Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New ... Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161518300, 9783161521041, 3161518306

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

291

Rethinking the Ethics of John “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics Volume III

Edited by

Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann

Mohr Siebeck

Jan G. van der Watt, born 1952; Professor in Source text of early Christianity at the Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands, and extra-ordinary professor at the Northwest University, South Africa. Previously, he was professor in New Testament at the University of Pretoria (South Africa) and Mercator international professor at Bonn (Germany). Ruben Zimmermann, born 1968; 1999 Dr. theol. from Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg; 2003 Habilitation Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich; 2005–09 Professor for Biblical studies, University of Bielefeld; since 2009 Professor for New Testament Studies, Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz; since 2008 Associate Professor at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.

e-ISBN 978-3-16-152104-1 ISBN 978-3-16-151830-0 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2012 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................... IX

Introduction: Overview of Research “It’s Only Love” – Is That All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine “Ethic” – A Critical Evaluation of Research Michael Labahn ........................................................................................ 3 Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus Ruben Zimmermann ................................................................................ 44

Possible Contexts of Johannine Ethics Beyond Sophia: The Sapiential Portrayal of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and Its Ethical Implications for the Johannine Community Andrew T. Glicksman .............................................................................. 83 The Qumran Background of Johannine Ethics Erik Eynikel .......................................................................................... 102 Johannine Perspectives on Ethical Enabling in the Context of Stoic and Philonic Ethics Volker Rabens ....................................................................................... 114

Ethics in the Gospel according to John The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel William R. G. Loader ............................................................................ 143

VI

Table of Contents

The Response of Jesus. Ethics in John by Considering Scripture as Work of God Karl Weyer-Menkhoff ............................................................................ 159 Ethics of/and the Opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel Jan G. van der Watt .............................................................................. 175 Semeia Conveying Ethics in the Gospel according to John Christos Karakolis ................................................................................ 192 Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John Mira Stare ............................................................................................ 213 ργον as an Element of Moral Language in John Hermut Löhr ......................................................................................... 229

“Abide in Me”. The New Mode of Relationship between Jesus and His Followers as a Basis for Christian Ethics (John 15) Chrys C. Caragounis ............................................................................ 250 The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel Glen Lund ............................................................................................. 264 Discernment-Oriented Leadership in the Johannine Situation – Abiding in the Truth Versus Lesser Alternatives Paul N. Anderson .................................................................................. 290

Ethics in 1 John Ethical Theology in 1 John Udo Schnelle ......................................................................................... 321 Transacting Virtue within a Disrupted Community: The Negotiation of Ethics in the First Epistle of John Jeffrey E. Brickle .................................................................................. 340 Cain the Jew the AntiChrist: Collective Memory and the Johannine Ethic of Loving and Hating Tom Thatcher ........................................................................................ 350

Table of Contents

VII

List of Contributors ............................................................................... 375 Index of References .............................................................................. 377 Index of Modern Authors ...................................................................... 389

Preface Until about a decade ago the general, scholarly consensus held that there was no, or essentially no ethical material in the Gospel and Letters of John. Expressions that there is “eine[r] gewaltige[n] Reduktion ethischer Fragen und Aussagen” in this Gospel,1 or “ein ethisches Interesse an der Gestaltung der Lebensbereiche der Gemeinde wird im Buch nirgends greifbar”2 were not uncommon. For instance, Matera contended: “For anyone interested in the study of New Testament ethics, the Gospel according to John is a major challenge … there are remarkably few references to moral conduct … and its most explicit ethical teaching raises a host of questions.”3 Some offered strongly critical, even harsh assessments, speaking of the “weakness and moral bankruptcy of the Johannine ethics” that would presumably only be interested in whether a person is saved or not, irrespective of and indeed insensitive to any other needs.4 It was opined that these documents offer very little, if anything, regarding everyday ethical issues like marriage, sexual behavior, detailed social expectations, etc. They contain no typical ethical indicators like virtue and vice lists, paraenetic material, law texts or clear discussions about ethical issues. Strecker consequently remarked: “Versteht man unter ‘Ethik’ ein System von ethischen Normen, die verplichtende Weisungen für konkrete Einzelfälle abgeben, dann wird man im Johannesevangelium vergeblich nach einer Ethik suchen.”5 Johannine literature was in many ways pushed to the periphery of, or even banned from, ethical discussions and debates. Recently, the climate has changed, as Labahn indicates in his article on the history of research into the ethics of John in this volume. A few key publications (which are mentioned by Labahn and also interacted with 1

Heinz-Dietrich Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung (3rd ed.; NTD.E 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 109. 2 Michael Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium (HBS 34; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2002), 564. 3 Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 92. 4 Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1975), 91–100, especially 100. 5 Georg Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 1996), 539.

X

Preface

throughout this volume) not only challenged the methodological approach to the ethics of John, but also indicated that there is much more in John than meets the eye, when it comes to ethics. Thus, a new field of inquiry was opened. New questions were asked, new methodologies were applied, and new results led to further questions. The dynamics of Johannine ethics became alive. At the same time, the question of whether it is adequate to name the moral aspects in the Johannine writings ‘ethics’, if ethics is understood as the systematic reflection of norms, remains open. Of course, no ethical theory is explored in John. However, it is our contention that, by means of narration, there is a coherent reflection on values and behavior. In other words, our primary interest lies not in the ethos as lived by the Johannine group, which might be reconstructed from the text, but rather in how the narrated text reveals an underlying value system and ethical reflection sui generis, which can retrospectively be classified as ‘ethics’, or better as ‘implicit ethics’. This ethics should be called ‘implicit’ because the author of the Johannine Writings himself offers no systematic or theoretical account concerning the norms of actions. This volume not only challenges the earlier consensus concerning John’s ethics, but also the terms and methods of the study of Ethics in New Testament literature more generally. As such, the volume can be located within the wider range of the scholarly activities of the editors in their exploration of the foundation for and inquiry of New Testament ethics (“Begründungszusammenhänge frühchristlicher Ethik” at both Radboud University/Nijmegen and at Johannes Gutenberg University/Mainz, where the editors are part of the “Research Center of Early Christian Ethics”. This volume is part of the larger project series ‘Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics’, which puts this volume in a more wide perspective. Early stages of this volume were made possible with support by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung (Germany) for Ruben Zimmermann, who received funding as a Fyodor Lynen Stipend and worked with Jan van der Watt on a project on ethics. In 2008 a conference was held with the support of the Humboldt Stiftung in Pretoria (South Africa), which set the stage for the book Moral Language in the New Testament (WUNT 2.296, 2010). A subsequent conference with continuing support from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung was organized in order to focus specifically on the ethics of John. This conference was held in Nijmegen in 2010, from which this volume arose. Several leading Johannine scholars were invited to contribute to this theme and contributors were presented with a simple request: write something on the ethics of John. We did not want to predetermine the results by only asking certain questions, and we intentionally wanted to encourage the contributors to ‘explore’ the issue. In the end, only the papers on research-history and method were requested and two

Preface

XI

Old Testament scholars were invited to offer their thoughts on the signifycance of this material, in considering the ethics of John. The result is this ‘first volume in history’ devoted exclusively to the ethical dynamics of John. Of course, it does not offer a comprehensive perspective on the ethics of John. On the contrary, it explores different approaches in both the Gospel and Letters and some articles are more detailed than others. As a whole, the volume offers an initial presentation of the type of scholarly inquiry that could arise when the texts of the Gospel and Letters of John are approached with new questions supported and driven by new methodological insights. The attendees of the conference expressed that (at least for them) some breakthroughs were made during this meeting. The richness of ethical information in John was thus brought forth with the hope that it would provide ample stimuli for further research, not only in Johannine studies, but also on a much broader level. We are convinced that applying the methodological approaches discussed in these articles to other New Testament material and beyond, could stimulate anew the scholarly discussion concerning ‘ethics’ in John. First and foremost, we would like to express our appreciation to the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung for supporting this venture both financially and in spirit. Thanks are also due to Radboud University of Nijmegen (Netherlands) for their contribution to the conference and financial support for the editing of this volume. The majority of the editorial work was done by Frederik S. (Ferdie) Mulder of Radboud University Nijmegen, with the assistance of Susanne Luther. Last but not least we would like to thank Jörg Frey and Mohr Siebeck for accepting this volume in their WUNT series. Nijmegen and Mainz January, 2012

Jan G. van der Watt Ruben Zimmermann

,QWURGXFWLRQ2YHUYLHZRI5HVHDUFK

“It’s Only Love”1 – Is That All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine “Ethic” – A Critical Evaluation of Research2 Michael Labahn

1. Introduction This article is not intended to present a complete history of research with a detailed presentation of different positions and opinions. This contribution is rather about an analysis of the limits and potentials of talking about a Johannine ethics against the background of the history of research. It aims at describing the current discussion, based on the denial of any kind of Johannine ethic. The current discussions represent a shift in approach, which will become evident in the following discussion. As far as the author forms part of these discussions this article represents a plea for new approaches and methods in approaching the problem of Johannine ethics. 1.1 “Kiddies, Love One Another!”: Taking Lessing as Point of Departure In Das Testament Johannis (1777), which takes up the apocryphal episode of the old apostle John transmitted by Jerome (Epist. ad Galatas 6), the great Enlightenment thinker Gotthold Ephraim Lessing offers a clue to John’s thinking. Before he died, John summarized his preaching about Jesus in the repetition of the simple but basic statement, “Kinderchen, liebt

1 Although it might be true that John Lennon hated this Beatles’ song from 1965 (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Only_Love), the title is a good starting point into an analysis of limits and possibilities of Johannine “Ethic”. As far as the Johannine semantic concept of love plays a major role in discussion, such a presentation will also show that the Johannine concept of ethics is based on the concept of “love” but that more about the Johannine ethical teaching could be said. We will return to that question in reference to Lessing’s interpretation of the Johannine message (section 1.1). 2 I am very grateful to Tom Thatcher who did much more than simply revising the English of my article. His critique, questions and hints helped to improve the argument of the current paper.

4

Michael Labahn

euch!” (“Little children, love one another!”).3 According to Lessing, this apocryphal note is more authentic than the Gospel of John, which causes conflicts. This simple statement on love represents the core of the Johannine message, which is ultimately more significant than the message of the written Fourth Gospel. In Lessing’s interpretation, love is a basic ethical criterion, which is relevant not only for Christianity but for all humanity.4 There can be no doubt that the statement  θες γπη στν (1 John 4:8) is one of the highpoints of New Testament theological reasoning.5 The preceding comment in this context further aims to define those who are loved by God in terms of their interrelation to God and to humanity: πς 

γαπν κ το θεο γεγννηται κα γινσκει τν θεν (1 John 4:7).6 This declaration in 1 John 4:7–8. could be read as the foundation of a powerful ethical program of love, such as that found by Lessing in the “Testament of John”. But does Johannine thinking elaborate such a program, so that we can speak of a Johannine “ethic” based on love for humanity? And if the Johannine literature does elaborate an ethic of love, how and by what means do Johannine arguments elaborate such a program? Is Lessing correct to view the Johannine conception of love as the grounds for a general ethical program, or do the Johannine statements on “love” refer to a group-bound ethos or “conventicle ethics”7 that serves only to establish social identity, perhaps in the context of a severe social/religious conflict? Johannine scholarship offers a broad range of answers to the above questions, and there is no current consensus on these issues. An earlier generation of critical scholarship assumed that there was no distinctive Johannine “ethic” at all (cf. Ruben Zimmermann’s article below, pp. 44ff.). However, a new trend appears to be emerging. At least since the 1980s, 3 Gotthold E. Lessing, Das Testament Johannis, 1777 (vol. 8 of Werke: Theologiekritische Schriften III; Philosophische Schriften; ed. Helmut Göbel; Munich: Hanser, 1979, 15–20, here 18). 4 Cf. Björn Pecina, Fichtes Gott: Vom Sinn der Freiheit zur Liebe des Seins (Religion in Philosophy and Theology 24; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 321–322. 5 Cf., for instance, Tobias Nicklas, “‘Gott ist die Liebe’ (1 Joh 4,8b) – 1 Joh als Knotenpunkt biblischer Theologie”, BiLi 79 (2006): 245–248; Thomas Söding, “‘Gott ist Liebe’: 1 Joh 4,8.16 als Spitzensatz Biblischer Theologie”, in Der lebendige Gott: Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (ed. Thomas Söding; Festschrift Wilhelm Thüsing; NTAbh 31; Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 306–357. 6 On the relation of John 4:8 unto 4:7 cf., for instance, Udo Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (THKNT 17; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010), 148–149. 7 Wolfgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (GNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 322: “partikularistische Konventikelethik”. See already Ernst Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 122–124. Cf. Wayne Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist”, in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (eds. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 317–326, here 324.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

5

research has adopted a “new look” on the Johannine writings8 using new interpretive methods. At about the same time, Johannine research began to free itself from the boundaries of Bultmann’s existential hermeneutics.9 Both developments have led Johannine scholarship to more balanced answers to questions related to Johannine ethics. This paper will survey several major trends in this more recent research and their methodological presuppositions, with a view to determining the extent to which John promotes a distinct ethical system. Is it “all love”, as Lessing argued, or is the Johannine ethical vision more complex? 1.2 “Ethics” or “Ethos” – What Are We Looking For? Before proceeding, it is necessary to clarify the value of the term “ethics” in general usage and with regard to the New Testament data in particular. Clearly, the books of the New Testament do not resemble the philosophical essays or moral epistles produced by ancient philosophers like Aristotle or Seneca. At the same time, however, many later Early Christian letters (or so-called “letters”) reflect on ethics in terms of the relationships between Christian believers and those inside, and outside, Christian communities.10 8 Cf., for instance, the reports on research given by Udo Schnelle, “Ein neuer Blick: Tendenzen gegenwärtiger Johannesforschung”, BTZ 16 (1999): 21–40, and Klaus Scholtissek, “Eine Renaissance des Evangeliums nach Johannes: Aktuelle Perspektiven der exegetischen Forschung”, TRev 97 (2001): 267–288; idem, “Johannes auslegen I–IV: Ein Forschungsbericht”, SNTU 24 (1999): 35–84; 25 (2000): 98–140; 27 (2002): 117–153; 29 (2004): 67–118. 9 On Bultmann’s hermeneutics and his ongoing influence on Johannine research cf. Michael Labahn, “Bultmanns Konzeption der existenzialen Interpretation des neutestamentlichen Kerygmas am Beispiel seiner Exegese des Corpus Johanneum: Versuch einer Annäherung im Spiegel der neueren Johannesauslegung”, in Bultmann und Luther: Lutherrezeption in Exegese und Hermeneutik Rudolf Bultmanns (eds. Ulrich H. J. Körtner et al.; Hannover: VELKD, 2010), 171–207. 10 For instance: 1 Peter, cf. Christian Münch, “Geschwister in der Fremde: Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes”, in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief (ed. Thomas Söding; SBS 216; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 130–164; J. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation (WUNT 2.209; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). In general cf. Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (n. 7), 10: “Nun ist das Neue Testament gewiß kein Handbuch oder Kompendium christlicher Ethik mit allgemeingültigen Regeln oder einem detaillierten Verhaltenskatalog. … Aber in den verschiedenen Schriften, die alle je auf ihre Weise von dem in Jesus Christus geschenkten Heil und der in ihm angebrochenen Herrschaft Gottes Zeugnis ablegen wollen, wird nun doch immer wieder zu einem dementsprechenden Verhalten der Christen aufgerufen, und zwar nicht nur zu einem individualethischen Verhalten im persönlichen Bereich des einzelnen. Vielmehr werden trotz mancher sozialethischer Defizite wenigstens umrißartig auch Handlungsmuster für das soziale Bezugsfeld und die gesellschaftlichen Strukturen sichtbar, die von der Erneuerung keineswegs ausgenommen werden.”

6

Michael Labahn

Closer to the interests of the present essay, Udo Schnelle’s recent commentary (see discussion below) argues that 1 John articulates an “ethical theology”. 11 Thus, while the New Testament does not elaborate a systematic approach to ethics, passages like 1 John 4:7–8 reflect a critical examination of the foundations of ethics. Scholars have seen that much of the New Testament addresses the ethical implications that emerged from the new faith in Jesus Christ. Before discussing the ethical aspects of the Early Christian writings, however, one must define the scope and value of the term “ethics”. According to Trutz Rendtorff, “ethics” is “a theory of the human behavior” (“Theorie der menschlichen Lebensführung”), one that assumes that the individual human being is a responsible subject who is able to make reflective judgments about his or her deeds. The term “responsible” here encompasses the individual’s relationships to other human beings in her/his social context and environment,12 while the term “theory” encompasses critical reflection based on a theoretical and methodological framework. Indeed, critical reflection has been an essential premise in discussions of ethics since Aristotle: ethics is a critical analysis of moral rules and their conditions and motifs.13 Any system of ethics develops a methodological and intellectual line of argument that should evidence a systemic quality and on which any ethical decision or advice is based. As noted above, the New Testament authors do not undertake such a systematic approach to ethics and generally fail to provide critical reasoning in support of their moral teachings. Further, New Testament research requires a definition of ethics that is broad enough to cover narrative texts such as the Gospels. In view of these concerns, one may define an “ethical text” as a text that

11 Udo Schnelle, “Ethics in 1 John” (below, pp. 321ff.). On ethics in 1 John see also Dirk G. van der Merwe, “‘A Matter of Having Fellowship’: Ethics in the Johannine Epistles”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 2006), 535–563. 12 Trutz Rendtorff, Ethik: Grundelemente, Methodologie und Konkretionen einer ethischen Theologie, vol. 1 (Theologische Wissenschaft 13.1; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1990), 9. 13 See, for instance, Svend Andersen, Einführung in die Ethik (2nd ed.; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 2005), 1–3; Folker Blischke, Die Begründung und die Durchsetzung der Ethik bei Paulus (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 25; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 13; cf. the critical survey of definitions given by Martin Honecker, Evangelische Ethik als Ethik der Unterscheidung: Mit einer Gesamtbibliographie von Martin Honecker (Ethik im theologischen Diskurs 20; Münster: LIT, 2010), 13–15.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

7

a) provides a reflective orientation toward the reader’s actual “way of life” b) by defining how to behave and act14 c) according to a value system that is developed or supported15 by the text, its characters, and/or its setting, d) in relation to a specific social group and/or in relation to the surrounding society at large. As a corollary to the above definition, ethical texts will attempt to persuade the reader to embrace the norms that they promote as normative.16 The precise means by which this climate of acceptance is developed will, of course, depend on the genre and form of the text in question. Of course, scholars who deny that such a “reflective orientation” is sufficient to define a text as “ethical” – insisting instead that “ethical” texts must evidence overt theoretical reflection on the frameworks of the value systems they promote – will conclude that the Johannine writings should not be understood as ethical discourses. Responding to this argument, Jan Van der Watt (2006) has attempted to broaden the methodological approach and to gain insight into the moral world of the Gospel of John by using the analytical category “ethos”,17 which he differentiates from ethics. Ethos refers to “the habitual – often unreflected – behaviour of a group”.18 Van der Watt draws here on Michael Wolter,19 who in turn refers to the 14 This “definition” may be achieved in a number of different ways, including direct commandments, the examples of characters in the text, imagery, and other textual features that can communicate values. 15 A text could signal acceptance of a value/ethical system(s) adopted from the broader cultural context, and might guide its readers to act in conjunction with these established norms. Such an acceptance does not exclude certain changes of or corrections to the adopted system. 16 On the relation of text and ethical orientation cf. Dietmar Mieth, “Literarische Texte als Quelle ethischer Verunsicherung oder ethischer Modellbildung?”, in Schön und gut? Studien zu Ethik und Ästhetik in der Literatur (eds. Susanne and Christian Krepold; Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2008), 19–40, here 21. A text establishes “Regulierungen”, “die eine gewollte Balance herstellen, welche die Rezeption zwar nicht beherrschen will, aber ihr doch bestimmte Wege empfiehlt und andere versperrt”. 17 Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John”, ZNW 97 (2006): 147–176. 18 Ibid., 150. 19 Michael Wolter, “Ethos und Identität in den paulinischen Gemeinden”, NTS 43 (1997): 430–444; idem, “Die ethische Identität christlicher Gemeinden in neutestamentlicher Zeit”, in Woran orientiert sich Ethik? (eds. Wilfried Härle and Reiner Preul; Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie 13 = Marburger Theologische Studien 67; Marburg: Elwert, 2001), 61–90; idem, “Christliches Ethos nach der Offenbarung des Johannes”, in Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung und ihrer Auslegung (ed. Friedrich W. Horn; Festschrift Otto Böcher; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005), 189–209; idem, “‘Let No One Seek His Own, But Each One the Other’s’ (1 Corinthians 10,24): Pauline Ethics according to 1 Corinthians”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW

8

Michael Labahn

theory of ethos developed by Wolfgang Kluxen20 and Thomas Schmeller.21 However, Van der Watt’s application focuses on “functional descriptions” in contrast to technical terms.22 Specifically, narrative-critical approaches may analyze characters and their behaviour to detect an underlying concept of ethos/ethics in a text such as the Fourth Gospel. Such a methodological approach gives attention to elements of the Johannine narrative such as shared values, the love commandment, and the “family” ethos (including meals and footwashing). While Van der Watt’s approach has proven fruitful, within the broader Johannine system of meaning, values, and general demands distinct decisions on how to act morally are still necessary. It might therefore be asked whether and by what means a differentiation between ethics and ethos is helpful and appropriate.23 1.3 Johannine Ethic – Different Ethics? Any discussion of Early Christian ethics, and especially of a Johannine ethic, must explore the historical, sociological, and political context24 in which such a concept or program developed. Two points of consideration are particularly important for the present discussion. First, there is a need to define the range of sources that would form a database for reconstructing the Johannine ethic. Five New Testament writings are traditionally ascribed to an author called “John”. The Gospel 141; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 199–217, here 200. According to Wolter, “ethos” is a “Kanon von habitualisierten Handlungen, der innerhalb eines sozialen Systems in Geltung steht. Diese Handlungen werden von einem überindividuellen Konsens getragen und sind so eindeutig, daß sie reproduziert werden können und nicht mehr durch ethische Entscheidungen generiert werden müssen” (“Ethos und Identität”, 430–431). 20 Wolfgang Kluxen, Die Ethik des Ethos (Fermenta philosophica; Munich: K. Alber, 1974). 21 Thomas Schmeller, “Neutestamentliches Gruppenethos”, in Der neue Mensch in Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament (ed. Johannes Beutler; QD 190; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2001), 120–134; see now Rudolf Hoppe, “Paränese und Theologie im Galaterbrief – eine Profilskizze”, in Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (eds. Michael Bachmann and Bernd Kollmann; Biblisch-theologische Studien 106; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 207–230, here 211–212. 22 Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 151. 23 See Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 165, regarding the love commandment: “Based on the reciprocal and exemplary nature of loving identity, ethics (in the sense of rules or commandments) and ethos (in the sense of behaviour in a fixed way) are interrelated and indeed merged.” 24 See here Stefan Schreiber, “Imperium Romanum und römische Gemeinden: Dimensionen politischer Sprechweise in Röm 13”, in Die Bedeutung der Exegese für Theologie und Kirche (ed. Ulrich Busse; QD 215; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2005), 131–170.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

9

and the three letters of John form a distinct corpus because they share a large number of common linguistic and theological details. These writings are best viewed as the product of a “Johannine school”,25 with three different authors producing the various texts: one individual produced the Fourth Gospel, another 1 John, and a third, who calls himself “the Elder”, produced 2 and 3 John. Further, these texts, and the Johannine school that produced them, stood in a particular relationship to certain Johannine communities. Therefore, each of the three authors and their respective writings should be treated on his/its own terms, with each dealing with a distinct situation and developing its own concept of meaning and, correspondingly, its own concept of ethical demands within that situation – all, of course, engaging and drawing upon the larger Johannine agenda in various ways.26 Within the quest for a Johannine ethic, such an approach means, for example, that one should view 1 John and the Gospel of John as distinctive contributions.27 The tendency to interpret 1 John as commentary on, or supplement to, the Gospel is not only misleading, but also delimits the contribution of the letter to the understanding of Johannine ethics in a problematic fashion. The Revelation of John is connected to the Johannine writings not only by its name, but also by significant linguistic overlaps and common motifs.28 Therefore, the book of Revelation may be associated with the 25 On the “Johannine school” cf., for instance, Udo Schnelle, Antidoketische Christologie im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur Stellung des vierten Evangeliums in der johanneischen Schule (FRLANT 144; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 53–55; Michael Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender: Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten (BZNW 98; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 1999), 21–23. 26 Cf. with regard to the idea of love: Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (n. 6), 163, pointing to (1) the relationship between “love” and “light”, (2) the love relationship between God and believers, and (3) the discussion of the “Handlungsebene des Gesamtgeschehens” in 1 John compared to the Fourth Gospel. The significance of such an outline is challenged by Willi Marxsen, “Christliche” und christliche Ethik im Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 1989), 246: “Zwar könnte man vermuten, daß sie [the Johannine writings; M. L.] in ihrer Ethik im wesentlichen übereinstimmen, doch genau das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Es läßt sich nämlich zeigen, daß sich die Ethik des ‘Johannes’ grundlegend von der Ethik seiner Schule unterscheidet.” Even more doubtful is Schulz’s suggestion that one may distinguish the ethical conceptions of a hypothetical Johannine source document, possibly of Gnostic origin, from the presentation of the final form of the Gospel, which may, in turn, be distinguished from the moral teachings of the opponents described in 1 John (Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik [Zürcher Grundrisse zur Bibel; Zurich: TVZ,1987]). 27 The approach advocated here is rejected by Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (n. 7), 301. 28 A short overview is given by Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (6th ed.; UTB 1830; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 548–550.

10

Michael Labahn

history of the Johannine writings,29 a position adopted, for example, by Siegfried Schulz.30 The present discussion, along with the remainder of the essays in the current volume, subscribes to the theory that the ethical program of Revelation should be read on its own terms. Revelation develops meaning31 through a radicalization of reality32 that promotes a certain group ethos as well as a Christologically-grounded ethic33 – an ethic that specifically opposes the norms and lifeways of the extra-textual world governed by the Roman Empire. Since this mode of sense building is not evident in the other Johannine texts, Revelation may be excluded from the present discussion. Second, there are a number of different theories regarding the historical setting of the Gospel of John and the other Johannine writings. Obviously, the Johannine ethic, as developed in the Fourth Gospel, will be understood differently depending on the socio-historical background within which the text is framed. If, for example, the Gospel of John is assumed to have originated from a severe conflict with Judaism, its narrative presentation and ethical arguments will be evaluated differently compared to a reading that orients the text to conflicts within the Johannine community. The 29 Cf. the history of research presented by André Heinze, Johannesapokalypse und johanneische Schriften: Forschungs- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (BWANT 142; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1998). 30 Cf. his extensive reasoning in Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (n. 26), 529–530. 31 Cf. Franz Tóth, Der himmlische Kult: Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung in der Johannesoffenbarung (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 22; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006); see also Udo Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2917; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 712–733. 32 Harald Ulland, Die Vision als Radikalisierung der Wirklichkeit in der Apokalypse des Johannes (TANZ 21; Tübingen: Francke, 1997). 33 Klaus Scholtissek, “‘Mitteilhaber an der Bedrängnis, der Königsherrschaft und der Ausdauer in Jesus’ (Offb 1,9): Partizipatorische Ethik in der Offenbarung des Johannes”, in Theologie als Vision: Studien zur Johannes-Offenbarung (ed. Knut Backhaus; SBS 191; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2001), 172–207; on the “ethic” of the Book of Revelation cf. further: David L. Barr, “Towards an Ethical Reading of the Apocalypse: Reflections on John’s Use of Power, Violence, and Misogyny”, SBLSP 36 (1997): 358– 373; Jan A. du Rand, “The Ethical Response of an Alternative Community in a Critical Situation: Marturia and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse of John”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. Van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 2006), 565–593; Jürgen Kerner, Die Ethik der Johannes-Apokalypse im Vergleich mit der des 4. Esra: Ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Apokalyptik und Ethik (BZNW 94; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 1998); Dieter Sänger, “Destruktive Apokalyptik? Eine Erinnerung in eschatologischer und ethischer Perspektive”, in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum (ed. Christfried Böttrich; Festschrift Günter Haufe; Greifswalder theologische Studien 11; Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 2006), 285–307, here 299–303, 304–307; Wolter, “Christliches Ethos nach der Offenbarung des Johannes” (n. 19), 189–209.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

11

textual data suggests that both historical dimensions have become part of the formation of meaning in the Gospel: the first context of conflict is reflected in the aposynagogos texts (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2) and related passages, while the second is evident in the schism among the disciples at John 6:66. Readings of the Johannine “ethic” against the backdrop of these conflicts34 will be discussed below (3.2.1).

2. No Ethic in John?35 A Critical Evaluation of Main Arguments As noted earlier, scholars have shown some reluctance to speak of a Johannine ethic at all, much less to describe elements of John’s moral vision in detail.36 Five such approaches will be briefly reviewed here. (a) Rudolf Bultmann’s reading of the Gospel of John portrayed the Incarnation as the revelation of the “Dass” (“that”) of God in Jesus, a revelation that negates any human self-confidence. Exposure to this revelation leads to a crisis that provokes an “Entscheidung”. In der Entscheidung des Glaubens oder des Unglaubens konstituiert sich definitiv das Sein des Menschen, und jetzt erst erhält sein Woher seine Eindeutigkeit.37

34 Modern understandings of the Fourth Gospel as a document that emerged from a context of conflict may be traced to the research of J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.; New York, N.Y.: Westminster John Knox, 1979); idem, “The Johannine Community among Jewish and other Early Christian Communities”, in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (ed. Tom Thatcher; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007), 183–190. See also the discussion of Klaus Wengst, Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: Ein Versuch über das Johannesevangelium (4th ed.; KaiserTraktate 114; Munich: Kaiser, 1992); idem, Das Johannesevangelium, vol. 1: Kapitel 1– 10 (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 4.1; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 2000), 26–28. For a critical evaluation of this thesis cf. Jörg Frey, “Das Bild der ‘Juden’ im Johannesevangelium und die Geschichte der johanneischen Gemeinde”, in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium (eds. Michael Labahn et al.; Festschrift Johannes Beutler; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 33–53, here 38–45. 35 See also the essays “Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?” by Ruben Zimmermann (below, pp. 44ff.) and János Bolyki, “Ethics in the Gospel of John”, CV 45 (2003): 198–208. 36 See also Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, “Prinzipiell-theologische Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur”, in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ (eds. Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann; Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 1 = WUNT 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 289–307. 37 Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (ed. Otto Merk; UTB 630; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 377–378.

12

Michael Labahn

Bultmann’s existential interpretation, accompanied by his program of demythologizing,38 was not interested in the quest for a Johannine ethic39 and in fact did not leave room for the development of a Johannine ethical concept. His focus on the paradox of the Incarnation did not support an understanding of the narrative development of the Word who became flesh – on the contrary, Bultmann claimed that the Johannine depiction of the incarnate Jesus lacks “jede Anschaulichkeit; die Begegnung mit ihm ist nur Frage und nicht Überredung”.40 According to Bultmann, the Johannine Gospel only illustrates the “Daß der Offenbarung, ohne ihr was”.41 Despite its genius, a major weakness of this approach was its tendency to reduce the Johannine text to a mirror of Bultmann’s own hermeneutics. Of course, recent research may still benefit from the many philological, exegetical, and even theological insights of Bultmann’s interpretation,42 but it cannot follow his diminution of the Johannine arguments and its story. Nevertheless, Johannine scholarship largely followed Bultmann in neglecting to identify, or even to seek to identify, a distinctly Johannine ethic. To take a notable recent example, Michael Theobald, who revises and updates Bultmann’s theory of an “Offenbarungsredenquelle”, joins him also in his doubts about a Johannine concept of ethics. “Ein ethisches Interesse an der Gestaltung der Lebensbereiche der Gemeinde wird im Buch [i.e. the Gospel of John] nirgends greifbar.”43 Theobald’s search for a 38 Rudolf Bultmann, Neues Testament und Mythologie: Das Problem der Entmythologisierung der neutestamentlichen Verkündigung (Beihefte zur Evangelischen Theologie 96; Munich: Kaiser, 1984). On the relation for instance Hans Hübner, “Was ist existentiale Interpretation?”, in idem, Biblische Theologie als Hermeneutik: Gesammelte Aufsätze (eds. Antje Labahn and Michael Labahn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 229–251, here 230. 39 Bultmann’s reference to faith is not without reference to ethic/ethos: Konrad Stock, “Das Ethos des Glaubens nach Rudolf Bultmann”, in Christliche Ethik – evangelische Ethik? Das Ethische im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ed. Ulrich H. J. Körtner; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 69–89. 40 Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (21st ed.; KEK 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 43, interpreting John 1:14. 41 Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (n. 37), 418. 42 A critical evaluation is given by Labahn, “Bultmanns Konzeption der existenzialen Interpretation” (n. 9), 202–206; see also Jörg Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 1: Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus (WUNT 96; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 156. 43 Michael Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium (HBS 34; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2002), 565. In his commentary Theobald refers to additions by the later redactor that “betrifft das Verhältnis von Glaube und Ethos: Wenn die Redaktion in 5,29 mit universalem Geltungsanspruch vom Tun des Guten und des Bösen als Kriterium über ‘Leben’ oder ‘Verdammnis’ spricht, wirft sie die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Glaube und Werken auf, nach der Bewährung des Glaubens in einer Lebensgestalt des ‘Guten’”. However such a reference only forms a “theologisches ‘Ausrufezeichen’” (Das Evange-

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

13

Johannine ethic focuses on inner-community dynamics. Therefore, his assumption is a bit surprising, inasmuch the concept of mutual love for brothers/sisters (see below 3.2.1–3) would seem to touch on the community’s inner relations. (b) Much research has assumed that the Gospel of John deals mainly with Christology and theology. Such an approach tends to leave little room for considerations of the text’s ethical and moral insights. An emphasis on the christological or theological facets of the Fourth Gospel need not necessarily exclude ethics. Following Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, one may speak of a ‘prinzipiell-theologische Ethik’44 in the Johannine writings, positing a close connection between God as love and the act of love that builds a close relationship between God and human beings (1 John 4:7–8). Udo Schnelle’s recent commentary on the Johannine letters moves in a similar direction. Die johanneische Schule bedenkt die Offenbarung Gottes in Jesus Christus durchgehend in ihren prinzipiellen Dimensionen und entwickelt eine ethische Theologie. Es geht um umfassende theologische Begründungen menschlicher Existenz und grundlegende Ausrichtungen menschlichen Handelns. Theologie und Ethik gehören in der johanneischen Theologie uneingeschränkt zusammen, weil Gott selbst Liebe ist (vgl. 1Joh 4,8.16).45

However, one must ask if such an ethic is specific in detail and if it opens a window to concrete actions by the presentation of God, Jesus, his disciples, his adversaries, and other characters in the narrative. Neither Schnelle nor Hirsch-Luipold would deny that. An ethic needs examples and guidelines, and the further presentation of research below will show how such an orientation is given, in different ways, in the Fourth Gospel and 1 John. (c) Frequently used forms, themes, and terms of Early Christian paraenesis have often been missed within the Johannine literature, especially within the Fourth Gospel (see the approach of Meeks below).46 Wiard Popkes, in his exploration of New Testament paraenesis, acknowledges this oversight will also stress the insufficiency of a methodological approach that would consider only forms, contents, and terms.

lium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–12 [RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 2009], 73), which claims “Recht und Notwendigkeit der Ethik … Der lebensrettende Glaube an den Sohn Gottes muss sich in guten Werken verleiblichen …” (ibid., 402). 44 Hirsch-Luipold, “Prinzipiell-theologische Ethik” (n. 36), 289–307. 45 Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (n. 6), 163. 46 Cf. the evidence presented by Wiard Popkes, Paränese und Neues Testament (SBS 168; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), 118.

14

Michael Labahn

Textpragmatisch betrachtet, spannt sich der Bogen des paränetisch Bedeutsamen jedoch weiter und umfasst auch das JohEv. Elementare Linien der joh Botschaft haben p. [= paränetische] Relevanz; vieles lässt sich nach dem Modell von V. Turner/A. van Gennep als ‘postliminale Mahnung’ erfassen.47

“Postliminal” here refers to “rites of reincorporation”, which Popkes links with conversion. He identifies different Johannine terms and motifs that provide instructions connected with conversion and that cite Jesus as a moral example: “Das Vorbild Jesu wird zum zentralen Bezugspunkt des Imperativs.”48 These themes are elaborated in more detail in the Farewell Discourses (John 13–17), where the Paraclete appears as “‘der Träger der Paraklese’ in Person”.49 At first sight, Popkes’ presentation may focus too much on the structure of conversion, but his “postliminal” model also includes the aftermath of conversion. Most of the terms and motifs he mentions are connected with staying inside the group. On the other hand, the fact that the Johannine literature does not include certain forms, themes, and terms that were common in Early Christian paraenesis cannot be cited as evidence that the texts lack a moral orientation. As Popkes notes, der konversionale Ortswechsel (auf dem Hintergrund des Dualismus) ruft nach dem Bleiben in Christus (das heißt zugleich in der Wahrheit, im Licht, Leben), nach dem Befolgen seines Wortes, besonders des Liebesgebots, nach dem Fruchtbringen und nach der Einheit.50

Interestingly enough, a shared moral orientation is a point of common ground between the Johannine Letters and Gospel. Again, it is not necessary to highlight the absence of certain elements of ethical instruction, but rather to explore the ways in which the Johannine writings develop an orientation toward the actual lifestyle of their addressees. (d) In his contribution to the Festschrift for D. Moody Smith, Wayne Meeks denies that one can identify a distinct Johannine ethic, but suggests that one can identify an “instrument for moral formation” in the Johannine literature.51 Meeks’ contribution is of special interest because his argu-

47 Popkes, Paränese und Neues Testament (n. 46), 118. Popkes in his footnote does not refer to the contributions of Victor Turner (Das Ritual: Struktur und Anti-Struktur [Frankfurt: Campus, 2005]) and Arnold van Gennep (Übergangsriten [Frankfurt: Campus Fachbuch, 2005]), but to Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984), 130–135. 48 Popkes, Paränese und Neues Testament (n. 46), 119. 49 Ibid., 122. 50 Ibid., 121. 51 Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 318–320.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

15

ments are grounded in an interpretation of the Fourth Gospel that differs from that of Bultmann. According to Meeks, (1) there is no significant “explicit moral instruction” in the text; (2) the Johannine story does not develop “a plausible and universalizable model for behaviour”; (3) the story simply aims at an acceptance of a certain worldview developed by the text52 without “rational kinds of moral discourse”; and, (4) the text posits a predestination model to explain various characters’ decisions, so that there is “not a morally free decision” in the Fourth Gospel. Consistent with these observations, Meeks criticizes the stigmatization of the opponents as “children of the devil” (esp. John 8:44).53 This issue has become significant to recent criticisms of the Fourth Gospels’ value system. Adele Reinhartz, for example, has drawn attention to the fact “that the gospel of love has also been an instrument of hate, not once, not occasionally but frequently and pervasively in the history of Jewish-Christian relations”.54 The critical approach of Meeks clearly indicates that there is a need to clarify what is meant by the term ethics and the relationship of the Johannine arguments to an ethos. Although important insights have been gained in research, scholars are still in the process of developing adequate methodological and hermeneutical tools in understanding the Johannine concept of ethic. As noted earlier, moral orientation can be provided through various means, not only by direct instruction. As will be seen, the Johannine story does aim at a “universalizable” interpretation – of God, of his love expressed in the sending of his son, of the world and those who

52 Meeks relies here on his model of Johannine sectarianism: Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism”, in idem, In Search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays (eds. Allen R. Hilton and H. Gregory Snyder; New Haven et al.: Yale University Press, 2002), 55–90. 53 Michael Labahn, “Die παρρησα des Gottessohnes im Johannesevangelium: Theologische Hermeneutik und philosophisches Selbstverständnis”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (eds. Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle; in collaboration with Juliane Schlegel; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 321–363, here 330–331, 342–343, points to the construction of a certain “discourse universe” – a term borrowed from Charles S. Pierce – which the characters in the Johannine story and the model readers are invited/forced to accept in order to follow the line of reasoning within the textual world. 54 Adele Reinhartz, “The Grammar of Hate in the Gospel of John. Reading John in the Twenty-First Century”, in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für J. Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag (eds. Michael Labahn et al.; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 416–427.

16

Michael Labahn

believe or refuse to believe – that includes an orientation for the reader’s actual lifestyle. (e) As a final example, some past research has acknowledged that the Johannine literature develops an ethical vision, but has tended to concentrate the Johannine moral teaching in a single main point. Most frequently, this approach has asserted that the love command is “the only moral rule given by John”.55 Recalling the first point of Meeks’ critique noted above, this approach essentially understands that John does not provide specific moral instruction, but rather only a general rule. Against this approach, Johannes Nissen maintains that, in the search for a Johannine ethic, “our focus cannot be confined to the explicit moral teaching of the Gospel”.56 Understanding the Johannine text as a meaningful narrative world helps one to interpret the Gospel as a story that develops a reflected system of values through its interpretation of Jesus (Christology) and through the interactions of its characters, with direct or implicit assessments by the implied author. Such a system of values is a guide to the readers as they develop their own moral conceptions, founded in the text and its value system. The quest for a Johannine ethic cannot be limited to direct moral instructions such as the “new commandment”, but must also consider the whole story and its underlying value system, which together lead the reader toward certain actions that are in accordance with the text’s ideas. Of course, such a broader approach would not disregard the significance of the love command in the Fourth Gospel and 1 John. To the extent that love could be regarded as the centre of Johannine thought,57 love has a systemic quality and can be viewed as the platform from which the Johannine ethic, as expressed within both the texts and the narrative worlds behind them, developed.

55 J. Leslie Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (London/New York, N.Y.: Continuum, 2004), 36. 56 Johannes Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John”, in idem, New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives (eds. Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen; JSNTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 194–212, here 195. 57 Enno E. Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus (WUNT 197; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (n. 6), 164–165.; idem, “Die johanneischen Abschiedsreden und das Liebesgebot”, in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation (eds. Gilbert van Belle, Michael Labahn, and Petrus Maritz; BETL 223; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 589–608, here 602–603.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

17

3. Traces of the Johannine “Ethic” in Recent Research 3.1 Johannine “Ethic” in Handbooks on New Testament Ethics Although the Johannine writings are typically treated in the major reference works on New Testament ethics,58 one detects a significant reluctance to discuss John’s contribution to a larger New Testament ethic.59 Wolfgang Schrage, who acknowledged that “Sein und Sollen beinahe identisch werden”,60 claims that “Weltdistanz und Sündenfreiheit” are the most significant Johannine ethical appeals.61 Frank Matera complained that “there are remarkably few references to moral conduct” in the Gospel of John,62 and Heinz-Dietrich Wendland thought that the Johannine writings give the “Eindruck einer gewaltigen Reduktion ethischer Fragen und Aussagen”.63 One significant example may be explored here as an illustration of this larger trend in research. Of special interest is the contribution of Rudolf Schnackenburg in the revised version of his Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (1988).64 As a well-known Johannine scholar who has contributed major commentaries on both the Gospel65 and the Letters of John,66 Schnackenburg developed his interpretation of the Fourth Gospel from a source-critical understanding, partly following Bultmann into a 58 Cf., for instance, Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (n. 55), 35–41; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1975), 91–100; Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (n. 26), 486–511; Eduard Lohse, Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 5.2; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1988), 39–43, 104–106; Marxsen, “Christliche” und christliche Ethik (n. 26), 246–264; Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (n. 7), 301–324; Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 138–157. 59 Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 147 (nn. 2, 4–5), is giving selected but illuminating examples. 60 Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (n. 7), 302. 61 Ibid., 312–314. 62 Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Know, 1996), 92. 63 Hans-Dietrich Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung (GNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 109; see also Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (n. 55), 35–36. 64 Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die urchristlichen Verkündiger (HTKNTSup 2.2; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1988). 65 Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (HTKNT IV; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1965); ET, The Gospel Accordung to St. John (New York, N.Y.: Crossroad, 1968). 66 Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe (6th ed.; HTKNT XIII; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1979).

18

Michael Labahn

more synchronic literary approach.67 Referring to the common opinion that there is no Johannine “ethic”, he identifies a new research objective. Die johanneischen Schriften (Ev. und Briefe) enthalten eine eigenständige, christologisch orientierte Theologie und sind so sehr von ihr beherrscht, daß eine Ethik, zumal eine konkrete, auf die Verhältnisse von Kirche und Welt bezügliche Ethik völlig zurückzutreten scheint. Aber man kann es auch anders sehen: Der sittliche Zuspruch, der erst im großen Brief in einer besonderen Situation der joh. Gemeinde eine deutlichere Gestalt gewinnt, geht unmittelbar aus dem ‘Wort des Lebens’ (1 Joh 1,1), aus der Selbsterschließung des Sohnes Gottes (Joh 1,18) hervor. Der sittliche Imperativ bedarf keiner ausdrücklichen Artikulation, weil er im Hören auf das Wort des göttlichen Gesandten wie selbstverständlich mitgesetzt ist.68

The call of God’s revealer forces a response of faith and love from the addressee. Consistent with his theory of the history of the Johannine writings, Schnackenburg sets 1 John and 2/3 John apart from the Gospel of John.69 The letters mirror the Christological controversies created by the content of the Gospel: “Dadurch sind die Briefe für eine Ethik ergiebiger.”70 This opens a space to consider broader ethical recommendations within the teaching of the letters, mainly with regard to relations between members of the community. At the same time, there is a basic ethical demand implied by the call of the revealer, which does not need to be elaborated in structure and content but which can be identified by the answer of faith and love. In his interpretation of Johannine ethics, Schnackenburg clearly relies on Bultmann’s existentialistic hermeneutics (to which he explicitly refers)71 but tries to avoid emptying the historical revelation into myth. Although an entire paragraph in his entry reflects this approach, his presentation should be explored more closely in terms of the content and meaning of faith and love. Schnackenburg himself deals primarily with theological and Christological matters relating to the call based in God’s love and the answer in faith of love. Consistent with this approach, his interpretation of love may be labeled “theocentric” in the sense that the believer’s love is nothing more than an answer to the call that leads him/her back into the community of

67 Cf. Joachim Gnilka, “Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914–2002)”, in Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft nach 1945: Hauptvertreter der deutschsprachigen Exegese in der Darstellung ihrer Schüler (eds. Cilliers Breytenbach and Rudolf Hoppe; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 407–415, here 412–413. 68 Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (n. 64), 148–149. 69 Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Ephesus: Entwicklung einer Gemeinde von Paulus zu Johannes”, BZ 35 (1991): 41–64. 70 Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (n. 64), 148. 71 Ibid., 149 with n. 216.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

19

the loving God.72 “Insofern kann man von einer Reduzierung der Forderungen Jesu auf die grundlegende Haltung des in der Liebe wirksamen Glaubens sprechen” – such an interpretation of faith includes a moral claim.73 Interestingly, Schnackenburg also refers to characters portrayed within the narrative, along with a “zum Glauben disponierende Haltung”,74 including moral integrity. However, there is no real unfolding of such an attitude in John. Keeping Jesus’ commandments is nothing more than the answer of faith and love, so that the commandments may be reduced to these two attitudes. Schnackenburg summarizes: “Liebe ist der Anfang und das Ziel aller Sittlichkeit.”75 With regard to content, such a love is Christologically-grounded in the love of Jesus toward his disciples, which leads him to death and which asks the believer to follow his example in the community’s life (1 John 3:16).76 As an “eschatological regulation for the community”,77 it is a “new commandment” (John 13:34), which is further elaborated in 1 John. There it is called an “old” commandment (1 John 2:7) in the sense that it is known from the baptismal catechesis. In 1 John the commandment appeals to particular deeds within the life of the community. Schnackenburg highlights the necessity of specific deeds that fulfill the commandment of love, a duty that establishes the main difference between John’s outlook and any form of mysticism.78 Further, the commandment to mutual love is not to be understood as discouraging love for those outside the community – notably, Schnackenburg deduces this open posture not from the Johannine texts themselves, but rather from a posited parallel to Gal 6:10!79 Even the polemic against the group of dissidents is understood

72 Ibid., 152: “Besser spricht man vom ‘Prinzip Liebe’, das nach Johannes in Gott seinen Ursprung hat und die Menschen durch den liebenden und sich bis zum äußersten aufopfernden Sohn (Joh 13,1) in die Gemeinschaft mit Gott zurückruft (1 Joh 4,8.16).” 73 Ibid., 165. 74 Ibid., 162. 75 Ibid., 170–171. 76 On this section cf., for instance, Hans-J. Klauck, “Brudermord und Bruderliebe: Ethische Paradigmen in 1 Joh 3,11–17”, in Neues Testament und Ethik (ed. Helmut Merklein; Festschrift Rudolf Schnackenburg; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1989), 151–171. 77 Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (n. 64), 174. 78 Ibid., 177. 79 Ibid., 179: “Ohne die Liebesverpflichtung gegenüber anderen Menschen zu leugnen oder beiseite zu schieben, wollten jene Christen das Gebot der Liebe konkret in ihrem Lebensraum verwirklichen, und das war ihre Gemeinde, die ringsum von Menschen anderen Glaubens umgeben und bedrängt war.” Schnackenburg is aware of his argument: “… vor allem die Einbettung des joh. Christentums in das übrige Urchristentum mit seiner Jesustradition erlauben es kaum, den joh. Gemeinden eine solche Außenseiterrolle nachzusagen” (ibid., 180).

20

Michael Labahn

as a rhetorical strategy to strengthen love inside the community, in contrast to the “sittlicher Indifferentismus” of the opponents.80 Overall, Schnackenburg’s discussion of Johannine ethics combines various hermeneutical and methodological approaches. He acknowledges differences in the ethical vision of the individual Johannine writings while accepting a unified Johannine agenda behind the respective texts. He undoubtedly works out the Johannine language of love. His understanding centers very much on Christology, to which love and faith are related in accordance with the text. Schnackenburg also acknowledges that love stands in relation to distinct acts of love, also toward those outside the community, a point which he does not argue from the Johannine texts but from the analogy with Gal 6:10. He also points to the exemplary role of characters in the story, and in this respect anticipates recent methodological approaches that seek to identify a narrative ethics in John. At the same time, Schnackenburg’s model makes little progress toward defining the value system of the Johannine text and its possible impact on the readers and their way of life, or toward identifying specific deeds that would follow from love and faith. 3.2 Reading Johannine Ethic in Its Textual and Cultural Contexts81 3.2.1 Love and Love of Jesus’ Disciples/One’s Brothers As noted in the introduction to this paper, Lessing correctly identified the major theological “context” of Johannine ethics, i.e., the Johannine language of “love”:82 God’s love (he loves Jesus, his son: 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 80

Ibid., 180. The term “contexts” is used here in a broad sense that includes history of religion, history of tradition, and the text itself, cf. Jörg Frey, “Auf der Suche nach dem Kontext des vierten Evangeliums: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Einführung”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (eds. Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle; in collaboration with Juliane Schlegel; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 3–45, here 44–45. 82 On the love language in the Johannine writings see, for instance, Jörg Augenstein, Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen (BWANT 134; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1993); Michael Lattke, Einheit im Wort: Die spezifische Bedeutung von γπη, γαπν und φιλεν im Johannesevangelium (SANT 41; Munich: Kösel, 1975), Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 57); Fernando F. Segovia, Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agape/agapan in I John and the Fourth Gospel (SBLDS 58; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982); Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John (BIS 2; Leiden et al.: Brill, 1993); Jan G. van der Watt, “Radical Social Redefinition and Radical Love: Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 2006), 107–133; Johns Varghese, The Imagery of Love in the Gospel of John (AB 177; Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2009). 81

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

21

15:9; 17:23, 24, 26; the world:83 3:16; those who keep Jesus’ words: 14:24 and who belong to Jesus: 16:27; 17:23) and Jesus’ love (he loves his own/ disciples: 13:1; 15:9, 12; Martha: 11:5; Lazarus: 11:5, 36; the Beloved Disciple: 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). God’s love in Jesus culminates in Jesus’ death on the cross (10:17; 13:1; 15:13), which is viewed as an act of supreme love that serves as the foundation for Jesus’ “new commandment(s)” of love: John 13:34–35; 14:21; 15:9–10, 12, 17 (in line with “expected action”84). Keeping the commandment(s) of mutual love85 is the way to love Jesus: 14:15, 21, 23 (ļ 14:24) and thus is naturally correlated to faith (16:27). Furthermore, it is God’s love for Jesus that ought to become effective within believers ( γπη ν !γπησς με ν α#το$ς; 17:26).86 Of major importance is the “new commandment” (John 13:34–35), which is frequently discussed with regard to Johannine ethics.

83 Human beings, however, do not love God/light, but rather darkness: 3:19; see also 5:42; 8:42; 12:43. John 15:19 suggests that love of the world is evidence that one does not belong to God/his son. Although the readers of John learn that God and his sent Son are rejected, and his followers are rebuked, by the world, the world is the object of God’s love. 84 Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 159. According to Schnelle, “Die johanneischen Abschiedsreden und das Liebesgebot” (n. 57), 607, the Johannine farewell discourses hightlight “aus textpragmatischer Sicht die Handlungsdimension des Liebesgebotes”. In the passage where the situation of the actual community is most clearly at stake, the Johannine concept reflects not only the origin but also the effect of love, an effect that, according to Schnelle, includes the people outside the limits of the Johannine community: “Angesichts der konkreten Anfeindungen werden die johanneischen Christen zur Einheit in der Liebe und damit zu konkretem Handeln nach innen und außen aufgefordert.” Statistically 25 of 37 references of γαπω are found in John 13–17. 85 On the love command in John cf., for instance, Raymond F. Collins, “‘A New Commandment I Give to You, That You Love One Another …’ (John 13:34)”, in These Things have been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel (ed. Raymond F. Collins; Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 2; Louvain: Peeters, 1990), 217–256; Martin Hochholzer, Feindes- und Bruderliebe im Widerstreit? Eine vergleichende Studie zur synoptischen und johanneischen Ausprägung des Liebesgebots (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Theologie 850; Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 2007); Hans Weder, “Das neue Gebot: Eine Überlegung zum Liebesgebot in Johannes 13”, in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean (eds. Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz; Festschrift Jean Zumstein; ATANT 97; Zurich: TVZ, 2009), 187–205. 86 Cf. Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (THKNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004), 284: “Die Liebe erwächst aus der Einheit, und nur wer in der Liebe wandelt, verbleibt in der Einheit”; Klaus Scholtissek, In ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den Johanneischen Schriften (HBS 21; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2000), 335, focuses primarily on the promise of the presence of Jesus.

22

Michael Labahn &ντολ(ν καιν(ν δδωμι *μ$ν, +να γαπτε λλ-λους, καθ/ς !γπησα *μς +να κα *με$ς γαπτε λλ-λους. ν το1τ2 γνσονται πντες 3τι μο μαθητα στε, 4ν γπην 5χητε ν λλ-λοις.

A new commandment I give to you that you should love one another as I have loved you that you also should love one another. By this, all will recognize that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

The content of the new commandment is highlighted by a threefold repetition and variation on the theme of mutual love ( γαπτε λλ-λους =

γπην 5χητε → λλ-λους = ν λλ-λοις). This love for others is related to the exemplary love of the speaker, Jesus (καθς), in a way that makes a general statement but that also refers, in the immediate context, to Jesus’ *πδειγμα in washing the disciples’ feet, which relates the mutual and egalitarian87 relationship of the disciples to the cross as the final act and highpoint of Jesus’ love.88 The commandment thus alludes to an act that is both the philosophical basis and the historical point of origin of an active love.89 The commandment is structured around an “I – you” relationship, which could easily be understood as a foundation for group identity in contrast to the outside world. However, there is a third group, πντες, which is impacted by this mutual love. By following the example of Christ in mutual love (ν το1τ2), the disciples reveal to “all people” that they are disciples of Jesus – the verb γνσονται indicates that mutual love functions as a testimony to the world outside. Thus, care for one another includes care for outsiders. The followers of the son are told “to love one another” – Christian brothers and sisters – but there is no direct command that they are also to love the world. The implications of this point have been vigorously debated.90 The Johannine love language is frequently compared to the commandment of the synoptic Jesus to love one’s neighbour (Mark 12:29–31 parr.) and even to love one’s enemies (Matt 5:43–44 par. Luke 6:27–28,

87

Cf. Wolter, “Die ethische Identität christlicher Gemeinden” (n. 19), 61–63. Schnelle, “Die johanneischen Abschiedsreden und das Liebesgebot” (n. 57), 600. 89 Cf. Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (n. 31), 690: “Die Fußwaschung macht deutlich, dass es für die Glaubenden keine Entsprechung zu Jesus ohne ein Tun geben kann, d. h. eine rein worthafte Bestimmung des Liebesgedankens bliebe hinter Jesu eigenem Tun zurück! Das Handeln ist ein grundlegender Bestandteil des joh. Liebesgedankens, der gerade in seiner prinzipiellen Struktur höchst konkret ist!” 90 See the survey of research in Augenstein, Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium (n. 82), 11–21; see also Hartwig Thyen, “Das Neue Gebot Jesu, einander zu lieben (Joh 13,34–35), im Streit der Auslegungen”, in: idem, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT 214; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 623–630. 88

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

23

35), often in a way that leads to unfavourable conclusions about the historicity and validity of John’s presentation.91 There can be little doubt about the importance of love terminology in the Johannine literature, which Enno Popkes calls a climax of early Christian theological thinking.92 However, it is highly disputed whether the language of love contributes much to an understanding of a Johannine ethic. Some scholars set the Johannine “love” terminology in the broader context of a theology of revelation. In the semantic framework of Johannine revelatory language, “love” becomes a kind of “Wortgemeinschaft”93, essentially another term for πστις.94 As such, the word “love” contributes nothing to a Johannine ethic – as Käsemann programmatically claimed, “daß Liebe hier etwas anderes als ein Gefühl bezeichnet und sogar den Bereich ethischer Entscheidungen transzendiert”.95 Other scholars, however, allow that the Johannine concept of “love” does not neglect the neighbour, but instead assumes and builds upon the principle of neighbour-love by adding the concept of mutual/brotherly love in response to the actual situation within the Johannine community. 96 Some exegetes suggest that the concept of “love” works in the Johannine literature to create a sectarian group identity.97 Jürgen Becker, for example, 91

This position is taken pointedly by Martin Rese, “Das Gebot der Bruderliebe in den Johannesbriefen”, Theologische Zeitschrift 41 (1985): 44–58, here 57: the commandment to love one’s neighbour is “schlicht außer Kraft gesetzt”. Differently Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (n. 26), 527: “Vielmehr behält das alte Gebot der Nächstenliebe neben dem alt-neuen Gebot der Bruderliebe seine eschatologische Relevanz, womit jeder weltlosen wie entweltlichenden Konventikelethik in der johanneischen Kirche der Boden entzogen ist.” 92 For instance, Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 57), 361, claims that “die ‘dramaturgische Christologie der Liebe Gottes im Johannesevangelium’ einen Höhepunkt urchristlicher Theologiebildung verkörpert”. 93 Lattke, Einheit im Wort (n. 81), 52, critically referring to Martin Dibelius, “Joh 15,13: Eine Studie zum Traditionsproblem des Johannes-Evangeliums”, in idem, Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol.1: Zur Evangelienforschung (ed. Günther Bornkamm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953), 204–220, here 213; see also Alois Stimpfle, Blinde sehen: Die Eschatologie im traditionsgeschichtlichen Prozeß des Johannesevangeliums (BZNW 57; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 1990), 183–184. 94 Cf., for instance, Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (n. 55), 36: “… even when he speaks of the command to love and of doing what Jesus commands, John’s real concern is not primarily ethical at all. His concern is with the new condition of life conferred on the believer through Christ”. 95 Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille (n. 7), 128. 96 For instance, Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (n. 26), 526–527; Hartwig Thyen, “‘… denn wir lieben die Brüder’ (1Joh 3,14)”, in Rechtfertigung (ed. Johannes Friedrich; Festschrift Ernst Käsemann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 527–542. 97 For instance Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 323; D. Moody Smith, “The Love Command: John and Paul?”, in Theology and Ethics in Paul and his

24

Michael Labahn

claims a “Rückzug in die begrenzte Kleingruppe in Gestalt nur noch praktizierter Bruderliebe”98 – a reading that not only offers a sociological interpretation of the Johannine ethical concept but also implies a negative moral judgment. More nuanced is the argument of David Rensberger in his Overcoming the World (1989). In sharp contrast to most readings of John 3:16, Rensberger understands the Johannine ethical limitation of love as being in accordance with the extent of God’s own love.99 Rensberger thus envisions a theologically motivated instruction to mutual love, a conclusion that must be criticized. Even if there is some question as to the limits of love in John’s moral instruction – is Johannine love limited to the disciples/ brothers and sisters, and how? – there is no clear limitation of the love of God.100 Surely, the Johannine view of God’s love for the world must have carried some meaning for believers in his sent Son, and therefore would carry moral value in considerations of their relationships to people outside the Johannine group. Some assistance in understanding the Johannine command to love one’s brothers/sisters may be drawn from the ancient model of the “ethic of friendship” (cf. John 15:13),101 which is an important socio-historical context for the Johannine concept of love.102 Most scholarship, however, has

Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (eds. Eugene H. Lovering and Jerry L. Sumney; New Testament Studies; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1996), 207–217; see also Dietrich Rusam, Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes: Das Motiv der Gotteskindschaft und die Gemeinden der johanneischen Briefe (BWANT 133; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1993), 225–226, on 1 John. 98 Jürgen Becker, “Feindesliebe – Nächstenliebe – Bruderliebe”, ZEE 25 (1981): 5–17. 99 David K. Rensberger, Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1989), 124, on his social reading cf. idem, “Sectarianism and Theological Interpretation in John”, in: Fernando F. Segovia, ed., “What is John?”, vol. 2: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel (SBLSymS 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998), 139–156. 100 See also the earlier, and more hesitant, statement by Schnelle, Antidoketische Christologie (n. 25), 56: “Sowohl die Briefe (1Joh 2,2; 4,9.14) als auch das Evangelium (Joh 3,16; 10,17; 12,25; 15,13) enthalten universalistische Aussagen, die einer worthaften und spirituellen Interpretation joh. Ethik widersprechen, eine reine Konventikelethik sprengen und zeigen, daß die Bruderliebe als Exemplum der Nächstenliebe verstanden werden kann. Dennoch muß diese Ethik primär als Gruppenethik begriffen werden: Objekt der Liebe ist zuerst der Bruder, nicht die Welt.” 101 Important parallels from ancient texts are presented in Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. I/2: Texte zum Johannesevangelium (eds. Udo Schnelle, Michael Labahn, and Manfred Lang; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 2001), 715–725. 102 For instance, Klaus Scholtissek, “‘Eine größere Liebe als diese hat niemand, als wenn einer sein Leben hingibt für seine Freunde’ (Joh 15,13): Die hellenistische Freund-

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

25

interpreted Johannine soteriology, and the related ethic of love, within a moral-philosophical framework.103 The “friendship” model was, in the ancient world, an established framework for debating ethical claims.104 Moral teaching on friendship is naturally related to a community of people who each sacrifice aspects of their individuality to achieve a common existence.105 To clarify the contribution of the “love” motif to the search for a Johannine ethic, the question should be raised as to what “loving” actually involves, or how “love” expresses itself.106 John 15:10 explains that “remaining in the love of Jesus” (μενατε ν τ8 γπ9 τ8 μ8; v. 9) means keeping Jesus’ commandments (τ4ς ντολς μου τηρ-σητε). It is an oversimplification to argue that John refers here to a general hearing of and/or believing in Jesus’ word.107 According to Gerd Theissen, the love commandment should lead into a “Transformation der ethischen Zeichensprache”.108 Within Theissen’s theory of a “Stufenhermeneutik”, the Johannine sign system constructs a new structure with regard to ethos, rite, and myth. The love command is related to the inner relationship of the group and therefore addressed to the behavior of group members; logically, then, it may be called an “ethos”. As a commandment, it aims to produce concrete action modeled on the episode of the footwashing, including unity and loss of personal position (“Statusverzicht”).109 Theissen is correct in understanding the Johannine love command not as a theological or Christological symbol but as a call to distinct action(s) led by the principle of love. schaftsethik und das Johannesevangelium”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (n. 53), 413–439. 103 See, for instance, Jens Schröter, “Sterben für die Freunde: Überlegungen zur Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium”, in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (eds. Axel von Dobbeler and Kurt Erlemann; Festschrift Klaus Berger; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 263–287. 104 Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (n. 6), 166 – on Schnelle’s hermeneutics of communication (“Anschlussfähigkeit”); cf. idem, “Historische Anschlußfähigkeit: Zum hermeneutischen Horizont von Geschichts- und Traditionsbildung”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (n. 53), 47–78. 105 Hartwig Thyen, “‘Niemand hat größere Liebe als die, daß er sein Leben für seine Freunde hingibt’ (Joh 15,13)”, in Theologia crucis, signum crucis (eds. Carl Andresen and Günter Klein; Festschrift Erich Dinkler; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 467–482. Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1998), 228, underscore that in ancient social and religious contexts love is always related to a specific group. 106 Cf. Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 148. 107 For instance Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (n. 64), 167. 108 Gerd Theissen, Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2000), 269. 109 Ibid., 270.

26

Michael Labahn

The example (*πδειγμα [13:15]) given by Jesus in the footwashing pericope opens a “Handlungsraum” (Jean Zumstein) – a space that needs to be filled with particular acts (καθ/ς γ/ ποησα *μ$ν κα *με$ς ποι:τε) by creatively following Jesus’ example.110 Although the term τ4ς ντολς μου is not elaborated within the narrative world of the Fourth Gospel, it might be read as a narrative “gap”, one that leads real readers to knowledge outside the textual world. Even if John 15111 does not belong to a relecture of the Johannine farewell situation, it reminds the reader that love for Jesus is related to the act of keeping his commandments,112 which might include his ethical demands known from the synoptic Gospels or from other oral or written sources spread among the Johannine community. The Johannine love language also provides the basic structure of the arguments in 1 John. As Udo Schnelle has pointed out, 1 John presents an individual application of the idea of love, which is related to the light (2:9– 11) and embedded in a communicative relationship between God and the believer (3:10).113 The love relationship with God comes to fruition through obedience to the words of Jesus (2:5) in accordance with his example (2:6).114 Both aspects are important for the “ethic” of 1 John, because loving by distinct deeds115 sets one into a qualified relationship with light

110 Jean Zumstein, “Die johanneische Auffassung der Macht, gezeigt am Beispiel der Fusswaschung (Joh 13,1–17)”, in idem, Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium (2nd ed.; ATANT 84; Zurich: TVZ, 2004), 161–176, here 172. 111 On the interpretation of John 15 and its ethic cf., for instance, Rainer Borig, Der wahre Weinstock: Untersuchungen zu Jo 15,1–10 (SANT 15; Munich: Kösel, 1967); Hubert Ritt, “Der christologische Imperativ: Zur Weinstock-Metapher in der testamentarischen Mahnrede Joh 15,1–17”, in Neues Testament und Ethik (ed. Helmut Merklein; Festschrift Rudolf Schnackenburg; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1989), 136–150. 112 Such an interpretation is provided by Jean Zumstein, “Bildersprache und Relektüre am Beispiel von Joh 15,1–17”, in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (eds. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann; WUNT 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 139–156 (153: “Dieser kurze Überblick lässt erahnen, dass 15,1–17 Motive aus Kap. 14 wieder aufnimmt, sie aber in einem neuen Sinn, d. h. in einem ethisch-ekklesiologischen Sinn umgestaltet”). 113 See above n. 26. 114 Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 57), 104, drew from 1 John 2:6 a socalled “Vorbild-Ethik”, for which he finds next to 1 John 4,11–12 only one other example in the New Testament in Eph 5:1. 115 See also Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 57), 129, who notes that distinct deeds are included in the love command in 1 John: “Doch auch wenn die johanneischen Briefe im Gegensatz zu anderen neutestamentlichen Zeugnissen kaum konkrete Verhaltenskodizes skizzieren, zeigt sich gerade hier, daß die Ethik in der johanneischen Theologie nicht marginalisiert, sondern im Liebesgebot und den Geboten impliziert ist. ‘Die ντολα reflektieren die eine ντολ-’ ” (the last sentence is a quote from Georg

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

27

and God (1 John 5:2–3). 1 John is in accordance with the model of the Fourth Gospel that love is an active love. Further, as many scholars have noted, the question of how to act in response to light and to God as love is more explicitly elaborated,116 particularly at 1 John 3:11–24.117 Love does not aim at “word or speech, but truth and action” (μ( γαπμεν λγ2 μηδ; τ8 γλσσ9 λλ4 ν 5ργ2 κα ληθεν  πατ(ρ γασεν κα πστειλεν ε?ς τν κσμον *με$ς λγετε 3τι βλασφημε$ς), an origin that is clearly demonstrated by his deeds (v. 38). Although the Scriptures, including the commandments of the Decalogue with their generally accepted values,124 mark out a shared social/religious/ moral value system, they are developed and applied within a hermeneutical system that is expressed through the leading Christological and theological ideas125 of the Gospel narrative. To take but one illustration of this principle: a direct appeal to an ethical framework for decision-making could be found in the statement μ( κρνετε κατB Cψιν – no decision should be made on the basis of appearances (John 7:24). Rather, true ethical/religious/social judgment should be “righteous” (τ(ν δικααν κρσιν κρνετε; 7:24)126 in the sense that characters should make decisions on the grounds of certain values that are regarded as “righteous”. The characters in the story 121 Jey J. Kanagaraj, “The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue”, TynBu 52 (2001): 33–60. 122 See Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 153–154. 123 Cf., for instance, Klaus Scholtissek, “Ironie und Rollenwechsel im Johannesevangelium”, ZNW 89 (1998): 235–255. 124 Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 155. 125 Cf., for instance, Michael Labahn, “Jesus und die Autorität der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Überlegungen zu einem spannungsreichen Verhältnis”, in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium (eds. Klaus Scholtissek and Angelika Strotmann; Festschrift Johannes Beutler; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 185–206. 126 Cf. John 7:51 on the law and its judgment, which is related to the Christological themes of the Johannine story: see Labahn, “Jesus und die Autorität der Schrift” (n. 123), 195–196.

30

Michael Labahn

are thus addressed as people who are capable of thoughtful judgment. The meaning of δικαα, however, is crucial. To be righteous, the characters and the model readers, who are also addressed by the 2nd person plural imperative κρνετε (“you judge”), must make decisions according to the worldview of the Johannine story. That “discourse universe” is thus informed by the Jewish Scriptures but is ultimately Christological. While the Jewish Scriptures are clearly foundational to John’s moral vision, it is important to stress that not all parts of the Jewish religious value system relating to Scripture are articulated within the narrative world. Notably, for example, circumcision is missing from the discussion, and the Sabbath rule is reframed entirely in reference to Christological concerns through the argument that Jesus only acts like his Father by working on a Sabbath day (John 5).127 Further, while the values promoted by the Johannine story128 are related to certain ideas that are bound to the religious thought world of the Jewish Scriptures, and while their acceptance by the reader is a presupposition of the text’s ethical discourse, it is also clear that the Johannine reshaping casts other moral visions – including other visions based on these same Scriptures – in a negative light. Discussions and confrontations in the stream of the story form a positive system of values, a system that suggests the moral failure of some characters, generally “the Jews” or representatives of the cosmos. 3.2.3 “Law”, “Commandment”, and “Sin” Discussion of the love commandment and Scripture raises the question of the ways that references to “law” and “sin” contribute to the Johannine concept of ethics. John’s references to “law” (νμος),129 for example, might reflect a moral orientation. According to Schnackenburg, “law” is not used as “Ausgangspunkt sittlicher Unterweisung, vielmehr zur Anklage der Juden, daß sie Jesus durch ihr Gesetz in den Tod treiben wollen”.130 127

Cf. Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender (n. 25), 258–260. On the impact of stories in shaping social values see below, 3.3.3. 129 Cf., for instance, Jörg Augenstein, “Jesus und das Gesetz im Johannesevangelium”, Kirche und Israel 14 (1999): 161–179; Johannes Beutler, “Gesetz und Gebot in Evangelium und Briefen des Johannes”, in: EΠITOAYTO: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Jan KeĜkovský; TĜebenice: Mlýn, 1998), 9–22; William R. G. Loader, “‘Your Law’ – The Johannine Perspective”, in “… was ihr auf dem Weg verhandelt habt”: Beiträge zur Exegese und Theologie des Neuen Testaments (eds. Peter Müller and Christine Gerber; Festschrift Ferdinand Hahn; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 63–74; idem, “Jesus and the Law in John”, in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel (eds. Gilbert van Belle, Jan G. van der Watt, and Petrus Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 135–154; idem, “The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel” (below, pp. 143ff.). 130 Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (n. 64), 161. 128

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

31

Such an interpretation fits John 6:28–29, where belief in Jesus is understood as fulfillment of τ4 5ργα το θεο.131 Further, “law” terminology can be used to create a sense of distance and exclusion, as when the law is introduced as “your law” (8:17; 10:34; 15:25; see also 7:19a; 18:31; 19:7). However, such an approach may generalize too much. “Law” is conventionalized within the Johannine story as a narrative character,132 an entity that testifies for Jesus and thereby plays a positive role in support of Jesus and his behavior (1:45). By this means, law contributes to the value system of the text (7:51), and thus can serve as a positive reference system when viewed within a certain Christological hermeneutics. The same is true with regard to the commandments of Jesus, obedience to which is ultimately an expression of love for Jesus.133 At the same time, the singular “commandment” in John 13:34 refers to brotherly love (cf. 1 John 2:7) and includes in 1 John concrete deeds. In 1 John 3:23, faith in Jesus and deeds of love are synonymous. αEτη στν  ντολ( α#το, +να πιστε1σωμεν τF Gνματι το υHο α#το Iησο Χριστο κα γαπμεν λλ-λους.

Faith and active love cannot be separated.134 Again, any generalization is a simplification of the semantic evidence. The term “sin” and its derivatives135 also could be of some help in the search for a religiously motivated ethic, providing an orientation that 131

See also John 7:19b. Michael Labahn, “Scripture Talks because Jesus Talks: The Narrative Rhetoric of Persuading and Creativity in John’s Use of Scripture”, in The Fourth Gospel in FirstCentury Media Culture (eds. Tom Thatcher and Anthony le Donne; Library of New Testament Studies 426; London: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 133–155. 133 Beutler, “Gesetz und Gebot” (n. 129), 17: “Selbst wenn bei ihm Einzelgebote der Tora eine untergeordnete Rolle spielen: das Hauptgebot der ausschließlichen Gottesliebe und -Verehrung steht für ihn im Mittelpunkt der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Jesus und seinen aus dem Judentum stammenden Gegnern, die nicht zum Glauben an ihn kommen oder nicht dabei bleiben wollen. Nur setzt er konsequent voraus, daß Liebe zu Jahwe jetzt, seit seinem Auftreten, konkret Liebe zu ihm, Jesus, heißt” (referring again to Deut 6:4–5). 134 Cf. Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (n. 6), 131: “Der Glaube steht voran, wird aber durch das parataktische κα aufs engste mit der Liebe verbunden, beides gehört gerade für den 1Joh unauflöslich zusammen.” 135 Martin Hasitschka, Befreiung von Sünde nach dem Johannesevangelium: Eine bibeltheologische Untersuchung (Innsbrucker theologische Studien 27; Innsbruck and Vienna: Tyrolia, 1989); idem, “Befreiung von Sünde nach dem Johannesevangelium”, in Sünde und Erlösung im Neuen Testament (ed. Hubert Frankemölle; QD 161; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1996), 92–107; Rainer Metzner, Das Verständnis der Sünde im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 122; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); idem, “Gott, Welt und Sünde: Theologische Probleme der johanneischen Rede von der Sünde”, in Schöpfung, Monotheismus 132

32

Michael Labahn

differentiates those behaviors or deeds that are in accordance with a certain system of values from those that are not. In this respect, the word “sin” could function as an indirect form of commandment, or at least as a form of moral orientation. In point of fact, however, the Johannine writings do seem to exploit this potential. Most research still understands the Johannine conception of “sin” within a Christological, rather than an ethical, framework. Schnelle conveniently summarizes much recent discussion by noting that, in the Johannine literature, “Sünde ist weder eine nomistische noch eine moralische Kategorie … Sünde ist der Unglauben”.136 1 John goes beyond the Gospel on this point, inasmuch as the term “sin” is related there to disbelief but also used with regard to moral failure (cf. 1 John 1:8– 10; 2:1). Regrettably, however, 1 John fails to define this failure in any systematic way, thus leaving open the question of which behaviors are deemed “sinful”. Similarly, 1 John 5:16–17 seems to differentiate between “sin” which could be forgiven and “sin” which could not be forgiven,137 but there is no clear definition of either category and no clear boundary established between them. To summarize: aside from a few exceptions in 1 John, “law” and “sin” do not appear to function as moral categories in the Johannine writings. However, since both of these terms are connected to the Johannine Christological outlook and thus contribute to the value system of the Johannine story, considerations of “law” and “sin” should not be completely excluded from research on the Johannine ethic or ethos. 3.2.4 “Works of God” to Be Imitated In John 6:28, the crowd asks Jesus what works they should do to please God: τ ποιμεν +να ργαζμεθα τ4 5ργα το θεο (“What should we do in order to work the works of God”)? The question clearly points to a religious value system: the combination of the verb ποιω and the noun 5ργα underscores that the question focuses on behavior and seeks to identify actions that are in accordance with the divine will. A moral and religious value system is therefore implied. Jesus’ answer – πιστε1ητε ε?ς und fremde Religionen: Studien zu Inklusion und Exklusion in den biblischen Schöpfungsvorstellungen (ed. Lukas Bormann; Biblisch-theologische Studien 95; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 185–208; Alois Stimpfle, “‘Ihr seid schon rein durch das Wort’ (Joh 15,3a): Hermeneutische und methodische Überlegungen zur Frage nach ‘Sünde’ und ‘Vergebung’ im Johannesevangelium”, in Sünde und Erlösung im Neuen Testament (see above), 108–122; Jean Zumstein, “Sünde in der Verkündigung des historischen Jesus und im Johannesevangelium”, in: idem, Kreative Erinnerung (n. 110), 83–103. 136 Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (n. 31), 685. 137 Cf. Ingrid Goldhahn-Müller, Die Grenze der Gemeinde: Studien zum Problem der Zweiten Buße im Neuen Testament unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung im 2. Jh. (GTA 39; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 27–29.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

33

>ν πστειλεν κε$νος – reflects the Johannine Christological outlook: to have faith in Jesus is to “do the works of God”. Was Bultmann correct, then, to propose that the revealer’s call and the answer of faith ultimately subsumes everything else, including ethics in the traditional sense of the term? In his search for “Shared Values in the Gospel”, Jan van der Watt located John 6:28 within the larger Johannine context. Speaking negatively, “Without this deed [= faith] of fully associating with Jesus, persons will morally stay in darkness and die in their sins (3,17ff.; 8,21.24)”. Speaking positively, faith is relational and ultimately related to the person of Jesus. “The servants will do what their master does (13,13–16)”,138 which here means that they will love one another. Thus, while John 6:28–29 defines the “works of God” as the true reply to Jesus in faith, this definition is set within a broader narrative framework in which he asks his disciples to follow his paradigm and his deeds. The term “works of God”, like the concepts “law” and “sin”, functions within a larger value system that prescribes certain behaviors and calls the reader to perform certain actions.

3.3 Exploring New Approaches to Johannine Ethics 3.3.1 Social Scientific Readings and Johannine Ethics As noted earlier, there has been considerable discussion regarding the sociological nature of the community from which the Johannine literature emerged. These models typically relate the Johannine writings to specific conflicts, first between the Johannine churches and the Jewish synagogues and then between competing factions within the community itself. Some scholars have understood the evolution of these conflicts, and their effect on the nature and posture of the Johannine community, in terms of a “sectarian” model, which in turn carries significant implications for understanding the Johannine ethos/ethic. According to Meeks, for example, the text of the Fourth Gospel is so closely bound to its historical and social situation that it cannot effectively communicate a viable ethical vision that transcends its own immediate circumstances.139 The Fourth Gospel’s “social ethics” “almost boils down to this: resolute loyalty to the community of disciples”.140 138

Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 17), 158. Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 318. 140 Ibid., 323. According to Werner Wittenberger, “Ort und Struktur der Ethik des Johannesevangeliums und des ersten Johannesbriefes” (Diss. theol., Friedrich-SchillerUniversität Jena, 1971), 29–31, the Fourth Gospel concentrates on the commandment of mutual love as a response to the conflict in the community at the time the text was produced. 139

34

Michael Labahn

Although the experience of expulsion from the Jewish synagogue should not be taken as the single hermeneutical key to understanding the Johannine text or its ethic,141 the Fourth Gospel clearly reflects an experience of social and religious conflict that has led to a substantial break from the past and that has produced a new cultural and religious identity.142 Since the Johannine moral value system is part of this larger construction of identity and meaning, it is clearly related to the social reality of the group reflected in the text. However, from the opening lines of the Gospel (John 1:1–18), the Johannine “formation of meaning” (“Sinnbildung”) is, in fact, “universalizing” in its construction of reality, 143 aiming for a future orientation developed from past events144 that are now part of the collective memory of both the author and the readers.145 The “history of reception” (“Wirkungsgeschichte”) indicates that the Fourth Gospel developed a successful “master-story” (“Meistererzählung”)146 that remains effective for many readers even today. While John’s moral vision may have emerged from a situation of conflict, it is not bound to that situation in a way that limits its aspirations. The Gospel narrates a story that helps the reader to understand conflicts in terms of an overall plot of the Son sent into the world by his Father who loves the world. The command of mutual love is part of the identity-formation of a certain group in a certain historical and sociological situation. As such, the Johannine Gospel attempts to provide a general orientation toward life through a process of “formation of meaning”, a meaning that includes an 141

Cf. for instance, Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender (n. 25), 30–32. On the creation of differences in the process of collective identity formation cf. Michel Wieviorka, Kulturelle und kollektive Identitäten (Hamburg: Hamburg Edition, 2003). 143 Cf. Alfred Schütz and Thomas Luckmann, Strukturen der Lebenswelt (UTB 2412; Konstanz: UVK Medien, 2003); Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie (16th ed.; Fischer-Taschenbücher 6623: Sozialwissenschaft; Frankfurt: Fischer, 1999). 144 Cf. Jörn Rüsen, Kann gestern besser werden? Zum Bedenken der Geschichte (Kulturwissenschaftliche Interventionen 2; Berlin: Kadmos, 2003); idem, Kultur macht Sinn: Orientierung zwischen Gestern und Morgen (Cologne et al.: Böhlau, 2006), 30: “Geschichte hat ihren Sinn im rekonstruktiven Rückgang auf die historische Erfahrung. Sie dient der Plausibilisierung handlungsleitender Zukunftsentwürfe. Und Sinn spielt im Verhältnis dieser Zeiten – zwischen der geschehenen Vergangenheit und der gewünschten Zukunft – eine zentrale Rolle.” 145 Maurice Halbwachs, Das Gedächtnis und seine sozialen Bedingungen (stw 538; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2006); taken up by Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (Munich: Beck, 1992); on the cultural/collective memory in New Testament research cf. Rafael Rodriguez, Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text (Library of New Testament Studies 407; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 41–51. 146 See below, 3.3.4. 142

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

35

ethical orientation which is not limited to group boundaries but rather extends to a world that is both hostile to the Christ-proclamation of the group and also loved by God, the Father of their Christ. As noted earlier, a social-historical reading cannot establish that John promotes an inwardlyoriented conventicle ethic, although it does help to explain why the vision of universal love is presented primarily through the motif of brotherly love in the text. John’s love semantic helps to establish identity and in the process sheds light both on the special relationships between group members and on God’s love for the world outside. Further study of both relationships is needed within a larger consideration of the ways that the Johannine Gospel achieves its “formation of meaning”. Further, a history-of-religions approach might remind any social scientific reading that the power of love and friendship was usually related to a certain in-group in the ancient world. 3.3.2 Johannine Images as “Vehicles for Ethical Arguments” (Jan G. van der Watt) That the metaphorical speech of Jesus as the “true vine” in John 15:1–17 contributes to the Johannine concept of ethics is widely recognized, even by scholars who do not explicitly reflect on the ways that images and symbols may be used to establish an ethical argument.147 While an earlier generation of research had difficulty locating this passage in the literary history of the Fourth Gospel, and thus was uncertain of the location of its content within the Johannine ethical framework, the relecture approach has now firmly placed John 15:1–17 within the development of a Johannine ethic.148 Jan van der Watt takes the imagery of the vine speech into account and convincingly elaborates the theory of a “metaphoric network” that develops consent by referring to a reality of life.149 “Der Leser soll nicht länger zweifeln, sondern so handeln, wie es natürlich und christlich zugleich ist.”150 In his methodological and hermeneutically more fundamental discussion in “Ethics Alive in Imagery” (2006),151 Van der Watt investigates 147

For instance, Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 57), 306. Andreas Dettwiler, “Umstrittene Ethik – Überlegungen zu Joh 15,1–17”, in Johannes-Studien: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Johannes-Evangelium (ed. Martin Rose; Zurich: TVZ, 1991), 175–189. 149 Jan G. van der Watt, “‘Metaphorik’ in Joh 15,1–8”, BZ 38 (1994): 67–80. 150 Ibid., 80. 151 Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics Alive in Imagery”, in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (eds. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann; WUNT 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 421–448. 148

36

Michael Labahn

the argumentative structure of Johannine imagery and succeeds in showing that Johannine imagery supports and broadens the potential of Johannine meaning. Johannine imagery is used “as a rhetorical tool”, and specific images serve as “pregnant vehicles for ethical arguments”.152 Emphasizing images and metaphors and developing meaning from them is an important methodological innovation. Theories on how such language establishes arguments leads to a better understanding of Johannine ethics. Such methods, applied to other Johannine texts, promise to offer a more complete view of the ethical framework of the Gospel. 3.3.3 Narrative Ethics153 As noted above, recent research has suggested that considerations of Johannine ethics should go beyond obvious statements on morality to consider images and themes in the relevant texts and the narrative worlds behind them. Against this claim, Meeks explicitly denies that the narrative world of the Gospel can contribute anything to a Johannine “ethic”. Neither the main character, nor his disciples are imitable. The disciples play an almost entirely passive role; their failure to understand Jesus’ words and actions frequently casts them as mere foils to Jesus’ superior knowledge and his inscrutability … the narrative … [supplies] neither rules for behavior nor models of character or action.…154

Meeks’ assertion is, however, too negative and hardly convincing. Moreover, the potential of hermeneutical approaches to narrative ethics has not been fully explored by biblical scholars, although there appears to be a growing interest within Johannine research. As Nissen has claimed with regard to the Fourth Gospel, a fuller reading of the story is necessary in order to grasp its implications for shaping the life of the Christian community.… John … is laden with ethical implications for the community that accepts the message and finds itself rejected by the world.155

152

Ibid., 447. On narrative ethics cf., for instance, Dietmar Mieth, Dichtung, Glaube und Moral: Studien zur Begründung einer narrativen Ethik. Mit einer Interpretation zum Tristanroman Gottfrieds von Strassburg (2nd ed.; Tübinger theologische Studien 7; Mainz: Matthias Grünewald,  1983); see also the contributions to Narrative Ethik: Das Gute und das Böse erzählen (ed. Karen Joisten; Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Sonderband 17; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2007); Ethik und Erzählung: Theologische und philosophische Beiträge zur narrativen Ethik (eds. Marco Hofheinz, Frank Mathwig, and Matthias Zeindler; Zurich: TVZ, 2009); Narration und Ethik (ed. Claudia Öhlschläger; Ethik – Text – Kultur 1; Munich: Fink, 2009). 154 Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 318–319. 155 Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John” (see n. 56), 199, referring to Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (n. 58), 4, 140. 153

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

37

The relationship between narrative and ethics needs become a topic in its own right in literary studies, including discussions of the relationship between aesthetics and ethics.156 Both issues, “die Vermittlung von Werten mittels Literatur” and the question “inwiefern Literatur dank ihrer fiktiven Beschaffenheit Möglichkeitsräume des Denkens und Handelns eröffnet, die fremde, neue und alternative Deutungs- und Wahrnehmungsoptionen sichtbar machen”,157 are significant. Analyses of narrative ethics may also consider the social context that generates meaning by narration. Quite in contrast to Meeks, Alasdair MacIntyre158 contends that narrative is the primary way to understand oneself159 and the preferred media of representation and communication of ethics. Narrative ethics is naturally connected to reader response criticism, inasmuch as narratives attempt to construct a reader who accepts the value system and moral rules of a text. However, a narrative cannot command the reader, but rather seeks to build the real reader’s consent to its ethical vision by using different forms of presentation.160 The ways that narrative expresses an ethical orientation and builds meaning for the ideal reader should be considered more fully in considerations of the Johannine writings. 3.3.3.1 Narrative Ethics and Narrative Criticism The narrative world of the Fourth Gospel is filled with stories, dialogues, monologues, places, and characters that all might offer clues to the ethical orientation of the text. As Van der Watt points out, the behaviors and 156 Cf., for instance, Claudia Öhlschläger, “Narration und Ethik: Vorbemerkung”, in Narration und Ethik (ed. Claudia Öhlschläger; Ethik – Text – Kultur 1; Munich: Fink, 2009), 9–21, here 9–11. 157 Ibid., 11. 158 Alasdair MacIntyre, Der Verlust der Tugend: Zur moralischen Krise der Gegenwart (stw 1193; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1995), 289: “Es gibt folglich keinen Weg zum Verständnis irgendeiner Gesellschaft einschließlich der eigenen, außer durch den Bestand an Geschichten, die ihre ursprünglichen dramatischen Wurzeln konstituieren”; on MacIntyre cf. the critical discussion in L. Gregory Jones, “Alasdair MacIntyre on Narrative, Community, and the Moral Life”, Modern Theology 4 (1987): 53–69. 159 MacIntyre, Der Verlust der Tugend (n. 158), 288: “Der Mensch ist in seinen Handlungen und in seiner Praxis ebenso wie in seinen Fiktionen im wesentlichen ein Geschichten erzählendes Tier. Er ist im wesentlichen kein Erzähler von Geschichten, die nach der Wahrheit streben, aber er wird es durch seine Geschichte.” 160 Cf., for instance, Mieth, “Literarische Texte als Quelle ethischer Verunsicherung oder ethischer Modellbildung?” (n. 16), 28: “Die Erschließung und die Weitergabe von Werten und Tugenden vollzieht sich nicht nur durch Befehle und Autoritäten, sondern durch die Umwandlung und Übertragung der Erfahrungsgrundlage von ethischem Wissen und durch die Übersetzung eines Erzählvorgangs, in dem das hörende Subjekt respektiert wird.”

38

Michael Labahn

action lines of actors in the narrative of the Gospel disclose the underlying ethic that informs the more explicit commandments.161 (a) Characters162 Peter Dschulnigg,163 Tobias Nicklas,164 and Cornelis Bennema165 have shown, using differing hermeneutical approaches, that John’s techniques of characterization aim to influence the behavior of the reader. Dschulnigg and Bennema are more concerned with the different characters as examples of “how to react to Jesus”. According to Bennema, the Johannine characters are “representative figures” who guide the readers of the narrative in their responses to Jesus. The Johannine characters are representative figures in that they have a symbolic or illustrative value beyond the narrative but not in a reductionist, ‘typical’ sense. The reader is invited to identify with (aspects of) one or more of the characters, learn from them and then make his or her own response to Jesus – preferably one that John approves of.166

Nicklas further shows that the reader depends upon the narrator, who involves him or her in the system of values developed through the narrative. Michael Labahn, who raised the question as to whether the Johannine miracle stories portray the miracle worker as a moral exemplar of how to deal with people in need,167 also suggests that John uses certain characters as ethical models.168 Even before the “man born blind” confesses his faith in the “Son of Man” (9:35–38) and despite the threat of expulsion (9:22, 34), he gives a positive report about Jesus to “outsiders”,169 characterizing Jesus as the man who gave him sight (both physically and metaphori161

Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (see n. 17), 151. Cf. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress, 1987), 101–103. 163 Peter Dschulnigg, Jesus begegnen: Personen und ihre Bedeutung im Johannesevangelium (Theologie 30; Münster: LIT, 2000). 164 Tobias Nicklas, Ablösung und Verstrickung: “Juden” und Jüngergestalten als Charaktere der erzählten Welt des Johannesevangeliums und ihre Wirkung auf den implizierten Leser (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 60; Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 2001). 165 Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009). 166 Ibid., 208. 167 Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender (n. 25). 168 Michael Labahn, “Der Weg eines Namenlosen – vom Hilflosen zum Vorbild (Joh 9): Ansätze zu einer narrativen Ethik der sozialen Verantwortung im vierten Evangelium”, in Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums (eds. Roland Gebauer and Martin Meiser; Festschrift Otto Merk; Marburger Theologische Studien 76; Marburg: Elwert, 2003), 63–80. 169 Adressing ousiders within the Johannine text world is a point which is made strong by Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John” (see n. 56), 197. 162

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

39

cally170). His report is not only an expression of his “Glaubensmündigkeit” (Klaus Scholtissek),171 but also an act of care for others in his social environment. His dialogue with the opponents thus develops an aspect of the value system of the story: the social responsibility of believers to witness to the world. (b) Stories Narrative interpretation of the Gospel of John understands the characters and their intra-textual interaction as negative or positive examples, thus providing insight on the Johannine ethic. The narrator involves the reader in the value system of the text through the interactions of different characters, narrative settings and comments, “gaps”, and other features of the story. In some cases, the content and structure of individual episodes implies and promotes a particular ethical orientation and consequent behaviors. To take a notable example, the Johannine footwashing episode has long played a key role in discussions of Johannine ethics. Schnelle and others have tried to show that one of the major points of the story is to establish a tangible ethic (13:12–17) by explicitly calling the reader to follow the example of Jesus.172 Again, it is a matter of dispute at which stage in the composition-history of the text such an interpretation of the footwashing was added to the story. In the current text, Jesus’ footwashing leads into the so-called “new commandment” (ντολ( καιν-) of mutual love, which explicitly draws upon Jesus’ example (καθ/ς !γπησα *μς; cf. esp. 13:12–17). Although the new commandment is treated by some scholars as a later addition to the Gospel, it should not be doubted that the footwashing story itself – particularly its claims and the interaction of the characters – contributes to an understanding of the Johannine language of love and thereby to Johannine ethics.

170 On these two “realities” developed by the story in John 9 cf. Michael Labahn, “‘Blinded by the Light’: Blindheit und Licht in Joh 9 im Spiel von Variation und Wiederholung zwischen Erzählung und Metapher”, in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel (n. 57), 453–504. 171 Klaus Scholtissek, “Mündiger Glaube: Zur Architektur und Pragmatik johanneischer Begegnungsgeschichten: Joh 5 und Joh 9”, in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (eds. Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell; WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 75–105, here 104–105. 172 Udo Schnelle, “Die johanneische Schule”, in Bilanz und Perspektiven gegenwärtiger Auslegung des Neuen Testaments (ed. Friedrich W. Horn; Festschrift Georg Strecker; BZNW 75; Berlin and New York, N.Y.: De Gruyter, 1995), 198–217.

40

Michael Labahn

3.3.3.2 Narrative Ethics and “Sinnbildung” (Udo Schnelle) Among his many contributions to the interpretation of the Gospel of John, Udo Schnelle has identified the text as a “master story” (“Meistererzählung”).173 This term does not reflect an aesthetic judgment, but refers rather to Schnelle’s interpretation of the text as narrative “Sinnbildung”. As such, the Gospel narrative provides a sense of orientation for its readers, and therefore necessarily contains “ethics”. Gelungene Erzählungen wie die Evangelien haben immer auch eine orientierende Funktion. Ihre Struktur eröffnet Räume für Rezeption und Interpretation, ermöglicht Transformationsleistungen und bestimmt jene Leitfäden, die die Erzählung prägen. Diese Leitfäden legen fest, welche Orientierungsleistungen mit den einzelnen Geschichten und dem gesamten Evangelium erbracht werden sollen. Schon von der Gattung her sind somit ethische Orientierungen im Johannesevangelium zu erwarten.174

Schnelle’s argument is, in one sense, an axiomatic claim, leading from the Gospel’s genre to the claim of ethical orientation. However, his claim is supported by close analysis of the Johannine text itself. Schnelle broadens the horizon by referring to different observations on the Johannine text(s) and the systemic thought of Johannine theology, including revelation, incarnation, hermeneutics of love, the commandment of love, and narrative ethics. On the hermeneutical level, the approach of Schnelle is helpful with regard to the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel of John can indeed be understood as a narrative “formation of meaning” (“Sinnbildung”) in the sense that it provides an orientation, developed by and from the narrator and his story, for readers in present and future situations. Collecting and re-narrating the cultural memory of the addressees, the Gospel builds meaning from past events and develops a specific value system that aims at behavior and at reflection and decision in moral terms (cf., for instance, the concept of “Paraclete”:175 John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This general observation should be supported by a larger, more focused investigation (which is also 173 Udo Schnelle, “Theologie als kreative Sinnbildung: Johannes als Weiterbildung von Paulus und Markus”, in Das Johannesevangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen (ed. Thomas Söding; QD 203; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003), 119–145, here 144; idem, “Das Johannesevangelium als neue Sinnbildung”, in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel (eds. Gilbert van Belle, Jan G. van der Watt, and Petrus Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 291–313, here 312. 174 Udo Schnelle, “Johanneische Ethik”, in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum (ed. Christfried Böttrich; Festschrift Günter Haufe; Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 2006), 309– 327, here 313. 175 The role and function of the “Paraclete” (παρκλητος) requires serious consideration with regard to Johannine ethics, inasmuch as the Spirit’s work of teaching and remembering (κε$νος *μς διδξει πντα κα *πομν-σει *μς πντα M εNπον *μ$ν [γ] ) includes the potential for ethical instruction in the period after Jesus’ death.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

41

intended by Schnelle) to show how and to what extent ethical orientation takes place in John.

4. Conclusion: Do Johannine Christians Love Their Enemies? As this survey has indicated, the search for a Johannine ethic is still, as Matera observes, a “major challenge”.176 At the same time, new approaches to the problem have led to new considerations of the structure and content of the Johannine ethical program. Future research will also need to consider the contribution of the Johannine moral vision to the larger body of Early Christian moral teaching. In closing, I will first summarize the developments in Johannine research noted above, then sketch the boundaries of the Johannine ethic itself. Finally, I will raise questions about the limits of the Johannine ethic and potential avenues of future research. First, by way of summary: there has been, and still is, some skepticism in scholarship about the possibility of identifying a Johannine ethic, and this is accompanied by a general hesitation to characterize the commandments in the Gospel of John as primarily moral/ethical teaching. At the same time, however, a major trend in Johannine research is emerging that opens new space to explore the development of ethics in the Gospel of John and 1 John even if some scholars wish to limit this ethical vision to sectarian moral instruction. Current scholarship is searching for a Johannine ethic by reading the texts in their literary and cultural contexts and by interpreting the relevant texts within new methodological frameworks.177 Second, most discussions of Johannine ethic have emphasized the fact that the Johannine texts offer less elaboration on the practical dimensions of ethics – the Fourth Gospel and 1, 2, 3 John contain few specific commands and points of advice. As noted earlier, some critics have taken this as evidence that there is no ethical concern in the Johannine literature. While this conclusion is reasonable, it is only partly true, and it overlooks a substantial body of evidence. On one hand, the Gospel of John does not present a catalogue of prescribed actions and practical advice on how to deal with problems in everyday life. On the other hand, the Gospel calls for a basic love relationship within the social limits of the actual group to which it is addressed and narrates episodes that depict how one should and should not relate to the world inside and outside that group. The Gospel leaves “gaps” for the real reader that need to be filled in accordance with the demands of mutual love and, further, gives specific examples of how 176

Matera, New Testament Ethics (n. 62), 92. See, for instance, Tom Thatcher, “Cain the Jew the AntiChrist: Collective Memory and the Johannine Ethic of Loving and Hating” (below, pp. 350ff.). 177

42

Michael Labahn

these gaps should be filled by those who enter into the love relationship between Christ and God – the God who is personified as love (1 John 4:8) and who loves the world (John 3:16). Asking for specific instances of direct advice does not follow the strategy of the Johannine story, which aims at developing a certain model reader who is able to draw the right moral conclusions from the narrative on her/his own. Within the broader definition of “ethic” outlined above, the Gospel of John aims to inculcate certain actions but does not do so by appealing to concrete directives; rather, the narrative encourages an ethical creativeness driven by a distinctive relationship to Jesus Christ. Living in Christ means living from Christ and, by this, living in accordance with the love relationship. This aspect of the Johannine Gospel’s ethical program needs further elaboration in future research. The situation is somewhat different with regard to the letters of John, which are more precise in demanding certain behaviors in accordance with brotherly love. However, the observable difference – not “contradiction” – between the letters and the Gospel on this point should be examined from a number of different viewpoints. The difference may, for example, be ascribed to a different historical situation within the community, or may simply be due to differing literary genres and different rhetorical strategies for developing meaning. Finally, looking to the limits and potentials of future research: none of the Johannine writings takes up or develops the synoptic concept of loving one’s neighbor or enemy. Rather, the Johannine Gospel and Letters develop a system of mutual love that controls social life within the in-group. This approach is consistent with strands of ancient ethical rhetoric that is oriented toward the peer group: from personal friends to people of a specific social group to all compatriots. Social responsibility and awareness should be understood within the framework of the Johannine love/hate relationship: the community is loved by the God who loves the world (John 3:16) but hated by the world that does not acknowledge the Johannine discourse universe. In such a context, group members are asked to take a certain responsibility for the world outside178 by giving witness, even when it is dangerous to do so. The man born blind (John 9) functions as an example of such care for society outside the group’s boundaries. Even the love commandment seems to contain some openness, as it is related to Jesus who gives his life for others and to God who loves the world. According to Richard Hays, “those who follow the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel … will learn an ethic that loves ‘not in words or speech, but in truth and action’ (1 John 3:18)”.179 178 179

See also Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John” (n. 56), 196. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (n. 58), 156.

“It’s Only Love” – Is That All?

43

To summarize: It is true that the Johannine writings develop meaning from a Christological and theological basis and within a Christological and theological framework. Nevertheless, they are also interested in the consequences of this meaning in the lives of the addressees. Faith and love, the basic answers to the call of God and his sent Son, are not abstract terms, but rather symbols full of meaning – a meaning which is developed within the Johannine narrative and its imagery and elaborated more concretely in the letters. Each believer is asked to act, but s/he must exercise creativity in actualizing the commandment of love within a life “in Christ”. Ultimately, any interpretation has to face the fact that the Johannine writings develop their own ethical arguments on their own terms.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus Ruben Zimmermann

1. Consensus: No Ethics in John! Although exegesis on the historical setting and literary structure of the Gospel of John has been multifaceted and controversial in recent years, New Testament scholarship appears to find consensus on one subject – there is a general agreement that the Fourth Gospel contains no ethics. The subject of ethics in the Gospel of John takes up astonishingly little space within general investigations of “the ethics of the New Testament”.1 The works of Heinz-Dietrich Wendland, Wolfgang Schrage, Jack T. Sanders, Richard B. Hays etc. on New Testament ethics find very few comments in John relevant for a discussion of ethics.2 According to 1 Cf. the research reports by Walter Rebell, “Neutestamentliche Ethik – Anmerkungen zum gegenwärtigen Diskussionsstand”, ZEE 32 (1988): 143–151; Petr Pokorný, “Neutestamentliche Ethik und die Probleme ihrer Darstellungen”, EvTh 50 (1990): 357–371; Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Ethik des Neuen Testaments 1982–1992”, TRu 60 (1995): 32– 86; Werner Zager, “Neutestamentliche Ethik im Spiegel der Forschung”, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 11 (2003): 3–13; Richard B. Hays, “Mapping the Field: Approaches to New Testament Ethics”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 3–19. 2 Cf. Heinz-Dietrich Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung (3rd ed.; NTD.E 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 109–115; James L. Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (London: Mowbrays, 1973), 35–36; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1975), 91–100; Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (ZGB; Zurich: TVZ, 1987), 486–511; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (HTKNTSup 2.2; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1988), 148–192 (this scholar on John’s Gospel gives considerable consideration to Johannine ethics, however focuses only on the subject of ‘love’); Eduard Lohse, Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 5.2; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1988), 39–43, 104–106 (love command); Willi Marxsen, “Christliche” und christliche Ethik im Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1989), 246–264; Wolfgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (2nd ed.; GNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 301–324; Heinz Schür-

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

45

Wendland, we find in John the “impression of an enormous reduction of ethical questions and statements”.3 Schrage remarks, “we may ask whether a chapter on the Johannine writings even belongs in a book on the ethics of the New Testament” and asks “whether we should not limit ourselves to an appreciation of the Gospel of John within the theology of the New Testament”.4 The search for the subject of ethics within the extensive literature on the Gospel of John is equally fruitless.5 There are no monographs6 and only a few, mostly recent articles7 on the ethics of John. mann, Studien zur neutestamentlichen Ethik (ed. Thomas Söding; SBAB 7; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990); Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 92–117; Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 138–157; Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 285–346. 3 Wendland, Ethik (n. 2), 109. 4 Schrage, Ethik (n. 2), 302. See the translation in Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 297. 5 Cf. the research reports by Klaus Scholtissek, “Neue Wege in der Johannesauslegung: Ein Forschungsbericht I–II”, Theologie und Glaube 89 (1999): 263–295; 91 (2001): 109–133 (with English translation in CurRBS 6 [1998]: 227–259; 9 [2001]: 277– 305); furthermore Udo Schnelle, “Ein neuer Blick: Tendenzen der gegenwärtigen Johannesforschung”, BTZ 16 (1999): 29–40; Francis J. Moloney, “Where Does One Look? Reflections on Some Recent Johannine Scholarship”, Anton. 62 (2000): 223–251, more recently the volume The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (eds. Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008) without a single article on ethics; or a paper read in the SBL Johannine Literature Section at recent meetings, see http://www.johannine.org. 6 The Ph.D. dissertations by Wachs and Wittenberger were never published; apart from reflecting on the predominance of Johannine exegesis in the footsteps of Bultmann, they demonstrate the failures in the quest rather than the successes concerning further research. Cf. Hans Joachim Wachs, “Johanneische Ethik” (Ph.D. diss., ChristianAlbrechts-Universität Kiel, 1952); Wolfgang Wittenberger, “Ort und Struktur der Ethik des Johannes-Evangeliums und des ersten Johannesbriefes” (Ph.D. diss., FriedrichSchiller-Universität Jena, 1971). 7 Wayne A. Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist”, in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (eds. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 317–326; Johannes Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John”, in New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives (eds. Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen; JSNTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 194–212; Jey J. Kanagaraj, “The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue”, TynBu 52 (2001): 33–60; Dwight Moody Smith, “Ethics and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel”, in Word, Theology, and Community in John (eds. John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia; St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2002), 109–122; János Bolyki, “Ethics in the Gospel of John”, CV 45 (2003): 198–208; Michael Labahn, “Der Weg eines Namenlosen – Vom Hilflosen zum Vorbild (Joh 9): Ansätze zu einer narrativen Ethik der sozialen Verantwortung im

46

Ruben Zimmermann

In the most recent commentaries the subject is also of practically no importance.8 Wayne A. Meeks calls the topic of “the ethics of the Fourth Gospel” an “oxymoron”.9 Summarizing the problems, he distinguishes four areas which render the Fourth Gospel inappropriate to serve as a vehicle of moral formation. First, its form, the maxims (gnomes), which are the typical media of popular moral instruction, is missing. Second, the characters outlined in the narration do not serve as models for the reader. According to Meeks, the disciples play “an almost entirely passive role”10 and the Johannine Jesus “is too alien to human weakness to provide a convincing model”.11 Hence, neither Jesus nor the disciples can be ethically imitated. Third, the Fourth Gospel is profoundly troubling to rational moral discourse. Despite the introductory mention of the “logos”, the narrative “overthrows ordinary rationality and by riddle, metaphor, irony and double

vierten Evangelium”, in Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums (eds. Roland Gebauer and Martin Meiser; Festschrift Otto Merk; Marburg: Elwert, 2003), 63–80; Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics Alive in Imagery”, in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (eds. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann; WUNT 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 421–448; idem, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John”, ZNW 97 (2006): 147–176; idem, “Radical Social Redefinition and Radical Love: Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 107–133; Udo Schnelle, “Johanneische Ethik”, in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum (ed. Christfried Böttrich; Festschrift Günter Haufe; Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 2006), 309–327; Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, “Prinzipiell-theologische Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur”, in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ (eds. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Ruben Zimmermann; Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 1 = WUNT 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 289–307; Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John”, in Moral Language in the New Testament (eds. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt; WUNT 2.296; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 139–167; Jörg Frey, “‘Ethical’ Traditions, Family Ethos, and Love in the Johannine Literature”, in Ethics in the New Testament (eds. Jan W. van Henten and Joseph Verheyden; Leiden: Brill; forthcoming). 8 See, for instance, the recent German commentaries by Udo Schnelle (1998), Ludger Schenke (1998), Klaus Wengst (2000/2001), Christian Dietzfelbinger (2001), Hartwig Thyen (2005), Michael Theobald (2009); or the English commentaries like Donald A. Carson (1992); Ben Witherington III (1995); Frances J. Moloney (1993, 1996, 1998); Craig S. Keener (2003); Mark J. Edwards (2004); Andreas J. Köstenberger (2004); Andrew T. Lincoln (2005). 9 See Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 317–326. Meeks starts his article with a long explanation of why he has chosen the topic “suggested by the editors”. 10 Ibid., 318. 11 Ibid.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

47

entendre exuberantly eludes straightforward communication”.12 Meeks even calls this approach to life “not merely irrational but antirational”.13 Fourth and finally, the dualistic world view which divides those who move toward the light and those who remain in darkness prevents the possibility of real decision or moral development. According to Meeks, the reader feels a predetermination rather than the opportunity for free decision, which is the prerequisite for a moral agent looking for convincing arguments to find the best way to behave. Ethics is no longer needed in John’s narrative world. We can add other arguments to those of Meeks. With regard to the textual form, it must be mentioned that not only the gnome but also other genres used for concrete ethical instruction are lacking and there are no paraenetic sections, i.e., sections that encourage concrete action. Although Jesus delivers many sermons, there is no equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain. The dialogues scarcely manage to convey clear explanations and instead often conclude mysteriously. Even the Letters of John, which, like the Letters of Paul, often deal with the community’s concrete ethical questions, offer no ethical instructions on subjects such as meat offered to idols, sexual ethics, or the attitude toward the Roman state. The only exception is the commandment to love. In 1– 3 John we find no ethical catalogues of virtues and vices, not even Haustafeln (household codes), which are present in other letters. There are absolutely no references to the subjects determining the concrete life of the community. There is no word about divorce or the renunciation of material property, no law of purity, no report on the remonstration of a rich youth or the charity of a tax collector. Can we conclude that John was not interested in ethics? Is Christology the overarching subject for him, in comparison with which concrete instruction appears secondary or even superfluous? Is the Gospel of John only about theology and not about ethics? 1.1 Reduction to the Commandment Concerning Love and Conventicle Ethics Before investigating these questions, we must make two qualifications. Ethical issues do indeed play a role in Johannine scholarship in two areas. There is a strong concentration on the motif of love14 and, closely linked to 12

Ibid., 319. Ibid. 14 On love in the Gospel of John see (in chronological order): Hartwig Thyen, “‘… denn wir lieben die Brüder’ (1Joh 3,14)”, in Rechtfertigung (ed. Johannes Friedrich; Festschrift Ernst Käsemann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 527–542; idem, “‘Niemand hat größere Liebe als die, daß er sein Leben für seine Freunde hingibt’ (Joh 15,13)”, in 13

48

Ruben Zimmermann

this, Johannine scholarship practices the explication of a narrowly limited group ethos or, drawing on Ernst Käsemann’s dictum, conventicle ethics.

Theologia crucis, signum crucis (eds. Carl Andresen and Günter Klein; Festschrift Erich Dinkler; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 467–482; Fernando F. Segovia, “The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine Sectarianism”, CBQ 43 (1981): 258–272; Martin Rese, “Das Gebot der Bruderliebe in den Johannesbriefen”, Theologische Zeitschrift 41 (1985): 44–58; Horst Balz, “Johanneische Theologie und Ethik im Licht der ‘letzten Stunde’”, in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments (ed. Wolfgang Schrage; Festschrift Heinrich Greeven; BZNW 47; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986), 35–56; Johannes Beutler, “Das Hauptgebot im JohEv”, in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament (ed. Karl Kertelge; QD 108; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1986), 222–236; Raymond F. Collins, “‘A New Commandment I Give to You, That You Love One Another …’ (John 13:34)”, in These Things have been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel (ed. Raymond F. Collins; Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 2; Louvain: Peeters, 1990), 217–256; Andreas Dettwiler, “Umstrittene Ethik – Überlegungen zu Joh 15,1–17”, in Johannes-Studien: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Johannes-Evangelium (ed. Martin Rose; Zurich: TVZ, 1991), 175–189; Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die Liebe zu den Brüdern und Schwestern, Exkurs 3”, in idem, Der erste Johannesbrief (EKK 13.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 277– 280; Jörg Augenstein, Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen (BWANT 134; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1993); Michael Figura, “Die johanneische Botschaft von der Liebe”, IKaZ 23 (1994): 409–418; Ingrid R. Kitzberger, “Love and Footwashing: John 13:1–20 and Luke 7:36–50 Read Intertextually”, BibInt 2 (1994): 190–206; Wilhelm Thüsing, “Glaube an die Liebe: Die Johannesbriefe”, in idem, Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (ed. Thomas Söding; WUNT 82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 216–232; Dwight Moody Smith, “The Love Command: John and Paul?”, in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters (eds. Eugene H. Lovering and Jerry L. Sumney; Festschrift Victor Paul Furnish; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1996), 207–217; Thomas Söding, “‘Gott ist Liebe’: 1 Joh 4,8.16 als Spitzensatz Biblischer Theologie”, in Der lebendige Gott: Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (ed. Thomas Söding; Festschrift Wilhelm Thüsing; NTAbh 31; Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 306–357; Michael Theobald, “‘Gezogen von Gottes Liebe’ (Joh 6,44f.): Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung eines johanneischen ‘Herrenworts’”, in Schrift und Tradition (eds. Knut Backhaus and Franz G. Untergaßmair; Festschrift Josef Ernst; Paderborn et al.: Schöningh, 1996), 315– 341; Jan G. van der Watt, “Liefde in die familie van God”, HTS 53 (1997), 557–569; G. Charles Anthony Fernando, “John 1:17 as Window to the Realities of Law and Love in the Fourth Gospel”, BiBh 24 (1999): 172–191; Tony Kelly, “‘God is Love’: A Theological-Moral Reading of 1 John”, StMor 37 (1999): 35–71; Adele Reinhartz, “To Love the Lord: An Intertextual Reading of John 20”, in The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation (eds. Fiona C. Black, Roland Boer and Erin Runions; Festschrift Robert C. Culley; SBL Semeia studies 36; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999), 53–69; Gerd Theißen, Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Kaiser, 2000), 268–272. Enno E. Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus (WUNT 2.197; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Hans Weder, “Das neue Gebot: Eine Überlegung zum Liebesgebot in Johannes 13”, in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean (eds. Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz; Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag; Zurich: TVZ, 2009), 187–205.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

49

Sufficient proof for this is provided simply by the quantitative evidence of the occurrences of the terms γαπάω and φιλέω.15 Additionally, Johannine writings develop love as a key theological term to an extent unequaled in any other New Testament writing. In the opinion of many scholars, however, Jesus’ universal commandment concerning love is reduced in its ethical implementation to simply brotherly love. Whereas, according to the evidence of the synoptics, Jesus’ interpretation of the commandment of love was characterized by an extension of the love of one’s neighbor across ethnic-religious borders (see Luke 10:25–33) even to one’s enemy (Matt 5:43–48): in John love seems to be concentrated on an inner circle within the community (John 15:13, 17). This provokes the questions: “Did the Johannine tradition (thus) betray the original breadth of Jesus’ commandment of love?”16 Does John represent a “particularistic ethics of the conventicle”? 17 Let us return to Meeks. In the 1970s, Meeks used categories belonging to the sociology of knowledge to attempt to prove that the entire Gospel of John can be understood as a “projection of the social situation of the community”. 18 With the christological image of an alien revealer, the Gospel proposes a symbolic identification which religiously legitimates the social isolation of the group from society as a whole. This fundamental idea has often been extrapolated, with the many variations and modifications of this approach,19 defining the socio-historical situation of the Johannine com15 The verb γαπν (‘to love’) is found 36 times in the Gospel of John, 31 times in the Johannine writings; the noun γάπη occurs 7 times in the Gospel, 21 times in the Johannine epistles. In relation to the overall usage of the verb in the New Testament, the Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles account for almost half of the occurrences of the verb and, concerning the noun, for almost a quarter of the occurrences. 16 See Klauck, “Liebe zu den Brüdern und Schwestern” (n. 14), 278 (unless otherwise noted, all translations here and throughout are my own). 17 Schrage, Ethik (n. 2), 300. 18 Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism”, JBL 91 (1972): 44–72 (German translation in idem, Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums [TB 62; Munich: Kaiser, 1979], 245–283); once again in Wayne A. Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 322: “The gospel presents … the mirror of a community that has been formed in the crucible of conflict.” 19 According to George L. Renner, Johannine Christology provides the possibility of a self-understanding as a holy, egalitarian community withdrawn from the world. Cf. George L. Renner, “The Life World of Johannine Community: An Investigation of the Social Dynamics Which Resulted in the Composition of the Fourth Gospel” (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1982); Jerome H. Neyrey tries to shed some light upon the sociological situation of the congregation with Mary Douglas’s ‘group/grid model’. He detects a correlation between the decisive development of a “high Christology” (Jesus is equal to God) and a community which is isolated from its Jewish and Christian context (weak group/low grid), cf. Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1988).

50

Ruben Zimmermann

munity in many very different ways, be it as an inter-Jewish,20 a JewishChristian,21 or an inter-Christian22 crisis situation. There has, however, been general consensus on the fact that the ethics corresponding to the sociological definition of the community is an in-group ethics or a non-standard or conventicle ethics. Consequently, in the second part of the work mentioned, Meeks accepts Johannine ‘ethics’ to the extent that, due to the close connection to Jesus, a kind of social ethics is propagated, which inwardly creates a strong community and outwardly mobil-

20 Cf. J. Louis Martyn’s (now revised) hypothesis (cf. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel [2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1979]). Martyn reconstructed four separate steps in the process of separation of the Johannine community from the local synagogue with the help of his ‘two-level’-model of reading the Gospel of John (cf. Martyn, History, 37, 62, 129) and first directly related the reformulation of the Birkat-ha-Minim in the school of Jamnia/Jabne to the Johannine situation (cf. Martyn, History, 64–68). Concerning this approach cf. also Dwight Moody Smith, “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John”, in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honour of J. Louis Martyn (eds. Robert T. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1990), 275– 294; Jörg Frey, “Das Bild der ‘Juden’ im Johannesevangelium und die Geschichte der johanneischen Gemeinde”, in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium (eds. Michael Labahn, Klaus Scholtissek and Angelika Strotmann; Festschrift Johannes Beutler; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 33–53, here 39–40. In German-speaking scholarship the works of Klaus Wengst had a similar impact; he locates the origin of the Gospel of John within a conflict concerning the questions of Christology between Jews and Jewish Christians, between a “rabbinisch geleiteten Mehrheit und einer auf Jesus bezogenen Minderheit”, after 70 C.E. Cf. Klaus Wengst, Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: Ein Versuch über das Johannesevangelium (4th expanded ed.; Munich: Kaiser, 1992); idem, Das Johannesevangelium, vol. 1: Kapitel 1–10 (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 4.1; Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 2000), 26–28. 21 Cf. Johannes Rinke, Kerygma und Autopsie: Der christologische Disput als Spiegel johanneischer Gemeindegeschichte (HBS 12; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1997); Benjamin Willem Jacobus de Ruyter, De gemeente van de evangelist Johannes: Haar polemiek en haar geschiedenis (Delft: Eburon, 1998). 22 According to De Jonge the struggle for intracommunal stabilization and specification of Christology is of primary concern; yet, because of a lack of missionary, polemical, and apologetic presentation, no prevailing conflict can be detected, cf. Marinus de Jonge, “Variety and Development in Johannine Christology”, in idem, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God (SBLSBS 11; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1977), 193–222; idem, “Christology and Theology Particularly in the Fourth Gospel”, in The Four Gospels (eds. Frans van Segbroeck et al.; Festschrift Frans Neirynck; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 1835–1853; idem, “Die Christologie des Johannesevangeliums und der johanneischen Briefe”, in idem, Christologie im Kontext: Die Jesusrezeption im Urchristentum (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 128–140; idem, “Christology, Controversy and Community in the Gospel of John”, in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honor of D. R. Catchpole (eds. David G. Horrell and Christopher Tuckett; NovTSup 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 209–229.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

51

izes powers of resistance against the hostile world.23 Correspondingly, the ethical instructions for the closed circle of the Johannine community are reduced to one single rule, which is presented as a ‘new commandment’: “Love one another” (John 13:34; 15:12–17). For Meeks, this voice of the Fourth Evangelist “is sharply sectarian and culturally and politically subversive”.24 Thus, the qualifications mentioned above have come full circle. Use of the commandment of brotherly love or sociological observation of the Johannine community does not allow for us to establish an ethical claim of the Fourth Gospel.25 A contemporary usage for similarly conflicted community situations is just as dangerous as separating this sectarian ethics out of its context and transferring it to general ethics, for example to that of a powerful church, as is demonstrated by the anti-Judaic Wirkungsgeschichte of the Gospel (particularly of chapter 8). Must we thus conclude that the Fourth Gospel is inappropriate for a discussion of Christian ethics? Must we decide that the Gospel of John, except for a limited sectarian ethics, contains no ethics at all? Taking up Meeks’ arguments I will challenge this consensus by setting forth four objections: First, I will look more closely at specific terms used frequently in the Gospel (the phenomenological objection); second, I will question the methods that are employed in searching for ethics (the methodological objection); third, the form as a media for ethics will be taken into account (the form-critical objection), and finally, taking the example of ‘friendship’, John will be read against the background of contemporary ethical discourse (the tradition-historical objection).

23 Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (n. 7), 323: “To abide in Jesus’ logos entails abiding in the community, and ‘to abide’ carries the strong connotation of resistance to the dark and hostile world.” 24 Ibid., 324. 25 See also Martin Rese, “Das Gebot der Bruderliebe in den Johannesbriefen”, Theologische Zeitschrift 41 (1985): 44–58, esp. 57: “Unter dem Markenzeichen der Bruderliebe sah man nur noch auf die eigene, konventikelhafte Gemeinschaft […]. Die Welt wurde zur teuflischen Gegenmacht, christliches Handeln auf den Binnenraum der Gemeinden der gleichgesinnten Brüder begrenzt und christliche Theologie zur Esoterik des eingeweihten Zirkels.” Similarly Marxsen, Ethik (n. 2), 263; Smith, “Love Command” (n. 14), 207–217; Matera, Ethics (n. 2), 92.

52

Ruben Zimmermann

2. The Phenomenological Objection: Looking for Traces of Ethics The apparent scholarly consensus must first be tested by a detailed reading of the Gospel itself. Doing so from a phenomenological perspective, we notice terminology that causes us to pause for thought. The statistical evidence impressively demonstrates that there is no other New Testament book in which the term ποιε$ν (“to do/act”) occurs more often: TABLE 1: Occurrences of ποιε$ν in Verses of New Testament Writings 0 Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1Cor 2Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1Thess 2Thess 1Tim 2Tim Tit Phlm Heb James 1Pet 2Pet 1John 3John Jude Rev

98

(71 of 1068) (45 of 673) (80 of 1149) (98 of 878) (65 of 1002) (23 of 432) (12 of 437) (7 of 256) (6 of 149) (10 of 155) (3 of 104) (3 of 96) (4 of 89) (1 of 47) (4 of 113) (1 of 83) (1 of 46) (3 of 25) (18 of 303) (10 of 108) (3 of 105) (3 of 61) (12 of 105) (3 of 15) (2 of 25) (26 of 405)

On a percentage basis, the usage of ποιε$ν in relationship to the length of the entire work stands out in the Gospel of John. Only the very short books, 3 John and Philemon, contain a higher percentage of ποιε$ν relative to the entire book, and the Gospel of John demonstrates the highest density of all the longer books of the New Testament. More important, however, than the quantitative evidence is the qualitative. On the whole, the dominant statements are those in which Jesus is the subject of the action; however, his actions stand not only in a close relationship with God’s works but also with the deeds of man. Jesus places his actions completely within the scope of God. He carries out the will of the Father; his actions occur at the order of the Father. In this connection, ποιε$ν is used in various, sometimes stereotypical expressions. The Gospel

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

53

often speaks of “doing signs” (τ4 σημε$α ποιε$ν)26 and always with Jesus as the subject. A ‘deed of the will’ and a ‘deed of works’ also occur frequently and in these cases people are also named as the actors. These stereotypical formulations and interchangeable word combinations construct a close network in which God’s work, the actions of Jesus, and the actions of man are placed in close connection with each other.27 Therefore, it would be a misinterpretation of Johannine thinking to strictly separate the actions of Jesus from the actions of man and to attribute to one a theological and to the other an ethical content. This is clearly revealed in the following places: In the speech about the bread, the audience asks Jesus about their own actions but links the question simultaneously to God’s work: John 6:28: εNπον οQν πρς α#τν· τ ποιμεν +να ργαζμεθα τ4 5ργα το θεο;

Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?

John 5:29 also reveals a clearly ethical perspective. This verse speaks contrastingly of people who do right (οH τ4 γαθ4 ποι-σαντες) and who do wrong (οH τ4 φαλα πρξαντες), thus opening the way either for life or for judgment. The orientation toward ‘life’ brings another term into play, which in turn calls to mind ancient discourses. The art of living a good life can be regarded as a central subject of ancient philosophy and ethics.28 Even though, with the work of Pierre Hadot,29 the term τχνη το βίου/ars vivendi has established itself as a key term, we must recognize that this formulation became popular only late in antiquity,30 although the subject itself was well known in much earlier times. In John, the dominant term for life is ζω- or, less frequently, ψυχή.31

26 See John 2:11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2, 14, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30; cf. 10:41. 27 Sometimes the appeal for action is explicitly worded in the imperative: ποι-σατε, Act! (cf. John 2:5; 6:10). 28 See for instance Christoph Horn, Antike Lebenskunst: Glück und Moral von Sokrates bis zu den Neuplatonikern (Munich: Beck, 1998); Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn, eds., Kritik der Lebenskunst (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2007); Ferdinand Fellmann, Philosophie der Lebenskunst (Reinbek: Junius, 2009). 29 See Pierre Hadot, Philosophie als Lebensform: Geistige Übungen in der Antike (trans. Ilsetraut Hadot and Christiane Marsch; 2nd ed.; Berlin: Gatza, 1987). 30 For the history of the term, see Wilhelm Schmid, Auf der Suche nach einer neuen Lebenskunst: Die Frage nach dem Grund und die Neubegründung der Ethik bei Foucault (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1991), 253–269. 31 See ψυχή in John 10:11, 15, 17, 24; 12:24, 25, 27; 13:37, 38; 15:13.

54

Ruben Zimmermann

The semanteme ζω- is used 32 times in the Gospel of John and thus can be regarded as a key term. Again, the density of its usage in John’s writing in comparison to its usage in the rest of the New Testament is surprising. Approximately one third of all records of the term occur in John (23%; 32 of 135): TABLE 2: Occurrences of ζω- in Verses of New Testament Writings 0 Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1Cor 2Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1Tim 2Tim Tit Heb James 1Pet 2Pet 1John Jude Rev

32

(7 of 1068) (4 of 673) (5 of 1149) (32 of 878) (8 of 1002) (14 of 432) (2 of 437) (5 of 256) (1 of 149) (1 of 155) (3 of 104) (2 of 95) (4 of 113) (2 of 83) (2 of 46) (2 of 303) (2 of 108) (2 of 105) (1 of 61) (10 of 105) (1 of 25) (17 of 405)

Above and beyond the quantity of occurrences of ζω- κτλ. the positioning of these terms in the Gospel reveals their importance as key terms. The noun is found twice at the beginning of the prologue (John 1:4) and comes up again in the first conclusion in John 20:31. Ζω- occurs more frequently in John 3–6, reaching a climax in John 6.32 According to John’s understanding, the point of reference for life is found in relationships. Life selfactualizes in the belief in Jesus, which means in the relationship to him and through him (e.g. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life”, in John 6:47; see 20:31). The reality of life and relations in Jesus Christ is, however, not directed toward life after death nor purely toward heaven (to God). It has much more to do with the horizontal – with the level of man. The Gospel of John wants to reveal that the person of the Johannine Jesus (through his life and deeds) is also the basis of actions between people. With regard to the term ‘life’, we could speak of ζω- ethics or ethics of life, as does Mira Stare.33 32 See here Mira Stare, Durch ihn leben: Die Lebensthematik in Joh 6 (NTAbh 49; Münster: Aschendorff, 2004). 33 See Mira Stare, “‘Sein Gebot ist ewiges Leben’ (Joh 12,50): Der Lebensbegriff als ethische Norm im Johannesevangelium”, paper read at the second “Mainz Moral Meeting”, November 2009.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

55

The ζω- ethics of the Johannine Jesus has a place of privilege in the footwashing, in the farewell speech to his followers, and in his prayer with his followers (John 13–17). Ancient ethical discourse is much more concerned with living one’s life as a whole, living a happy or successful life, than it is interested in the clarification of conflictive situations or in material ethics. The prominence of the term ‘life’ in the Gospel of John, therefore, can be seen, against the background of a present-time eschatology, as an indication of the ethical orientation of the Gospel. Within Jewish tradition, ethical reflection is carried out in Torah discussions. In contrast to an earlier devaluation of the Torah, we must recognize here that the meaning of the law as a whole (compare the frequency of the terms νόμος and ντολή)34 as well as in individual quotes and allusions plays an important role in the construction of the Gospel.35 The Moses typology must also be seen in this context.36 Jey J. Kanagaraj and more recently Jan G. van der Watt have attempted to prove that each and every Decalogue law has been adopted and used in the Gospel of John.37 Van der Watt summarizes: “The underlying value system in this Gospel could plausibly be linked to the Jewish law and tradition that goes back to, or at least is based on, the Decalogue.”38

34 ντολή (New Testament: 67): Johannine Corpus: 30 (1 John: 14; John: 10); synoptics: 16 (Matthew: 6; Mark: 6); Pauline corpus: 14 (Romans: 7). ντέλλεσθαι (NT: 15): John: 4; synoptics: 7 (Matthew: 4). 35 Jörg Augenstein, “Jesus und das Gesetz im Johannesevangelium”, Kirche und Israel 14 (1999): 161–179; William R. G. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), here: ch. 5, 432–491; see also his contribution to this volume (pp. 143ff.). 36 Cf. Marie-Émile Boismard, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (BETL 84a; Louvain: Peeters, 1993; orig.: Moïse ou Jésus: Essai de christologie johannique; BETL 84; Louvain: Peeters, 1988); Siegfried Kreuzer, “‘Wo ich hingehe, dahin könnt ihr nicht kommen’: Joh 7,34; 8,21; 13,33 als Teil der Mosetypologie im Johannesevangelium”, in Die Kirche als historische und eschatologische Größe (eds. Wilhelm Pratscher and Georg Sauer; Festschrift Kurt Niederwimmer; Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang, 1994), 63–76; Andreas Lindemann, “Mose und Jesus: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im JohEv”, in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte (eds. Ulrich Mell and Ulrich B. Müller; Festschrift Jürgen Becker; BZNW 100; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 309–334. 37 Cf. Jey J. Kanagaraj, “The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue”, TynBu 52 (2001): 33–60; Jan G. an der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 7), 153–154. 38 Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos” (n. 7), 155; also: “The Jewish law and tradition seem to be the moral bedrock of the value system in the Gospel.”

56

Ruben Zimmermann

Furthermore, it is remarkable that the most prominent imperative ethical instruction39 given by Jesus to his disciples is introduced as a commandment – as a ‘new commandment’:40 John 13:34: &ντολ(ν καιν(ν δδωμι *μ$ν, +να γαπτε λλ-λους, καθ/ς !γπησα *μς +να κα *με$ς γαπτε λλ-λους.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

The fact that Jesus is often described as a teacher (διδάσκαλος/rabbi)41 is certainly not of secondary importance here. This picture is completed by less frequent, but in ethical discussions equally important, terminology. The term 5ργον, which played an important role in Aristotle’s ethics,42 could have a specific ethical meaning, particularly in connection with the Gospel’s orientation toward a goal (see John 19:30: τετλεσται). With a view to ethical discourses other signal words are given in the terms λεύθερος κτλ. (see John 8:32, 33, 36 bis), the use of καλς (see the “good deeds” τ4 καλ4 5ργα, John 10:32–3; also John 2:10; 10:11, 14) or γαθς (John 1:46; 5:29; 7:12; 3 John 11). In individual cases, we must examine whether and to what extent conscious 39 Rainer Hirsch-Luipold pointed out, that imperatives are used frequently in John, see Hirsch-Luipold, “Prinzipiell-theologische Ethik” (n. 7), 293–297, here 297: “Das Johannesevangelium ist voller imperativischer Redeweisen.” 40 See Oda Wischmeyer, “Das alte und das neue Gebot: Ein Beitrag zur Intertextualität der johanneischen Schriften”, in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean (eds. Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz; Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag; Zurich: TVZ, 2009), 207–220. 41 See Ruben Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium: Die Christopoetik des vierten Evangeliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10 (WUNT 171; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 98 ( διδσκαλος John 1:38; 3:2, 10; 7:14, 28; 8:2, 4, 20; 11:28; 13:13–14; 18:19–20; 20:16); therefore, I completely disagree with Hays’s statement: “Jesus is represented in John not as a teacher”, cf. Hays, Moral Vision (n. 2), 138. 42 Cf., for instance, the arguments in Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.1–3 (1094a), who considers the specific ability, task and achievement of a matter perfected in 5ργον. Viewed from this Aristotelian ethical perspective, God’s 5ργον would come into effect in Jesus, Jesus’ 5ργον in the disciples. Of course it is necessary here to analyze further the neoplatonistic-Aristotelic reception of the concept of 5ργον. See, for instance, David Achtenberg, “The Role of the Ergon Argument in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics”, in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy, vol. 4: Aristotle’s Ethics (eds. John Peter Anton and Anthony Preus; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 59–72; Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 142–150; Jörn Müller, “Ergon und eudaimonia: Plädoyer für eine unifizierende Interpretation der ergonArgumente in den aristotelischen Ethiken”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 57 (2003): 513–542.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

57

references are being made here to ancient terminology usage. Looking at Stoic ethics, we can also mention the treatment of emotion, which is denoted in the Gospel of John by means of the key terms φβος (“fear”, John 7:13; 19:38; 20:19), λ1πη (“sorrow”, John 16:6, 20–22), or πιθυμα (“desire”, John 8:44).43 With respect to genre, we must ask to what extent the Johannine farewell speeches imply an ethical claim within the scope of the symposium or consolation literature of the time. This ethical claim is already suggested by the ‘paracletes’ (see the New Testament παρακαλέω,44 “paraclesis” in the New Testament) and is also voiced expressis verbis (see John 14:12: “In truth, in very truth I tell you, he who has faith in me will do what I am doing; and he will do greater things still because I am going to the Father”).45 Summarizing these at first primarily phenomenological observations, we must recognize that the group of motifs of ‘to do/act’ and ‘life’ or ‘law’ have a central importance in the structure of the Gospel. These terms encircle the central ethical questions: How should we act? How can we live a good life? Which rules or laws play a role in deciding our actions? In connection with the observation that other key terms from ancient ethical discourses are used, we begin to doubt that ethics plays no role in the Gospel of John. Instead we must ask whether, in view of this evidence, the problem perhaps lies not in the absence of ethical issues but rather in the one-sidedness of the search for a particular form of ethics. What do we actually mean when we speak of ethics?

43 See recently Petra von Gemünden, “Der Umgang mit Angst und Aggression im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Psychologie des Urchristentums”, in idem, Affekt und Glaube: Studien zur Historischen Psychologie des Frühjudentums und Urchristentums (NTOA/SUNT 73; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 279–306. 44 The term παραινέω, which was constitutive in forming the term ‘paraenesis’ is only rarely found in the New Testament (the verb is used in Acts 27:9, 22; the noun παραίνεσις does not occur at all). 45 See Manfred Lang, “Johanneische Abschiedsreden und Senecas Konsolationsliteratur: Wie konnte ein Römer Joh 13,31–17,26 lesen?”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (eds. Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 365– 412.

58

Ruben Zimmermann

2. The Methodological Objection: What Is “Ethics”? Or What Are We Searching For? The opinions of Meeks and other scholars about Johannine ethics are closely related to a particular expectation or conception of ethics.46 Meeks attempted to capture this conception of ethics as expressed in the following, idealized picture: Ethics presupposes logical rationality. The argumentative representation of the motives for action or for the weighing of values should be carried out in a manner that is governed by reason, enabling communication and intersubjective comprehension. Thus, alongside rationality, there is also a claim to universality. Reasonable representation and analysis of particular motives for action are accessible to and comprehensible for every rational person. And ethics must be expressly oriented toward such generalization. According to this conception, the ethical claim is not fulfilled simply by describing a decision in an individual case. Instead, it is necessary to present motives that can also be comprehended by others. These expectations of ethics converge with a modern concept of ethics as given by contemporary moral philosophy. In this tradition ‘ethics’ is concerned with a rational analysis of morals, the critical examination of ethos, and the questioning of the motives for morality. Ethics is a secondorder activity asking for the logic of moral discourse. According to the moral philosopher Annemarie Pieper, ethics is the “science of moral action” that examines “human practice with regard to the conditions of its morality”. 47 In this view, a strict separation is made between ‘ethics’ as a theoretical reflection and ‘ethos’ as the practice of living morals. Ethics requires living morals; however, ethics is to be understood as the scientific reflection on the moral-ethical judgments and actions of people.48 This differentiation has also made its way into more recent publications on the ethics of the New Testament. According to Michael Wolter, for instance, “the term ethos designates a canon of institutionalised practices

46 Meeks himself puts it like this: “The Fourth Gospel meets none of our expectations about the way ethics should be constructed” (Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” [n. 7], 320). 47 See Annemarie Pieper, Einführung in die Ethik (4th ed.; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 24–30. 48 See the definition in Theologische Ethik: Ein Werkbuch (eds. Gerfried W. Hunold, Thomas Laubach and Andreas Greis; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 3: “Theologische Ethik ist die wissenschaftliche Reflexion auf das moralisch-sittliche Urteilen und Handeln des Menschen im Horizont des christlichen Glaubens.” (Theological ethics is the scientific reflection on the moral-ethical judgments and actions of people within the scope of the Christian faith.)

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

59

which a given group regards as liable”.49 In the introduction to the volume Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament, Van der Watt differentiates between ethos as a “behavioral category” and ethics as “systematic reflection upon these codes, norms, values and principles”.50 The Fourth Gospel is not a systematically developed theory of action, and it does not recognize the differentiation between ethics and ethos. If ‘ethics’ is defined as the systematic-theoretical examination of the lived ethos, as reflection on moral judgment and actions, or even as the science of moral action asking for the logic of moral discourse, the Gospel of John has no ‘ethics’ at all. Under these strict criteria, no New Testament writing can be regarded as ‘ethical’. However, it is not this high standard of a systematically developed theory of action that denies the Fourth Gospel the title of ‘ethical’. The same exegetes who have attributed ethical qualities to other New Testament scriptures despite their consistent deviation from a moralphilosophical work have denied the Gospel of John this same title. This being the case, the previously stated lack of material reification and of discussion of individual life problems such as divorce, food laws, or political participation increases in importance. We expect ethics to be oriented toward practical life problems, making material reification a necessary criterion for the title of ‘ethical’. However, does this conception of ethics correspond to the ancient conception of ethics? Would a reader who is familiar with ancient ethical discourse bring these same standards and expectations to the text? At first glance, such correspondence would seem to be confirmed. It was Aristotle who began to explore “ethical theory” (!θικ( θεωρα; An. post. 1.33 = 89b 9). For him, ethics questioned the foundation of the life of the πόλις composed in custom and habit (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 10.9.3; 1180b 3) and he gave us two ethical works, which consist of systematic reflections on the values and motives for a certain behaviour: the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics.51 The division of philosophy into broad sub49 See Michael Wolter, “‘Let No One Seek His Own, But Each One the Other’s’ (1 Corinthians 10,24): Pauline Ethics according to 1 Corinthians”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 199–217, here 200; idem, “Ethos und Identität in paulinischen Gemeinden”, NTS 43 (1997): 430–444, here 430–431. 50 Jan G. van der Watt, “Preface”, in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), v–ix, here v, vii. 51 See Aristoteles, Eudemische Ethik (eds. Ernst Grumach and Hellmut Flashar; vol. 7 of Aristoteles, Werke in deutscher Übersetzung; trans. Franz Dirlmeier; 4th ed.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984); Sarah W. Broadie, Ethics with Aristotle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); David Bostock, Aristotle’s Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

60

Ruben Zimmermann

domains such as physics, ethics, and dialectics is also an achievement of the Platonic academy, which identifies ethics as an overarching subject area. However, it is striking that “the theoretical understanding of practical philosophy was practiced nowhere in its pure form”.52 We have to remain cautious, even with the often-cited parts of Aristotle. If ethics is defined as a theory enterprise, ‘theory’ in the ancient sense is much broader than its terminological history makes us believe. In θεωρα (“theory”), the original meaning of the word resonates as a ‘seeing’ of that which is there, as a ‘view’. Life and the actions of people should be regarded with a view to their fundamental values, goals and conditions for action. However, antiquity does not call this life ‘ethos’. The modern sociological use of the term ‘ethos’ seems to me to run contrary to the ancient understanding. Instead of conventional collective morality, “ethos” determines “the free actions of people with regard to certain moral criteria”.53 The subject matter of ethos is the ‘character’ or the virtue of a person as it was typically presented by the characters in the dramas. Ancient ethics also cannot be reduced at a formal level to systematictheoretical treatises. Seen as a whole, both of Aristotle’s classical works on ethics are, if anything, the exception. One can scarcely deny the Platonic dialogues an ethical claim, even if they rely on myth. Plutarch’s writings also reflect life problems in different ways. Like Hans-Josef Klauck, we can include Plutarch’s letter of consolation to Timoxena (Παραμυθητικς πρς τ(ν γυνα$κα), written upon the death of their daughter, in the catalogue of moral-philosophical works.54 Furthermore, we would have a certain justification in characterizing the ancient conception of drama as ‘ethical’, because, in this form, questions of lifestyle are discussed and evaluated in the form of the protagonists using specific conflict situations.55 The various forms in which life questions are processed do not in any way renounce the claim to being reflective. These forms do not (merely) want to point out tradition and teaching authority, but also strongly to encourage personal and critical engagement. However, ethical deliberation should not be reduced to logic and rationality, and individual problems should not be

52

See Horn, Antike Lebenskunst (n. 28), 14. See L. Calboli Montefusco, “Ethos”, DNP 4 (1998): 166–167, here 166. 54 See Hans-Josef Klauck, “Nachwort”, in Plutarch, Moralphilosophische Schriften (ed. Hans-Josef Klauck; Stuttgart: Reclam, 1997), 245–256, here 251 (see also the text itself in this collection, 130–144). 55 See, for instance, Mary Whitlock Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 53

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

61

placed at the forefront. Instead, Socrates distinguishes himself by separating the question of the concept of good actions and a good life from the individual situation and searching for longer-term stability. The Greek proverb “Call no man happy until he is dead”, attributed to the sage Solon, expresses the search for guidelines pertaining to life in its entirety rather than for the correctness of individual acts.56 This does not mean, however, that ancient ethics had no practical orientation. On the contrary, ethical works were composed precisely with the claim to practical effectiveness.57 Plato’s Menon, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics or Plutarch’s Moralia, however, are concerned with different subjects than are Immanuel Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals or John S. Mill’s Utilitarianism. In modern concepts of moral philosophy, happiness, virtue, and asceticism, all of which were of central importance in antiquity, lead a more shadowy existence.58 Since the theses of the French philosopher-historians Pierre Hadot and Michel Foucault, this foreignness of the ancient ethical concepts is being re-appreciated under the headings savoir-vivre or ‘ethics of existence’, in German Lebenskunst. According to Hadot, the entire philosophy of antiquity is a technique for life, a Lebenskunst, or a form of life. His thesis has gained numerous followers in various fields, including New Testament scholarship.59 Let us now return to the Gospel of John. The postulated lack of ethics no longer stands the test in view of these new considerations. The fact that research into New Testament ethics has concentrated on paraenetic text segments,60 which are not found in the Gospel of John and very infrequently in the Letters of John, has led scholars to disregard the fact that ancient ethical discourse was much less interested in the clarification of 56

See also Brad Inwood, “Ethik”, DNP 4 (1998): 162–165, here 162. See for instance the famous quote of Seneca: Facere docet Philosophia, non dicere (Seneca, Ep. 20:2). 58 See Horn, Antike Lebenskunst (n. 28), 14. 59 See Manfred Lang, Die Kunst des christlichen Lebens: Rezeptionsästhetische Studien zum lukanischen Paulusbild (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 29; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008) and the article by Hermut Löhr, “Ethik und Tugendlehre”, in Neues Testament und Antike Kultur (eds. Kurt Erlemann et al.), vol. 3: Weltauffassung – Kult – Ethos (ed. Jürgen Zangenberg; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 151–180, here 151: “Den Schriften des NT ist die theologisch-wissenschaftssystematisch seit dem 17. Jh. geläufige Unterscheidung von ‘Theologie’ und ‘Ethik’ fremd. Dies gilt sowohl für den terminologischen Befund wie für die Sache. Die Wörter theologia und ƝthikƝ (erg. theǀria; Aristot. an. post. 89b9) begegnen nirgends.” 60 Cf. the most recent publication Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (eds. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2004); here cf., for instance, the very sophisticated but also critical essay by Wiard Popkes, “Paraenesis in the New Testament: An Exercise in Conceptuality”, 13–46; and idem, Paränese und Neues Testament (SBS 168; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996). 57

62

Ruben Zimmermann

individual questions than has been perceived within the scope of New Testament research. The separation of theology and ethics, does not correspond to ancient thinking, but instead reflects a structure of perception that was introduced by Rudolf Bultmann in order to describe Pauline ethics as an indicative-imperative schema.61 Correspondingly, it was necessary for the Gospel of John, whose formulation is entirely theological, to be characterized as ‘unethical’. The separation of ethics from theology is, however, a historical postulation deserving critical examination with respect to research on Johannine ethics. We can pose more fundamental questions with respect to methodology. The New Testament scriptures are not a systematically developed draft of an ethical system. However, they claim to establish certain values, to prefer particular actions to others, or to speak of the final goal of actions and of a successful life. In the end, their intention is not only to reveal descriptive motives for action but also to recommend, or even prescribe, action. In function they are not different from moral philosophical treatises, even if their origins and genres are different. Furthermore, they have achieved, in part, a remarkable history of reception in the ethics of the west. Thus, in my opinion, it is justifiable to speak of the ‘ethics’ of the New Testament scriptures and to find “implicit ethics”62 in the Gospel of John as in other New Testament writings. Within this process we need a more complex methodological grid to describe such implicit ethics, as I have described in other works.63

61 See my article, Ruben Zimmermann, “Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes”, TLZ 132 (2007): 259–284 and more recently the volume Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ (eds. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Ruben Zimmermann; Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 1 = WUNT 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 62 See Ruben Zimmermann, “The ‘Implicit Ethics’ of New Testament Writings: A Draft on a New Methodology for Analysing New Testament Ethics”, Acta Theologica 43 (2009): 398–422. 63 See the figure with comments in Zimmermann, “The ‘Implicit Ethics’” (n. 62), 405–416.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

63

TABLE 3: Perspectives in Analyzing the ‘Implicit Ethics’ of New Testament Writings

An important aspect of this grid is the serious consideration of linguistic structure as a medium of ethics.64 The fact that the Gospel of John with its concrete literary form finds its own pathway toward portraying such implicit ethics need not be denied here. The deficit of a particular form should not be made into an exclusion criterion in order to deny a work its ethical character. Instead it is more appropriate to seriously regard the existing linguistic structure of a work as a media of its ethical reflection.

3. The Form-Critical Objection: Ethics by means of the Media of Narration and Imagery Indeed, the literary form of the Gospel does not resemble an ethical treatise. We find neither a systematically explored ‘theory of morality’ nor any ethical instructions, vice catalogues, or wisdom gnomes on specific behavior. However, ethical reflection can express itself in many varied linguistic forms. 64 See, more generally, the various contributions within the volume Moral Language in the New Testament; with special focus on John see here Van der Watt, “Ethics through the Power of Language” (n. 7), 139–167.

64

Ruben Zimmermann

The literary macro genre of the Gospel of John is a narrative. Therefore we must ask whether ethical reflection can take place through narration. Along with the growing interest of the humanities in narration comes increasing talk of “narrative ethics”.65 Within the moral-philosophical discussion, the works of the Scottish-American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (born 1929) are a driving force. Drawing on Aristotle, MacIntyre, known to be a communitarian, has attempted to create a new understanding of the term virtue. According to him, virtues serve the purpose of allowing the individual to recognize the commodities inherent to his or her concrete community and to discover a ‘uniform’ or coherent way of life.66 However, anyone who wants to understand his or her life in its entirety must talk about it. Enacted narratives thus become a key term, or let us say, a key form through which ethics are manifested.67 Such a “narrativity is not an outward form that is belatedly added to an event for the purpose of communication or with the dramaturgical intent of creating an effective production. Instead it is a characteristic of the plot itself.”68 Thus, the narrative form becomes the preferred media of representation and communication of ethics. MacIntyre states: “It is because we all live out narratives in our lives and because we understand our own lives in terms of the narratives that we live out; the form of narrative is appropriate for understanding the actions of others.”69 MacIntyre goes one step further, prescribing that narrative discursiveness underlies every ethical question: “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’.”70 The

65

Karen Joisten, “Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer narrativen Ethik: Grundlagen, Grundpositionen, Anwendungen”, in Narrative Ethik: Das Gute und das Böse erzählen (ed. Karen Joisten; DZPh Sonderband 17; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2007), 9–21; Marco Hofheinz, “Narrative Ethik als ‘Typfrage’: Entwicklungen und Probleme eines konturierungsbedürftigen Programmbegriffs”, in Ethik und Erzählung: Theologische und philosophische Beiträge zur narrativen Ethik (eds. Marco Hofheinz, Frank Mathwig and Matthias Zeindler; Zurich: TVZ, 2009), 3–58. 66 See Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (2nd ed.; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984; German title: Der Verlust der Tugend: Zur moralischen Krise der Gegenwart [trans. Wolfgang Rhiel; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1995]). 67 See MacIntyre, After Virtue (n. 66), 197: “I am presenting both conversations in particular then and human actions in general as enacted narratives.” 68 Klaus Günther, “Das gute und das schöne Leben”, in Ethik und Ästhetik: Nachmetaphysische Perspektiven (eds. Gerhard Gamm and Gerd Kimmerle; Tübingen: Ed. Diskord, 1990), 11–37, here 18. 69 MacIntyre, After Virtue (n. 66), 197. See also 201: “Man is in his actions and practice, as well as in his fictions, essentially a story-telling animal. He is not essentially, but becomes through his history, a teller of stories that aspire to truth.” 70 Ibid., 201.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

65

identity and unity of a single human life can be found only in the “unity of a narrative embodied in a single life”.71 According to MacIntyre, however, a good life cannot be identified by one particular narrative. Instead, it is the search, the constant struggle for the unity of the narrative that itself becomes the goal of a good life. In this way, narrativity itself becomes the overarching commodity of life.72 For MacIntyre, the search for the morality-giving narrative of the individual is defined by a pre-history that is determined by tradition and community: “For the story of my life is always embedded in the story of those communities from which I derive my identity.”73 These approaches were taken up within theological ethics by James W. McClendon, Jr., Stanley Hauerwas, and Dietrich Ritschl,74 who, each in his own way, began with the postulation that every person finds him or herself integrated in stories determinining his or her actions and judgments in the community. Even though the effectiveness of this concept with regard to motives for action or the interrelationship of argumentatio and narratio has just begun to be reviewed,75 we can recognize a cautious consensus to the effect that narrative is indeed a form of reflection on its own and should not be categorized simply as fantasy, fiction, or even entertainment.76 Life plans that are worked out narratively can most certainly fulfill the claim to be ethical in the sense that actions have been reflected on, even if logical argumentation is missing.

71 Ibid., (“The answer is that its unity is the unity of a narrative embodied in a single life”, 203). 72 Ibid., 203: “The unity of a human life is the unity of a narrative quest”; see also 204: “The good life for man is the life spent in seeking for the good life for man.” 73 Ibid., 205. 74 Stanley Hauerwas, “The Self as Story. A Reconsideration of the Relation of Religion and Morality from the Agent’s Perspective”, in idem, Vision and Virtue: Essays in Christian Ethical Reflection (Notre Dame: Fides, 1974), 68–89; idem, Selig sind die Friedfertigen: Ein Entwurf christlicher Ethik (ed. Reinhard Hütter; trans. Guy M. Clicqué; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995); James W. McClendon, Jr., Ethics (vol. 1 of idem, Systematic Theology; 2nd ed.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2002); Dietrich Ritschl, ‘Story’ als Rohmaterial der Theologie (TEH 192; Munich: Kaiser, 1976); see an overview on these positions and critique in Hofheinz, “Narrative Ethik als Typfrage” (n. 65). 75 See, for instance, the critical notes of Johannes Fischer, “Über moralische und andere Gründe: Protestantische Einwürfe zu einer moralphilosophischen Debatte”, ZTK 95 (1998): 118–158, here 143; idem, “Vier Ebenen der Narrativität: Die Bedeutung der Erzählung in theologisch-ethischer Perspektive”, in Narrative Ethik (n. 65), 235–252; further Walter Lesch, “Hermeneutische Ethik/Narrative Ethik”, in Handbuch Ethik (eds. Marcus Düwell et al.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 2002), 231–242. 76 See for instance Dietmar Mieth, Erzählen und Moral: Narrativität im Spannungsfeld von Ethik und Ästhetik (Tübingen: Attempto, 2000), 79.

66

Ruben Zimmermann

On the other hand, narrative ethics in the Christian context does not gain its position through the method or by means of narrativity itself. Definitive for Christian narrative ethics is, as suggested by McClendon, its specific imprinting with a particular story, namely the story of God in Jesus Christ. This approach itself is the connection to the Gospel of John. We cannot search for the ethics of the Gospel of John outside of the specific form of the narrative. Instead, ethics is provided through the form of the narrative – ethics is ‘narrative ethics’. The Gospel does not simply tell any story, but rather, drawing on Jewish narrative tradition (think of the reception of typical plots such as the woman at the well in John 4 with reference to Gen 29)77 it tells the story of God in Jesus Christ and simultaneously offers this story as the master narrative for the narrativelyconstituted ethical identity of the audience. Michael Labahn, Udo Schnelle, and János Bolyki have made first attempts to understand Johannine ethics as ‘narrative ethics’.78 Bolyki regards the poetic form of portrayal as ethically relevant and sees the Gospel of John as written in the style of an ancient drama.79 Bolyki points out that ancient dramas generally dealt with an ethical conflict driven by the character (the ethos in the actual sense) of the players. Thus he asks: “How is his theory of ethical conflicts in the ancient tragedies represented in the basic conflict of GJ [the Gospel of John]?”80 Bolyki sees the protagonist Jesus as being primarily in conflict with two ‘collective adversaries’ – on the one hand the ‘Jewish religious leaders’ and on the other the ‘Roman authorities represented by Pilate’. For Labahn, the actors on the narrative level are identification models for the Gospel readers. “As identification models, the narrative characters function as role models for the construction of social life in the communities as well as in the society surrounding the communities. They can be regarded as narrated models because they reflect patterns of ethical behavior.”81 As an example, he analyzes the miracle narrative of the man born blind (John 9:1–41) and describes the step-by-step path of development (v. 11: Yνθρωπος; v. 17: προφ-της; v. 33: παρ4 θεο; v. 35: υHν 77 See Mirjam Zimmermann and Ruben Zimmermann, “Brautwerbung in Samarien? Von der moralischen zur metaphorischen Interpretation von Joh 4”, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 1 (1998): 40–51. 78 Michael Labahn, “Weg eines Namenlosen” (n. 7); Bolyki, “Ethics” (n. 7); Schnelle, “Johanneische Ethik” (n. 7), 322–325. 79 Bolyki follows the exegetical tradition of Hitchcock, Connick, Schenke, Verburg (full bibliography in Bolyki, “Ethics” [n. 7], 199 [n. 3]); Theobald considers the Gospel to be a “dramatische Erzählung”, see Michael Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1 –12 (RNT 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 2009), 14–29. 80 Bolyki, “Ethics” (n. 7), 199. 81 Labahn, “Weg eines Namenlosen” (n. 7), 65.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

67

το νθρπου), which finally climaxes in a profession of faith in Jesus: πιστε1ω, κ1ριε: κα προσεκ1νησεν α#τF (John 9:38). Labahn also points out that, according to the narrative, the followers of the faith must stand the test publicly as their ultimate goal does not lie in their own inner attitude. The blind man who is healed “is thus a representative of narrative ethics which attempts to stand its ground not by fleeing from the world but rather in discursive engagement with the world”.82 The blind man, who develops pragmatic strength precisely through his conscious anonymity, thus becomes a model for a life in the discipleship of Christ that is based both in the world and in the community. Schnelle also draws on the narrative of the man born blind when discussing narrative ethics but expands on it with reference to the Lazarus pericope (John 11) and the ‘Beloved disciple’, whom he views to be stylized as the ‘model disciple’ who invites the reader and the listener to self-constitution. I demonstrated the subtle conception of the Lazarus pericope in another work.83 The three siblings, each in his or her own way, become identification models for the reader in dealing with death and life. The two sisters, especially, are presented in contrasts.84 Martha acts immediately, while Mary at first remains in the house. Martha is an individual confessor of faith, Mary is surrounded by other people. Martha enters into a theological dialogue with Jesus, Mary meets Jesus with gestures. Martha clings to verbal confession, Mary to emotions. Martha is the courageous confessor who uses weighty theological terminology whereas Mary is the trusting believer who mourns, weeps, wails, and anoints the feet. Both represent a way of living and believing but both of them also demonstrate limits: Martha in a cognitive, verbal limitation of faith that runs the risk of pre-

82

Labahn, “Weg eines Namenlosen” (n. 7), 76. See Ruben Zimmermann, “The Narrative Hermeneutics of John 11: Learning with Lazarus How to Understand Death, Life, and Resurrection”, in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (eds. Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer; WUNT 222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 75–101; for a narratological exegesis of John 11, see also Wilhelm Wuellner, “Rhetorical Criticism and its Theory in Culture-Critical Perspective: The Narrative Rhetoric of John 11”, in Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament (eds. Patrick J. Hartin and Jakobus H. Petzer; NTTS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 171–185; idem, “Putting Life Back into the Lazarus Story and Its Reading: The Narrative Rhetoric of John 11 as the Narration of Faith”, Semeia 53 (1991): 113–132; Mark W. G. Stibbe, “A Tomb with a View: John 11.1–44 in NarrativeCritical Perspective”, NTS 40 (1994): 38–54; Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger, “Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala – Two Female Characters in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Feminist, Narrative-Critical Reader Response”, NTS 41 (1995): 564–586. 84 See Zimmermann, “Narrative Hermeneutics” (n. 83), 90–95. 83

68

Ruben Zimmermann

maturely rejecting reality (she does not want Jesus to open the tomb);85 Mary in an emotional limitation of faith that is in danger of losing itself in emotions and gestures (she remains at Jesus’ feet – not standing on her own feet). Finally, Lazarus, who is also introduced at the beginning as beloved, remains obviously passive; he is said to be sick and, in the end, dead (11:13–14). However, Lazarus is, after all, the one to whom life is being given. Lazarus receives life through Jesus without any words or actions. He might be seen as “the prototype of the person of faith who, in the Johannine sense, correctly believes in the resurrection and thus in Jesus as the giver of life”.86 However, can he also be a model for ethics by doing nothing? Looking more closely, we see on the level of the story that Lazarus is not completely passive. He is following the call of Jesus, he hears the voice, comes out, and, most importantly, starts to live in a new way! In this sense, Lazarus becomes a role model not of busy action but of acting as re-acting to Jesus’ deeds. The right way of living is to abide in the life received through Jesus, the right way of loving is to give back the love of God (1 John 4:10), the right way of doing deeds is to continue the deeds of Jesus. Moreover, in the perspective of narrative criticism, it is precisely the indeterminate aspects of Lazarus that make the reader active. “Because of Lazarus’s limited role in the story, it has been the task of various readers to unbind Lazarus and give him a life of his own.”87 Lazarus as narrated character also makes the reader start to do something; he forces the reader to become active and learn about the re-acting ethics presented in John. The foot-washing scene in John 1388 also deals with the subtle gap between activity and passivity. The text is in a central position between the first part (John 1–12) and the farewell discourse and has a central ethical

85

For a critical reading of Martha, see also Francis J. Moloney, “Can Everyone Be Wrong? A Reading of John 11.1–12.8”, NTS 45 (2003): 505–527. 86 Zimmermann, “Narrative Hermeneutics” (n. 83), 96–97. 87 Raimo Haloka, “A Character Resurrected: Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel and Afterwards”, in Characterization in the Gospel: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (eds. David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni; JSNTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 223–263, here 247. 88 See John C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community (JSNTSup 61; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); Christoph Niemand, Die Fußwaschungserzählung des Johannesevangeliums (StAns 114; Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo, 1993); Jean Zumstein, “Die johanneische Auffassung der Macht, gezeigt am Beispiel der Fußwaschung (Joh 13,1–17)”, in idem, Kreative Erinnerung (Zurich: Universitätsverlag, 1999), 99–114; Marianne M. Thompson, “‘His Own Received Him Not’: Jesus Washes the Feet of his Disciples”, in The Art of Reading Scriptures (eds. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 258–273.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

69

importance. Peter cannot allow the exchange of roles89 that has been carried out by Jesus. He refuses90 until Jesus explains to him the necessity of his action. At that point, Peter changes his attitude and now wants his entire body to be washed, which again is wrong (John 13:8–10). If we are here given the impression that Peter is being forced into an attitude of complete passivity, which is difficult for him, the subsequent dialogue makes it clear that this is not the intention. One of the clearest ethical statements of the Gospel says that the disciples should follow Jesus’ example (*πδειγμα). They must first endure Jesus’ actions but should not be forced into passivity by these actions. On the contrary, after the good deed carried out and received by Jesus, they should follow his example and act similarly. John 13:15: *πδειγμα γ4ρ 5δωκα *μ$ν +να καθ/ς γ/ ποησα *μ$ν κα *με$ς ποι:τε.

For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.

We can point out only a few exemplary statements. Within literary and narrative criticism the analysis of characters plays a major role.91 However, there are only a few works which elaborate the role of the character in an ethical horizon. This is surprising because Zθος/ethos in the actual sense in antiquity does not mean anything other than “character”.92 “Character” is the ability of a person to act freely with respect to certain moral criteria. The special aspect of the biblical and Johannine conception of the narrative characters is that they are portrayed in all their ambivalence and ability to develop.93 Precisely because of this they are interesting, lifelike, and ethical. Martha or Thomas can simultaneously be believers and doubters. Peter can act correctly but he can also fail. They are not described statically, but rather dynamically and thereby open up a leeway for action that the reader must evaluate and, in turn, limit. Because alternative behaviors are introduced with these characters in development, the reader himself is drawn into the action and must choose a pathway for himself. 89 See for ancient texts on the issue Der Neue Wettstein, vol. I/2: Texte zum Johannesevangelium (eds. Udo Schnelle, Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001), 635–645. 90 On this aspect see Schnelle, “Johanneische Ethik” (n. 7), 318–319; Thompson, “His Own Received Him Not” (n. 88), 258–260. 91 See Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Adele Berlin, eds., Characterization in Biblical Literature (Semeia 63; Atlanta: SBL Press, 1993); Rhoads and Syreeni, eds., Characterization in the Gospel (n. 87). 92 See Montefusco, “Ethos” (n. 53), 166. 93 See Marianne M. Thompson, “‘God’s Voice You Have Never Heard, God’s Form You Have Never Seen’: The Characterization of God in the Gospel of John”, in Characterization in Biblical Literature (n. 91), 177–204, here 178–179.

70

Ruben Zimmermann

3.1 Images as Models: Jesus as a Role Model In the character of Peter we can recognize how closely narrative and metaphoric representation interact with each other. Peter is portrayed not only as an ambivalent character, but his personality is also represented by the image of the “shepherd”.94 Linguistic images also play a central role within Johannine narratives.95 To the extent that figurativeness possesses an appeal structure,96 ethical implications can also be expressed by this specific linguistic form. From that perspective, metaphors, with their creativity and linguistic talents, are not only descriptive depictions of life but also embody prescriptive visions for life. Metaphors are ethical models.97 Van der Watt was the first to reflect on this connection in his article “Ethics Alive in Imagery”.98 Using individual examinations of the metaphors of the son, the metaphor of origins, the grain of wheat, and the grapevine, Van der Watt comes to the following conclusion: “Together these imageries give the reader a feeling of the essence of ethical behavior. It is relational rather than legalistic – acting in a specific way because you are related in a specific way.”99 I would like to take up this idea and develop it further with regard to the theological motives for action in John. Metaphors and symbols also serve to a large extent to reveal Jesus and his function, that is, the Christology in the Gospel of John. The christological images are not employed in exclusivity but rather they serve as role models for the disciples of Jesus.100 Christology and general theology and ethics converge here, instead of being separated from each other. The christological act of seeing leads not only to a ‘revelation’ with regard to the imaginary object, but also to a ‘discovery’ with respect to the subject who is seeing. He who recognizes Christ in the linguistic images, he who understands His divine reality, also 94 See François Tolmie, “The (not so) Good Shepherd: The Use of Shepherd Imagery in the Characterisation of Peter in the Fourth Gospel”, in Imagery in the Gospel of John (n. 7), 353–367. 95 See Frey, Van der Watt and Zimmermann, eds., Imagery in the Gospel of John (n. 7). 96 Cf. here my argumentation in Ruben Zimmermann, “Einleitung: Bildersprache verstehen”, in idem, Bildersprache verstehen (Übergänge 38; Munich: Fink, 2000), 13–56, here 27–28. 97 See Wolfgang Bergem, Metapher und Modell: Ein Wuppertaler Kolloquium zu literarischen und wissenschaftlichen Formen der Wirklichkeitskonstruktion (Schriftenreihe Literaturwissenschaft 32; Trier: WVT, 1996). 98 Cf. Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics Alive in Imagery”, in Imagery in the Gospel of John (n. 7), 421–448. 99 See Van der Watt, “Ethics Alive in Imagery” (n. 98), 448. 100 See on the following Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder (n. 41), 438–441 (model: ecclesiological-ethical dimension).

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

71

discovers his own reality in a new light. The salvation visible in Christ transcends the present day of the faithful, draws them into christological reflection, and becomes the standard for their own actions. The statements made after the foot-washing with regard to Jesus’ symbolic action (John 13:15) are very pertinent to his figurative presentation. The roles and images in which Jesus is presented are meant to become paradigms or key images for the disciples. Just as Jesus takes up the role of the servant, so the disciples also should serve. The disciples should and can take on the roles and images of Jesus. In this way, the images of Christ become the models of a life in faith101 and models of ethics. Correspondingly, the individual images of Christ become key images for the faithful with relation to their own actions. Jesus, who is introduced as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), calls his disciples to follow him like sheep in a herd (John 10:14–16). However, the “Good Shepherd” also calls his disciples to be shepherds (John 21:15–19). The one who has been sent into the world sends his disciples (John 17:18; 20:21). The body of the faithful will become the source of the living water by means of Jesus’ water of life (John 4:14).102 Even the dying grain of wheat becomes the role model for “everyone who loses his life” (John 12:24–25). This inclusion of the faithful in figurative Christology does not even stop at exclusive statements of holiness. The disciples should be “made holy” (John 17:17) in the same way that Jesus himself is called the “Holy One of God” (John 6:69, see also 10:36).103 Further, he who has come to see can, in his new existence, say “I am” as Jesus does, as is shown in the man who was born blind.

101 An analogy to this figure of thought – however in a rather terminological-theological sense – can be found in the justification of the commandment to love, cf., for instance, John 15:9–17; 1 John 4:7–10 etc.; cf. here Klauck, “Liebe zu den Brüdern und Schwestern” (n. 14), 277–280; Augenstein, Liebesgebot (n. 14), 67–72; 109–113; a comprehensive study in this respect is Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 14). 102 In the context of the transfer of titles and images of Christ in the Johannine corpus the address κυρία in 2 John 1 can be regarded as a derivation from the title κύριος. Cf. here Martin Hengel, “Die ‘auserwählte Herrin’, die ‘Braut’, die ‘Mutter’ und die ‘Gottesstadt’” in idem, Studien zum Urchristentum: Kleine Schriften VI (ed. Claus-Jürgen Thornton; WUNT 234; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 508–548. 103 In this respect, the concept of ‘holiness’ draws on an Old Testament ethical conception as reflected, for instance, in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 19–26): the appeal for a life in holiness is based on a theonomic argumentation, cf. Lev 19:2: “You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy.”

72

Ruben Zimmermann

John 9:9: Yλλοι 5λεγον 3τι Ο^τς στιν: Yλλοι 5λεγον, Ο#χ, λλ4 3μοιος α#τF στιν. κε$νος 5λεγεν 3τι &γ ε?μι.

Others said, “Yes, this is the man.” Others again said, “No, but it is someone like him.” The man himself said, “I am the man.”

Through his relationship to God, described with the image of the ‘son’, Jesus opens up to his followers a similarly intimate relationship to God. In his first farewell discourse, Jesus announces to his disciples that he will receive them into the house of his Father (John 14:1–2). In the so-called ‘high priestly prayer’ Jesus even prays for the disciples to be taken up in unity with the Father (John 17:21). Not only may they, like Jesus, call God “Father” (John 20:17), but in the same way that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’, his followers may also become “sons” and “children of God” (τέκνα and τεκνα θεο) as was already pronounced in the prologue: John 1:12: 3σοι δ; 5λαβον α#τν, 5δωκεν α#το$ς ξουσαν τκνα θεο γενσθαι, το$ς πιστε1ουσιν ε?ς τ Cνομα α#το.

But to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

A similar movement can be seen in the house and temple metaphors. Jesus’ body is expressed metaphorically as the new temple (John 2:21) and the Johannine community, drawing on John 14:1–3, is allowed to regard itself as the new spiritual temple and house of God on earth.104 The metaphoric transformation of the titles makes it possible to extract christological titles of divinity from a position of exclusivity and to turn them into interpretive concepts or life coping mechanisms for the Johannine Christians and other recipients. In this way, the figurative Christology corresponds to the typical Johannine figure of thought, so that the categorical structure valid for

104 Cf. the linguistic contact between John 2 and John 14 through the phrase οNκος το πατρς μου (John 2:16; 14:2). Mary Coloe especially has highlighted the ecclesiolo-

gical dimension of the Johannine temple Christology, for in her opinion the ‘new Temple’ became the central and identity-building symbol of the Johannine community, cf. Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, Pa.: Liturgical Press, 2001), 3: “for the Johannine community the Temple is the major symbol that functions in two ways: i. The Temple, as the dwelling place of God, points to the identity and role of Jesus; ii. The imagery of the Temple is transferred from Jesus to the Christian community, indicating its identity and role […]. The Temple functions in the narrative as the major christological symbol that gradually shifts its symbolic meaning from the person of Jesus to the Johannine community in the post-resurrection era.” Cf. also ibid., 220–221.

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

73

the relationship between Jesus and God is transferred to the relationship between Jesus and his disciples (see John 15:9; 17:20–23; 20:21).105 At the same time, this role model Christology should not be confused with a misunderstood imitatio ethics, which John demonstrates by making subtle differentiations. The relationship of the disciples to God remains one that is mediated by Jesus – a fact that is supported by the image use. Linguistic nuances reveal that Jesus’ followers are not shepherds, sons, or messengers in the same way that Jesus is. While Jesus (like God in tradition) is the owner of the flock, Peter is ordered to tend Jesus’ sheep (John 21:15–17: Tend my sheep!) and does not become the owner of a flock. In this way, the followers can “walk in the light” (John 8:12; 12:35) and can be called “sons of the light” (John 12:35) but themselves are not identified with the ‘light’.106 The linguistic differentiation between the “Jesus lamb” ( μνός) and the “disciple sheep” ( μνός) or between the ‘Son’ terminology for Jesus and the “child” terminology (John 1:12: τέκνα, cf. 1–3 John) for Jesus’ followers or the addition of `διος to the Father of Jesus (John 5:18: κα πατρα `διον 5λεγεν τν θεν, cf. John 20:17) can also be understood as indications of this sort of qualification. This ethics expressed through images has the function primarily of increasing accessibility, not of limiting it. The images of Christ can and should become key images for action and a life in faith and do not pertain only to a particular ‘flock’ from a particular ‘stable’. The material that John 10 developed in detail into the Christ image of the shepherd is valid for all Christ images in the Gospel. Anyone who hungers for the bread of life or has the thirst of faith can come to Jesus and will be satisfied (John 6:35; 7:37–38). The salvation that illuminates all of the images of Christ is 105 Cf. also Klaus Scholtissek, In ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften (HBS 21; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2000), 372: “Eine der wichtigsten theologischen Denkfiguren des Evangelisten ist die Übertragung von Strukturelementen der Vater-Sohn- auf die Sohn-Christen-Beziehung.” Similarly, Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 1 (AB 29; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 407: “It will be noted that all these relationships between Father and Son are described in function of the Son’s dealing with men.” With respect to the Bildlichkeit ( ε?κν) of the logos, cf. also the analogy in creation-theology (with reference to Gen 1:27) in Philo, Leg. alleg. 3.96: “For, as God is himself the model of that image …, so also that image is the model of other things, … as the image was modelled according to God, and as man was modelled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of the model” (trans. C. D. Yonge). 106 Cf. Otto Schwankl, Licht und Finsternis: Ein metaphorisches Paradigma in den johanneischen Schriften (HBS 5; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1995), 267: “Trotz der in vielen Wendungen beschriebenen und bis zum Äußersten, vielmehr bis zum Innersten (vgl. 11,10c; 1Joh 1,7a; 2,9a.10b) gesteigerten Annäherung vermeidet Johannes eine Identifizierung. Durch die Wendung ‘Söhne des Lichtes’ bleiben die Glaubenden und das Licht zwei unvermischte und unverwechselbare Größen.”

74

Ruben Zimmermann

meant for all people (John 12:24, 32) and for the entire cosmos (John 1:29; 3:16). Correspondingly, the images of Christ can become the models for a new community of salvation, constituted by Christ. Drawing on the most powerful ‘model’, Jesus’ followers can, through him, become ‘children of God’ and ‘siblings in a family of faith’ that on the one hand is based on an affiliation of family ties but on the other hand remains open to the world and does not erect sectarian borders.

4. The Tradition-Historical Objection: The Ethics of Friendship as a Test Case At this point we need to ask whether one may recognize, using systematic or literary criteria, an implicit orientation and motivation of action in the Gospel of John and whether, in doing so, it is simply a contemporary hermeneutical interpretation that ignores the historical communication situation. Or, in other words, would the first readers of the Gospel, who were familiar with ancient ethical discourse, have recognized the ethical claim of the Gospel? Instead of delving into an overview of the still controversial religious-historical contexts of the Gospel of John,107 I will consider one issue in particular – friendship – and use it as a test case. Is friendship, however, even a moral value? If we begin with the general idea that friendship is the connection of one person to another through affection, it is in fact not particularly suited to act as a paradigm for an ethical discourse that is distinguished by universality and equality. At least, this was the opinion of Søren Kierkegaard108 and Immanuel Kant.109 However, precisely in this way, this example is indeed suited to be a test case. Much of that which is regarded as “ethical” or “unethical” based on the modern discourse influenced by Kant cannot simply be transferred to antiquity. In ancient discourse, the subject of ‘friendship’ played an important part in ethical treatises.110 Plato deals with the subject in Lysis, Aristotle devotes 107 Cf. the overview in Jörg Frey, “Auf der Suche nach dem Kontext des vierten Evangeliums: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Einführung”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (n. 45), 3–46. 108 Cf. Sören Kierkegaard, Der Liebe Tun (vol. B; trans. Hayo Gerdes; Cologne: Diederichs, 1966), 60: friendship is “Vorliebe und die Leidenschaft der Vorliebe” – in contrast to the love of the neighbor, which is “ewige Gleichheit im Lieben” (ibid., 66). 109 See Kant’s dictum on friendship as “das Steckenpferd der Romanenschreiber”, Immanuel Kant, Die Metaphysik der Sitten (ed. Paul Natorp), in Kants Werke: Akademie Textausgabe, vol. 6 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968), 470. 110 See Kurt Treu, “Freundschaft”, RAC 8 (1972): 418–434; Barbara von Reibnitz, “Freundschaft II. Philosophisch”, DNP 4 (1998): 669–674: “[φιλία/amicitia] ist ein

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

75

a great deal of attention to friendship in his two Ethics (Eth. nic., books 8 and 9, ca. one fifth of the work; see Eth. eud., book 7) and we also think of Plutarch’s treatise Περ πολυφιλίας or Cicero’s Laelius de amicitia. In his discussions on friendship,111 Aristotle identified three reasons why people make friends and love each other:112 1) utility (τ χρήσιμον), 2) desire ( δονή), and 3) the pursuit of goodness ( γαθς) (Eth. nic. 8.3.1–5; 1155b–1156b). In the latter, friends reciprocally desire goodness for each other. It is necessary to aspire for goodness and happiness for a friend (Eth. nic. 8.2.3) and when this virtuous behavior is pursued reciprocally, it deserves to be characterized as friendship (Eth. nic. 8.2.3; 9.4.1). When friendship is not pursued for the purpose of the goodness of someone else, but for the virtuous friend himself, it is the most valuable, most perfect sort of friendship: “(It) is the friendship of men who are good and alike in virtue; for these wish well alike to each other qua good” (Eth. nic. 8.3.7; 1156b). In addition to the reasons for friendship, Aristotle discusses the problem from the viewpoint of equality and inequality. One can speak of a ‘friend’ in the true sense only if there is a relationship of equality and reciprocity. Although a friendly relationship can exist between an adult and a child, it makes little sense to speak of ‘friendship’ in such a case (Eth. eud. 7; 1239a 4–6). Here, Aristotle draws on the Platonic tradition of 3μοια 3μοιος (see Plato, Lys. 214d) which states that only similar people can be reciprocal friends (e.g., the good with the good). “Friendship is equality” (φιλότης, ?σότης, Eth. nic. 8.5.5), although it must be emphasized here that it is not equality of age or status that counts, but rather equality of virtue. Let us now look at the motif of friendship in the Gospel of John.113 Embedded in a dense network of motifs of love (primarily with γαπάω zentraler Begriff und ein konstant behandeltes Thema der ant.[iken] Ethik.” David Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Graeco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; SBLRBS 34; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997). 111 See for Aristotle on friendship Friedo Ricken, “Ist Freundschaft eine Tugend? Die Einheit des Freundschaftsbegriffs der Nikomachischen Ethik”, ThPh 75 (2000): 481–492; Anthony W. Price, “Friendship (VIII and IX)”, in Die Nikomachische Ethik (ed. Otfried Höffe; Klassiker Auslegen 2; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995), 229–251. 112 This differentiation can also be found in Plutarchus’ Περ πολυφιλίας 3 (Mor. 94b); see the edition Plutarch von Chaironeia, Moralphilosophische Schriften (selected, trans. and ed. Hans-Josef Klauck; Stuttgart: Reclam, 1997), 44. 113 See Jens Schröter, “‘Sterben für die Freunde’: Überlegungen zur Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium”, in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (eds. Axel von Dobbeler et al.; Festschrift Klaus Berger; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 263–287 (highlighting martyriology); Klaus Scholtissek, “‘Eine größere Liebe als diese hat niemand, als wenn einer sein Leben hingibt für seine Freunde’ (Joh 15,13): Die hellenistische Freundschaftsethik und das Johannesevangelium”, in Kontexte des Johannesevange-

76

Ruben Zimmermann

κτλ., but also φιλέω),114 the word ‘friend’ (φλoς) is also used explicitly in prominent places. John the Baptist is called the ‘friend of the bridegroom’, which takes up the Aramaic terminus technicus for the best man but is also expanded in the context of Johannine language and motifs.115 In John 11:11, Jesus calls Lazarus “our friend”, drawing on the introductory characteristic of the love relationship (John 11:3, 36 utilizing φιλέω). Furthermore, in the denunciation by the Jewish authorities, Pilate is called a “friend of Caesar” (John 19:12). The subject of friendship is taken up again with more intensity in John 15:13–15. In the middle verse, the connection between friendship and ethics is clearly presented when the disciples, acting according to the will of Jesus, are called friends: John 15:14: *με$ς φλοι μο1 στε 4ν ποι:τε M γ/ ντλλομαι *μ$ν.

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Alongside this, we have classical motifs from the ancient ethics of friendship. The repudiation of the hierarchical gap between master and slave (John 15:15) alludes to the principle of equality among friends. The actual motivation for friendship lies, however, in Jesus’ openness and in the participation in knowledge. Because the slave knows of the doings of his master, he can be called ‘friend’. That which at first is formulated generally in the metaphor, is applied concretely in John 15:15b to Jesus, the Father and the disciples: John 15:15: *μς δ; ε`ρηκα φλους, 3τι πντα M aκουσα παρ4 το πατρς μου γνρισα *μ$ν.

… but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.

This names the analogue, three-way relationship common to John (Father/ Jesus: Jesus/disciples) and the motif of open and free participation refers directly to the idea of παρρησία from the ancient ethics of friendship.116

liums (n. 45), 413–439; more general Hans-Josef Klauck, “Kirche als Freundesgemeinschaft: Auf Spurensuche im Neuen Testament”, in idem, Gemeinde zwischen Haus und Stadt: Kirche bei Paulus (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1992), 95–123. 114 See Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes (n. 14). 115 See here Mirjam Zimmermann and Ruben Zimmermann, “Der Freund des Bräutigams (Joh 3,29): Deflorations- oder Christuszeuge?”, ZNW (1999): 123–130. 116 See William Klassen, “ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙΑ in the Johannine Corpus”, in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies of Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; NovTSup 82; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 227–254; Stanley Marrow, “ Παρρησία in the New Testament”, CBQ 44 (1982): 431–446; Michael Labahn, “Die παρρη-

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

77

Unlike the cases of flatterers or hypocrites, good friendship is characterized by openness in the relationship to the partner, as is emphasized by Philodemus and Plutarch (Adulator).117 There can be no secrets among friends (see Polybius, Hist. 21.23.11–12; 38.4.3–5; Seneca, Ep. 3:2–3; Philo, Her. 21). However, most powerful and most controversial are the introductory verses, in which the willingness to sacrifice one’s life for a friend is honored as the highest form of love (John 15:13). Jesus’ death is described here as ‘effective death’, which is consciously accepted or even desired in order to protect the community of the group.118 This idea is certainly not new as the willingness to sacrifice life for a greater good (e.g., the state, the polis) occurs frequently in profane Greek texts (see Aristotle, Eth. nic. 9.8; Plutarch, Pel. 21.2–3; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.154–155 etc.).119 Jesus dies for his friends. They, subsequently, can and should in turn give their lives for others (1 John 3:16), so that a community of like-minded people arises. Thus, we can agree with Scholtissek who states that “Johannine ethics and also the ethics of friendship in 15:13–15 … [is] responsive ethics”.120 Because it calls for an imitative behavior, it is also an ethics of community. However, as much as we may want to recognize the importance of the ethics of friendship in John, we must simultaneously ask whether all we have here is a sectarian ethics of the conventicle. Can an ethics of friendship be universalistic? A narrowing-down of the ethics of friendship took place in the Romantic period and reduced friendship to the private domain. Aristotle himself had extended the concept of friendship beyond personal relationships to the polis, that is into the political domain. He was, therefore, able to categorize the various types of friendship into the different types of constitution (Eth. nic. 8.10.1–8.11.4). This idea is continued in the Roman concept of amicitia, in which friendship took on a consistently political dimen-

σία des Gottessohnes im Johannesevangelium: Theologische Hermeneutik und philosophisches Selbstverständnis”, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (n. 45), 321–363. 117 See, for instance, Konstan, Friendship, Frankness and Flattery (n. 110), 7–19. 118 There is no consensus as to whether this is the prevalent interpretation of Jesus’ death in John (cf. Schröter, “‘Sterben für die Freunde’” [n. 113]) or whether there are other relevant models of interpretation, for instance atonement (cf. Jörg Frey, “Die ‘theologia crucifixi’ des Johannesevangeliums”, in Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament [eds. Andreas Dettwiler and Jean Zumstein; WUNT 151; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002], 169–238). 119 See the parallels in Der Neue Wettstein, vol. I/2 (eds. Udo Schnelle et al.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001), 715–725; as well as Schröter, “‘Sterben für die Freunde’” (n. 113). 120 Scholtissek, “Die hellenistische Freundschaftsethik” (n. 113), 436–437.

78

Ruben Zimmermann

sion.121 Ethics of friendship may be a partisan ethics; however, it possesses a degree of effectiveness that extends far beyond the narrow scope of individual relationships.122 In my opinion, this breadth of the ethics of friendship is revealed in the Gospel of John in the use of the term παρρησία. Whereas in the ancient conception plain speech belonged to the particular characteristics of good friends, this concept is expanded in the Gospel of John to include the entire world and even one’s enemies. Jesus acts and speaks openly: “I have spoken openly to the world (γ/ παρρησ< λελληκα τF κσμ2); I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret (κα ν κρυπτF λλησα ο#δν).”123 Jesus leads a public life. His relentless openness to the world conveys the παρρησία, a concept of ancient ethics of friendship, which was limited to a narrow scope, more widely to all people. In this way, John expands the ideal of friendship to take on a universal meaning. An equally daring openness occurs in yet another sense. According to Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, friendship with God was an idea that took the concept of friendship to an extreme. There can be no ‘friendship’ between man and God and therefore it makes no sense to wish for deification for a friend because the friendship would then come to an end (Eth. nic. 8.7.1–8.8.2; 1158b 34– 1159a 18).124 In contrast, Jesus cut through precisely this hierarchy of the relationship to God. He who may use the title κύριος, which was reserved for God in the Old Testament-Jewish tradition, he who is called ‘my Lord and my God’ in the story of Thomas declares the disciples to be his friends:

121

Friendship could bind two persons of equal status or persons of the status of patron and dependent client. These asymmetrical constellations of friendship are also implied in the title amicus Augusti, which was awarded to high officials under Emperor Augustus. See Ernst Badian, “Amicitia”, DNP 1 (1996): 590–591. 122 In the modern debate, see a similar position from the Boston philosopher Lawrence A. Blum, Friendship, Altruism, and Morality (London: Routledge, 1980); Otfried Höffe, “Ausblick: Aristoteles oder Kant – wider eine plane Alternative”, in idem, Aristoteles (Beck’sche Reihe 535; Munich: Beck, 1996), 277–303, esp. 283. 123 See also John 7:4 ( ν παρρησ< εNναι); 7:13, 26; 10:24; 11:14, 54; 16:25, 29; see Labahn, “Die παρρησα des Gottessohnes im Johannesevangelium” (n. 116), 321–363. 124 “Es kann vieles weggenommen werden und es ist immer noch Freundschaft, ist aber der Abstand sehr groß geworden, z. B. bei der Gottheit, so ist es keine mehr. Daraus konnte die Frage entstehen, ob Freunde wohl wirklich ihren Freunden das Höchste wünschen, z. B. Götter zu sein, denn (würden sie dies), dann könnten sie ihnen nicht länger mehr Freunde bleiben” (trans. Franz Dirlmeier).

Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John?

79

John 15:15–16 ο#κτι λγω *μς δο1λους, 3τι  δολος ο#κ οNδεν τ ποιε$ α#το  κ1ριος: *μς δ; ε`ρηκα φλους, 3τι πντα M aκουσα παρ4 το πατρς μου γνρισα *μ$ν.

No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.

Thus, on the one hand, the example of the ethics of friendship reveals the embedding of Johannine ethics in the tradition-historical environment, for example, of Hellenistic ethics of friendship. On the other hand, the specifically Johannine handling of this discourse becomes clear. John uses the ideal of friendship in order to demonstrate his theology – a theology that promises friendship with God.125

5. Conclusion: Is There Ethics in John? Let us return to our original question: Is there ethics in the Gospel of John? As Matera has already remarked, language and thought in the Gospel of John are challenging with regard to ethics.126 Indeed, for readers seeking ethical issues, “the Gospel of John is a puzzling text”.127 However, precisely this seems to belong to the program of this Gospel. The scenically presented misunderstandings are meant to lead to a deepened understanding. The elusive Christ should make christological insights possible at a higher level. The same is true of ethics. The ethical orientation, at first glance, is lacking and leads to a search and finally an insight into even more fundamental motives for action. John does not want to solve individual problems of daily life itself. Instead he wants to carry out ethical work at a more fundamental level that enables the reader in the end to find a happy life, or in Johannine terminology, an ‘eternal life’, which nevertheless starts from daily life. Thus, at first glance, there is a lack of concrete ethical advice in John. Looking closer, however, John enables different readers in various situations to act concretely. 125 The ideal of friendship with God is not totally new of course, but can also be found in the Jewish tradition. Abraham (Isa 41:8; Jdt 8:19; Baruch 15 etc.) or Moses (Exod 33:11 [LXX]) were declared ‘friends of God’. Moreover this diction was used in Qumran for the members of the community as models of faith, see 1QH VIII, 13; 4Q525 frg. 5,12; CD III, 3–4 (= 4Q269 frg. 2) etc. 126 Matera speaks of a “major challenge” because “there are remarkably few references to moral conduct”. Cf. Frank Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 92. 127 Hays, Moral Vision (n. 2), 138.

80

Ruben Zimmermann

The Evangelist succeeds in this by driving the discourse forward through a narrative plot as well as through images and by leading the reader into a profound discussion with his ‘philosophy of life’. In doing this, he subtly takes up motifs of the moral philosophical discourse of his time, outlined above with the example of the ethics of friendship. The underlying structure of this implicit ethics seems to be simple: the acts of man are connected to Jesus’ deeds and finally to God’s work. The actions of people are thus given a responsive character. Answering is possible when the call is heard. Going out is possible after the shepherd, i.e. the son, has come in. Loving is possible from the experience of being loved. Such a ‘theory of action’ does not work apart from believing, and therefore has nothing to do with passivity. It is more than imitation. It is responsive, reactive ethics. However, re-acting is still acting.

3RVVLEOH&RQWH[WVRI-RKDQQLQH(WKLFV

Beyond Sophia: The Sapiential Portrayal of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and Its Ethical Implications for the Johannine Community Andrew T. Glicksman

1. Introduction Johannine scholars have observed that the Greek words σοφός, “wise”, and σοφία, “wisdom”, do not occur in the entirety of John’s Gospel.1 Despite this lack of explicit wisdom vocabulary in the Fourth Gospel, many scholars have identified an implicit Wisdom Christology therein. Through the use of sapiential imagery and themes, the Fourth Evangelist depicts Jesus not only as a Jewish sage, but also as a manifestation of Sophia, the figure of personified divine Wisdom portrayed in Jewish wisdom texts such as Proverbs 8, the Wisdom of Ben Sira 24, and the Wisdom of Solomon 6–10. In the past century, most scholars have focused on identifying significant wisdom influences in the Prologue,2 however interest has grown in demonstrating that these influences extend to the rest of the Gospel as well.3 Michael Willett, Martin Scott, and Ben Withering1

Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 88. 2 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. George R. BeasleyMurray; eds. Rupert W. N. Hoare and John K. Riches; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1971), 22; J. Rendel Harris, The Origin of the Prologue to St. John’s Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917); Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (3 vols.; trans. Kevin Smyth et al.; New York, N.Y.: Herder and Herder, 1980– 1982), vol. 1, 481–485; Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed.; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster John Knox, 1978), 40, 149–170; Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (2 vols.; Hermeneia; trans. Robert W. Funk; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1984), vol. 1, 138–140; John Ashton, “The Transformation of Wisdom: A Study of the Prologue of John’s Gospel”, NTS 32 (1986): 161–186, here 162; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 239–245. 3 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; AB 29; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966–1970), vol. 1, cxxii–cxxv; Henry R. Moeller, “Wisdom Motifs

84

Andrew T. Glicksman

ton have conducted the most thorough studies on this topic. In this article, I do not seek to merely repeat the extensive comparisons of Sophia and the Johannine Jesus undertaken by these scholars. However, I will review much of this material in order to emphasize that while the Johannine Jesus bears similarities to Sophia, he ultimately surpasses her. Although all three scholars on occasion mention that the Johannine Jesus is a figure who surpasses Sophia,4 they do not fully discuss the significance of this depiction for the Johannine community. My objective is to consider how the presentation of Jesus as “beyond Sophia” might have affected Johannine community ethics. In other words, how does this portrayal of Jesus influence the way that the community’s members related to one another and to the world around them, thereby affecting their behavior?

2. Similarities and Differences between Sophia and the Johannine Jesus Though many parallels exist between John’s Jesus and personified Wisdom, it is beyond the scope of the present study to conduct an exhaustive treatment of this issue. Rather, I will touch upon some of the most salient connections between the two figures of Jesus and Sophia in the areas of (1) origin and trajectory of mission, (2) metaphorical language, and (3) relational language. My main purpose in this comparison is to demonstrate how the differences portray Jesus as surpassing the ancient Jewish notion of Sophia. 2.1 Origin and Trajectory of Mission Sophia and the Johannine Jesus exhibit remarkable similarities in their place of origin and the course of their mission. Both figures carry out missions that follow a pattern of descent and ascent, which Witherington aptly describes as a “V pattern”.5 A capitulation of this pattern is as follows:

and John’s Gospel”, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 6 (1963): 93–98; Michael E. Willett, Wisdom Christology in the Fourth Gospel (San Francisco, Calif.: Mellen Research University Press, 1992); Scott, Sophia (n. 1); Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2000); idem, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1995). 4 For example, see Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 94; Witherington, John’s Wisdom (n. 3), 76. 5 Witherington, Jesus the Sage (n. 3), 370–373; idem, John’s Wisdom (n. 3), 20–22. For other scholars who note this same pattern, see Moeller, “Wisdom Motifs” (n. 3), 92, 94–95; Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 56–66.

Beyond Sophia

85

(1) heavenly preexistence, (2) role in creation, (3) descent from heaven to earth, (4) public call/invitation, (5) rejection, (6) ascent to the heavenly realm. For Sophia, these issues of origin and mission are primarily treated in passages such as Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Wisdom 6–10, and 1 Enoch 42; for the Johannine Jesus, they are intensely concentrated in the Prologue, yet also appear in various passages throughout the rest of the Gospel. 2.1.1 Heavenly Preexistence and Role in Creation Prov 8:22–31 is the foundational text for understanding Sophia’s origination from God and preexistence with him before the creation of the world. In the Septuagint, verses 22–23 read: κύριος 5κτισέν με ρχ(ν δν α#το ε?ς 5ργα α#το, πρ το α?νος θεμελίωσέν με ν ρχ8, “The Lord created me the first of his ways among his works, before the ages he established me in the beginning”. In these verses, Sophia is described as created by God before all else. Ben Sira makes the same assertion: προτέρα πάντων 5κτισται σοφία, “before all things was Sophia created” (Sir 1:4a, see also Sir 24:9). Her presence with God is further emphasized later in Prov 8:30a when, while God is creating the world, she states:  ʥʬʶʠ ʤʩʤʠʥ ʯʥʮʠ, “then I was beside him as a craftswoman”. The beginning of this colon demonstrates that Sophia’s place is in God’s presence. Here the Septuagint reads παρB α#τF, “with him” (see also Sir 1:1 and Wis 9:9, where μετά, “with”, is used). Sophia’s presence before God is also expressed in Sir 24:1–2 where she sings her own praises before the heavenly court. The end of the colon in Prov 8:30a may hint at Sophia’s creative activity alongside the Almighty. While the ambiguity of the term ʯʥʮʠ, “crafts(wo)man” (or perhaps “nursling”, “darling”), calls into question whether Sophia exercises a creative role in this passage,6 her hand in creation is explicitly expressed in Wis 7:22, where she is called  … πάντων τεχν$τις, “the fashioner/craftswoman of all things” (cf. Wis 8:6, where τεχν$τις is used again).7 Thus, Sophia is created before all other things, dwells with God, and serves as his agent of creation.

6

See also Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 36. Moeller, “Wisdom Motifs” (n. 3), 93; Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 36; Scott, Sophia (n. 1), 95, 98. Other wisdom passages hint at Sophia’s creative role. For example, Prov 3:19 states: “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens.” Also, Wis 9:1–2a reads: “O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your word (λγος), and by your wisdom ( σοφα) have formed humankind.” The parallelism between word ( λγος) and wisdom ( σοφα) in this last verse shows that the two terms were often interchangeable, which bears significance for the Logos of John’s Prologue as having attributes similar to Sophia. 7

86

Andrew T. Glicksman

Like Sophia, the Logos is present with God in the beginning and, therefore, is preexistent. He also plays an active role in creation. The opening verses of the Prologue read: &ν ρχ8 Zν  λγος, κα  λγος Zν πρς τν θεν, κα θες Zν  λγος ο^τος Zν ν ρχ8 πρς τν θεν. πντα δι΄ α#το γνετο, κα χωρς α#το γνετο ο#δ; iν, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, nothing came to be without him” (John 1:1–3).8 The key phrase ν

ρχ8, “in the beginning”, which occurs both in John 1:1 and Proverbs 8:23, affirms preexistence by echoing the Septuagint’s opening words of the first creation account in Genesis. Also, just as Sophia is “with” (παρά, μετά) God, the Logos is πρς τν θεν, “with God”, “towards God”. Furthermore, the Logos is similar to Sophia because he is the agent of creation. John 1:3 claims that all things are brought into existence by means of the Logos. Despite these similarities, there are some marked differences between Sophia’s preexistence and presence before God when compared to that of Christ as the Logos. First, some scholars have noted that although there is a similarity between the prepositions παρά, μετά, and πρς insofar as they can denote accompaniment, the latter preposition bears a further connotation of relationship.9 The Logos is not merely “with” God but is also “to” or “oriented towards” God, in an intimate relationship. The use of πρς perhaps infers that the Logos has a higher status than Sophia since he is depicted as being closer relationally to God. Second, while Sophia is created, in these opening verses the Fourth Evangelist does not specify how (or if) the Logos came into existence. Rather, through the fourfold repetition of the verb Zν, “he was”, the author denotes the eternal existence of the Logos.10 This verb is used in contrast to γνετο, “to become”, which is not employed until verse 3 when the creation of all things by means of the Logos is mentioned. Thus, the term γνετο is not used of the preexistent heavenly Logos, which stresses that he creates but was not created.11 Third, the Logos is explicitly said to be divine,12 which is a claim that is never made about Sophia (though, in the Wisdom of Solomon, 8

Aside from the Prologue, other passages in the Gospel point to Christ’s preexistence. For examples, consult John 1:30; 8:58; 17:5, 24. 9 Scott, Sophia (n. 1), 96–97. 10 Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 35. 11 Interestingly, the verb γένετο is not used of the Logos until he descends to earth and becomes (γένετο) flesh in John 1:14, thereby denoting some level of creaturely existence. 12 The statement that “the Logos was God” in John 1:1 prepares for further references to Jesus’ divinity in the absolute “I am” statement in 8:58 and Thomas’s confession in 20:28.

Beyond Sophia

87

Sophia and God act at times in very similar ways; for instance, compare Wis 7:17 and 7:22; Wis 10:17–21 and 19:7–9). From this initial comparison one can already perceive that the depiction of Jesus in the Gospel of John surpasses that of Sophia. 2.1.2 Descent, Invitation, Rejection, Ascent Although Sophia’s place is with God, she deigns to descend to earth so that humankind might learn her ways and thereby gain fullness of life. Prov 8:31 notes that Sophia plays on the surface of the earth and takes delight in humankind. In Sir 24:2–12, Sophia comes down from the heavenly court to roam the earth looking for a place to dwell, eventually making her home (Greek: κατασκηνω; literally, “to pitch a tent”) among God’s people in Jerusalem.13 In the same chapter, she is also equated with the Torah, God’s holy word to his people (cf. Sir 24:23, see also Bar 4:1). According to Ben Sira, the universalism of Sophia which is characteristic of most wisdom literature has now become more particular since she can be found in a special, more concentrated way among the Jews (cf. also Bar 3:36). Sophia’s descent to earth is often described in terms of God “sending” or “giving” (cf. Wis 9:10, 16–17).14 She does not come of her own will and initiative but rather is a gift from God. When Sophia descends she is not hidden or inaccessible but stands in public places and calls out to all willing to learn from her (cf. Prov 1:20–33; 8:1–21; Wis 6:13–16). She invites the simpleminded to a sumptuous banquet, which represents her wise teaching (Prov 9:1–6, cf. Sir 24:19–22). Those who heed her call are rewarded with knowledge, truth, wealth, and life (for instance, Prov 8:6–9, 21; 9:6). In the Wisdom of Solomon, the life that Sophia grants is more than an extended and happy earthly existence but includes immortality and eternal blessedness with God in the hereafter (Wis 6:18–19; 8:17). Most of all, Sophia reveals important information about God (i.e., his will, counsel, and pleasure; see Wis 9:9–18) and brings those who obey her closer to the Almighty (Wis 6:19). This knowledge of God and action according to his will is what leads one to salvation (Wis 9:18). Thus, Sophia saves those who follow her instruction. This point is best illustrated by Wis 10:1–11:1 which presents Sophia as a savior assisting various figures throughout Israelite history, from Adam to the Israelites under Moses. Despite these wonderful benefits for following Sophia, the majority of humankind rejects her (Prov 1:24–25, 29–30; 8:36; Wis 10:3, 8). The theme of Israel’s 13 Wis 9:4–10 is another passage that implies Sophia’s descent when Pseudo-Solomon prays: “Give me wisdom that sits by your throne.… Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory send her, that she may labor at my side, and that I may learn what is pleasing to you.” 14 Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 60–62.

88

Andrew T. Glicksman

rejection of Sophia is especially noted in Bar 3:10–12. Her ascent back to heaven is most explicitly found in the Jewish apocalyptic text of 1 Enoch, which incorporates the sapiential motif of personified Wisdom. In 1 Enoch 42, heavenly Wisdom comes to earth to make her dwelling among humankind, but does not find a suitable place and eventually returns to live among the angels. This same descending-ascending trajectory taken by Sophia is exhibited by Jesus in John’s Gospel. Christ’s descent from heaven to earth is addressed throughout the Fourth Gospel (for instance, John 1:14; 3:11–13, 31; 6:38, 57; 16:28), however the most notable passage is John 1:14, which some scholars understand to be the Prologue’s climax.15 Κα  λγος σ4ρξ γνετο κα σκ-νωσεν ν μ$ν, “And the Logos became flesh and dwelled (literally: “pitched a tent”) among us”. The striking similarity to Sophia’s “pitching a tent” in Sir 24:8 is undeniable. The Logos enters the earthly realm enfleshed, that is, as a human being. This incarnational language is never applied to Sophia in all of Jewish wisdom literature, a significant point to which I shall return. Yet, like Sophia, Jesus is “sent” (John 5:24; 6:38, 57; 8:16, 18, 29) and “given” (John 3:16) by the Father; he does not come to earth on his own initiative. During his sojourn in the “world below”, Jesus openly shares his teachings with all who are willing to listen (including Samaritans, cf. John 4). Just as Sophia beacons the simple to “come” (Prov 9:5) to a meal and learn her ways, so too does Jesus invite others to “come and see” (John 1:38–39) when they inquire after him, and his instructions at the Last Supper reflect the farewell discourse of a sage (John 13:31– 17:26).16 What Jesus offers is similar to Sophia insofar as he teaches the truth (John 8:31–32, 40, 45–46) which leads to salvation and eternal life. The truth that he teaches is the Father’s love for humanity and his plan of salvation through the one whom he has sent, namely, Christ himself. Thus, Jesus reveals the Father and the Father’s will to the world (John 1:18; 15:15). Despite his words of truth and everlasting life, many reject Jesus and the overall message of his mission (John 1:11; 8:46; 10:25). This rejection, especially by the Jewish leadership, ultimately leads to his suffering and death. However, this is not the end; he is resurrected, proving his power over life (and death) and returns to the Father in glory. During his ministry, the Johannine Jesus already has a clear understanding that he must return to the Father (John 13:1, 3; 17:11, 13).17 So, like Sophia, he makes his ascent back to his heavenly abode. 15

For example, see Schnackenburg, Gospel (n. 2), vol. 1, 266. Witherington, Jesus the Sage (n. 3), 379; idem, John’s Wisdom (n. 3), 26. 17 Jesus’ foreknowledge of his glorification through his passion and death, initiating his ascent to the Father, is usually expressed in terms of “the hour” (  kρα) of Jesus (see John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1). While kρα is the primary term used to denote 16

Beyond Sophia

89

In addition to these striking similarities between the descent-ascent trajectory of Sophia and Christ, significant differences abound. These differences present the Johannine Jesus as a figure greater than Sophia of Jewish wisdom literature. First, the most essential difference is that Christ is the Logos who has become flesh.18 Though Sophia is God’s wisdom personified and an active agent in salvation history living among God’s people, she is never described as having assumed a concrete human existence. As discussed, in Wis 10:1–11:1 she assists various figures in early Israelite history, and in Sir 24:8–12 she dwells among the Jews upon the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and is identified with the Torah in verse 23. However, this is the closest that Sophia comes to tangibility in Jewish literature. For the Johannine community, Jesus is the Logos/Sophia incarnate, which already makes him greater than the Sophia of Jewish texts. Through Christ, God’s word/ wisdom (cf. Wis 9:1b–2a) is now more tangible and more alive than ever. Second, this concretizing or historicizing of Sophia in the person of Jesus Christ results in a different mode of revelation. As Sophia incarnate, Jesus reveals the Father differently than Sophia described in the Jewish Scriptures. According to John’s Gospel, by encountering Jesus one has a more direct encounter with the Father. What Jesus says and does reflects who the Father is, since it is the Father who sent Jesus, the Son, on a mission. In John 14:9, Jesus goes so far as to assert  lωρακ/ς μ; lρακεν τν πατρα, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”. Jesus can this concept in John’s Gospel, John 7:1–9 uses the term καιρός instead. This Greek word is often translated “critical point” or “propitious time” and is an important theme in Israelite and Jewish wisdom literature (for instance, Prov 15:23; Eccl 3:1–15; 8:5–6; Sir 4:23; 20:5–6, 19–20; 27:12; 51:30). In general, the sages believed that time is ordered by God, and the wise individual’s goal is to determine the right time to act in order to live a moral and successful life. However, Eccl 9:12 and Sir 14:12 acknowledge that there were some events in life, such as the time of an individual’s death, which were knowable only by God. In the aforementioned Johannine passage, Jesus’ unbelieving brothers try to encourage him to go with them to Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles. Since he knows that it is not the right time to act in the way that his brothers have suggested, Jesus states: “My time (m καιρς  μός) has not yet come, but your time ( καιρός) is always here.… Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time ( μς καιρός) has not yet fully come” (John 7:6–8). Through this statement, Jesus proclaims that it is not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, because he is not yet to complete his mission by dying on the cross. Unlike the Jewish sages, the divine Jesus has a clear understanding of the time of his death. His knowledge of καιρός seems to be on the same level as Sophia who knows “the outcome of seasons and times (καιρν κα χρόνων)” (Wis 8:8). 18 Schnackenburg, Gospel (n. 2), vol. 1, 481; Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 40, 42–43; Witherington, John’s Wisdom (n. 3), 53; Dunn, Christology in the Making (n. 2), 242–243; Scott, Sophia (n. 1), 105.

90

Andrew T. Glicksman

make this claim because he has a physical form. Jesus’ disciples can literally see him and, while they do not see the Father directly, they can infer certain things about him from Jesus’ words and deeds. Though Wis 7:26b may reflect a similar idea by referring to Sophia as “a spotless mirror of the working of God”, she ultimately does not manifest the divine in the same concrete way as the Johannine Jesus. Third, while both Jesus and Sophia reveal who God is by speaking the truth about his plan of salvation,19 Jesus takes the notion of truth to a new level. In John 14:6, he states: &γ ε?μι  δς κα  λ-θεια κα  ζω-, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. He does not merely speak the truth, he is truth, that is, the truth of God’s salvation. His words and deeds, death and resurrection reveal this very fact. Sophia speaks truth (Prov 8:7), but never identifies herself in this way.20 In addition, the Fourth Evangelist proclaims Jesus to be πλ-ρης χριτος κα ληθεας, “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14b). This word-pair of “grace and truth” is used three verses later to communicate that Jesus has supplanted the Torah (a locus of Sophia). John 1:17 states: 3τι  νμος δι4 Μωϋσως δθη,  χρις κα  λ-θεια δι4 Iησο Χριστο γνετο, “For while the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”. The advent of Jesus is the fullest expression of God’s grace and truth, which is probably a Greek translation of the Massoretic Text’s ʺʮʠʥ ʣʱʧ, “mercy and faithfulness” (cf. Exod 34:6).21 This phrase evokes God’s plan of salvation for his people, which was promised in the Torah, but is now ultimately fulfilled through Jesus Christ, who manifests God’s love and fidelity in a more concrete way and extends God’s plan of salvation to the entire human race. Again, the Prologue shows that Jesus Christ is greater than Torah/Sophia of previous Jewish thought. Fourth, the life that Jesus offers is similar to that of Sophia insofar as it is eternal (for instance, John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47). However, unlike 19

Ignace de la Potterie (“The Truth in Saint John”, in The Interpretation of John [ed. John Ashton; IRT 9; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1986], 67–82, here 74) has suggested that the concept of truth in John’s Gospel is related to the same notion in the Wisdom of Solomon. Wis 3:9 reads: “Those who trust in him [i.e., God] will understand truth ( λ-θειαν ), and the faithful will abide with him in love.” Truth in this passage does not mean acting or speaking with integrity, which is the predominant understanding in most Jewish wisdom literature (for instance, Prov 24:26; Job 42:7–8; Sir 4:25; 27:9). Rather, truth here has to do with revelation of God’s plan of salvation for the righteous. This is ultimately the same understanding of truth that Jesus reveals about his Father – the divine plan for salvation through his love (John 3:16). Note that the second half of this verse in Wis 3:9 even uses “abiding” language (Greek root: μνειν, “abide”, “remain”), which is particularly characteristic of John’s Gospel (for instance, John 6:56; 15:10). 20 However, note Prov 23:23 and Sir 4:24–25, where wisdom is implicitly equated with truth. Willett, Wisdom Christology (n. 3), 41. 21 See Schnackenburg, Gospel (n. 2), vol. 1, 272; Scott, Sophia (n. 1), 107–108.

Beyond Sophia

91

Sophia, Jesus claims to be life itself. He is not only eternal life but resurrected eternal life. In John 11:25, Jesus declares: &γ ε?μι  νστασις κα  ζω-:  πιστε1ων ε?ς μ; κqν ποθν9 ζ-σεται, “I am the resurrection and the life, those who believe in me, even though they die, will live”. Nowhere in the Wisdom of Solomon (or the rest of Jewish wisdom literature for that matter) is Sophia explicitly linked with bodily resurrection.22 The type of life that Jesus grants goes beyond that of Sophia. Finally, the scope of Jesus’ salvation is generally broader than Sophia’s. Christ comes to earth in order to show the Father’s love for the entire human race (cf. John 3:16–17), not for the Jews alone. In John 4:42, the Samaritans explicitly call Jesus  σωτ(ρ το κσμου, “the Savior of the World”. No such title is ever attributed to Sophia, though she is depicted as a savior in Wis 10:1–11:1. At first, Sophia’s saving acts have universal ramifications when she saves Adam and Noah (cf. 10:1–4); however, her salvific focus increasingly gravitates towards God’s special people (Abraham/Lot, Jacob, Joseph, and the Israelites under Moses; cf. 10:5–11:1). Thus, salvation mediated by Sophia moves from universal to particular, while Christ’s salvation moves back from particular to universal, thereby indicating a more comprehensive mission and greater significance for the salvation of humanity. 2.2 Metaphorical Language Some of the language applied to Sophia and Jesus is metaphorical. Common metaphorical elements that these two figures share include: association with (1) light and (2) food and drink. 2.2.1 Light Imagery The Wisdom of Solomon is unique among Jewish wisdom literature in the way that it portrays Sophia as reflecting divine light. Wis 7:26 states: “For she is a reflection of eternal light ( παύγασμα … φωτς ϊδου), a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.” In keeping with the theme of light, Pseudo-Solomon values Sophia more than physical light “because her radiance never ceases” (Wis 7:10). Similarly, he notes: “Compared with the light she is found to be superior, for it is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail (ο# 22

James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 68. See also Pierre Grelot, “L’eschatologie de la Sagesse et les Apocalypses juives”, in À la Rencontre de Dieu: Mémorial Albert Gelin (eds. André Barucq, Jean Duplacy, Augustin George, and Henri de Lubac; Bibliothèque de la Faculté Catholique de Théologie de Lyon 8; Paris: Mappus, 1961), 174.

92

Andrew T. Glicksman

κατισχύει)” (Wis 7:29–30). The parallelism in these verses implies that Sophia, the light of knowledge and the reflection of eternal light, is never overcome by the darkness that is wickedness.23 Not only does this verse present an ethical dichotomy, but it also hints at a nascent cosmic dualism between Sophia and wickedness in terms of light and darkness. Though not an exact parallel, one encounters a similar idea concerning the Logos as light in John 1:5: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it (κα  σκοτα α#τ ο# κατλαβεν).”24 Like Sophia, Jesus is associated with light imagery (John 1:4–5, 7–9; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35). Yet, the Gospel goes further than wisdom literature insofar as it presents Jesus as explicitly claiming to be τ φς το κσμου, “the light of the world” (John 8:12) and even calls him τ φς τ ληθινν, “the true light” (John 1:9), presumably to set him above all other previous light-claims (including the Jewish conceptions of Torah and Sophia).25 He is the light that has come to dispel the darkness of ignorance and sinfulness among humankind and to reveal the Father’s plan of salvation. Thus, the ethical dualism in wisdom literature that presents Sophia as a reflection of divine light and wickedness as darkness resonates in the Fourth Gospel as well. Christ’s identity as light has important ethical implications because, as the light, he reveals what constitutes proper behavior. In John 8:12, Jesus states: &γ ε?μι τ φς το κσμου: 

κολουθν μο ο# μ( περιπατ-σ9 ν τ8 σκοτ