Você está na página 1de 12

Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology

http://btb.sagepub.com/ Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 1417

Jerome H. Neyrey Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2006 36: 107 DOI: 10.1177/01461079060360030301 The online version of this article can be found at: http://btb.sagepub.com/content/36/3/107

Published by:

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://btb.sagepub.com/content/36/3/107.refs.html

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural Interpretation of John 1417

Jerome H. Neyrey
Abstract Typical readers interpret John 1417 as a Farewell Address, and for good reason. But that hardly exhausts its contents, for the form of a farewell address simply misses all that Jesus has to say about worship in the group. From the gospels beginning we find a steady focus on temple, mountains for worship, feasts and their objects of prayer and celebration, and the like. But in John 1417 we are told about prayer: Jesus own prayer to God and his instructions to the disciples to petition in my name. If prayer is communication to God, God also communicates to his devotees, primarily in words. Hence we find exhortations to remain and to love; oracles of many sorts, such as warning, judgment, assurance, salvation and the like. We find a particular focus on the words of Jesus, things he said but were not understood, special revelations to a special group, all of which is facilitated by the Advocate/Spirit. Most importantly, the personnel of worship are clearly defined: the Patron Father who bestows benefaction on his clients by means of Jesus, the Broker. Jesus, in turn, brokers the concerns of the clients to the Patron. Finally, the household with many rooms is not space out of the world, but relationships brokered by Jesus. These remain miscellaneous pieces until seen in the light of a cultural model of worship.

Part I: Speaking and Listening to God

s the title indicates, this paper examines first the cultural phenomenon of worship and then with it in mind, the section of the Fourth Gospel where this is richly found and formally treated, John 1417. Critical interpretation of the shape of human relationships with God, it is hoped, will advance our understanding of the Deity.

range of meaning therefore is very great [879].

Three elements are worth our notice: (1) object of worship = a worthy figure; (2) purpose of worship = to honor the deity (to recognize and describe the worth of); (3)
Jerome H. Neyrey, Ph. D. (Yale University) is professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Notre Dame (neyrey.1@ nd.edu). His most recent book is Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the Divine. He is the author of sixteen articles on the Fourth Gospel and one book; and he has authored a socio-rhetorical commentary on John for the Cambridge University Press which will appear shortly. He is currently finishing a manuscript on prayer and worship for Eerdmans. He is also a member of The Context Group, which studies the Scripture in its social and cultural context.

State of the Question, and Hypothesis

Our initial task is to define worship, not at all an easy job. Henton Davies offers this definition of Old Testament worship:
Worship is homage . . . the attitude and activity designed to recognize and describe the worth of the person or thing to which homage is addressed. Worship is thus synonymous with the whole of a reverent life, embracing piety as well as liturgy. The

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Neyrey, Worship in John 17Part One

forms of worship = reverent life, piety, as well as liturgy. If this definition emphasizes the value of honor and its manifestations, it also excludes any notion of worship as communication of the Worthy One to the worshipers. It is a top-down model. Nor does it take up issues such as where and how worship is offered. There is, then, much more to be done in understanding worship. Interpretation of texts is impossible without it. Discussions of worship in the Fourth Gospel are rare (Cullmann, Martin) and in most commentaries worship does not even rate a place in the topical index. Yet the author of the Fourth Gospel is formally concerned with worship, given the topics he himself raises: (1) where to worship? (2) how to worship? (3) of what does worship consist? (4) when to worship? and (5) who participates? Where? At Jesus inaugural visit to Jerusalems temple, he upsets its sacrificial worship system (he drove . . . the sheep and oxen out of the temple) and its revenue collection. In defense, he declares: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (2:19), which his hearers misunderstand, for they think that he refers to a physical building, another fixed sacred space. The truth is, He spoke of the temple of his body (2:21). But where is his body? The Samaritan woman asks Jesus-the-prophet to settle a dispute about where to worship, this mountain . . . or in Jerusalem? (4:20). Jesus sweeps away the question with his answer: neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem . . . (4:21). Thus Jesus broadly negates all fixed places of worship. Finally, Jesus declares that in my Fathers house there are many rooms . . . I go to prepare a place for you (14:2). On the one hand, these places (house, rooms, place) suggest a where for worship, but they do not refer to any fixed sacred space. James McCaffrey argues that we not consider these as geographical spaces: The text describes the redemptive work of Christ in terms which pertain to the family and its intimate personal relationships (McCaffery: 21). Thus where one worships remains throughout the Gospel a major question, for which we need a model of fixed and sacred space from cultural anthropology. How? True worshipers will perform actions that do not consist of sacrifice or require temple clergy, tithes and revenues; nor will they worship in fixed sacred space. At least this seems to be the substance of Jesus remark: true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (4:23). This remark, however, is mute on specific forms of worship. Inasmuch as so much attention is given to prayer(s) in John 1417, the prayer of Jesus would seem to be a most promising place to start. When? Although Jesus attended certain feast days in Jerusalem, scholars argue that he replaced both feasts and the benefits sought from them with himself. Jesus is now the benefit sought at festive worship: the bread come down from heaven (6:3351), the Passover lamb (19:3334), the rains/ water (7:3738) and the sun/light (8:12) sought at Tabernacles. But it seems improbable that Johannine disciples kept a calendar of this sort. Balancing these replacements, we learn that special significance was given to the first day of the week (20:1) and the eighth day (20:26). Who? Worship, of course, is directed to God. God, who is spirit, seeks worshipers who worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, then, both God and a worshiping group are envisioned. But other figures function in this worship: Jesus, in whose name the disciples petition God, and the Paraclete, who mediates Jesus words to the group. But those who refused to or are afraid to acknowledge Jesus as sent from God are not true worshipers (17:3). But is there any formal pattern to relationship of those who worship? What, then, do we know? Oddly, we know where not to worship, how not to worship, and perhaps when not to worship. The Gospel does not tell us of what worship consists, nor does it define the role and status of members of the worshiping group. Much more needs to be learned about worship so as to interpret the Fourth Gospel. Our first task begins with worship itself. While descriptive catalogues of early Christian worship are helpful, we search for a formal definition of it and a social science model which will help us interpret its forms. From this perspective, we will interpret four forms of worship: prayer, prophecy, homily, judgment. Second, since the author puts so much emphasis on where the group worships, we need a model that compares and contrasts fixed and fluid sacred space. This will aid us in interpreting Jesus remarks about my Fathers house and many rooms (14:2). And in this light we will examine other aspects of where worship occurs: being in and dwelling in, physical closeness to Jesus, etc. Finally, in attempting to understand the structural relationships between God, Jesus, Spirit, and group in worship, we turn to the model of patron-broker-client. The roles of God and group are clear, but modern scholarship often misunderstands the structural place of Jesus and the Paraclete in Johannine worship.

Worship in the Early Church

The Shape of Early Christian Worship. Scholarly surveys (Delling, Martin, Richardson) of early Christian worship agree that: (1) the early church borrowed heavily from

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

synagogue worship both in form and in content, especially prayer and the study of the Scripture; (2) its activities were not tied to particular places, but could be practiced virtually anywhere; and 3) the central forms of worship were verbal. David Aunes description best represents this consensus:
Christian worship had a primarily verbal character, and in this respect it was similar to synagogue Judaism. . . .Yet Christians did have religious gatherings where various types of rituals were practiced. Christians gathered to eat together, to baptize new members, to read Scripture, to listen to God speaking through other Christians, to experience healing, to pray and sing hymns and thanksgivings to God. These activities were not tied to particular places, but could be practiced virtually anywhere [Aune 1992: 973].

Scriptures, the words of Jesus, or Spirit-inspired utterances; and (4) these activities are detached from any particular place. But what is meant by worship? Worship: Definition and Anthropological Model. What is worship? why include this or that action? Definitions, however, are rare; most social science dictionaries and encyclopedia exclude it (although they attempt to define religion). We suggest a social science definition of prayer by Bruce Malina, which we judge can be be readily adapted to describe all forms of worship.
[Worship is] a socially meaningful symbolic act of communication, bearing directly upon persons perceived as somehow supporting, maintaining, and controlling the order of existence of the one praying, and performed with the purpose of getting results from or in the interaction of communication [Malina: 214].

As regards the content of early Christian worship, the following synopsis contains the typical verbal forms of worship described by scholars: prayers, creeds, doxologies, hymns, songs, psalms, prophecy, homilies, teaching, and public reading of the Scriptures. This basic description is grounded on worship in New Testament documents, such as Acts 2:42 (they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread, and the prayers), the letters of Paul (e. g., 1 Cor 11:20ff; 14:136), Plinys letter to Trajan (Ep 10.96), and reconstructions of early synagogue worship (Martin: 1827). We must, however, include one more element which is not always clear in these surveys, namely, the transmission of the Jesus tradition. Cullmanns comment suffices:

The proclamation of the message of salvation had a fixed place not only in the early missionary preaching, but also in the worship services of the community. Intimately associated with it particularly in the assemblies of the community is the transmission of Jesus words and Worship as speaksender: mortals message: petitions, narratives concerning to God confessions, etc. ing him [4849].

This definition/model derives from the communication theory articulated by Berlo (4760) and then by Rogers & Shoemaker (11, 1819, 25152). It contains five elements: (1) a sender, who sends a (2) message, (3) by means of some channel, (4) to a receiver, (5) for the purpose of having some effect. Malinas model explains how in the worshiping action of prayer (1) worshipers (senders), (2) send a communication (message), (3) in language and gesture (channel), (4) to God, the object of worship (receiver), (5) in order to have some effect on the deity (purpose). Yet in worship, communication also comes from God, such that there should be a second direction of the communication model which accounts for a flow from God to mortals, who now listen instead of speaking: (1) God (sender), (2) sends a communication (message), (3) using certain mediating figures (channels), (4) to worshipers (receivers), (5) for the purpose of having an effect (bless, inform, exhort, etc.). The two directional flows of worship, then, look like this:
channel: voiced prayer; incense burned; sacrifice offered receiver: God effect: see many types of prayer below = effect

The importance Worship as listensender: God message: informachannel: Jesus or receiver: Chriseffect: reform of ing to God tion, exhortation, Holy Spirit or group tian group behavior; inform; of this material for rebuke, etc. prophet confirm; exhort our project lies in having the most comSince our definition of worship controls what we label plete index of typical verbal forms of worship as we begin our reading of John 1417. Thus, we know several imporas worship, let us be clear about the object of worship, its purpose, and its forms of communication. Christians comtant things: (1) worship is primarily verbal; (2) members municate with the living and true God and in turn lispray and sing hymns and thanksgivings; (3) they not only ten to Gods word(s). Worships manifold purpose includes speak to God in prayer, but also listen to God through the

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Neyrey, Worship in John 17Part One

speech to God, which might be thanksgiving, praise, petition, confession, and the like. And as speech from God, worship consists of listening to various forms of speech from God: prophecy, hearing the Jesus tradition, listening to the Scripture, homilies, and the like, whose effect might be exhortation, enlightenment, judgment, and the like. Let us now take this definition of worship and examine the materials in John 1417.

Instrumental Interactioinal Self-focused

petitionary prayer to obtain goods and services for individual needs prayer to maintain emotional ties with God; prayer of simple presence. Lament, such as Ps 22, praise; Magnificat prayers that identify the self (individual and social) to God; self-revelation of the person praying (contrition, humility, boasting, and superiority prayer that explores the world of God and Gods workings within us individually and collectively; meditative prayers, perceptions of the spirit in prayer prayer to create an environment of ones own with God; prayers in tongues (1 Cor 14) and those recited in languages unknown to the pray-er prayers that communicate information: prayers of acknowledgment and thanksgiving; confessions (Rom 10:9, 1213); doxologies (1 Tim 1:17 & 6:1516


Worship in John 1417

Although readers generally know John 1417 in terms of its form-critical classification as a Farewell Address (Segovia), the various prayers of Jesus and especially the so-called high priestly prayer in John 17 suggest that worship is not a misleading category. We propose to examine John 1417 in terms of the two directions of worship described above: (1) speaking to God (i. e., prayer) and (2) listening to God (i. e., prophecy, homily and judgment). Speaking to God: Prayer. Although the Gospels contain material on prayer spoken by Jesus and even his modeling of prayer (e. g., Luke 11:113; Matt 26:3644), most commentators recognize only one type of prayer, namely, petitionary prayer. Yet petitionary is but one of many types of prayer classified by Bruce Malina, who has examined biblical prayer in terms of social-science communication theory. Malinas original use of the communications model was to define and describe prayer, with particular emphasis on the various purposes of communication. Petitionary prayer is but one form; pray-ers may seek to have an effect on God by expressing other thoughts and desires, such as Alleluia, or You have searched me, Lord, and you know me or Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit. Malina provides a taxonomy of seven purposes for which prayers are said (Malina: 21516; Malina & Rohrbaugh: 24647; see the table at top of the next column). Petitionary Prayer in John 1416. Scholars regularly note Jesus repetitive instructions in John 1416 about asking the Father for some benefit, which in the typology we are using means petitionary or instrumental prayer. The petitionary verbs used here differ from the more common ones such as beseech and pray. Except for Marthas remark that Jesus could petition God for Lazarus (11:22), the other eleven instances of petition occur only in the Farewell Address, and so constitute a distinct body of materials on prayer. 14:1214: Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it. . . . If you ask anything in my name, I will do it 14:1516: I will pray the Father and he will send



another Counselor 15:7: If you abide in me and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will 15:16b: Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you 16:2324: In that day you will ask nothing of me . . . if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name 16:26: In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father We note several things: (1) the object of the petitions is both vastly expansive (whatever and anything and specific (the Counselor); and (2) while the Patron being petitioned is always God, Jesus maintains his role as broker by indicating that the petitions will be made in my name. Petitionary prayer, moreover, is the only type of prayer found in John 1416. But when we turn to John 17, we observe a prayer composed of a variety of types. Jesus Multi-Purposed Prayer in John 17. Malinas taxonomy of prayer provides the means to distinguish different types of prayer occurring in John 17. In general, we consider the whole of John 17 as an heuristic prayer: it explores the world of God and Gods workings within the Son and his disciples, individually and collectively (Malina & Rohrbaugh: 24448). It is not a search for meaning so much as a revelation of the state of the relationship of the pray-er and God. Thus it is heuristic in that it discovers and uncovers interpersonal perspectives implicit in all the actions culminating in Jesus hour. Yet this is by no means the only kind of prayer in John 17. We can classify the statements of Jesus as instrumental/petitionary, self-focused, and informative, as the following chart indicates:

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Jn 17 v2 v3 v5 v6 vv 68 glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee. . . . this is eternal life, that they (ack)know(ledge) You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made. I have manifested Your NAME to the men whom You gave me out of the world Yours they were, and You gave them to me, and they have kept Your word. Now they know that everything you have given me is from You; for I have given them the words which You gave me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from You; and they have believed that You sent me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for those in the world, but for those whom You have given me, for they are Yours. All mine are thine; and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them Keep them in Your NAME, which You have given to me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in Your NAME, which you have given me; I have guarded them and none of them is lost but the son of perdition. But now I am coming to You; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. V 14: I have given them Your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but keep them from the Evil One. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in Your truth. As You sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. For their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they may be in us, so that the world may believe that You have sent me. The glory which you have given me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and You in me, that they may be perfectly one, that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given to me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which You have given me in Your love for me before the foundation of the world. O just Father, the world has not known You; but I have known You; and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them Your NAME, and I will make it known that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. Prayer Text Classification instrumental acknowledge instrumental self--focused self-focused

v9 v 10 v11 v 12 vv 1314

self-focused & instrumental self-focused instrumental self-focused self-focused

v 15 v 16 v 17 vv 1819 vv 2022 vv 2223

instrumental self-focused instrumental self-focused self-focused & instrumental self-focused

v 24 vv 2526

instrumental self-focused

We observe that Jesus petitions God frequently (vv 2, 5, 11, 1516, 17, 2021, 24), the form of which is easily discerned: (1) a verb, such as ask, in the imperative mood, and (2) a request for a specific benefaction from God (glory, unity, special relationship, etc.). We see, moreover, another type of prayer, which Malina calls self-focused (68, 9, 10, 12, 1314, 16, 1819, 20, 2223, 2526), whose form is also clearly expressed in first-person speech: I made manifest; I kept them in your name; I have given them your word (vs. second-person speech used in petitionary prayer), which celebrates the record of Jesus past good deeds (vs. future benefactions in petitionary prayer (see Downing). In John 17 Jesus reveals to God that he has fulfilled his apostleship and done what God sent him to do: I have glorified you on earth (4) I have manifested your name (6, 26) I have given them the words which you have given me (8, 14) I have kept them in your name (12a) I have guarded them (12b) I have sent them into the world (18)

I have consecrated myself (19) I have given them the glory which you have given me

I have known you (25).

Unlike petitionary prayer, Jesus declares to God before his disciples his perfect fulfilment of the mission he was sent to accomplish: (1) he has glorified God on earth, (2) he has manifested to the disciples the divine Name and kept them in it, (3) he has given the divine words to them, and (4) he has extended his work by sending them into the world (Cullmann: 5; see the excursus at the top of page 6). Labeling John 17 a high priestly prayer is clearly anachronistic, although the label does convey the sense that Jesus enjoys the role of mediator or broker of Gods benefaction. Similarly, the self-focused prayer celebrates that Jesus prime accomplishment has been to channel Gods benefaction through himself to the disciples. Benefits came through Jesus and will continue to come through him. This self-focused prayer by Jesus may also be seen as a claim to the virtue of piety or justice. Throughout the Greco-Roman world, justice was thought of as the noble fulfilment of ones basic

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Neyrey, Worship in John 17Part One

God which petitions God for the disciples. But these same clients should make the prayer-confession in v 3 to their heavenly Patron while acknowledging that Jesus is the true agent sent from heaven. The disciples knowing of Israels only, true God is not simply knowledge, but confession of the Deitys existential plans; for an essential part of that confession is also to (ac)know(ledge) Jesus as the one whom God has sent. This confession is not possible in Temple and synagogue (see, e. g., 9:22; 12:42). Listening to God: Prophecy. According to our model of communication, a sender sends a message via some channel to a receiver to have an effect. In the case of prayer, the senders are the Johannine members through Jesus-as-channel to God; but in the case of prophecy, the process is reversed as God speaks to mortals, not listens to them. In prophecy, (1) God, the sender, (2) sends a verbal message, (3) through the channel of Jesus, the Spirit of Truth, or a prophet, (4) to the receivers, the members of the Johannine group, (5) for the purpose of enriching them with esoteric information. This description of prophecy from the social sciences is worth comparing with the functional definition developed by the SBL Seminar on Prophecy (197377). Borings definition, which reflects the judgment of the Seminar, defined prophecy as follows:
The early Christian prophet was an immediately inspired spokesperson for the risen Jesus, who received intelligible messages that he or she felt impelled to deliver to the Christian community or, as a representative of the community, to the public [Boring: 38].

Excursus: A Self-Focused Egyptian Prayer: The deceased stands before his god, communicating his innocence in a self-focused prayer. Behold, Sati-merfiti, Lord of Justice, is your name. I have brought you justice. I have expelled deceit for y ou. I have not mistreated cattle. I have not done violence to a poor man. I have not done that which the gods abominate. I have not defamed a slave to his superior. I have not made anyone sick. I have not had sexual relations with a boy. I have not defiled myself. I have neither increased nor decreased the grain measure. I am pure! I am pure! I am pure! I am pure! (Prochard 1969:34)

duties. As the Pseudo-Aristotle puts it:

First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed; among these claims is piety, which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it. Righteousness is also accompanied by holiness and truth and loyalty and hatred of wickedness [Virtues and Vices, V.23].

The distinction of the triple focus of justice is found regularly in the philosophical and rhetorical literature of antiquity, and also in John 17. Here Jesus acknowledges that he has fulfilled his duties to God (I have glorified you, manifested your name, given them your words) and his duties to kin (I have kept them, guarded them, etc. Thus Jesus celebrates his virtuous completion of the duties he owes to God, who is Father and Patron and kin. Yet in 17:3 we find still a third type of prayer, namely, acknowledgment: This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. Instead of a petition, we find here a confessional formula whose aim is to honor God and Jesus. This prayer consists of two elements: (1) we read to know in the sense of to acknowledge, that is, to honor and confess the worth, sovereignty, and excellence of God. The first part of 17:3 closely resembles the confession known as the Shema, the leading prayer in the synagogue (see Mark 12:29, 32). Thus acknowledgment of the only true God is a appropriate confessional honoring of God. But 17:3 also includes confession of Jesus Christ whom you have sent. So the complete honoring of God must also acknowledge both praise of the unique God of Israel and respect for Gods unique agent, Jesus (see John 5:2324). While confession and creed are no strangers to New Testament scholarship, rarely if ever have they been examined as prayer (Martin: 5265; Delling: 7791). John 17:3 is situated in a continuous address to

In this case, sender = Jesus; message = information; medium = prophet (& Spirit); receiver = Christian group. And God? Nothing is said about the purpose of the prophecy. We do well to note the differences between the two definitions of prophecy. First, we maintain that God is the sender of prophetic messages through the channel of the Risen Jesus and/or the Spirit of Truth. The local prophet should be considered a sub-broker or auxiliary channel to Jesus and/or the Spirit. Second, Boring is not clear that the situation is one of worship, nor does his definition indicate the various purposes of speech beyond enlightenment, such as rebuke, exhortation and the like. We need, then, a catalogue of the varieties of prophetic speech which can clarify both the situation of prophecy and especially its diverse purposes. At the end of his comprehensive study of prophecy in early Christianity and the Hellenistic world, David Aune offers the following list of

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

basic forms of Christian prophetic speech: (1) oracles of assurance; (2) prescriptive oracles; (3) announcements of salvation; (4) announcements of judgment; (5) legitimation oracles; and (6) eschatological theophany oracles (1983: 32025). Prophet in the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel occasionally records people favorable to Jesus acclaiming him as a prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40 (52); 9:17), generally referring to his wisdom or powers, that is, a prophet mighty in word and deed. But prophet/prophecy in John 1417, while it focuses on the words of Jesus, also makes specific note of predictions of future events. Among the many remarks about going away and coming back (14:3, 1819; 16:16), we find three statements that serve a special purpose that surpasses the mere communication of esoteric information. Some predictions by Jesus serve a prophylactic purpose of confirming loyalty in times of conflict. For example, after repeating the remark I go away and I will come to you, Jesus states the reason for telling this to the disciples: Now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe (14:2829). Similarly, after Jesus discloses the bleak future awaiting the disciples (16:12), he explains once again the prophylactic reason for his remarks: I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them (16:4). The Fourth Gospel would have us read these statements as communication from Jesus in the course of his career, which, when remembered, ameliorates a future crisis by indicating a providential knowledge of, if not control of, future, painful events. Thus, the purpose of this prophetic communication is exhortation to faithfulness, courage, and the like. In a similar vein, when Jesus declares that the disciples will be hated (15:1825), he adds, Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master (15:20). An earlier word in 13:16 reads: A servant is not greater than his master, nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. But this remark occurs in the context of the mandate of Jesus that the disciples wash one anothers feet: if Jesus (master) did so, then disciples (servants) must do likewise. While in 15:1825 the words are the same, the context has changed. Now hate is the fate of both master and servants. Thus past words can be prophetic of future events, especially trials awaiting the disciples. And in both cases, the purpose of the communication is to exhort and encourage. But where is God in this communication? Jesus labors to convince people that My teaching is not mine but his who sent me (7:16); I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me (8:28); and The words which you hear are not mine but the Fathers who sent me (14:24). Thus Jesus prophecies about the groups future are part of his role as the broker who mediates Gods words to Gods clients. Statement, Misunderstanding, Clarification. Prophecy may also be understood as the communication of esoteric information needed to understand Jesus cryptic words. Throughout the Fourth Gospel the author regularly casts Jesus discourse with friend and foe in terms of a pattern known as statement, misunderstanding, and clarification (Neyrey: 98101, 10708). Jesus makes a statement (You know the way where I am going, 14:4), which is misunderstood (Lord, we do not know where you are going, how can we know the way, 14:5), to which Jesus offers a clarification (I am the way, the truth, and the life, 14:6).
statement misunderstanding clarification 14:14 14:5 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:911 14:1821 14:22 14:2324 16:16 16:1718 16:1924 16:2527 16:2930 16:3133

Although instances of this pattern occur regularly throughout the Gospel, we find a concentration of it in chapters 14 and 16. Previously this pattern served either as catechetical enlightenment of enlighten-able disciples, such as the Samaritan Woman, or the raising of a wall which shuts out un-enlighten-able disciples, such as Nicodemus and the Jerusalem crowds. In John 1417, insiders and core disciples require special information about the cryptic world of Jesus, which is provided for them, we suggest, by prophets speaking in the name of Jesus. Although we will take up the topic of the Spirit of truth enlightening or reminding the disciples, we presume in this discussion that the Spirit is operative. Thus, this pattern functions to make and maintain boundaries; it informs, but by doing so marks and confirms certain persons as elite insiders. The quest for esoteric information may be observed also in the patterns of questions and answers found in John 1416. In addition to the question of Thomas noted above (14:5), Judas, not the Iscariot, asked How is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world? (14:22). In several places Jesus himself asks the question which sets up his subsequent answer. Although Jesus question to Philip has much of the reproach in it (14:9), it issues in a remarkable revelation of Jesus union with God (14:1011). Similarly, Jesus questions the failure of the disciples to ask about his cryptic remark (16:5). At the very least, this pattern indicates that Jesus speech was filled with esoteric meanings and double-meaning words, which the receivers do not fully

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Neyrey, Worship in John 17Part One

perceive at first. Here at least, Jesus can lead the disciples into fuller insight by his subsequent clarifying statements. But in terms of group worship, a prophet would access the questions and provide an enlightened answer. As regards function, the providing of special, esoteric knowledge marks and confirms elite membership. Furthermore, this Gospel records Jesus declaring that I have said this to you in figures; the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures (16:25). Does this cover only the metaphor of hard times resembling childbirth (16:2024) or also the cryptic statements about going away and coming back? Minimally, a communication is given to the disciples which is admittedly in figures, liable to misunderstanding or containing double meanings. But the veil is lifted when a prophet remembers, studies, examines and interprets Jesus words. Homily. It matters whether a homily was delivered in a synagogue or in a Greco-Roman assembly. Homilies/sermons in Israelite contexts tend to be concerned with exegesis of Scripture or legal precision over what is proscribed or allowed. Two types have been identified, namely the proem and the yelammedenu (Browker; Heineman). The proem form takes its name from proemium or introduction. It introduced the synagogue Scripture readings, which consisted of a passage from the Torah and then the Prophets. The proem was a verse chosen by the speaker, which was not found in either reading; as such it was not an exegesis or explanation of either reading. Rather, the preacher chose the proem to be remote from the readings, but by his pursuit of some inner connection between this verse and the Scriptural readings he might suggest explanations and clarifications of them so that when the homily concluded, hearers would have a taste for it, a hint of its hidden meanings, and a intellectual satisfaction. The second form, the yelammedenu, takes its name from the introductory formula of many sermons found in a collection of them named the Tanchuma. Each sermon begins with Let our rabbis teach us [about]. . ., (yelammedenu), which is followed by an answer introduced by Thus our rabbis taught us. . . . In general it might be said these synagogue homilies tend to be instructions, teachings, and interpretations. They have more of school teaching than exhortation to virtue. We turn now to consider homilies written for a GrecoRoman audience. We build on the works of Lawrence Wills and C. Clifton Black, who have provided a fresh measure of clarity about the form and content of ancient sermons/homilies. Wills surveyed many NT and early Christian speeches and concluded that the shape of a homily typically contained three elements:
1. An indicative or exemplary section (exempla) in the form of scriptural quotations, authoritative examples from past and present, or reasoned exposition of theological points; 2. a conclusion, based on the exempla and indicating their significance to those addressed (often expressed with a participle and what then, therefore, by this, or some such particle or conjunction); and 3. an exhortation (usually in the imperative or hortatory subjective, often accompanied by then [27880].

His parade piece is Acts 13:1441 in which the speaker begins with a reprise of salvation history from Exodus to Conquest to the good news about Jesus (13:1633) and concludes with a citation of Scripture which is interpreted to refer to Jesus (13:3337). After this, the speaker draws a conclusion as though he were finishing a syllogism: Therefore . . . through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed . . . and by him everyone is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses (13:3839). This conclusion about Jesus mediation implies that the hearers should ally themselves with Jesus to share in his mediation. After urging acceptance, the author exhorts the audience not to fail to act, lest the dire prophecy of Habbakuk 1:5 be fulfilled (13:4041). C. Clifton Black basically endorses Willss study, but considers it in terms of the types of classical rhetoric, especially deliberative (Black: 5, 810). Willss notion of deliberative rhetoric is narrowly focused on arguments of policy usually before a governing body, which Black expands to embrace speeches that entail consideration of future action, a choice between two or more forms of conduct, based on self-interest or future benefit (Black: 5). He is on the cusp of describing many exhortations to choose good or avoid evil as deliberative, for example: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:3839). Black then examines Acts 13:1441, not only as deliberative rhetoric, but also in terms of the traditional parts of a speech. There is no captatio benevolentiae here; but one does find narratio in the detailed recitation of Gods saving acts to Israel (13:1626), a propositio (13:26), followed by the probatio or demonstration (13:2737). In this the author demonstrates that the significance of Jesus, formerly ignored by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, has been vindicated by the resurrection and corroborated by the Scriptures (Black: 89). The speech ends with a classic conclusio or

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

epilogue (13:3841), which traditionally recapitulates the major points of the speech and excites the emotions: (1) recapitulation of the basic argument (13:3839) and (2) arousal of emotions (13:4041). Although one might argue that the Bread of Life discourse in John is a word-by-word exegesis of He gave them bread from heaven to eat, there seem to be few other homiletic materials of either the Israelite or the Greco-Roman type. Yet we have parallel exhortations in John 15 to remain and love, which are both clearly in an exhortatory or deliberative mode. In the allegory of the vine and branches in 15:18, the speaker exhorts the disciples to remain, an exhortation which occurs seven times (vv 4, 4b, 4c, 5, 6, 7a, and 7b), sometimes in the imperative form and sometimes in a conditional clause. This exhortation builds on current relationships and urges the disciples to maintain them in the future, the value of which relationships provides the argument. The relationships are these: Jesus = vine, the disciples = the branches, while the Father = the vine dresser (vv 12, 5). We find telltale signs of an argument from advantage, which suggests that we consider this material an example of deliberative rhetoric which appeals for future action on the basis of future benefits. Remaining brings great advantage, just as not remaining leads to severe sanctions. A branch that remains and is cleansed by the vine dresser bears much fruit (v 2), a phrase repeated three times (vv 4, 5, 8) to underscore the advantage that comes from remaining. Similarly, branches that remain may petition God for whatever you will and expect Gods positive response (v 7)advantage indeed! In contrast, we are told of the sanctions imposed on those who do not remain. They are taken away (v 1), and worse, cast forth . . . wither . . . thrown into the fire and burned (v 6). We observe, then, an argument being made, not merely information imparted. Thus, we consider 15:18 to be a crisp example of deliberative rhetoric, which places before the disciples the decision of remaining, a deliberation richly rewarded or severely sanctioned. The argument from advantage is a regular feature of homilies and/or sermons. A second exhortation follows immediately, which begins with a command, remain in my love (v 9), and concludes with love one another (v 17). Evidently the focus is on love, for Jesus and because of him for one another. John 15: 917, moreover, is linked with vv 18 by means of four more references to remain (vv 910, 16). Thus 15:18 and 917 should be seen as parallel and linked exhortations. As was the case with vv 18, the exhortation in vv 917 is argued by (1) imperatival urging: Love one another!; (2) conditional sentences explaining this love, such as if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love (v 10); and (3) analogies that clarify the topic: as the Father has loved me, so have I loved you (v 9). In language that clearly uses the argument from advantage, the author first tells the disciples that remaining and loving elevate their status from that of servants to that of friends. The benefit of remaining and loving, then, is part of a status elevation of the disciple. Jesus final argument here is to remind the disciples of their debt in justice to him, which he is calling in through this exhortation: You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain (v 16). The verbs indicate the extent of Jesus benefaction, which creates the debt of justice: chose, appointed, bear fruit and your fruit remain. To this he appends one more benefaction, effective petitionary prayer: whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you (v 16b). This is exhortatory material, and it resumes the most important behaviors that the Fourth Gospel urges, remaining and loving. Because of its exhortatory character, it stands apart from all other parts of the Farewell Address. But is homily or sermon the appropriate classification? And do such things belong in worship? The type of rhetoric in 15:117 is deliberative; that is, it urges the hearers to make a choice that will affect their future, and its argument primarily rests on pointing out the advantage to those choosing to remain and love. Such rhetoric is not exclusive to homily or sermon and may occur in many types of public speaking. Yet it is most compatible with sermon and homily (see Heb 3:14:13; 6:112), which are admittedly parts of Christian worship. The three types of rhetoric are not confined to three genres only. Who speaks this? Is it a word from God? Jesus identifies the basic patron-broker-client relationship at the start (vine dresser, vine, branches). Sent by God to the world, Jesus labors to confirm to the clients that the relationship with the patron is to be had only by remaining in Gods broker. The exhortation argues that the past be continued in the present: Jesus as broker will continue to provide life to the branches, but only if the relationship with Jesus the broker remains. Jesus is indeed speaking, as he has throughout the Gospel; but he says all and only what the Patron has authorized him to say. It is, then, a word from God through Jesus. Judgment. Few scholars who list the various elements of Christian worship include mention of judgment as part of it. All the more, then, are David Aunes reflections worth

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Neyrey, Worship in John 17Part One

our attention. In The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, he argued that two elements of eschatology, the declarations of salvation and judgment, have their proper place in the worship, preaching and teaching of that community (1972: 45135). This cultic coming of the Son of man to save and to judge, to bless and to curse, was a corporate worship experience which the Johannine community conceptualized in terms of the traditional Christological expectation of the Son of man (Aune 1972: 126). He cites with approval Ksemanns Sentences of Holy Law (6681) as illustrative of cultic judgment speech. Later, in his study of early Christian prophecy, Aune lists the following forms of prophetic speech: (1) oracles of assurance (e. g., fear not); (2) prescriptive oracles (e. g., oracles enjoining a particular type of action); (3) announcements of salvation; (4) announcements of judgment (e. g., Ksemanns sentences of holy law); (5) oracles of legitimation; and (6) oracles concerning an eschatological theophany. Announcements of judgment and salvation, then, are not foreign to Christian worship, for they were types of sanctioned speech. For example, we recall Pauls judgment, in 1 Corinthians 5, of the man in an incestuous marriage. Paul locates the sentencing of the sinner within a group meeting (when you are assembled), at which he speaks with pneumatic authority and declares that he enjoys the power of the Lord, which means that he has the authority to censure the man. Found guilty of corruption, the man is publicly expelled from the group (5:35; see anathema in 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 1:89; Rom 9:3). Similarly, Matthew 18:1517 records a group ritual in which an errant member progressively receives correction. Should the person prove incorrigibly wicked, a final ritual occurs, whereby the church declares him an outsider. Both of these examples envision a community assembly, at which there take place oracles of judgment. This material, we suggest, pertains to John 16:711, which we consider to be a judgment oracle. In terms of Johannine logic, the Paraclete will serve in a judgmental role similar to the presentation of Jesus in his various trials in the Gospel. Unlike what takes place in 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18:1517, no one is cast out of the group, although on the contrary the group has experienced expulsion from the synagogue (9:22, 34; 12:42; 16:12). The judgment oracle serves to make and maintain boundaries with the world by emphasizing in dualistic terms how and why the Johannine group is right and therefore does not belong in the world. The above list, drawn from the Farewell Address, illustrates the studied emphasis on group boundaries.

Jesus and His Disciples the Spirit of Truth you know him for he dwells in you and will be in you (14:17) . . . but you will see me (14:19) how is it you will manifest yourself to us Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you . . . he has no power over me (14:30) But because you are not of the worlds, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you, know that it has hated me before . . . You will weep and lament . . . I came from the Father . . . I am leaving the world and going to the Father (16:28) . . . fear not, I have overcome the world (16:33)

The World whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him nor knows him the world will see me no more. . . . . . . and not to the world (14:22) . . . not as the world gives peace do I give to you (14:27) the ruler of this world is coming . . . If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you (15:18). If you were of the world, the world would love its own (15:19) . . . but the world will rejoice (16:20) . . . and have come into the world

In the world you have tribulation

The discourse in the Farewell Address, then, makes and maintains boundaries with the world to emphasize the chasm that separates the disciples from the synagogue and to make any crossing back impossible. Thus in this context we read 16:711 as an oracle of judgment. The task of the Paraclete in 16:8 consists in some form of judgment, whether we translate the verb here as convict or convince (Brown: 18184). On the one hand, the Johannine group will surely have much to criticize the synagogue for, at least to confirm the synagogues utter depravity. Thus they are equipped with ready arguments to judge the synagogue and so prove it hopelessly wrong. On the other hand, this criticism serves also to firm up the groups own beliefs of superiority and its necessary separation from the world. Thus the Paraclete will prove to the disciples that the synagogue/ world is wrong and so guilty of sin, (false) righteousness, and (false) judgment (Carson: 54766). Of sin, because the world did not believe in Jesus; of [false] righteousness, because the synagogue judged Jesus a sinner and deceiver, yet Jesus will shortly be in the presence of the all holy God; and of [false] judgment, because it persecutes and judges Jesus, but by doing so it brings judgment upon itself. Thus, we argue that John 16:78 is a judgment oracle; God is the sender, who communicates through the channel of the Paraclete to the disciples for the purpose of shoring up the disciples even as it condemns their adversaries. We thus conclude the first part of the present study, in which we have investagated communication upwards, from the disciples to God, as the disciples were taught how to pray. In the second part, we shall reverse the emphasis and exam-

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

ine how Jesus taught the disciples to listen.
ton, Longman & Todd. Downing, Gerald. 1992. The Ambiguity of The Pharisee and the Toll-Collector (Luke 18:914) in the Greco-Roman World of Late Antiquity. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54: 8099. Ksemann, Ernst. 1979. Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament. Pp. 6681 in his New Testament Questions of Today. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Malina, Bruce J. 1980. What Is Prayer? The Bible Today. 18: 21420. Malina Bruce J., & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. 1998. Social-Scientific Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Martin, Ralph P . 1964. Worship in the Early Church. London, UK: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. McCaffery, James. 1988. The House with Many Rooms. The Temple Theme of Jn. 14, 23. Rome, Italy: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Neyrey, Jerome H. 1998. The Sociology of Secrecy and the Fourth Gospel. Pp. 79110 in What is John? Volume II. Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel, edited by Fernando F. Segovia. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Richardson, C. C. 1962. Worship in New Testament Times, Christian. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible 4.88394. Rogers, Everett M., & F. Floyd Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of Innovations. A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York, NY: Free Press. Segovia, Fernando. 1991. The Farewell of the Word. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Works Cited
Aune, David E. 1992. Worship, Early Christian, ABD 6.97389. 1983. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1972. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Berlo, David K. 1960. The Process of Communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Black, C. Clifton. 1988. The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills, Harvard Theological Review 81:118. Boring, M. Eugene. 1991. The Continuing Voice of Jesus. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox. Browker, J. K. 1967. Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form. New Testament Studies 14: 96111. Brown, Tricia Gates. 2003. Spirit in the Writings of John. New York, NY: T & T Clark International. Carson, D. A. 1979. The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7 11. Journal of Biblical Literature 98: 54766. Cullmann, Oscar. 1953. Early Christian Worship. London: SCM Press. Davies, G. Henton. 1962. Worship in the Old Testament. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible 4.879. Delling, Gerhard. 1962. Worship in the NT. London: Dar-

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010