Tag Archives: Commentary

12/04/2018 · 22:34

Book Review: John (NTL), Marianne Meye Thompson

Marianne Meye Thompson, the George Eldon Ladd Professor on the New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, has written a fine commentary on John. She employs narrative and historical criticism, choosing to focus “on the narrative and on the broad cultural milieu” from which John’s narrative arose. Basically, she looks at the story of John’s Gospel and examines the culture and history to illuminate the meanings of Jesus’ actions or words (such as the Festival of Tabernacles to understand Jesus’ words in John 7).

However, Thompson also acknowledges that history cannot ell us everything we need to know about Jesus. Many have pondered over whether John presents “the Jesus of history” to his readers, but “the inadequacy of historical reconstruction is already evident in the opening words of the Gospel, where Jesus the Messiah (1:17) is introduced as the Word through whom the world was made, who became flesh, and who is now ever with the Father” (9). Historical reconstruction cannot go back into eternity. It remains within the world of the created and it cannot inform us about who the pre-incarnate Word is, how he had glory with the Father before the world existed (17:5), and what Jesus has done since ascending back to the Father. The three statements in the quote above present the “cosmic identity of the Word as the agent of life” (9). They are confessional statements who tell us who Jesus really is. He is a Jesus who we could not previously see with our eyes, who we cannot see now, but who we will see. We will see him “as he is” (1 Jn 3.2).

John is clearly different from the Synoptic Gospels. Following Richard Bauckham, Thompson disagrees that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel of John. Instead the Beloved Disciple, whoever he was, was known to the readers and is trustworthy (21:24). Since he was “the first to believe in the risen Lord and to believe without seeing, [he] is also the witness behind the Gospel, to believe in the witness of the Gospel is to believe the witness of this one who saw Jesus” (428). Thompson says, “What we have in John is a narrative account of who a first-century Christian author understood Jesus to be” (22). Though I disagree with her over the Gospel’s author, John brings his own perspective to the table. He emphasizes Jesus’ postresurrection appearances for they give life to his followers and perspective to his life ministry and teachings (2:22; 12:16).

Thompson writes seven pages on John’s perspective and witness to Jesus, with the introduction itself being only 24 pages. Her introduction, though brief, is not concerned with a Johannine community and its hypothetical problems, teachings, and needs. While John did have an intended audience, we cannot discover that audience based on John’s Gospel. Thompson posits that John’s Gospel was written in the latter end of the first century for believers in Ephesus. Ultimately, his Gospel is written for all people that we may know and understand who this Christ is through his ministry.

Thompson divides John into six section and includes nine excursus (see below). She offers her own translation and provides a few textual notes after each translation. Each chapter in John is divided into a few smaller section, and each section may cover four to eight pages. She illuminates John’s purpose without boring her reader.

Sometimes Thompson doesn’t explicitly answer some kind of difficulty or seeming contradiction. One example would be the timing of Jesus’ temple cleansing in John 2. After noting that both Jesus’ temple cleansing and donkey-ridden entry into Jerusalem occurred on Passover, Thompson says, “At the first Passover, Jesus’ action in the temple prefigures Jesus’ death and resurrection; at the last Passover in the Gospel, Jesus goes to his death.” She then includes a footnote on those commentators who understand the temple cleansing to have happened early in Jesus’ ministry and late in his ministry.

Though I would have appreciated seeing Thompson elaborate on whether she thought this was the same temple cleansing as in the Synoptics, I must also point out that this is not the intended function of her commentary. She shows what John is doing narratively: he’s highlighting Jesus’ death and resurrection with the temple at the beginning and end of his ministry. There are other places in her commentary where Thompson does not “answer” a problem I have. It may very well be because it does not fit with her methodology.

But historically, did this occur twice in Jesus’ life or once? Again, Thompson looks at the cultural (e.g., the woman at the well) and historical events in Jesus’ life (e.g., the various festivals), not over every detail of his (albeit historical) life.

The Chocolate Milk

I don’t want to end this review on a sour note. I very much enjoyed Thompson’s commentary. She shows sympathy to the woman at the well by pointing out that the woman’s five previous marriages would have ended in death or divorce, and if divorce, she would have been cast off by the husband. She may be living immorally with the sixth husband, or perhaps in desperation. Either way Jesus does not condemn her, but “many commentators and preachers have hastened to fill the void!” (103). She doesn’t think that John 6 refers directly to the Lord’s Supper, but that there are legitimate connections between them. In John 3.5, the phrase “water and spirit” refer to a single birth (81). John 21 shows the life-giving and sending work of Jesus to the world through his disciples. He is alive, he validates the beloved disciples’ witness, and he sends his disciples, specifically Peter, out with a mission just as he was sent.

Recommended?

Marianne Thompson has written a fine commentary on John’s Gospel which would be helpful for the student, teacher, and pastor. She helpfully keeps the story in mind as she goes through each section of the text, reminding the reader that Jesus, the Word, exercises God’s authority in his words, actions, death, and resurrection. He gives life so that other may know God and live with him forever.

Lagniappe

  • Series: New Testament Library
  • Author: Marianne Meye Thompson
  • Hardcover: 568 pages
  • Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press (November 6, 2015)

Buy it on Amazon or Westminster John Knox Press

Disclosure: I received this book free from Westminster John Knox Press. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html.

8 Comments

Filed under Jesus and the Gospels, Review

Tagged as , , , , ,

13/12/2017 · 12:05

Book Review: John (CFP), William Cook

Professor of New Testament Interpretation (2000) at SBTS, William F. Cook III serves as the Lead Pastor at Ninth and O Baptist Church in Louisville, KY. After a brief introduction (6 pages compared to Klink’s 54), Cook lays out John’s Gospel, the “mature reflections of the last living apostle,” in 36 chapters (p. 7). This volume (and series) is written to the non-specialist, the lay person, and even the pastor who wants an easy read (for once) through a commentary while he is preparing.

Interpretations

Favors two temple cleansings. Here, Jesus, the new temple, is “arriving at the temple for the first time since inaugurating His messianic ministry (Mal. 3:1)” (50).

Cook frequently points out how often key words occur in John. Many of these words occur so frequently, we often miss themes sitting directly in front of us!

  • The theme of “water” (2:1–11; 4:7–14; 5:1–7; 6:16–21; 7:37–39; 9:6–7; 13:1–11; 19:34).
  • The word “must” suggests divine necessity (3:14, 30; 4.4; 9:4; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9).
  • “To follow” (1:43; 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; 21:19-20).
  • The title “Son of Man” (13x)
  • “Eternal” (17x).
  • God’s initiative in salvation (6:37b, 44; 10:29; 17:6; 18:9).
  • John 3.16 is John’s first use of the word “love” out of 36 total times.

Cook sees the idea of newness early on in John’s Gospel. In John 1.47–51, Jesus is the one who connects heaven to earth. He is greater than Jacob as ‘the new Israel’ (38). “Jesus is described as inaugurating a ‘new age’ (2:1-12) and being the ‘new temple’ (2:13-25). Here [in John 3], Jesus explains to a leading rabbi the absolute necessity of a ‘new birth’” (55). 

6.16–21: Jesus, sovereign over the world created by him and through him, walks on the water, something said only about God alone in the Old Testament (Pss 77.16–20; 107.28–30). Also, the boat immediately arrives at land after Jesus walks on water. “If it is considered a miracle, it is a likely allusion to Psalm 107:23-32. Yet, if it is a miracle, John does not make much of it (6:21)” (111).

6:22-71: Just as Jesus talked about the two kinds of water in John 4, here he talks about two kinds of food. “Those who drink the ‘living water will never thirst’ (4:14), and those who eat the heavenly bread will live forever (6:51)” (114)

  • Jesus uses ‘truly, truly’ several times indicating the significance of His words (6:26, 32, 47, 53).
  • He makes repeated references to being the source of life (6:35, 40, 47, 48, 50, 51).
  • the importance of faith (6:35, 40, 47, 51).
  • the thought of a future bodily resurrection – ‘raise up on the last day’ (6:39, 40, 44, 54).
  • Jesus’ teaching on eating his flesh and blood (6.22-71) does not concern the Lord’s Supper.

7.53-8.11: Cook agrees with the wide swath of biblical (even evangelical) scholarship who say that John did not write this passage. It is not found in any manuscript earlier than the fifth century, the earliest church fathers make no mention of it, but instead move from 7.52 to 8.12, no Eastern church father before the tenth century comments on this story, and, when the story does begin to show up in manuscripts of John’s Gospel, it appears after 7.36, 7.44, 21.25, and even after Luke 21.38! Cook treats this section as a historical event, without trying to imply either Johannine authorship or canonical authority.

10.34-36: Jesus’ use of Psalm 82.6 and “gods” refers to Israel’s leaders (judges).

17.1-26: Forms of the verb “to give” in John 17 are used 17x. God has given Jesus the authority to give eternal life to those given to Him by the Father (17:2). “Believers are God’s gift to His Son” (252).

Recommended?

With study questions after each chapter, this volume, along with all of the other ones I have read in this series, is useful for the pastor, teacher, Bible study leader, and the layperson. Cook doesn’t cover every verse; that is not his intention. Cook gives his readers a panorama shot of John’s Gospel. Of what use are details when you don’t understand how John intends those details to be read? A knowledge of details requires a knowledge of John’s overarching presentation of Jesus, the son of God, the Word, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world, and that information is packaged in just under 300 pages. This is quite shorter than many other commentaries on John, but still meaty enough to be worth your time.

Lagniappe

Buy John (CFP) from Amazon or Christian Focus Publishing!

Disclosure: I received this book free from Christian Focus Publishing. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html.

1 Comment

Filed under Jesus and the Gospels, Review

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

11/12/2017 · 12:05

Book Review: John (ZECNT), Edward Klink

The Gospel of John is a favorite among many. Rather than reading short bits of narrative with generally short teachings, John is filled with long teachings and little narrative (take John’s Farewell Discourse, which extends from John 13-17!). John is shallow enough for a child to understand, but deep enough for scholars to spit out huge tomes and never know all that John means. Since each generation needs fresh exegesis, Edward Klink has given us his interpretation of John’s Gospel in the new ZECNT series. Klink reveals his theological cards early on in his 54 page introduction:

“‘Scripture’ is a shorthand term for the nature and function of the biblical writings in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God’s merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith.” While such language might not be common vernacular in an introduction to an exegetical commentary, it should be, for the object of interpretation demands to be treated according to its true and sacred nature. Not to treat this Gospel as Scripture is itself a form of eisegesis, and it is a disobedient hearing of the (canonical) text’s own claim and of the God by whom it was authored. (25)

Klink notes that the Scriptures have their own genre—holy Scripture. The way God (or, here, the Gospel) speaks determines how we read Scripture:

  1. The Gospel speaks in time-and-space history, and history must remain subservient to the God of creation.
  2. The Gospel speaks in literary form, and the words must stay subservient to the Word.
  3. The Gospel speaks about the things of God, and theology must be defined by the person and work of God himself, the true subject matter of the things of God. (25)

Our doctrine of Scripture guides us to see God through “the work and person of Jesus Christ by the empowering Holy Spirit” (31).

Klink doesn’t try to historically reconstruct the event of John’s Gospel (besides John 2.1–11), because “each Gospel must be interpreted for the individual Gospel’s role or contribution to the one gospel, not in a manner that combines their events but in a manner that prepares to hear in unison their individual roles in the symphony of the gospel” (36).

Klink says (rightly) that the Bible is not a window to what is inspired; it “is the locus of revelation” (29). Our texts do refer to historical people, places, and events, but rather than seeing the Bible as a window to the inspired events, in God’s Word “God is giving divine commentary on his own actions in history” (29). “The meaning is derived from the text which speaks about an event” (34).

Commentary Divisions

The ZECNT commentaries divide each section into seven parts: Literary Context, Main Idea, Translation and Graphical Layout, Structure, Exegetical Outline, Explanation of the Text, and Theology in Application. I giver a fuller explanation of each section on my review of Grant Osbourne’s Matthew volume. Though I don’t always find the Translation and Graphical Layout section to be helpful, each of the other sections, especially the Main Idea (which compresses the passage into a brief sentence) and the Theology in Application (and which brings out helpful insights), are extremely useful.

Klink’s Interpretations

I can’t rehearse all Klink says, but here is a taste.

1.1: “The Word” is not common in the NT as a reference to Christ. John explains his use of the term throughout John’s whole Gospel (87).

Klink distinguishes historical contexts, narrative contexts, and cosmological contexts. In 7.27-28, Klink says

The reverberations from the prologue are crying out to the reader, who is well aware that Jesus is the Word-become-flesh, the light of humanity, the one “from above,” who was “in the beginning” with God. The cosmological identity of Jesus, so visible to the reader, remains completely veiled to the Jerusalemites. The one these interlocutors call “this man” the reader has been told is “God” from the very beginning of the Gospel (1:1). (370)

In the historical sense, the Jewish leaders know his physical ancestral lineage. In the cosmological sense, “they have no idea who he is or whose ancestral lineage they have challenged by their unbelief,” and within the narrative, Jesus rebukes their unbelief and prideful opposition to him. They should know better.

12.40: “God is the cause of the unbelieving response to Jesus, not merely the judge of it. If the depiction of God as the cause of unbelief makes God look unjust, we must look not for resolution in the doctrine of God alone but in the presentation of God provided by his Son, Jesus Christ, who perfectly exemplifies the mercy and grace of God” (560). 

John 17: The pericope of John 17 “concludes Jesus’s farewell speech by setting the theological (cosmological) context of Jesus’s entire ministry and the work God will continue to do” (705).

Other Matters

Outside sources?

In his section on “Text Verses Event” (34-36), Klink says the location of revelation “is not the event behind the text but the text as Scripture, so that revelation is located in the text in a manner that includes not only the recorded account but also the interpretation . . . of the account” (34). As he goes on to argue, the author has included specific events, themes, and words for a reason, and as well that same author has decided not to include other events, themes, and words.

Klink says “To try to reconstruct what is not revealed in Scripture, unless the text gives implicit warrant, potentially creates a different story than the narrative.” (35). The author has already given us his perspective on the event in his narrative; why go looking for another perspective?

While I agree that “There is no better place from which to access what is real and true than from the words of Scripture,” and that “the reader is actually in a preferred position, beyond even those who were present at the historical event,” what does this mean when it comes to using other documents to place the text in its historical timeframe (36)? Is it to the scholar’s detriment to use ANE documents to understand the thinking of the ancient Israelite? How much of the intertestamental period are we to (or not to) understand?

I am in much agreement with what Klink says here, but because he doesn’t give a specific example as to what he means (such as those seen in my questions above), I’m not sure how far to take what he says. Right now it appears to me that it is helpful to read historical documents (such as the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Greek and Roman writings, etc.) to situate us in the 1st century AD thought-world with the knowledge that Scripture is the revelation from God and of God.  

Recommended?

There are an enormous amount of commentaries on John, do we, do you, need another one? I’ll be honest, I haven’t read most of them, but “every generation must exegete Scripture in and for the church” (11). Klink emphasizes the use of one’s imagination (cf. John 7.1–13), and this is something that many theologians, commentators, interpreters, pastors, and Bible teachers need to learn (myself included). Imagination is required both in application and in interpretation. Klink’s commentary reminds me of Mark Seifrid–by looking at the text as a whole unit within the whole canon, Klink is able to see through and around the exegetical issues. He brings in nuances and twists of words (3.5–7). Klink is a humble interpreter, and he has written this volume primarily for pastors, bible teachers, and students. I hope this volume will be read widely.

Lagniappe

  • Series: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
  • Author: Edward W. Klink III
  • Hardcover: 976 pages
  • Publisher: Zondervan (December 6, 2016)

Previous Posts

Posts from Zondervan

Buy John (ZECNT) from Zondervan or Amazon!

Disclosure: I received this book free from Zondervan. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html.

5 Comments

Filed under Jesus and the Gospels, Review

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

07/12/2017 · 13:37

The Paraclete

What does “Paraclete” (παράκλητος) mean? In an in-depth look at “the Paraclete” in his commentary on John, Edward Klink says that the term for the Paraclete occurs only five times in the NT, and all five of those occurrences are within John’s writings (14.16, 26; 15.26; 16.7; 1 John 2.1), and the search for an equivalent Hebrew term is a lost cause.1 Klink notes the various ways Paraclete is translated in different translations: “Comforter” (KJV), “Advocate” (NRSV; NEB; JB; NIV), “Counselor” (HCS), and “Helper” (NASB; ESV).

The traditional scholarly opinion has been to see παράκλητος as having a legal or forensic meaning—thus, the term “advocate.” Yet scholars admit that John adds to this meaning by giving the word the connotations of “teacher” and “helper.” To define παράκλητος as “advocate” forces the word into one narrow definition from what John actually means. Some scholars have pushed back against the legal language saying that the term is “better interpreted . . . [for] a prophetic role or office.”2 While the term “‘could appear in legal contexts’ . . . when it did it was used ‘as a supporter or sponsor.’”3 Inevitably translators will have to choose one word as the primary meaning.

Klink, on the other hand, doesn’t translate παράκλητος, but transliterates it as the Paraclete “to avoid limiting or muting aspects of the identity and multifaceted function of the Paraclete that are core to its (his) identity.”4 Instead of looking to a historical or religious background to understand the Paraclete, Klink prefers to look to the foreground. John, and thus, Jesus, is teaching us about the Holy Spirit (John 14.26). He is developing a doctrine for his readers.

“The figure and function of the Holy Spirit cannot be defined by the history of religions, for it requires not only sensitivity to the Gospel’s own multifaceted portrayal but also the foregrounding depiction from the rest of the biblical canon — the primary source for offering a conceptual interpretation of the Spirit’s person and work.”5

In this in-depth section Klink gives three aspects of the Paraclete for his reader to understand ahead of time.

  1. The Paraclete is still to come.

John 14.26: But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The Holy Spirit comes (proceeds) from both the Father and the Son and will do so soon at a future time. But the Spirit has surely been at work prior to the future point of his coming (cf. 1 Cor 12.3).

“It is significant that the Paraclete can only come when Jesus departs (16:7), for it suggests that his coming is a direct consequence of the saving work of Christ without which he could have no place or function at all. The Paraclete is therefore symptomatic of the era to come in the new covenant and the new life in Christ, the Spiritual life.”6

  1. The Paraclete has a special relationship to the disciples. “Without exception, the functions ascribed to the Spirit are elsewhere in this Gospel assigned to Christ.”7
    ..

    • All will know the Paraclete just as the disciples had the privilege of knowing Jesus (14.7, 9).
    • The Paraclete will indwell the disciples and remain with them just as Jesus is to remain in and with the disciples (14.16–17, 20, 23; 15.4–5; 17.23, 26).
    • The Paraclete as the Spirit of truth (14.17; 15.26; 16.13) will teach and guide the disciples into “all the truth” (16.13), just as Jesus is the truth (14.6; cf. 1.14).
    • The Spirit bears witness to Christ (15.26) and glorifies Christ (16.14), just as it is Christ from whom the Paraclete receives what he makes known to the disciples (16.14).8
  1. The Paraclete has a unique role in the world to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (16.8). The world cannot “see” Jesus (5.43; 12.48); the world cannot see the Paraclete. The legal/forensic language comes in to play here because the Paraclete is both witness to Jesus (15.26; 16.14), but he also assists “the disciples in their witness in the world, since his witness takes place through their own.”9 The Paraclete is the Spirit of truth (14.17) who points to the one who is “the way, the truth, and the life; 14.6).

The Mission of the Trinity

There is an extremely close relationship between the Paraclete and Jesus. Not only do they share (some of) the same functions, but Jesus expressly states that the Paraclete is “another Helper” (ἄλλον παράκλητον; 14.16).10 Jesus too was a Paraclete, albeit one different from the Spirit (cf. 1 John 2.1).

Here we see how the Son and the Spirit can belong together (as God) and participate in the same work (the mission of God) and yet be different persons and have different assignments or functions, thus allowing for a distinction in purpose, a unity in function, and an equality in essence. And the relationship among the Trinity is gifted to us by means of the Spirit—the Paraclete, for at his departure (cross, resurrection, ascension) Jesus gives us “a share in his filial relationship with the Father by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.”11

The title Paraclete “refers to the ministerial office of the Trinitarian God in the world, occupied by both the Son of God and the Spirit of God.”12 It refers to both the Spirit of God and to the Son of God, the one who is “the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known,” Jesus Christ (1.18). This Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in him. The Father sends the Spirit to his people in Jesus’s name (14.26). It is in this intimate relationship that believers—people, humans—are included. In fact, Jesus concludes his prayer to the Father by saying “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (17.26). Jesus is in believers, and the love which God shows to his Son is shown to his sons and daughters in Christ.

1 Edward Klink, John (ZECNT), 632.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 632-33.

6 Ibid., 633.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 “The adjective ‘another’ (ἄλλον) signifies ‘another of the same kind.’” (634).

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., 635.

Buy John (ZECNT) from Zondervan or Amazon!

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

04/12/2017 · 18:55

The Farewell Discourse (John 13-17)

What is Jesus’ farewell discourse and why did John place it in his Gospel? The farewell discourse has a long history of interpretation, and Klink sets out to place this substantial discourse into its proper literary place in John. In his commentary on John, Edward Klink suggests that there are four substantial monologues in John’s Gospel:

  1. The Identity of (the Son of) God (5:19–47)
  2. The Shepherd and the Sheep (10:1–21)
  3. The Hour has Come (12:20–50)
  4. The Farewell Discourse (13:31–16:33)

All four of these monologues occur during Jesus’ public ministry. The monologues “provide robust insight into the identity of Jesus and the work given to him from the Father.”1 As well, the monologues carry along the plot, “depicting in great detail God’s own argument and explication of his person and work in the world.”2 In one way, the farewell discourse is just another monologue, but Klink argues that the farewell discourse is much more complex than that. It is not a typical monologue. “Like the Gospel as a whole, the farewell discourse employs ‘a composite of various literary forms.’”3

Klink refers to the farewell discourse as “bilingual”— it is a dialect of the testament genre (see below), and it speaks with several other Jewish and Greco-Roman literary idioms.

The Testament

Most scholars agree that the farewell discourse illustrates a common literary pattern called a testament. Testaments are found in the OT in the farewell and blessing of Jacob to his children (Gen 47:29–49:33), Joshua’s farewell to Israel (Josh 22–24), and David’s farewell speech (1 Chr 28–29), and even the book of Deuteronomy.4 We can see a larger use of the testament genre in the intertestamental period with the pseudepigraphical work Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

Klink quotes Raymond Brown on the origins of the testament genre: “The common situation is that of a great man who gathers together his followers (his children, his disciples, or the people) on the eve of his death to give them instructions that will help them after his departure.”5 John’s farewell discourse has many parallels with “farewell” speeches, but there is more going on here than just a testament. Klink describes two other “pressures” that distinguish the farewell discourse from the testament genre.

Dynamic Movement

Relying on the observations of Parsenios, Klink notes that the farewell discourse relies on “dynamic movement”:

In the standard testamentary farewell scenes, there are no exits; the speakers typically wait for death to come to them on a deathbed (see e.g., Gen 49:33). In the Fourth Gospel, by contrast, the entire farewell discourse, stretching from 13:1–18:1, is centered around two dynamic exits, that of Judas at 13:30 and that of Jesus, announced at 14:31 and executed at 18:1 . . . . These exits are readily recognizable in ancient drama, however, where exits and entrances profoundly affect narrative development.6

Exits can create a frame around a scene or a specific character (like an inclusio) to emphasize a certain theme or teaching.7

Ancient Consolation

Consolation literature used “therapeutic methods” to console their audience, and usually so because of an impending death. Klink lists three main functions of consolatory literature.

  1. With the knowledge that the beloved speaker will be departing, a replacement is offered to the remaining group. It is through this replacement “the departed figure remains present. In John the replacement is ‘another paraclete’ (14:16), who is the functional presence of Jesus for his disciples (14:18 – 21).”8
  2. The sorrow that would come from such a loss (e.g., think of the sudden loss of a parent, spouse, child, or friend) is preempted because it is predicted beforehand. Because of this the disciples can prepare themselves for their future loss of Jesus. “In John the departure of Jesus and the trials to follow are clearly articulated and explained (15:18 – 16:4).”
  3. Those who are left (i.e., the disciples) are encouraged to remain faithful since the pain of grief can lead one to give up hope and abandon one’s task. “In John the disciples of Jesus are exhorted to remain and bear fruit (15:1 – 16).”9

Not only does the farewell discourse proper (13:31 – 16:33) offer all three of these consolatory elements, but befitting ancient consolation even further, the entire farewell section of the Gospel (13:1–17:26) also contains the opening context of a symbolic meal (13:1–30) and a closing “prayer of departure” (17:1 – 26).10

The Reason for the Farewell Discourse

By the time Jesus gives his farewell discourse, his public ministry has ended. He “gathers his intimate disciples around a symbolic meal and instructs them for the last time concerning his person and work and their corporate identity and work as his disciples.”11 Jesus will soon be leaving. He will be beaten, mocked, and crucified, but he knows he will be resurrected and will ascend to the Father. “Jesus addresses their questions and fears, but he also exhorts them to stay the course, which involves remaining in him by the Spirit.”12 With his death on the horizon, “Jesus uses the farewell discourse to explain what is to come and where he must go.”13

Although he will be gone, Jesus explains his departure in two ways.

1. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to the Father, and in his absence he prepares a place for his disciples (14.3–6). He provides the route—the path—they will take by pouring out his Spirit upon them to walk in the way of the Lord—to die to themselves and serve others. He leaves so that the disciples can eternally be with the Christ and the Father whom no one has ever seen.

2. Jesus’ absence “allows him to be more fully present with his disciples (14:18; 16:7).”14

Only after his departure will he and the Father come and make their home with them (14:23), enabling the disciples to do greater works (14:12), to pray effectively by the use of his name (14:13–14; 16:23–24), and to be intimately united with him (15:1–11), having his peace (14:27) and sharing in his suffering (15:18–21) and ultimately his victory (16:33).15

The future is bright, though it must first be darkened. What is to come is good and necessary. It is part of God’s plan and mission to the whole world (Gen 12.1–3). The farewell discourse is given to guide Jesus’ disciples through the dark skies of Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion, and death to his post-resurrection appearance and after his ascension to the Father. There will be a “new dispensation of God and his people,” which will now include Gentiles into the one who is the true vine (John 15:1).16

Outline for the Farewell Discourse

The discourse proper consists of six significant and developing thematic statements by Jesus . . . that are framed by what is functionally a prologue (13:31–38) and an epilogue (16:25–33).

The Farewell Discourse (13.1–17.26)

A. Introduction: The Love of Jesus (13.1–30)

B. The Farewell Discourse (13.31–16.33)

Prologue (13.31–38)

STATEMENT 1: “I Am the Way and the Truth and the Life” (14.1–14)

STATEMENT 2: “I Will Give You the Paraclete” (14.15–31)

STATEMENT 3: “I Am the True Vine” (15.1–17)

STATEMENT 4: “I Have Also Experienced the Hate of the World” (15.18–27)

STATEMENT 5: “I Will Empower You by the Paraclete” (16.1–15)

STATEMENT 6: “I Will Turn Your Grief into Joy” (16.16–24)

Epilogue (16.25–33)

C. Conclusion: The Prayer of Jesus (17.1–26)

1 Klink, 58.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., 571.

4 “The entire book of Deuteronomy can rightly be described as Moses’s farewell speeches to Israel” (571). Both Deuteronomy and John demonstrate their respective covenants “between God and his people (Deuteronomy, the old covenant; John, the new covenant)” (571).

5 Ibid., 572.

6 Ibid.

7 Judas’ exit in John 13:30 signals “that what follows is the beginning of the farewell discourse, with its conclusion signaled again when Jesus himself exits at 18:1” (572).

8 Ibid., 573.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Klink, 574.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Klink, 575.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

Buy John (ZECNT) from Zondervan or Amazon!

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Jesus and the Gospels

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

06/05/2016 · 09:21

“Adoption as Sons Through Jesus Christ”

prodigal-son

“He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Eph 1.5).

“While [the] English ‘adoption’ is the best rendering for υἱοθεσία… this term does not convey the same connotations today as it did in a Graeco-Roman city like Ephesus” (84).

In the Greco-Roman world, the head of the family had legal authority over all members of his family, members of all ages. However, the head could release members of his family from his legal authority through emancipation. He could also give them into a new family through adoption.

If the son had already been emancipated, the procedure was adrogatio. Adrogation, among ancient Romans, was a kind of adoption in which the person adopted was free, and consented to be adopted by another. The adopted son was no longer a member of his old family, but he was now heir “to become the head of the family of the property and persons of the new familia: ‘If a son, then an heir’ (Gal 4:7)” (86). 

Gardner says, “The initial purpose of the institution of adoption, therefore, like that of will-making, appears to have been to allow people without [house heirs] of their own to acquire someone to inherit their [property]” (86, fn 176).

Adoption served the purpose to continue the “family and… its external relations.” For example, “if the head of the family was patron of a town or of soldiers; the son inherited that position as part of his patrimony [inheritance of property]” (87).

Octavian Augustus was adopted by Julius Caesar. Through this adoption, Octavian “inherited the allegiance of his [‘father,’ Caesar’s]… soldiers, which gave him immediate resources to prosecute his bid to ‘save’ the Roman Republic by transforming it into an empire” (86, fn 177).

Ephesians 1.4-5

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will,” (Eph 1.4-5).

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (Eph 1.13-14).

Due to the Father’s own grace, love, and will, all believers have become members of God’s family. Though we are not “the son of God,” we have been adopted through the Father’s Son. In the Greco-Roman world, adoption was given (at least) generally to males. Yet the Lord extends his love and grace to all.

Paul writes his letter to the Ephesian church, a church made up of not only men, but women, children, freedmen, and slaves. Even if they were treated kindly by their masters, “[s]laves in Graeco-Roman antiquity were legally not human persons” (88).

Given that we no longer live in a time where slavery runs rampant (at least, not so visibly and legally like it did in Rome), Baugh reminds us, “We have lost the momentous impact Paul’s statement would have had in its original setting” (88).

For the Christians at Ephesus who were or had been slaves, to hear that God had predestined them not just to become God’s freedmen (1 Cor 7:22) or free children (John 1:12) but through υἱοθεσία [“adoption”] to become ruling sons (whether male or female) was an astoundingly magnificent statement of God’s lavish grace, poured out upon the objects of his eternal love. (88)

God’s Love and Favor

And to state the magnitude of God’s love and favor, Baugh points out that

Graeco-Roman adoptees were often members of the father’s extended relations. In the case of believers, God has taken the most distant foreigners to be his kin for inheritance of his whole estate. Not the deserving or good (Rom 5:7), not many well-born, powerful, or wise (1 Cor 1:26–30), but those who were “by nature”… not of his kin at all but “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3) and darkened “sons of disobedience” (Eph 5:6, 8; also 4:17–24)—his helpless, wicked, sinful enemies (Rom 5:6–10) under thrall to the realm of darkness (Eph 2:1–3…). God does not place these new sons into a subordinate, inferior family; he appoints them all to become coheirs with his natural, firstborn Son, in whom the whole creation is “summarized” (v. 10) for corule over all things with him as those who have been coseated with him in the high-heavenlies (2:6; Rom 8:14–17, 29–32; … Rev 3:21). These stupendous acts of divine grace have no parallel in Graeco-Roman society. It surpasses even the unthinkable idea of the Roman emperor adopting a slave from the most barbaric hinterlands to be the next emperor. It is no wonder that Paul exults in “praise of the glory of his grace, which he bestowed on us in his Beloved” (1:6). (87)

We are no longer dead in our sins (Eph 2.1), but we are alive in Christ (2.5). We are his workmanship (2.10). Christ is our peace (2.14), and we are God’s holy temple (2.21). We have a “new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4.24). We love the Father who dwells in incorruptibility (6.24) as we experience the beginning fulfillment of the new creation (2.11-22), which will be fulfilled at the end of the age.

Previous Posts

Buy it on Amazon or Logos!

EEEC

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Studies, Paul

Tagged as , , , , , ,

05/10/2015 · 00:41

Book Review: Leviticus 17-22 (AYB), Jacob Milgrom

51vT4u--zxL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

Jacob Milgrom taught at the University of California, Berkeley and headed the Department of Near Eastern Studies. He was most known for his research on Biblical purity laws and was a (or ‘the’) leading expert on Leviticus (according to Longman). Milgrom died in June 2010. He was an American Jewish Bible scholar and a Conservative rabbi. He wrote the Leviticus volume for the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series, which turned into three volumes:

  • Leviticus 1-16 (1184 pages, Vol 3)
  • Leviticus 17-22 (656 pages, Vol 3A)
  • Leviticus 23-27 (848 pages, Vol 3B).

This volume picks up right where Vol 3 left off, so there is no page 1.

Outline

Milligram provides a brief Outline and Translation of the whole book of Exodus. He then covers the Structure, Vocabulary, Extent, and Date of Leviticus 17-22. He believes that these chapters are part of Holiness (H) Source. They are distinguished from the first 16 chapters which are part of the Priestly (P) Source. Though I don’t agree with his source-critical views (which are found all throughout the commentary), Milgrom is quite conservative in his stance on Scripture. He insists that (P) was written much earlier than its usual date (ca. 500 BC). Milligram argues that both (H) and (P) are pre-exilic sources (1362). He gives a list of Chiasms, Inclusions, and uses of the Number Seven found in six Levitical chapters.

Next up is the Theology section. This portion covers topics like the Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants, Holiness, Ethics, Land, Sabbath, Jubilee and Redemption, Israelites, The Missing King, Crime and Punishment, and more. Despite the fact that Milgrom takes a source-critical reading of Leviticus, his comments on theology are incredible. Under B. Rationales Are Theology, Milgrom, in explaining separation and holiness, states,

“Thus adherence to the dietary laws, namely, eschewing contact with the world of… ‘impure’, forms an indispensable step in Israel’s ascent on the ladder of holiness…. Israel’s separation from the nations is the continuation (and climax) of the cosmic creation process. Just as YHWH has separated the mineral, vegetable, and animal species to create order in the natural world, so Israel must separate from the nations to create order in the human world. Israel is this charged with a universal goal” (1371, emphasis original).

After this we come to the exegesis of Leviticus 17-22, The Slaughter and Consumption of Meat (Lev 17), Illicit Sexual Practices (Lev 18), Ritual and Moral Holiness (Lev 19), Penalties for Molek Worship, Necromancy, and Sexual Offenses (Lev 20), Instruction for Priests (Lev 21), and Instructions for the Priests and for Lay Persons (Lev 22). In each of the exegetical chapters there is a repeated Translation of the text, the Composition of the chapter (only with Lev 17), Notes (covering the terms and phrases of the text), and Comments (covering broader issues within the chapter [like ‘Holiness’ in Leviticus 19]). The Bibliography and Index are not included here in 3A, but are found in 3B.

Summary

As thick as Milgrom’s commentary is, there isn’t always the theological explanations I wish there were. When discussing ‘Horticultural Holiness’ in 19.23-25 (1677-1684), Milgrom reviews ANE literature, interpretations of the Jewish rabbis, Qumran literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and contemporary commentators and discusses the various interpretations of the text here (and throughout the rest of the commentary too, a big plus!). Though stating that waiting a few years to eat the fruit of the land had practical implications (the roots sink deep into the soil, giving the trunk the strength it needs to bear up the amount of fruit [1684]), there’s no discussion on why Israel would be commanded to do this. This would be an important aspect to shed light on given the emphasis on holiness in Leviticus 19, “[T]his chapter is of such extreme importance that Moses was commanded to recite it ’to the entire Israelite community’… The rabbis also stress this fact: ‘Holiness… was not only given to priests but to priests, Levites and Israelites’….” (1602).

In Leviticus 19 we see “the importance of the prescriptions that follow: the are quintessentially the means by which Israel can become a holy nation” (1603). What is so ‘holy’ about waiting five years to eat of the fruit of one’s tree? It will increase it’s yield for them, but how does this separate Israel from the rest of the nations?

However, be sure to read Milgrom on Leviticus 19.19, “You are to keep my statutes. Do not crossbreed two different kinds of your livestock, sow your fields with two kinds of seed, or put on a garment made of two kinds of material.” Mixture is kept to the divine realm (e.g., the cherubim were mixed creatures). Rather than trying to enter the divine realm, to be holy (19.2) Israel was to obey God’s commandments and practice the prescribed ritual and ethical behaviors. Part of that was leaving to the divine realm what belonged to the divine, such as mixtures of cloth.

Yet I understand that Milgrom can’t cover everything. Perhaps he does give an explanation somewhere within his commentary, but with no index until Vol. 3B, I can’t lookup other discussions of Leviticus 19.23-25. Yet even still, one should not think that Milgrom doesn’t care about the text in the daily life of the ancient Israelite. He goes to great lengths through out the commentary to show the why’s and the how’s of a law or command. To quote Milgrom again, after talking about the four possible states of being (holy, common, pure, impure), he says,

“Thus… biblical impurity and holiness, are semantic opposites. And as the quintessence and source of [holiness] resides with God, it is imperative for Israel to control the occurrence of impurity lest it impinge on the realm of the holy God. The forces pitted against each other in the cosmic struggle are no longer the benevolent and demonic deities who populate the mythologies of Israel’s neighbors, but the forces of life and death set loose by man himself through his obedience to or defiance of God’s commandments” (1721-22). Israel is “to cleave to life and reject death” (1722).

Recommended?

To the serious student and pastor who know a good deal of Hebrew and to the OT scholar who will certainly have knowledge on Hebrew, ANE studies, and the methodology of source criticism, these three volumes (though I’ve only reviewed the second, 3A) would be important to own since, as Longman has expressed, Milgrom was “clearly the world’s leading expert on Leviticus” (OT Commentary Survey, 33). However, as previously stated, the source criticism (regardless of how conservative Milgrom was) won’t be favored by many. While Milgrom treats both the different Sources of Leviticus and its final form, wading through seemingly endless notes about ’J’, ‘E’, ’D’, ‘P’, (and ‘H’ too) may wear on you, especially if you think these are foreign (or illegitimate) conceptions of treating Leviticus. Pastors may not have the time to get into the deep details of this book, especially since their congregations probably won’t be interested in the same ‘deep details’. But for those who have the want and the time to go into Leviticus (like PhD studies or seminary teaching), then Milgrom’s volumes are a must-have, as he is a brilliant scholar when it comes to the strange, often-disregarded, yet incredible book of Leviticus. As Mulberry Sellers said, “There’s gold in them thar hills” and “there’s millions in it.” One simply needs to start mining.

Lagniappe

  • Series: The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries
  • Hardcover: 656 pages
  • Publisher: Yale University Press (December 5, 2000)

Buy it on Amazon!

[Special thanks to Yale University Press for allowing me to review this book! I was not obligated to provide a positive review in exchange for this book].

1 Comment

Filed under Review

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,