Jesus’ Philoi vs. Jesus’ Douloi : Conflicts over the Paraclete’s Function and Authority in the Johannine Community

Introduction

The Johannine Gospel presents its readers with an interpretive challenge as to the relation of Jesus and the Paraclete (or the Spirit in this paper); ¹ it seems to reflect two incompatible understandings of that relation. In 15:15, Jesus calls his disciples friends not slaves any longer because he has let them know everything he learned from God. The disciples’ status as Jesus’ friends depends on the complete transition of divine knowledge from the teacher. The Paraclete, during Jesus’ absence, is to teach and remind the disciples of what Jesus already taught (cf. 14:26). The teaching authority of the Paraclete depends on and is restricted to the tradition of Jesus preserved in the Fourth Gospel. ² Meanwhile, in 16:12–13, Jesus reserves many things from the disciples because they cannot bear them at the moment, and the Paraclete will disclose those reserved things to the disciples in the future; that is, the Paraclete serves not just as the reminder and interpreter of what Jesus already taught. If this is so, regarding 15:15, the disciples cannot be Jesus’ friends and remain as Jesus’ slaves; they do not possess the complete knowledge from their master. Here, we observe a discrepancy between the two statements of Jesus in 15:15 and 16:12–13, respectively. How can we explain this difference?

John, the Johannine evangelist, defines the relationship between Jesus and the Johannine disciples in terms of friendship. He portrays his community as an association of friends and documents Jesus’ new commandment: mutual love among the disciples. Then, how can we understand the ‘slaves’ in Jesus’ statement? Why does Jesus mention ‘slaves’ in contrast to ‘friends’? Does it mean a change in the disciples’ status? Or does it reflect the two actual voices competing as to the Paraclete’s function and authority, that is, the relation of Jesus and the Paraclete? Our evangelist emphasizes the reliability and authority of Jesus’ tradition through the written testimony of the Beloved Disciple (or the BD below). The Johannine Gospel itself was composed based upon the BD’s witness. In this regard, the possibility of the Paraclete’s new teachings is denied. Jesus’ slaves, nevertheless, rely upon the Paraclete’s authority to justify their prophetic authority in the community. A clue of prophetic movement is observed in the Johannine Christianity (cf. 1 John 4:1, 4).

This study discusses the discrepancy described above between 15:15 and 16:12–13 concerning the internal dynamic of the Johannine community and suggests that those texts reflect conflicts over authority between two groups: Jesus’ friends and Jesus’ slaves. John’s community likely experienced a competition between the written tradition of Jesus’ friends and prophetic teachings of Jesus’ slaves. In support for the former, the evangelist tried to place the Paraclete’s authority under Jesus’ and restricts the Paraclete’s function into recollecting and interpreting Jesus’ teachings that the Gospel preserved.

The Pneumatology of Jesus’ Philoi: the Paraclete as Interpreter

John characterizes the relationship of Jesus and the disciples as that of ‘friends’. In John 15:15, Jesus tells the disciples, ‘I have called you friends, for I have already made known to you everything that I learned from my Father.’ The knowledge of Jesus’ teachings is determinative of the disciples’ status as Jesus’ friends. John makes it clear that God’s revelation was given to his community through Jesus’ teaching. If Jesus did not pass down the divine knowledge to the disciples, they could not be called Jesus’ friends. In this sense, Jesus chose them, not vice versa (15:16). The disciples as Jesus’ friends know what the Father is doing; whereas ‘the slave does not know what the master is doing’ (15:15).

The disciples can be Jesus’ friends only when they know ‘everything’ (πάντα, 15:15) that Jesus learned from the Father. Any partial knowledge of Jesus’ teachings cannot sustain the disciples’ friendship with Jesus. As for John, it is critical to know ‘everything’, not just to know. Such complete knowledge implies that the disciples have no need of any additional teachings except what Jesus taught before his departure. The disciples fulfil the necessary and sufficient condition to be named Jesus’ friends.

The evangelist contrasts the friend and the slave in his explanation of the friendship of the disciples with Jesus (15:15). While the slave does not know what the master is doing, the friend knows what the Father is doing. Given the fact that John emphasizes the knowledge of ‘everything’, it is clear that the friend knows everything while the slave only has partial knowledge. If such knowledge is not an issue to John, he would not employ πάντα but rather state that Jesus taught the disciples what he had learned from the Father. John’s word choice of πάντα seems to betray what concerned him. In other words, the knowledge of ‘everything’ was an important issue to the evangelist and his community. In that regard, the slave in 15:15 likely refers to the one who had partial knowledge, not the one who had no knowledge of Jesus’ teachings.

John’s comparison of the friend and the slave seems to reflect the conflict between the two groups: Jesus’ friends and Jesus’ slaves. The former denotes those who agree that Jesus already taught everything he had heard from the Father; whereas the latter indicates the ones who deny the master’s transmission of everything. John 15:15 reads as the following:

οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος ούκ οἶδεν τί ποιεῖ αύτοῦ ὁ κύριος· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἅ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὐμῖν.

I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for I have made known to you everything that I heard from my Father.

The past tense of the verb ἐγνώρισα with the dative object ὑμῖν is worth our attention. It seems to betray John’s intent to argue against the slave group which insists that new teachings are given through the Paraclete (cf. 16:2, see below). The difference in the tense of λέγω and εἴρηκα is also of importance for our discussion. Although one may understand that Jesus raises the disciples’ status from slave to friend in 15:15, ³ it is more likely that the two groups were coexistent in the community. Through Jesus’ sayings, John counters the slave group’s claim of being Jesus’ slaves as a prestigious name. The evangelist places ‘the slaves’ in Jesus’ negative statement. Furthermore, in the Gospel, Jesus considers the disciples as friends and sets the example of the greatest love for them: his sacrificial love for the friend (cf. 10:11, 15; 15:12). John’s language of friendship is in clear contrast to the slave language in 15:15.

How can we understand Jesus’ slaves against whom the evangelist voiced? They seemed to deny that Jesus taught ‘everything’ that he heard from the Father and, further, to insist that there were still other things that Jesus had not told the disciples. The slave group likely asserted, too, that they delivered further revelations of Jesus through the Paraclete (see the next section). Besides, the ‘slave’ was likely a term the slave group used for their superior authority. ⁴ Dale B. Martin indicates that the term slave was common in early Christianity to signify a leader’s status and, then, comments that the evangelist rejects or reinterprets the traditional terminology in John 15:14–15. ⁵ Martin’s study supports our suggestion that the term slave was used in the Johannine community. However, our author does not specify whether John rejects or reinterprets the term. He also fails to enquire the reason for John’s rejection or reinterpretation of the word. Considering that John promotes the friendship between Jesus and the disciples and among the disciples, for him, the term slave does not properly describe the relationship of Jesus and the disciples; thus, it cannot be a title of authority. The evangelist tells that ‘Jesus’ slaves’ are ignorant of the master’s business. ⁶

What implications do we observe in John’s statement that Jesus taught the disciples ‘everything’? If Jesus indeed transmitted ‘everything’ he learned from God, the Paraclete would only serve to remind and interpret what Jesus passed down (14:26). The Paraclete is not supposed to give any new teachings or revelations that the earthly Jesus did not tell. In John 2:22, after Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples remembered and believed the words their teacher had spoken; that is, that he would raise the temple up in three days (2:19). This remembrance and understanding of Jesus’ words were possible, probably, through the Paraclete’s work. They refer to what the Paraclete is supposed to perform for the Johannine community during the absence of Jesus.

The Johannine Gospel is based upon the BD’s written testimony. The BD testified to ‘these things’ and wrote them down. John states, ‘we know that his testimony is true’ (21:24). John’s ‘we’ in 21:24 likely denotes John’s group. That is, the group in which the evangelist belongs considers the BD’s written testimony authoritative. According to the evangelist, the Johannine disciples can access Jesus’ teachings through the testimony the BD documented. The Paraclete’s work to remind and interpret Jesus’ teachings (14:26) cannot conflict with the BD’s testimony. The BD’s written tradition likely curtailed the importance and necessity of the Paraclete’s reminding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the BD’s written testimony could serve as the standard of judgment for the Paraclete’s activities. It is of more importance to John that the Paraclete interprets the words of Jesus.

One may argue that the BD’s testimony does not transmit every teaching of Jesus and, thus, cannot be the criteria for the Paraclete’s works. That is, although Jesus taught ‘everything’ he learned from God, the written testimony does not contain ‘everything’. The Paraclete can remind the disciples of the undocumented words of Jesus and interpret them. However, this is not the case. John clarifies that it is ‘many other signs’, not Jesus’ words, which are not recorded in the Gospel. John 20:30 reads as follows:

Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐνώπιον τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ], ἅ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ·

Therefore, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples, which are not written in this book;

The same idea as in the quoted verse is found in 21:25, reading, ‘there are also many other things that Jesus did’ that are not documented. Those ‘many other things that Jesus did’ reminds the reader of ‘many other signs that Jesus did’ in 20:30. We observe three words repeated in both verses: ἄλλα, πολλά and ἐποίησεν. Thus, we can reasonably assume that the BD’s written testimony and the Gospel omitted some signs of Jesus, but not his teachings. That is, the Gospel does not need any additions of Jesus’ teachings. One may object that Jesus’ signs involve his discourses and, thus, if some signs of Jesus were excluded, it would mean that some words of Jesus were left out, too. This objection has a point. However, every sign of Jesus does not have his discourse. Jesus’ first sign in Cana, for instance, is not accompanied with his discourse. Considering 20:30 and 21:25, it seems clear that the evangelist asserted that his Gospel did not lack any teachings of Jesus; it had ‘everything that Jesus heard from the Father’. ⁷

The Pneumatology of Jesus’ Douloi: Paraclete as Revealer

In John 16:12, Jesus tells the disciples, ‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear [them] now’. This saying seems to contradict what Jesus said in 15:15, in which he states that he taught everything he heard from God. If so, how can we understand that Jesus still had many other things to teach the disciples? Raymond E. Brown comments that 16:12 means that the disciples’ understanding of their master’s teachings will be perfect after his resurrection. ⁸ Our commentator mentions John 2:22, 12:16, and 13:7 as examples of the disciples’ later understanding of Jesus’ words. However, it is unreasonable to interpret the ‘many more things to tell’ with respect to the disciples’ later comprehension. In 16:12, it is obvious that the disciples would receive new teachings Jesus reserved at the moment and those teachings do not refer to the disciples’ later enlightenments. In both 2:22 and 12:16, we do not find any new words of Jesus given to the disciples. They only come to the perfect understanding of what Jesus taught earlier.

Tricia G. Brown maintains that the ‘many more things’ that Jesus reserves from the disciples in 16:12 can be given to them through the Paraclete. ⁹ While the Paraclete continues Jesus’ teachings, it ‘does not mean … that the Paraclete does not teach the disciples anything new, supplementing the teachings of the earthly Jesus…’. ¹⁰ John 14:26 tells that the Paraclete will teach the disciples all things (πάντα). Brown understands this πάντα to signify more than Jesus’ teachings during his earthly ministry. ¹¹ She asserts, ‘The evangelist does not allow one to limit the Paraclete’s revelation to what Jesus had already revealed.’ ¹² John 14:26 deserves our close reading, stating

ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅ πεμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἅ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ].

But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you [pl.] everything and remind you [pl.] of everything that I [myself] said to you.

In the quoted verse, πάντα appears twice. The first πάντα refers to what the Paraclete will teach the disciples, and the second one denotes all of Jesus’ teachings that the disciples will be reminded of by the Paraclete. Our author understands that the first and the second πάντα mean different things, respectively. However, Brown’s suggestion is not convincing for the following reasons. First, in 14:26, each παντα is modified with the same clause: ‘ἅ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ]’. John could avoid the unnecessary repetition of the modifying clause. Second, the conjunction καί shows that the second πάντα is explicable of the first one; we can consider this conjunction ‘explicative καί’. ¹³ All that the Paraclete will teach is limited to what Jesus already taught. Third, the verb διδάξει can mean to teach not new things but to expound Jesus’ words that the disciples already learned.

In John 16:12, does the evangelist reveal that the Paraclete will teach things that the earthly Jesus reserved from the disciples? Does he acknowledge the possibility of the Paraclete’s new teachings? It is unlikely that John allows that possibility. If he does, those new teachings could come into conflict with what Jesus already taught the disciples. That is, the Paraclete’s new teachings could be at odds with the BD’s testimony and, thus, John’s Gospel. The evangelist certainly does not want that disagreement. If such a conflict takes place, which would John consider more important? The evangelist would regard the BD’s testimony as authoritative and place the so-called new teachings under the authority of the BD’s tradition. Brown comments that the evangelist’s pneumatology is reflected in John 16:12. However, the verse, in fact, describes the pneumatology of Jesus’ slaves with whom our gospel writer disagrees.

Crinisor Stefan suggests that, after Jesus’ ascension, the Paraclete will disclose ‘things to come’ to the Johannine community in a prophetic manner. ¹⁴ Those things to come are the Paraclete’s new revelations as to the future of the Johannine believers. ¹⁵ Our author comments that the Paraclete’s new teachings are consistent with Jesus’ teaching. ¹⁶ Stefan’s study helps us assume prophetic activities in the Johannine community which supplement the teachings of the earthly Jesus. However, Stefan fails to perceive that the Paraclete’s new revelations caused disputes in John’s community. He overlooks the tension between John 15:15 and 16:12 and John’s critical stance about prophetic activities.

How can we explain the tension of John 15:15 and 16:12? We can interpret that both verses reflect conflicting views of the Paraclete’s function. The evangelist regards the Paraclete as an interpreter of Jesus’ words, and this view is observed in 14:26 and 15:15. Jesus taught the disciples all things he heard from the Father and the BD’s testimony and John’s Gospel preserved them. Therefore, the Paraclete is supposed to help the disciples remember and understand the teachings of Jesus. That is, John restricts the Paraclete’s activity to the written tradition of the BD’s testimony and his Gospel. Meanwhile, John 16:12 shows the view of those who maintain that the Paraclete reveals as Jesus’ new teachings what Jesus did not teach. Our evangelist would not allow such new teachings through the Paraclete; he composed his Gospel relying upon the authority of the BD’s tradition.

Those who understand the Paraclete to reveal new teachings are likely the group of Jesus’ slaves. While John retains the slave group’s view of the Paraclete in 16:12, he explains away the possibility of new teachings through the Spirit. The biblical author relates the ‘many things’ that Jesus did not tell in 16:12 with the ‘things to come’ in 16:13. He makes it clear that those untold things refer to what happens in the future. In other words, those reserved things, in fact, explicate what Jesus already warned the disciples of, that is, future persecution. This world will hate not only Jesus but also his disciples (15:18). The disciples will be expelled from the synagogue and even put to death (16:2). In this regard, the Spirit’s teachings are only details of what Jesus already told and are not in fact ‘new’ teachings.

Tricia Brown notes the future tense of the verbs in 16:13 to suggest that the Spirit of truth lets the disciples know what he will hear (ἀκούσει) from Jesus. ¹⁷ The Paraclete will hear the ‘many things’ that Jesus did not tell the disciples and make them known to the disciples in the future. ¹⁸ John 16:13 shows the view of the Paraclete as a revealer of new teachings. However, Brown overly attends to the future tense. There is a debate about the tense of the original reading. ¹⁹ Moreover, in 16:15, John employs a different tense from 16:13 while telling of the same function of the Paraclete; in 16:15, the Spirit takes (λαμβάνει) from Jesus and will announce (ἀναγγελεῖ) to the disciples. In this respect, it is untenable to rely upon the future tense of ἀκούσει to argue that the Spirit will hear what Jesus did not tell the disciples and announce it to them.

How can we understand the difference in tense between ἀκούσει and λαμβάνει? Firstly, we observe an instance of assimilation of the tense in 16:13. The four verbs in the future tense stand before and after ἀκούσει, which could be assimilated into future tense. Secondly, the future tense of ἀκούσει is unlikely of importance to the interpretation of John 16:13. In 16:14 and 16:15, the evangelist employs the present and the future tense to deliver the same meaning. The former verse reads, ‘ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν’ whereas the latter, ‘ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν’. While λήμψεται and λαμβάνει both refer to the same act of the Spirit, the former is the future tense and the latter is the present. ²⁰

Jesus’ Philoi vs. Jesus’ Douloi: Competition of Written Tradition and Oral Revelation

The group of Jesus’ friends, which John represents, understands the BD’s testimony to be the foundation of the Johannine community. John 21:24 is worth our close reading.

Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθυτὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν.

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

‘This person’ (οὗτός) in the quoted verse refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved, that is, the BD, in 21:24. It is the BD who testified to Jesus’ tradition and documented it. John states that ‘we’ know that the BD’s testimony is true. The ‘we’ likely denotes the friend group which considered the BD’s tradition authoritative. The evangelist, in fact, relied upon the BD’s written testimony to compose his Gospel (21:24). ²¹ Jesus has words of eternal life (6:68), and those words are given through the BD’s testimony to the Johannine community. Jesus taught the disciples ‘everything’ that he heard from God (15:15). Our evangelist certainly considers the BD’s tradition to be important for the formation and continuation of his community. Although it is not certain if the BD himself wrote down his testimony, it is obvious that the BD’s tradition was documented in John’s Gospel. Thus, the authority of the BD’s testimony is that of the written tradition, and the Gospel is based upon that authority. Anyone who challenges the BD’s authority, in fact, comes to challenge the Gospel itself. For John, such a challenge weakens the foundation of his community. Thus, he would not allow any challenges to the BD’s authority.

As the slave group maintains, if the Spirit gives new teachings to the Johannine community, the human medium would be necessary. It is hard to imagine that the Spirit’s new teachings are delivered to the disciples without any disciples involved in the process. In this respect, it would not be too much to assume prophetic activities in the community although we find no evidence as those in Luke 1:67. In early Christianity, prophecy through the Spirit was well-attested in various documents. ²² It is not unreasonable that the Johannine believers experienced prophetic phenomena. ²³ In this regard, 1 John 4:1 can serve as good evidence that prophecy was active in the Johannine Christianity. The slave group could understand themselves as prophets who delivered what Jesus hid from the disciples (16:12). Prophetic messages from the given group would be more than what the Gospel reserved as Jesus’ teachings. In a comparison of 15:15 with 16:13, the slave group’s prophecies seemed to conflict with the BD’s tradition and John’s Gospel concurrently. ²⁴

The evangelist tries to control the Paraclete’s prophetic activities with his written tradition. The Paraclete is the Spirit of Jesus so to be subject to Jesus. Jesus names the Paraclete the Spirit of truth, and, in John’s Gospel, the truth is Jesus, no one else (14:6). The Paraclete is to work under Jesus’ authority and, during his absence, in agreement with his teachings preserved in the Gospel. Therefore, John clarifies through Jesus’ statement that the Paraclete is to remind the disciples of his words and interpret them for the disciples (14:26). For John, anyone who advocates teachings against his written tradition is, in fact, in opposition to Jesus. The Johannine community experienced such a problem. Certain false prophets taught erroneous Christological views (1 John 4:13) and likely promoted their authority relying on that of the Paraclete. Such a problem probably necessitated John’s clear articulation of the logos incarnation in the prologue of his Gospel. The evangelist, in fact, emphasized Jesus’ physical existence both before and after the resurrection. It is reasonable that the physicality of Jesus was a consuming issue among the Johannine believers.

John could regard his community’s preservation and education of Jesus’ words as the works of the Paraclete. ²⁵ The Spirit of truth works through the faith community, and the Spirit’s authority justifies the community’s tradition of Jesus. However, once the written tradition gains authority, the direction of justification is reversed. ²⁶ The Paraclete’s work no longer justifies the written tradition, but the former is justified by the latter. William Domeris comments that the Paraclete justified the evangelist’s position within the community. ²⁷ That is, views of the Paraclete carry a political meaning. However, Domeris fails to perceive the reversal of the direction. What is important for our discussion is that the Paraclete’s activities need to be justified with the evangelist’s written tradition. We observe such a change of direction in John’s attempt to control new prophetic teachings.

We can understand the conflict of Jesus’ friends and Jesus’ slaves as that of the written tradition and new prophetic teachings. The slave group’s stance on the Spirit would weaken the authority of the BD’s tradition. Once the BD’s authority is compromised, the slave group would gain the upper hand. John would not allow this to happen by accentuating that Jesus taught everything he learned from the Father and the BD’s testimony transmitted it to the Johannine community.

The third Johannine epistle shows that the elder and Gaius called each other ‘friend’. The elder also referred to those with Gaius as friends. Here, the term ‘friend’ probably denotes a fellow Johannine believer. The Johannine epistoler possibly employed the term because the Johannine disciples’ relationship was defined as that of friends. It seems that the believer’s identity as Jesus’ friend was commonly accepted in the Johannine Christianity and the friend group extended its influence to exercise its leadership. In the meantime, the slave group likely separated themselves from the Johannine Christianity. We observe discord and even division of the Johannine community (cf. 1 John 2:19; 4:1–3). Although we cannot make a conclusion of the chronological order of the Johannine Gospel and Epistles, it seems that the Johannine community suffered internal conflicts and this situation was reflected in both the Gospel and the Letters. As for the Gospel, the disagreement between Jesus’ friends and Jesus’ slaves is an instance of such discord.

Conclusion

The Johannine community experienced conflicts between two groups: Jesus’ friends and Jesus’ slaves. They disputed with each other about the Paraclete’s function and authority. The friend group denied the need and possibility of new teachings through the Paraclete in a prophetic manner. For this group, the Paraclete was only to remind the disciples of Jesus’ words and interpret them for the disciples because Jesus had already taught everything he received from the Father. However, the slave group maintained that Jesus reserved many things from the disciples and the Paraclete revealed them to the community. This group seemed to insist that the Paraclete was working through them and they were prophets. The evangelist represented the friend group to assert the priority of the BD’s written testimony and control the slave group’s activities. John considered his Gospel to be superior to the prophetic messages of the slave group. For the evangelist, the Johannine Gospel served as authoritative criteria to examine prophetic messages. While John’s written tradition solidified its authority, the prophetic activities likely shrank in the Johannine community. The competition of Jesus’ friends and Jesus’ slaves continued to a certain extent that the community suffered division. The first Johannine epistle shows that certain prophets advocated an erroneous understanding of Jesus and finally separated from the Johannine community.