church on its head. The local assemblies to which the earlier letters refer have given place to the cosmic vision of church as a divine reality. The “body” image was used for both sociopolitical entities and for the universe as a whole. Consequently, Ephesians builds on the earlier tradition in order to expand the vision of church from local to cosmic community. Since Ephesians shows no signs of the gnostic dualism between the divine realm and the material world, the “fullness” (pleroma) of the body is not limited to the heavenly realm where Christ is exalted. Ancient thinkers who depicted the divine spirit or wisdom pervading the universe111 presumed that this spirit had a natural affinity with human intellectual and spiritual capacities. Ephesians rejects the view that human knowledge of God is part of creation as such. It is received as divine gift. The shift from cosmological to soteriological imagery highlights another central conviction of this letter: Redemption belonged to the divine plan prior to creation. Unlike gnostic myth, creation is not a hostile trap for light that belongs to the divine world. It is oriented toward salvation that comes in Christ. Knowledge of God comes with the conversion of human understanding through revelation (vv. 17-18).

REFLECTIONS

Reputation or publicity? How do our churches become known for their faith in Jesus and loving service to others? In the ancient secular letter form, the ones sending the letters often indicated that they had heard some good news from or about the recipients and expressed pleasure about learning it. In an age before instant global communication, people could go for weeks or months without news of family, friends, or business associates, and such news was always treasured. Likewise, in the thanksgiving sections of Paul's letters, he also often expresses pleasure about some news he has heard about the recipients, but the news he mentions is <Page 385 Ends><Page 386 Begins> always more than routine events. The news for which Paul gives thanks has to do with the fundamental Christian virtues: faith, love, and hope (1:15, 18). All churches, it could be argued, have some measure of these virtues, but what impresses the author of Ephesians is that this congregation has a word-of-mouth reputation for them. “I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,” Ephesians says in the thanksgiving prayer section. What is the difference between a reputation based on word of mouth and one generated through a publicity blitz? One big difference is the source. We know who is making a recommendation or telling us a bit of news when we hear something by word of mouth. Paul names sources of information about particular churches in some of his letters (e.g., 1 Cor 1:11; 1 Thess 3:6-10). Since Ephesians is a general essay in the Pauline tradition, we do not find specific details, but the opening formula suggests the intimacy of a word-of-mouth report. We are familiar with the fact that “word of mouth” can take what filmmakers consider a small movie to big-time status. Some record companies started paying teens in tickets, posters, and CDs to talk up their favorite stars on the Internet. But for all the marketing research, focus groups, and big-budget advertising, no one has found a way to turn publicity into reputation. How does “the buzz” get going around a particular church? Not by advertising. When people come to our worship, our Bible study, our church school, our church suppers, and all the other things we do, they have to feel that special spirit. And Ephesians reminds us that the source of the energy, power, and spirit at work in the church is ultimately God (1:19-20). Ephesians' thanksgiving prayer tells us something else about the genuinely successful church. The people in such a church have a goal, a destination. And because they know where they are going, they are people of hope. Sometimes people find it difficult to distinguish hope from faith, but Ephesians makes the distinction very easily. Faith is “in the Lord Jesus” (1:15); that is to say, faith is entrusting our lives to Jesus today, in the present tense. Hope is about the future, about where it is that our present trust in Jesus eventually leads. Hope, therefore, requires wisdom, knowledge, or insight into the glorious heavenly inheritance that awaits believers (1:17-18). What is it that we need to know about that destiny? Some Christians think that the way to find out is to study reports about near-death experiences. Scholars have compared these modern reports on brushes with death to medieval accounts of mystical journeys into the heavens.112 Ephesians shows no evidence of “traveling to the other side,” of advocating a spiritual asceticism aimed at gaining visions of the enthroned Christ and his angels.113 Instead, Ephesians relies upon a theological insight grounded in early Christian exegesis of Pss 8:6 and 110:1. The risen Christ is exalted above all the powers in the universe (Eph 1:20-22a). Combining that insight with the Pauline metaphor of the church as the “body of Christ,” originally an image of local churches, produces the striking new image of Eph 1:22b-23: Christ is head of a body that fills the entire cosmos. The main purpose of this image is not to give us a secret peek into the heavenly places but to give us confidence in the power of God, “who fills all in all.” What has that to do with the Christian need to know? Many Christians still think of heaven in spatial terms as a house or a castle or a park area filled with people. They fail to adjust their imagination of heaven (or, to use the odd term favored by the writer of Ephesians, “the heavenlies”) to suit this cosmic picture of God's power and glory. <Page 386 Ends><Page 387 Begins> The danger in thinking of heaven in spatial terms rather than in terms of God's power was brought home to me one day when a woman timidly knocked on my office door. It was several months after her mother's funeral, and the woman, in obvious distress, said that she had to have an answer to a question because one of her siblings was in real despair over it. The problem? Given the billions and billions of people who had died since humans first emerged on earth and were likely to die before the end of the world, she feared that her mother had to be lost in so vast a crowd. Given the enormous number of people jammed into heaven, she could not see how God could restore the bond of love, the relationship between the mother and her children. “No problem,” I assured her. As far back as the Middle Ages this question has been argued. People have wondered how God could get the bits of bodies shattered by martyrdom or accident back together again. It must be by God's creative power, they concluded. Today we have an even easier way to imagine it. Think of that DNA code or the capacity of computers to store, sort, find patterns, and match data. If puny little human brains can figure out ways to do that, God can restore bodies and families. Remember, God is not an object generated by the laws of physics and biology. Neither is the reality of being transformed into God, being with the holy ones in heaven. It is that creative power of God to touch, be embedded in, or linked to every single part of the universe. A few weeks later, I ran into her in the market. “That was so helpful,” she said, “but how did you know it?” “Just theology,” I replied. So even though the metaphors in this section of Ephesians seem strange, both the working of God's power (1:19-20) and the exaltation christology that has the body of Christ “filling all in all” (1:23) have an important message about Christian hope. <Page 386 Ends><Page 387 Begins>

Sample for this week….

John 16:4b-33, “It Is to Your Advantage That I Go Away”

Link to: NIV * NRSV

<Page 768 Ends><Page 769 Begins>

<Page 769 Ends><Page 770 Begins>

COMMENTARY

The final section of the Farewell Discourse begins at 16:4b (see Commentary on 15:18–16:4a for discussion of the reasons for this division). This section returns to the themes with which the Farewell Discourse opened in John 14: Jesus’ departure and its effect on the disciples’ future. The farewell situation governs both 14:1-31 and 16:4b-33. The thematic overlap between chaps. 14 and 16 leads some scholars to suggest that 14:1-31 and 16:4b-33 are duplicate discourses—that is, two versions of the same tradition.535 Yet, as discussed in the Overview to John 14:1–16:33, this solution to the composition of the Farewell Discourse tends to discount the role of repetition as a literary technique throughout the Fourth Gospel. There are undeniable echoes of John 14 in Jesus’ teachings in 16:4b-33 (e.g., John 14:13-14; 16:23-24), but one does not need to resort to a complex redactional theory to explain them. Rather, as in other discourses in the Fourth Gospel, the Farewell Discourse employs a web-like construction. The argument of the discourse often moves forward by moving backward, by returning to what has been said before and restating it in a new context. There are subtle yet important distinctions in the way the farewell theme is handled in John 14 and 16. John 14:1-31 introduces the theme of absence and departure and focuses on words of assurance and consolation. It is as if Jesus is assuring his disciples that the future is possible even though he is leaving them (14:1-4, 18, 27). John 16:4b-33, by contrast, brings Jesus’ farewell instructions to a conclusion and focuses less on assurance and more on the shape of the future itself. In these verses, Jesus is showing his disciples that his departure is necessary so that they can fully embrace the future. He repeatedly points them to the benefits of his departure (16:7, 22-27, 33). John 16:4b-33 can be divided into three parts. The first part, vv. 4b-7a, reintroduces the theme of Jesus’ departure and the disciples’ response to it. This introduction is followed by two sections that show why Jesus’ departure is to the disciples’ advantage: vv. 7b-15, which contain two new teachings about the advent of the Paraclete; and vv. 16-33, which focus on Jesus’ victory over the world in which the disciples will share. 16:4b-7a. Jesus’ reflection on his own words once again marks a transition in the discourse (v. 4b; cf. 14:25; 15:11; 16:2, 4a, 12). “These things” (“all this,” NIV) refers to Jesus’ prediction of the community’s persecution in 15:18–16:4a, but it also applies more generally to all of Jesus’ teachings in the Farewell Discourse, particularly his teaching about his departure. Verses 4b and 5a highlight the contrast between the time of Jesus’ ministry (“from the beginning”; “I was with you,” v. 4b) and the present moment of the hour (“now” [nu'n nun], v. 5a; cf. 12:31; 13:31; 17:13). The arrival of the hour, of Jesus’ death, resurrection, <Page 770 Ends><Page 771 Begins> and ascension, determines what Jesus teaches his disciples (cf. 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). Verses 5b-7a introduce the theme of 16:4b-33: the disciples’ “sorrow” (lu"ph lype) at Jesus’ departure. Although many scholars point to v. 5b as evidence of the compositional problems in the Farewell Discourse,536 Jesus’ complaint here (“none of you asks me . . . ”) does not contradict 13:36 and 14:5, but is primarily a rhetorical device. Jesus is not really concerned with the disciples’ questions about his departure, but refers to their present speechlessness as a way of introducing their “situation of sorrow.”537 As Dodd suggests about v. 5b, Jesus reproaches the disciples, “not because they are not enquiring about his destination, but because in spite of knowing that he is going to the Father they are dismayed about the future.”538 The disciples’ “sorrow” (lype ) at Jesus’ teaching about his departure (note the repetition of “these things” in 16:6) provides the occasion for his words in this final unit of the Farewell Discourse. In 14:1-31 Jesus offers the assurance of his peace to the disciples’ troubled hearts (14:1, 27); in 16:4b-33 he now offers their sorrowful hearts reasons for rejoicing (see 16:20-22).539 Verse 7a confirms this intent. The expression with which this verse begins, “I tell you the truth,” can be read simply as a solemn asseveration, synonymous with the more common expression “very truly I tell you.” Yet the noun “truth” (ajlh"qeia aletheia) may also suggest that Jesus’ promise that his death is to the disciples’ advantage is grounded in the truth of Jesus’ revelation of God (cf. 1:17; 3:33; 8:45-46; 14:6). At 14:28, Jesus urged his disciples to love him enough to see his death as a reason for rejoicing, because through it Jesus completes God’s work. Here he urges the disciples to see the good in it for them as well. 16:7b-15. 16:7b-11. These verses contain the fourth promise of the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse (cf. 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15). The two conditional clauses of v. 7b-c identify Jesus’ departure as the prerequisite for the advent of the Paraclete. At 7:39, the Evangelist explained to the reader that the gift of the Spirit could not occur until after Jesus’ glorification, and v. 7b places that same claim in the words of Jesus himself. The Paraclete’s ministry is to make Jesus and his work present and available for the community in his absence. Since Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension complete his revelation of God (17:1-5), his departure must precede the advent of the Paraclete. Verse 7b thus defines the relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete; the Paraclete’s work cannot be undertaken until Jesus’ work is completed. Verse 7c identifies Jesus as the sole sender of the Paraclete. This identification does not contradict earlier references to the mutual involvement of God and Jesus in the sending of the Paraclete (cf. 14:16, 26; 15:26), but rather is worded this way to highlight the inseparable bond between Jesus’ departure and the advent of the Paraclete. Verses 8-11 paint a vivid picture of the Paraclete’s activity in the world. The picture is clearly one of a trial, in which the Paraclete has the role of prosecuting attorney and the world is the defendant, standing before the believing community. The trial motif has been prevalent throughout the Gospel of John, although prior to this passage, the focus has been on Jesus himself as prosecutor and judge (e.g, 3:19; 8:26; 9:39; cf. 12:47-48). Jesus’ active role as judge of the world will reach its dramatic climax in his trial before Pilate (see Commentary on 18:28–19:16), and 16:8-11 shows how that role will be ceded to the Paraclete after Jesus’ departure. The Paraclete’s share in the judgment of the world is another example of how the Paraclete continues the work of Jesus. It is important to note the distinction between the juridical roles of the Paraclete in 15:26-27 and 16:8-11.540 In 15:26-27, the Paraclete’s role is that of the defense counsel, bearing witness with and for the community in the world’s case against it. This shift in roles confirms the importance of not limiting the translation of Paraclete to one English noun (e.g., “Advocate”; see above at 14:16) and of noting the variety of functions that define the Paraclete’s presence and ministry in the faith community (see Excursus “The Paraclete,” 774-78. <Page 771 Ends><Page 772 Begins> The precise contour of the Paraclete’s role is more difficult to identify than its broad forensic function. The key difficulty is how to translate the central verb phrase in v. 8 (ejle"gxei . . . peri; elegxei . . .peri). The verb ejle"gcw (elegcho) can be translated either as “expose” (as at 3:20) or “convict” (as at 8:46). The NRSV (“prove the world wrong about”) and the NIV (“convict the world of guilt in regard to”) both adopt the basic meaning of “convict,” although they must paraphrase this verse in order to communicate that meaning (neither the word “wrong” nor “guilt” appears in the Greek). “Expose” seems a better translation, however, because it has the same double meaning as the Greek verb: both “bring to light” and “hold up to reprobation.”541 To say that the Paraclete will expose the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment means that the Paraclete will bring out into the open the true meaning of sin, righteousness, and judgment and hold the world accountable to those standards. As in 15:18-25, “world” is not a neutral term, but means “that which is opposed to God in Jesus.” The Paraclete’s exposure of the world is narrated in a strict symmetrical pattern in vv. 9-11; each verse opens with the key noun, followed by a hoti clause (“that” or “because”) that simultaneously “exposes” the meaning of the noun and the world’s relation to it. In each instance, the exposure has a christological core. Sin, righteousness, and judgment thus are not abstract concepts, but derive their meaning from the life and death of Jesus. Verse 9 provides the Gospel’s most straightforward statement of the Johannine understanding of “sin” (aJmarti"a hamartia). As has been noted already (see Reflections on John 9), for the Fourth Gospel, sin is a theological, not a moral, category. The world’s sin is not to believe in Jesus—that is, not to believe that Jesus is the incarnate Logos of God (cf. 8:24; 15:22-24). The present tense verb in the expression “they do not believe” (ouj pisteu"ousin ou pisteuousin) shows that the Fourth Evangelist’s primary concern is with the world’s ongoing rejection of the revelation of God in Jesus, not simply with one particular rejection of Jesus by the Jewish power structure. The noun “righteousness” (dikaiosu"nh dikaiosyne) occurs only in this passage in the Fourth Gospel (16:8, 10). The juridical context of vv. 8-11 suggests that it is used in the legal sense of what is right and just, as in the use of the adjective “righteous” (di"kaiov dikaios) to modify “judgment” at 5:30 and 7:24. In the context of the world’s trial by the Paraclete, then, righteousness should be read as synonymous with “vindication,” and not as referring to the believer’s justification by faith, an interpretation overly influenced by the Pauline use of the term (e.g., Rom 4:25).542 Righteousness is exposed in two ways (v. 10). First, Jesus’ death is not defeat, as the world assumes. Rather, his death shows forth the righteousness (“rightness”) of God, because in death Jesus goes to God and completes his work. This will be confirmed in Jesus’ address of God as “righteous [dikaios] Father” at 17:25. Second, the disciples no longer see Jesus. This expression here does not refer to the contingency of the revelation (as, for example, 7:33-34; 8:21; 13:31). Nor is it related to Jesus’ abiding presence with his disciples, and therefore is not followed by a promise that the disciples will see him again (14:19; 16:16-19). Rather, Jesus’ absence is offered as corroboration of his departure and hence the seal of his vindication. The trial motif governs the interpretation of v. 11 as well. This verse brings to prominence the cosmic and eschatological dimensions of the world’s trial; the ultimate judgment is the judgment of “the ruler of the world” (see also 12:31; 14:30). The verb “judge” (ke"kritai kekritai; “condemn,” NRSV, NIV) is in the perfect tense. The NIV captures the meaning of the Greek perfect tense well: The ruler of the world was judged in the past (at Jesus’ hour), and that judgment continues into the present. In Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, the ruler of the world, the devil, the embodiment of all that is opposed to God, is defeated and God is victorious. The life and death of Jesus are ultimately about the governance of the world. It is important to read v. 11 in the light of v. 8, which says that the Paraclete “will expose the world concerning . . . judgment.” The future tense, like the perfect tense of “to judge,” shows that the Paraclete continues God’s eschatological judgment beyond the time of <Page 772 Ends><Page 773 Begins> Jesus’ life and death into the life of the faith community. The world is continually judged by God’s work in Jesus. 16:12-15. The focus shifts from the role of the Paraclete in the world to the functions of the Paraclete within the faith community (cf. 14:16-17, 26). Verse 12 sets the context for the fifth and final Paraclete teaching in the Farewell Discourse (vv. 13-15). Jesus confronts the disciples with the constraints that time imposes on his teaching to them and points them toward their own futures. The verb “to bear” (basta"zw bastazo) is normally used to refer to the physical act of supporting or bearing a heavy load (e.g., Matt 3:11; 20:12; Mark 14:13; Luke 7:14; Acts 3:2; Rom 11:18). Here it is used metaphorically to point to the burden of the disciples’ future. The future will test them in ways that they cannot now anticipate; Jesus, therefore, can teach the disciples nothing more about the future in the present moment. Bultmann moves to the heart of Jesus’ words here when he writes, “The believer can only measure the significance and claims of what he has to undergo when he actually meets it. He anticipates the future in faith, not foreknowledge.”543 This does not mean, however, that Jesus’ teachings have come to an end for the disciples nor that they will have to face the future without the supporting words of Jesus. Jesus’ words about the Paraclete in vv. 13-15 show the disciples how, even in his absence, their futures fall within his providence. The functions of the Paraclete spelled out in these verses will ensure that the disciples do not face the future alone (cf. 14:18), unequipped with the necessary words of Jesus. The Paraclete will carry Jesus’ teachings into the future. As at 14:17 and 15:26, the title “Spirit of Truth” (v. 13) underscores the reliability of the Paraclete and points to his link with Jesus, who is the truth (14:6). Verse 13 describes two interrelated functions of the Spirit of Truth in the future life of the community. First, “he will guide you into all the truth” (v. 13a). The verb “to guide” (oJdhge"w hodegeo) occurs only here in John and is a compound verb from the roots “way” (oJdo"v hodos) and “lead” (a[gw ago), thus literally “lead in the way.” This verb is used in the Psalms (LXX) to point to the instructional role of God (cf. Pss 25:5, 9; 85:10) in leading the community into right and faithful behavior. In Wis 9:11 and 10:10, it is used to describe the teaching function of Wisdom. This verb thus points to the teaching role the Paraclete will have in the future life of the faith community. Its combination with “truth” is a direct echo of 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and thus specifies the content of the Paraclete’s teaching. To say that the Paraclete will guide the disciples into all the truth is to say that in the future the Paraclete will lead the community into the life-giving revelation of God in Jesus. Verse 13b offers the warrants for the Paraclete’s guidance (“for”): The Paraclete will not be an independent witness to the truth, but speaks what he will hear. The textual witnesses are divided over whether “hear” (ajkou"w akouo) is in the present or future tense. The future tense fits the context best, because Jesus is describing the future activity of the Paraclete. The future tense is the reading preferred by the Nestle-Aland2 edition of the Greek text, although the NIV and the NRSV both opt for the present tense variant. This description of the Paraclete echoes earlier descriptions of Jesus (7:16-17; 8:26, 40; 12:49-50), in which Jesus is described as speaking what he hears from God, and is thus another example of the continuity between Jesus and the Paraclete. Second, the Paraclete “will declare to you the things that are to come” (v. 13c). The verb “to declare” (ajnagge"llw anangello) means to proclaim what has been heard (cf. 4:25; 16:25)544 and as such builds on the claim of v. 13b. It is not a verb of prophecy or prediction, and thus does not describe the Paraclete as one who foretells the future. Rather, it highlights the proclamatory function of the Paraclete within the community. “The things that are to come” may refer specifically to the events of Jesus’ hour (which the Paraclete will help to interpret to the community; cf. 2:22; 12:16), but it also refers to the community’s future, to the events for which Jesus cannot prepare them now (v. 12). The Paraclete thus will proclaim the teachings of Jesus to them in the new and changing circumstances of their lives. That is, Jesus’ words are not locked <Page 773 Ends><Page 774 Begins> in the disciples’ past, restricted to a particular historic moment. Nor does Jesus’ death rob future believers of the chance to receive the word of Jesus in the changing circumstances of their lives. The promise of v. 13c is that the presence of the Paraclete in the life of the community will ensure that all believers’ futures are open to fresh proclamations of Jesus’ words. The repetition of the expression “he will take what is mine” in vv. 14-15 supports the definition of anangello as “to declare what has been heard.” These verses offer supplementary definitions of what it means to speak of the Paraclete as the one who will declare what he has heard. First, in v. 14, Jesus describes the Paraclete’s declaration to the community of “what is mine” as an act of glorification. Jesus’ words and actions glorified God, made visible the identity of God (1:14, 18; 17:4-6), and the Paraclete’s proclamation will do the same for Jesus. This description again underscores continuity between Jesus’ ministry and the Paraclete’s ministry. Second, in v. 15 Jesus returns to one of the central affirmations of his ministry (“All that the Father has is mine”; cf. 5:19-20) in order to underscore the grounding of the Paraclete’s ministry. For the Paraclete to take what is Jesus’ is for the Paraclete to participate in the fullness of Jesus’ revelation of God and then to declare that fullness to succeeding generations of disciples.

v v v v v v v v v v

EXCURSUS: THE PARACLETE

The Farewell Discourse places a rich portrait of the Paraclete before the Gospel reader. As the Commentary on the five Paraclete passages has shown (14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-15), the Paraclete is intimately tied to Jesus’ preparation of his disciples for their life after his return to God. In none of the other Gospels does the Spirit play such a central role in the teaching of Jesus. Furthermore, by speaking of the Spirit as the Paraclete, the Fourth Evangelist seems to be attempting to free his portrait from early Christian preconceptions of the nature of the Spirit in order to get a fresh hearing for the role the Spirit plays in the life of the believing community. For example, John does not identify the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community with specific spiritual gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12:1-11, 27-28; 14:1-33; Acts 2:4). The Gospel does not portray the Spirit as actively directing the activities of the believing community (cf. Acts 8:29, 39; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2, 4), nor does it point to the role of the Spirit in baptism (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16-17; 10:44-48). The portrait of the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse is thus one of the most substantive and distinctive theological contributions of this Gospel, and it warrants the interpreter’s careful reflection. The Commentary has discussed the details of the Johannine portrait of the Paraclete. Two aspects of that portrait can be singled out as the basis for theological reflection on the Paraclete: the Paraclete as the continuing presence of Jesus in the post-resurrection community and the Paraclete as teacher and witness.

THE PARACLETE AS THE PRESENCE OF JESUS

It is impossible to overstate the crisis that the believing community faced as a result of Jesus’ death. The shape and scope of this crisis can be illustrated by looking at the conversation between Jesus and Peter at 6:67-68. At 6:67, Jesus asked the Twelve whether they, too, wanted to leave him because of the difficulty of his teachings. In response, Peter replied, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life” (6:68). Peter, speaking for the disciples, recognized the life-giving power of Jesus’ revelation. At Jesus’ death, the disciples face the inversion of the situation proposed at 6:67: Jesus is leaving them, and Peter’s question becomes even more poignant, “Lord, to whom can we go?” Is Jesus’ death the end of his “words of eternal life”? <Page 774 Ends><Page 775 Begins>

Figure 12: Paraclete Passages in the Gospel of John*

14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

15:26 “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

16:7-11 “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment; in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.”

16:12-15 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”

It is important to be clear about the theological dimension of this crisis. In John, Jesus’ revelation of God hinges on the recognition that Jesus is the incarnate Logos, the Son of God. Jesus’ revelation of God is not a general, abstract revelation of the character of God. The essence of God cannot be abstracted from the incarnation and represented as some general notion of the “divine.” Rather, the reality of the incarnation is the essence of Jesus’ revelation of God. It is in the Word become flesh, in God’s gift of his Son, that believers come to know who God is. That is, the incarnation has brought believers into new relationship with God and has opened up the possibility of their becoming children of God (1:12-13). Jesus’ death and departure thus presented the disciples, and the church, with a crisis far greater than simply the loss of their teacher and friend. Jesus’ death and return to God marked the end of the incarnation. If the revelation of God is lodged in the incarnation, what happens when Jesus is gone? Was Jesus’ revelation of God possible for only the first generation of believers, available only to those who had physical contact with Jesus and his ministry? Was Jesus’ revelation of God thus limited to one particular moment in history, or does it have a future? <Page 775 Ends><Page 776 Begins> It is the theological genius of the Fourth Evangelist to present the Paraclete as the solution to this crisis. Throughout Jesus’ words about the Paraclete, the emphasis repeatedly falls on the Paraclete as the one who will continue Jesus’ work after his absence, as the one who will make it possible for the experience of God made known and available in the incarnation to be known after Jesus’ death. The Commentary on the Paraclete passages repeatedly noted the ways in which the description of the Paraclete echoed the Gospel’s description of Jesus. For example, the verbs “to witness” and “to abide,” both identified in the Gospel with the life and ministry of Jesus, are associated with the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse (“witness” [marture"w martyreo], e.g., 3:32; 8:13-18; 15:26-27; “abide” [me"nw meno], e.g., 14:17, 25; 15:4). The Paraclete is explicitly described as speaking the words of Jesus and reminding the disciples of Jesus’ teaching (14:26; 15:13-15). The Paraclete’s origins are explicitly linked to the agency of God and Jesus, and the Paraclete is described as being sent by God and given by God (14:16, 26), verbs that are also used to describe Jesus’ advent into the world (e.g., 3:16; 4:34; 6:38; 12:44-45). The very language of these promises thus establishes the connections between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of the Paraclete. The Paraclete is positioned as the link between the historical ministry of Jesus and the future life of the church after Jesus’ death. Through the promise of the Paraclete, the Fourth Evangelist is able to portray Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension not as the end, but as the beginning of a new era in the life of the believing community. Indeed, in 16:7-8, Jesus goes so far as to speak of his departure as being for the disciples’ good, so that they will be able to share in the advent of the Paraclete. Future generations of believers are not left alone, bereft of the experience of God made known in the incarnation, because the Paraclete takes that experience of God and extends it beyond the limits of Jesus’ life and death. The Paraclete makes it possible for all believers to share in the good news of the incarnation, because the Paraclete makes Jesus present to believers, even though Jesus is now physically absent. The promise of the abiding presence of the Paraclete highlights the interconnection of all aspects of the Johannine theological vision. In addition to clarifying the Johannine understanding of the Spirit (its pneumatology), the Paraclete passages also contribute to the Fourth Evangelist’s portrait of Jesus and point to the writer’s understanding of the nature of Christian community. As the Farewell Discourse is at pains to make clear, Jesus’ death will not leave the disciples orphaned, because Jesus and God will send the Paraclete to the believing community. Jesus will leave the world, but the disciples will not (17:11, 15), and the promise of the Paraclete shows Jesus as one who will continue to support his followers for perpetuity. The promise of the Paraclete thus stands as a testament to the reliability of Jesus and his love, because Jesus has not ignored the future of those who will live on after he leaves them. It is a stunning portrait of Jesus that has at its heart a conviction about the abiding presence of Jesus with those whom he loves and who love him. Jesus is, indeed, the good shepherd who loves and cares for his own both in his death (10:17-18; 13:1, 35; 15:12-13) and beyond. The promise of the Paraclete thus provides the ultimate definition of what Jesus means when he says, “Abide in me as I abide in you” (15:4). The presence of the Paraclete means that there are no temporal or spatial limits on Jesus’ love and on believers’ access to that love. The love of God made known in the incarnation continues into the life of the community through the gift of the Paraclete. What is critical about the promise of the Paraclete is that Jesus and God send the Paraclete to the community, not to individuals. Readings of the Fourth Gospel that emphasize the individual believer’s mystical relationship to Jesus through the Spirit distort the Johannine picture of the Paraclete. The Paraclete is not a private possession, nor is its presence discernible as an internal experience of the individual believer. The Paraclete is given to and known in the community. Because the Paraclete is the presence of Jesus after Jesus’ departure, it is not simply a subjective experience of “God,” but is always linked to the revelation of God made known in the incarnation. The Paraclete keeps the community <Page 776 Ends><Page 777 Begins> grounded in Jesus’ revelation of God, not in an individual’s private experience of God. The Paraclete is thus the unifying mark of Christian community, because it gives all believers access to Jesus.

THE PARACLETE AS TEACHER AND WITNESS

Jesus’ teachings in the Farewell Discourse consistently depict the Paraclete as teacher and witness, and this depiction illuminates the role of the Paraclete in forming and shaping Christian community. Two passages are especially important in this regard. First, at 14:26, Jesus says that the Paraclete will “remind you of all that I have said to you.” As noted in the Commentary, this verse points both to the connection between what Jesus said and what the Paraclete will say (see also 16:14) and to the nature of the Paraclete’s teaching role. For the Paraclete, to teach is to remind the community of what Jesus himself said. Second, at John 16:12-13, Jesus says, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” In these verses, as the Commentary suggested, Jesus points to the importance of fresh encounters with the words of Jesus, given at the time of need, not in advance of that time, and identifies the Paraclete as the medium of those encounters. These descriptions of the Paraclete are pivotal for contemporary Christian communities of faith, because they point to the ways in which the Paraclete enables past, present, and future to converge in the life of the church. The Paraclete enables the words of Jesus to resound afresh in ever-changing circumstances. On the one hand, the Paraclete’s role is essentially conserving. That is, the Paraclete enables the Christian community, at any time in its life, to reach back to the teachings of Jesus and “remember,” to bring Jesus’ teachings to life afresh with new understanding (see Reflections on 12:12-18). On the other hand, the Paraclete’s role as teacher is also creative. The Paraclete enables the word of Jesus to move forward from its moment in history to the present life of the church. The Paraclete gives new meanings to the teachings of Jesus as the changing circumstances of faith communities and the world demand. The words of Jesus that community members are able to receive before a crisis are quite distinct from the words that the community is able to receive during or after a crisis. For example, if someone tried to tell an adolescent what he or she would need to hear from Jesus to endure what life will bring at thirty, fifty, or seventy years of age, the adolescent would not be able to “bear” them. The words of Jesus that a community will need to endure the destruction of a church building by fire would also be insupportable in advance of the event. The words of Jesus that the community needs to hear to make sense of the church’s place in changing social and economic circumstances are likewise unbearable in advance, because there is no context for such words in advance of the situation of need. The Fourth Evangelist portrays the Paraclete as the guarantee that the words of Jesus will always be available as fresh words for any and all futures. The Paraclete thus ensures that there is an ongoing communication between Jesus and contemporary communities of faith. As with the Gospel’s emphasis on the abiding presence of the Paraclete, this interpretation of the Paraclete’s role as teacher and witness is also a stroke of theological genius. This understanding of the Paraclete as teacher both honors the integrity of the historical ministry of Jesus and at the same time recognizes that Jesus’ ministry must always be interpreted in order to keep its offer of God alive. The Paraclete’s teaching, witness, and interpretation can take many forms in the life of the faith community. The first place where the reader of the Fourth Gospel experiences the work of the Paraclete is in the Gospel narrative itself. In telling his story of Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist shares in the work of the Paraclete. He does indeed “remind” his readers <Page 777 Ends><Page 778 Begins> of what Jesus said and did, thus carrying the teachings of Jesus forward from the past into the present. But in his reminding, he also places the story of Jesus into conversation with the circumstances in which his readers live, so that they are able to hear Jesus’ words as if he were speaking to their own lives and needs. The two levels of many of the Gospel’s narratives, in which Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish authorities of his day melds with the Jewish controversies of the Evangelist’s time (e.g., John 5:31-46; 7:11-13; 9:22-41), can be interpreted as the work of the Paraclete, to show that Jesus’ story is both a past event and a contemporary story.545 The Fourth Evangelist understands, perhaps better than any other evangelist, that story and interpretation, history and theology, are inseparably linked in the life of Jesus and the church and that is incumbent upon the faith community to engage in disciplined conversation between the story of Jesus and their own stories. The contemporary Christian also experiences the Paraclete in the preaching of the church. Each time a preacher attempts to proclaim the Word of God in a new circumstance, he or she shares in the work of the Paraclete. At its heart, preaching belongs to the ongoing conversation among past, present, and future in the life of the church. Like the work of the Paraclete, preaching is both conserving and creative. It is at the same time both old and new, past tense and contemporary. The preacher is bound both to the traditions of the church, so that his or her work is an act of reminding, and to the present moment, so that his or her work is also an act of discovering how the Word of God speaks in a new day. The gift and presence of the Paraclete allows both the preacher and the congregation to share in a fresh experience of the Word of God.

v v v v v v v v v v

16:16-33. As noted in the Commentary above, John 16:7b-33 provides two responses to the disciples’ sorrow at Jesus’ impending departure (vv. 7b-15 and vv. 16-33). Jesus’ words in v. 16 provide the transition between these two responses, because they turn the focus from the Paraclete back to Jesus’ departure per se, the theme with which he began in vv. 5-7a. 16:16. Jesus has used the expression “a little while” (mikro"n mikron) to speak of the imminence of his departure and hence the limited time of his presence (7:33; 13:33; cf. 12:35). Against this background, it is clear that the adverb mikron in v. 16a refers to the time leading up to Jesus’ death. With the second mikron in v. 16b, however, Jesus points beyond his death to the disciples’ future experience of Jesus (“you will see me again”). In the context of the Farewell Discourse, this second “a little while” seems to refer to the time between Jesus’ death and his resurrection appearances. In the OT, the expression “a little while” is often used to refer to the interval of intense eschatological expectation and to evoke the imminence of God’s new age (e.g, Isa 10:25; 26:20; 29:17). The prominence of OT imagery, particularly from Isaiah, in 16:21 (see below) supports reading Jesus’ words in v. 16b against that background. Some interpreters (e.g., Augustine), therefore, find a reference to the resurrection too limiting and instead see mikron as referring to the time before the parousia, Jesus’ Second Coming.546 These interpreters rightly emphasize the eschatological dimension of Jesus’ promise here, but misread the Johannine understanding of the resurrection. For John, the hour—Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension—is the eschatological event, marking the beginning of God’s new age, and as such the significance of the resurrection appearances extends beyond the experiences of his first disciples on Easter day (see below on 16:22 and 20:1-29).547 16:17-18. The disciples’ confused questioning <Page 778 Ends><Page 779 Begins> underscores the ambiguity of Jesus’ words in v. 16. These verses are the first time the disciples have spoken since 14:22, although at this juncture they speak only among themselves (v. 17) and do not address their words directly to Jesus (cf. v. 19). Their questions to one another link the two parts of the discourse in John 16, because not only do they repeat the immediately preceding words of Jesus from v. 16, but they also repeat his words of v. 10 (“because I am going to the Father”; cf. the similar function of the disciples’ questions to one another at 4:27). Their questions show that they have recognized that Jesus is speaking to them about his departure, but that the meaning of that departure still remains beyond their grasp. Their continual repetition of Jesus’ words sounds almost like stammering (note the NIV’s correct translation of the Greek imperfect at v. 18, “they kept asking”). The language of vv. 17-18 conveys the disciples’ inarticulateness in the face of Jesus’ departure and thereby confirms Jesus’ words of vv. 5b-6: the disciples’ sorrow at Jesus’ departure seems to have rendered them speechless. 16:19. Jesus’ knowledge of the disciples’ questions points again to his ability to know “what was in everyone” (2:25; cf. 1:47-48; 6:15, 61; 13:11). As is typical of the teaching of Jesus throughout this Gospel, Jesus does not answer their questions directly, but instead moves their questions in a new direction (cf. 3:2-9; 4:12-14). The expression “very truly, I tell you” with which v. 20 begins is used once again to introduce a new teaching (cf., e.g., 3:3, 5; 5:24-25; 8:34). The teaching that follows in vv. 20-24 addresses the disciples’ sorrow (lu"ph lype; “pain,” NRSV; “grief,” NIV) and its resolution. 16:20. Verse 20a depicts the contrasting effect of Jesus’ death on his disciples and the world (cf. 15:18–16:4a). The verbs “to weep” (klai"w klaio) and “to mourn” (qrhne"w threneo) describe the lamentation and grieving at a death (John 11:31, 33; 20:11; Luke 7:13; 7:32; 8:52; 23:27; see also Jer 22:10). The contrast between mourning and rejoicing in v. 20 recalls the contrast in the blessing and woe of Luke 6:21 and 25 between the disciples of Jesus and their adversaries. Jesus immediately promises the transformation of the disciples’ sorrow into joy in v. 20b, but will not address its counterpart, the transformation of the world’s joy into its opposite, until the final words of the discourse (16:33).548 16:21. Jesus employs a short parable to illustrate the relationship between present sorrow and future joy in the disciples’ experience. In John’s Gospel, Jesus often draws on proverbs or short parables to illustrate his claims (e.g., 4:37-38; 5:19-20; 8:35; 10:1-5; 12:24).549 Dodd offers an excellent analysis of the form of this parable, noting the formal balance of its composition: two parts that each have the same pattern, “when A occurs, B occurs, because C has occurred.”550 In v. 21a, the interrelated elements are labor, pain, and the time of delivery; in v. 21b, the mother’s delivery of the child shifts the balance between pain and joy. This parable, which draws on a common life experience, thus serves as an apt illustration of Jesus’ teaching about sorrow and joy. Yet this parable is much more than a general illustration. Its imagery, while reflective of ordinary experience, draws on a wealth of OT imagery in which the metaphor of childbirth is used to describe the advent of God’s salvation. Of particular relevance are two texts from Isaiah. Isaiah 26:17 employs the childbirth metaphor to describe the experience of God’s people as they await God’s deliverance. (As noted above, an echo of Isa 26:20 can be heard in Jesus’ words in v. 16.) In Isa 66:7-17, the metaphor of childbirth is used to envision the restoration of Jerusalem. Both of these texts use the childbirth metaphor as a communal metaphor; it evokes the experience of the people of God as they move from suffering to renewed joy. The language of v. 21 has other theological resonances. First, the Greek word translated “pain” (lype) is an unusual word to describe a woman’s pain at childbirth, since it is normally a word for emotional, not physical, pain. Its use here is probably to call the disciples’ (and the reader’s) immediate attention to the connections Jesus is establishing between the conventional parable and the particularities of the disciples’ situation at Jesus’ departure. Second, Jesus speaks of the woman’s time of delivery as “her hour.” This use of “hour” evokes both Jesus’ own hour <Page 779 Ends><Page 780 Begins> (2:4; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1) and the anticipated eschatological hour (4:21, 23; 5:25, 28). Third, the noun qli'yiv (thlipsis, “anguish”) is used to describe the woman’s ordeal in labor. This noun, normally translated “tribulation,” is usually used in apocalyptic contexts to describe the suffering and persecution the community will endure in advance of the inbreaking of God’s kingdom (e.g., Matt 24:9, 21, 29; Mark 13:19, 24; Acts 14:22; Rom 8:35). In this parable, then, Jesus draws on OT childbirth imagery to communicate the eschatological transformation that will occur within the faith community as a result of his death. The disciples will become a new people, a people of joy. Images of birth are important metaphors in the Fourth Gospel to describe the new life that Jesus makes available to those who believe (1:12-13; 3:3-10; cf. “little children” at 13:33). The imagery of childbirth is especially significant in the context of the Farewell Discourse, because it is, indeed, new birth for the disciples that will be effected through Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Commentary on 20:17). It is a distortion of the parable to interpret its symbolism as depicting the birth of the Messiah, along the analogy of Rev 12:2-5, because such a view misreads the essential communal referent of the metaphor.551 As in the Isaiah texts, the woman stands as a symbol for the community, suffering through tribulation in order to receive God’s awaited salvation and new life. 16:22. Jesus makes the direct comparison between the parable and the disciples’ sorrow (“so you have sorrow now”). He identifies his reappearance to them as the act that will transform their sorrow to joy. Jesus’ words seem to be a promise of his resurrection appearances, and, indeed, in John 20 Jesus’ appearance will cause Mary to cease weeping (20:16) and cause the other disciples to rejoice (20:20). The Easter stories thus show the reliability of Jesus’ farewell promise and the truth of his words. Jesus’ promise in v. 22 is the perfect complement to v. 6 (cf. the relationship between 14:1 and 27), and at the same time seems to contain a deliberate allusion to Isa 66:14 (“You shall see, and your heart shall rejoice” [NRSV]). The wording of the promise in v. 22 (“I will see you again”) highlights Jesus’initiative toward the disciples in the resurrection (cf. the wording of 16:16). Verse 22 ends with a statement of the permanence of the disciples’ joy. Like the birth of the child in the parable, Jesus’ resurrection will irreversibly change the course of the disciples’ lives. 16:23-24. As at 14:20, “on that day” (v. 23a) underscores the connection between Jesus’ resurrection and the time of eschatological fulfillment. Because of Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples have entered into eschatological joy. The sign of this eschatological joy will be their lack of questions (v. 23a). The precise meaning of Jesus’ promise here depends on how one interprets the Greek verb ejrwta"w (erotao). The NRSV gives it the meaning of “petition” (“ask nothing of me”). According to this reading, vv. 23-24 form one teaching about the believers’ petitions. This reading seems unlikely, however, since the expression “very truly, I tell you” with which v. 23b begins always introduces a new teaching in John and so marks a shift in Jesus’ teaching. The more common meaning of erotao is “to ask questions,” and this is the meaning accepted by the NIV and most scholars (see also the NRSV footnote).552 “On that day” the confused, anxious, and stammering questions that have marked the disciples’ relationship to Jesus during his ministry (e.g, 6:9; 11:8; 13:6, 25, 36) and especially during the Farewell Discourse (14:5, 22; 16:17-18) will cease. As Bultmann has eloquently stated, this is “the eschatological situation: to have no more questions! . . . This is to say that the believers live in joy; because it is the nature of joy that all questioning grows silent, and nothing needs explaining.”553 In vv. 23b-24, Jesus describes a second characteristic of eschatological joy: answered prayer (cf. 14:13-14; 15:7, 16). Answered prayer is a sign of eschatological joy because it is a sign that the disciples share fully in Jesus’ relationship with God. The manuscript evidence is divided over whether the phrase “in Jesus’ name” should be linked with the disciples’ asking (the reading followed <Page 780 Ends><Page 781 Begins> by the NIV and the NRSV) or God’s response (NRSV footnote). Both readings emphasize the interrelationship of God, Jesus, and the community in prayer. As a sign of God’s new age, the disciples can pray, like Jesus, in the full confidence that God hears their prayers. This confidence in prayer will be enacted for the disciples in Jesus’ prayer of 17:1-16. 16:25-33. 16:25. The final section of the Farewell Discourse is introduced by the transitional expression “I have said these things to you” (v. 25a; see also 14:25; 15:11; 16:4). The Greek noun translated “figures of speech” by the NRSV (paroimi"ai paroimiai) can refer to a range of literary forms, including parable, proverb, and riddle (see Commentary on 10:6). Its use in the plural in v. 25a (as opposed to the singular at 10:6; 16:29) suggests that it is being used adverbially(note the NIV’s “figuratively”)—that is, it describes a general mode of speaking rather than a specific literary form.554 “These things,” therefore, should not be read as referring simply to the parable of 16:21, but to all of Jesus’ teaching in the Farewell Discourse.555 On the surface level, the contrast to which Jesus points in v. 25b is clear. In the Fourth Gospel, “plainly” (parrhsi"a parresia) is used to characterize the public cast of Jesus’ ministry (e.g., 7:26; 18:20), but it is also used to describe direct speech (10:24-25; 11:14). Jesus thus accentuates the difference between the present, when he speaks in “figures of speech” (paroimiais), and the future, when he will speak “plainly” (parresia). But the real emphasis of this verse is not on Jesus’ mode of speaking per se, but on the changes that will be accomplished by “the hour.” The expression “the hour is coming” (cf. 4:21; 5:28) makes clear that the eschatological vision that shapes Jesus’ words in vv. 19-24 continues in vv. 25-28. In vv. 23-24, Jesus gave two promises of the disciples’ participation in eschatological joy: the end of their need to ask questions (v. 23a) and their answered prayer (vv. 23b-24). In vv. 25-28, Jesus moves those eschatological promises to their conclusion. Verse 25 complements v. 23a, vv. 26-27 complement vv. 23b-24, and v. 28 states the grounds of all of Jesus’ eschatological promises. Jesus’ promise in v. 25 is not a general promise about direct speech, but is a very particular promise about his revelation of the Father. Jesus’ hour—his death, resurrection, and ascension—completes his revelation of God and as such marks a decisive change in the believer’s access to God. “The hour is coming” when Jesus’ revelation of God will be “plain” because “the hour is coming” when Jesus will return to God (13:1). What has been anticipated during Jesus’ life will be fully available as a result of his hour. Jesus’ promise in v. 25b thus confirms his promise in v. 23b : the disciples will not need to ask questions because Jesus’ revelation will be “plain.” Jesus’ promise in v. 25b must also be read alongside his promises of the Paraclete in 14:25 and 16:12-15. The verb “I will tell” (ajpagge"llw apangello) in 16:25 echoes the verb used to describe the future work of the Paraclete in 16:13-15: “he will declare” (ajnagge"llw anangello).556 The Paraclete will give the disciples access to Jesus’ full revelation of God after Jesus’ return to God (cf. 16:7). 16:26-27. The eschatological dimension of Jesus’ promises is reinforced by the opening words of v. 26, “on that day” (cf. 14:20; 16:23). Verses 26-27 place the eschatological promise of answered prayer (cf. vv. 23b-24) in the context of God’s love for those who love Jesus. The disciples’ prayer is grounded in their relationship with Jesus (“you will ask in my name,” v. 26a), and Jesus’ disclaimer of his own role in their petitioning confirms the strength of this relationship. Jesus is not renouncing his role as petitioning mediator with God in v. 26b, as his prayer in John 17 shows (cf. 14:16). Rather, his words here accentuate the authenticity of the disciples’ own relationship with God and the claim that relationship has on God. Verse 27 specifies the character of this relationship: love. The vision of a community shaped by love, intimacy, and mutuality that formed the core of Jesus’ teaching in 15:1-17 receives its fullest expression here by explicitly naming God as a member of that community. Just as Jesus and the disciples are friends, “loved ones” (fi"loi philoi, 15:13-15), so also God and the disciples are friends, <Page 781 Ends><Page 782 Begins> united by love.557 The disciples’ love of Jesus is not a prerequisite for God’s love of them, however. Rather, v. 27 points to the organic connection between the believers’ love of Jesus and God’s love of them, a connection that mirrors the organic connection between Jesus and his followers (14:20-24; 15:10). Both verbs in v. 27 (“have loved” [pefilh"kate pephilekate] and “have believed” [pepisteu"kate pepisteukate]) are in the perfect tense, pointing to the duration through time of the disciples’ love and faith. Verse 27 is the ultimate eschatological vision of union with God. 16:28. This verse is a summary of the Johannine Gospel. It returns to the theme first hinted at in 1:51 (“angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man”) and first stated fully at 3:13 (“No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”). Both halves of v. 28 are essential to the Fourth Evangelist’s theology. Verse 28a, which emphasizes Jesus’ origins with and from God, is the key to the Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of the incarnation and Jesus’ revelation of God. Verse 28b, which emphasizes Jesus’ return to God, is the key to the Fourth Evangelist’s ecclesial and eschatological vision, because Jesus’ return completes his revelation of God, makes possible the gift of the Paraclete, and so opens up the community to the possibility of a new relationship with God and with one another. In the context of the Farewell Discourse, this summary serves to remind the disciples and the readers that it is not enough to focus on Jesus’ origins with God. Jesus’ descent must be complemented by his ascent; his story is incomplete without his death and departure. Verse 28 thus brings the discourse of John 16 back to its beginnings in vv. 5-7; Jesus’ departure is indeed to the disciples’ advantage.558 16:29-30. In contrast to the questions that have previously characterized their contributions to the farewell conversation (e.g., 14:5, 22), the disciples respond to Jesus with boldness and certainty in these verses. Their confidence is readily apparent in the NRSV translation of the opening exclamation of v. 29: “Yes, now you are speaking plainly.” The disciples repeat Jesus’ words from v. 25 almost verbatim, thus offering a seemingly appro-priate response, but the few differences between their words and Jesus’ original words are telling and offer another example of Johannine irony.559 First, as noted already, paroimia is used in the plural in v. 25 (“figures of speech”). The disciples, however, respond to Jesus’ words as if only one figure of speech is in view. The disciples’ confident response to Jesus’ words, then, misinterprets the words’ central premise. By using “figure” in the singular, the disciples seem to assume that the contrast of which Jesus speaks is between the parable of v. 20 and the “plain” words of vv. 25-28. Second, and much more significant, the disciples completely overlook the eschatological dimension of Jesus’ words. Jesus pointed to a time in the future when he would speak plainly, a time after his departure, but the disciples respond as if the present moment is already the time of Jesus’ plain speaking. They misconstrue the meaning of “figures,” because of their exclusive focus on their present conversation with Jesus. The irony of the disciples’ response becomes even clearer in v. 30, which opens with a hyperbolic statement of confidence (“Now we know that you know all things”) and ends with a confession of faith (“by this we believe”). The irony of v. 30 arises because the disciples think they are making an appropriate confession, but they are not. First, v. 30a seems to refer to Jesus’ ability to discern their questions at v. 19. Their “knowledge” about Jesus is not based on anything he said about mutuality of relationship among God, Jesus, and the believer as a result of Jesus’ departure (vv. 26-28), but is instead based on his omniscience. Jesus spoke of the disciples’ love for him (v. 27), but they respond solely in terms of knowledge. Second, in v. 30b the disciples’ confession of faith only acknowledges Jesus’ words about his origins with God (cf. Nicodemus’s opening words at 3:2); it says nothing about his departure. This omission underscores the incompleteness of their bold confession, because they do not acknowledge the necessity of Jesus’ death and departure to complete his revelation of God. 16:31-32. Jesus’ words in v. 31, “Now you believe,” ironically echo the disciples’ words in <Page 782 Ends><Page 783 Begins> vv. 29-30 and shatter any illusions about the adequacy of their confession. Verse 31 is not introduced by an interrogative particle or adverb, so it is unclear whether Jesus’ words should be read as a statement or a question. The Nestle-Aland8 text punctuates the sentence as a question, and that is the reading followed by the NRSV and the majority of scholars. The NIV, however, punctuates it as a statement. If v. 31 is punctuated as a statement, it is important to remember that Jesus is mocking the disciples’ earlier confession, not congratulating them. The emphatic use of “now” (a[rti arti) parodies the disciples’ emphatic use of “now” (nu'n nun), and the repetition of “believe” (pisteu"w pisteuo) challenges their confession. The disciples’ words assumed that the time of eschatological fulfillment of which Jesus spoke had already arrived, and in vv. 31-32 Jesus reorients them to the true meaning of “the hour.” “Now” is not the time of glib confessions; “now” is the hour of death and betrayal. The shift in Jesus’ words from “The hour is coming” (v. 25) to “The hour is coming, indeed it has come” (v. 32) points to the link between the time of eschatological fulfillment and Jesus’ death. The hour that is upon Jesus and his disciples is the hour of Jesus’ death, and the disciples’ confession in v. 30, with its omission of any mention of Jesus’ return to God, shows that they still do not recognize the significance of the hour. This lack of recognition and comprehension is poignantly underscored by Jesus’ prediction of the disciples’ abandonment of him at his death. This prediction is cast in language that echoes Zech 13:7: “Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered” (NRSV). Matthew and Mark also use this tradition from Zechariah to predict the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus (Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27), but the prophecy has special poignancy in the Fourth Gospel because of its echoes of the scattering of the herd in the good shepherd discourse (John 10:12). Jesus’ prediction of the disciples’ abandonment is rendered even more poignant by the contrast in v. 32 between the disciples’ relationship with Jesus and God’s relationship with Jesus. Scholars are divided on whether the Fourth Evangelist intends Jesus’ affirmation of God’s presence in v. 32 as a correction of the “cry of dereliction” found in the synoptic tradition (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). Hoskyns and Barrett, for example, maintain that v. 32 is a deliberate correction, but Jesus’ words do not need to be read with that polemical note here. The Farewell Discourse has repeatedly emphasized that Jesus’ hour brings the disciples into the union that he shares with God (e.g., 14:20; 15:9-10, 16) and has promised the disciples lasting relationship with God and Jesus (e.g., 14:18, 23), but the disciples do not hold to that relationship at the moment of Jesus’ death. Jesus does, however; even at his death, he knows that God is with him (cf. 8:29). 16:33. Jesus once again reflects on his own words (“I have said these things to you”) as a way of bringing the discourse to its conclusion. Verse 33 makes clear why and how Jesus’ gift of his peace is not like the world’s peace (cf. 14:27). The disciples’ relationship with Jesus (“in me you may have peace”), the significance of which has been spelled out for them over and over again in the Farewell Discourse, enables them to experience peace even in the face of the world’s “persecution” (qli'yiv [thlipsis ]; cf. 16:21). The disciples’ place in the world and the world’s power over them is transformed because of Jesus. This is stated in absolute terms in the ringing announcement with which the Farewell Discourse closes, “But take courage; I have conquered the world!” Jesus’ peace is the definitive eschatological gift, because it marks the ultimate defeat of the powers of the world (ko"smov kosmos) that stand in opposition to God (cf. 12:31; 14:30-31). Jesus’ words of hope and reassurance in the Farewell Discourse thus are not idle words of hope, but are grounded in the reality of the guaranteed victory of God’s love in Jesus. The language of victory in John 16:33 is very similar to Paul’s language in 1 Cor 15:57, but the eschatological perspective is different. For Paul, the victory is future, but for John, it is already present.

REFLECTIONS

In John 16:33, the eschatological perspective that has governed the Farewell Discourse is stated explicitly. Jesus’ “future” victory—his glorification in the events of his hour—is indeed the present reality. The Jesus who speaks in the Farewell Discourse is the Jesus who has <Page 783 Ends><Page 784 Begins> already conquered the world; the voice of Jesus that reassures the disciples and points them to their future is the voice of the risen Jesus. John 14–16 is an ingenious eschatological discourse, because it brings God’s future into the present of the Gospel narrative by announcing that this is the moment of victory. John 16:33 announces that God’s new age, initiated by Jesus’ victory over the world, has entered the present. Jesus’ victory over the world thus transforms conventional understandings of present and future.560 Much has been said in this commentary about the richness of Johannine eschatology (see, e.g., Commentary on 5:24-28; 11:25-26). It simplifies the eschatological options in the NT to characterize them as “realized” versus “future” eschatology, because by definition eschatology has to do with the future, with “the last things.” Johannine eschatology is no exception, because it, too, is concerned with the future. What varies among the different eschatological perspectives in the NT is the relationship between present and future in the eschatological vision. In some eschatologies, the emphasis is on the present’s giving way to the future (e.g., 1 Cor 15:23-28), whereas in others the emphasis is on the future’s breaking into and transforming the present. Johannine eschatology belongs to the second category, but that does not mean that the Fourth Gospel portrays all of the possibilities of God’s future as “realized” in the present moment. On the contrary, as John 16:16-33 shows quite clearly, Johannine eschatology points to the confidence with which Christians can face into the future, knowing that God’s sovereign presence in and governance of the present and the future is assured. When contemporary Christians think about eschatology, then, they come face to face with some of the core questions of Christian faith: How does the believer move from the present to the future? What is God’s place in that future? What is the nature of Christian hope? John 16:16-33 provides the interpreter with one perspective from which to engage those questions, because it is above all an eschatological text. In this concluding section of the Farewell Discourse, Jesus offers the disciples (and the readers) ways to imagine the possibilities of life beyond the present moment and points them toward their future life with God. Key to the Johannine eschatological vision is the cosmic significance of Jesus’ hour—his death, resurrection, and ascension. Just as the “beginning” (1:1) of the Jesus story, the incarnation, has cosmic significance (see Reflections on 1:1-18), so, too, has the conclusion of the Jesus story. Jesus loved his own “to the end” (13:1), and because of that love the believers’ futures are forever altered. The last things, like the first things, are redefined by the incarnation. In the return of the Logos, the Son, to the Father, the world is decisively changed. Indeed, the world is conquered by Jesus, the ruler of the world rendered powerless (14:30) by the fullness of Jesus’ love made manifest in the gift of his life. The full possibilities of life with God are revealed in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, because death did not defeat Jesus. Rather, Jesus defeated death, laying down his life to take it up again (10:17-18), laying down his life in love so that he could return his life to God in love and so open to all believers the possibility of communion and union with God (16:27-28; 17:23). Jesus repeatedly stresses the necessity and advantage of his departure in John 14–16 (e.g., 14:28; 16:7, 28), because without his death and departure the cosmic changes begun at the incarnation are incomplete. Without Jesus’ death and departure, the old order remains in place. With Jesus’ death and departure, the old order is judged and peace and joy take its place (14:30-31; 16:8-11, 23-24, 33), even in the face of persecution (16:1-3). That Jesus’ offer of eschatological peace and joy is not an instance of “cheap grace” is evidenced by the repeated references to suffering and persecution in the Farewell Discourse (15:18–16:4a, 20-22, 33). This persistent reminder of the persecution the community will endure and the courage that will be required of them belies any easy labeling of Johannine eschatology as “realized eschatology.” The Farewell Discourse does not paint a picture of the <Page 784 Ends><Page 785 Begins> Christian life devoid of present hardship and trial, in which all of God’s promises are fully actualized in the present moment. The prediction of the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus at his hour underscores this (v. 32). Just as Jesus’ victory over the world could not be effected without his death, so also the believers’ share in Jesus’ victory will be accompanied by suffering, sorrow, and pain. What the Farewell Discourse does promise is that the movement from present sorrow to future joy is possible and, indeed, guaranteed as a result of Jesus’ victory in his hour. It is this guarantee, the sure, unshakable confidence in Jesus’ victory over the world and the peace that the victory makes possible, that provides the grounds for Christian hope. Hope is not idle speculation about the future, about what might be or what might happen, although contemporary parlance often reduces “hope” to that range of expectations. Rather, Christian hope is the conviction, grounded in the victory of Jesus’ death and resurrection, that one’s present and future belong to God and that, as a result, all things are possible (16:23-24). The measure of what is possible in the present is the victory of Christ (16:33). The measure of what is to be hoped for is the promises of Christ (16:23, 26-28). Both the present and the future are redefined by Jesus’ death and resurrection and are held together in a delicate balance. When one lives in hope, the present moves toward the promises and possibilities of the future, and the future transforms the sorrows and seeming impossibilities of the present. The Fourth Gospel’s distinctive contribution to the church’s conversation about hope and the future is the value that it places on the present moment as the arena in which God’s future is already underway. For the Fourth Evangelist, the decisive Easter proclamation is “In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” Jesus’ victory over the world is neither partial nor only anticipated, no matter what present struggles, suffering, and sorrow suggest. Because of that decisive and absolute victory, both the present and the future are now the locus for the enactment of the promises of God. John 16:16-33 invites the faith community to enter the eschatological domain of its life, to embrace God’s future that has been opened up for them even in the present moment because of Jesus’ death and departure.

Here is this weeks example.

1 KINGS 17:1-24, THE LIVING GOD WHO SUSTAINS AND REVIVES

OVERVIEW

In this chapter, the reader encounters the prophet Elijah for the very first time. This prophet will be the focus of the narrator's interest in 1 Kings 17:1–19, 21 and 2 Kings 1:1–2. The chapter itself may be divided into three subunits: (1) vv. 1-7, God's provision for Elijah through the ravens; (2) vv. 8-16, God's provision for Elijah through a Sidonian widow; and (3) vv. 17-24, God's resuscitation of the widow's dead child. Unifying the literary unit are two themes: Life is made possible by the Lord alone, and the importance of the word, meaning the word of the Lord as spoken through the prophet. Accordingly, various forms of the Hebrew verb hyj (hAyâ, “to live”) recur (vv. 1, 12, 22-23), alongside repeated occurrences of the Hebrew term rbd (dAbAr, “word,” vv. 1-2, 5, 8, 13, 15, 24). Over against Baal, the Canaanite god of life, it is affirmed that Israel's God is the true Lord of life, with power over the forces of nature and even over death itself. <Page 125 ends>><Page 126 begins>>

1 Kings 17:1-7, Elijah Is Fed by Ravens

Link to: NIV * NRSV

COMMENTARY

Elijah appears on the scene abruptly. Apart from his name, he is identified only as “the Tishbite,” an obscure designation that the ancient versions understood to be a reference to his place of origin, an unknown site somewhere in Gilead called “Tishbe” (so NIV, NRSV).60 His first utterance is an oath in the name of the Lord: “As the LORD the God of Israel lives . . .” (v. 2). Although this oath formula is quite common in the Hebrew Bible, its usage in this context is particularly suggestive, for the issue at hand is the Lord as the source of life. The formula is especially poignant inasmuch as it is addressed to Ahab, who, we learned in 16:31-33, has married Jezebel, a devotee of the Canaanite god Baal, and has built an altar and a temple for Baal in Samaria, thus provoking the anger of “the LORD, the God of Israel.” In Canaanite religion, Baal the storm god is the one who brings rain and, thus, the possibility of life on earth. When there is drought, it is presumed that death (which is deified in Canaanite mythology) has been victorious and that Baal is dead. Conversely, when there is rain, it is presumed that Baal is alive and that death has been defeated: Let the heavens rain oil, The wadis run with honey Then I will know that Mightiest B[aal] lives, The Prince, Lord of the earth is alive.61 Elijah's oath, however, affirms that it is the Lord who lives, and the rest of the narrative will make plain that it is the Lord who makes life possible (see, esp., v. 23). Elijah, as the servant of the <Page 126 ends>><Page 127 begins>> Lord (“before whom I stand,” v. 1), also dares to declare that there will be “neither dew nor rain,” except by his word. The servant of the Lord thus challenges the power of Baal directly, for drought is a sign of the powerlessness of Baal, according to Canaanite lore: Seven years Baal is absent, Eight, the Rider of Clouds: No dew, no downpour, No swirling of the deeps, No welcome voice of Baal.62 The narrator does not tell us the reaction of King Ahab, but it is obvious that Elijah's life is in danger, for he is instructed by the Lord to flee to the Wadi Cherith, presumably one of the many deep and wide ravines east of the Jordan. Elijah is called to leave the promised land, as it were, and to go east of the Jordan, whence Israel came. There he is to drink from the wadi, and the Lord ordains ravens to feed him. The latter element is ironic in two important ways: Ravens are regarded in the Torah as unclean birds (Lev 11:15; Deut 14:14), and they are birds of prey (Job 38:41; Prov 30:17; Isa 34:11). These unclean birds of prey miraculously feed Elijah, and he is, indeed, fed well—with bread and meat twice a day. The narrator is clear that this feeding is done at the command of the Lord. The water in the wadi, however, dries up because there is no rain. In other words, the provision that might possibly be construed as having come from Baal, who is understood in Canaanite religion to be the lord of the rain, ends. In contrast, the provision that is explicitly a consequence of the Lord's command is abundant. The Lord provides miraculously and in ways that people might not expect—even through creatures that are deemed unclean. (See Reflections at 17:17-24.)

1 Kings 17:8-16, Elijah Is Fed by a Sidonian Widow

Link to: NIV * NRSV  <Page 127 ends>><Page 128 begins>>

COMMENTARY

Elijah is ordered by the Lord to go to the city of Zarephath (“Sarepta” in the Greek), a Phoenician commercial capital known for its exporting of various goods, including wine, grain, and oil. Yet, this city in Baal's territory is ironically in dire straits because of a drought. Just as the Lord ordained the ravens to feed Elijah, so also the Lord now ordains a widow to feed him. Although she apparently does not know it, this Sidonian woman is to be used by the Lord for salvific purposes. In this she stands in contrast to the other Sidonian woman, Jezebel, the Sidonian princess whom Ahab married (16:31) and who would be a champion for Baal in Israel. Again, it is ironic that the Lord would have a Phoenician, presumably a worshiper of Baal, to feed Elijah. Not only that, but she is a widow, which in ancient Near Eastern cultures means that she is probably destitute. In the OT, widows are typically associated with the neediest elements of society, the orphans and the poor (Job 24:3-4; 31:16-17; Isa 10:2; Zech 7:10). Yet, it is this widow in a land devastated by drought who is to feed Elijah, and it is to her that he turns for sustenance. She who has such scarce means is instrumental in God's plan to provide for others (cf. Mark 12:41-44). The widow swears that she has little to spare, using the very oath formula that is put in the mouth of Elijah at the beginning of the passage: “As the LORD your God lives . . .” (v. 12; see also v. 1). According to Elijah, the Lord gives assurance that the provisions at hand will not be diminished: “The jar of meal will not be emptied and the jug of oil will not fail until the LORD sends rain on the earth.” If it had not been clear before in the narrative, it is certainly clear now that it is the Lord who gives rain, not Baal. This is, indeed, the word of the Lord proclaimed to a worshiper of Baal in the territory of Baal, the homeland of Jezebel. (See Reflections at 17:17-24.)

1 Kings 17:17-24, The Resurrection of a Dead Boy

Link to:  NIV * NRSV <Page 128 ends>><Page 129 begins>>

COMMENTARY

The final crisis in the chapter involves the fate of the Sidonian woman's son, who had become so severely ill that “there was no more breath left in him” (v. 17). The stakes are raised higher in this instance than in the other two vignettes in the chapter. Whereas the Lord has been able to avert death by providing first for Elijah through the ravens (vv. 1-7) and then through the widow (vv. 8-16), the challenge is now posed in the form of a boy who has already died. Elijah, who has apparently been received as a guest in the house of the woman, intercedes on the boy's behalf. The Lord hears his intercession, and the boy is miraculously revived. Thus the story claims that Elijah's deity, the God of Israel, is truly the Lord of life, for even one who has already died could be brought to life again by that deity's power. Important, too, is the claim that the miracle was accomplished as a result of the prophetic word (v. 24).

REFLECTIONS

1. Along with other stories pertaining to Elijah, the miracles in this chapter have been commemorated in music and in art. In these re-creations of the story, attention is invariably drawn to the supramundane origin of Elijah's experiences. That is, indeed, the main point of the passage: It is the Lord, the God of Israel, who brings about these wonders. So, too, we dare to believe that things that seem impossible to human beings can be brought about by the Lord: Birds of prey may provide nourishment; the poor may have their victuals wondrously replenished; and even the dead may be resurrected. It is the Lord and no other god who performs such miracles. So we are called to believe as well.

2. The wonder of these stories resides not merely in their supernatural character, however. One is amazed, too, at the wondrous freedom and sovereignty of God. The deity uses even creatures that are regarded as ritually unclean to fulfill the divine purpose. So, too, the sovereign God is free to act beyond the borders of Israel, even through Gentile worshipers of foreign gods. This point is picked up by Jesus in his inaugural sermon in his hometown synagogue (Luke 4:25-26). Jesus observes that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time; yet, the man of God went to a foreign land and sought out the foreign woman. The Sidonian woman is apparently not a worshiper of Elijah's God, for she refers to Elijah's deity as “your God” (17:12). Yet, she is the recipient of God's miraculous provision. In receiving divine favor, the Phoenician woman becomes a prototype for other Gentile women who receive God's grace <Page 129 ends>><Page 130 begins>> through their encounters with Jesus (see Matt 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). God's universal love reaches beyond the boundaries of nationality, ethnicity, and even religious affiliation.

3. Elijah is seen in the New Testament as a forerunner of Jesus. Explicitly and implicitly, Elijah's ministry is seen as a model for the ministry of Jesus. Appropriately, therefore, most lectionaries that list 1 Kgs 17:17-24 juxtapose the passage with the account of Jesus' raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17). There are, indeed, suggestive parallels between the two accounts: the city gate, the plight of a widow, a son who has died, the miraculous resuscitation, the return of the son to his mother. The miraculous resuscitation of life in each case leads to the recognition that God has acted through an earthly intermediary. In the New Testament, however, Jesus surpasses Elijah. Whereas Elijah is the beneficiary of God's miraculous provision of nourishment and he proclaims that God will sustain the hungry despite the meagerness of what is available, Jesus himself would miraculously feed a multitude with a seemingly meager amount of food (Matt 14:13-21; 15:32-39). Whereas Elijah appeals to God to revive the widow's son, Jesus himself commands the dead to rise again. Indeed, the culmination of the story of Jesus in the New Testament is that he represents the power of God to grant and sustain life, his own resurrection from the dead being the ultimate testimony to the triumph of God over death (1 Cor 15:20-26).

Steve said:

I may be seeing what I want but I think it has moved significantly in the last 2 weeks. 

Not that I have noticed I keep hoping one day to see that under contract but would be little encouraged to see the "Almost There" stage….. I still think Logos is nuts to not get this in their system. If Accordance gets it released before it goes under contract here I am not sure it will ever make it to Logos… but it is not a top priority over there it is "under contract", but Accordance is putting all it's effort into getting the Yale Anchor Bible Commentary series done. I own it already in Logos and have no interest in duplicating it there. I do appreciate the scholarship in YAB but for me NIB is much more useful and essential. Indeed as I have said before I would miss my other commentaries if i did not have them but I would say it would be enough for me if I had only NIB.

-Dan