Writings of John for Easter Season

Lessons from the Writings of John for Easter Season

 

            Some scholars of the Johannine community suggest that from 50-80, the Johannine community develops in Samaria and Judea, receiving Samaritans, Gentiles, and anti-Temple Jews and developing a "high" Christology.  They were excommunicated from the synagogue. The Beloved Disciple becomes the leader. In the 60s, the community moved from Judea and Samaria to Syria.

In 90, the Gospel of John was written.  This tradition is aware of the Synoptic tradition, is closer to the special material of Luke, and builds upon the view of Jesus as an anti-Temple Jew, like the Essene community.  It differs with the synoptic tradition, though it did not seek to replace them.  It is concerned with the Christ present in the church.  Each individual event of the life of Jesus is shown to be at the same time the Christ present in the church.  This gospel is nothing other than a theological reflection upon the historical Jesus.  A further concern is to show that the Johannine churches are just as legitimate as the other churches.  It built upon the Jesus who had close contacts with unofficial, non-orthodox Judaism.  Jesus also believed the official Judaism was corrupt.  He related to John the Baptist and possibly the Essenes.  

In 100, the Epistles of John were written.  Eventually, the Johannine community divided into a group, which united with the apostolic churches on the one hand, and a larger group that joined the Gnostic Christian community.  Note the Odes of Solomon as a close parallel to John.

The scholarly consensus is that 1 John issues from a community that is dealing with both division from within that has caused some to leave (see 2:19) and threats from the world outside the community. Thus, the community is confronting disobedience (1:6, 8, 10), those who walk in darkness (2:11), the evil one (2:13b, 14c), the temptations of the world (2:15-16), antichrists (2:18-26), lawlessness (3:4-10) and false prophets (4:1-6). Consistent with these challenges is concern over emerging doctrinal issues such as the nature and purposes of God in relation to the Trinity, the Incarnation, Christology, the person and work of the Holy Spirit and koinonia among Christians — all of which set up the fledgling first-century church for disputes from within over what is orthodox and heretical, as well as mocking rejection from outside.

Why did the mutiny occur? No one can know for sure. It is probable, however, that the split happened at least in part concerning the issue of the identity of Jesus Christ. In the first centuries of the church, there was much division surrounding the tension inherent in claiming Jesus both human and divine, and many in the early church stressed one at the expense of the other. Whatever the historical reality, John's letter expresses the converging orthodoxy of the early church: Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior of the World. Those who confess this to be true and abide with those who do, witness to the love of God.

Present-day sermons about battling heresies and the travails of being Christian in a secular world run the risk of coming across as overly sanctimonious, whiny, defensive — or just plain boring. 1 John 5:1-6 is a good starting place for simply welcoming the congregation to consider what they actually do know, believe and find relevant about basic doctrinal understandings related to believing Jesus is the “Christ” or “Son of God,” being born of God, loving God and one another, living an ethical life grounded in God’s commandment to love, conquering an often hostile world (or at least not being overwhelmed by it) and responding to the presence of Christ along with the Spirit that testifies to him.

Truth" is a major theme in John's gospel. In fact, Pontius Pilate stands in the place of the world confronted by Jesus, asking his famous question, "What is truth?" (18:38). The reader of this gospel has already stated that Jesus himself is the way, the truth and the life (14:6). In other words, if we emulate Jesus, our lives will not be a lie. Our lives instead will be lives of integrity, honesty, service, selflessness, and humility -- all counterintuitive from the world's point of view. If the disciples want to follow Jesus where he is going, then that means following his way, his truth and his life in spite of the dangers, twists and turns ahead. The only way to navigate that way is with a Guide who will take what Jesus has said and done and "declare it" to us so that we will glorify him (vv. 14-15).

We all want truth. The search for truth is deep within the human spirit. Deep down inside all human beings, is the desire to know the truth, regardless of how good that may be or how painful it may be. A sign of health in us is that we search for the truth. The opposite is also true. We human beings want to avoid people or events that deceive us. We do not want the deception of lies, distortions, and half-truths. A sign of sickness in us as human beings is that we try to avoid, distort, or manipulate the truth. Moreover, we want to find the truth out about everything. All human beings have this spirit of truth, the desire to find truth in all aspects of our lives. For example, we want to find out the truth about our universe, including how it works. We want to find out the truth about the sun, moon, and the stars. We want to find out the truth about the origins of our universe and the destiny of our universe. We want to find out the truth if there is life living out there somewhere in the universe. The purpose of the science of astronomy is to discover the truth about how our universe works. We want to know the truth. That is just the way we human beings are. We want to find out the truth about ourselves. What makes us tick? Why do we do the things we do? Why do we not do other things? We have an interest in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Why are human beings such warring animals? Why were there so many kamikaze pilots in World War II and so many terrorists willing to be human bombs? So much about humanity perplexes us. We human beings want to know the truth about everything. It is like we human beings are on a quest, not for the Holy Grail, the cup of Christ from the Last Supper, but we are on a quest to find the Holy Grails, the truth about life in all of its infinite variations.[1] Yet, only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.[2] Our dreams and aspirations motivate us. If we lose them, we may still exist, but fail to live.[3]

John emphasizes the division between believer and non-believer, between church and world. We can think of the church has having four ways it might interact with its surrounding culture. In the proper setting, each may have validity. One can be anti-cultural, like the Amish. One can be en-cultural, where the church becomes so anxious to fit into its culture that it loses its distinguishing particularity. It becomes the world. The world throws a stick, and the church, like a friendly and faithful dog, fetches the stick. The church can be counter-cultural, isolating itself from what it thinks is the dominant culture, only to discover that it now identifies itself with a sub-culture. It becomes friendly with isolationist language. The church is the beachhead, outpost, colony, or resident alien, all the while oblivious that it has switched one culture for another culture. It creates an artificial wall between the church and world, in which the church assumes its chosen sub-culture is superior to its understanding of the dominant culture. God loves this world so much to the send the Son to die for it. Yes, that capitalist and western culture that so many hip theologians reject is the one God loves. The church can be in-cultural, using knowledge of the current culture to incarnate Christ in this culture, recognizing that the culture will change. Such a viewing of viewing church and culture requires much prayerful discernment to know where to stand with culture on common ground and where to move lovingly against it. Faithful Christians and churches will differ widely as to where and how this tension finds resolution.[4] Such issues are practical. If you find your cultural home sweet, you are a beginner. If every native soil is sweet, you are strong. It may well be, however, that when every culture feels like a foreign place, we have reached a level of spiritual maturity rarely reached.[5] Yes, I am including the highly valued sub-culture of the self-described resident alien as finding itself far too much at home in a sub-culture. It may well be that the only ultimate disaster for the church is to be at home on earth. If every place on earth feels like a foreign place and we long for the true homeland proclaimed by Jesus in the rule of God, then we have not forgotten what concerned Jesus and what ought to concern followers of Jesus of every age and culture.[6]

The writings of John challenge us to reflect upon the relationship between church and world. The church is in the world, obviously, but must never be at rest or at peace with the world. The church needs to recognize that, regardless of the specific culture, the world can be a rough place for those who love God more than the world. 

A student at Duke called the pastor, William Willimon, and needed to talk.  He began by saying: I have had the worst night of my life.  Last night, after the fraternity meeting, as usual, we had a time when we just sit around and talk about what we did over the weekend.  This weekend, during a party we had on Saturday, I went upstairs to get something from a brother’s room and walked in on a couple who were, well, in the act.  I immediately closed the door and went back downstairs, saying nothing.  Well, when we came to the time for sharing at the end of the meeting, after a couple of brothers shared what they did over the weekend, one of the group said, “I understand that Mr. Christian got a real eye full last night.”  With that, they all began to laugh.  Not a good, friendly laugh; it was cold, cruel, mean laughter.  They were all laughing, all saying things like, “You won’t see nothing like that in church!  Better go confess it to the priest.”  Stuff like that.  I tried to recover, tried to say something light, but I could not.  They hate me!  They were serious.  I walked out of the meeting, stood outside, and wept.  I have never received treatment like that in my life.  The pastor responded: that is amazing.  Moreover, you are not the greatest Christian in the world, are you?  And yet, just one person running around loose who can say “No” is a threat to everyone else, has to be put down, ridiculed, savaged into silence.”

The difficulty is that the church may well give a loud voice and clear exposition to every portion of the Bible. Yet, the challenge is that at some specific moment and place, the truth in the Bible finds itself under attack. If the church is too fearful to engage the place where the battle rages, where the loyalty of the soldier has its test, and instead flees or flinches, it shows its weakness in standing with Christ and against culture.[7]

I need this reminder today.

One of those concerns relates to what people often think of as one of the most esoteric doctrines of Christian theology, namely what later theologians would call the “two natures of Christ.” Around the time John wrote his letters, there was beginning to emerge an idea among some Christian thinkers that we would eventually know as “Docetism.” The term derives from the Greek verb δοκέω which means “to seem,” and it designates the idea that the Christ just “seemed” to be human but was in fact only and completely divine. Christ was a fully spiritual being who took on the outward appearance of physicality without taking on any genuine physical attributes.

At the very heart of our Christian faith is the bold assertion that God is love. Not simply that God loves, but that God is love. That is a claim about the nature of God that does not appear in the scriptures of Islam, the Quran. Theologian Miroslav Volf has studied and written on the topic of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. He says they do. Others would argue that when you examine the orthodox expressions of both religions, the answer would have to be no. 

However, listen to what Miroslav Volf has to say. In a lecture at Yale Divinity School in October 2011, he made the case that our Gods are the same, but we understand God in separate ways. In our distinctive views of God, there are four significant similarities and two crucial differences. Both believe that God is One, created the world out of nothing, is radically different from the world, and is just, merciful, and a giving of commandments. These are significant similarities. However, let us not fall into the trap of thinking that Christianity and Islam are the very same road to God. There are at least two major differences. First, Christians believe that God is a Trinity. We are monotheists, but also Trinitarians. Muslims believe that God is fully one, not triune.  Second, Christians believe that God is love (1 John 4:8). Muslims agree to a certain extent, and the mercy of God is huge in Islam. However, one will not find "God is love" among the 99 Muslim names for God.

Christians and Muslims should have an honest dialogue on love to see if there can be agreement on the belief that "God is love." To begin such a conversation, we need to be clear about our own convictions about the nature of God. We worship one God in Trinity in a way that does not confound the persons or modes of being of the Trinity and does not divide the essence of divinity. In our understanding of the event of revelation in Jesus Christ, we believe God is Father, Son, and Spirit. Their glory, beauty, and majesty exist as equal. Being God, they are not created by someone or something else. As God, they have no limits. They are infinite. They are eternal. Yet, the three exist as one. We acknowledge the contradiction, but the event of revelation in Jesus Christ and the gift of the Spirit through the risen Lord lead us to affirm unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity.[8] Such an affirmation of the nature of God seems incompatible with the central Muslim claim that there is "no god but God." Moreover, the Qur'an seems to directly condemn the kinds of beliefs the creed advocates. Consider the following texts from the Qur'an:

 

1) "They say: 'God hath begotten a son.' Glory be to Him—to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin. Of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: 'Be,' and it is" (Al Baqarah, 2:116–117).

2) "Say: 'O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)''' (al 'lmran, 3:64).

3) "They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word [of blasphemy], verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (al Ma'idah, 5:73).

4) "They do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord: Whoever joins other gods with God, God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help" (al Ma'idah, 5:72).

5) "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and [they take as their Lord] Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him. [Far is He] from having the partners they associate with Him" (al Taw­bah, 9:31).

 

            For Christians, the Trinity is the way that the issue of the transcendence and immanence of God find their resolution. God is one, infinite, and eternal. Yet, God is love, and therefore God has loved in such a way that God has revealed who God is at a particular moment in history, in Jesus Christ, the Son. God became one with humanity to the point of suffering and death. God also brought suffering and death into the being or life of God in such a way as to conquer them through resurrection and life. Further, God is Spirit, and therefore is present with us and among us as the life-giving, healing, guiding, and liberating presence of God as the Holy Spirit. God is transcendent, while also immanent at a particular moment of revelation and immanent with us as our companion through life. Yet, we do not think of three gods, but three ways in which God is who God is. 

            Now, this focus on divine love that leads Christians to discuss the unity and diversity of the divine nature, what we call the Trinity, also needs to be the distinguishing feature of the Christian. If love is the soul of Christian existence, it must be at the heart of every other Christian virtue. Thus, for example, justice without love is legalism; faith without love is ideology; hope without love is self-centeredness; forgiveness without love is self-abasement; fortitude without love is recklessness; generosity without love is extravagance; care without love is mere duty; fidelity without love is servitude. Every virtue is an expression of love. No virtue is really a virtue unless love permeates and informs it.[9]

 

            John 3:1-17 (Year B, Trinity Sunday, see Year A, Second Sunday in Lent). 

John 7:37-39 (Year A Pentecost) is part of the observance of the Feast of Tabernacles (sukkot), portraying Jesus as divine wisdom. The festival drew large crowds from great distances to Jerusalem. On this day, the priests performed the ceremony of drawing water from the pool of Siloam and taking it to the altar with special solemnity. This was a prayer for rain and water. The priest doused the altar with water. The religious importance of this water becomes an occasion for Jesus to speak a word of revelation as he cries out that anyone who is thirsty may come to him, and the one who believes in him may drink, referring to an unknown scripture that out of the heart of the believer shall flow rivers of living, running, or fresh water. Here is water imbued with the Holy Spirit. We find here one of the most beautiful images in John, the invitation being to come to Jesus, the source of life. The passage challenges us to become mindful of our spiritual thirst, mindful of the thirst of others, and even mindful of how God thirsts for us to find refreshment in accord with the renewal of the Spirit. The only reason living water can flow from a person is that the person is in service to the quickening divine activity we find in Christ.[10] This should remind us of John 4:10-14, where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman about living water and a spring of water that gushes up to eternal life. In John 6:35, Jesus promises that those who believe in him will never experience thirst. In a parenthetical comment from John, he specifies that Jesus said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive, although the Spirit was not yet a possibility since the Father had not yet glorified Jesus. This notion that the Son must leave before the Spirit can come suggests the self-distinction within the Trinity. The fact that the Spirit was not yet present applies only to believers, of course, since the ministry of Jesus begins in the power of the Spirit and continues with that same power.[11] Early believers associated the reception of the Holy Spirit with baptism.^[12]

John 10:1-10 (Year A Fifth Sunday of Easter) considers Jesus as the sheepgate and the shepherd, the aftermath of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (September to October), and prior to the feast of dedication (December). The audience is the Pharisees of Chapter 9. In verses 1-5, we have a parable. In referring to the thief and bandit, who sneak into the sheep by another gate, the parable refers to the Pharisees. It refers to the morning task of the shepherd, who in the morning will lead the sheep to pasture. It refers to the bond between shepherd and sheep. In fact, it exaggerates the bond by saying that this shepherd has a name for each of the sheep. In verse 6, they do not understand the meaning of the parable. In verses 7-10, we have an explanation of the parable. The gate is Jesus. The point is that anyone else who claims to lead the people and does enter through Jesus is someone to whom the sheep must not listen. We can think of the false messiahs of the first century, even as we might think of false leaders throughout history. The warning offered is to leaders; for they must be sure they lead because they have listened to Jesus. Yet, the warning is also for the sheep, who need to discern the voice of the Good Shepherd. We can think of modern Pharisees who may be quite “spiritual” but seek to lead the people of God down a wrong path. However, the passage challenges us with an implied question. Do we accept the revelation of God in Jesus? Do we turn aside to another supposed revelation? As we become increasingly knowledgeable of ways to live that are not consistent with that of Jesus, this question becomes a struggle for us at some point. If we say Yes to Jesus, we will receive pasture and abundant life. Yet, our Yes is not a one-time matter. As the challenges of various stages of our lives come toward us, we will need to keep saying Yes. Thieves and robbers will lead to death, while Jesus has come to bring life.

Jesus is the gate or door. Jesus is the way or path. Christians are people who think that, of all the possible ways that one might get to God, the best and most sure way is Jesus. In the Jew Jesus of Nazareth, who lived briefly, died violently, and rose unexpectedly, we have our way to God. The image is humble, for if he is the door through which we enter, he is not the destination but the way to the end. Of course, the door is important. The door tells the outside much about what goes on inside. He is the door that tells us much about the house, for he tells us all that we can hope to know about who God is. In the mouth of some Christians, declaring Jesus as the door, the gate, the way, it can sound arrogant and unbearably exclusivist. It can sound as if we are incredibly brilliant people who recognize this door and walk through it. Rather, our perspective could be closer to the humility of Jesus if we acknowledge that people like us, so full of pride, so lazy in spiritual matters, and so prone to lying to self and others, discovered Jesus as the door, the gate, the opening, the way, through which we have come close to God. We cannot imagine any other way to God than in the loving, compassionate, suffering, self-sacrificial way that was the way of Jesus. Other people attempted to save others by raising an army, by starting a revolution, by overthrowing government, by coercion violence, or military might. Jesus saves through the words of his preaching and teaching and his sacrificial action of love. Those who move through this door, the gate, and choose this way, desire Jesus to be the criterion or model of their life choices. It will take a lifetime to discover what such salvation, such finding of pasture, such abundant life, will look like in our lives. As we keep coming back to this door/gate, we steadily realize that it relativizes all political and economic ideology, for this door does not demand that we accept an ideology or worldview to enter. This door gives us the freedom to learn from all such systems. We refuse to set up an idol of our systems so that they become our door, gate, or way. We exercise great care, for we can so easily impose our political, economic, and ethical proclivities upon this door. Such an act is a matter of projecting onto this door, this Jesus, our image, ideas, opinions, and desires. In doing so, we have at least valued Jesus enough to want him to endorse our ideas and we may even imagine that our ideas have come directly from Jesus. The point is that we can be grateful that Jesus did not present his followers with a detailed political, economic, or moral system. We can freely engage the uniqueness of this historical moment without the prison that human intellectual systems can become.[13]

John 10:11-18 (Year B Fifth Sunday of Easter) continues the theme from the previous section. Verses 11-16 is a discussion of the shepherd image in the parable we find in verses 1-5. This chapter is moving toward accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

¹¹ "I am [Ἐγώ εἰμι] the good shepherd, compare John 6:35 "bread of life" and 8:12 "light of the world." The straightforwardness and forcefulness of these "I am" declarations reveal glimpses of Jesus that John clearly intends to suggest his divinity. These self-disclosures stress the uniqueness of Jesus' mission and identity, leading the listener toward Jesus' self-revelation. The Jewish establishment viewed such a message as a direct attack on their unique relationship between God and the chosen people of God. The Good Shepherd is an ideal model. In the Old Testament tradition, if one was a good shepherd, one was in the tradition of the Patriarchs, Moses, and David.  Such an image has deep connections with the Jewish scripture. During the Babylonian exile, Isaiah 40:11 offers comfort in the hope of a new Exodus with the Lord as the shepherd, leading the sheep (people) home. Likewise, Jeremiah uses the image of the future "good" shepherding of the Lord, which he contrasts against the irresponsible shepherding that Israel's present kings (shepherds) are offering. The Good Shepherd can provide comprehensive care for his sheep, as Psalm 23 also notes. The other gospels also report Jesus speaking of himself as a shepherd - see Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7 - but John most fully develops the image. The language of good shepherding during a time to remember false shepherds conjures images of Ezekiel 34. In Ezekiel 34:1-10, the prophet recounts a period of bad shepherds who fatten themselves, take the wool for clothing, and fail to care for the sheep. These shepherds lead with force and harshness with no concern to help the weak, fallen, injured, strayed, or lost. Because of such poor leadership, the sheep of Israel scatter, becoming prey for wild animals and lack any hope of rescue. In Ezekiel 34:11-31, however, God himself decides to search for his sheep, to gather the flock, and to attend to the weak and injured. Though imagery of God as nurturer and caregiver is prominent in the text, the language of judgment is even more overt. The necessity of the Lord to take the role of the Good Shepherd indicates the presence of false leaders and selfish hirelings. Moreover, in Ezekiel 34:17-22, the Lord must judge between the sheep and must purge the flock of those who do not belong to him. Thus, Jesus’ claim to be the Good Shepherd in the midst of the festival season suggests that, once again, there is a need for such a Good Shepherd to arise (consider John 2:13-22). Jesus’ words to the Jews who are questioning his identity in 10:26-27 sounds more like an indictment: “But you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.” The fact that Jewish authorities did not recognize what God was doing in Jesus to fulfill the promises of the Scripture, and especially to become Christ, the Davidic-like Servant whom God will make Shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23-24), makes it painfully obvious that they do not even recognize a Good Shepherd when they see one. Little wonder that others hear these "I am" statements as first century fighting words. 

Verses 11b-13 is the first explanation of the notion that Jesus the good or model shepherd. Jesus follows his claim to being a "good shepherd" by defining the first characteristic such a shepherding one bears. He lays down his life (vv. 11, 15, 17, 18, emphasizing that Jesus' actions are a result of his own initiative) for the sheep. John is responding to those challenging the early church by reminding them that a responsible and impartial judge did not have Jesus executed. Jesus laid down his own life. The theme of dying is abrupt, there being no suggestion of this in the parable of verses 1-5.  Note Mark 14:27 and John 21:15-19. The parable of the lost sheep shows the trouble a shepherd will take for a lost sheep.  Here, the risk extends to death. The image of Jesus as the Good Shepherd is a call for us to follow him. We do so when we recognize the dangers to spiritual life in this world and allow Jesus to protect us from them. The Good Shepherd is one willing to protect the sheep, even at the expense of his own life. He is ready to chase the wolves. In modern society, those who follow Jesus may very well hear the call to step into this role, to stand up to wolves and protect the sheep of God. This is the Good Shepherd not as opposed to a "bad" shepherd, but as distinguished from the simply average or minimal shepherding that another would offer. The difference between the two is easily described by Jesus' reference to "hireling" one with no personal investment in the sheep. The hireling abandons the sheep to save his own hide at the first sign of a threat, while the Good Shepherd willingly "lays down his life" to safeguard the flock.  The text stresses the greatness of Jesus' commitment in his mention that he will even die for the sheep. John intends the imagery to exclude all other claimants to the title of shepherd, in the same way as rejects thieves, robbers, and strangers respectively. The Pharisees would be the hired hand who betrays the flock.  Note Matthew 10:16, "I send you like sheep amid wolves." The good shepherd, on the other hand, is closely bound to his flock.

In verses 14-16, when Jesus states the second time that he is the Good Shepherd, he brings to the reader's attention a new but related thought. Jesus once again defines himself as the "good shepherd" but now declares that this title requires a unique three-step degree of familiarity from Father to Son to flock. I know my own and my own know me, ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. This involves intimate awareness that one demonstrates in the love and commitment between two parties. All that the sheep "know" is their faith in the Good Shepherd's unfaltering love and compassion. This is "knowledge" only in that it is knowledge of faithfulness. Further, I lay down my life for the sheep. What the Father "knows," what the sheep "know," is that Jesus as the Good Shepherd, the one in perfect accordance with God's own will, gladly lays down his life for the sheep.  The relationship between the Father and the Son is one replicated in Jesus and his followers. The reason that the Father loves the Son is not because the Son goes to the cross. It is because the crucifixion expresses the unity of the Father and the Son. ¹⁶ I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold (αὐλῆς, a building with an interior courtyard; an uncovered, walled area that is enclosed but without a roof; an open-air (interior) courtyard of a mansion or palace.). I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. Therefore, there will be one flock (ποίμνη), one shepherd. Jesus is aware that the Father is to lead to him other people besides that will believe through the word of the disciples. For some, the sentiment of this verse is troublesome amid this picture of the Good Shepherd. The "other sheep" suggests Jesus' sacrifice is just as much for these others as for those already in the fold.  This revelation has a history of varied interpretation within church tradition. Who are the other sheep? Most scholars believe that this is making a distinction between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, but others theorize that this means other Christian congregations beyond the Johannine community. The other sheep introduces the Gentile mission.  The church struggled to understand the implication of Jesus' statements concerning the conversion of the Gentiles.  The Old Testament has the image of shepherd, Moses and David as examples, as well as kings receiving the label of wicked shepherds.  Ezekiel provides the background for this imagery, rejecting Bultmann's insistence on Mandean parallels.  The Greek clearly distinguishes between Jesus' reference to "this fold" and the "one flock" that his voice will call together.[14]  The difference suggested by the two terms was significant for first century Christians and is equally instructive for 21st century Christians as well. A sheep "fold" was a separated, walled enclosure in which shepherds gathered their flocks for safekeeping during the night. In other words, a "fold" had definite boundaries and size limitations. A "flock," on the other hand, could refer to any number of sheep. "Flocks" were scattered and distributed over wide areas and different terrain. The text distinguishes between the one "fold" that now exists and the one "flock" that the Good Shepherd gathers with his voice.[15] For first century Christians, notably members of the Johannine community listening to this text, the gathered flock surely suggested the inclusion of Gentile believers, those clearly outside the fold of Jewish chosenness, but now called by the Good Shepherd's voice. For 21st century Christians, the distinction between those of one "fold" and those whose response in faith makes them part of the larger "flock" suggests that denominational, cultural, and even theological variances may exist if they are within the sound of the shepherd's voice.  The point of this text is to speak positively of a wider mission for the church, as it depicts the other sheep as anxious to listen to Jesus' voice.

We also need to consider the possibility of salvation without a personal encounter with Christ. If we consider Matthew 25:31-46, the message of Jesus is the standard of judgment. We need to put behind us any unfair particularism in the idea that for all of us, salvation depends on our fellowship with Jesus Christ. A personal encounter with Jesus through the Christian message and a response of faith to it is not the universal criterion for participation in salvation or exclusion from it, especially if we take seriously what the New Testament says about the love that God has for the world that embraces all people. Making eternal salvation dependent upon an historical and contingent factor would hardly be evidence of such love. In their case, what counts is whether their individual conduct agrees with the will of God that Jesus proclaimed. The promise of salvation contained in a passage like this may have contained a promise to Gentiles, but it has a greater breadth than that. It has a universal perspective. The advantage of the Christian in the future judgment is that they have the advantage that they know the standard for participation in eternal salvation and the standard of judgment.^[16]

Verses 17-18 reflect further on the Good Shepherd laying down his life, but this time with a new thought. The Father loves him because he lays down his life to take it back up again, choosing to lay down his life while knowing he has the power to take it up again, receiving this command from the Father. Thus, even when John depicts the resurrection as the act of Son, it is in obedience to the Father rather than an independent act of power.[17] The new thought here is that the purpose of his death is the resurrection. He binds the crucifixion and resurrection together, and Christ's death is in obedient love to God's will. Jesus is not powerless. He lays down his life freely, in order that he may retake it. The purpose of this intimate knowledge is to bring these followers into union with one another. However, this special relationship between sheep and shepherd mirrors the same kind of commitment and knowledge that exists between Jesus and the Father "as the Father knows me and I know the Father."  The Good Shepherd reclaims his life, and he saves the lives of his sheep. One of Jesus' most impressive "signs" is to bring Lazarus back to life. Life: That one-syllable word threads its way throughout the gospel. The Good Shepherd comes to offer life, but his own people reject the offer. Instead, Jesus prepares to give up his own life, and he makes the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, the paramount sacrifice that the Good Shepherd would be prepared to make to save the lives of his sheep. Some feel uncomfortable with the purpose being "to take it up again."  Nevertheless, the resurrection is the completion of the death of Jesus. Here, Jesus takes up his life.  Normally it is the Father.  Later Trinitarian theology would capitalize on this attribution of the Father and Son having the same power. Resurrection is Jesus' last work; the last command the Father has given him.  Jesus concludes this "I am" declaration here by defining once again the unique and unrepeatable nature of the relationship between himself and the Father. The love the Father extends to Jesus flows from a common will and complete obedience. The text firmly grounds the obedience of Jesus in his own freedom to act.

John 10:22-30 (Year C Fourth Sunday of Easter) is a story of Jesus at the Feast of Dedication (December), focusing upon Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. There are two connections between the content of the exchange and that feast, now commonly known as Hanukkah. The feast commemorates the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus. In the years 167-164 B.C., King Antiochus Epiphanes had erected an idol in the temple of God (I Maccabees 1:41-64; II Maccabees 6:1-17). This profane idol had been placed upon the altar itself (I Maccabees 1:54; II Maccabees 6:1-7), and its presence defiled the whole temple. Judas Maccabeus took over the temple, built a new altar, and rededicated this Holy Sanctuary on the 25th day of Chislev, that is, December (I Maccabees 4:41-61). Jews celebrated it over an eight-day period. The priests like Jason and Menelaus, whose negligence allowed such profanation to occur (II Maccabees 4:7-29), may have been in mind when Jesus mentioned the robbers or hirelings who care nothing for the sheep. Priests who have bought their way into the office and who would stand to see the house of God defiled surely are not good shepherds. Furthermore, as John 10:22-30 makes explicit, people who would support such priests are not the sheep of the Good Shepherd. That Jesus frames his response in terms of the imagery of “sheep” may relate to the festival since the usual Scriptural readings in the synagogues at this time of year related to shepherds.

Jesus was walking around the Temple in the outermost part of the Temple, the portico of Solomon being a covered walkway on the eastern side of the temple mount. Jesus has adopted the posture of a teacher or philosopher (Greek as in the “Peripatetic” philosophers). The Jewish opposition circled him, asking him how long he will keep them in suspense. Most of us can identify with this desire for plain speaking. Philosophers are notorious for not speaking plainly. Suspense is a tried-and-true element of storytelling, so one often finds it in novels as well. The question of whether Jesus is the Messiah is like the one raised in Luke 22:67 by the council of elders during the trial of Jesus. The reply of Jesus is significant in several respects. It shows the writer’s awareness that Jesus did not in fact reveal himself as openly as is suggested by the revelatory discourses in John. This impression arises solely because they serve as explications of the faith. Connected with this text is the answer Jesus gave to the same question before the High Council, as is related in Luke 22:68: If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. Jesus does not really respond to their request; rather, he shifts the location of the problem away from himself. There can be no plainer response than “the works” that he is doing “in [the] Father’s name” that testify clearly to who he is — clearly, that is, to those who “believe.” His sheep hear his voice, he knows them, and they follow him, offering an understanding of doctrine as involving the testing of doctrine within the norm of Christian faith awareness. [18] The very fact, then, that those who are questioning Jesus are unsure about whether he is the Messiah is itself an indication that they do not belong to him and so will not be able to believe in him. Jesus promises eternal life, suggesting a future with God and with others whom God chooses to bring into that eternal life. Death does not have the final word. Jesus as the model shepherd will not allow anyone to harm them. Those whom the Father has given the Son are greater than all those who have not been so given and so do not believe. The greatness of those who believe is compared to those who do not arises from the Father having given them to their good shepherd (v. 11) and the assurance that no one can take them away. The text concludes with the affirmation that the Father and the Son are one. This was an important text in respect to the formation of the traditional and orthodox interpretation of the Trinity. Monarchians or Sabellians interpreted it as saying that they were one person. Followers of Arius interpreted it as a moral unity of will.

John 13:31-35 (Year C Fifth Sunday of Easter) reflect upon two themes. 

The first theme (verses 31-33) is the glorification and departure of the Son. The departure of Judas from the Last Supper creates a decisive turn in the narrative, signified by Jesus saying “now.” Jesus is now among the eleven faithful followers who are worthy of hearing the farewell discourse to come. The arrival of the hour is now the governing narrative and theological reality of the Gospel. John redefines past, present, and future in the light of the arrival of the hour. In this “now,” the Son of Man has been glorified (doxa praise, honor; glorify, exalt). The mutual glorification of the Son and the Father is a reality that is underway even as Jesus speaks. Jesus speaks of the glorification of the Son of Man. John underscores the eschatological import of Jesus' announcement by his use of the title "Son of Man" here. "Son of Man" is the Christological title with the strongest eschatological associations in the Fourth Gospel (5:27; 8:28; 12:23) and is most explicitly linked with Jesus' descent and ascent—that is, his coming from and returning to the Father (1:51; 3:13-14; 6:62; 12:32-34). John's particular gift to New Testament theology combines two strands of tradition into the one title "Son of Man." Outside the New Testament, the Son of Man is a figure of glory (Daniel 7:13-14). Within the Gospels (whether it reflects an interpretation by Jesus himself or the early church is of no consequence here), the Son of Man takes on the role of the one who suffers sacrificially for others (e.g., Mark 8:31). In the fourth gospel, Jesus as the Son of Man combines in one experience both the suffering and the glory. In his glorification, the Father will fully reveal Jesus for who he is: God's Son. The obedience of Jesus in the way of the cross reveals the glory of the Father. The Father has been glorified in the Son as a visible manifestation of the majesty of the Father, focusing upon the crucifixion, which is a lifting up or exaltation (3:14; 8:28; 12:32) and resurrection of Jesus, where Jesus honors the Father in his obedience and therefore revealing the glory of the Father. If the Father has received glory in the Son, then the Father will glorify the Son now. John has a much broader understanding of the glorification of the Son– he does not localize it in any one event. Rather, the Father glorifies the Son in and through the entire process of his revelation from the Incarnation (1:1), to the words and works of Jesus (2:11, 7:18, 8:54, 11:4), to the Passion (see also 12:23). In the fourth gospel, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is much more aware of the unfolding drama of this final week and his part in it. The distinction between Jesus and the Father disappears: As you see the Son, you see God. The Father receives glorification in the Son, and the Son glorifies the Father. The Father and Son exhibit perfect unity. Addressing them as little children, the only time in this gospel he does so, reminding us as readers of the truth in 1:12, that to all who received and believed in him he gave the power to become children of God. This implies a bond that includes affection, protection, and responsibility the teacher has for the disciple. Jesus will be with them only a little while longer, and where he is going, both as one who will suffer crucifixion and as one whom the Father will glorify, they cannot come. 

The second theme (verses 34-35) is the new command to love (ἀγαπᾶτε) each other. One way to think of the mission of the church is to fulfill the commandment of Jesus as understood by John: love one another, as I have loved you. When we think of love as having the content that Jesus provided in his life, it takes on distinctive character. It becomes sacrificial. It no longer has whatever content we want to give it. It is no longer common. If one would like to provide one simple mark of the Christian life and of the church, it would be this type of love. The commandment builds on Jesus' words to his disciples after the foot washing (13:15); his love for them has provided them with the model of how they are to relate to one another. The content of the command is to love one another. To understand why this is a new commandment, it is important to look at how "commandment" is used elsewhere in the Gospel. At 10:18, John describes the decision of Jesus to lay down his life as his enactment of God's commandment; at 14:31 and 15:12, Jesus' obedience to God's commandment is the mark of Jesus' love for God. For Jesus to keep God's commandment is for Jesus to enact his love of God in words and works (cf. 12:49-50). What is new, therefore, is not the commandment to love, because that commandment lies at the heart of the Torah (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:4; cf. Mark 12:28 and par.) What is new is that the commandment to love derives from the incarnation (see 3:16). The "new" turn in the commandment of here is that Jesus asks his followers to enter the love that marks the relationship of the Father and Jesus. They will give others evidence of their participation in this relationship the same way that Jesus' is: by acts of love that join the believer to God (cf. 14:15, 21, 23; 15:12). Early Christian theology found the content of the new law here in the new commandment here. It is part of the emphasis of John that God is love. Love elevates us to God and is a matter of abiding in that elevation. Such abiding is the union that unites believers to each other and thus also to Jesus and the Father.^[19] He declares the importance of loving friendship. "As I have loved you," means laying down his life and taking it up again.  It is a gift.  "As I have loved you" makes Jesus the source of such love. Keeping this commandment is the identifying mark of discipleship because it is the tangible sign of the disciples' abiding in Jesus (15:10). To model one's love on a love whose ultimate expression is the gift of one's life is to model one's love on a love that has no limits, that knows no boundaries and restrictions. To interpret Jesus' death as the ultimate act of love enables the believer to see that the love to which Jesus summons the community is not the giving up of one's life, but the giving away of one's life. The distinction between these prepositions is important because the love that Jesus embodies is grace, not sacrifice. Jesus gave his life to his disciples as an expression of the fullness of his relationship with God and of God's love for the world. Jesus' death in love, therefore, was not an act of self-denial, but an act of fullness, of living out his life and identity fully, even when that living would lead to death. The example to which John points the love commandment is the love of Jesus for his disciples, a love that will receive its fullest and final expression in his death. John exhorts Jesus' followers to love one another as fully as he loves them, a love that may indeed find its expression in the laying down of one's life. To maintain the new community, protect themselves from the outside and grow in their faith, Jesus gives the disciples the new commandment. The love of this new commandment is not an allegiance to a romantic philosophical idea, or future nirvana. The love that Jesus commands is intimate and personal. This love becomes a sacramental witness to the fundamental relationship that Jesus has with the Father (17:23-25). Jesus may be physically absent from his disciples; however, those who remain can experience the actual presence of his love, as they love one another. In loving one another, they will experience the love that is between Jesus and his Father. Yet, the very narrative in which John places this commandment suggests that there is nothing easy about keeping the commandment to love one another. The setting of the Last Supper makes it a covenant term.^[20] Jesus implies that the world - those outside the faithful fellowship - will be looking at the witness the community offers. If there is an emphasis on evangelism here, then it suggests that the example of this close-knit community will draw seekers, rather than have the word or outreach convert them. John is reminding the church of every age and culture that the world continues to observe how the faithful community acts within itself. The behavior of the faithful within the church can reveal the power and presence of the living Christ. The primary way to witness to the essential being of God and the relationship of the Father to the Son is by loving other faithful members of the community.

Jesus' so called "Farewell Discourse" is a lengthy section running from chapters 14 to chapter 17.

John 14:1-14 (Year A Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year C, verses 8-14, Pentecost Sunday) expresses the idea of Jesus as the way to the Father for those who believe in him. The issue of this segment is what will happen to Jesus after his departure. He notes that they have troubled hearts. They have fear of separation from him. They have worry, fear, anxiety, or stress. John has portrayed a spiritual battle between spirit and flesh, light and darkness, sight and blindness, and life and death. Jesus assures them that while dark forces at work against him and the disciples, God will have victory. Their destination is to be in the house of the Father. Jesus portrays an intimate setting between God and human beings in eternity. They will not make this home in eternity, for their Father in heaven will make it, a house that has many rooms, including some of which they do not yet know. [21] Since he goes ahead of them to prepare them a place in the house of the Father, they will not be separated from him. However, as is typical in John, Thomas, one of the disciples, shows he does really understand. He is thinking on an earthly level, while Jesus is speaking on a spiritual level. We have here one of many “I am” statements in John: "I am the bread of life" (6:35); "the light of the world" (8:12; 9:5); "the gate (for the sheep)" (10:7, 9); "the good shepherd" (10:11, 14); "the resurrection and the life" (11:25); "the (true) vine" (15:1, 5). He in his person is the way of moral and wise instruction regarding how to live because he is truth (revelation or that which grounds, sustains, and comprehends all things) and life (salvation). [22] The metaphorical conceptions of truth and life John uses have Jesus as their true and proper object. [23] Others of these statements are absolutes which remind one of the name of God in the Old Testament, "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). For instance, "You will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM" (8:24); "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM" (8:28); "Before Abraham was, I AM" (8:58); and "When it does occur, you may believe that I AM" (13:19). In John 6:20, when Jesus comes walking across the water toward the boat, he says to the disciples, "I AM. Do not be afraid.” In verses 8-14, we also see Jesus distinguishing between himself as the Son and his heavenly Father, pointing the way to reflections on the Trinity. The Son is the revelation of the Father. We know the Father because we know the Son. God is transcendent, beyond anything we can imagine, but also known and revealed in the Son.[24] Thus, the Father is transcendent, but present and close through the Son and Spirit. Trinitarian life of God proves to be the true infinite of divine omnipresence.[25] John in his notion of Logos and Son has resolved a tension within the Jewish faith, for God is transcendent and immanent. He identified the impersonal Logos with the person of the Son and presented Jesus as the incarnate Logos who explains the unseeable God, the immanent Son who makes the transcendent Father visible. [26] The transcendence of the Father means that we rely upon the Father to show, disclose, or reveal who God is, and this happens through the Son. We have a natural desire for clear and distinct knowledge because we want to get things right. In the event of revelation, the hidden God is revealed as the Father of Jesus Christ. John suggests the unity of the hidden and revealed God is shown the unity of the Father with the Son. This truth will be shown only in the light of eschatological glory, which means the unity of the Trinitarian God is still engaged in the process of history. While the event of revelation discloses the reality of the divine distinctions within the Trinity, the unity of the divine essence remains hidden. [27] The word and work of Jesus disclose the Father. Yet, the works of Jesus will continue in the ministry of the disciples, who will accomplish much because they will ask in the name of Jesus, which suggests a limit of asking to those things relevant to the Christian life and mission, making it clear that Jesus acts in and through the disciples and their works, which by extension is the work of the Father.[28]

John 14:15-21 (Year A Seventh Sunday of Easter, and Year C, verses 15-17, Pentecost Sunday) has Jesus promising the abiding presence of the Spirit. We read of the intimate connection between Father, Son, and Spirit. The Son asks the Father to send the Spirit. The Spirit is to glorify the Son.[29] Jesus is the advocate, the one who prays for us, the one who counsels and directs us. To live in obedience is to have a way of life lived in loving union with him. Jesus is not physically present to continue leading the church. That is why another counselor and guide is part of the Christian community, namely, the Holy Spirit. both Father and Son work together in sending the Spirit, whether it is that the Father sends the Spirit at the request and in the name of the Son or that the risen Lord pours out the Spirit whom he has received from the Father. Regardless, the purpose of the sending is to continue the work of revealing Jesus. The Spirit glorifies Jesus as the Son of the Father by teaching us to recognize the revelation of the Father in the words and work of Jesus.[30]There is a close parallel between the work of the Spirit and that of Jesus. This word refers to a calling, summoning, inviting, demanding, admonishing, and encouraging, an address that both corrects and comforts. The Spirit will be for the community and individual Christian the great Paraclete. It describes the Spirit as the mediator, advocate, and spokesperson of Jesus Christ to the community of believers. The Spirit speaks both of Christ and for Christ, as the representative of the cause of Christ, seeking to make the cause of the community and the individual to become the cause of Christ. The Spirit sees to it that neither individual followers nor the community forgets Christ.[31] The Spirit gives instruction to Christians in a way that never becomes identical with their own spirits. The Holy Spirit is superior to us as believers. As our teacher and leader, the Spirit is in us, but in a way that the Spirit remains Lord of our lives. The entire notion of Paraclete in this passage is relevant to this discussion. Note the difference in the notion here of “the Spirit of truth.” God is establishing and executing the divine claim to lordship over us by this immediate presence.[32] The Holy Spirit is present to the church through the glorifying of Jesus Christ as the one whom the Father sent. The Spirit brings an immediacy of individuals to Jesus Christ. [33] The abiding spiritual presence of Jesus in the form of the Paraclete does not depend either upon the physical presence of Jesus or the eschatological return of Jesus. This indwelling depends on loving Jesus and keeping his commands. In saying Jesus does not leave them orphaned (verse 18), an interesting parallel is when Plato says in Phaedo 116a that the followers of Socrates became orphans upon his death. When Jesus says he is coming to them, it could refer to the appearances, but it could also refer to their union with Christ that the Spirit will bring. Easter, ascension, and Pentecost may well be a single event here. The life of Jesus is the basis and source of Christian life. Once Christians have received life from Jesus, they will be able to recognize that it is a life mutually shared by Father and Son. While the world will see its last of Jesus, believers and the community see Jesus in his risen state with the eyes of faith. Since Christ lives, believers and the community also live.[34]  With the discovery of the empty tomb and the coming of the risen Lord to them, true knowledge will come that the Son is in the Father, that they are in the Son, and that the Son is in them. Keeping the commandments because of love for Jesus introduces the ethical dimension of the text. Love motivates. The community of Easter is founded upon love and reveals itself in love. The world is still strange and puzzling place, for humanity has yet to fulfill the intent God has for it. God does not leave us without a family, united by Christ and the Spirit, to nurture us along the way. This community and this Spirit help us to make the world the home God intended it to be. Our fears inhibit us from moving toward the best God has for us. Yet, this community can experience peace beyond what the world experiences, for Christ and the Spirit unite the community to the future God intends for humanity.

John 14:23-29 (Year C Sixth Sunday of Easter verses 25-27, Pentecost Sunday) has Jesus promising the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit and preparing the disciples for his departure. The post-resurrection indwelling is a sign of the Father's love. The theme shifts to the coming of the Father with the Son to the believer. The Spirit bears witness in believers to the Son as the truth of God. They are, in a sense, outside themselves in Jesus. Conversely, Jesus is “in” them to bind them in fellowship with each other. Along with the Son, the Father also takes up residence “in” believers.^[35]John expresses the reciprocal self-distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, which in turn becomes the concrete form of Trinitarian relations. Thus, the Son distinguishes himself from the Father as one who bears witness to the Father, stressing here that his own word is not his own, but the word of the Father who sent him. Such a sentiment is like the one we find in Mark 10:18, where Jesus stresses that no one is good, but God alone. Jesus wants to honor God first.^[36] In verses 25-26, John refers to the sending of the Spirit (Παράκλητος) in the name of Jesus, even as prayer is in the name of Jesus, to teach. The Spirit continues the reconciling work of the Son in the world. In fact, the Spirit brings to completion the reconciling work of the Son.^[37] The Spirit will enable the disciples to see the full meaning of the words of Jesus. The relations described between the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit suggests a unified purpose and coordinated effort. The words of the Father are those of Jesus, and the Spirit will in turn teach these words. In the gospel writer's perspective, the goal of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to build the community of faith, and to sustain them in their belief. The Spirit is the Spirit of truth, for the Spirit does not direct people to the Spirit but to the Son. Distinct from the Father and the Son, the Spirit belongs to both.^[38] Father and Son work together in sending the Spirit, even if the text refers to the risen Lord as sending the Spirit. The purpose of the sending by the Son is to continue the work of Jesus in revelation.^[39] In verse 27ab, the Son offers the parting gift of peace. “Peace” is a departing “shalom” to the disciples, which suggests the healing and liberating work of salvation. Jesus offers peace, while the tribulation of the world stands waiting.  The "peace" this world holds out is a false peace, based on the momentary success of one force (person, country, ideals, status) over another. Since the world never fully holds such a peace, true peace is not something the world gives. Any "giving" gesture made by the world is empty of content and promise. In verse 27c-29, the departure of Jesus arises again. Since the disciples receive the gift of peace from the Son, they are not to allow their hearts to be troubled, afraid, worried, anxious, or stressed. They have troubled hearts due to the spiritual battle that John often portrays between Spirit and flesh, light and darkness, sight, and blindness, and even life and death. Jesus has told them about betrayal, departure, and denial. With these words, he wants to strengthen their faith. The intimate relationship of the Son and Spirit with the disciple is to result in a peace that will keep them from having troubled hearts. In going to the Father, he accomplishes the purpose of his life. Any human love that fails to recognize this is not real love. Implicitly, he connects faith and love closely. The reason for them to rejoice is that the Father is greater than I am. This little phrase has been full of controversy in Christology and the discussion of the Trinity. The key is in 13:16, where Jesus says that no messenger is more important than the one who sent him. The point is the Jewish concept of the relationship between messenger and the one he sends. For example, Midrash Rabbah lxxviii 1 on Genesis 32:27, we find the saying, “The sender is greater than the one sent.” In addition, the context says that the disciples should rejoice that Jesus is going to the Father for the Father is greater than Jesus is. Jesus is on the way to the Father who will glorify him, as said in 17:4-5. During his mission on earth, he is less than the One who sent him. However, his departure signifies that the work that the Father has given him to do is completed. The statement is an important notion of the reciprocal self-distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, which in turn becomes the concrete form of Trinitarian relations. Thus, Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father as one who bears witness to the Father, stressing here that the Father is greater than he is. Such a sentiment is like the one we find in Mark 10:18, where Jesus stresses that no one is good, but God alone. Jesus wants to honor God first. To equate Jesus with God is to deify the creature.^[40] The conclusion is that Jesus has told them all this before it occurs so that when it does occur, they may believe, which is the purpose of this gospel (John 20:31). 

John 15:1-8 (Year B Fifth Sunday of Easter) has the theme of love and believers. The final context of this “I am the true vine” saying of Jesus is the upper room before Christ’s betrayal and subsequent trial and crucifixion. Some consensus exists that this unit does make two distinct points.[41] Verses 1-6 are a parable that emphasize the allegorical elements, while verses 7-8 are part of an explanation of the parable. This text comes from the middle of Jesus' so called "Farewell Discourse," a lengthy section running from chapters 14 to chapter 17.

The source of the vine imagery is the Old Testament and Judaism, in which God is the vinedresser and Israel is the vine.  We find many metaphorical speeches concerned with vines and vineyards in many places in the Hebrew Scriptures (Psalm 80; Isaiah 5, 27; Jeremiah 2; Ezekiel 15, 17, 19). In Isaiah 5:1-7, for example, God plants and tends a vineyard, but it yields “wild grapes” or inferior fruit — a metaphor for the apostasy of Israel and Judah. Jeremiah 2:21 uses the same vineyard imagery, as does Ezekiel 19:10-14, and Hosea 10:1. In each of these cases, however, Israel is the “vine” and the ultimate source of poor “fruit.” In the Old Testament, “fruitfulness” was another way of saying “faithfulness,” thus a lack of good fruit meant that God’s people had failed to be the true, nourishing vine that would bolster God’s reputation in the world as the ultimate fine winemaker. That being the case, it was the winemaker’s job to do some pruning and replacing, which is what the prophets saw the exile as being all about. Later, God would replant the vineyard with a new stock and that new vine, the “true vine,” would be Jesus himself who embodied the new Israel, God’s Chosen One, and the One through whom the God would save and bless the world. Jesus adapted and adopted the metaphor in several contexts as recorded in the synoptic gospels (e.g., Mark 12:1-9). In all these synoptic parables, the vineyard and those connected with the vineyard represent Israel, the chosen people. In the synoptic parables, Jesus accuses those who tend the vineyard of not fulfilling their responsibility. In short, the original vine is not producing the fruit that God intended. To Jesus, those keepers are the leaders of the Jews who have abused their privilege and not tended the vineyard properly. Therefore, God is looking for new stewards of the vineyard so that it will bear good fruit and the Jews will find renewal in their relationship to God.

The basic meaning is quite clear.  Just as Jesus is the source of living water and is the bread from heaven that gives life, so is Jesus the life-giving vine.  However, the previous images have to do with believing.  This image is more intimate.  Indeed, the explanation in v. 7-17 makes it clear that focus of remaining connected to the vine is on love.  There may well be a secondary reference to the Eucharist here, especially in the context of the Last Supper.

The parable in verses 1-6 emphasize Jesus as the real vine and not on the Father as the gardener.  The latter image qualifies the kind of vine that Jesus is--a vine belonging to the heavenly order. If we connect to another vine, we will not produce genuine fruit. Note that here the role of the Father is to tend the vine.  Normal parallelism in John might lead us to think that he would make his point that just as the disciple gets life from Jesus, so Jesus gets his life from the Father. The Father removes branches that are not fruitful and thus not faithful. Fruit may refer to general growth as a follower of Jesus, maturing in virtues and good works, but especially a life devoted to love. We can see this by the context that focuses on love after verse 9. Even fruitful branches are pruned. This community faces adversity. Adversity is often the window of opportunity for change. Removing and pruning are the changes needed. The Father has already cleansed them by the word, the entire teaching of Jesus, although the Word made flesh (1:14) has pruned the disciples by his presence among the disciples. The “pruning” is not for punishment, but so that the community of Jesus can be even more fruitful. The branches must abide in the vine to bear fruit, and those who believe must abide Jesus to bear their fruit. The branches have no choice about remaining on the vine. Christians summoned to abiding have a possibility in what the Father has given them in Jesus Christ and through life with Christ and the church. Of all that Jesus demands of them is to make use of this possibility. As this possibility becomes actuality, it excludes the anxiety and fear forbidden to them.^[42] The follower depends fully on Jesus. No individual can bear fruit alone. Disconnection from the community means death. He is offering a warning. The branches that do not bear fruit and even fruit-bearing branches need pruning.  The fruit could be good works and an ethical way of life.  In the context of the Last Discourse, Judas is one who did not abide in Jesus.  Bearing fruit would seem to be love.  The parable ends on a theme of judgment, which could be eschatological or could be excommunication. The hint of punishment by burning and being thrown into the fire is found in passages of the synoptic gospels concerned with last judgment (see Mark 9:43). However here, the fruitless branches that the Father burns are not those who do not come to faith, but those individuals who were at one time fruitful (hence, believers) and yet have fallen away and are no longer “true” to the faith — apostate. These verses want to ensure that the reader understands the metaphor precisely; a branch is useless unless it remains connected to the vine, just as a disciple is fruitless if he or she is not abiding in Jesus.

Verses 7-8 offer a partial explanation of the parable. . ⁷ If you abide in me, and my words (ῥήματά) abide you, ask for whatever you wish, and the Father will do it for you. Note the divine passive; the Father is the one who will get the asking accomplished. Jesus returns to the theme of abiding and promises that if the believer abides in his words and teachings, then two things will happen. In this verse, the believer will get whatever he or she asks for. If the Father truly grafts a believer onto the vine of Christ, then that believer asks for that which Jesus himself would ask for. As the members of the community, Jesus’ disciples remain in the vine and their requests will enact God’s will on earth. ⁸ My Father receives glory by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. We have come to the second thing that will happen if the believer abides in Christ and therefore in the words and teachings of Christ. The ultimate fulfillment of what one asks in verse 7 finds its description in verse 8, that is, the glorification of the Father. the disciples continue the work of the Son and remain united to him, there is only one mission shared by the Son and his disciples.  In this one mission, the Father has received glory.  The Father receives glory in that the disciples become like Jesus and carry on his work.  The point is that in bearing fruit they show they are disciples.  Becoming or being a disciple is the same as being or remaining in Jesus.

John 15:9-17 (Year B Sixth Sunday of Easter) continues the theme from the previous reading on love (ἠγάπησέν) and believers. It continues the explanation of the parable in verses 1-6. These verses are an interpretation of what it means to bear fruit (verse 8). John introduces the theme of love that he will develop throughout these verses, a love of the Father for Jesus, the love of Jesus for his disciples, and the love of the disciples for Jesus. The love of the Father for Jesus is the basis for the love Jesus has for his disciples. Love begets love. We do not have a different kind of love for God from the love we have for others. Love is love, regardless of the object. Urging them to abide in the love of the Son contains a warning that one can lose the gift of living in the orbit of this love. We need to choose every day to live in this love. We can do this by keeping the commandments of Jesus, stressing that love implies decisive, continued action on the part of the disciples that abides in the love of the Son, uniting believers to each other and to the Son and the Father, ^[43] the Son providing the example by keeping the commandments of the Father and abiding in the love of the Father. This suggests that the Son had a choice as well. He was free to act in obedience or disobedience to the Father, offering himself as a model of obedience and abiding love. ^[44] Such obedience and abiding love will lead to total joy in that the joy of the Son will live in them and that their joy reach would reach its fullness, showing the mission of Jesus as bringing joy. ^[45]Although the joy of Christians and the completeness of their lives ought to be a good witness to the world and attract people to Christian belief and life, the somber, joyless, self-righteous, smug, and complacent lives of too many, the narrowness and repressiveness of so much of Christianity, is a repellent to that witness. [46] Lest we think that this talk of keeping the commandments of Jesus is a demand for perfection, we now learn that keeping the commandment to love each other, even as the Son has loved them, is the means through which we abide in to the love of the Son. John reduces the Torah of loving each other, giving such love a Christological content. The Son as loved them throughout the public ministry of Jesus but will demonstrate that love further through the cross. John does not allow us to define love out of our experience but forces us to look at love as shown in the actions of Jesus. We want love, but fear it as well, for we do not want the other to smother us. [47] The vulnerability of loving causes us to withdraw. [48] Giving and receiving love is a deep desire, but most of us find it so difficult to learn and experience. Thus, we turn to Jesus to teach us about love, and he has shown that laying down one’s life for one’s friends, is the greatest love because it is the greatest act of giving, it is sacrificial. He the Son looks upon followers as his friends. Showing this type of love undercuts theological arrogance as well as pious isolation. Such love is more than justice, and greater than faith or hope, as it can become the presence of God, who is love, in the form of one human being acting toward another human being. In every moment of genuine love, we dwell in God and God dwells in us.[49] Such persons are friends of the Son, if they do what he commands in having this type of love. Friendship can be the convenience of being useful to each other, as are business associates, sharing of a mutual pleasure, or friendship for the sake of the other. If friendship can only exist among equals (Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics), then the Son has chosen to be that equal to the disciples and to humanity in Jesus of Nazareth. John then contrasts such a designation as friend with that of servant, for the servant does not know what the master is doing, while the Son has disclosed what the Father has communicated to him. He is describing openness of relationship, the basis of which is one that the Son has initiated and chosen. Returning to the imagery of the Son being the vine and the disciples the branches, the Son has appointed and chosen them to bear the fruit of love, for that will last, which is the demonstration of abiding love and friendship. Bearing such fruit leads to a special relationship with the Father, who will give whatever they ask in the name of the Son. The Spirit makes it possible to pray to the Father “in the name of Jesus.”^[50] Those bearing this fruit, this love, become part of an even greater relationship, finding favor with the Father even as they have with the Son. The Son gives these commands so that they may love each other. To enter the status of friendship with the Son, they must love each other. The love of the Father for the Son is the basis of the love of the Son for the disciples and is the basis for the command to love each other. The love of the Father and the Son provide the example and the possibility of such love. Such love for each other will be a powerful resource to withstand the hatred of the world (15:18ff), giving them strength to face the adversity from those outside the circle. They will have the opportunity to proclaim before those who hate them, but this love may result in others hearing and believing (17:20). Such love moves toward others, from Father to the Son, from the Son to the disciples, and from the disciples to one another and to the world (17:18-21), the desired recipients of God’s love from the beginning (3:16).

John 15:26-27, 16:4b-15 (Year B Pentecost Sunday and Year C 16:12-15 Trinity Sunday) discusses the departure of Jesus and the coming of the Advocate/Comforter (Παράκλητος). The Advocate is the Spirit of truth because he bears witness of the Son, coming or proceeding from (ἐκπορεύεται) the Father, testifying on behalf of the Son, showing the reliance of the Son upon the Spirit, even as the Son the source of the vocation of the Spirit. ^[51] The doctrine of the Trinity carefully distinguishes the procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, which relate to the internal and eternal relations of the persons of the Trinity within the divine essence, from the sending of the Father sending the Son and the Father and Son sending the Spirit, which involve the relation of God to the world. ^[52] The basic form of the work of the Spirit is creative activity in the bringing forth of life and movement, this being the first thing to call for notice when the Spirit we say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.^[53] The Spirit is continuing the work and witness of the Son (8:14). The Son will send the Spirit after the Father exalts the Son. The Son gives the Spirit to the people of God, sharing with the Father in the sending of the Spirit in order to incorporate believers into his fellowship with the Father.^[54] The Spirit is the mediator and advocate of the Son to the people of God. The Spirit is the energy, power, and representative of the cause of the Son in this world. The work of the Spirit is bringing people to the cause of the Son and to make their cause in the world the glorifying of the Son. ^[55] Such a sending of the Spirit suggests the Spirit proceeds from the Father from eternity, but only now, with the completion of the mission of the Incarnate Son in saving, healing, liberating, and reconciling work within the earth, can the sending of the Spirit occur.         The Spirit is God in the present tense. The Spirit reminds us that God is now. The Spirit is the living, present, presence of God. The Spirit is God in our world. The Spirit refers to the immediacy and immanence of God.^[56]

John 16:4b-15 continues a discussion of the departure of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit. The Spirit is our partner in our discernment of what the world has gotten wrong and where it might have gotten some things right. Jesus prepares the disciples for his departure. He is going ot the Father who sent him. The statement that none of them asked where he was going seems odds because Thomas asked how the disciples may know the way, which becomes an opening for the well-known response that Jesus is the way, truth, and life (14:5-6). Jesus notices the sorrow in their hearts, which is a theme of this chapter. Jesus assures them that it is to their advantage that he depart, for his departure means the Spirit will come because the Son will send the Spirit. In verses 8-11, the Paraclete provides disciples of Jesus with a discerning approach to the world. The culture in which the church finds itself is not always wrong. However, where the culture is wrong, the Spirit will guide followers of Jesus. The Spirit will demonstrate to the world how mistaken it is when thinking about such matters as sin, righteousness, and judgment. The world unites itself with the ruler of this world, thereby condemning itself, and it did this in its judgment of Jesus. The thought is like that of Hebrews 2:14, where the Son shares flesh and blood with humanity, in order that through death the Son might destroy the devil. Yet, we need to look at this in proleptic way, since the world is still under the power of the Evil One as well (I John 5:19).  What the world thinks is important is usually not important. What the world thinks is wise is often foolish. Given the emphasis in the writings of John on love, we could bring the thought here with the theme of love. The role of the Spirit is to convict, the role of the Father is to judge, but our role, as John constantly reminds us, is to love.^[57] God is love and therefore the source of love. The Spirit is the personal love the Father has for the Son and the Son as the Father. The Spirit is the one who guides us in discerning ways of love.^[58]

In verses 12-15, to comfort the disciples, Jesus emphasizes the coming of the Comforter and the continuity between the Father, Jesus and that comforter. Jesus summarizes his preceding discourse (and highlights elements of his following prayer) in which he shows the direct relationship between himself and the Father and himself and the Spirit. The glorifying of the Son by the Spirit presupposes recollection of Jesus in his person and history, analogous to the character of remembrance in the Lord’s Supper that makes the risen Lord present in the community. ^[59] Jesus assures them while he is leaving, the Father will send another to be their companion and guide. Although he has more to say, it is not the right time for them to hear it. We might think of the rest of the New Testament as providing the content of the further things the Son wanted to share. The Spirit of truth will come in the name of the Son and sent from the Father (14:26), guiding them into all the truth, because the Spirit will hear first and then speak. The language is that of the poets of Israel, who would ask the Lord to teach him the ways of the Lord so that he can walk in the truth of the Lord (Psalm 25:5, 86:11). Such a statement suggests the disciples will receive deeper insight after the resurrection. It also suggests the significance of growth. The Spirit will lead them into truth when the time is right. They will need to do their part by listening prayerfully, but they can have confidence in the promise of the Spirit. As an analogy, if we are blessed with long life, human life goes through stages, important truths about self and world becoming available at the right time, if we will listen to our experiences have to teach us. Hegel famously said in his introduction to his History of Philosophy that every truth has its time. We ought not to beat up on thinkers of the past because they did not have truths we now possess. The same is true for us as individuals. We ought not to beat up on ourselves for not having insights or truths sooner than we did. It is simply impossible to anticipate all that we will need from Jesus as we mature and encounter the twists and turns of life.^[60] Most of us require truth to come to us fragment by fragment.[61] While this passage focuses on the unique situation of the disciples, it suggests that for us as well, we need to pause long enough to allow the wisdom of the Spirit to emerge and impress itself upon us. Thus, the disciples will not be able to understand the power of the resurrection until after it occurs. Only by faith can we grasp the promise that the Spirit will lead us into all truth.^[62] The Spirit leading the disciples into all truth means the truth of God as shown in the Son.^[63] It was mystery religions of the Greek and Roman worlds that believed the gods could give new revelations. The disciples, because of the personal relationship they had with Jesus, are pivotal as the core witnesses to the proclamation of the church, in which an event, the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, discloses who God is. However, while the closeness of the disciples to Jesus will lead to the world hating them, it will also mean they will receive the Spirit through that friendship. The Spirit, like the Son, will have words that have their source in the Father. The role of the Spirit involves glorifying the Son, because the Spirit takes what belongs to the Son and declares it to them. The Spirit will show the disciples the true significance of Jesus.^[64]Proclaiming the glory of the Son will be the hallmark of those who have received the Spirit. The purpose of the sending of the Spirit by the Son is to continue the revealing work of the Son. ^[65] The foundation of the church in the gift of the Spirit. This recalling and reviving can come through the many-voiced glorifying of Jesus Christ in the light of creation and of the eschatological future of God and the destiny of those who belong to Jesus and hence also to the Father.^[66] The glorifying of the Father by the Son will come to fulfillment, an event mediated by the work of the Spirit who will glorify the Son in believers by bringing to their remembrance Jesus and his message and therewith the Father.^[67] The Father glorifying the Son (17:1, 5) will occur through the Spirit glorifying the Son. ^[68] The theological significance of this passage is profound. John shares with Luke an interest in the Spirit as an independent entity, although John links the work of the Spirit and the work of the Son closely. The work of the Spirit is to lead to knowledge of the Son as the truth of the Father. The Spirit will glorify the Son and not direct attention to the Spirit. ^[69] In his prayer in 17:1, Jesus has desired that the Father glorify him. The answer of the Father is to send the Spirit. The Spirit manifests Jesus as the Son. The Spirit completes the revelation of the Father by the Son. Glorifying the Son, the Spirit also glorifies the Father and their indissoluble fellowship. This theme opens the door for a discussion of the notion of the self-distinction of the Trinity. Jesus glorifies the Father, thereby showing himself to be the Son of the Father. The Spirit glorifies the Son. He shows himself to be the Spirit of truth by bearing witness to Jesus and reminding us of his teaching. For Augustine, the Spirit is the love that unites the Father and the Son. The Spirit is the condition and medium of the fellowship of Father and Son. On this basis, the imparting of the Spirit to believers is also an incorporation into the fellowship of the Son with the Father. Since the work of Jesus has as its goal the glorifying of the Father, one can view it as the work of the Spirit in him. John explains the way this glorification will happen in the rest of the verse. Because the Spirit will take from what belongs to Jesus, his words and his presence, and report or pass on these things to the disciples, this will result in a glorification of Jesus.^[70] Another role the Spirit has recognizes that all that Father has the Son has, so the Spirit will take what the Son has and declare it to the disciples. The Son asserts that all things that are mine are yours (17:10). This mutual sharing between the Son and the Father provides the basis upon which the Son can assert that the Spirit speak only that which is in the possession of the Son. The effect on Trinitarian debates is that the passage refers to revelation communicated to people. It defines what is accessible to the Spirit from the Son. The work of the Spirit is to remind the disciples of what Jesus has said and done (14:26). The content of what the Spirit declares is what the Son has, and the Son has what the Father has. Given that in John, the Son is the Logos that was with God in the beginning, what the Son has is not just the history and words of Jesus, but all creation, then the Spirit draws from all the works of the Father in creation and in the Son to declare to the disciples. The glorifying of the Son by the Spirit serves the glory of the Father.^[71]

John 17:1-11 (Year A Seventh Sunday of Easter, also Year B, Seventh Sunday of Easter, verses 6-11) is part of the intercessory prayer of Jesus. The prayer begins with a theme of glorification (verses 1-8). The hour of revelation contained in the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension has come. This progression of events is a movement toward the glorification of the Son and the unity of the Father with the Son. In Jesus, the disciples have seen the glory of the only Son of the Father (1:14). His prayer is that the Father would glorify the Son so that the Son may glorify the Father. Jesus shows himself to be the Son precisely in his self-distinction from the God.[72] The Son acts to complete his own sending, with everything in the conduct of the Son serving to glorify the Father and enhance the irruption of the reign of God into the world.[73] The eternal life the Son gives to his followers, those whom the Father has given, him speaks to the quality of relationship that the believer has with the Father. The content of that eternal life is to know the Father, whom the Son reveals, is the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent. The prologue asserted that the Son, who is close to the heart of the Father, made the Father known (1:18). Finely summarizing the synoptic tradition, [74] the Son has glorified the Father through the work the Father gave him to do, as Jesus hallowed the name of God by honoring and proclaiming the lordship of the Father. Such glorification now between Father and Son is glorification the Son had in the presence of the Father before creation, thereby affirming the pre-existence of the Son and in contradiction to the Socinian and other anti-Trinitarian teachers. [75] The glorification by the Father of the Son restores the Son to his original fellowship with the Father. The glorifying of the Father by the Son finds correspondence in the glorifying of the Son by the Father. [76] In verses 6-8, the Son has revealed the divine name (person, nature, essence). The Son reveals the love of the Father, so the believing in Jesus as the Son is an acceptance of the love of the Father revealed through him. The separation from Judaism is alarmingly obvious here. In the Hebrew Scriptures God revealed the divine name (YHWH) to the chosen people through the servant of the Lord, Moses.[77] The Torah is the focus of revelation for the Jew. For John, this revelation through the Son separates those who believe from the world. The Father has given the precious gift of the disciples to Jesus. During his ministry, the has given the words of the Father to his disciples, and the disciples have received them. They know that the Son has come from the Father and they have believed the Father sent him. The prologue also affirms Jesus as the true light (1:9) and that grace and truth are through him (1:14, 17). Those who believe receive power to become children of God (1:12). Eventually, the disciples understand the full meaning and impact of Jesus, his divine source, his sacrificial life, and his life-giving teaching. The prayer continues with an intercession for the disciples and for the world (verses 9-11). The assumption in the opening words is the hostility of the world, the opposition of the world to Jesus. “He’s got the whole world in his hand” is a comforting thought, and true from one perspective, but not the perspective of this prayer. The prologue reminds us, however, that the world came into being through the Word (John 1:10). Further, God loved the world so much that the Father gave the Son in order that those who believe would have eternal life (John 3:16). This part of the prayer petitions the Father on their behalf, in contrast to the world, even the risen Lord will send the disciples into the world. The disciples are those whom the Father has given him. They still belong to the Father, for anything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Father. The Father has glorified the Son in them. By virtue of creation, all are children of God, but John is focusing on the unique way in which one belongs to the Father by believing in the Son. Anticipating that he will no longer be in the world through his passion and crucifixion, his departure is already under way. However, the disciples are in the world. The Son is coming to his Holy Father, a unique term, praying that Father will protect or shelter them in the name of the Father. They need protection from contamination of the world, which will have the result that they will be one, even as the Father and Son are one. Among the great threats the world presents is its divisiveness. 

John 17:6-19 (Year B Seventh Sunday of Easter but see verses 6-11 in previous discussion). Continuing from verse 9, Jesus is offering an intercession for the disciples and the world. The Son has prayed that the Father protect them in verse 11, and this prayer is fulfilled in the way Jesus protected and guarded the disciples while with them, losing only the one destined to be lost so scripture would be fulfilled. His intercession includes bringing the joy of the Son to completion in them. This joy will be the best protection against the hardships they will face. Even in the best of circumstances, we can always find something about which to complain. There will always be imperfections and injustices that require our attention and work. If we do so the point where we have lost our ability to have joy, we have placed far too great importance upon ourselves and our actions. These hardships occur because he has given the word of the Father, so the world in which they must live hates them. This hatred occurs because the Son does not belong to the world, and therefore the disciples do not belong to the world. The Son asks the Father to protect them from the evil one who is in the world. Verses 17-19 concern sanctification, which has its basis in the holiness of God.[78] It include a prayer for the Father to sanctify them in the truth that is the word of the Father so that they can fulfill their vocation in the world. Given the weaknesses and struggles of the disciples to which the gospels testify, the are curious saints indeed. [79] As the Father sent the Son in the world, so the Son sends them into the world, giving some validity to the notion that the community formed by the disciples is for the world. [80] The Son has sanctified himself to his vocation for their sake, which may refer to his impending crucifixion, so that they may receive sanctification in the truth, a follower of Jesus participating fully in the dedication of the Son to the Father. Here is a case of the importance of the preserving activity of God, in which the main concern is the continuity of Christian existence.

John 17:20-26 (Year C Seventh Sunday of Easter) is the conclusion of the prayer of Jesus, in which he prays for the readers. The conclusion of this final prayer of Jesus is that the witness of the church might bear fruit. Jesus prays for those who believe through the word disciples. That word is a present reality. The text refers to future believers in Jesus, especially those who believe Jesus is the Son of God.  They come to believe through the disciple's word.  They are Gentiles and Jews. Abiding and mutual indwelling as John views it involves abiding in a sphere of being, and this abiding in love is the union that unites believers to each other, as well as to Jesus and the Father.^[81] Thus, the Son offers a prayer for those who believe through the word of the apostles, that they may be one, that they may live in God even as the Son does. The Holy Spirit binds believers together, being present in the church in the proclamation of the gospel and celebration of the sacraments by which the Spirit draws believers into the fellowship of the Son and confirms them in it.^[82] Jesus and the Father are one (10:30; 17:11), and Jesus desires all who come to faith to be one (vv. 21, 23). There is to be one flock and one shepherd (10:16). Even seamless robe of Jesus (19:23-24) and the untorn net (21:11) show this wholeness, this oneness, in John's gospel. The work of Jesus has been to gather the people, save them and unite them into one. This oneness consists in their belief, adhering to Jesus through appreciating who he is. Their belief unites them in the mission of sharing the word with others. The oneness of believers has its basis in the oneness of the Father and the Son. Verses 21b-23 have a strong parallelism in words. The Father is in the Son and the Son is the Father, the prayer being that those who believe will be in the Father and the Son. Based upon such oneness, the prayer is that the world will be believe the Father has sent the Son. the oneness of the believers flows from giving to the believers the glory that the Father has given to him, so that unity comes down from the Father and the Son to the believers. The action, therefore, of the believers is not the primary source of unity, but the relation of the believers to the Father and the Son and the relationship of the believers to each other. Visible unity must be visible enough to challenge the world to believe in Jesus, offering the same type of challenge that Jesus first offered to the disciples: a challenge to recognize God in Jesus. The Spirit draws believers into the glory that he receives from the Father. In the act of the glorifying of Jesus as the Son, which also glorifies the Father in the Son, believers share in the fellowship of the Son with the Father. Therefore, they also share in the glory of God by which the Son changes their own lives into imperishable fellowship with the eternal God.^[83]Because glorifying by the Spirit effects the union of the Son with the Father as well as our own union with and in God, we can see the link the consummation of salvation history in eschatology with the consummation of the Trinitarian life of God in itself. When all things are in God and God is “all in all,” then the economic Trinity is subsumed in the immanent Trinity.^[84] The believers participate in the common glory of the Son and the Father.^[85] The unity and indwelling visible among the followers of Jesus challenges the world to believe in Jesus' mission.  Believers are to be one now, to influence the world.  The gift of glory leads to the unity of believers and this in turn challenges the world to recognize Jesus. Through the disciples, the world will get another chance.  The unity of believers will prove to the world that God has loved them.  Part of that unity is the love they have for one another. He desires that those whom the Father has given him may see his glory, anticipating the passion of Jesus. The love present within the Trinity is present because God is eternal love. ^[86] He addresses the Father has righteous, even though the righteousness of God is a minor aspect of the teaching of Jesus.^[87] The world does not know the Father, but the Son knows the Father, and his followers know the Father has sent the Son. Jesus made God's name known to those who believe in him - this is in the past. Jesus' name has already proclaimed to them, and they will continue to do so. In the future, believers will make known Jesus' name to others. There will be a continuation of Jesus' ministry through the Paraclete and believing community. Whereas Jesus was with them only for a brief time and will come again only at the consummation, the Spirit will stay with them always in 16:14.^[88]This prayer ends on a theme of the indwelling of Jesus in the believers. It suggests a strong Covenant Theology.

When we turn to this prayer, the interrelation or oneness of Father, Son, and Spirit with believers as envisioned by John, and the apostolic witness, the call is to oneness. This oneness is the truth, regardless of history or our experience. I grant that the providential care of God is such that God has taken the scandal and turned into good (Romans 8:28).^[89]

Andrei Rublev painted an icon of the Holy Trinity in 1425. Artists always painted the last supper with peculiar seating arrangements.  Leonardo da Vinci oddly (if you think about it) put Jesus and all the disciples along the same one side of a long table, not just so we could study their faces and gestures, but so we might acknowledge a place for ourselves across the table from our Lord, from the saints of old. Rublev depicts Father, Son, and Spirit as angels occupying three sides of a table, with the fourth side open, inviting the viewer to join them. Henri Nouwen notes that this icon is not simply a lovely decoration. If we place ourselves in front of it, we “experience the gentle invitation to participate in the intimate conversation” taking place. The invitation is there to join them around the table.^[90]

This is my destiny, my identity, my hope – and it is your destiny, and that of the person next to you. Think of the most difficult person in your life to whom you must relate. Remember this. God made that person for this destiny as well. Here is a holy invitation to have a secure place at the table of this Trinity of tender love. 

John 20:1-18 (All Years, Easter Day) is a story of the discovery of the empty tomb. 

            The point of the passage is to establish the empty tomb as a fact. The message of the resurrection that the disciples brought back to Jerusalem could not have survived a single hour if anyone could have shown the body to be in the tomb.[91] Yet, would resurrection require an empty tomb? A negative answer is implied in the view of Herod expressed in Mark 6:14, 16, namely, that Jesus was the beheaded Baptist risen again. However, the re-embodiment of a dead person in someone else is different from an eschatological resurrection of the dead and transformation into a life that is vastly different from existence on earth.[92] Thus, the empty tomb still has its place in the story of Jesus. John's account adds to the record of the synoptists' versions by including further details. The account of Easter presented by John has only the fundamentals in common with the synoptic tradition. In fact, there is so much variation among the four gospel accounts that the basic story line shared by all includes only these details: Early on the first day of the week, at least one woman discovered that the tomb, in which Joseph (and Nicodemus) placed Jesus after the crucifixion, was empty. Trying to blend the details of all the accounts into one account is a hopeless muddle. Certainly, the variety of the details suggests a mixing of traditions about the event, even if we do not think in terms of competing stories from competing sects of the church. The story shows that these ancient persons did not find belief in the resurrection of Jesus easy. It was a struggle because the logic of the situation demanded a cause-and-effect answer. Death and nothingness have the final word. If the tomb is empty, there must be a rational reason for it. People have believed through the centuries because they have trusted the witness to an event or moment that is beyond the boundaries of our cause-and-effect experience of the world. Their witness is not enough, for we also need the awakening or enlightenment the Holy Spirit brings to connect our lives with the truth of their witness. This truth is so significant because all that Christians hope to know about God is through this man, Jesus of Nazareth, who died for us, but whom the Father raised into new and eschatological life, confirming him as Son of the Father, and who continues to be present to those who believe through the Holy Spirit. If so, the truth is that life has the final word. For that reason, those who believe continue to share the message and invite others to allow Jesus to intersect with their lives. It will never be enough for this truth to remain in the past. Because if the event and the moment to which these first witnesses testify is true, life can never be the same. 

            Early Sunday morning, before sunrise, her grief cause Mary Magdalene to come to the tomb. A difference from the Synoptic Gospels is that she is alone, John wanting to focus on the experience of one woman. Since Nicodemus has already fulfilled the ceremonial custom of bringing spices to anoint the body, she does not have that reason to come. Although John does not mention the positioning of the stone, he notes that it has been removed by someone showing that the tomb is vacant. She does not investigate, running back to Peter and the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, who according to tradition is John, but many think the text of John itself suggests Lazarus, informing that someone has taken the Lord out of the tomb, showing that an explanation for the emptiness of the tomb other than resurrection is possible. In saying that “we” do not know where this unknown person has taken the body, John might imply the presence of other women. Conspiracy theories abound regarding the emptiness of the tomb, which in the case of Mary, involves opponents of Jesus disgracing the body of Jesus even more because they would not want the tomb to become a place for his followers to gather. Who is this mysterious disciple? He knew the high priest, allowing Peter into the courtyard (18:15-16) and he reclined next Jesus at the supper (21:20). In the Gospel of John, he has the function of legitimating the community that arose around John, which developed characteristics distinct from the Jewish-Christian community and the communities established by the missionary labors of Paul. In any case, he and Peter went to the tomb, although the other disciples outran Peter, bending to look in and seeing the linen wrappings, while Peter is the one who first enters the tomb. The unnamed disciple believes. Although this could mean he simply believes when Mary said about someone taking the body (Augustine in Tractate 120 in his commentary on John), it seems more likely that he believes because a grave robber would not unwrap the body of Jesus and neatly leave the burial clothes behind, while Peter remains confused, and later Thomas will doubt the witness of the other disciples who saw him. The disciples return to their homes. Yet, since belief in John reses upon a form of revelation, even this other disciple did not understand fully because he did not connect what he saw with the fulfillment of scripture. The tomb is empty, the discovery leaving behind confusion, fear, desolation, and depression. John shifts attention to Mary, who remains outside the tomb weeping. She sees two angels in the tomb, differing from the Synoptic Gospels who have only one. They ask her why she weeps, and Mary responds that unknown persons have removed the body of her Lord. She then sees the risen Lord but does not recognize him. Throughout the tradition of the appearances of the risen Lord, the risen Lord is the one who comes to the follower. Supposing him to the be the gardener, a reference unique to John, she asks that if he has taken the body of Jesus away, let her know where he has taken it and she will take it away. John is stressing the ambiguity presented by the discovery of the empty tomb. Although Mary will see the risen Lord, it will take her time to recognize him as such, which will be a consistent theme in the appearance tradition. Only when Jesus says her name does she recognize him, following what Jesus said in 10:14 that the good shepherd calls the sheep by name and they recognize him. Her response is to call him Teacher. We might expect a stronger affirmation of faith from Mary, but in context, John will show a progression of titles that will culminate in the affirmation by Thomas, which is consistent with how John begins his gospel in the steady progression of titles. Mary clings to Jesus out of her joy, but the risen Lord reassures her that she does not need to cling to him because he is not going anywhere yet, since he has not ascended to the Father, indicating that the risen Lord has not returned to an earthly life. The risen Lord is stressing that no one can hold down the resurrected one. At this stage, his earthly journey is not over since further appearances of the risen Lord will establish the early Christian community. The ascension is beginning now but will have a progression through the appearances of the risen Lord to the disciples. The glorification of Jesus, which began with the cross, will not be complete until the risen Lord ascends to the Father. The relationship between follower and the risen Lord will be different from what it was before. As John will stress, the presence of the risen Lord for the community today will be through the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit. Thus, the risen Lord is ascending “to my Father and your father, to my God and your God,” suggesting a profound unity between himself and his disciples. Mary returns to the disciples and announces that she has seen the Lord, telling them what the risen Lord had said. This action by Mary makes here a witness to the truth regarding Jesus and a model of what it means to be a faithful follower of Jesus. 

            John 20:19-31 (Year A Second Sunday of Easter and verses 19-23 Year A Pentecost) has the risen Lord coming to a group of disciples, ending with the risen Lord coming to Thomas, a theme consistent with the tradition of the appearances of the risen Lord. The purpose of the segment is to deepen faith in Christ. This segment contains John’s version of Pentecost, his vision of apostolic authority, and Thomas.  It expands on the astounding events of Easter Sunday. The risen Lord creates the encounter, the moment, that becomes discloses him to be the Revealer. The Revealer began at the tomb and progressively is the Revealer in the various encounters through which John brings us.

            We begin with the Revealer coming to ten of the disciples (verses 19-23), minus Judas and Thomas. The risen Lord comes to them on Sunday evening, symbolizing the darkness that had descended upon the minds of the disciples. Their fear of Jewish leaders, who had just conspired to kill Jesus, made them meet behind closed doors. Although they have the witness of Mary Magdalene having seen the risen Lord, they remain hidden and fearful. The risen Lord is a physical presence, for Mary had grabbed him, but the risen Lord is not limited by time and space, so he appears to them and brings a word of peace (shalom), the standard Jewish greeting. Refocusing upon the physicality of the risen Lord, he shows them his hands and side. Their response involves a movement from fear and dread to joy that they also see the risen Lord. They interpret the appearance of the risen Lord against the background of the eschatological expectation of a resurrection from the dead. The same will be true in the appearance to Thomas.[93] The risen Lord offers the Jewish greeting of peace. However, this word of peace opens the portal to a new age of the Spirit, for as the Father sent the Son, so the Son is sending them. Here is the common calling of all Christians to continue the mission of Jesus in witness to the lordship of God. This saying is true for all disciples of Jesus.[94] Jesus entrusts the disciples with the same mission the Father had given him. Having said this, he breathed upon them, as the Lord breathed into Adam the gift of life (Genesis 2:7) and told them to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In order to accomplish the mission, the Son has given them, they will need energy from beyond their individual capacity. They need the Spirit, the Advocate, for it is the Spirit that gives life, teaches them all things, and enables them to discern what sins to forgive or not forgive. The risen Lord bestows upon the disciples the gift of the Holy Spirit. The imparting of the Spirit takes place through the risen Lord, justifying our calling the Spirit the Spirit of Christ. Yet, this does not alter the fact that the Spirit originates and proceeds from the Father.[95] Based on this passage, the imparting of the Spirit is in connection with an appearance of the risen Lord. This notion of relating the imparting of the Spirit to the Easter appearances seems to have more inner probability than the account of Luke, which separates Easter, ascension, appearances over 40 days, and Pentecost on the 50^th day.[96] This verse was important in the Latin theology of the Middle Ages, where it spoke of the procession of both Son and Spirit. In that view, what distinguished these two processions was that the Son was a matter of begetting, and the Spirit was that of breathing. These processions in the eternal divine substance resulted in the persons of the Son and Spirit, who they distinguished by describing relations, the Father actively begetting, the Son passively begotten, and the Spirit passively breathed. Such processions take place form all eternity in the divine essence.[97] The already accomplished forgiveness of sin through the cross becomes a gift the disciples, after receiving the gifts of peace and the Spirit, may offer to others. Jesus defines the primary characteristic of this age to be the giving and receiving of forgiveness. This is a variant of Matthew 16:19, 18:18. One can think of this as the handing over of the power of the keys to the disciples. Yet, we cannot speak of the instituting of a penitential rite by Jesus related to the pronouncing of the remission of sins as the sacrament of penance that the church would possess. In early Christianity, the forgiving of sins went with baptism and only later was a special supplementary rite developed for lapsed Christians. Nevertheless, pronouncing the remission of sins originated with Jesus, which we can see in Mark 2:9ff and Luke 7:47. As a result, the risen Lord imparted an authority and indeed an obligation to forgive to all his disciples.[98]

            The risen Lord will come to the disciples again, with Thomas present this time (verses 24-29). The uniqueness of the apostolic situation arises, for Thomas, as a disciple, must be sure that he has also seen the risen Lord. He expresses no more doubt than do the other disciples. John only now informs us of the absence of Thomas the Twin in the previous episode. We do not know why he was not present, but when he arrives, the other disciples witness that they have seen the risen Lord. His response is that he wants to see the marks left by the nails in his hands and place is finger there and in his side, and if he does not, he will not believe. He does not trust the witness of his friends. He is an example of the difficulty of these disciples to believe that God had raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. He is also an example of the ludicrous demands of those who will not believe until they have evidence. The story is hyperbole and is parody of those who allow doubt to the point of wanting to see and touch everything they believe. A week later, gathered in the same house, the risen Lord came to them and offered the Jewish greeting of peace. He invites Thomas to put his finger in his hand and in his side, inviting him to set aside his doubt and believe. These first witnesses will have the advantage over future followers of Jesus to testify to an encounter with the risen Lord. Future generations will have to depend upon the faithfulness of their witness. The risen Lord takes the doubt of Thomas seriously. Yet, Thomas does not touch the risen Lord, but confesses: My Lord and my God. The response of Thomas is a powerful affirmation of faith.  This verse is part of the scriptural affirmation of the deity of the Son. The title “Lord” implies the full deity of the Son, and here John sets the title God and Lord beside each other.[99] As an apostle, Thomas must see and believe. All the disciples doubted until they saw. However, the final blessing of the risen Lord is for those who do not see, and yet believe, based upon their trust in the witness of the apostles. The point here is that the resurrected Jesus is the same Jesus who lived with the disciples. Thomas represents pre-Easter disciples.  There was hesitation and doubt in the inner circle.

  You might remember the story in Matthew 8:23-27, where a storm comes up quickly on the lake while the little boat of the disciples starts flooding. Jesus is sleeping. The disciples are not. They awaken Jesus, and he says, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Notice what Jesus did not say. He did not say, “You of little faith, come back to me sometime when your faith is strong, when you really believe, and then I might try to help you out.” I suppose then, Jesus could have grabbed his pillow and gone back to sleep. He did not say that. Instead, after reminding them that they had room to grow in their faith journey, he immediately came to their rescue. He “rebuked the winds.” Jesus rebukes the winds; we do not. We cannot make having faith an excellent work we do. Thomas does not “achieve” a coming to faith. Faith is something the risen Christ brings to Thomas. Jesus gave Thomas the help he needed even when he was skeptical and full of doubt.

Doubt is often the beginning of exciting learning. The questions we have about the meaning of life, about character, about personality development, about political life, about career, about marriage, are questions that can stimulate us toward greater knowledge, insight, and a better life. We ought not to be afraid of such questions. Our doubts can lead us to deeper faith, stronger faith, and mature faith. The church has too often made doubting people uncomfortable to be in it. Too often, Christians forget the doubts with which they have struggled in their lives. We project to others unrealistic certainty about everything. We forget how weak and feeble our grasp of Christian truth often is. We forget that Christian belief and faith are precisely that – faith. As we encounter those who doubt, we remember that God knows their needs more than we do. God may be testing and strengthening them through their exploration. They may need to lay down their idol god or their ideal god in favor of the Real God. In any case, God knows best what they need, and God is working their doubt, like all things, for their good (Romans 8:28). Therefore, there is no better way to collaborate with people in their doubt than to pray that the kindness of God would address their deepest needs and make known the ways God is shaping them through their questioning.

Many of the great thinkers of the church wrestled with doubts. 

Mother Teresa: “Darkness is such that I really do not see — neither with my mind nor with my reason — the place of God in my soul is blank — There is no God in me — when the pain of longing is so great — I just long and long for God … The torture and pain I can’t explain.”

Martin Luther, whose willingness to reexamine what he had believed for most of his life led to the Protestant Reformation, once wrote about a crisis of faith: “For more than a week I was close to the gates of death and hell. I trembled in all my members. Christ was wholly lost. I was shaken by desperation and blasphemy of God.”

Charles Spurgeon, in his sermon “Desire of the Soul in Spiritual Darkness,” bluntly claimed: “I think, when a man says, ‘I never doubt,’ it is quite time for us to doubt him, it is quite time for us to begin to say, ‘Ah, poor soul, I am afraid you are not on the road at all’ ...”

Pope Francis: “If one has the answers to all the questions — that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.”

            This segment concludes with a statement of the purpose for the writing of the Gospel of John. While Jesus did many other signs not written in this book, the signs he has shared  have been written so that the reader will come to believe that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah, the Son of God, making his Christological intent in writing this gospel clear, and that by believing, the reader may have life in the name of Jesus. 

Of course, as positive an experience as doubt can be, doubt is not a place to live. With humility, we can move forward with the knowledge and experience we have while being open to new learnings life may bring our way. 

Christian witness invites persons to live in the truth of God revealed in Jesus. It does so because of the first witnesses to whom Jesus appeared after his crucifixion. Given the painful realities of our world, such a witness is a surprise. We cannot look to analogies in nature or human life to support this belief. It needs to remain a genuine, surprising act of God. We have no right to expect it. The resurrection of Jesus is gift, first to Jesus of Nazareth and through him to us. If we can cross that threshold, and I do not minimize its difficulty, it opens a new world for us. Considering its truth, we can see everything in a unique way. We can look through this event to clarify the ambiguities of our lives and experiences. Through it, we can see human history and even the universe differently. We see much death, evil, greed, and ugliness in the world. In their midst, we can remain people of hope that God has determined our destiny to be life, righteousness, and peace.

John 21:1-19 (Year C Third Sunday of Easter) tell the story of the risen Lord appearing to disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Although themes of mission and sending are present, the focus is the need of the disciples to learn to follow Jesus.

John 21 represents a bit of a puzzle for its readers. The reason for this stems from the fact that the verses immediately preceding it, John 20:30-31, look like an ending. It is startling to find the seven disciples named here, suddenly out of Jerusalem and back in Galilee, calmly going about their old business of fishing.  It seems odd that the disciples would return to fishing following the powerful stories of chapter 20, including the gift of the Spirit and the conclusion offered in 20:30-31; rather, one would expect them to be witnessing to others. While the "disciple whom Jesus loved" first identifies Jesus, Peter is again the active leader in the response.  At Jesus' request, Peter returns to the boat he had so eagerly abandoned and now single-handedly pulls the filled net ashore.  Peter is the one who coordinates the efforts of all the other disciples.  This author uses distinctly Eucharistic language; Jesus took the bread and gave it to them.  In the act of eating together, they recognize Jesus as being with his disciples.  It is a resurrection appearance and a meal (like that of Luke 24:13-35), combined with a miraculous catch of fish (like that of Luke 5:1-11).

Some scholars have argued that a different author added John 21 after the publication and dissemination of the gospel, in much the same way as a few spurious endings to the gospel of Mark made their way into ancient manuscripts. However, two factors suggest that John 21 was not a spurious later addition. First and most important, we possess no ancient manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel in which this chapter is absent. Second, the language and style of the last chapter are consistent with the rest of the gospel. However, there is another possibility that one might consider. In addition to the gospel of John, we have in the New Testament the epistles of John (i.e., 1, 2 and 3 John). These texts are similar in thought and vocabulary to the gospel of John. Yet, many scholars consider that they are by different authors, even though they are part of the same community. Scholars thus refer to the existence in early Christianity of a “Johannine school,” meaning that there was a group of Christians among whom the memory of the apostle John was particularly venerated and who constituted a distinct theological and ecclesiastical community. Most scholars believe that it is someone from the “Johannine School” who added the 21st chapter to the Fourth Gospel. This explanation is attractive because it accounts for the similarity between John 21 and John 1-20 (the authors had close theological affinities). In addition, the author would have left the conclusion found in John 20:30-31, creating a conspicuous seam; the author of John 21 would have found it disrespectful to tamper with the work of his colleague (or teacher) who had authored John 1-20. The vocabulary and grammatical constructions in this chapter are unique in the fourth gospel.

Verses 1-14 is a story of the risen Lord appearing to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias during breakfast, two weeks after Easter. Peter, Thomas, Nathanael of Cana, James, John, and two other disciples. Peter is taking the lead in wanting to go fishing, and the others said they would as well. Trying their hand at fishing, they were unsuccessful, even though they did so all night. Fishing was a common metaphor for the commission of the disciples to spread the gospel; this theme appears most prominently in the call of the disciples (Mark 1:16-20; Matthew 4:18-22; note the similarity between Luke 5:1-11 and the story related here. After what they had experienced in the previous chapter, this seems odd, going back home and going back to work at their previous profession. Thus, at dawn, a stranger, whom we as readers know to be Jesus, appears on the shore, inquires about their luck, and instructs them to cast their nets into the lake on the right side of their boat. Remarkably, these professional anglers accede to the request of this unknown figure on the beach. They go to the considerable trouble of casting their nets on the "right side of the boat." Instantly, their nets are full of teeming fish. After this, they caught a haul of fish so large it nearly sinks their boat. At this point the beloved disciple recognizes the stranger as Jesus and relates this to Peter. The other disciples manage to get the boat and the fish to the shore. Food was on Jesus' mind when he broke out a fish omelet in Galilee shortly after his resurrection. The risen Lord feeds the disciples. When the others arrive, they discover that Jesus had fish, for it was cooking on a charcoal fire. Bread was nearby. Breakfast was ready!  However, Jesus suggested that they bring some of the fresh fish that they had just caught. This they did, counting out 153 fish brought in a net that, despite the heavy weight of the fish, was not torn. The disciples seem a little unsure of themselves in the presence of the risen Lord. The risen Lord took the bread, gave it to them, and he took the fish, and gave it to them, strongly recalling the feeding of the five thousand in John 6, which has strong Eucharistic overtones. The disciples have a meal prepared by the risen Lord. This was the third time that the risen Lord appeared to the disciples after God raised him from the dead. It follows the pattern of the appearances throughout the gospel tradition in that the risen Lord comes to them, they are not seeking for him. The scene is so ordinary, so every day, with these seven anglers squatting around in a circle, and Jesus offering them breakfast. There, in ordinary Galilee, during an ordinary workday, he shares an ordinary meal with his disciples.

Verses 15-17 contains a story of the risen Lord speaking to Peter. Thus, the narrative of the appearance of the risen Lord along the Sea moves on to an exchange between Peter and Jesus. The primary goal of this exchange is the rehabilitation of Peter, who had denied Jesus (18:17, 25, 27). This understanding strengthens the view that the text is more about following Jesus than about the sending of the disciples. As Peter denied Jesus three times, so also Jesus gives him three opportunities to state his love for Jesus (21:18-19). Peter is receiving a second chance. Jesus is clearly giving Peter a shot at redemption. Forgiveness emerges from Jesus’ willingness to assign Peter the task of shepherding, despite Peter’s earlier betrayal and present failure to love as profoundly as Jesus can love. The good news for Peter and us is that Jesus summons disciples and works with them, even in their imperfection.

Interpreters of this passage have made much of the difference in words used for love here, but there may less than the meets here. Jesus asks Peter three times if he “loves” (ἀγαπᾷς) him, and Peter replies three times that he of course does love (φιλῶ) Jesus. In each case, Jesus instructs Peter to “feed” or “tend” his lambs/sheep. Notice that in his responses, Peter is unusually humble, even demure.  While once he gladly boasted of his loyalty to Jesus, even to the point of his own death, Peter now calls on Jesus himself to verify the love that he feels, "You know that I love you."  Jesus is bestowing upon Peter a leadership role, that of a shepherd, which does not necessarily include any exalted sense of authority for Peter.  Here in John's gospel, where there is no mention of special churchly titles (not even "apostles"), the most exalted position is one of caretaker or shepherd.

The passage has been part of the support the Roman Catholic Church regarding the papacy and its authority over the entire church. Its basis is the direct institution of the apostle Peter as visible head of the church by Jesus. Yet, theological exegesis of the New Testament, including Roman Catholic exegesis, has reached widespread consent that these New Testament sayings about Peter, no matter how else we might assess them, refer only to Peter, not to any successors in his office.^[100]

In verses 18-19, the risen Lord speaks cryptically about the future of Peter. Peter has grown accustomed to moving around at his will. Such days will end. Jesus goes on to predict to Peter in veiled form the fact that political authorities would martyr him and thus glorify God. Peter will experience two forms of fastening or binding. The first is in discipleship to Jesus. The second is in death by crucifixion. John provides the meaning of this unique statement. Jesus tells Peter that he will die for the sheep. He will die for being a disciple. The non-responsive Peter would eventually give the ultimate response to his Lord by offering up his life in authentic love. It is one thing to be a "witness" to Jesus with our words, and quite another to put those words in action. The call to follow Jesus is a call to self-sacrifice -- to give ourselves on behalf of others. Previously, Peter had bailed out when given the chance to stick with his friend all the way to the cross, despite his bravado in saying to Jesus that he would follow him anywhere, even to the point that "I will lay down my life for you" (13:37). Now, he was getting a second chance to carry through on his commitment. Tradition, supported by Eusebius, has long suggested that Peter not only died a martyr's death, but that it was by crucifixion (the only one of the apostles to die in this manner) and that the apostle specifically requested he be crucified in a downward position because he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. The renaissance painter Carvaggio represents this crucifixion in a powerful way in his "Crucifixion of Peter," a large canvas that now hangs in the church of Santa Maria in Rome. The entire incident has taken place in the company and earshot of the disciples. After this, he abruptly said to him, “Follow me.” Jesus intended Peter to take the command as something he can do in this moment. For Peter, following during the rest of his life would mean martyrdom. The wider conception of discipleship (cf 12:25ff and Mark 8:34ff) is to deny oneself in complete obedience to Jesus, surrender freedom and share life with others. Following Christ involves surrendering oneself for others.

Lessons from I John for Year B

 

 

            I John 1:1-2:2 (Year B Second Sunday of Easter) contains the prologue (1:1-4) and a discussion of God as light (1:5-2:2). 

            The prologue is one long sentence, a hymn from Asia Minor. The prologue is working off the hymn that is a prologue to the Gospel of John, phrases of which secessionists within the Johannine community used against the author. The author used the occasion of the letter to correct their misinterpretation. In the attempt to take familiar pieces of the Gospel prologue and give an accurate interpretation of it, it can feel awkward. John is writing on behalf of the Johannine tradition as preserved in the Gospel, especially through the Beloved Disciple. In representing the tradition “we” declare to you, focusing upon the authentic witness of the community to the earthly ministry of Jesus, that was from the beginning, building off the affirmation that the Word was present with creation in the beginning (John 1:1-2). The secessionists could affirm the pre-existence of the Word but had trouble with the earthly course of the ministry of Jesus presented in the Gospel. This tradition begins with what we have heard, seen, looked at, and touched, while the Gospel says, “we have seen his glory” (John 1:14), concerning the word of life, building off John 1:4a saying the Word was life in such a way as to bring light to all. God revealed this life, building off John 1:14a saying the Word became flesh, and “we” have seen it and testify to it, declaring to them as readers the eternal life that was with the Father, building ff John 1:1b, that the Word was with God. Such eternal life is that God revealed to the Johannine tradition, building off John 1:14b saying the Word lived “among us” and 1:18b saying the only Son has made God known. The tradition declares what it has seen heard, emphasizing the human quality the Word possessed. This was no dream or phantom. The Word became a human being. This author expands upon John 1:14, “the Word became flesh.” Thus, the author writes this letter to keep the readers within the basic affirmations of the apostolic faith. He is making two affirmations about Jesus. One is that he is a unity with the Father, while at the same time he became human in the full sense of the word. The author, representing the Johannine tradition, makes such declarations so that the readers also may have fellowship (κοινωνίαν) with that tradition, for that this tradition has fellowship with the Father and with the Son, Jesus Christ, building off John 1:17a saying Moses gave the law, and John 1:16ab saying “we” have received from the fullness of the Word grace upon grace, writing these things to complete our joy. The language here is significant in that he stresses testimony, seeing, hearing, and touching. Ancient religions could write of dying and rising gods. Jewish apocalyptic had mythical elements of resurrection. Yet, this author stresses the testimony of his tradition has its basis in what it saw, heard, and touched. It sets aside any docetic view of Jesus. The tradition had to decide between belief and unbelief. Jesus was present as pointing us to genuine divinity and genuine humanity. It took place at a particular moment in history and in a particular person. This tradition does not have its source in an intellectual intuition. Rather, it remembers a real event that has taken place among them and impels adherents of the tradition to testify to others. The word of life, which is eternal life, is a demonstration of the gracious God, who has authority over life and death. God wills to give humanity a share in divine time. In that sense, this Jesus is the revelation of divine sovereignty over life and death.[101] In a sense, Easter reveals the event nature of the relationship between God and humanity. Easter is an encounter with God in which God confronted the disciples in Christ. They came to faith because they touched, saw, and heard.[102]

            From a modern perspective, the point is to keep the humanity and deity of Jesus in view. In beholding the glory of Jesus, the disciples decided to believe rather than live in unbelief. God was present as the man Jesus. That this really took place is the specific content of the apostolic recollection of these days. God is present, not simply as an intellectual notion of perception, but as a remembered fact that has taken place before them and impels them to confession and commission. The Easter event is quite plainly one of an encounter with God, an act of God to the disciples in which, God confronted them and spoke with them in the person of Jesus Christ. As stated here, they heard and handled it. In this seeing, hearing, and handling, they were brought to faith.

            I John 1:5-2:2 discusses God as light, there being no darkness in God, spelling out the implications of the theme: Light, obedience, and love constitute the life of the believer, while darkness, disobedience, and hate constitute the life of the non-believer. The basis of the statements is a misuse of the Gospel of John. It may have been part of an initiation ceremony, since confession of sin was an important part of that service. The passage gives us some hints of the issues troubling the author. The organizing concern is the Christian faith and life. The passage is a series of antithetical statements. “If we say …” is the key organizing principle. In affirming that God is light and has no darkness, is building off John 1:4b, 5ab, which said that the Word was life that brought through the earthly career of Jesus, and not just at the Incarnation, light to all people, a light shining in the darkness and the darkness not overcoming it. Light is a function of self-revelation, as it removed darkness or sin. The point is that those who believe are to reflect in their lives the God whom they worship. The author will then reflect upon the ethical implication of this theme, fearing the contamination of those in fellowship with him. He will discuss three claims and counterclaims. The claims progress in focusing on truth and lying, sin and darkness, matching these disapproved conditions with the approved conditions of walking in the light, public confession of sin, and the likelihood of sin. The contrast involves those who accept the truth regarding themselves with those who accept the truth about their sinfulness. His first disapproved condition is saying one has fellowship with God while walking in darkness, thereby lying and refusing to do what is true. This contrasts with the first approved condition of choosing to walk through life in the light as God is in the light, thereby having fellowship with each other, the blood of Jesus as the Son cleansing us from all sin (ἁμαρτίας). A misuse of John 3:19-21 meant giving no salvific importance to ethics. Darkness remains an issue for the Christian. A second disapproved condition is that one who says they have no sin deceives themselves and the truth is not in them, a misuse of John 8:31-36, 8:24, 15:22, and 16:8-9, extrapolating that the believer is no longer guilty of sin, no matter what one did. A second approved condition is that confession of sins (ἁμαρτίας) means the faithful and just God will forgive our sins and cleanse from unrighteousness. A third disapproved condition, misusing John 8:46, 20:22-23, 3:8, 5:24, and 13:10, is that if we say we have not sinned we make God a liar and the word of God is not in us, offense among church members being a common experience. ^[103] His third approved condition addresses them as little children, writing these things so that they may not sin, but if they do, they have an advocate (Παράκλητον). The bloody sacrifice of Christ has its complement in the risen Lord becoming our advocate with the Father. His bloody sacrifice as crucified Lord atones fully for our sin, while as risen Lord he remains our advocate when we sin as believers. A paraclete, who in John 14:16 is also Jesus as the first advocate and the Spirit is also an advocate. The letter does not refer to the Spirit as Paraclete. The opponents gave no salvific importance to the death of Christ. The term “Paraclete” can have the sense of our advocate or representative before God. John uses it that way here to refer to the risen Christ. However, it can also denote advocacy for God and the cause of God among us, or for the cause of Jesus after his departure.^[104] The advocate with the Father is Jesus Christ the righteous, the atoning sacrifice (ἱλασμός, propitiation). Note the emphasis on the bloody death of Christ. Believers no longer need to offer animal sacrifices. The way is clear to a relationship with God. There are two issues here, first, the claim that Jesus’ death led to the cleansing of sins and the claim that Jesus bled. The second reason the author may have wanted to emphasize “the blood of Jesus” is deliberately to evoke from the reader/listener a visceral sense of the human suffering that Jesus endured.  From here and elsewhere, scholars surmise that the opponents claimed that Jesus only seemed human; a position (Docetism) often associated with the Gnostics and condemned by Ignatius of Antioch about the time of the production of the Johannine texts. The author, it seems, wants to quash that notion quickly: Jesus was flesh and blood. This atoning sacrifice was for the sins of the world. 

            I John 3:1-7 (Year B Third Sunday of Easter) contrasts the children of God versus the children of devil based on behavior. The context of 2:28-3:10 presents a clear dualism between purity and lawlessness, salvation and sin. This portion contrasts the children of God with the children of the Devil based on their behavior is just or sinful. Those who remain in Christ fulfill the law, become pure and do not sin. Those who remain in the realm of the devil are lawless and impure and receive punishment. Those who are pure are self-evidently part of Christ and his beloved community. They are righteous because they do "what is right." One may assume in these verses that by "sin" John means the willful and re-occurring acts of wrongdoing. However, John is not entirely clear on this point: Something cosmic is at stake in this passage. Obviously, certain individuals who left the community, the opponents of John, manifested the sin to which he refers. His concern is with those who have abandoned the community. It reflects upon being a child of God and the effect that will have on one’s life. 

The exclamatory interruption (verses 1-3) joyfully affirms that believers are children of God now. The use of the imperative expresses a desire to get their attention: See! Behold! The Father has loved (ἀγάπην) us enough to call us children of God. In the prologue to the Gospel, those who receive him have been given “power to become children of God, who were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). The intimacy of the parent and child relation also suggests dependency and trust. He uses the word to express the fundamental relationship humans have with what defines their identity. In typical Johannine thought, one’s parentage is either divine or evil. Since the world does not know God, it does know us as children of God. The relation with the heavenly Father places the children of the Father at odds with the world. The way of life that identifies one as a child of God creates division. The transformed life of children of God changes the relation between them and the world. He addresses them as beloved (Ἀγαπητοί) and reaffirms they are children of God now, whereas prior to their entrance into the community they were children of the world. John 8:44 refers to children of the devil. The mood is the danger the world presents to “us.” Some within the community have revealed themselves to be dangerous (2:19). The writer is suspicious in a way that could lead to an unhealthy withdrawal from the world. He is drawing attention to a conversation the church of every time and culture needs to have regarding church and world, believer and unbeliever. The context forces recognition that some believers, some within the church, will want to identify with elements in the world rather than gain their identity through being children of God. We will be a part of various communities (family, work, interest groups, neighborhoods, political entities), all of which will form our identity over time. The Christian community is to be so important to us that it continually shapes us into children of God, which will create tensions with the other communities with which our lives intersect. Given the intensity that political involvement can demand, it can lead to a suspicious attitude toward those who do not agree with “us,” leading to viewing the other as morally reprehensible and can lead to violence. We may well sacrifice openness and learning from those different from us in favor of full identification with the moral superiority of the political community with which we identify. What if the politically other is a Christian? Here is a sign that we are gaining our identity more through our involvement in a political community than we do our faith community. John then asserts that God has not yet revealed (ἐφανερώθη) what we will be. An important theme of this text is revelation, which here is a future action of God. If they have undergone a change from their previous life to their present existence, how much more will they change when the Father reveals Christ, and they see him just as he is? The future will be a new manifestation of the love that has accomplished the gift of becoming children of God. John is offering a brief reflection on time. His point is that on the path in time, objects and people exist only in anticipation of what they will be in the final revelation that only the end can clarify. We can rightly refer to that end as eternity. The clarity the end brings is the entry of eternity into time. In the end, the distinction between time and eternity dissolves as time itself disintegrates into the fullness that eternity represents. In the end, the totality of life arrives, along with the true and definitive identity of the finite and temporal. The future is that toward which the finite and temporal aim. Therefore, the future becomes the basis for the lasting essence of each individual creature that finds duration in its time and place. Finite things must relate to their eschatology.[105] If we belong to God, if we are children of God, then we are to be like the one whose children we are. As children of God, we are to be like our Father. When the final disclosure brought by the end arrives, they will change even more to see Christ as he is. In the prologue to the Gospel, we read that Jesus, the Word made flesh, is the perfect image of God, the one who has “made him known” to the world” (John 1:18). The idea is that we see now in a dim glass compared with viewing the truth of their end clearly (I Corinthians 13:12). Allowing their lives to be guided by this hope purifies them, ridding themselves of attitudes and actions that are inappropriate of those in relation to the Father. They live in the love of God and have the firm hope of a glorious future. The revelation of this glorious future has not yet taken place.[106] The resemblance between the believer and Christ will be in the realm of righteousness. To be a child of God is to begin a journey in the faith that will lead to a more profound knowledge of who Christ is, in his fullness. Furthermore, this journey will lead to a deeper, personal, moral purity; the believer will become like Jesus. Ambrose Bierce once defined a saint, with some sarcasm, as “a dead sinner, revised and edited.” Yet, the statement has a degree of truth. God must revise and edit all Christians for them to enter divine glory. 

The author moves on to discuss the Parousia, righteousness, and sin (verses 4-5), contrasting the Son of God and his effect in people with the Devil and his effect upon people. The reference to purity in verse 3 leads John to a discussion of its opposite, sin. ⁴ Everyone who commits sin (ἁμαρτίαν) is guilty of lawlessness (ἀνομίαν); sin (ἁμαρτία) is lawlessness (ἀνομία). One can cannot sin from lawlessness. The lawlessness of which John speaks refers to the anarchy of which the devil and his followers - his "children" – partake. It refers to doing what is not right and violating established rules. In verse 10, sin is failure to love each other. He refers to the common knowledge of the community that the Father revealed (ἐφανερώθη) Christ the first time in Jesus of Nazareth to take away sins, for in him is no sin. The writer takes up this term (ἄρῃ) from the gospel of John (1:29, “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”). In verse 2, revelation was oriented toward a future action of God, but here revelation relates to the past action of God in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah. The major challenge of interpreting this text is when the author says: ⁶ No one who abides (μένων) in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. The direct result of the removal of sin is behavioral, namely that those who are in him do not sin. Christ died to take away sin, so certain behavior is not consistent with being part of the community devoted to Christ. Linguistically, when John talks about sin as a mutually exclusive entity excluding one from being in Christ, he uses the present tense verb. Real Christians will make mistakes, but they will not live in a continual pattern of sin. Although John's vocabulary is a bit odd, his insistence, that those who abide in Jesus God saves from lawlessness, echoes other passages describing the new life in Christ which frees the believer from sin. The author addresses the readers as little children and encourages them not to allow anyone to deceive them. One who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. 

As D. Moody Smith puts it, “The work of Christ brings about the birth from God that is freedom from sin, but a freedom that must be ratified continually by willing and doing what is right, as John never tires of urging.”

The Middle Ages developed a list of seven sins that it classed as the worst possible kinds of sin.  These the seven deadly sins were Pride, Greed, Anger, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth (laziness), Unfaithfulness (adultery). A range of popular books on the Enneagram (from the Greek ennea, or "nine"), which is a symbol of wholeness, have been part of my life. One such book is Helen Palmer's The Enneagram (Harper, 1988).  She uses the number nine for the seven deadly sins, previously mentioned, plus two more: fear, and deceit.  She uses the Enneagram model to show how spiritual transformation can occur through dealing with one's predominant compulsion in life.  This approach has its basis in the belief that each person has one primary drive, or "besetting sin," which is the principal force in determining that person's personality (though it does not mean that other sins are not present and active in the individual).   Such a view is consistent with the theological notion of original sin. We all need transformation, even if the primary area of our lives that needs transformation differs. One example from Palmer's book is the sin of "sloth" or indolence.  Such persons are those who major in minors, such as too much TV, food, trivial pursuits, while neglecting their real needs.  They are good-natured, but undisciplined.  The gift of the risen Christ to this personality type does not destroy their good-natured quality, but places within them a new desire for action and responsibility. In each case (or sin), Palmer shows how abiding in Christ can transform each number in the Enneagram, thereby adding to the Body of Christ while maintaining one’s own unique presence and being.

Reality will settle in upon us. As John said earlier, if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just in forgiving us our sin. Reality can be discouraging as we seek to fulfill the calling of God upon our lives to be followers of Christ. This passage invites us to reflect upon sin. Sin is an always-present human reality. As this author put it in Chapters 1-2, he assumes that Christians sin. John admits earlier in the homily that sin is still a factor in the life of the believer: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). But sin does not have to be the deciding factor.

I John 3:16-24 (Year B Fourth Sunday of Easter) discusses love of each other. We know love (ἀγάπην) by the pattern Jesus established in dying for us. Therefore, our love as those who follow Jesus is obligated to have the pattern of laying down our lives for each other. The love God has for us abides within, but it will transform us in ways that lead us toward compassionate acts towards others. The specific concern for the poor is part of the Jewish heritage. The observation suggests those who left the community were the wealthy ones. Within the language of the Johannine literature, this obligation is toward other members of the faith community.  One can find similar calls for sharing one’s material possessions with fellow Christians elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Acts 4:34-35; James 2:15-16). Indeed, a proven effective means of evangelization is compassionate sharing of our possessions with those in need when it is at the same time made clear that these charitable acts arise not from ourselves but from the love of God that abides in us. One can understand these verses as a reflection on John 15:13-15, where on the night before his crucifixion Jesus tells his disciples that their relationship to one another is the binding love between friends, and that “no one has greater love than … to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Certainly, within that narrative context, “laying down one’s life” for another is quite direct and literal, and it is that self-sacrificial act that the letter refers to when it says simply, “he laid down his life for us.” He defines the giving of one’s life for others as the compassionate offer of oneself and one’s possessions to other members of the community of faith. So obvious is this obligation to the author that he is dumbfounded by the very thought that anyone might claim to have God’s love within and fail to meet others’ needs. Verses 18-22 have the theme of assurance before of God of those who belong to the truth. Addressing them as little children, he encourages them to love in truth and action. We prove to ourselves as well as to others that our relationship with God has transformed us. He then focuses upon the heart, for what is at stake is knowledge about who we are. The heart may condemn us, but God knows it all and forgives. It can also provide assurance that we are free from sin. He addresses them as beloved, assuring them that if their hearts do not condemn, giving us certainty in our relationship with God, we can then have boldness before God, receiving from God whatever we ask, because our actions are in accord with the will of God and thus arise from a loving, mutual relationship with God. This defines what we ask of God. If our actions are in accord with the will of God, we believe that in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ. Such belief is an act because of the necessity of public confession. Another action if we live in accord with the will of God is love one another, as Jesus commanded us. Living like this, we are abiding in God, and God is abiding in us through the Spirit God has given us. Abiding in John is a way of being, not just an experience we have, nor a disposition. We have our truest reality in abiding, in which we are to see and understand ourselves in truth. We are to remain who we are. We are in Christ of whom we have heard. We are really in Christ.[107]The double commandment relates to John 16:26-27. It is like the synoptic tradition of the two great commandments. That this is not legalistic we can see in that “abiding” is so intimate. Commandment and Spirit are together. Note love in John 13:34 and Spirit in 14:15-17, 25-26. The New Testament often has Spirit as a pledge or criterion. Here, the thought is consistent with 4:2; the Spirit is the one who brings true public testimony about Jesus. Jesus is looking for followers, not admirers (Søren Kierkegaard). He wants people who would walk with him, do his work, and serve in his name. One of Kierkegaard’s parables told of a man who was walking down a city street when he saw a big sign in a window that said, “Pants pressed here.” Delighted to see the sign, he went home and gathered up all his wrinkled laundry. He carried it into the shop and put it on the counter. “What are you doing?” the shopkeeper demanded. “I brought my clothes here to be pressed, just like your sign said.” “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong,” the owner said. “We don’t actually do that here. We’re in the business of making signs.” That, said Kierkegaard, is often the problem in the church. We advertise ourselves as a place that is showing Christ’s love and doing Christ’s work. However, when people show up looking for real love and real Christian action, they do not see it. “Oh, no, we don’t love people here. We just talk about loving people here.”

I John 4:7-21 (Year B Fifth Sunday of Easter) says that those who part of a Christian community are to love one another. These verses are an intensive treatment of love, 18 of the 28 occurrences in I John. John tells us of Jesus: Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. (John 13:1) Any decision that fails to ask the love question misses the point of Christian practice.^[108] In 3:23, John reminds them of the commandment to love each other. This segment is an elaboration of that commandment, while 4:1-6 is an elaboration of what it means to believe in the name of Jesus Christ, the other commandment referred to in that verse. He is interpreting John 3:16-17. The Gospel of John famously affirms that God loved the world so much that God have the only and unique Son. In this segment, John expands on love, providing a Christological content to love. This segment might have been part of the baptism/conversion/initiation language.  The reason is that it also expands on the notion that those who believe in the Son will have eternal life, that God sent the Son into the world to save the world rather than condemn the world. These notions reoccur in this segment.

Verses 7-10 reflect on upon the thought that love is from the God who is love. He refers to his readers as beloved of God. Loved in this way, their vocation is to love to each other. From the larger theological perspective, the obedience of love follows the obedience of faith. Sanctification is the second aspect of the reconciliation of humanity with God, willed, accomplished, and revealed by God. Being the beloved and loving others is the identifying characteristic of the one who is born of God.  The one born of God knows God to be more than an ephemeral notion. Rather, to John, the believer who has experienced the transformative love of God lives to love. The love here described is dynamic and relational, an expression of the Creator's very essence to the one who believes. God is love. Along with John 4:24, where God is spirit, we have here a second statement in the New Testament that reads like a definition of the divine nature, where God is love.[109]  Thus, God not only loves, but also is love. God is love and revealed the divine self as such by sending the Son in order that we might live through Him. In Jesus Christ, God has created an indestructible fellowship between God and humanity. That is the actualization and revelation of divine love it consists simply in the affirmation of the existence for this fellowship.[110] If love is of God, then God can make of those who cannot and will not love people who love.[111] The mere thought that God is a subject that loves does not do justice to this saying. Even if we presuppose a plurality of persons in a relationship of love, the persons are related to each other by love, which is not itself thought of as a third person.[112] The statement summarizes the whole event of the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, going beyond the statement that God is Spirit in John 4:24.[113] John is not describing a quality of God, but the divine essence or nature as love. We know the divine essence, not because we became so perceptive, but because we have believed in the revelatory nature of an event, namely, that of Jesus Christ. The dominating idea of the segment is that love is from God, who is love.  God is love leads naturally to the idea that the mark of the children of God is love. In fact, knowledge of God is through love. Love is a criterion for knowledge of God, even as is faith in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  Keeping commandments and love are interchangeable. When he says, "God is love,” this is not a precise definition but a description of how God acts in relation to human beings.  It is not a contrast between Old Testament God of justice and New Testament God of love.  The real contrast is with a world that hates. To say that God is love is to make love a predicate of God. If so, the content remains the same if we transpose the terms: love is God. One who loves knows God, while one who does not love does not know God. Love presupposes knowledge of God, and knowledge of God results in love. To know God is to know the love that is God. We know God is love because revealed this love in the sending of the Son into the world so that the world might live through him. This knowledge comes from an event within our time and space. Jesus reveals the love of God. The love of God is incarnational. It is not only a feeling; it is an historic reality. The human body of Jesus fully reveals the love of God. "Love" in this letter serves the same purpose as the "Word" served in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1-18). They are synonyms, for both are preexistent and creative, now in the flesh. Jesus, to John, is the intersection of the divine and human.   Jesus is the expression of God's love and the expression of the loving human response to God, as well as to the brothers and sisters of the community. Thus, to say that the hate, violence, and death we find in this world is not the destiny of humanity is not simply an intuition. For John, the fact that our destiny is the love of God is a matter of revelation. This knowledge arises out of a specific event. The sending of the Son into the world refers to the passion and death of Jesus, as here, but not to his human birth.[114] He stresses again that our experience of love is not the pattern, but the pattern is the revelation that God loved us, the Father sending the Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Such “sending” presupposes preexistence as the starting point of the mission, as is incontestably the case here, suggesting the unity of Jesus with God.[115] God's love through Jesus Christ is not only transformational, but also is for salvation. Reminiscent, of course, is John 15:13, "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friend." Hence, the primary incarnation of God's love in Jesus becomes secondarily incarnational in the love that the believers have for each other. Another issue would have been the salvific importance of living out the implications in our lives.  We can see that for John, the revelation of this love is the sending of the Son, which explains how humanity knows this love and therefore knows God. Thus, we are not engaging in arbitrary speculation if we discuss the basis of love if we were to begin the description of the being and nature of the divine being as love. God exists within the divine being as love. In the tri-unity of the divine being, the essence of God is eternal love.[116] Thus, God has declared the divine nature as love (verses 8 and 16) in the sending of Jesus Christ in his message and history. Such love gives human beings life (verse 9). John now discloses that the origin of love is in the love God had in the sending of the Son. Love is a force that radiates out from God. Love is not primarily a human act. Love lays hold of us in such a way as to make us active as well. Agape is “giving love.” The katabatic or downward thrust of love from God and toward humanity finds its meaning in the form of agape most obviously in verse 10 and in verse 19. John is presupposing the command to love God. Allowing such love to transform us necessitates the same kind of sacrificial loving outreach to one another. Soren Kierkegaard once said that the world’s talk about love is confusing. For example, the world will tell young people, “Love and you will be loved.” This is true, if properly understood. Yet, the world is deceitful. We in the church are deceitful if we do not remind our youth to hold fast to God to learn what love is. The world has a quite different conception of love than does God or the church.^[117]

Verses 11-16b say that the God of love is abiding in us. After stressing the origin of love in God, the author can go on to say at once that if God has loved us so much then we are also under obligation to love each other. Yet, this is more than just a moral conclusion. It is a matter of abiding in the ecstatic elevation to God that faith mediates. On the side of God, such elevation is the being of God in believers by the Spirit. He dares to make divine indwelling dependent on and expressed by our love for each other. This is where God's love reaches perfection. Therefore, if we can think of mystical union, it does not have the purpose of a vision or ecstasy, but the discovery of the love of God reproduced in our lives. If we love each other, God abides in us and the love of God has reached its goal in us.[118] He writes like this because the Father has gifted (δέδωκεν) the Spirit, using a word usually reserved for the sending of the Son. The Spirit allows people to see the divine origin of the ministry of Jesus. The Father has also sent (ἀπέσταλκεν) the Son as Savior of the world, stressing that those who abide in God are those that confess Jesus is the Son of God, which means they know and believe the love God for them. Abiding and confessing become particularly important to John's community. For John, those who left the community did not abide. They have not experienced truly the love of God. They have not genuinely loved their brother or sister. Considering that God the Creator, Christ the Savior, and the Spirit are mentioned in that order in the space of just a few verses indicates an early orthodoxy concerning the Trinity. The Spirit is the entity that allows the true believer to abide, confess, testify, and love. The concept of the Spirit as gift, based on this passage, constantly leads Augustine to the thesis of a common procession from the Father and the Son who are the givers of the gift.[119] Those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God also find that God dwells in them and they dwell in God.[120] The formulation shows us that the confession of the church has placed the obedient man Jesus, in virtue of his dignity as the Kyrios, in the very being of God as the eternal Son. This is primarily a presupposition rather than a consequence of the understanding of God as love. The question arises how we are to describe more precisely the relation between the unity of the divine love and the trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit. R. Prenter calls love the unity of the divine being of Father, Son, and Spirit. They are love in the unity of free persons that nothing can separate.[121] He reaffirms his theme by saying again that God is love.

Verses 16c-19 has the law reaching perfection in us. Abiding in love is abiding in God and means God is abiding in them, all of which means abiding is a sphere in we move, a force field that comes from God and binds us to God. [122]Through love, we experience the divine indwelling. Adding another significant piece to his argument, a mark of abiding in the love of God until the end is boldness or sanding firm in the conviction, having no need to be fearful of the day of judgment. The type of love of which he is writing casts out the fear of persons or things, since we are to love God above all things, [123] for fear focuses upon punishment, so one who fears has not reached perfection in love. His community may have been fearful or anxious about its ability to cope with the split that has occurred. He draws their attention to the love God has demonstrated to them through Jesus and the Spirit, which is the basis of their loving for each other. 

Verses 20-21 defends loving fellow Christians. Those who say they love God and hate brothers and sisters are liars, do not love what they can see, so they do not love God, whom they cannot see. Love of God and love of fellow Christians are two facets of the same love. Our slothfulness puts in danger the bond that joins us to other human beings in that this bond with others unites us to God. The statement here is clear-cut. The relationship of one with another is not in itself a relationship with God. Yet, since these two people have the same God, love toward God includes love toward humanity. If I choose myself in isolation from others, I enter the sphere of the even more terrible isolation in which God can no longer be my God. If one is indifferent to another, then I show indifference to God. If I can despise people, the praise that I may bring to God will stick in my throat. If I exploit my neighbor, I will do the same with God. I have hated, despised, and wounded, and attacked God. If I am inhuman, I am also stupid, foolish, and godless.[124] The commandment from God is that those who love God must love their fellow Christians as well. Our love for God is not a separate theme alongside that of the love of God for the world shown in the sending of the Son, and our sharing in this by love of neighbor.[125] The statement is in the indicative. Love on the vertical plane is the human answer to the love of God for us, while love on the horizontal plane is an indirect repetition of this answer. The love of God evokes the love of the Christian for God, and the two together lead to mutual love of Christians.[126]

The church continually struggles with practicing the love toward each other to which the New Testament calls it. The letters of John in the New Testament are a good example. The congregations that formed around John in the first century had a mutiny near the end of the century. Those who remain faithful to John and his message are anxious about the future of their community. Will it survive the impending split? The struggle here is not to figure how to love the world. The struggle here is how Christians will demonstrate love toward each other.

Reflect for a moment upon the phrase, “God is love.” The motivation of all the actions of God toward humanity is love. The primary contrast to this is that the world hates. In fact, the closer the church gets to hate, the closer our lives move toward hate, the further away from God we move. The statement is the closest to a definition of God that we have the Bible. Love is central to the church because it defines God. However, God is not love in the abstract. God demonstrated this love in a way that remains shocking for many people today. The Messiah, the Son of God, gave his life for each of us. In this supreme sacrifice, the love of God becomes tangible. Love is the primary mark of the children of God. We know God through love. Obedience to God and loving are interchangeable. To show love to one another is to make the invisible God visible. The failure of those who rebel against the leadership of John is the failure to love. The root of genuine love is the love of God, demonstrated by the sending of Jesus to die. The person who lives in this way can have confidence before God. 

Reflect for a moment upon the title John gives to the recipients of this letter, "Beloved." They do not only receive the love of God, but they become the beloved. Likewise, if beloved, then they become loving persons. One cannot “be” without also “being.” Being the beloved and loving others is the identifying characteristic of the one who is born of God.  

Well, John was writing to a community that was extremely anxious about its present ability to cope with a split, and fearful about the future. John seeks to comfort and strengthen by stressing the fundamental truth: God is love.  Our fear and anxiety can lead us to do many things, most of them not helpful. By recovering the center, that of love, we learn what it feels like to abide in God, and we learn what it feels like for God to abide in us. We can then remain strong during unrest, uncertainty, and even division.

I John 5:1-6 (Year B Sixth Sunday of Easter) continues a discussion of loving each other (verses 1-4a) and closes with the theme of a faith that conquers (verses 4b-6). He begins by stressing the action of believing, which he identified with the command to show love in the previous chapter. The act of believing is practical and pragmatic. He asserts that Jesus as the Christ is born (γεγέννηται) from God (John 1:18 as well). The God who is spirit (John 4:24) has nevertheless brought to birth a son who has genuinely become physical in nature (John 1:14). He insists that “we” have seen and touched the word of life (I John 1:1), and anyone who would teach otherwise is an anti-Christ (2:22). He insists on the act of believing that the human being Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ who was born of God. He links love of God with keeping the command of God to love, so he stresses that one who loves the parent loves the child. Those who have engaged in this act of believing are also born of God. We know we love the children of God when we love God do the commandments of God. Our desire to know and gain certainty drives much of our behavior, acquiring it through the interaction of rationality, emotions, senses, and faith. Some things in life you will never know, such as whether someone is a genuine friend or lover, without the act of believing in that person. While you may learn the person was not worthy of your trust, and you must therefore withdraw, you would not have known without taking the risk. The mathematization of the sciences has given a high degree of knowledge in those areas of our lives, but we have less degree of certainty in human sciences, history, the arts, ethics, and religion, since these rely more upon intuition, feeling, and the act of believing in a course of action. In the current interpretive situation, doing is part of the certainty one gains. John is connecting belief in Jesus Christ with being a child of God, recognizing that children of God love God and other children of God. When all this comes together, “we know.” Loving God has little meaning apart from obedience to the will of God, which will not be a burden, even if it is simple, serious, penetrating, and inescapable.[127] While there are those who may feel burdened by the commandments put forth in 1 John, the imperative of loving God and one another is meant to enhance life, not encumber it. Loving God and one another is not only an ethical stance, but it is also an invitation to participate in a lively network of relationships where God and humankind are drawn together into rich companionship and communion One born of God conquers the world. The context for conquering the world can be found earlier in 2:13b-17, where the evil one is overcome (2:13b, 14c) and it is imperatively stated: “Do not love the world or things of the world” (2:15a). John seems, here, to be very close to a seam of thought we find in the gospel of John, a seam which emerges (for instance) at 12:31, where Jesus speaks of “the world’s ruler” being “thrown out”; at 14:30, where he declares that “the ruler of this world” has “nothing to do with me”; and at 16:33 where, after warning the disciples that they will face persecution in the world, concludes, “But cheer up; I have conquered the world!” In the gospel, all this is meant, so it seems, to draw the eye up to the two dramatic chapters 18 and 19, in which an odd, unbalanced conversation takes place between Jesus, Pontius Pilate and the chief priests. Jesus and Pilate argue about the great themes of kingdom, truth, and power, with the chief priests accusing Jesus and finally persuading Pilate to have him crucified. Somehow, we are meant to understand, these events and their aftermath, more particularly Jesus’ death as “king of the Jews,” are in fact the moment when, and how, “the world’s ruler” is being “thrown out.” They are how Jesus is in fact conquering the world, even though it looks for the moment as though the world is conquering him. There is a deep mystery here. The victory that conquers the world is the saving death of Jesus. And those who by faith cling on to the God who is made known personally in and as the Jesus who died on the cross — they share that victory, that conquest of “the world.”^[128]

Verses 4b-6 focuses on faith as that which conquers the world. He offers a Christological content to the faith that conquers. Its image is water, blood, and Spirit. The agency of those born of God conquering the world is a Christological affirmation of the faith, the only time this word does not refer to the act of believing, even though the emphasis remains on what it does in conquering the world. This belief recognizes Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, making the power to conquer the world available. As king, Jesus protects the believer from the threats of the world and will not allow the world to conquer the one who has faith. God is transfiguring the world through those who believe. This belief is that Jesus Christ came as an historical fact by water, his anointing as prophet, and blood, his offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins fo the world, suggesting the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, the moment of his baptism and the completion of the historic Incarnation with Jesus' death. Jesus is king, prophet, and priest here. The text makes it clear that one must not separate these two witnesses that bookend his life. The combination of water and blood goes back to John 19:34-35, witnessing the blood and water. The water flowing from the body of Jesus is symbolic of the life-giving power of the death of Jesus. Both water and blood relate to the insistence of the real physicality of Christ, especially to his crucifixion and therefore to the reality of his suffering and death. In addition to the earthiness of these two witnesses is the Spirit as the one who testifies to us internally and leads to truth. 

In a violent world, Christ's loving sacrifice has never been so powerful. Jesus Christ experienced these portals of pain. Nevertheless, through the cleansing, healing, transforming power of divine love, Jesus broke their hold over humanity forever. Jesus' love for you and for me and for the world is "written in red." 

 

Verse 1

 In letters of crimson, God wrote His love

 On the hillside so long, long ago;

 For you and for me Jesus died, 

 And love's greatest story was told.

 

 Chorus 1

 I love you, I love you

 That's what Calvary said;

 I love you, I love you, 

 I love you, Written in Red

 

 Verse 2

 Down through the ages, God wrote His love

 With the same hands that suffered and bled;

 Giving all that He had to give, 

 A message so easily read.

 

 Chorus 2

 I love you, I love you,

 That's what Calvary said; 

 I love you, I love you,

 I love you.....

 

 Bridge

 Oh, precious is the flow, that makes me white as snow;

 No other fount I know, nothing but the blood, 

 The blood of Jesus.

 

 Chorus 1

 I love you, I love you

 That's what Calvary said;

 I love you, I love you,

 I love you, Written....In Red (hold out)

"Written in Red" by Gordon Jensen ((c)1990 Word Music), sung by Janet Paschal (1996)

 

I John 5:9-13 (Year B Seventh Sunday of Easter) continues with a faith that conquers and knowledge of eternal life. Verses 9-12 discusses God’s testimony. The human testimony is John the Baptist. What is God’s testimony? His reflections upon the testimony God gives the believer leads John to make some sharp distinctions between those who believe and those who do not believe. In verses 6-8 he has referred to three who give testimony, suggesting in the first two the marks of the public ministry of Jesus, the witness of John the Baptist at the baptism of Jesus, the Beloved Disciple who witnessed the crucifixion, and the third the testimony the Spirit gives. The testimony God gives through the Spirit testifies to the Son. The Spirit translates the meaning of the water and the blood. The act of believing in the Son of God is the human response to the divine testimony and have the testimony of God in their hearts, internalizing their relationship with God. Unbelief is another human response to the divine testimony, but the result is making God a liar by not believing the testimony God has given concerning the Son. The testimony God gave is eternal life in the Son. Possessing the testimony of God within oneself is the same as possessing life. The three witnesses work together to open our eyes to the divine gift God is offering humanity through Christ's sacrifice. Thus, one who has the Son as life, and one who does not have the Son does not life. In verse 13, he writes these things so that his readers will believe in the name of the Son of God, giving them the assurance, knowledge, that they have eternal life. In an analogous way, John 20:31 says he has written the Gospel so that the reader may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing the reader will have life in his name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Edward F. Markquart, The Spirit of Truth 

[2] --T.S. Eliot

[3] Do not lose hold of your dreams or aspirations. For if you do, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. --Henry David Thoreau.

[4] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 

[5] Hugo of St. Victor wrote long ago: 

Those who find their homeland sweet are still tender beginners; those whom every soil is as their native one is already strong; but those who are perfect regard the entire world as a foreign place.

[6] Malcolm Muggeridge once put it this way: 

The only ultimate disaster that can befall us is to feel ourselves to be at home here on earth.  As long as we are aliens, we cannot forget our true homeland which is that other kingdom You proclaimed.

 

[7] Luther, vol 3, p. 81ff.  If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point at which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking.  I am not confessing Christ, however, boldly I may be professing him.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to the steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

[8] Here is the pertinent part of the Athanasian Creed, the most serious attempt to define the Trinity. 

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.

[9] Fr. Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism.

[10] Barth (Church Dogmatics III.2 [46.2] 362)

[11] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Volume 2, 453, Volume 1, 267)

[12] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Volume 3, 367)

[13] Inspired by and working against William Willimon, The Door, Pulpit Resource, 2005.

[14] Yet, in Jerome rendered both terms as olvile "fold" in the Latin Vulgate, making Jesus' statement a contrast between "this fold" and the "one fold" of the future. As a result, most Medieval Latin writers, who depended on the Vulgate, continued to express both these references with the same word ovile, "fold." Augustine, Wycliffe, Erasmus and eventually the King James Version of 1611 all continued to carry forward this mistranslation.

[15]  Thus, the image is far more inclusive than Jerome's Vulgate translation suggests.

[16] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 615-6.

[17] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 2, 346.

[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 425-6.

[19] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 70, 183.

[20] Raymon Brown in Anchor Bible.

[21] Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.2 [68.3] 808)

[22] Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.1 [25.1] 29)

[23] Eduard Schweizer.

[24] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, 1988, Volume 1, 415)

[25] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, 1988, Volume 1, 415)

[26] Dunn (Christology in the Making, 1980, p 250)

[27] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 340)

[28] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 204)

[29] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 308, 315)

[30] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 5)

[31] Barth (Church Dogmatics IV.2 [64.4] 326)

[32] Barth (Church Dogmatics, I.1 [12.1] 454)

[33] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 134)

[34] Barth (Church Dogmatics., IV.3 [72.1] 754)

[35] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 16)

[36] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 309)

[37] Pannenberg (Systmatic Theology, Volume 2, 450-454)

[38] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 315)

[39] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 5)

[40] (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 263, 309)

[41] Students of this passage differ as to how to divide it up, with some seeing a natural break after verse 10, others after verse 8, and still others after verse 6.

[42] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 [37.3] 600.

[43] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 183.

[44] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [68.2] 758.

[45] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [64.3] 182.

[46] Sheldon Vanauken in A Severe Mercy.

[47] Get out of My Life!  But First, Could You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall?  A Parents' Guide to the New Teenager, 1991.  

[48] C. S. Lewis put it in his book, Four Loves.  

[49] Paul Tillich, The Power of Love, a sermon.

[50] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 203-4.

[51] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 394, 395.

[52] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 305

[53] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 7.

[54] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 267, 270, 305, 315, 317.

[55] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [64.4] 326. 

[56] --Michael Lindvall, "So how do you really know?" a sermon preached at Brick Presbyterian Church, New York City, May 31, 2009. brickchurch.org. Retrieved December 5, 2017. 

[57] Billy Graham.

[58] N.T. Wright, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense. 

[59] Pannenberg (ibid., Volume Three, p. 307)

[60] But the Holy Spirit, operating by the primary rule of usability, declares to us what is Christ’s, as we need it, as our experience of people, places, actions, touch, sight, sound, victories, failures, sleeplessness, devotion, love, faith and reverence makes us capable of hearing it.

[61] Anaïs Nin

[62] Barth, (Church Dogmatics, I.1 [1.3], p. 17)

[63] Pannenberg, (Systematic Theology, Volume Two, p. 395)

[64] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 454.

[65] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 5.

[66] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 19.

[67] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 625.

[68] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 395.

[69] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 16.

[70] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume One, p. 315-316)

[71] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 395.

[72] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 1, 310.

[73] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 2, 395.

[74] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 1, 309, Volume 3, 625.

[75] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 1, 309, Volume 3, 625.

[76] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 11.

[77] (See, e.g., Deuteronomy 5:11, 10:8, 12:5, 12:21, 14:23, 16:6, etc.; see also John 17:26).

[78] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.3 [49.1] 83; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 399.

[79] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [66.2] 517.

[80] Barth, Church Dogmaitcs IV.3 [72.2] 768.

[81] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 183.

[82] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 134.

[83] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 11.

[84] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 330, referring to Moltmann, Crucified God, p. 265-66, and Trinity, 125ff, 126-27, 160.

[85] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 625.

[86]  (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) II.1 [28.2] 279.

[87] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology volume 1, 434.

[88] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 453.

[89] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1, G. W. Bromiley, trans., Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1956, pp. 675–677

[90] (Henri Nouwen, Behold the Beauty of the Lord: Praying with Icons [Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 1987], p. 20.)

[91] Moltmann The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 222.

[92] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 357-8.

[93] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 2, 349.

[94] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 372.

[95] Pannenberg Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 318, Volume 3, 4.

[96] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 14.

[97] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 1, 305.

[98] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 365-6.

[99] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 266, 302.

[100] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 429.

[101] Barth Church Dogmatics III.2 [47.1] 444-451.

[102] Barth Church Dogmaitcs IV.1 [59.3] 341.

[103] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 246.

[104] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 270.

[105] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 531, 603.

[106] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 [37.3] 608.

[107] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [64.4] 276.

[108] Ruth Haley Barton, in Sacred Rhythms

[109] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 294.

[110] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [58.2] 102, in a discussion of the being of humanity in Jesus Christ

[111] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [68.2] 776-7.

[112] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 297.

[113] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 396.

[114] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 301.

[115] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 369. He points to W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 1966, and Hahn, Titles, p. 304-5. 

[116] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [68.2] 756-7.

[117] Soren Kierkegaard, “Works of Love,” Part One, III. A.

[118] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 182-3.

[119] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 317.

[120] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 116.

[121] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 424-5.

[122] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 78.

[123] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1 [25.2] 34. Thus, I disagree with those who think John refers to the fear that includes the traditional “fear of God.” Secessionists had a theology where they were secure with the author; there could be fear on judgment day. However, what of one’s own inner dwelling of the God of love? This reveals how delicate the relationship is between himself and his opponents.

[124] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [65.2] 441-2.

[125] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 184-5.

[126] Pannenberg, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [68..3] 817.

[127] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [37.2] 579.

[128] —N.T. Wright, Early Christian Letters for Everyone: James, Peter, John and Judah (Westminster John Knox, 2011), 163–165.