Loading...I’ve been talking about Jesus’ “Farewell Discourse,” the long five-chapter discourse that is Jesus’ last speech (virtually a monologue) in the Gospel of John. In the previous post we saw that in the speech Jesus discusses how he relates to the Father: he is in the Father and the Father is in him, so that even though the Father “is greater” than he, when someone sees him he sees the Father. They are “one.”
That doesn’t mean they are the same person/thing; it’s more like when you tell a colleague or friend “you and I are completely unified in this” or “you and I are at one on this.” There is no distance between you. For Jesus it means that he has been given the authority of the Father and that his words are the ones the Father has given him to speak so that whatever he does and says has the full authority of the Father behind it. There is no distance between him and the Father. Not because they are the same but because he has been sent from the Father with all his authority and he says and does nothing on his own. That view will change as later theologians developed the doctrine of the Trinity.
But Jesus introduces yet a third being in his speech, the Holy Spirit. Recall: Jesus is delivering the speech to prepare the disciples for his imminent departure. A good part of the speech is devoted to the idea that they will feel lost and forlorn without him. Jesus, however, assures them that
If you’re at all interested in where the doctrine of the Trinity came from, this is a key passage. Wanna see how it works? If you join the blog you this post and four others of the same substance, each and every week — all for a small fee. And the entire fee goes to charity. So why not? Click here for membership options
“Everything the father has is mine… that he (the Spirit) will receive from me and tell you”
Sounds like we have a chain of communication here – the Father tells the Son, the Son tells the Spirit and the Spirit tells the Disciples?
Yup!
In other words, trickle-down effect.
Fascinating Bart; I am agog to see how you may develop these understandings of the farewell discourse.
But one question (you may well be coming to it, but not treated it so far); is where, in your view, the author (or authors) of the Gospel of John got their material for this discourse?
One suggestion sometimes proposed is that this is early church preaching; the speculation being that the two later Gospel authors – Luke and John – both incorporated church preaching into their narratives; Luke as ‘speeches’ in the Book of Acts, John as ‘discourses’ in the mouth of Jesus.
The proposal being that the words of Jesus in this discourse material are very different from those in any tradition within the Synoptics – while the various synoptic sayings traditions do seem to have a greater degree of commonality.
Some commentators propose that the John discourses can be understood as extended expansions of ‘pithy’ sayings that correspond much closer to the commonality of synoptic sayings.
But specifically in respect of the Spirit/Paraclete sayings; is there anything in the Synoptics (or Paul, or Hebrews, or other earlier New Testament writing) that could be an underlying sayings ‘nugget’ for these?
It doesn’t look to me (or to most people who work on this) that the speeches have been developed out of earlier nuggets that we actdually have any access to, say in Paul or the Synoptics. But it looks pretty clear that the author hismelf isn’t simply composing them himself: one good piece of evidence is that the overlaps of chs. 14 and 16 suggest they are two different accounts of the same (part of a ) speech. So he inherited the accounts. The usual scholarly suggestion is that the author had access to several “discourse sources” that had developed within his community over time; some scholars would say the ultimate source was teachings of the “beloved disciple” who founded the community; others (including me) think that they are oral traditions that developed over time int eh community, much as the passion narrative of Mark appears to have done.
What you describe is a hierarchy. And if one truly believes this invisible delegate (Paraclete; parrot) exists and is present with ones person at all times wouldn’t ones mind be inclined to find meaning in mundane things which are really meaningless? Maybe hallucinate, have visions? Has any scholar such as yourself studied and written about this? Psychologists?
Are you asking whether psychologists have studied how belief in an active Holy Spirit might related to mental states and physiological/emotional reasons for them. Yup. But it’s not my area of expertise. There’s no way to apply those kinds of studies to ancient texts, though, since no one is around to question for psychological analysis.
“…wouldn’t ones mind be inclined to find meaning in mundane things which are really meaningless?”
This is the physiologic phenomenon known as “kindling,” a proposed mechanism for the hyper-religiosity and the cosmic concerns common–but not universal-to persons exhibiting other signs (this is the gospel of John) of the syndrome of limbic epilepsy. Kindling definitely occurs, i.e., can be induced in many non-human species. Does kindling occur in humans? Still not clear.
What is the relationship (if any) between the coming of “another” Paraclete in John and the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? You’ve said you do not think John knew Luke/Acts but the similarity between the two is striking. The Holy Spirit comes after Jesus departs to inspire and support a community that is backing away from the idea of an imminent parousia, realizing they’re in it for the long haul.
Thanks
I think they are two different versions of the widely held early Christain view that when Jesus left God sent his Spirit as a kind of termporary replacement.
1) The suitable English word as per your definition of Paraclete:- “The person who stands beside you providing you with all the guidance and support you need.” is obviously a Prophet of God. The Paraclete to come, which was similar to (Paraclete) Jesus, will be a prophet of God that will perform as per your explanation in 14:26; 15:26 and 16:13-15. There is a world famous prophet of God after Jesus departed who did just that.
2) The statement “ … third divine figure.” Appreciate if you can provide the verse whereby Jesus confirm that the Holy Spirit was a divine figure or was it just an assumption?
3) Did Jesus Christ approve the doctrine of the Trinity?
1. Prophets are often not thought of as providing support, but challenge to those who hear them. 2. Yes, if Jesus is divine and the Paraclete is another like him sent from heaven, it too would be divine. 3. No, the historical Jesus never heard of the trinity and if he had heard of it he surely would have vehemently objected to it.
Bart, I disagree with you on this ( June 9, 2021 at 11:17 am). But I wonder about your view of the historical Jesus. For example, Did Jesus believe that the Father and Holy Spirit are separate things and not merely different modes of the same thing?
So far as we know Jesus never talked about the Holy Spirit; he certainly didn’t think of it in the way later theologians did, so he didn’t have an opinion on your question. I don’t think it would have occurred to him.
Hi Bart, Per your (June 10, 2021 at 8:28 pm), I want to make sure of what you mean by “later theologians.” In this case, I want to focus on the Synoptic Gospels, which I assume were written in the first century. Or correct me if I am wrong on some of that.
For example, the Synoptic Gospel writers described that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate things, which you agreed to elsewhere. Are you implying that the Synoptic Gospels’ view of the Holy Spirit cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus?
Yes, I’m saying that I don’t think there’s any reason to think Jesus talked about hte Holy Spirit as some kind of entity distinct from God, any more than he talked about himself as a divine being.
I have always liked the comparison of the trinity to the three states of water, liquid, solid and vapor. It is all the same molecule just manifested in different forms. Neither is superior to the other but all work in different ways. They are different but still the same. Do you think that this is a valid analogy?
I know, it’s one of the popular ways to imagine it. But it doesn’t work because an individual molecule is not in all three states at once — it moves from one to the other. That would be a modalistic understanding rather than trinitarian. Most theologians say there is nothing exactly analogous to the idea. Either you end up with three different things or only one thing, but not three different things that are one, at one and the same time.
Is there any reason not to think that Jesus had in mind a(nother) human “Paraclete”? This, to my mind is suggested by “he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from his own authority but as many things as he hears he will speak, telling you what is about to come.”
Mainly because he calls the Paraclete a spirit sent from God, not a human.
Yes of course. But Jesus was the “Word” and the “true light” that “became flesh and lived among us.” So enfleshment isn’t unheard of. Couldn’t the Spirit to which Jesus (in John anyway) refers become flesh as well, a human Paraclete? I’m not meaning to be contentious, but so much of the description of the Paraclete in 14-16 seems to indicate that John’s Jesus had in mind a human guide/authority, someone perhaps who already was living among the members of John’s community, someone who, like the author of John perhaps, was given authority to “testify” on Jesus’ behalf.
The current Master’s Master, Maharaj Charan Singh, said John the Baptist was a Paraclete incarnation. John 1:1-13 are all about John the B, not Jesus! James also was, as evidenced by the attempt (successful until just recently) to hide him AS JUDAS. Rssb.org Scienceofthesoul.org for books. And judaswasjames.com for a book on Judas as James.
A better analogy is the wave-particle duality required by quantum mechanics: All matter–most demonstrably, electrons–consists SIMULTANEOUSLY of two fundamentally different kinds of things, waves and particles. It’s NOT sometimes one and sometimes the other; it’s always BOTH. Depending on what you do to it, you will see it behave like one or the other, with a smooth transition between the two (the Correspondence Principle).
“The person who stands beside you providing you with all the guidance and support you need.”
Even though I’m Greek, and I should be of some assistance here, this definition brings strongly to my mind Saul Goodman from Netflix’s “Better Call Saul”.
Excellent post, by the way…
I suggest “wingman.”
The “Paraclete” certainly is an interesting concept but was this really a Christian innovation? Pythagoras was worshiped as the “Son of God,” “Paraclete,” “Child of Divinity,” etc. In fact, with respect to the spirit of his precepts, his moral lessons, and nearly his whole practical life, he bore a striking resemblance to JC, and presented the same kind of evidence, and equally convincing evidence, of being a God. The author of John was certainly no slouch in Greek and would have been highly learned in pagan antiquities. Are we seeing signs of Hellenized pre-Montanist authorship (like someone heavenly influenced by the Essenes as Children of the Light)? I am thinking of the woman at the well in 4:13-14. She does not understand Jesus’ meaning, but John’s intended readers who are well aware of the spiritual water that Jesus is referring to – a special gnosis of revelation in understanding the Logos.
No, Christians did not invent the term. It’s already in Demosthenes, I believe.
but just as the Son is sent from the Father and is “at one” with the Father so too the Spirit is sent from the Father
That’s the Orthodox view but of course Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son.
It’s difficult enough for us to translate ancient Greek to English. Jesus spoke Aramaic. An added complexity is that the John writer(s) had to translate Aramaic oral traditions about Jesus into Greek. BTW, I think John is a beautifully written and moving gospel, but I’m forced to view John in the context I believe John was written; an indictment of establishment Judaism for the alleged error of not being followers of Jesus.
It’s interesting that the Nicene beliefs weren’t confirmed until the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, when the Holy Spirit was added to the Nicene concept of God to form the Holy Trinity. These beliefs weren’t confirmed as ecumenical until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics quibble to this day about the origin of the Holy Spirit. Does it originate from God, or from Jesus and God; the so called filioque issue.
I’m guessing all I wrote is of total insignificance to Jesus whose ministry was loving our neighbors as ourselves and living by the golden rule.
It seems very unlikely that the author of John had any access to Aramaic oral traditions. I would expect his community, and the traditions they maintained, to have been entirely in koine Greek.
Bart, is it fair to say that this discourse lays the ground for future church (Catholic) leaders to claim that their decisions as it relates to doctrine are “true” because they reflect revealed truth from the Spirit? And the Spirit can’t be wrong, right?
Yup, this passage was a large part of that.
1. Please correct me. Prophet duties were to guide, help and provide support. Jesus had supported the lost sheep of the house of Israel by giving them free food, healed the sick and guided them to the true path. Please it was Jesus ‘s enemies who challenged him not the other way.
2. Kindly check if Jesus ever claimed to be divine. My understanding is that there is no evidence that he ever claim to have created the entire universe. In fact he said in John 5:30 “I can of myself do nothing”. I don’t think Jesus drop down from heaven. Mary, his mother, gave birth to him like any normal mother indicating that he can never be divine. Anything that receives life cannot be divine.
Prophets in the Bible more frequently challenged teh people they addressed and urged them to change their ways; they were more often a nuisance than a help. I don’t think Jesus claimed to be divine, no, not at all. I talk about this at length in my book How Jesus Became God.
In reply to Ibrahim.
Prophets in the Bible more frequently challenged teh people they addressed and urged them to change their ways; they were more often a nuisance than a help. I don’t think Jesus claimed to be divine, no, not at all. I talk about this at length in my book How Jesus Became God.
Dr Ehrman. If I recall correctly I think wrote in one of your books that the Trinity developed out of a need to make Christianity appear monotheistic as at first glance the emphasis on Jesus seemed to throw a spanner in the works when trying to promote the idea that they worshipped only one god.
I like this explanation because how else would the early Christian theologians end interpreting the poetic language of the some of Jesus’s sayings in such a hyper-literalist way?
Dr Ehrman,
Excellent post Sir, best of Bart Ehrman yet!
In the 3 mentions of the word Paraclete, (14:26,15:26 and 16:13) there seems to be “later on insertions” after the word Paraclete, of the words “the holy spirit”
If we simply take out “THE HOLY SPIRIT” from 14:26 and 15:26, it would become very difficult to establish that writers of John are talking about HS but of a 4th Character who Jesus is referring too.
What I simply mean is the emphasis and placement of “the holy spirit” seems a bit odd?
Maybe a more politically correct term, after the fall of Temple, which was later reduced or merged into the term Holy Spirit to keep things simpler and politically correct? Or maybe Jesus is referring to one of his disciples or some military leader (Simon bar kokhba)?
regards,
Kashif
The “Holy Spirit” appears to be original to these account; there are not any manuscripts that lack it and it was very much a central feature of John’s theology.
In Catholic school, one of the problems I had with what they called the Holy GHOST was the ghostlyness of the thing and that the image most used to represent the thing was a bird, usually a pigeon. To a kid like me it was spooky, weird, and kind of funny all at the same time. And of course, making the sign of the cross, in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, I could visualize the first two as a bearded old man in a sort of hospital gown, and then a bearded young guy with long hair in a robe, but to end up with the image of a pigeon was always disturbing. Like, what’s that all about??
It’s a dove, not a pigeon, and the image comes from Luke 3:22, where at Jesus’ baptism, “the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove.”
It shouldn’t be necessary to get into ornithology when discussing God, but that’s where the doctrine of the trinity leads. More evidence that it was a bad idea.
It seems to me that the author of John is drawing on the idea of angels to describe the paraclete. In the Hebrew Bible, an angel is a heavenly being sent by God to earth, often to give a specific message and reveal the God’s glory and comfort God’s people. These are all things that the Spirit of Truth does in the Farewell Discourse. In the Hebrew Bible, angels are not specifically called “angels” (malakhim) much of the time, but could simply called a “man” or even “Elohim” (God), and can only be understood as angels in context.
Do you think that was an intended connection here? That John thought of the Spirit much like a non-corporeal angel?
In a sense I suppose; but as more fully divine than they — God’s *own* Spirit.
Is “Paraclete” (or its Greek equivalent) a neologism appearing for the first time in John, or was it an existing word (attested in other sources) that John adopted?
It existed as a word, used, e.g., to refer to a defense lawyer.
Is Paraclete used in other Greek writings of the time or was this word created and put together by the author of John?
It existed as a word, used, e.g., to refer to a defense lawyer.
Wouldn’t that be a good translation or do translators not find it poetic enough?
The problem is that words mean what they do (especially in their nuances) based on their usage in their context, and in John 14/16 Jesus doesn’t seem to be using judicial language so much as language of comfort, support, and help….
It’s sad that this thread is coming to an end as I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I must admit that doing justice in English to the term Paraclete produces a string of words that reminds me of Native American names (eg. Young man afraid of his horses) – One who has been summoned, stands beside and supports me. I suspect that, without the Greek language to help it develop, Christianity would have probably amounted to little more than an obscure Jewish sect.
I have a question Dr. Ehrman: What kind of later “heresy” would be closer to the idea of the NT in relation to “Trinity”? I don’t see in the NT any strong support to affirm that the 3 are equal and one the same God (besides the much later addition to 1 John 5:7 KJV. Just like here in the Gospel, which seems to show difference and superiority of one over the other (God-Christ-Paraclete), the idea of hierarchy is also seen in Apocalyptic text (Rev. 1:1).
I suppose Arianism.
In the baptism scene in John, It is told that The holy spirit stayed with Jesus and that John then saw he was indeed the son of God. That seems to imply that tge holy spirit is quite distinct from Jesus but more like anotger messenger from God. Within this context it seems to contradict the speech in which it looks like the holy spirits speaks for the son instead of the father. How should this baptism scene be interpreted in light of that?
I’d say throughout the Bible the Holy Spirit is not thought of as being Jesus but is the spirit sent from God.
But more as a messenger, right? The speech then clarifies that Jesus as a messenger is being replaced by another one. Correct? And if not? What is the relationship between the spirit and God then?
He’s more than a messenger in the Bible. IN some passages he seems to be an active agent of God, more closely connected with him than angels. Thus, in the NT for example, at Jesus’ baptism.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
What is your analysis on the Paraclete being a future prophet, perhaps Muhammad?
Thank you for your time! 🙂
– Rob
I’d say that it’s certailiy not what Jesus meant when he speaks about it in the Gospel of John. He was referring to the coming of the HOly S[9rit after his death.