Sermon Tone Analysis

!!!

A theological assessment and interpretation of the Johannine Paraclete-Spirit

!!! 1. Introduction

In his article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary J. Ashton (1996:152) asked:

Is it possible to find a figure in near-contemporary religious belief and practice who may plausibly be thought to have furnished a model for the Johannine Paraclete?

Suggestions are wide-ranging and include the returning Elijah (Spitta); the Mandaean /Yawar /or helper (Bauer /Johannesevangelium/ Handbuch zum Neuen Testament; Bultmann); Old Testament and Jewish intercessors, both angelic and prophetic, in particular the angel Michael or the mediator /(mēlı̄ṣ) /in Job 33:23, translated in the Targum by the loanword /prqlyt˒ /(Mowinckel, Johansson); the fusion of two figures from the Qumran documents, Michael and “the spirit of truth” (Betz), a fusion which, according to another scholar (Johnston), the Paraclete was designed to combat and displace, the second or successor figure in a tandem relationship: Joshua~/Moses, Elisha~/Elijah (Windisch), to which Bornkamm added John the Baptist~/Jesus; late Jewish angelology and the figure of personified Wisdom (Brown 1966–67).

Müller (1974) has supplemented these suggestions by arguing for a properly form-critical investigation into the testament or valedictory form.

Another proposal comes from Franck (1985), who thinks that the Paraclete may have been modeled on the Methurgeman, who had to translate and (later) preach upon the Scripture readings in Aramaic-speaking synagogues.

Lastly, one may mention Hermann Sasse’s proposal (1925), revived by Culpepper (1975), that the Paraclete is simply to be identified with the Beloved Disciple.

In response I am arguing that we will not “discover” one specific figure in the socio-cultural environment of the first Century Mediterranean world that describes the Johannine Paraclete adequately.

I am arguing contra Windisch (1927) that the Paraclete sayings cannot be removed from the Gospel without loss of continuity.

I am also suggesting that there is no clear indication that the evangelist inserted the Paraclete sayings into the discourse from a source in which they were grouped together.

There is no single obvious meaning of Paraclete in the Johannine Gospel.

As Lindars (1981: 63) observes, “the evangelist is aware that the title is not self-explanatory, since he accompanies each of its occurrences with an account of the Paraclete’s function.”

Nevertheless, the Johannine Paraclete-Spirit figure fulfilled a very unique and specific function in the ancient world as portrayed in the Johannine narrative.

Given the information gathered in my research we can say that in the Johannine milieu the Paraclete-Spirit functioned as a teacher, a guide and instructor, an advocate and a witness, an agent of renewal and a companion.

Maybe one of the greatest deficiencies of some of earlier studies of this topic is the fact that scholars tried to lock these functions into one socio-cultural setting and tried to explain the whole concept from that vantage point.

We should take a leaf out of the book of G. Parsenios (2005) regarding the way he approached the Johannine Farewell Discourses.

He indicates that in the past scholars have usually interpreted the Fourth Gospel either as functioning within a Greek socio-cultural setting or within a Judaist socio-cultural setting.

He contends that this is wrong.

He plays with the concept of the one and the many.

It should not be an either or, but a both and more.

Secondly, he also indicates that it would not be right to see the genre of the Farewell discourse as that of a Testament or an ancient drama of tragedy.

We should see it as both and more.

The Farewell discourses are not merely one more example of the biblical testament.

They also resonate with the Greek tragedy, ancient consolation literature and the literary symposium.

He thirdly also suggested that we should see the Farewell Discourses as more unified and yet also more diverse.

It is more unified in the sense that we the many discourses actually form one narrative unit.

It is more diverse since this one narrative unit makes use of multiple genres simultaneously.

!!! 2. The identity of the Paraclete-Spirit

What does Parsenios’ view have to do with the Paraclete-Spirit?

It is my contention that the Johannine perspective regarding the Paraclete-Spirit operates in a much similar fashion.

We should not seek the identity of the Paraclete-Spirit in any one specific socio-cultural background or setting.

He is neither a Jewish nor a Greek figure, but both and more.

He functions in all social-cultural settings.

Any one-dimensional assumption regarding the socio-cultural origin of this enigmatic figure would ultimately lead to dissatisfaction.

Furthermore, we could also state that there is also a surprisingly simple solution regarding the origin of this enigmatic figure.

Although he function is all socio-cultural environments, the Johannine perspective is consistent.

The Paraclete-Spirit is always under discussion in the immediate context of and in comparison with Jesus.

Is this not one of the most important snippets of information given regarding the Paraclete-Spirit?

Johannine Narrative reveals that Jesus' departure from the world will be followed by the appearance of the Paraclete-Spirit.

The Johannine Paraclete-Spirit is no more or less an inscrutable, unfathomable and enigmatic figure than the Johannine Jesus.

There is no one with whom we can compare Jesus, since he is from above.

However, we have someone from above that precedes the Paraclete-Spirit with whom we can compare him – Jesus himself.

The confusion surrounding the Paraclete-Spirit does not arise from the Johannine narrative itself, but from efforts to define this term accurately.

A specific problem presents itself when we try to apply an appropriate meaning to the Greek word that corresponds with the activities allocated to the Johannine Paraclete-Spirit.

Problems arise when scholars attempt to place the Paraclete-Spirit in a specific socio-cultural context.

We have established that these two subjects of debate, the title and the background of the figure that carries the title still have not been resolved.

We have also adjudged that the Paraclete-Spirit is unmistakably the Holy Spirit and is accordingly identified in John 14:26.

A variety of scholars recognize that what is said of the Paraclete-Spirit is not incompatible with what is said throughout the New Testament of the Holy Spirit.[1]

Even so, the relation of the Paraclete-Spirit in the Parting Discourses to the Holy Spirit in the remainder of the Gospel has been a matter of debate.

Nevertheless, for all of the difficulty in trying to understand the background of the Paraclete-Spirit, the figure's actual functions in the Johannine narrative are relatively straightforward.

Even more to point, the Johannine Paraclete-Spirit is best understood, not in relation to other biblical figures outside the Johannine Gospel, but in relation to the Johannine Jesus.

The close connection between Jesus and the Paraclete-Spirit is a primary concern of this narrative.[2]

*3.

The Paraclete-Spirit and Jesus*

The Paraclete-Spirit continues Jesus' work.

The Paraclete-Spirit will teach and remind the disciples of all that Jesus said to them (John 14:26), he will testify on behalf of Jesus (John 15:26), and he will proclaim only what is heard from Jesus (John 16:13).

As Jesus says, "... he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:14).

There is still, however, a more profound facet to the connection of Jesus and the Paraclete-Spirit that was revealed.

The Paraclete-Spirit does not merely succeed Jesus and complete his earthly work; he also somehow "re-presents" Jesus.

That the Paraclete-Spirit makes Jesus present is implicit in Jesus' promise that he will send another Paraclete to the disciples (ἄλλον παράκλητον John 14:16).

The expression stresses that Jesus himself is the ἑνός παράκλητος.

This unspoken association is made clear in a number of statements about the Paraclete-Spirit that we can compare with statements about Jesus.

Exegetical analyses indicate these comparisons.

It starts to a certain extent very discreetly.

The Paraclete is described as τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας in (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), and Jesus is called ἀλήθεια (John 14:6).

Jesus is said to be the ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (John 6:69), while the Paraclete-Spirit is identified as the πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (John 14:26).

In a similar way John reminds us that the Paraclete-Spirit ἔλθῃ (John 15:26; 16:7, 8, 13), just as Jesus ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός (John 5:43).

What was said about Jesus is just as true for the Paraclete-Spirit ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

Both have "come into the world" (John 16:28, 18:37).

Both the Paraclete-Spirit (ἐκπορεύεται) and Jesus (ἐξέρχομαι) come forth from the Father.

The Father ἔδωκεν the Son (John 3:16), and likewise he δώσει the Paraclete-Spirit when the Son requests it to be done (John 14:16).

Similarly, just as the Father ἀπέστειλεν the Son (John 3:17), he πέμψει the Paraclete (John 14:26).

This is not where this comparison ends.

When it comes to interaction with the disciples, the connections become even more explicit.

For instance, while the world cannot γινώσκει or know the Paraclete-Spirit, the disciples γινώσκετε him (John 14:17), just as they γινώσκετε and ἑωράκατε Jesus (John 14:7, 9).

Both the Paraclete-Spirit (John 14:17) and Jesus (John 14:20, 23; 15:4, 5; 17:23, 26) are to μονή with - and within - the disciples.

Where the Paraclete-Spirit will guide (ὁδηγήσει) the disciples ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ (John 16:13), Jesus is the Way (ὁδὸς) and the Truth (ἀλήθεια) according to John 14:6.

The Paraclete-Spirit teaches (διδάξει) the disciples (John 14:26-27), just as Jesus teaches (διδάσκων) the people (John 6:59; 7:14, 18).

The Paraclete-Spirit μαρτυρήσει as a witness (John 15:26), just as Jesus μαρτυρῶ as a witness (John 8:14).

In addition, the teaching and the testimony of the Paraclete-Spirit are exclusively about Jesus (John 14:26; 16:12-13).

This is functionally equivalent to the way in which all of Jesus' teaching and testimony are about the Father (John 8:28; 7:27-28; 14:13; 17:4).

In the Johannine narrative we find analogous examples of interaction concerning the disciples and the world.

The world cannot accept (John 14:17), or see (John 14:17), or know the Paraclete-Spirit (John 14:17), just as it cannot accept (John 5:43) or see (John 16: 16) or know (John 16:3) Jesus.

Conversely the disciples can accept, see and know both Jesus and the Paraclete-Spirit.

It is evident therefore, from the Johannine narrative perspective that the work of Jesus and the work of the Paraclete-Spirit overlap in a variety of contexts and fashions.

R. Brown (1984:1141) articulates the consequences of this relationship as follows: “Thus, the one whom John calls ‘another Paraclete’ is another Jesus.

Since the Paraclete-Spirit can come only when Jesus departs, the Paraclete-Spirit is the presence of Jesus when Jesus is absent.”[3]

This function of the Paraclete-Spirit as Jesus' double comes directly form the Johannine narrative.

It comes through most clearly in the first Paraclete-Spirit passage in the expression about ἄλλον παράκλητον (John 14:16-17).

However, in* *this passage, none of the other functions of the Paraclete-Spirit (teaching, guiding, assisting, reminding, testifying, convicting or prosecuting) come into view.

We are told, in the words of R. Schnackenburg (1982:75), that all that is mentioned in John 14:16-17 is that the Paraclete-Spirit is given to the disciples and "his significance for the disciples in the world is emphasized."[4]

Jesus promises that ἄλλον παράκλητον will come to the disciples after he himself has departed.

Up to this time, Jesus has fulfilled the role of Paraclete but now another will be sent in his place.

This means more than that the Paraclete-Spirit will do what Jesus did in Jesus' absence as R. Brown stated.

It is also important to understand that this not just a case of action.

When Jesus promises that the Paraclete-Spirit will ἵνα μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾖ  (John 14:16) that expression calls to mind the aphorism documented in Matthew, where Christ promises to his disciples, ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος (Matthew 28:20).

The important distinction is that what Matthew depicts Christ saying about himself, the Johannine narrative perspective applies to the Paraclete-Spirit.

This highlights the fact that the Johannine message is unequivocally that the Paraclete-Spirit is Christ's agent of eternal presence with his disciples.

G.

Johnston (1970:86) observation that after Jesus' departure the spirit of truth will come to help the faithful and to represent their Lord is therefore correct.