Doctorates at the faculty
Project:
Holiness in the Fourth Gospel: A Critical Study of the Johannine Concept of Holiness
Snoddy Debra
Email: debra.snoddy@student.kuleuven.be
Research unit: Biblical studies
Description:
This work undertakes to continue a study we began as an STL candidate. Our
investigation at that time, focused solely on Jesus’ self-consecration - hagiazo emauton - in
17:19a, which sought come to some initial understanding of what John meant by consecration. In
order to undertake the doctoral research, the work of the initial STL project will need to be
critically re-evaluated and updated. Initial findings showed that predominant among the positions
of the commentators we had surveyed1 was the view that Jesus’ death was sacrificial. How this is
so, is not always spelled out clearly, but many of those surveyed2 drew links with the LXX
1 W. HENDRIKSEN, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 1954, pp. 374ff.
C.K. BARRETT, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes, London, UK, 1972,
Second edition, p. 511. X. LÉON-DUFOUR, Lecture de L’Evangile sélon St. Jean, Tome III Les adieux du Seigneur,
Paris, France, 1993. M. DE JONGE, Johannes, in Tekst en toelichting Series Kampen, Netherlands, 1996, p. 210ff. W.
HOWARD-BROOK, Becoming Children of God: John’s Gospel and Radical Discipleship New York, USA: 1994, pp.
336-367 also defines consecration in terms of separation redolent of the LXX particularly Lev 11:44. This he believes
forms an ironical background to the Johannine text. “The irony lies in the Greek word for ‘who separated’ aphorises
from which the Pharisees got both their name and ideology. Now it is the Johannine community that is separated for
the sake of holiness, but by consecration, not by removal.” This last statement is inconsistent; they are separated for
holiness by holiness. It is unclear of what it consists, he connects it with Jesus’ death but by what means Jesus’ death
achieves separation and protection from the Evil One is not explained. He also misquotes R. Brown. Howard Brook
states that Brown translates the preposition uJper as “over”. This is not the case. Brown translates uJper as “for”.
Ragnar ASTING, Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum Göttingen, Germany, 1930, p. 314ff. C.H. DODD, The Fourth Gospel
Cambridge, UK, 1954. p. 419. R.H. LIGHTFOOT, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary with the Text of the Revised Version
Oxford, UK, 1956, pp. 298-299. D.A. CARSON, The Gospel according to John Massachusetts, USA, 1991, p. 552. TH.
CALMES, L’Evangile sélon St. Jean: Traduction, Critique, Introduction et Commentaire, in Etudes Biblique Paris,
France, 1904, pp. 415 and 416. R. BULTMANN, Das Evangelium des Johannes, in Meyer’s Kommentar Göttingen,
Germany, 1950, p. 391. B. LINDARS, The Gospel according to John, in NCB Series London, UK, 1972, pp. 515 and
516. A. PLUMMER, The Gospel according to St. John, in Thornapple Commentaries Series Michigan, USA, 1981, pp.
298ff. H. RIDDERBOS, Het evangelie naar Johannes, Deel 2 Kampen, Netherlands, 1992, pp. 211ff. C.R. BEASLEYMURRAY,
John, in WBC Series, Vol. 36 Texas, USA, 1987, p. 302. R. SCHNACKENBURG, Das Johannesevangelum, III
Teil Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, 1975, pp. 212f. H.A.W. MEYER, Evangelium des Johannes, in Meyer’s
Kommentar Göttingen, Germany, 1869, p. 578. B. WEISS, Das Johannes-Evangelium, in Meyer’s Kommentar N.T.
Göttingen, Germany, 1893, pp. 552-553. Weiss, re-working Meyer, basically condenses Meyer’s position. While
Meyer sees aujtw'n, ejgw; ejmautovn and kai; aujtoiv as emphatic corrections, Weiss adds aJgiavzw ejmauton to this
list and asserts that all show “die thatsächliche Weihe” of Christ. The purpose of his “Opfertod” is to ordain his
disciples and this is analogous with his “Opferweihe”. “Christus ist der Priester und das Opfer zugleich setzt die durch
seinen Opfertod beabsichtigte Weihe der Jünger in Analogie mit seiner Opferweihe”; see pp. 552-553. B.F. WESTCOTT,
The Gospel according to St. John London, UK, 1958, reprint; 1880, original, p. 245. M.-J. LAGRANGE, Evangile selon
St. Jean, in Etudes Biblique Series, Paris, France, 1927, Fourth edition, pp 433 - 437. J.H. BERNARD, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, vol. 2, in ICC Series London, UK, 1963, reprint; 1928, original, pp.
574f. R.E. BROWN, The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible 30, NY, USA, 1970, pp. 765ff. L. MORRIS,
The Gospel according to John, in NICNT Series Michigan, USA, 1995, Revised edition, pp, 634, 646 ad loc
2 BULTMANN, op. cit., p. 391; BARRETT, op. cit., p. 511; CARSON, op. cit., p. 552; MEYER, op. cit., p. 578; BERNARD, op.
cit., p. 574; BROWN, op. cit., p. 765; LINDARS, op. cit., p. 515; SCHNACKENBURG, op. cit., p. 212; PLUMMER, op. cit., p.
298; BEASLEY-MURRAY, op. cit., p. 302;MORRIS, op. cit., p. 634; RIDDERBOS, op. cit., p. 211.
particularly to the texts of Ex 13:2, 28:41; Dt 15:19; Jer 1:5. Our exegetical analysis of these texts
demonstrated amongst other things, that the subject and object of the act of consecration differed
(while in Jn 17:19a subject and object are the same) and therefore links to John 17:19a were not
to be supported. In light of the extensive grammatical and syntactical research undertaken in the
STL project we have proposed that hagiazo emauton is best understood as a continuous cycle, or
rather reciprocity, of separation and presence: Jesus in the disciples, the disciples in Jesus so that
through them, humanity might share in the eternal Oneness of God.3 These preliminary findings
do not bring the exegetical enterprise to a close.
John appears not to have used the LXX idea of consecration and holiness.4 So the question
remains from where he got it? We propose, therefore, to expand our study to include other
incidences of the a`gia,zw// a[gioj word group to come to a critical understanding of what holiness
and consecration mean within the context of the fourth gospel. To this end the investigation will
expand, with particular attention, to an analysis of a`gia,zw/ terminology in the Synoptic Tradition,
following the Leuven hypothesis that John is dependent on the Synoptics.5 Our focus will be not
only on the Synoptics as sources that John may have used, but how the fourth evangelist may
have taken the nucleus of an idea from his Synoptics and developed it. What we seek here is
examine if, indeed, the Johannine concept of sanctification/ consecration is taken over from the
Synoptics? And if so, how has John redacted it and made it his own? Indeed, does the fourth
evangelist differ from the Synoptic tradition, and if so, how and to what extent? Where did the
fourth evangelist get his material and inspiration from, and what did he do with it to make it
uniquely Johannine?
The methodology we propose to use to answer these questions is historical-critical
method. We will begin by critically examining the pertinent history of exegesis of the text and
3 Vid. my unpublished STL thesis for a complete analysis of these findings.
4 By the time of the formation of the LXX the concept of holiness has become centered almost exclusively on the cult.
Holiness was defined by degree with the High Priest first, then, in descending order, priests, Levites and the people. For
more information regarding the distinctions between the role of a priest and that of a Levite cf. J. BLENKINSOPP, Sage,
Priest and Prophet: Religions and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, 1995, pp. 92-
99. Generally priests of the order of Levi were of a lower order and barred from offering incense before Yahweh. This
became the exclusive preserve of the Aaronite priesthood after the failed rebellion of the Levite, Koran (Nm 16:1 –
17:26). The danger of a materialisation of the concept is obvious. Jesus later felt the need to combat this (Mt 23:17, 19).
This attitude is most clearly evidenced in Marcan polemical attacks (Mk 1-3) regarding the Sabbath. Like all things
within the realm of the cult, the Sabbath was in danger of losing its spiritual inspiration and being seen only in external
and formal terms. The Marcan attacks are not a complete rejection of the institution of the Sabbath rather “careful
examination shows that these attacks continued the prophetic denunciations so cherished by the main pre- and postexilic
biblical experience; their purpose was not to do away with ritual but on the contrary to restore its authenticity.”
Carmine DI SANTE, Jewish Prayer, The Origins of Christian Liturgy, NY, USA, 1991, p. 13
5 Frans NEIRYNCK, Jean et les synoptiques : examen critique de l'exégèse de M.-É. Boismard, Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium - 49, Leuven : Leuven University Press/ Peeters, 1979. Cf. Adelbert
DENAUX, John and the synoptics, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium ; 10, Leuven: Leuven
University Press/ Peeters, 1992.
then look at the context in which it appears. A detailed grammatical and syntactical examination
will follow and text-critical and redactional questions will also be answered as these matters arise.
By using the accepted exegetical analytical tools of textual criticism we will attempt to uncover
other possible readings for the texts for examination to determine the best possible reading of the
text. Detailed grammatical and syntactical analysis are used to determine how the construction of
the text works. Using these methods we endeavour to yield the best possible interpretive
translation, and then seek to argue our case with the other commentators on the text. In so doing
we will uncover the multifaceted nature of the Johannine concept of sanctification/ consecration.
Much work also needs to be done regarding the meaning of a`gia,zw and a[gioj in John.
To answer these questions we propose a detailed examination of other Johannine texts. In the first
chapter of our dissertation the specifics of John 10:36 where the verb a`gia,zw is used will be
explored; o]n o` path.r h`gi,asen kai. avpe,steilen eivj to.n ko,smon u`mei/j le,gete o[ti
Blasfhmei/j( o[ti ei=pon( Ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ eivmi» (John 10:36 NA27). What is Jesus saying when
he says to “the Jews”, who are about to stone him for blasphemy, that he has been consecrated by
the Father? Very few scholars make the link between the description of Jesus as ‘consecrated’
and the celebration of the dedication.6
But as early as 1947 E. C. Hoskyns has done so and he is not alone, others include
luminaries such as Raymond E. Brown, G. R. Beasley-Murray and most recently A. J.
Koestenberger to name but a few.7 Moloney goes on to say that the reader is familiar with the
notion of Jesus as the Son, the Sent One, but may be unfamiliar with the concept of Jesus as one
consecrated by God and context of the temple feast of Dedication adds to the understanding of
h`gi,asen.8
Scholars who have made a connexion (sic) between Jesus’ use of the word “consecrate”
(a`gia,zeivn) in John 10:36 and the fact that he is speaking at the festival of Hanukkah
(10:22 evgkaini,a) have relied on the misleading translation of the latter as “Dedication” in
all English version, and have taken the two Greek words to refer to the same action of
consecration or dedication.9
Is this really so? We will undertake to critically analyse the data to determine the veracity of
Bauckham’s argument and to determine its impact of the consecration of Jesus by the father in
10:36.
6 Francis J MOLONEY, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 321.
7 E. C. HOSKYNS The Fourth Gospel, Revised Edition, London: Faber & Faber, 1947, p. 385; Raymond E. BROWN, The
Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible 29, NY: Doubleday, 1966, pp. 400, 411; G. R. Beasley-Murray John,
WBC 36, Waco TX: Word Books, 1987, p. 177; A. J. KOESTENBERGER, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the
New Testament, Grand Rapids MN: Baker, 2004, p. 316.
8 Francis J. MOLONEY, Signs and Shadows, Reading John 5-12, Minneapolis, MN: Ausburg Fortress, 1996, p. 149.
9 Richard BAUCKHAM, “The Holiness of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John”, in Kent E. BROWER, and
JOHNSON, Andy, Holiness and ecclesiology in the New Testament, Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2007, p. 105.
a`gia,zw// a[gioj terminology does not occur frequently in the gospel traditions. a`gia,zw/ is a
verb that is rarely used by the Synoptics. There are four occurrences in all, three in Matthew and
one in Luke and none in Mark. The first texts I will examine are Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2
where a`gia,zw is used in the “Our Father” prayer (6:7-15 and 11:1-4 respectively). Does the
hallowing of God’s name constitute a prayer petition for God to make manifest God’s holiness in
the world, or more particularly, in humankind or, is it a for of doxology? Or it is as Darrell L.
Bock suggests a “ declaration …that God sanctify or hallow his name”?10 Bock says further, “The
disciple opens the prayer with recognition of the one being addressed, trusting and hoping that
God in his greatness will manifest himself (note that the passive verb looks to God to act)”?11
How does this compare with the aorist indicative active of the verb used in Jn 10:36?
From there I will investigate Matthew’s use of a`gia,zw in his text traditionally entitled
“Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees” – Matthew 23:1-36 - where the verb is used twice 23:17 and
19. We will begin by investigating the positions held by commentators of these passages. From
there we will analyse the literary structure, the grammar and the syntax to unearth the Synoptic
understanding. Craig S Keener has suggested that Mt 23:16-22 is a subsection of the larger
pericope of 23:1-36 which focuses on the inconsistency in evaluating standards of holiness which
dishonours God. Here, Keener says, Matthew charges the Pharisees for not behaving consistently
with their own tradition that recognised degrees of holiness.
Jesus rails in part against the traditions that have created inconsistent standards of
holiness. But Jesus’ attack is ultimately directed against the profanation of God’s name;
because any surrogate oath nevertheless represents God’s name and implicitly calls him
to witness, any breach of truthfulness demands judgement no less severe.12
How does this statement impact on the Matthean concept of what it means to be sanctified? And
what are the implications of that for our study of Jesus’ consecration in John?
Can John 6:69, where the adjective a[gioj occurs and is applied directly to Jesus shed
some light on the meaning of 10:36? When Peter confesses kai. h`mei/j pepisteu,kamen kai.
evgnw,kamen o[ti su. ei= o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/ (John 6:69 NA27) what is he saying when he calls Jesus
“The Holy One of God”? Our second chapter will focus on what this version of Peter’s
confession offers for our study? How does it fare in comparison to the more traditional versions
offered by the Synoptics? It is to be noted that there is but one other occurrence of this phrase in
the New Testament, and then it is placed on the lips of the demoniac in Mark 1:24 who is told by
Jesus to remain silent (1:25)! Edwin K. Broadhead opines that “this image is significant for what
10 Darrell L. BOCK, Luke: Volume 2, 9:51 – 24:23, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand
Rapids, MN: Baker Books, 1996, p. 1052.
11 Ibid.
12 Craig S, KEENER, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MN; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1999, p. 549.
is not done with it: the tile is not omitted, but it is also not developed. Consequently, the Holy
One of God remains an isolated and largely inconsequential description”.13 However, we are not
inclined to agree with Broadhead’s view and concur with the position taken by L. W. Hurtado
that the unclean spirits are, in fact, recognising Jesus’ transcendent status.14 If this is true of the
demoniac in Mark is it also true of Peter in John? Is Peter recognising the transcendent nature of
Jesus. And what are we to make of the variant reading o` u[ioj tou/ qeou?
Painter, in his brief analysis of Jn 6:69, asserts that the pericope in which the verse occurs
is a later interpolation, inserted to make the gospel more appealing to wider church.15 Yet he
offers no other sources to support his contention. Is this so? Will other commentators support him
in his assertion? What if it is not as late as Painter thinks? Can we demonstrate otherwise? What
would the consequences of that be for the characterisation of Peter? Further, how will it impact of
the view expressed by Sandra Schneiders that, in the scene between Jesus and Martha at Bethany
(11:25-26), when Martha is challenged by Jesus for a total acceptance of his self-revelation
“Martha rises to the challenge, giving the response that, according to the conclusion of John’s
Gospel (see 20:31), is the saving confession of faith, that is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, the one coming into the world. (In contrast, Simon Peter’s confession in John’s Gospel
[6:68-69] of Jesus as “the holy one of God” lacks the fullness of Johannine faith).”16 Our study
will undertake a comparative analysis of the two texts in an effort determine the focus of Peter’s
words. Following a similar pattern of study for Jn 6:69 as that undertaken for Jn 10:36, we will
examine the implications of Peter’s words.
And what of the other incidences of a[gioj in John? In John 1:33, 14:26 and 20:22 a[gioj
occurs as a descriptive of the Spirit17 -
• kavgw. ouvk h;|dein auvto,n( avllV o` pe,myaj me bapti,zein evn u[dati evkei/no,j moi ei=pen( VEfV o]n
a'n i;dh|j to. pneu/ma katabai/non kai. me,non evpV auvto,n( ou-to,j evstin o` bapti,zwn evn
pneu,mati a`gi,w| (John 1:33 NA27)
13 Edwin K. BROADHEAD, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament, Supplement 175, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, p. 100
14 L. W. HURTADO, Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids MN; Eerdmans
Publishing, 2003, p.287.
15 John PAINTER .
16 Sandra M. SCHNEIDERS, Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, New York:
Crossroad Publishing Company, 1999, p. 106.
17 A variant reading for Jn 7:39 also ascribes the adjective a[gioj to the spirit in this verse. We agree with Richard
BAUCKHAM that this is easily explained as a simple scribal error with scribes tending to apply ‘holy’ to the noun
‘spirit’. As such the text of Jn 7:39 will not be considered as part of our study. Cf. Richard BAUCKHAM, “The Holiness
of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John”, in Kent E. BROWER, and JOHNSON, Andy, Holiness and ecclesiology
in the New Testament, Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2007, p. 95 fn. 1. Further Jocelyn MCWHIRTER, The Bridegroom
Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel, Society for New Testament Studiesm Monograph
Series 138, 2006, p. 144 gives excellent detail with regard to the variant readings of the text.
• o` de. para,klhtoj( to. pneu/ma to. a[gion( o] pe,myei o` path.r evn tw/| ovno,mati, mou( evkei/noj
u`ma/j dida,xei pa,nta kai. u`pomnh,sei u`ma/j pa,nta a] ei=pon u`mi/n ëevgw,_ (John 14:26 NA27)
• kai. tou/to eivpw.n evnefu,shsen kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( La,bete pneu/ma a[gion\ (John 20:22 NA27)
These texts will also be examined in light of the questions raised by our study. Tricia Gates
Brown notes that all four of the gospels have the tradition of Jesus’ Baptism by John the Baptist.18
And in the Fourth Gospel the presence of the spirit with Jesus identified him as the one
who would later baptize with the holy spirit [sic] and allowed John [the Baptist] to testify
to his identity as the Son of God (Jn 1.31-34). This tradition implies that Jesus received
the spirit during his meeting with John, and possessed the spirit throughout his ministry,
and that the spirit’s abiding presence on Jesus legitimated or identified him as the one
sent by God.19
Gates Brown appears to be suggesting that it is only with the receipt of the spirit at his baptism by
John that Jesus is legitimated and identified as the on sent by God. However, this is clearly not so,
as the gospel writer himself states that the Word was with God and was God (Jn 1:1). So what is
the descent of the spirit about in the context of John the Baptist’s confession that Jesus will
baptise in/with the holy spirit? An understanding of the function of the preposition evn [with the
dative] will be considered20 as will the concept behind the verb bapti,zw21
Gary Burge expands on the work done earlier by Raymond E. Brown noting that the
activities of the Paraclete mentioned in the final discourses correspond with those of Jesus
throughout the gospel.22 What does that mean for the mission of the two, Jesus and the spirit? The
Paraclete is further identified in Jn 14:26 as to. pneu/ma to. a[gion the holy spirit, what does this
mean? Wijngaards rightly notes that the spirit neatly addresses the problem of Jesus’ absence.23
18 Similarly, Jocelyn MCWHIRTER, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel in
Society for New Testament Studiesm Monograph Series 138, 2006, p.51
19 Tricia GATES BROWN, Spirit in the Writings of John, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series,
253, London: T&T Clark Int., 2003, p.252.
20 The preposition can be variously translated as in, among, on, at, near, before, in the persence of, to; into, in
association with, under the control of, under the influence of, in communion with, under the impulsion of, under the
domination of, in a state of, in the power of, subject to, with, with the help of, through Cf. TRENCHARD, Warren C., A
Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 51 under the entry for
evn
21 Friberg Greek Lexicon says of bapti,zomai strictly dip, immerse in water; middle dip oneself, wash; in the NT
predominately of the use of water in a religious and symbolic sense; (1) of Jewish ritual washings wash, cleanse, purify
by washing Mk 7:4; (2) as a symbolic rite indicating an aspect of relation to Christ; (a) of John the Baptist's preparatory
baptising with water baptise Mt 3:6; (b) of Jesus' transitional baptising with water (Jn 3.22); (c) of Christian baptism
with water, identifying a believer with the death of Christ Acts 2:41; Rom 6.3); (3) figuratively, in reference to ideas
associated with baptism, as an act of commitment and identification; with Moses (1 Cor 10.2); of receiving the Holy
Spirit (Mt 3.11b); of trial and martyrdom (Lk 12.50) and the UBS Greek Dictionary: bapti,zw baptise; wash. Louw-
Nida Lexicon: bapti,zw (a) wash 53.31 (b) baptise 53.41 (c) cause religious experience 53.49. The LS Greek Lexicon:
bapti,zw, f. Att. iw/, to dip in or under water…2. to baptise, tina, N.T. passim… also Thayer Greek Lexicon: bapti,zw
[definition I not included] II. In the N. T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the
Baptist, afterward by Christ's command
22 Cf. Gary BURGE, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition, Grand Rapids MN:
Eerdmans, 1987, p. 141 and also Brown, ibid, 1966 – 70, Vol II, p. 644
23 WIJNGAARDS, 1988, p.70
However he goes on to say that the Paraclete must be Jesus in spirit form. Is this what is meant by
to. pneu/ma to. a[gion? We tend to agree, with Gates Brown, that this is not the case.24
A final text, John 17:11 kai. ouvke,ti eivmi. evn tw/| ko,smw|( kai. auvtoi. evn tw/| ko,smw| eivsi,n(
kavgw. pro.j se. e;rcomai Pa,ter a[gie( th,rhson auvtou.j evn tw/| ovno,mati, sou w-| de,dwka,j moi( i[na
w=sin e]n kaqw.j h`mei/j (NA27) contains the expression “Holy Father”? What is it and how does it
impact on our study. I. de la Potterie opines that the expression Pa,ter a[gie is based on a
fundamental Hebrew concept of the holiness of God, a`gia,zein is, according to de la Potterie, the
presence of the holiness of God in the human sphere – “le fruit de l’active presence de Dieu au
milieu de son people”.25 What does he mean by that? How or, more accurately, who makes God’s
holiness present in the human sphere and how is this done? We will undertake an examination of
the Hebrew background as well as determining how the phrases evn tw/| ovno,mati sou and w-|
de,dwka,j moi qualify what Jesus is asking of the Father. Study of the a[gioj texts of John and their
impact on the Johannine concepts of holiness and consecration in regard to the consecration of
Jesus will raise other questions possibly even Trinitarian questions. The texts of Jn 1:33, 14:26,
20:22 on the Spirit and Jn 17:11 on the Father will form the basis of the work of chapter 3Cah.
