Celebrating God's Faithfulness 66 Years PDF Free Download
1 / 93/93
100%
HINDUSTAN
EVANGELICAL
REVIEW
COVER
DESIGNED:
ITSC,
HSI
<
0
e-
�·:
�
�
Volume
XI
(2018
-
2019)
�
Y
1
E
A
R
S
.,,,,f\\\\'
6
6
CELEBRATING
GOD'S
FAITHFULNESS
Hindustan
Evangelical
Review
A
Journal
of
Biblical,
Theological
and
Missiological
reflections
are
published
annually
by
the
Academic
Department
of
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College,
86-89
Medavakkam
Tank
Road,
Kellys,
Kilpauk,
Chennai-600
010,
Tamil
Nadu,
India.
Editor
Rev.
Dr.
Balu
Savarikannu
Faculty,
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
Hindustan
Evangelical
Review
Volume
XI
CONTENTS
Editorial
Board
Rt.Rev.
Dr.
Paul
R.Gupta-
President,Hindustan
Bible
Institute
Mrs.
Malini
Asirvatham-
Sr.Vice
President,Hindustan
Bible
Institute
Rev.Dr.
Paul
Ebenezer-
Faculty,
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
From
the
Editor
ARTICLES
2
Editorial
Policy
Hindustan
Evangelical
Review
publishes
the
articles
written
by
the
former
and
present
Faculty
members,
Graduates,
Visiting
Professors
and
friends
associated
with
the
Ministries
of
HBI.
It
is
the
authors
who
are
responsible
for
the
views
and
ideas
expressed
in
their
articles.
Dr.
Johnson
Thomaskutty
5
The
Event
of
Foot
Washing
in
John
13:
1-20
as
a
Paradigm
for
Witnessing
Christ
in
the
Indian
Context
Subscription
Rates
(including
postage):
India
Theological
Teachers,
Students,
Pastors
and
Missionaries
in
India
Europe
North
America,
Australia,
Japan
Countries
in
the
Two-Thirds
World
Rs.
150.00
Rs.
100.00
€15.00
I
£10.00
us
$20.00
us
$10.00
Dr.
Paul
Ebenezer
Missionary
Paternalism
in
Catholic,
Protestant,
and
Pentecostal
Christianity
-
Issues
and
Concerns
Dr.
Arren
Bennet
Lawrence
30
.
56
Subscription
may
be
sent
to
the
Principal,
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College,
Chennai,
by
,
Cheque/Draft
drawn
in
favour
of
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College,
mentoring
at
the
reverse
sidd
!
that
the
amount
is
for
the
Hindustan
Evangelical
Review.
Those
who
are
in
North
America
may
send
their
subscription
to:
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College
P.O
3037,
Broken
Arrow,
OK
74013
USA.
Interpreting
Dialogues
Dr.
Balu
Savarikannu
An
Ethical/Theological
Reading
of
Genesis
22
76
Mr.
Aniyankunju
Joykutty
Moses'
Persuasive
Appeal:
A
Rhetorical
Analysis
of
Deuteronomy
4:
140
Mr.Johnson
The
Christian
Household
Codes:
An
Exegetical
Study
on
Ephesians
6:
19
and
Its
Implications
for
the
Indian
Christian
Household
Mr.
Thawng
Ceu
Hnin
An
analysis
of
John's
Use
of
d�,
µ[a,
and
£V
(One):
Oneness
Motifs
in
the
Fourth
Gospel
l
91
114
154
2
From
the
Editor
The
calling
of
a
biblical
scholar
in
India
is
quite
demanding.
The
church
expects
us
to
exegete
the
Word
of
God
and
also
to
be
missional
in
our
theological
reflections.
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
and
College
provides
a
platform
through
this
journal
to
share
our
reflections
from
biblical,
theological,
and
missional
perspectives.
In
this
issue,
scholars
as
well
as
emerging
scholars
have
contributed
their
writing mostly
from
biblical
perspectives.
We
believe
that
the
church
should
do
praxis-oriented
witnessing.
Johnson
Thomaskutty,
one
of
our
visiting
lecturers,
reads
John
13:120
through
honor-shame
perspective.
He
argues
that
Jesus'
washing
of
the
disciples'
feet
overturns
the
norms
of
the
society
and
shows
Jesus'
becoming
nature
and
on
doing
the
mission.
Paul
Ebenezer's
article
stands
out
because
his
is
the
only
historical-
missional
perspective
in
this
issue.
Paul
argues
that
the
paternalistic
approach
to
the
mission
should
not
be
followed
because
Christian
mission
is
more
of
empowering
the
people
especially
the
marginalized
and
underprivileged
in
society.
For
Paul,
the
participatory
or
integral
mission
will
do
wonders
for
an
Indian
context.
Next
is
an
article
that
gives
due
importance
to
dialogues
in
biblical
narratives.
Arren
Bennet
argues
that
dialogues
in
the
fast-paced
biblical
narratives
are
unique,
intentional,
and
hold
perspective
and
that
interpreters
should
give
due
attention
to
the
dialogues.
Even
silence
in
dialogue
is
also
a
response.
Mr.
Aneesh
128
Lord's
Supper
the
Fellowship
Meal:
An
Exegetical
Study
of
1
Corinthians
11:
1734
and
Its
SocioTheological
Implications
for
Contemporary
Indian
Church
3
Biblical
texts
are
theologically
revealing
and
ethically
relevant.
Balu
reads
Genesis
22
closely
and
addresses
the
ethical
question
of
why
God
demanded
child
sacrifice.
He
argues
that
Gen
22
is
not
only
about
the
trial
of
Abraham
or
Isaac;
rather
it
is
also
about
the
trial
of
YHWH.
In
the
end,
God
proves
that
he
is
like
other
gods
such
as
Molech
that
require
child
sacrifices;
instead,
he
is
the
life
giver.
Called
to
imitate
God,
we
should
be
the
agents
of
change
and
liberate
those
who
are
vulnerable
in
our
societies.
Biblical
texts
are
persuasive
in
character.
Aniyan
attempts
to
study
the
persuasive
nature
of
Deuteronomy
4:
1-40.
He
convincingly
argues
that
Moses
is
an
orator
par
excellence.
Moses'
persuasive
speech
contains
exhortation,
arguments,
and
evidence-all
aim
for
a
decisive
response
from
the
people.
Scripture
is
also
relevant
to
the
conduct
of
a
Christian
home.
R.
Johnson
sees
the
idea
of
submission
as
the
crux
of
Ephesians
6:
1-9,
which
-shares
some
affinity
with
the
household
codes
of
Hellenistic
background.
For
the
apostle
Paul,
submission
is
quintessential
for
the
spirit
filled
person.
Thus,
obedience
and
submission
are
the
sought
qualities
in
Christian
home.
Aneesh'
s
article
gives
us
some
useful
information
about
the
first-century
practice
of
the
Lord's
Supper
into
triclinium.
He
beautifully
brought
out
Paul's
rebuke
of
the
Corinthian
church
that
their
Lord
Supper
practice
was
more
dividing
than
unifying
people.
Finally,
we
have
writing
from
Thawng
who
analyses
oneness
motif
in
John's
gospel
in
the
light
of
the
Old
Testament
as
wells
the
writings
of
Josephus
and
Philo.
Thawng
argues
that
the
4
oneness
motif
echoes
the
Shema
of
the
OT,
the
Father-Son
relationship,
as
well
as
the
believers'
ecclesiastical
oneness.
We
sincerely
hope
that
you
will
enjoy
reading
these
articles.
Please
write
to
us
your
opinion
or
feedback
so
that
we
will
keep
improving
for
the
mission
of
God.
Balu
Savarikannu,
Ph.D.
Editor
balucharles@gmail.com
5
The
Event
of
Foot
Washing
in
John
13:1-20
as
a
Paradigm
for
Witnessing
Christ
in
the
Indian
Context
Johnson
Thomaskutty
The
event
of
foot
washing
in
John
13:
1-20
functions
as
one
of
the
significant
narrative
masterpieces
with
a
lot
of
theological
insights.
The
pericope
as
a
whole
requires
narrative
and
theological
appreciation
as
it
invites
the
readers
toward
a
unique
activity
of
Jesus.
In
the
current
article,
we
will
look
at
John
13:
1-20
both
within
the
framework
of
the
Farewell
Discourse
as
well
as
from
the
overall
structure
of
the
Gospel.
It
is
primarily
an
attempt
to
see
the
being
and
becoming
natures
of
Jesus
and
his
instructions
for
disciples'
doing.
The
study
also
attempts
to
see
how
the
narrative
exists
as
a
paradigm
in
the
contemporary
rnissional
and
ministerial
context
of
India.
John's
Gospel
can
be
considered
as
a
flexible,
accommodative,
and
gnomic
literary
work
that
absorbs
the
situational
aspects
of
people
'everywhere
and
ever.'
Keeping
all
these
in
mind,
this
article
endeavors
to
answer
the
following
questions
in
brief:
What
is
the
message
the
event
of
foot
washing
JOHNSON
THOMASKUTTY
(PhD.,
Radboud
Universiteit
Nijmegen)
is
a
member
of
the
Department
of
New
Testament
Studies
at
Union
Biblical
Seminary,
Pune,
India,
and
is
the
author
of
Dialogue
in
the
Book
of
Signs:
A
Polyvalent
Analysis
of
John
1:19-12:50
(Biblical
Interpretation
Series
136;
Leiden/Boston:
E.J.
Brill,
2015)
and
Saint
Thomas
the
Apostle:
New
Testament,
Apocrypha,
and
Historical
Traditions
(Jewish
and
Christian
Texts
Series
25;
New
York/London:
Bloomsbury
T&T
Clark,
2018).
His
forthcoming
monographs
include
Saint
Bartholomew
the
Apostle:
New
Testament,
Apocrypha,
and
Historical
Traditions
(Minneapolis:
Fortress
Press)
and
India
Commentary
on
the
Gospel
of
John
(Minneapolis:
Fortress
Press).
This
article
is
a
revised
version
of
a
paper
presented
at
Nepal Theological
Academy,
Kathmandu,
in
April
2018.
6
communicates
to
the
global
context?
How
does
the
event
function
as
a
paradigm
for
contemporary
India
for
Christian
witness?
How
does
the
event
function
within
the
Farewell
Discourse
in
particular
and
concerning
the
events
such
as
the
incarnation
and
the
death
of
Jesus
in
general?
How
does
the
event
function
within
the
narrative
framework
of
John
as
a
paradigm
for
Jesus's
servanthood?
The
task
of
the
study
is
threefold:
first,
as
a
Johannine
student,
explore
the
literary
and
theological
aspects
of
John
13:1-20;
second,
as
a
gnomic
interpreter,
investigate
the
universal
and
accommodative
tendencies
of
the
Fourth
Gospel;
and
third,
as
a
South
Asian
contextual
reader
of
the
text,
fuse
the
textual
and
contextual
horizons
for
application.
John
13:1-20
within
the
Narrative
Framework
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
John's
style
of
demonstrating
the
discourses
and
narratives
is
characteristic.
While
the
Synoptic
evangelists
narrate
the
instructions
of
Jesus
to
his
disciples
throughout
his
ministry
John
amasses
the
whole
set
of
instructions
and
presents
them
together
in
the
context
of
the
Last
Supper.2
The
Farewell
Discourse
of
John
in
chaps.
13-17
follows
the
literary
style
of
farewell
discourses
or
testaments
of
famous
men.
3
John
shares
some
of
the
literary
2
See
Mark
4:10-20;
6:7-13,
expanded
by
Matt
in
10:1--42;
Mark
8:14-21,
27-
33;
9:1-13,
33--41;
10:23--45.
The
instructions
in
Mark
13
are
expanded
in
Matt
24-25.
Also,
see
Mark
14:3--42;
Beasley-Murray,John,
222;
Kostenberger,
John,
396-397;
Stube,
Greco-Roman
Rhetorical
Reading
ofthe
Farewell
Discourse,
1-2;
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
140.
3
Collins
says,
"It
is
now
commonly
asserted
that
John
13:31-16:33
is
written
according
to
the
literary
genre
of
the
farewell
discourse.
Approximately
fifty
7
features
parallel
to
The
Testaments
of
the
Twelve
Patriarchs
that
contains
the
last
words
of
each
of
the
patriarchs
to
their
people.4
Moreover,
John's
tradition
also
shows
striking
similarities
with
some
of
the
Greco-Roman
symposium
traditions.5
Within
the
larger
framework
of
the
Gospel,
there
is
a
shift
of
emphasis
that
happens
from
the
public
ministry
of
Jesus
(chaps.
2-12)
to
his
private
ministry
(chaps.
13-17)
.6
While
John
places
1
:
1-18
at
the
outset
of
the
Book
of
Signs
with
a
punch
line
that
the
Word
became
flesh
and
dwelt
among
humanity
(1
:14),
later
on,
he
places
13:1-
20
as
an
introductory
narrative
for
the
Book
of
Glory
with
an
emphasis
on
the
Teacher-Lord
became
a
servant
among
his
disciples (13:14).
7
On
the
one
hand,
in
John
the
Passover
was
celebrated
on
the
eve
of
the
festival
(13:
1;
18:28);
on
the
other
speeches
ascribed
to
famous
men
in
anticipation
of
their
deaths
have
been
preserved
for
us
in
biblical
and
extra-biblical
sources."
See
Collins,
These
Things
Have
been
Written,
221;
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
278.
4
See
the
OT
parallels
in
Gen
49;
Josh
22-24;
and
1
Chron
28-29.
Beasley-
Murray
comments
that
"The
most
important
example
of
this
kind
of
writing,
however,
is
the
Book
of
Deuteronomy,
which
could
well
have
been
in
the
Evangelist's
mind
when
composing
the
discourses
of
the
Upper
Room.
This
work
in
its
entirety
consists
of
the
farewell
discourses
of
Moses
to
Israel."
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
222-223;
Borchert,
John
12-21,
72-90;
Engberg-
Pedersen,
"A
Question
of
Genre:
John
13-17
as
Paraklesis"
283-302.
5
Just
like
the
symposium
traditions,
we
see
in
John
13-17
a
formal
banquet,
a
symposium,
i.e.,
a
conference
or
discussion
on
a
particular
subject,
took
place
(see
Plato's
Symposium).
See
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
140.
6
See
Morris,
Gospel
of
John,
610.
Moloney
says
that
"No
doubt
the
constituent
parts
of
13:
1-17
:26
had
their
history
in
the
storytelling
of
the
Johannine
community,
but
the
process
of
telling
and
retelling
produced
a
Gospel
that
is
thoroughly
Johannine
in
all
its
parts."
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
370.
7
Keener
says,
"The
foot-washing
in
John
is
the
narrative
introduction
for
the
final
discourse,
part
of
the
lengthy
prolegomena
to
the
Passion
Narrative.
Jesus's
impending
death
dominates
with
foreshadowing
of
his
betrayal
(13:2,
10-11,
18-
30),
then
opens
directly
into
a
discussion
about
Jesus's
departure
by
way
of
the
cross
(13:36-38;
14:3-6).
This
scene,
therefore,
paves
the
way
for
the
Farewell
Discourse
(13:31-17:26)."
See
Keener,
Gospel
of
John,
2:899.
8
hand,
the
Synoptic
Gospels
indicate
that
Jesus
celebrated
it
with
his
disciples
(see
Mark
14:12;
Luke
22:15).8
In
John's
portrayal,
he
attempts
to
foreground
Jesus
as
the
Passover
lamb.
John
13:1-
30
falls
into
two
major
sections:
vv.
1-20,
describing
the
foot
washing
of
the
disciples
by
Jesus;
and
vv.
21-30,
the
announcement
of
Jesus
of
his
impending
betrayal
by
a
disciple.
9
The
event
of
foot
washing
in
vv.
4-11
and
the
succeeding
interpretation
of
it
are
persuasive
within
John's
narrative
framework.
Keener
(2003:
2:
891)
considers
"the
foot
washing
as
the
narrative
introduction
to
the
Farewell
Discourse
that
prefigures
the
passion.'?"
This
nature
of
the
story
underscores
its
feature
as
a
hypodeigma
(i.e
.
.,
an
'example,'
v.
15).11
Interspersing
the
event
of
foot
washing
(vv.
1-20)
with
the
betrayal
(vv.
21-30)
demonstrates
the
imminent
death
of
Jesus."
Jesus's
servant-model
8
Beasley-Murray
states
that
"Not
frequently
it
is
maintained
that
the
Fourth
Evangelist
knowingly
altered
the
date
of
the
trial
and
death
of
Jesus
in
the
interests
of
his
theology,
namely,
to
show
that
Jesus
died
as
God's
Passover
Lamb
(1:29;
19:31-37)."
See
Beasley-Murray,John,
224.
The
division
of
the
Gospel
of
John
as
Book
of
Signs
and
Book
of
Glory
can
be
found
in
Brown's
two-volume
commentary.
See
Brown,
Gospel
according
to
John,
2:555.
9
Beasley-Murray
says
that
"In
vv.
21-30
a
brief
dialogue
of
dramatic
intensity
takes
place,
wherein
Jesus
both
makes
known
that
one
of
the
disciples
at
the
table
will
betray
him
and
precipitates
the
act
of
betrayal
by
his
words
in
v.
27b."
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
230.
1
°
Keener
says
that,
"Just
as
Mark
13
interprets
the
imminent
passion
of
Mark
14-
15
for
the
disciples
in
terms
of
their
future
tribulation,
so
Jesus's
final
discourse
in
John's
Gospel
interprets
the
meaning
of
Jesus's
passion
for
his
disciples:
they
will
share
both
his
sufferings
and
his
resurrection
life."
See
Keener,
Gospel
of
John,
2:893.
11
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
230;
also
see
Culpepper,
Johannine
hypodeigma,
135.
12
See
Carson,
Farewell
Discourse
and
Final
Prayer
of
Jesus,
11-18.
9
in
13:1-20
introduced
at
the
outset
of
the
Book
of
Glory
becomes
an
indication
for
the
glorification
motif
ahead.
The
narrative
elements
of
John
13:1-20
initiates
the
resolution
of
John's
macro-story.
Jesus'
'servant-model'
has
to
be
looked
at
from
within
an
'honor
and
shame'
context."
The
Johannine
irony
comes
into
its
culmination
here
in
13:1-20,
where
servanthood
is
portrayed
as
masterhood.
14
That
prefigures
to
the
motif
of
Jesus's
passion
in
John,
in
which
death
is
portrayed
as
glorification.
15
Inv.
l,
the
narrator
indicates
that
Jesus
knew
his
hour
had
come
(cf.
12:23).
In
John,
the
'hour'
of
Jesus
is
an
indication
of
the
death/glorification
of
the
Son
of
Man.1
6
It
is
over
against
the
trend
of
the
first
twelve
chapters
where
Jesus
mostly
states
that
his
hour
has
not
yet
come.'?
In
the
context
of
foot
washing,
the
presence
of
Judas
is
once
again
brought
to
the
foreground
(v.
2;
cf.
v.
18).
That
shows
the
connection
between
the
foot
washing
event
and
the
anticipated
death
of
Jesus
within
John's
narrative
framework.
The
entire
event
of
foot
washing
is
narrated
within
an
inclusion
with
reference
to
Judas
in
vv.
1
and
18.
Inv.
3,
the
incarnation
of
Jesus
and
the
'U-shaped'
plot-
13
See
Neyrey,
Gospel
of
John
in
Cultural
and
Ideological
Perspective,
305-307.
14
See
Borchert,
John
12-21,
75.
15
See
Quast,
Reading
the
Gospel
of
John,
112-114.
16
In
the
first
half
of
the
Gospel,
the
hour
of
Jesus
is
a
highly
anticipated
moment
in
the
ministry
of
Jesus
(2:4;
4:21;
5:25;
7:30;
8:20).
In
the
second
half
of
the
book,
readers
discover
that
Jesus
comes
upon
his
hour
(12:23,
27;
13:l;
17:1).
See
Senior,
Passion
of
Jesus
in
the
Gospel
of
John,
36-38.
17
See
Morris,
Gospel
of
John,
613-615.
Keener
states
that,
"At
this
point,
however,
John
underlines
a
different
aspect
of
the
chronology:
Jesus
loved
his
own
'to
the
end'
(13:1).
This
is
Johannine
double
entendre:
it
can
imply
'to
the
utmost,'
'fully,'
as
well
as
'to
the
point
of
his
death."'
See
Keener,
Gospel
of
John,
2:899.
IO
structure
of
John
are
inscribed:
Father
had
given
all
things
into
his
[Jesus's]
hands
(as
the
pre-existent
son);
that
he
had
come
from
God
(his
incarnation
to
the
world);
and
was
going
to
God
(Jesus'
returning
back
to
the
Father)."
Paschal
sees
two
levels
of
interpretations
based
on
varied
viewpoints
of
scholars
like
Brown
and
Boismard:
first,
a
soteriological/Christological
interpretation
in
13:6....:.10;
and
second,
a
moral
interpretation
in
13:
12-17
.19
In
Bultmann's
interpretation,
he
suggests
that
the
evangelist
wove
the
two
together."
Based
on
the
coherent
pattern
of
the
narrator
and
the
speech-and-action
integration
of
the
protagonist,
readers
can
perceive
John
13:
1-20
as
a
nicely
plotted
and
sequentially
interweaved
story.
The
Farewell
Discourse
follows
its
literary
format
(13:1-30
[a
narrative];
13:31-16:33
[discourse/s];
and
17:
1-26
[
a
prayer])
in
which
the
foot
washing
event
sustains
a
distinct
literary
style
from
the
rest
of
the
materials."
A
comparison
between
Jesus's
speeches
in
the
Farewell
Discourse
and
Moses's
Deuteronomistic
instructions
suggest
the
covenantal
language
in
both
of
the
masterpieces
and
demonstrates
the
way
Jesus
is
cast
as
the
new
Moses
who
institutes
a
new
covenant
with
the
new
18
See
Resseguie,
The
Strange
Gospel,
171.
19
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
749.
Also
see
Brown,
Gospel
according
to
John,
2:559-572;
Boismard,
"Le
Lavement
des
Pieds
(John
13:
1-17),"
5-24.
20
Morris
says
that,
"Before
the
sustained
instruction
begins
there
are
two
significant
actions
performed
by
our
Lord.
The
first
that
of
washing
the
disciples'
feet
is
pregnant
with
meaning,
the
meaning
of
the
cross
which
now
loomed
before
Jesus.
The
second,
that
of
giving
the
sop
to
Judas,
taken
with
Jesus's
words
to
the
traitor,
set
in
motion
the
events
leading
to
the
passion."
See
Morris,
Gospel
of
John,
611;
also
see
Brown,
Gospel
according
to
John,
558-559;
Bultmann,
Gospel
of
John,
348-351.
21
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
370;
also
see
Segovia,
Farewell
of
the
Word,
1-
58;
Brown,
Gospel
according
to
John,
559-562.
11
Israel.22
The
event
of
foot
washing
plays
a
significant
that
leads
the
readers
toward
the
covenantal
discourses
as
well
as
the
death
of
Jesus.
In
the
following
sections,
we
will
expound
some
of
the
key
factors
within
the
narrative
framework
of
John
13:1-20.
Jesus's
Nature
of
'Being':
Indications
about
His
Divine
Attributes
Jesus's
nature
of
'being'
is
understood
in
terms
of
his
universality
(4:42),
supernatural
power
(6:1-15)
and
existence
as
one
'from
above'
(8:23).23
God's
eternal
existence
and
essential
unity
with
the
Son
became
a
"historical
and
dynamic
reality
in
Jesus
as
the
Christ."24
The
Son's
existence
about
the
eternal
rather
than
the
temporal
aspects
demonstrates
his
being
beyond
time
and
space.
25
This
nature
of
Jesus
is
foregrounded
within
the
macro-narrative
framework
of
the
Fourth
Gospel.
Within
John's
macro-structure,
Jesus
is
introduced
from
the
eternal
point
of
view,
and
his
presence
is
delineated
in
the
following
ways:
he
was
with
God
right
from
the
beginning
(1:lb),
he
was
God
himself
(1:lc),
all
things
came
into
being
through
him
(1:2),
the
'Word'
became
flesh
and
dwelt
among
humanity
(1:
14a),
and
he
shared
the
glory,
grace,
and
truth
of
the
Father
(1:14b).
Jesus'
identity
and
authority
as
the
begotten
Son
of
God
(1:
14b,
18;
3:
16)
enabled
him
to
appear
as
a
22
See
Kostenberger,
John,
398.
23
For
more
details
about
Jesus's
divine
nature,
refer
to
Bird,
Evans,
and
Gathercole,
eds.,
How
God
Became
Jesus,
1-30;
Webb,
Jesus
Christ,
Eternal
God,
75-94.
24
See
Harris,
Jesus
as
God,
291.
25
For
a
more detailed
explanation
of
'being,'
refer
to
The
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
Vol.
l,
777.
12
distinct
figure
within
John's
narrative
framework.26
The
interlocutors
of
Jesus
recognize
him
as
'Teacher'
or
'Rabbi'
/'Rabbouni'
in
several
narrative
intervals
(1
:49;
3:2;
4:31;
11:8;
20:16).27
His
conversations
with
Nicodemus
(3:1-10),
the
Samaritan
woman
(4:7-26),
the
Jews
in
the
Synagogue
at
Capernaum
(6:24-59)
and
during
the
Feast
of
Tabernacles
(7:
10-
21)
affirm
his
role
and
status
as
a
teacher.28
Moreover,
his
position
as
'Lord'
is
proclaimed
alongside
the
title
'Teacher.'
29
These
titles
in
John
do
not
function
in
parochial
senses,
but
rather
they
demonstrate
Jesus'
divine
attributes
as
he
is
the
teller
of
heavenly
truths
and
as
one
who
executes
authority
from
above.
While
the
signs
in
John
reveal
his
lordship
over
the
created
things
(2:
1-12;
4:43-54;
5:1-18;
6:1-15,
16-21;
9:1-41;
11:1-54),30
his
'I
AM'
sayings
demonstrate
his
role
as
an
authentic
teacher
of
heavenly
realities
(6:35,
48;
8:12;
9:5;
10:7,
9,
11;
11:25;
14:6;
15:1).
31
The
utterances
of
the
Johannine
characters
further
support
it:
"Lord,
to
whom
can
we
go?"
(Simon
Peter,
6:68);
"Lord,
I
believe"
(the
healed
man
[9:38];
and
Martha
[11
:27]);
"I
have
seen
the
Lord"
(Mary
Magdalene,
20:18);
"We
have
seen
the
Lord"
(the
disciples,
26
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
6-17.
27
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
27,
47,
63,
188,
374-376.
28
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
89-103,
115-145,
239-246.
29
See
Moloney, Gospel
of
John,
375.
30
Thompson
says
that,
"A
sign
is
...
properly
understood
when
it
is
seen
as
pointing
to
God's
work
through
the
person
of
Jesus
to
effect
salvation."
See
Thompson,
"John,
Gospel
of,"
379;
Thomaskutty,
Dialogue
in
the
Book
of
Signs,
447-450.
31
See
Burge,
'"I
AM'
Sayings,"
354-356;
Thomaskutty,
Dialogue
in
the
Book
of
Signs,
450-452.
13
20:25);
and
"It
is
the
Lord"
(Beloved
Disciple,
21
:7).32
However,
Thomas'
utterance,
"My
Lord
and
my
God,"
takes
the
attention
of
the
reader
one
step
further
to
the
oneness
motif
and
the
divine
realities
(20:28).33
Jesus'
vertical
Christological
attributes
are
emphasized
within
the
micro-narrative
structure
of
13:
1-20.
Within
the
macro-structure
of
John,
there
is
higher
regard
for
Jesus's
'being'
as
the
Son
of
God
and
as
the
Lord-Teacher
from
above
(cf.
3:2).
34
Jesus's
rise
up
from
the
table
in
13:4
is
symbolical
of
his
departure
from
the
elevated
'position'
and
'honor'
to
the
status
of
service.35
Through
his
utterances
and
actions,
Jesus
proved
that
he
is
a
teacher
par-excellence
and
the
lord
of
all
times.
As
the
ancient
rhetoric
rightly
suggests,
Jesus's
speech
here
is
supplemented
by
his
action.
In
13:
1
,
the
narrator
states
about
Jesus'
s
departure
from
the
world
of
'becoming'
to
the
world
of
'being.'
The
'hour,'
'glorification,'
and
'lifting
up'
of
the
Son
of
Man
are
revealed
through
Jesus's
death
on
the
cross
(cf.
v.
lb).36
While
the
event
of
'word
becoming
flesh'
brings
about
a
transition
in
Jesus's
mission
32
See
Witherington,
"Lord,"
490--491.
33
See
Thomaskutty,
Saint
Thomas
the
Apostle,
64-68;
Wilkins,
"Disciples,"
180.
34
See
Morris,
Gospel
of
John,
611-623;
cf.
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
82.
35
Borchert
states
that,
"In
a
society
that
was
very
conscious
of
status
symbols
of
shame
and
honour,
such
as
the
touching
and
washing
of
feet,
was
an
extremely
important
matter."
See
Borchert,
John
12-21,
79;
also
see
Kostenberger,
John,
400--409;
Brown,
Gospel
according
to
John,
2:563-572.
36
Moloney
says,
"The
hour
is
to
be
a
moment
when
Jesus
will
depart
from
the
sphere
of
everyday
events.
The
one
who
has
been
sent
by
the
Father
will
return
to
the
Father,
but
during
his
ministry
he
has
gathered
disciples,
a
group
called
'his
own'
(v.
1
b:
hoi
idioi.
Cf.
1
:11-12;
10:3,
4,
12),
and
his
passage
through
the
hour
will
be
a
supreme
demonstration
of
his
love
for
them."
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,373.
14
from
the
'world
from
above'
to
the
'world
from
below'
(l
:3c-4,
14),37
the
hour/glorification/lifting
up on
the
cross
reveals
the
reversal
of
the
event.38
While,
in
the
beginning,
Jesus
appears
from
the
'world
of
being'
to
the
'world
of
becoming,'
at
the
end,
a
transition
occurs
when
Jesus
moves
from
the
'world
of
becoming'
to
the
'world
of
being'
(
v.
1
)39
The
references
about
his
knowing
in
vv.
l
and
3
are
clear
marks
of
his
'being'
nature
over
against
his
interlocutors'
unknowing
character.
Borchert
comments
that,
"Building
upon
the
statements
concerning
Jesus's
knowledge
of
his
hour
in
v.
1,
the
evangelist
expands
the
idea
here
to
remind
the
reader
that
Jesus
was
knowledgeable
about
his
origin
and
his
goal
or
destiny."?
Thus
Jesus's
omniscient
nature
is
made
obvious
within
the
narrative
master
plan
of
the
Gospel.
41
While
the
Father
is
committing
"all
things"
(panta)
into
Son's
hands
as
an
active
partner
in
creation
(1:3), Jesus
appears
as
an
authoritative
and
powerful
figure
in
human
history.42
Jesus's
knowledge,
love,
and
action
in
contrast
to
the
unrecognizing,
hateful,
and
misunderstanding
natures
of
the
Jews
[and
the
disciples]
reveal
his
divine
attributes
(vv.
1-5).43
Jesus
knows
that
the
Father
had
given
all
things
into
his
hands,
his
coming
from
God,
and
his
going
back
37
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
38.
38
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
373.
39
See
Borchert,
John
12-21,
77.
40
See
Borchert,
John
12-21,
78.
41
Borchert
says,
'"Coming
from'
(exerchesthai
plus
apo)
and
'go�ng
to'.
(hypagein
plus
pros)
was
the
way
John
here
described
the
broad
dimensions
of
Jesus's
earthly
existence
and
his
relationship
to
the
eternal
God."
See
Borchert,
John
12-21,
79.
42
See
Borchert,John
12-21,
79.
43
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
373-374.
15
to
God
(v.
1.).
Jesus's
statement
in
v.
13
is
significant
to
note
here:
"You
call
me
Teacher
and
Lord-and
you
are
right,
for
that
is
what
I
am."
While
Peter
in
his
conversation
calls
Jesus
"Lord"
(vv.
6,
9),
the disciples
as
a
whole
address
him
as
"Teacher"
and
"Lord"
(vv.
13-14).44
Jesus
acknowledges
their
utterances
and
affirms
his
status
as
"I
am."
While
Nicodemus
refers
to
him
as
a
heavenly
teacher,
the
title
has
overtones
of
divinity
(3:2).45
Jesus's
nature
as
a
sent
one
of
God
is
highlighted
in
v.
20.
As
Jesus
is
'from
above'
(ek
UJn
ano;
8:23),
seeing
him
is
seeing
God.
As
an
agent
of
God,
he
has
life
in
himself
and
has
the
authority
to
execute
judgment
(5:26-27).
These
divine
attributes
of
Jesus
enable
him
to
be
the
authoritative
one
of
God.46
Jesus's
Nature
of
'Becoming':
His
Servant
Model
The
Gospel
of
John
as
a
whole
describes
how
God
himself
became
a
human
being.
Jesus's
descend
from
the
heavens,
total
identification
with
the
humans(]
:14),
and
the
Fourth
Evangelist
emphasizes
his
service
in
the
world
(13:1-20).
John
13:1-20
also
demonstrates
the
horizontal
and
humanitarian
aspects
of
the
ministry
of
Jesus.
In
the
first
century
CE
context,
foot
washing
was
considered
a
menial
work
and
was
usually
practiced
by
slaves
and
Gentiles.47
In
the
episode,
Jesus's
posture
of
getting
up
from
44
See
Morris,
Gospel
of
John,
617-618.
45
See
Morris,
Gospel
of
John,
620.
46
See
Borchert,
Gospel
of
John,
79.
47
Keener
states
that,
"Thus
people
often
washed
their
feet
when
returning
home;
washing
one's
feet
was
common
enough
that
'unwashed
feet'
became
proverbial
in
some
places
for
'without
preparation.'
The
face,
hands,
and
feet
seem
to
have
16
the
table,
taking
off
his
outer
robe,
tying
a
towel
around,
pouring
water
into
a
basin,
washing
the
feet
of
the
disciples,
and
wiping
them
with
a
towel
that
was
tied
around
him
demonstrates
his
serving
attitude
(v.
4).48
Michaels
says
that,
"When
his
work
is
done,
he
will
reverse
those
actions:
'So,
when
he
had
washed
their
feet,
he
took
his
garments
and
reclined
again'
(v.
12)."49
While
reclining
at
the
table
is
symbolical
of
his
honorable
position,
washing
the
feet
of
the
disciples
demonstrates
his
gesture
of
humility
.50
The
narrative
makes
it
clear
that
though
Jesus
was
honorable,
he
came
to
serve
humanity
.51
The
event
of
washing
the
feet
exemplifies
Jesus's
pattern
of
sacrificial
and
costly
service.
It
is
in
this
manner
the
disciples
are
expected
to
show
their
agape
to
one
another
as
they
are
engaged
in
witnessing
Christ
in
the
world
(13:34-35).52
This
understanding
of
John's
Christology
goes
in
alignment
with
the
suffering
servant
motifs
in
the
Book
of
Isaiah
and
the
Gospel
of
Mark
(see
Isa
52:13-53:12).53
While
Mark
been
the
most
critical
parts
of
the
body
to
wash."
See
Keener,
Gospel
of
John,
2:903.
48
Bruce
states
that,
"So
he
dresses
like
a
household
servant
and
performs
a
servant's
task."
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
280;
also
see
Bernard,
Gospel
according
to
St.
John,
458-459.
49
Michaels
says
that,"
...
the
writer
is
content
to
let
the
death
of
Jesus
remain
implicit
here,
just
as
it
remained
implicit
in
the
account
of
Mary
anointing
Jesus'
s
feet
at
the
earlier
'supper'
in
Bethany
(see
12:3-8)."
See
Michaels,
Gospel
of
John,
724-725;
also
see
Bernard,
Gospel
according
to
St.
John,
465.
50
See
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
142-143;
also
see
Bernard,
Gospel
according
to
St.
John,
454-476.
51
Keener
(2003:
2:
904)
states
that,
"Washing
feet
was
a
menial
task,
and
one
who
sought
to
wash
another's
feet
normally
took
the
posture
of
a
servant
or
dependent."
See
Keener,
Gospel
of
John,
2:904.
52
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
750;
also
see
Bernard,
Gospel
according
to
St.
John,
476-477.·
53
See
Blenkinsopp,
Isaiah
40-55,
338-356.
17
delineates
a
'theology
of
power'
at
the
outset
of
the
Gospel
(chaps.
1-8),
later
on,
he
shifts
the
emphasis
to
a
'theology
of
suffering'
(Mark
10:45).
54
Such
a
paradigmatic
presentation
of
Christ's
work
is
obvious
within
the
narrative
framework
of
John
13:
1-20.
On
the
one
hand,
Jesus's
being
nature
is
presented
at
a
vertical
level,
and
on
the
other
hand,
his
becoming
nature
is
shown
at
a
horizontal
level.
These
extreme
positions
cannot
be
considered
as
contrasting
elements
within
J
ohannine
Christo
logy.
Rather,
they
should
be
perceived
as
Christological
elements
that
progress
from
one
level
to
the
other.
Jesus's
love
for his
disciples
extends
until
the
end
(v. 2).
It
demonstrates
how
love
as
the
essential
truth
of
God
extends
from
heaven
to
earth.
Inv.
3,
the
narrator
places
the
clause
on
Jesus's
coming
from
God
at
the
centre
with
a
purpose.
While
the
construction
"Father
had
given
all
things
into
his
[Jesus's]
hands"
(the
pre-incarnate
stage)
is
placed
at
the
beginning
and
the
expression
"he
[Jesus]
was
going
to
the
Father"
(the
ascension
to
heaven)
at
the
end,
the
expression
"he
[Jesus]
had
come
from
God"
(his
descent
from
heaven)
emphasizes
a
significant
aspect
within
the
passage.
As
Jesus
is
the
word
became
flesh,
he
reveals
his
characteristic
role
of
servant
leadership.
Jesus's
statement
to
the
disciples,
"your
Lord
and
Teacher
...
washed
your
feet"
(v.
14),
54
Guthrie
comments
that,
"It
is
supposed
that
Mark
sees
the
disciples
as
spokesmen
for
a
theology
of
glory
linked
to
the
Hellenistic
divine
man
idea.
According
to
this
view,
MarkI-B
presents
a
triurnphalistic
wonder-worker,
where
the
rest
of
the
gospel
sees
Jesus
in
terms
of
the
Suffering
Servant."
See
Guthrie,
New
Testament
Introduction,
68;
also
see
Stein,
Mark,
486---490,
632-
634.
18
emphasizes
the
aspect
of
humility
and
servant
leadership.55
He
further
states
that
"servants
are
not
greater
than
their
master
nor
are
messengers
greater
than
the
one
who
sent
them"
(v.
16).56
This
speech
has
to
be
understood
in
the
light
of
his
statement
in
v.
20:
"whoever
receives
one
whom
I
send
receives
me;
and
whoever
receives
me
receives
him
who
sent
me."
Jesus's
statement
here
indicates
that
no
one
can
respect
a
master
or
a
sender
without
respecting
his/her
servant
and
messenger.
Thus,
Jesus's
servanthood
to
the
Father
and
the
disciples'
servanthood
in
relation
to
Jesus
are
interknitted
together.
Peter
was
hesitant
to
see
"the
Holy
One
of
God"
humbling
himself
and
perform
such
a
menial
service
for
one
so
unworthy
(vv.
6-11).57
In
a
context
in
which
'clean'
and
'unclean'
are
interpreted
by
the
laws
of
purification
and
'honor'
and
'shame'
on
the
basis
of
role
and
status,
Jesus
shares
his
views
from
an
eternal
and
heavenly
perspective.58
Peter's
appointment
as
a
disciple
(1
:42)
and
his
presence
with
Jesus
in
the
Synagogue
at
Capemaum
(6:66-71)
would
have
made
him
clean.59
What
Jesus
spoke
to
the
disciples
was
spirit
and
life
(6:63).
Peter
in
his
conversation
acknowledges
55
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
232-237;
also
see
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
284-285.
Morris
says
that,
"Jesus
gently
discourages
excess.
The
imagery
is
that
of
a
man
going
to
a
feast.
He
will
bathe
at
home.
Then
when
he
arrives,
he
needs
only
to
wash
his
feet
to
sit
at
table
wholly
clean."
See
Morris,
Gospel
according
to
John,
618.
56
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
286.
57
Cf.
Michaels,
Gospel
of
John,
726.
58
Bruce
states
that,
"the
foot
washing
symbolises
Jesus's
humbling
himself
to
endure
the
death
of
the
cross
and
the
cleansing
efficacy
of
his
death
for
the
believer."
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
281-283;
also
see
Morris,
Gospel
according
to
John,
618;
also
see
Borchert,
John
12-21,
82.
59
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
281-282;
also
see
Kostenberger,
John,
401-409.
19
that
Jesus
possesses words
of
eternal
life
(6:68).
As
he
is
internally
cleansed,
he
and
those
who
follow
Jesus
need
only
the
washing
of
the
feet
(6:60-71).
60
Jesus
washes
their
feet
as
a
symbolical
gesture
and
as
a
model
of
service
in
order
to
communicate
with
them
certain
lessons.61
Jesus,
as
the
Paschal
Lamb
(1
:29,
36;
19:36),
demonstrates
an
image
of
sacrifice
through
washing
the
feet
of
the
disciples
.62
Jesus'
act
in
this
passage
prefigures
his
imminent
passion
and
death
on
the
cross
.63
The
event
as
a
whole
foreshadows
Jesus's
service
to
the
world
as
a
paschal
lamb.64
Jesus's
Instruction
on
'Doing':
A
New
Lesson
for
the
Disciples
In
vv.
14-15,
Jesus
instructs
his
disciples
that
they
should
wash
one
another's
feet.
In
v.
15,
Jesus
tells
his
disciples
that
"you
should
do
ipoiete)
as
I
have
done
(epoiesa)
to
you"
(v.
15b
).
While
poiete
remains
as
the
present
active
subjunctive
form
and
epoiesa
as
the
aorist
active
indicative
form
of
poieo,
the
pointed
activity
of
Jesus
and
the
subsequent
instructions
for
the
disciples
to.practice
60
See
Michaels,
Gospel
of
John,
732.
61
See
Blomberg,
Historical
Reliability
of
John's
Gospel,
188-192�
also
see
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
142-143;
also
see
Kostenberger,
John,
401-409.
62
Merkle
states
that,
"Biblical
leadership
is
humble,
servant
leadership.
Jesus
gave
the
perfect
example
of
humility
when
he
washed
the
feet
of
his
disciples
(John
13:
1-20)."
See
Merkle,
Why
Elders?
45.
63
Paschal
says
that,
"The
foot
washing
is
a
drama
of
Jesus's
act
of
sacrifice
on
the
cross."
See
Paschal,
"Servant,"
750;
also
see
Kostenberger,
John,
401-409.
64
Paschal
states
that,
"The
servant
sayings
of
Jesus
in
John
13:12-17
have
Christological
implications
that
we
should
not
miss:
The
Lord
of
the
disciples
is
also
the
obedient
son
and
servant
of
the
Father
(cf.
John
14:
10-12;
17:
1-5)."
See
Paschal,
"Servant,"
750;
also
see
Blomberg,
Historical
Reliability
of
John's
Gospel,
189-192.
20
are
indicated.65
In
this
context,
Jesus
illustrates
the
event
as
an
example
(hypodeigma)
for
the
disciples
to
practice
in
the
future.
Jesus
here
insists
that
the
disciples
should
do
as
he
has
done
to
them
(vv.
14-15).66
Through
Jesus's
activity
and
the
subsequent
instruction,
the
disciples
are
prepared
to
carry
out
the
virtue
of
humility
through
the
act
of
service.
67
The
narrator
of
the
story
points
out
that
the
disciples
are
expected
to
demonstrate
the
aspect
of
Imitatio
Christi.68
Michaels
says
that,
"The
noun
'example'
and
the
repetition
of
'you
too'
make
it
clear
that
Jesus
is
calling
on
his
disciples
to
do
for
each
other
exactly
what
he
has
done
for
them.
The
repetition
of
the
verb
'to
do'
-
'just
as
I
did'
and
'that
you
might
do'
-
confirms
that
he
is
urging
them
to
imitate
not
just
his
humble attitude,
but
the
literal
action
of
washing
feet."69
While
Jesus
initiates
the
service
as
an
honourable
task,
society
considers
that
as
an
act
of
the
weak."
As
Jesus
does
the
will
of
God
and
serving
humanity
at
the
same
time,
the
disciples
are
instructed
to
do
the
same.
Through
the
very
activity
of
Jesus,
the
Johannine
community
is
instructed
uniquely
to
follow
a
pattern
of
sacrificial
65
See
Wenham,
Elements
of
New
Testament
Greek,
96,
159-160.
Michaels
says,
"the
present
subjunctive,
'might
do,'
in
contrast
to
the
aorist,
'just
as
I
did,'
implies
that
he
is
urging
them
to
continue
to
do
repeatedly
what
he
has
done
for
them
once
and
for
all."
See
Michaels,
Gospel
of
John,
735.
66
See
Blomberg,
Historical
Reliability
of
John's
Gospel,
190-191.
67
Paschal
suggests
that,
"The
humility
that
Jesus
is
pressing
on
Peter
is
both
to
accept
the
gracious
gift
of
service
from
the
Master
and
to
accept
a
common
human
need
for
the
same
gift."
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
750.
68
See
Green,
Death
of
Jesus,
112.
69
See
Michaels,
Gospel
of
John,
735.
10
Bennema
comments
that,
"Jesus
regards
the
acts
of
service
to
others
as
honourable,
whereas
the
society
of
that
time
considered
them
as
a
sign
of
weakness."
See
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
143.
21
and
costly
service
to
humanity
.71
The
agape-centric
ethics
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
foreshadowed
in
its
apex
level
within
the
Farewell
Discourse.
The
Johannine
ethics
that
are
recapitulated
within
a
punch
line
phrase
like
"love
one
another"
(13:34).
This
phraseology
of
John
can
be
considered
as
a
call
for
caring
for
the
poor
and
outcaste
within
varied
life
situations."
As
the
Johannine
community
was
an
expelled
messianic
group
from
the
synagogue,
their
mutual
relationship
and
service
among
themselves
in
utter
humility
are
emphasised.
As
Jesus
was
selflessly
serving
them
and
sacrificing
himself
for
humanity
even
to
the
point
of
the
cross,
the
disciples
are
asked
to
follow
his
steps
to
witness
Christ
through
the
gesture
of
service.
73
The
narrator
foregrounds
the
relationship
among
the
Father,
the
Son,
and
the
believers
(vv.
16-18).
When
God
the
Master
sends
his
Son
as
a
Servant,
the
Son
exemplifies
a
servant
model
of
leadership.
Though
he
possesses
a
superior
status
on
a
par
with
the
Father
and
belongs
to
the
world
of
being,
Jesus
turns
to
be
a
servant,
and
he
exemplifies
the
selfless
model
of
leadership
on
earth.
Jesus's
humility
and
servanthood
provide
the
disciples
with
practical
lessons
to
remain
as
faithful
servants
of
God.74
Furthermore,
while
God
the
Father
functions
as
the
sender,
Jesus
the
Son
appears
as
the
messenger
of
God.
As
Jesus
proceeds
from
the
world
of
the
'sender,'
he
exists
in
the
world
below
as
the
71
See
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
140-144.
72
Sec
Paschal,
"Service,"
750.
73
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
750.
74
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
282-288.
22
messenger
of
God.
As
Jesus
the
messenger
turns
to
be
the
'sender'
of
God,
he
sends
the
disciples
as
messengers
of
God.
Here
Jesus
prepares
his
disciples
to
do
what
he
has
already
done
for
them.75
Jesus,
though
Master
and
Sender,
comes
in
the
form
of
a
servant
and
a
messenger
and
instructs
the
disciples
to
witness
God
even
at
the
point
of
death.76
If
the
disciples
continue
to
know
the
things
that
Jesus
actualized
in
this
world
and
imitate
his
activities,
they
will
be
considered
as
blessed
(v.
17).77
While
Peter
is
foregrounded
as
an
insider
whom
Jesus
instructs
the
truth,
Judas
is
identified
as
a
representative
of
the
outsiders."
Paschal
comments
that,
"As
Peter
represents
the
community
of
faith,
Judas
represents
those
who
reject
Jesus's
sacrificial
gift
and
its
concomitant
demand
for
service
to
others."79
In
that
sense,
the
hypodeigma
is
also
demonstrated
through
the
faith
responses
of
Simon
Peter
and
Judas
Iscariot.
Jesus
instructs
here
that
people
can
do
the
will
of
God
through
their faith
response
to
Jesus,
the
attitude
of
a
loving
relationship
with
one
another,
and
the
virtue
of
the
servant
model
of
discipleship.
In
short,
Jesus,
the
'sent
one,'
functions
as
'the
75
Sec
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
286-287.
76
Beasley-Murray
comments
that,
"The
comparison
of
v.
13
is
deepened
by
a
saying
drawn
from
the
tradition
of
Jesuss
sayings
(cf.
Matthew
10:24);
here
'student'
and
'teacher'
are
replaced
by
'slave'
and
'master,'
and
'one
sent'
along
with
the
'superior
who
sends'
him."
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
236.
17
Moloney
comments
that,
"The
blessedness
of
the
Johanni�e
b�lieve�
fl?ws
.
from
the
living
out,
the
'doing'
of
all
that
is
implied
by
entenng
mto
discipleship
through
baptism."
Sec
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
379.
7
s
See
Blomberg,
Historical
Reliability
of
John's
Gospel,
189.
. .
79
Paschal
further
says
that,
"Not
to
accept
Jesus's
death
for
us
ts
to
betray
him,
to
leave
the
community
of
faith
and
embrace
the
darkness
(
13:
30)
."
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
750.
23
sender.l'"
When
the
disciples
receive
Jesus
and
accept
his
authority
to
send,
they
shall
be
turned
to
be
messengers
of
the
eternal
truth
of
God.81
The
Relevance
of
the
Study
in
the
Nepali
Context
John
13:
1-20
recapitulates
the
theological
master
plan
of
the
Fourth
Gospel.
Jesus's
being
nature
and
divine
status,
his
becoming
nature
as
a
servant
of
God,
and
his
glorification
on
the
cross
are
demonstrated
in
a
nutshell
in
the
episode.82
The
narrator
of
the
story
attempts
to
merge
the
theme
of
servanthood
with
the
glorification
aspect.
Jesus's
movement
as
a
messenger
of
God
flourishes
from
his
divine
nature
(the
pre-incarnate
stage)
to
the
human
form
(the
incarnate
Word)
and
further
to
the
divine
nature
(through
revealing
the
hour/glorification/lifting
up
of
the
Son
of
Man).83
The
movement
of
Jesus
'from
heavenly
to
earthly'
and
again
'from
earthly
to
heavenly'
forms
the
'U
shaped
plot
structure' of
the
Fourth
Gospel.
In
the
event
of
foot
washing,
Jesus's
posture
of
sitting
at
the
table
(v.
4a),
his
washing
of
the
feet
of
the
disciples
(v.
4b-l
l),
and
his
reclining
back
to
the
table
(v.
12)
symbolically
demonstrates
the
'U
shaped
plot
structure'
of
the
story.84
As
Jesus's
identity
is
delineated
in
relation
to
a
prop
80
See
Blomberg,
Historical
Reliability
of
John's
Gospel,
190-191;
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
378-379.
81
See
other
New
Testament
parallels
in
Mark
10:35-45;
Matthew
20:20-28;
and
Luke
22:24-28.
Also
see
Blomberg,
Historical
Reliability
of
John's
Gospel,
189-
190.
82
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
370-372.
83
See
Loader,Jesus
in
John's
Gospel,
225.
84
See
Resseguie,
The
Strange
Gospel,
171.
24
like
a
table
at
the
beginning
and
the
end
(vv.
4a,
12)
and
his
attitude
of
service
at
the
middle
(vv.
4b-11),
the
narrator
demonstrates
a
'U
shaped
plot
structure'
at
the
micro-level
with
symbolical
underpinnings.85
While
sitting
at
the
table
is
symbolical
of
the
status
of
'honor,'
washing
the
feet
is
identical
to
Jesus's
becoming
nature.
Jesus's
attitude
of
life-giving
results
into
his
death
and
the
death
is
identified
as
the
glorification
of
the
Son
of
Man.86
The
event
of
foot
washing
and
the
successive
Farewell
Discourse
intimate
the
reader
a
clue
concerning
the
imminent
death
of
Jesus.
The
event
as
a
whole
prepares
the
way
for
the
narrator
to
identify
the
betrayer
in
13:21-30.87
The
Farewell
Discourse
ultimately
leads
the
protagonist
to
his
death,
and
that
further
demonstrates
his
glory.
In
that
way,
the
event
in
its
semantic
domains
can
be
considered
as
a
foundational
activity
with
a
lot
of
symbolical
aspects.
The
suffering
servant
motif
is
reflected
through
the
event
(cf.
Mark
10:45).88
John's
Gospel
is
a
contextually
adaptable
and
theologically
enriched
masterpiece
that
can
absorb
concepts
from
'everywhere
and
ever'
in
order
to
provide
a
'gnomic'
and
'universal'
appeal.89
A
thorough
analysis
of
the
Gospel
will
enable
us
to
understand
the
flexible
nature
of
John-its
adaptability
to
85
The
expressions
like
egeiretai
ek
tou
deipnou
(v.
4a)
and
anepesen
palin
(v.
12)
make
us
think
of
a
table
at
the
view.
86
See
Loader,
Jesus
in
John's
Gospel,
225.
87
See
Bennema,
Excavating
John's
Gospel,
140-146.
88
See
Beasley-Murray,
John,
222-240.
89
See
Thomaskutty,
"Biblical
Interpretation
in
the
Global-Indian
Context,"
64-
68.
25
new
situations
and
the
reverberation
of
its
impact
through
space
and
time."
A
gnomic
reading
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
one
that
explores
its
message
for
all
times
and
all
places,
will
help
us
to
understand
its
significance
for
the
people
oflndia
today."
John's
narrative
master
plan
enables
the
readers aware
of
the
superiority
of
Jesus
as
'one
who
was
in
the
beginning'
(1:
1),
'all
things
came
into
being
through
him'
(l:2),
and
'in
him
was
life
and
the
life
was
light
of
all
people'
(1
:4).92
In
13:
1-20,
Jesus
reveals
his
'honourable'
position
in
contextual
and
social
terms
as
a
'teacher'
and
'Lord.'93
However,
his
posture
of
washing
the
feet
of
the
disciples
is,
in
social
terms,
a
'shameful'
activity.
The
church
in
India
should
'do
what
they
speak'
as
Jesus
'did
what
he
talked.'94
As
Jesus
accommodated
the
human
world
and
its
cultures
through
his
very
nature
of
becoming
(see
'Word
became
flesh,'
1:14),
the
Indian
church
should
take
active
steps
in
witnessing
Christ
to
the
suffering
humanity
of
the
country.
The
mission
model
of
identifying
with
people
has
long-lasting
effects
in
witnessing
Christ
in
the
pluralistic
context
of
the
country
.95
As
the
servant
model
ofleadership
demonstrated
both
at
the
micro
(13:1-20),
and
macro
levels
of
the
Gospel,
the
church
in
India
should
prioritize
this
model
both
in
its
ministerial
and
missional
engagements."
90
See
Thornaskutty,
"Reading
John's
Gospel
in
the
Nepali
Context,"
6.
91
See
Thornaskutty,
"Glo(b/c)alization
and
Missiorus),"
56-77;
also
Thornaskutty,
"Reading
John's
Gospel
in
the
Nepali
Context,"
5-6.
92
See
Moloney,
Gospel
of
John,
34-39.
93
See
Bruce,
Gospel
of
John,
281-283;
Morris,
Gospel
according
to
John,
618;
also
see
Borchert,
John
12-21,
82.
94
See
Thomaskutty,
Dialogue
in
the
Book
rd
Signs,
450-452.
95
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
749-750.
96
See
Paschal,
"Service,"
749-750.
26
Missional
and
ministerial
aspects
of
the
church
should
not
be
limited
to
people's
coming
to
the
church,
but
it
should
also
prioritize
church's
going
out
to
the
people
groups.
In
that
sense,
the
Christian
mission
in
India
can
be
actualized
mainly
through
servanthood
model
and
praxis-oriented
strategies.97
As
M. M.
Thomas
and
P.
D.
Devanandan
suggest,
the
church
in
India
should
get
involved
in
the
very
act
of,
and
she
should
serve
the
country
through
humanization.98
As
Johannine
Jesus,
who
turns
to
be
a
servant
of
God,
uplifted
the
marginalized
sections
of
the
society,
the
Indian
church,
as
an
agent
of
mission,
should
uplift
the
Dalit,
Tribal,
and
other
marginal
groups
of
the
society
.9
9
In
that
sense,
as
Jesus
manifested
his
glory
through
service
until
his
death,
the
church
should
exemplify
its
service
to
the
community
and
reveal
Christ's
honor
in
public.
As
Jesus
appears
to
be
a
'sent
one
of·
God'
to
send
people
for
witnessing,
the
Church
as
the
'sent
one'
in
the
world
is
expected
to
send
people
for
witnessing
Christ
at
varied
levels
of
community
life.
The
Indian
church
should
transcend
all
sorts
of
human-
made
boundaries
for
witnessing
Christ
and
also,
she
should
prioritize
loving
kindness
as
the
greatest
virtue
of
God
(13:34-35;
14:
18-24;
17:23).100
In
the
Indian
context,
the
church
should
97
See
Perry,
A
Bibliographical
History
of
the
Church
in
Nepal,
17-19,
30-31;
Pandey,
Christianity
in
Nepal,
l-50.
98
See
Thomas
and
Devanandan,
Christian
Participation
in
Nation
Building,
2-3,
48-50,
154-155,209-210,227-242,266-289,290-305.
99
See
Thomaskutty,
"Reading
John's
Gospel
in
the
Nepali
Context,"
20.
100
See
Moloney,
Love
in
the
Gospel
of
John,
26-99;
Varghese,
Imagery
of
Love
in
the
Gospel
of
John,
11-24.
27
function
as
an
agent
of
charity,
reconciliation,
and
liberation.
As
Jesus
exemplifies
a
'U
shaped'
witnessing
model
within
John's
micro-and
macro-narrative
frameworks,
Christian
communities
in
India,
can
adopt
a
'U
shaped'
mission
model
to
attune
people
to
the
experience
of
eternal
life.'?'
On
the
one
hand,
the
church
can
sustain
its
values
and
spiritual
norms
as
'honorable'
human
beings,
and
on
the
other
hand,
she
can
extend
her
services
to
the
betterment
of
society.
The
church's
service
to
the
suffering
humanity
can
enable
her
to
regain
the
honorable
status.
The
praxis-oriented
standards
of
Jesus's
witnessing,
which
interlocks
both
kerygmatic
and
praxis-oriented
mission
strategies,
can
be
a
paradigm
for
the
Indian
church
for
her
mission
in
the
pluralistic
context
of
the
country.!"
In
Jesus's
ministry,
the
event
of
foot
washing
was
foreshadowing
his
imminent
passion,
crucifixion,
and
death
on
the
cross
as
a
servant
of
God
.103
In
that
sense,
the
Indian
church
should
endeavor
for
witnessing
Christ
irrespective
of
the
increasing
oppositions,
persecutions,
and
martyrdom.
The
church's
struggles
in
witnessing
Christ
can
be
transformed
as
honorable
and
glorious
occasions.
Even
when
the
church
remains
as
a
minority
community,
she
should
attempt
to
balance
between
the
kerygmatic
and
practically
oriented
aspects
of
mission
in
the
Indian
context.'?'
As
a
two-level
drama,
the
Fourth
Evangelist
emphasizes
the
event
of
foot
washing
with
the
purpose
of
101
See
Resseguie,
The
Strange
Gospel,
171.
102
See
Thomaskutty,
"Reading
John's
Gospel
in
the
Nepali
Context,"
14.
103
See
Sylva,
Thomas-Love
as
Strong
as
Death,
54.
104
See
Perry,
A
Bibliographical
History
of
the
Church
in
Nepal,
17-19;
also
see
Pandey,
Christianity
in
Nepal,
1-50.
28
educating
his
community
the
lessons
of
mutual
love
and
service
in
corporate
living.'?'
John's
community
considers
Jesus
as
a
model
of
servant
leadership
and
his
performances
as
hypodeigmata
for
social
Iiving.l'"
All
of
the
above
factors
reveal
John's
gnomic
significance
in
the
Indian
context.
Concluding
Remarks
The
above
discussion
enables
us
to
understand
that
John
13:1-20
is
a
unique
literary
masterpiece
that
functions
paradigmatically
both
within
the
narrative
framework
of
the
Farewell
Discourse
and
within
the
macro-structure
of
the
Gospel.
The
event
recapitulates
the
'U
shaped'
plot
structure
of
the
entire
Gospel
with
an
emphasis
on
the
being
and
becoming
natures
of
Jesus
and
his
instruction
for
doing.
That
reveals
the
hypodeigmatic
function
within
and
beyond
the
text.
In
a
context
in
which
people's
social
positions
such
as
'honor'
and
'shame'
were
perceived
hierarchically,
Jesus'
action
of
washing
the
feet
of
the
disciples
overturns
the
prevailing
norms
of
the
society.
While
the
divine
attributes
of
Jesus
plotted
dynamically
within
the
textual
horizon
of
John,
his
being
nature
is
brought
to
the
foreground.
The
symbolical
act
of
washing
the
feet
of
the
disciples
demonstrates
his
servant
model
of
leadership
and
thus
the
becoming
nature.
Jesus's
instruction
to
the
disciples
for
doing
it
in
their
future
witnessing
exposes
the
event
to
the
level
of
105
See
Martyn,
History
and
Theology
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
24-36.
106
In
John,
Jesus
is
the
'Word
became
flesh
and
dwelt
among
humanity'
and
one
who
'washed
the
feet
of
the
disciples.'
See
Coloe,
"Sources
in
the
Shadows,"
69-
82.
29
an
example
story.
The
usage
of
the
expressions
like
"got
up
from
the
meal"
(v.
4)
and
"returned
to
his
place"
(v.
12)
and
the
ordering
of
the
event
of
washing
the
feet
at
the
center
(vv.
4b-
11)
amply
show
the
plot
dynamics
of
the
event
to
communicate
the
message
in
a
unique
fashion.
Moreover,
the
connection
of
the
event
with
the
agape-centric
utterances
of
Jesus
in
the
Gospel
and
his
demonstration
of
love
on
the
cross
provides
in-depth
meaning
to
the
event.
The
message
of
the
event
can
be
adopted
as
a
paradigm
in
the
Indian
context
for
Christian
witness,
mission,
and
evangelism.
As
the
Johannine
community
re-interpreted
the
event
concerning
the
incarnation,
servant
model,
and
death
of
Jesus
and
in
congruence
with
their
own
Sitz
im
Leben,
the
Indian
Christian
community
should
demonstrate
its
ethos
through
serving
others
even
at
the
point
of
death.
Service
to
humanity
should
be
prioritized
in
order
to
inculcate
a
praxis-oriented
witnessing.
Church's
servanthood
model
reveals
her
identity
as
a
worthy
community
in
the
present
and
thus
achieving
a
glorious
future.
John's
gnomic
and
universal
tendencies
can
be
adopted
as
means
of
hermeneutical
keys
in
order
to
make
John's
semantic
domains
conducive
and
reverberating
in
the
pluralistic
context
of
India.
30
Missionary
Paternalism
in
Catholic,
Protestant,
and
Pentecostal
Christianity
-
Issues
and
Concerns
P.
Paul
Ebenezar
Indian
Christianity
is
as
old
as
Christianity
itself
having
numerous
shades
of
expressions
and
experiences
in
the
twenty
centuries
and
more
of
its
existence
in
India.
From
the
Thomas
Christians
1
to
the
Pentecostal
Christians2
Indian
Christianity
is
multifaceted
in
its
beliefs
and
practices.
The
approach
of
the
initiators
of
the
Christian
faith
among
the
Indian
Christians
is
of
a
paternal
kind.
Paternalism
received
its
institutional
status
with
the
coming
of
the
Catholic
missionaries
in
the
fifteenth---century3under
the
aegis
of
the
Portuguese
emperor'and
later
under
the
guidance
of
the
imperial
Roman
Catholic
churches.
The
Protestant
churches
followed
suit
in
the
mission
endeavors
after
a
period
of
lull
contemplating
on
the
PAUL
EBENEZER
(Ph.D.,
University
of
Madras)
teaches
Mission
and
History
at
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College.
1
Thomas
Christians
refers
to
the
first
generation
of
Indian
Christians
who
were
ministered
by
St.
Thomas
the
disciple
of
Jesus
Christ.
2
Pentecostalism
is
a
renewal
movement
within
Protestant
Christianity
that
places
particular
emphasis
on
a
direct
personal
experience
of
God
through
baptism
with
the
Holy
Spirit.
The
Numerically
growing
majority
of
the
constellation
of
independent
churches
who
pronounce
a
vibrant
form
of
Christian
experience
and
expression
and
exhibit
a
high
degree
of
Charismatism.
3
Introduction
of
Catholicism
in
India
begins
from
the
first
decade
of
1500,
with
the
arrival
of
the
Portuguese
missionaries
there.
In
the
16th
century,
the
proselytization
of
Asia
was
linked
to
the
Portuguese
colonial
policy.
With
the
Papal
bull,
Romanus
Pontifex
written
on
8
January
1455
by
Pope
Nicholas
V
to
King
Afonso
V
of
Portugal,
the
patronage
for
the
propagation
of
the
Christian
faith
in
Asia
was
given
to
the
Portuguese,
who
were
rewarded
with
the
right
of
conquest.
4
Missionaries
of
the
different
orders
from
Franciscans,
Dominicans,
Jesuits,
Augustinians,
and
others.
flocked
out
with
the
conquerors
and
began
at
once
to
build
churches
along
the
coastal
districts
wherever
the
Portuguese
pmver
made
itself
felt
31
genuineness
of
their
form
of
experience
and
expression
under
the
aegis
of
the
respective
kings
who
were
involved
in
the
process
of
the
expansion
of
the
empire
in
the
east
through
the
enterprise
of
colonialism.5
The
Protestant
missionaries
and
the
colonial
expansion
were
in
presence
and
operation
simultaneously,
and one
finds
a
friendly
engagement
between
the
two
at
times
and
at
times
was
at
loggerheads
as
the
primary
interests
and
activities
of
them
widely
differed.
The
Protestant
missionaries
used
the
colonial
apparatus
to
strengthen
their
civilizing
activities
and
were
paternalistic
with
the
native
converts.
The
East
India
6
which
had
an
ambivalent
relationship
with
the
protestant
missionaries
initially
turned
indifferent
to
the
call
of
the
missionaries
when
they
felt
their
interests
and
activities
at
stake.
The
missionaries
managed
to
get
the
colonial
institutional
set
up
backing
their
dealings
at
least
in
their
educational
endeavors
if
not
in
other
missionary
endeavors
when
the
company's
charter
5
Colonialism
is
regarded
as
a
relationship
of
domination
of
an
indigenous
majority
by
a
minority
of
foreign
invaders
where
the
following
mle
in
pursuit
of
its
interests.
Kindly
refer
to
have
more
understanding
on
the
concept
of
colonialism;
Veracini,
Lorenzo,
Settler
Colonialism:
A
Theoretical
Overview.
New
York:
Pal
grave
Macmillan,
2010,
5.
6
Company,
also
called
English
East
India
Company,
formally
(1600-
1708)
Governor
and
Company
of
Merchants
of
London
Trading
into
the
East
Indies
or
(1708-1873)
United
Company
of
Merchants
of
Eng]and
Trading
to
the
East
Indies,
English
company
formed
for
the
exploitation
of
trade
with
East
and
Southeast
Asia
and
India,
incorporated
by
royal
charter
on
December
31,
1600.
As
a
monopolistic
trading
body,
the
company
became
involved
in
politics
and
acted
as
an
agent
of
British
imperia]ism
in
India
from
the
early
18th
century
to
the
mid-
19th
century.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company
East
India
Company
as
accessed
on
02/01/2019.
32
was
renewed
in
1833
7
and
did not
voice
out
its
concerns
openly
for
the
coming
of
the
missionaries
in
large
numbers.
The
Sepoy
mutiny8and
the
eventual
transfer
of
power
from
the
company
officials
to
the
throne
did not
alter
the
activities
of
the
missionaries
in
and
through
the
colonial
apparatus.
The
missionaries
continued
to
be
paternalistic
in
their
dealings
with
the
Indian
converts
despite
the
hue
and
cry
raised
by
the
caste
Hindus.
Missionaries
of
all
kind
managed
to
find
a
congenial
atmosphere
and
established
their
activities
in
India
in
the
framework
of
Missionary
Paternalism.
The
natives
were
not
given
leadership
role
and
were
virtually
guided
in
all
aspects
of
their
experience
and
expressions.
Pentecostalism
is
the
last
form
of
Christian
experience
and
expression
which
had
indigenous beginnings
emerged
in
the
Indian
soil.
The
witnesses
of
the
Azusa
Street
revival
which
is
the
foundational
event
and
movement
of
the
global
Pentecostalism
descended
into
the
Indian
soil
and
strengthened
the
indigenous
forms
of
the
charismatic
wave
of
the
spirit
and
the
Pentecostal
experience
with
their
organizational
methodologies
and
functioning
which
were
also
paternalistic.
Like
other
forms
of
Christianity,
the
7
Charter
Act
1833
or
the
Saint
Helena
Act
1833
or
Government
of
India
Act
1833
was
passed
by
the
British
Parliament
to
renew
the
charter
of
East
India
Company
which
was
last
renewed
in
1813.
Via
this
act,
the
charter
was
renewed
for
20
years,
but
the
East
India
Company
was
deprived
of
its
commercial
privilege.
https://www.gktoday.in/gk/charter-act-1833_11/
as
accessed
on
02/01/2019.
81ndian
Mutiny,
also
called
Sepoy
Mutiny,
widespread
but
unsuccessful
rebellion,
violent
and
very
bloody
uprising
against
British
rule
in
India
in
1857-
58.
Begun
in
Meerut
by
Indian
troops
(sepoys)
in
the
service
of
the
British
East
India
Company,
it
spread
to
Delhi,
Agra,
Kanpur,
and
Lucknow.
https://www.thoughtco.com/sepoy-mutiny-of-1857-1774014
accessed
on
5/1/2019.
33
first
converts
to
Pentecostalism
had
hailed
from
poor
and
unprivileged
and
marginalized
backgrounds9and
were
dependent
on
the
white
missionaries.
The
white
Pentecostal
missionaries
were
highly
paternalistic
as
they
feared
the
converts
might
lose
their
faith
and
return
to
their
previous
lifestyles
and
orientations.
The
end
of
the
world
was
"had
augmented
the
end
of
the
colonial
enterprise
of
the
nations
of
the
west
and
the
heralding
of
independence
to
the
former
colonies.
The
independence
of
the
colonies
also
signaled
an
end
of
the
western
missionary
enterprise
as
well.
The
western
missionaries
who
in
one
form
or
the
other
had
exhibited
shades
of
paternalism
had
to
go
leaving
the
churches
and
the
resources
to
be
manned
and
managed
by
the
natives
themselves.
The
church
historians
and
missiologists
who
feared
against
the
sustenance
of
the
Christian
faith
in
India
after
the
closure
of
the
missionary
apparatus
were
proved
wrong,
and
the
Indian
churches
managed
to
stand
firm
on
its
legs
for
the
past
seventy-two
years.
>"
This
article
wishes
to
provide
a
comparative
study
of
Missionary
Paternalism
exhibited
by
the
three
strands
of
the
Christian
Churches,
the
issues
and
the
dilemmas
faces
by
them
in
the
respective
contexts
by
the
missionaries
and
the
9
most
of
these
Pentecostal
or
charismatic
congregations
are
poor
and
illiterate,
and
these
people
live
in
small
remote
rural
villages,
where
basic
facilities
like
transportation,
medical
care
or
schools
are
hardly
available
and
live
in
the
state
of
periphery.
Kindly
refer
to
Donald
E.
Miller
and
Tetsunao,
Global
Pentecostalism:
The
New
Face
of
Christian
Social
Engagement
(University
of
California
Press,
2007),
173-174.
10
the
First
World
War
or
the
Great
War,
was
a
global
war
originating
in
Europe
that
lasted
from
28
July
1914
to
11
November
1918.
World
War
JI
also
known
as
the
Second
World
War,
was
a
global
war
that
lasted
from
1939
to
1945.
34
indigenous
converts
and
the
methods
of
resolutions
adopted
by
them.
>"
This
article
tries
to
critically
evaluate
the
policies
followed
by
the
Christian
missionaries
who
had
labored
in
the
respective
local
regions
in
India
and
the
response
and
reaction
encountered
by
them
both
from
the
native
converts
and
other
sections
of
people.
>"
This
article,
in
particular,
seeks
to
answer
the
following
question
what
kind
of
reaction
resulted
because
of
the
paternalistic
attitude
of
the
western
missionaries
of
all
shades
and
types
in
Indian
soil.
>"
This
article
particularly
wishes
to
locate
the
attitude
of
missionaries
of
the
various
types
such
as
the
Roman
Catholics,
Protestant
and
the
Pentecostal
missionaries
with
the
critical
perspective
offered
by
human
rights'ldiscourse
in
particular
of
the
principle
of
the
agency
to
evaluate
the
presence
and
practice
of
the
missionary
paternalism
concerning
the
caste
system.12
11
National
Human
Rights
Commission
of
India,
is
responsible
for
the
protection
and
promotion
of
human
rights,
defined
by
the
Act
as
"rights
relating
to
life,
liberty,
equality,
and
dignity
of
the
individual
guaranteed
by
the
Constitution
or
embodied
in
the
International
Covenants."
12
Lionel
Caplan
discusses
the
caste
and
casteless-ness
among
south
Indian
Christians.
For
further
reference,
kindly
refer
L
Caplan.
"Caste
and
Castelessnes
among
south
Indian
Christians,"
in
Contributions
to
Indian
sociology,
Sage
Publications,
Vol.
14,
No.
2,1980.
Dumant
in
his
classical
work
Homo
Hierarchicus
raises
the
question
of
whether
there
are
castes
among
non-
Hindus
in
India.
Hutton
and
Ghury
talk
about
the
primal
set
of
primary
characteristics
of
caste
Hinduism
being
present
among
other
religious
groups
in
India.
Ahmad
found
the
presence
of
caste
practices
among
the
Muslims
and
feels
that
it
is
present
in
a
weakened
and
in
a
modified
form
than
what
is
present
among
the
caste
Hindus.
35
Basic
Definitions
Paternalism
In
modern
Philosophy
and
jurisprudence,
it
is
to
act
for
the
good
of
another
person
without
that
person's
consent,
as
parents
do
for
children.
It
is
controversial
because
its
end
is
benevolent,
and
it
means
coercive."
Le
Robert
dictionary
defines
paternalism
as
"a
patriarchal
or
paternal
method
of
management.
..
a
tendency
to
impose
control,
domination
under
the
guise
of
protection."
Missionary
Paternalism
Missionaries
practiced
a
paternal
method
of
management
in
order
to
have
control,
domination
under
the
guise
of
protection.
Caste
'Caste'
as
"a
collection
of
families
or
group
of
families
bearing
a
common
name;
claiming
common
descent
from
a
mythical
ancestor,
human
or
divine;
professing
to
follow
the
same
hereditary
calling.
14
D'Costa
in
his
study
of
the
Roman
Catholic
community
of
Goa
identifies
primary
features
of
the
caste
system
in
an
attenuated
form.
13
Please
refer
the
following
works
to
understand
the
theoretical,
legal
and
political
perspective
on
paternalism,
Kelning,
John.
Paternalism,
(Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,
1983).
Sartorius,
E.
Rolf,
Paternalism,
(Minnesota
University
Press,
Minnesota,
1983).
And
also,
Christopher
B.
Gray
(ed.),
Philosophy
of
Law:
An
Encyclopedia,
Garland
Pub.
Co,
1999,
II.632�635
14"LajiChacko,
Discerning
the
signs
of
the
times
(Kolkata,
West
Bengal:
SCEPTRE.,
2014),
37
36
Caste
system
The
Caste
system
is
social
discrimination,
a
hereditary
social
group
which
does
not
permit
social
mobility
to
its
members.
It
involves
ranking
according
to
birth
which
affects
one's
occupation,
marriage,
and
social
relationship.
15
Colonialism
Colonialism
is
the
practice
by
which
a
powerful
country
directly
controls
less
powerful
countries
and
uses
its
resources
to
increase
its
power
and
wealth.
The
practice
of
establishing
colonies
to
extend
a
state's
control
over
other
peoples
or
territories16
Christian
Missions
Christian
Missions
here
refers
to
the
institutional
forms
of
Christian
expressions
in
India
and
does
not
denote
the
voluntary
enthusiasts
who
had
labored
in
the
different
places
in
India
without
the
prompt,
backing
and
patronage
of
the
official
church.
3.
Brief
Note
on
Caste
System
in
India
The
word
'Caste'
comes
originally
from
a
Portuguese
word
'castas'
(pure),
used
by
Portuguese
graders
of
the
l
61
h
century
to
describe
15Ram
Ahujal,
"Society
in
India"
(Jaipur:
Rawat
Publications,
2014),
35
16https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/colonialism
as
accessed
on
5.01.2019.
37
various
'species'
they
encountered
on
the
west
coast
of
India.l'The
Indian
words
are
Varna,
'colour'
and
jati,
'birth.18
Caste
system
initially
designated
as
a
division
of
labor
based
on
the
skills
and
talents
of
a
person
became
an
oppressive
system
based
on
birth
19•
There
are
four
main
castes
and
each
with
many
subdivisions;
Brahmins,
Kshatriyas,
and
Vaisyas
were
considered
as
upper
castes
while
Sudras
were
the
low
castes.
Beyond
these
are
the
outcasts
or
untouchables,
held
to
be
impure,
whose
very
shadow
caused
pollution
to
others.
Caste
system
became
oppressive
and
discriminative
because
of
the
regimentation
of
society
that
it
perpetuates
and
identifies
people
as
pure
and
impure,
superior
and
inferior
and
so
on."
Caste
system
purportedly
destroys
all
vertical
mobility
of
people
and
seeks
to
identify
people
within
certain
professed
layers
with
strict
boundaries
and
regulations
causing
restrictions
in
all
17
Surjit
Mansingh,
"Caste",
Concise
Encyclopedia
Of
India
History
(Kashmere
Gate
Delhi,
India:
Scaredow
Press,
Inc,
2009),
170
011
Eric
J.
Sharpe,
"Thinking
about
Hinduism"
(London:
Cox
and
Wyman
ltd.,
1979),
47
19•
There
are
many
theories
which
describe
the
birth
of
the
caste
system
in
India.
Ibbetson
proposed
the
theory
of
the
tribal
origin
of
caste.
Risley
thought
that
caste
was
caused
by
race
and
hypergamu
(marrying
women
into
higher
groups),
Senart
said
that
the
family
worship
of
the
gens
as
the
cause
of
the
caste,
while
Nesfield
and
Dahlman
propounded
occupation
as
the
chief
reason
for
its
origin.
However,
all
these
theories
suffer
from
single
cause
fallacy,
though
there
is
an
element
of
truth
in
each
of
the
theories;
nevertheless,
they
are
not
comprehensive
enough.
Refer
the
article,
Mason
Olcott.,
"The
Caste
System
of
India,"
in
American
Sociological
Review,
vol.9.
no.6
(Dec.
1944),
648-657.
20
Dumont
in
his
classical
analysis
of
the
caste
system
provides
a
theoretical
underpinning
by
insisting
that
clear
hierarchy
is
a
state
of
mind
to
which
all
those
in
the
caste
system
willingly
acquiesce.
For
details
refer
his
work,
Dumont
L.
Homo.
Hierarchicus:
The
Caste
System
and
its
Implications.
(London:
Weidenfeld
&
Nicholson,
1988),
22.
38
possible
interactions
and
associations
between
people
across
layers.
Caste
system
locates
people
within
the
watertight
compartments
and
considers
all
deviancies
with
severe
contempt
and
considers
them
as
outcaste
and
as
inferior.21
The
ostracization
accorded
by
the
society
renders
people
subservient
to
the
practice
as
it
defines
and
regulates
their
identity,
mobility,
and
functions.
The
social,
cultural,
political
and
economic
marker
of
the
individual
is
based
on
the
caste
identity,
and
hence
it
governed
the
norm
of
the
society
despite
its
rigidity
and
stringency
.22
The
institution
of
caste
system
underwent
substantial
changes
due
to
its
encounter
with
the
outside
world.
The
coming
of
the
Romans,
Persians,
Mongols,
Mughals
and
the
Christians
has
perceptively
altered
the
institution
of
caste
system
than
what
it
was
in
the
ancient
era.23
21
Ramakrishna
Mukherjee,
"Caste
in
Itself,
Caste
and
Class,
or
Caste
in
Class"
in
Economic
and
Political
Weekly,
Vol.
34,
No.
27,
Jul.
3-9,
1999,
1759-
1761.
22
A.S.
Woodbume,
"Can
India's
Caste
System
Survive
in
Modem
Life?",
in
The
Journal
of
Religion,
Vol.
2,
No.
5
(Sep.
1922),
525-537.
23
A.S.
Woodburne,
"Can
India's
Caste
System
Survive
in
Modern
Life?"
,5
34.
39
Brief
Overview
of
Christianity
in
India
The
Genesis:
Thomas
Christians
and
Thomas
Christianity
since
1500
24
Indian
Christianity
is
as
old
as
Christianity
itself
and
has
presence
and
representations
in
the
length
and
breadth
.of
India.
25
Indian
Christianity
since
the
coming
of
St.
Thomas,
one
of
the
disciples
of
Jesus
Christ
has
witnessed
the
powerful
manifestations
of
missionizing
26
or
civilizing
endeavor
of
the
Church,
the
body
of
Christ.
It
is
believed
that
the
practice
of
the
caste
system
among
the
India
Christians
has
its
heritage
from
the
time
of
Apostle
Thomas.
Thomas
Christians
were
not
critical
of
the
institution
of
the
caste
system
and
allowed
the
presence
and
practice
of
it
within
their
rank
and
file.
27
Thomas
Christians
were
considered
as
a
distinct
caste,
and
they
freely
assimilated
from
their
Hindu
brethren
of
the
patterns
of
the
caste
system
in
an
indiscriminate
manner.
28
Thomas
Christianity
found
to
be
located
and
identified
in
certain
geographical
and
cultural
boundaries
and
spaces
and
bear
a
..
24
.The
Historical
timeline
followed
here
reflect
the
general
tendency
of
classification
followed
among
the
Church
Historians
in
India.
·
25
http://indianchristianity.org/
as
accessed
on
25.12.2018.
26
Missionization
a
term
that
references
a
historical
process
of
religious
evangelism.
-,
27
This
made
Dumont
say
the
following
thing
about
Thomas
Christians,
"
....
internal
subdivision
into
groups
strongly
resembles
castes,
but
we
have
anything
scarcely
save
generalities
on
this
topic
....
"
Dumont,
L,
Homo
hierarchical.
(London:
Weidenfeld
&
Nicolson.
1970),
p. 203.
28C.J.
Fuller,
"Kerala
Christians
and
the
Caste
System,"
in
Man,
New
Series,
Vol.11,No.1
(Mar.1976),53-70
40
characteristic
remark
of
it.
29
Thomas
Christians
essentially
bear
a
Syrian
identity
both
in
its
form
and
content."
The
early
advances
of
the
Christian
sects
within
the
Indian
soil
are
of
the
Nestorians,
the
Arians,
the
Dominicans,
and
the
Franciscans
served
the
Christian
cause
little
and
were
mostly
parochial."
Like
Thomas
Christianity,
these
groups
also
did not
percolate
into
the
larger
Indian
society
and
remained
within
certain
pockets
·where
they
first
advanced.
32
Missionary
endeavors
which
have been
in
amorphous
presence
and
practice
by
the
activities
of
numerous
travelers,
self-motivated
individuals,
charismatic
orders
33
and
others
have
taken
definite
shape
and
methodology
since
the
advent
of
the
modern
era
and
with
the
coming
of
the
Roman,
Catholic
Missionaries
first
under
the
patronage
of
the
Portuguese
king
and
later
under
the
imperial
Roman
Church.
29
Raj,
J.
Selva.
Corrine
G.
Dempsey
(eds.,),
Popular
Christianity
in
India
-Riting
between
the
Lines,
(Albany:
SUNY
Press,
2002),1.
3
°
C.
J.
Fuller,
"Kerala
Christians
and
the
Caste
system,"
58.
31
James
Hough,'
The
History
of
Christianity
in
India-From
the
commencement
of
the
Christian
era,
(London:
Church
Missionary
House,
Vol.III,
1845),
15.
32
Raj,
J.
Selva.
Corrine
G.
Dempsey,
1.
33
John
William
Kaye,
Christianity
in
India:
An
Historical
Narrative,
(London:
Smith,
Elder
and
Co.,
1859),
23.
41
Roman
Catholic
Missionaries
of
the
Padroado34
and
of
the
Imperial
Roman
Catholic
Church
The
Jesuit
missionaries35who
had
advanced
into
the
Indian
soil
especially
along
the
fishery
coasts
of
east
and
west
of
India
succeeded
in
advancing
the
Christian
cause
in
the
Indian
soil and
established
churches
and
mission
stations
to
perpetuate
the
advancement
of
the
Christian
faith
in
India.
They
had
managed
to
win
over
some
sections
of
the
Thomas
Christians
into
the
Imperial
Roman
Catholic
church
and
succeeded
in
subsuming
a
part
of
the
Thomas
Christians
under
the
tutelage
of
the
Pope
and
the
Latin-
centered
Roman
Catholic
Church.
Roman
Catholic
Christianity
and
its
missionary
endeavors
were
facilitated
by
the
colonial
enterprise
of
the
Portuguese
empire
which
was
one
among
the
first
European
powers
to
colonize
the
land.
The
institutional
missionization
was
different
from
the
individual
missionization
of
the
early
centuries
in
that
it
favored
a
protective
attitude
of
the
church
towards
the
new
converts.
The
Portuguese
authorities
backed
the
missionizatio�
efforts
of
the
Roman
Catholic
Church
especially
through
its
pioneering
Jesuit
34
There
was
heated
debate
about
the
meaning
of
Padroada,
and
there
was
two
opinion
the
first
considered
it
as
a
privilege
and
the
second
considered
it
as
a
right.
Refer
the
appendix
in
the
following
work
to
consider
the
contentious
meaning
of
Padroado,
Stephen,
Neill.
A
History
of
Christianity
in
India:
The
Beginnings
to
AD
1707,
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,1984),
401.
35
Francis
Xavier
found
challenging
to
convert
the
high
caste
and
worked
among
the
low
caste
people.
Robert
De
Nobili,
the
17th
century
Italian,
invented
the
method
of
Indigenization
and
Indianized
himself.
His
new
method
attracted
local
youths
and
resulted
in
conversions.
Such
converts
came
from
several
castes
including
Brahmins.
42
missionaries
in
India.
Christians,
in
particular,
had
a
profound
say
in
the
socio-political-economic
and
cultural
spheres
of
the
land
because
of
the
long-stinted
nature
of
their
encounter
and
also
of
the
institutional
administrative
and
cultural
backing
of
the
colonial
masters.
The
colonial
apparatus
of
the
various
western
powers
aided
the
penetration
and
permeation
of
Christianity
across
different
places.
Protestant
Missionaries36
and
the
Colonial
Apparatus37
The
corning
of
the
institutional
Christianity
in
the
advent
of
Roman
Catholic
missionaries
facilitated
mainly
by
the
Portuguese
colonial
endeavors
were
soon
followed
by
the
coming
of
the
Protestant
missionaries
along
with
the
colonial
enterprise
of
their
countrymen
such
as
the
Dutch,
the
Danes,
the
French
and
finally
the
English
saw
the
presence
and
practice
of
Christianity
well
beyond
the
Thomas
Christians.
The
Protestant
missionaries
or
the
Reformation
churches
after
spending
considerable
time
and
energy
discussing
on
the
genuineness
of
their
methods
now
turned
towards
the
path
advanced
by
their
Catholic
brethren
and
ventured
into
the
missionizing
activity
of
East
and
West
of
the
world.
The
Reformation
Churched
jumped
into
the
bandwagon
of
the
missioning
activities
and
sent
their
missionaries
to
places
where
36
Protestant
Missions
often
involve
sending
individuals
and
groups,
called
missionaries,
across
boundaries,
most
commonly
geographical
boundaries,
for
proselytism
(
conversion
to
Christianity,
or
from
one
Christian
tradition
to
another).
37
Any
system
or
systematic
organization
of
activities,
functions,
processes,
etc.,
directed
toward
a
specific
goal
43
there
was
no
Christian
mission
earlier
and
also
stepped
into
the
shores
where
Catholics
gained
footage
and
tried
to
enhance
their
version
of
the
Christian
faith.
Protestant
countries
followed
in
line
with
their
Catholic
counterparts
with
their
version
of
colonialism.
The
Protestant
countries
superseded
their
Catholic
counterparts
both
in
the
colonialism
and
in
the
missionizing
activities
with
substantial
gains
at
all
levels.
The
presence
and
representation
of
Christianity
in
the
various
pockets
of
India
both
in
rural
and
urban
places
across
the
Indian
subcontinent
was
made
possible
by
the
systemic
endeavors
of
the
missionary
apparatus
of
the
Institutional
Christianity
of
the
Roman
Catholic,
Protestant
and
of
late
of
the
Charismatic
or
the
Pentecostal
varieties,
which
accounts
for
the
diversity
and
multiplicity
of
experiences
and
expressions
within
Indian
Christianity.
The
paternalistic
trend
grew
in
proportion
with
the
coming
of
other
western
colonial
powers
in
India.
Paternalism
thus
existed
among
the
different
shades
of
missionaries
who
came
to
the
shores
of
India
in
varying
proportions
contingent
upon
the
attitude
of
the
colonial
powers.
44
The
emergence
of
Charismatic38
Christianity
in
India
Pentecostalism
is
the
charismatic
sect
within
the
Christian
church
which
emerged
in
the
Indian
context
without
the
aid
and
apparatus
of
the
missionization
of
the
West.
The
indigenous
character
of
the
Indian
Pentecostalism
got
enmeshed
into
the
organizational
framework
of
the
Charismatic
and
Pentecostal
sects
that
owe
its
allegiance
to
the
Topeka
revival
and
also
to
the
Azusa
Street
revival.
Pentecostalism
gained
ground
into
the
places
which
allegedly
had
Christian
presence
of
the
Thomasian
variety
or
the
Roman
Catholics
or
the
numerous
protestant
sects
and
groups
and
also
went
into
places
which
were
not
missionized
by
the
early
groups
and
especially
to
the
poorest
of
the
poor.
Pentecostalism
and
the
charismatic
churches
with
its
penchant
for
orality
and
emotionality
appealed
to
the
weak
and
the
marginalized
and
gained
a
considerable
following
among
them.
The
Pentecostalism
in
India
though
had
indigenous
roots
and
which
was
subsequently
supplanted
by
the
efforts
and
activities
of
the
missionaries
from
the
west
especially
from those
who
were
attached
in
one
sense
or
the
other
to
the
foundational
events
of
Pentecostalism
such
as
the
Topeka
revival
or
the
Azusa
Street
revival.
The
Researcher
tried
to
look
into
the
three
institutional
forms
of
the
missionary
enterprises
and
endeavors
by
the
respective
groups
such
as
the
Roman
Catholic,
the
Protestant,
and
the
38
Charismatic
Christianity
is
a
form
of
Christianity
that
emphasizes
the
work
of
the
Holy
Spirit,
spiritual
gifts,
and
modern-day
miracles
as
an
everyday
part
of
a
believer's
life.
45
Pentecostal
groups
and
tried
to
assess
the
levels
of
paternalism
found
in
each
of
them.
Attitudes
of
the
Catholic
and
Protestant
Missionaries
towards
the
caste
system
The
attitudes
of
both
the
Roman
Catholic
missionaries
and
the
Protestant
missionaries
against
the
caste
system
varied
dependent
on
the
individual
missionaries
and
according
to
the
context
in
which
they
were
found
to
be
working.
Missionaries
who
came
to
India
tired
with
full
potential
to
denounce
the
caste
system
from
the
Indian
soil.
However,
sometimes
Catholic
missionaries
were,
more
reluctant
to
take
a
stand
on
the
issue
of
caste.39
St.
Francis
Xavier
did
find
difficulty
in
converting
the
high
caste
and
worked
among
the
low
caste
people.
Robert
de
Nobili
who
identified
himself
as
an
Italian
Kshatriyas
had
some
converts
in
Madurai.
However,
the
toleration
of
caste
among
the
Catholic
was
much
criticized.
In
1744,
Robert
de
Nobili
announced
to
everyone
that
they
should
hear
mass
and
receive
communion
in
the
church.
However,
there
was
a
little
wall
which
separated
the
low
caste
from
the
high
caste
sections
in
the
society.
However,
the
Jesuits
wished
that
the
congregation
would
hear
the
mass
together
without
any
difference.
There
were
also
separate
entrances
for
low
castes
in
many
of
their
churches,
which
indeed
show
the
existence
of
'caste'
based
division
39
1.
H.
Beaglehole,
"The
Indian
Christians-A
Study
of
a
Minority,"
Modern
Asian
Studies,
vol.
1,
No.
1,
1967,
60.
46
inside
the
church."
The
Holy
Communion
elements
were
distributed
first
to
the
high
caste
Christians
and
then
to
the
others.
This
kind
of
practice
continued
almost
until
the
middle
of
the
20th
century.41
Missionaries
in
the
early
days
did
not
understand
clearly
about
the
nature
of
caste
and
its
system
in
our
Indian
society.
It
was
understood
th�t
very
few
efforts
were
undertaken
at
the
beginning
of
the
eighteenth
century
by
the
missionaries
due
to
whom
they
were
not
able
to
arrest
the
all-pervasive
influence
of
caste
across
society.
Despite
this,
some
missionaries
were
very
sensitive
to
the
inhuman
treatment
of
the
lower
caste
people.
42
According
to
John
C. B.
Webster
Protestant
Missionaries,
unlike
their
Roman
Catholic
counterparts,
tended
to
view
caste
as
a
religious
institution
sanctioned
by
and
integral
to
Hinduism.
They,
therefore,
chose
not
to
work
within
the
caste
system
but
to
condemn
it."
The
protestant
missionary
Ziegenbalg
did not
take
any
firm
decision
to
root
out
caste
distinction
from
among
his
converts
.44
4
°
Kenneth
Ballhatchet,
Caste,
Class
and
Catholicism
in
India,
1789-1914,
Curzon,
London,
1998,
111
41
Arthur
Jeyakumar,
History
of
Christianity:
58-60
42
R.
Chandran,
The
Fruits
of
the
Christian
Missions
in
the
Southern
Tamil
Nadu,
Paper
Presented
at
Stephen
Neil
Study
and
Research
Centre,
Palayamkottai,
23rd
-
25th
October
1992,10.
43
John
C.
B.
Webster,
The
Dalit
Christians,
Indian
Society
for
Promoting
Christian
Knowledge,
New
Delhi,
1994,37.
44
Arthur
Jeyakurnar,
History
of
Christianity:
Selected
Themes,
Revised
and
enlarged
edition
(Madurai:
Tamil
Nadu
Theological
Seminary,
2007),
61
47
Missionaries
in
Tranquebar
explain
that
"Caste
is
nothing
more
than
an
association
of
families
of
the
same
status,
or
of
the
same
profession.
The
association
is
based
partly
on
ties
of
blood
among
the
various
people
and
partly
on
the
similarity
of
their
profession."
Schultze
who
headed
the
Tranquebar
mission
in
1720
did
not
like
the
policy
of
caste
distinction
in
the
mission46
Ringletaube,
a
missionary
of
the
London
Missionary
Society
(L.M.S.)
in
south
Travancore,
had
assumed
a
tolerant
attitude
towards
casteism.
He
points
out
that
it
is
impossible
to
make converts
if
the
missions
were
to
insist
on
the
loss
of
caste.47
The
Lutheran
missionaries
of
the
Leipzig
Mission,
which
took
over
the
work
of
Danish
Halle
mission
among
the
Tamils
in
1840,
adopted
a
conciliatory
attitude
on
this
issue.48
The
S.
P.
G.
Missionaries
took
efforts
to
abolish
the
caste
observance
from
their
Indian
converts.
However,
such
a
policy
was
not
received
well
by
Indian
Christians.49
The
Serampore
Trios
did
not
permit
caste
distinctions
among
their
converts.
The
Serampore
missionaries
encouraged
inter-caste
marriage.'?
45
Report
from
the
missionaries
ofTranquebar
sent
in
1728,172-179.
46
Arthur
Jeyakumar,
History
of
Christianity
in
India,
61
47
Dick
Kooiman,
Conversion
and
Social
Equality
in
India,
New
Delhi,
1989,172.
48
Geoffrey
A.
Oddie,
Social
Protest
in
India,
Manohar,
New
Delhi,
1974,
47.
49
Arthur
Jeyakumar,
History
of
Christianity
in
India,
64
50
Serampore
Mission
did
not
only
reject
it
outright
but
practically
set
aside
caste
distinctions
among
the
converts
in
Serampore.
As
a
result,
there
were
successful
inter-marriages
and
union
at
the
participation
of
the
sacraments.
Please
refer
to
O.L.
Snaitang,
Challenges
from
William
Carey
to
the
Mission
of
the
48
Protestant
missionaries
considered
caste
as
a
great
evil
which
must
be
uprooted
from
the
church.5'This
may
be
because
of
the
many
problems
they
faced
in
their
pioneering
missionary
enterprise.
The
missionaries
developed
a
paternalistic
attitude
towards
the
native
converts
and
sought
their
well-being,
protection,
welfare
making
use
of
the
colonial
apparatus
if
possible.
The
missionaries
provided
them
with
an
identity
and
sought
for
the
socio-cultural-economic
and
political
empowerment
by
all
possible
means.
The
rendering
of
schools
and
public
education
remained
a
veritable
source
providing
a
lasting
transformation
to
the
poorest
of
the
poor
who
poignantly
remained
their
principal
members
of
their
missionization
and
civilization
attempts.
Missionary
paternalism
52
reached
its
principal
heights
during
the
English
colonialism,
especially
after
the
1833
charter.
The
East
India
Company
did
not
encourage
missionary
activities
in
British
India.
It
was
only
after
the
passing
of
the
Charter
Act
of
1833
that
they
were
forced
to
allow
Christian
missions
in
their
territories.
Initially,
the
Christian
missions
attempted
proselytization
of
'gentlemen'
and
not
the
'lower
class
people.'
They
did
not
enter
any
tribal
territory
before
the
administration.
Church
of
India,
Mission
in
the
Past
and
Present:
Challenges
and
Perspectives,
(Bangalore:
BTESSC/SA
THRI),
61.
51
Andrew
Wingate,
The
Church
and
Conversion,
Indian
Society
for
the
Promoting
Christian
Knowledge,
1999,
24-31.
52
Look
at
the
following
book
to
understand
the
infiltration
of
colonial
apparatus
in
the
missionizing
activities
of
the
Christian
church.
Jeffrey
Coz,
Imperial
Fault
Lines:
Christianity
and
Colonial
Power
in
India,
1818-1940.
Cox
Jeffrey(eds.,)
Stanford,
Calif:
Stanford
University
Press,
2002.
49
Missionaries
were
extended
patronage
since
the
1833
charter,
and
a
whole
host
of
missionaries
descended
into
the
length
and
breadth
of
India.
The
transfer
of
power
from
the
East
India
Company
to
the
British
Crown
after
the
first
war
of
Indian
Independence
enhanced
the
civilization
mission
of
the
Empire
and
the
institutions
of
the
church
and
the
mission
societies.
Missionary
Paternalism
in
India
Missionaries
who
worked
in
India
had
a
concept
of
mission
is
that
it
could
be
accomplished
under
the
principle
of
monopoly
and
there
were
not
in
a
position
to
differentiate
between
the
vocation
of
bringing
the
good
news
and
the
western
civilization.
In
many
ways,
paternalism
was,
in
fact,
a
form
of
domination.
The
colonial
powers
imposed
it,
but
Christian
missionaries practiced
it
as
well.53
There
is
no
doubt
that
paternalism
was
a
characteristic
of
the
activity
of
most
of
the
missionaries
in
the
Indian
soil.
In
mission
relationships,
the
word
"paternalism"
has
several
different
meanings.
First
is
the
relationship
between
two
individuals
of
different
status.
It
is
like
a
relationship
between
father
and
son
and
in
this
relationship
the
father
is
superior
and
son
his
inferior.
In
the
process
of
this
relationship,
it
is
primarily
based
on
paternalism.
From
the
inception,
in
this
relationship,
the
father
has
absolute
authority
over
his
son.
However,
in
this
relationship
the
son
is
anticipated
to
develop
the
autonomy
at
the
end
and
father
53
Floribert
Givule,
Mission
Paternalism
Factor
in
Self
Reliance
of
Congo
Mennonite
Brethren
Church,
https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/images/0/0b/
Mission
Focus:
Annual
Review
at
2008
Volume
16,
2-8.
50
must
be
able
to
facilitate
the
process
of
apprenticeship
that
would
all
pass
the
baton
to
the
child.
This
child
has
to
develop
the
quality
of
leadership
and
takes
the
responsibility
to
develop
his
own
identity
and
father
also
who
refuses
to
teach
this
sense
of
responsibility
to
his
son
commits
a
severe
error."
If
the
father
does
not
prepare
the
son
for
the
future,
then
the
futuristic
vision
and
mission
may
not
emerge.
Another
aspect
of
paternalism
is
that
looking
at
people
as
inferior
and
incapable
of
accomplishing
the
given
task.
The
missionaries
thought
that
these
childlike
natives
lacked
intellectual
competence.
Thus,
in
this
kind
of
paternalism,
a
father
wishes
to
act
on
behalf
of
the
child
for
each
and
everything.
The
child
remains
dependent,
without
the
father
presence,
a
child
finds
it
challenging
to
survive.
This
kind
of
attitude
hampers
the
development
of
a
child
to
understand
and
accomplish
the
task.
The
attitude
of
paternalism
has
been
a
characteristic
of
European
or
Western
civilization."
The
colonial
enterprise
itself
was
founded
on
an
assumption
of
superiority.
In
this
attitude,
the
father
performs
everything
in
order
to
bring
the
child
from
the
state
of
independence
to
dependence.
Unfortunately,
the
father
remains
a
father
and
the
child
remains
a
child
forever.
This
attitude
of
western
'
missionaries
is
remained
in
the
Indian
soil
and
reflected
in
terms
of
54
Givule,
Mission
Paternalism
Factor
in
Self
Reliance
of
Congo
Mennonite
Brethren
Church,
11-13
55
Givule,
Floribert._Mission_Paternalism_Factor_in_Self
Reliance,14-
18
51
the
structure
of
churches,
worship
pattern,
the
order
of
service
and
songs
and
music.
Thus,
this
is
one
of
the
signs
,
of
missionaries
imposing
the
cultural
practices
of
the
west
to
the
rest
of
the
world.
In
doing
so,
it
destabilizes
the
indigenous
foundations
of
natives
and
deculturalizing
the
local
natives.
Paternalism
was
one
of
the
basic
philosophies
of
missionary
activity
in
India.
The
spirit
of
paternalism
always
empowered
the
work
and
the
relationships
of
the
missionaries
with
the
local
natives
in
the
Indian
soil.
It
provided
the
orientation
for
the
activities
of
missionaries
in
India.
The
ideology
of
paternalism
has
resulted
in
some
negative
marks
as
follow:
),"
Paternalism
maintained
a
relationship
of
inferiority
and
superiority
between
the
two
parties.
)""
Paternalism
created
and
cultivated
the
spirit
of
dependency,
not
independence.
It
is
not
possible
for
a
person
can
be
independent
unless
he/she
understands
the
role
and
responsibility.
)""
Paternalism
did
not
encourage
the
development
of
a
national
church
and
hampered
the
growth
and
development
of
natives.
),"
The
practice
of
paternalism
impeded
any
creativity
and
innovative
thoughts
that
would
be
suitable
for
the
natives.
Even,
if
any
changes
to
be
made
in
the
church
and
its
community,
then
it
becomes
mandatory
to
obtain
prior
permission
and
approval
from
missionaries
to
initiate
and
to
implement
them.
52
),"
A
depending
mission
may
not
be
able
to
accomplish
the
task
without
aid
from
the
partners.
The
missionary
enterprise
of
the
nineteenth
century
was
strongly
paternalistic
according
to
Kenneth
Sounders.56
Throughout
Asia,
Africa,
and
Latin
America
the
means
adopted
by
the
Wes
tern
missionaries
to
augment
the
cause
of
Christianity
followed
the
Western
cultural
matrix
thus
leaving
a
lasting
impression
among
the
natives
and
the
colonized
that
the
Christianity
is
Western
and
all
that
is
western.
The
missionaries
were
paternalistic
because
they
feared
the
return
of
the
natives
to
their
old
faiths
and
practices.
They
failed
to
present
the
nuanced
and
intricateness
of
the
Christian
faith
as
it
was
primarily
garbed
either
with
the
colonial
enterprise
or
with
the
Western
cultural
forms
and
paradigms.
The
natives
felt
that
Christianity
advanced
by
the
missionaries
is
part
and
parcel
of
the
civilizing
mission57which
served
as
a
precursor
for
the
strengthening
of
the
colonial
project
of
the
West.
The
Indian
church
began
to
assert
itself
and
tried
to
gain
a
respectable
position
from
the
western
missionaries
as
and
when
the
nationalist
struggle
in
India
advanced.
The
Indian
church
slowly
realized
the
paternalist
attitudes
of
the
western
missionaries
and
presented
their
cause
for
a
strong
self-reliant,
self-supporting
and
autonomous
churches.
56
Kenneth
Saunders,
'The
Passing
of
Paternalism
in
Missions'
in
Journal
of
Religion
Vol.
2,
No.
5
(Sep.
1922),466.
57•
The
civilizing
mission
is
considered
as
White
Man's
burden.
53
According
to
Marshall,
there
was
a
·comparative
study
of
the
missionizing
method
of
the
Catholics
and
the
Protestants.
"The
utter
impotence
of
Protestant
efforts
to
Christianize
the
heathen,
when
compared
to
the
methods
of
the
Catholic
missions
,58
thus
there
exist
a
competitive
spirit
of
the
mission
methods
between
the
Roman
Catholic
Missions
and
the
Protestant
missions.
Affirmative
action
and
the
caste
system
The
leaders
of
the
Indian
freedom
struggle
movement
and
the
founding
fathers
and
leaders
of
the
Indian
government
and
the
Indian
constitution
59
realized
the
perilousness
of
the
caste
practices
and
emphasized
affirmative
action.
Strident
efforts
were
taken
to
empower
the
people
politically,
socially,
culturally
and
economically
sanctioned
by
the
constitution.
The
government
devised
mechanisms
to
structurally
and
principally
deal
with
the
menace
of
the
caste
system.
Missionaries
and
Indian
Christians
also
seek
ways
and
means
to
deal
with
the
issue
of
caste
system
theologically
and
institutionally.
58
Thomas
William
M.
Marshall.,
Christian
missions:
their
agents,
and
their
results,
Volume
1,
(New
York:
D.G.
Sadler&Co.,
1865),
t.
59
The
Constitution
of
India
was
adopted
on
the
26th
of
November,
in
the
year
1949.
However,
it
came
to
effect
on
the
26th
of
January,
1950.
26th
of
January
is
celebrated
as
the
Republic
Day
of
India.
The
Constitution
of
India
provides
its
citizens
with
six
fundamental
rights.
These
rights
are
the
Right
to
Freedom,
Right
to
Equality,
Cultural
and
Educational
Rights,
Right
to
Constitutional
Remedies,
Right
against
Exploitation,
and
Right
against
Exploitation.
Recently,
the
Right
to
Privacy
has
also
been
added
to
fundamental
rights.
54
Conclusion
Both
the
Catholic
and
Protestant
missions
had
both
ambivalent
and
benevolent
attitudes
towards
caste
system.
The
Pentecostal
missionaries
were
not
critical
of
the
caste
system
because
of
their
excessive
emphasis
on
spiritual
tendencies.
The
indigenous
movements
and
native
expressions
of
the
Christian
faith
since
the
independence
of
India
echoes
a
sense
of
autonomy
and
a
move
away
from
the
institutional
and
paternalistic
drive
of
the
church-based
institutions.
In
our
Indian
context,
we
are
in
the
era
of
participation
in
missions.
American
Missiologist,
Ralph
Winter
considered
missions
as
three
eras
such
as
pioneering
era,
paternalistic
era,
and
partnering
era."
Along
with
these
three
eras
one
more
era
needs
to
be
considered,
that
is
participating
era
or
stage
in
mission
in
order
to
fulfill
the
kingdom
mission
in
the
contemporary
Indian
society.
The
Paternalistic
system
is
neither
to
be
followed
nor
favored
in
terms
of
enhancing
and
enlarging
the
Christian
mission
in
the
contemporary
Christendom.
The
Christian
mission
in
India
seeks
to
address
to
the
empowerment
of
the
people
especially
the
marginalized
and
unprivileged
sections
of
India
with
emphasis
on
integral
mission.
Partnering
and
participating
attitude
would
pay
a
path
towards
the
margins
and
allowing
us
to
envision
the
context
60
Please
refer
to
Ralph
D.
Winter,
Three
Mission
Eras
and
the
Loss
and
Recovery
of
Kingdom
Mission,1800-2000
in
Winter,
Ralph
D
and
Hawthorne,
Steven
C.
Perspectives
on
the
World
Christian
Movement,
3rd
ed.
Pasadena:
William
Carey
Library,
1999,
263-266.
55
and
go
beyond
the
boundaries
to
renew
and
revitalize
ourselves
in
order
to
accomplish
the
task
of
the
mission
in
a
holistic
perspective.
56
INTERPRETING
DIALOGUES
Arren
Bennet
Lawrence
Dialogues
are
a
common
feature
in
literature.
However,
it
is
one
of
the
least
dealt
aspects
in
literary
studies.
A
lacuna
in
understanding
dialogues
must
be
resolved
for
the
better
understanding
of
the
dialogues
in
biblical
literature.
Dialogues
enrich
a
narrative
by
giving
many
different
aspects
to
the
literature.
Dialogues
are
interpreted
using
several
criticisms
such
as
literary
criticism,
narrative
criticism,
genre
criticism,
and
others.
Literary
criticism
says
every
literature
must
be
treated
as
literature.1
For
literary
critics,
narratives
must
be
treated
as
narratives;
epistles
must
be
treated
as
letters.
This
is
very
similar
to
genre
criticism,
which
stresses
the
importance
of
identifying
the
genre
of
the
literature
and
interpreting
the
literature
according
to
the
principles
of
the
genre
of
that
literature.2
In
both
these
criticisms,
dialogues
must
be
identified
as
dialogues
and
that
it
must
be
interpreted
with
the
principles
of
the
literary
aspects
of
the
dialogues.
Similarly,
narrative
criticism
identifies
the
dialogues
as
they
predominantly
ARREN
BENNET
LAWRENCE
(Ph.D.,
AGST-BSOP
Manila)
is
the
assistant
regional
secretary
of
Asia
Theological
Association
(ATA).
He
taught
New
Testament
at
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College
as
well
as
at
University
of
Madras.
I
Norman
C.
Habel,
Literary
Criticism
of
the
Bible
(Philadelphia,
Fortress
Press,
1971),
iii.
2
John
Swales,
Genre
Analysis:
English
in
Academic
and
Research
Settings
(Cambridge:
University
Press,
1990);
Anish
S.
Bawarshi
and
Mary
Jo
Reiff,
Genre:
An
Introduction
to
History,
Theory,
Research
and
Pedagogy
(West
Lafayette,
Indiana:
Parlor
Press,
2010);
Grant
Osborne,
"Genre
Criticism:
Sensus
Liieralis"
TJ
4
(1983),
1-28.
57
come
within
a
narrative.
It
is
therefore
essential
to
use
these
criticisms
in
an
attempt
to
interpret
the
dialogues.
Narratives
and
Dialogues
The
Bible
uses
much
"direct
speech"
in
narratives.
Dialogues
or
direct
speech
has
the
effect
of
making
us
feel
like
a
part
of
the
"action,"
and
it
helps
us
identify
with
the
characters
better.
The
narrator,
by
contrast,
helps
us
evaluate
what
we
read
by
inserting
comments,
giving
explanations,
setting
the
scene,
slowing
down
or
speeding
up
the
action
of
the
story.
For
example,
in
Gen
18:22-33
the
narrator
speaks
at
the
beginning
of
the
dialogue
giving
a
narration
about
the
conversation
between
God
and
Abraham
(18:22).
Then
the
narrator
shows
the
dialogue
of
Abraham
and
God
in
detail
where
Abraham
pleads
for
the
life
of
Lot
and
his
family.
The
narrator
makes
the
readers
involved
by
using
the
dialogue
to
show
the
intensity
of
the
pleading
of
Abraham.
The
narrator
could
have
just
summarized
by
saying
"Abraham
repeatedly
pleaded
with
God
for
the
life
of
Lot,"
but
it
would
not
deliver
the
intensity
that
is
seen
in
the
dialogue.'
The
use
of
the
3
Gen
18:22-33
is
giving
as
an
example
here:
Gen.
18:22
So
the
men
turned
from
there
and
went
toward
Sodom,
but
Abraham
still
stood
before
the
LORD.
23
Then
Abraham
drew
near
and
said,
"Will
you
indeed
sweep
away
the
righteous
with
the
wicked?
24
Suppose
there
are
fifty
righteous
within
the
city.
Will
you
then
sweep
away
the
place
and
not
spare
it
for
the
fifty
righteous
who
are
in
it?
25
Far
be
it
from
you
to
do
such
a
thing,
to
put
the
righteous
to
death
with
the
wicked,
so
that
the
righteous
fare
as
the
wicked!
Far
be
that
from
you!
Shall
not
the
Judge
of
all
the
earth
do
what
is
just?"
26
And
the
LORD
said.
"If/
find
at
Sodom
fifiy
righteous
in
the
city.
I
will
spare
the
whole
place
for
their
sake."
27
Abraham
answered
and
said,
"Behold,
I
have
undertaken
to
speak
to
the
Lord,
58
dialogue
intensifies
the
narration,
displays
the
beauty,
slows
down
the
pace
of
the
narration,
lays
concentration
on
the
issues
dealt
with
in
the
dialogues,
and
helps
the
readers
identify
the
characters
involved
in
the
dialogues.
In
contrast,
in
narration,
the
narrator
helps
us
to
separate
ourselves
from
the
story
so
that
we
can
evaluate
what
is
happening
in
the
story
and
understand
what
the
narrative
is
trying
to
teach
us.
However,
the
narrator
rarely
narrates
using
comments
such
as
"this
was
evil."
Usually,
the
narrator
gives
us
enough
information
mostly
using
dialogues
so
that
we
can
evaluate
the
story
ourselves.
Therefore,
dialogues
are
essential
aspects
of
the
narration
which
adds
beauty
and
aesthetics
to
a
narration.
I
who
am
but
dust
and
ashes.
28
Suppose
five
of
the
fifty
righteous
are
lacking.
Will
you
destroy
the
whole
city
for
lack
of
five?"
And
he
said.
"I
will
not
destroy
it
if!
find
forty-five
there."
29
Again
he
spoke
to
him
and
said,
"Suppose
forty
are
found
there."
He
answered.
"For
the
sake
of
forty
I
will
not
do
it."
30
Then
he
said,
"Oh
let
not
the
Lord
be
angry,
and
I
will
speak.
Suppose
thirty
are
found
there."
He
answered.
"I
will
not
do
it
if!
find
thirty
there."
31
He
said,
"Behold,
I
have
undertaken
to
speak
to
the
Lord.
Suppose
twenty
are
found
there."
He
answered
"For
the
sake
of
twenty
l
will
not
destroy
it."
32
Then
he
said,
"Oh
let
not
the
Lord
be
angry,
and
I
will
speak
again
but
this
once.
Suppose
ten
are
found
there."
He
answered
"For
the
sake
often
I
will
not
destroy
it."
33
And
the
LORD
went
his
way
when
he
had
finished
speaking
to
Abraham,
and
Abraham
returned
to
his
place.
59
Dialogues
and
the
Narrator
James
Resseguie
points
out
that
the
dialogues
are
presented
in
the
perspective
of
the
narrator.
4
He
says,
"a
narrator
selects
the
story,
what
the
characters
say
or
do,
what
settings
are
elaborated,
what
comments
and
evaluations
are
made
...
"
5
The
narrator
presents
a
dialogue
in
narration
with
a
purpose.
So,
the
narrator
determines
the
function
and
the
use
of
the
dialogue.
Besides,
for
Resseguie,
the
narrator
tells
what
the
reader
should
know.
The
narrator
guides
what
the
reader
should
"adopt
or
reject."
The
narrator
presents
the
perspectives
in
dialogue.
The
narrator
presents
them,
and
it
is
expected
that
the
reader
would
trust
the
narrator
and
follow
the
narrator
in
interpreting
the
narration.
In
the
monologic
narratives,
the
narratives
present
one
overarching
idea
overpowering
other
ideas
present
in
a
dialogue
(or
narrative).
However,
in
the
polyphonic
narrative,
the
author
would
want
the
readers
to
understand
the
many
ideas
presented
in
the
narrative
without
making
one
superior
to
the
other.
Anyways,
the
narrator
seems
to
be
the
one
in
charge
of
these
varied
presentations.
Bakhtin
identifies
this
in
his
writings.
Though
narrative
critics
have
not
stressed
this
polyphonic
idea
before
nevertheless
the
concept
that
the
author
is
the
source
for
projection
of
a
character
or
worldview
are
present
even
in
narrative
criticism.
4
James
L.
Resseguie,
Narrative
Criticism
of
the
New
Testament:
An
Introduction
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker,
2005),
167.
5
Resseguie,
Narrative
Criticism
of
the
New
Testament,
167.
6
Resseguie,
Narrative
Criticism
of
the
New
Testament,
167.
60
Paul
N.
Anderson
says
one
of
the
major
mistakes
in
the
interpretation
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
reading
it
"nomologically
instead
of
dialogically
."7
He
says,
"Put
otherwise,
many
an
ecumenical
council
or
more
nuanced
interpretation
has
restored
the
tension
that
had
been
lost
by
interpreters
who
had
sided
with
one
aspect
of
John's
witness
without
considering
another."8
Anderson
stressed
that
"John's
material
developed
dialogically,
and
it
must
be
read
dialogically
if
its
epistemological
origin,
developmental
character,
and
rhetorical
design
are
to
be
adequately
understood."?
Anderson,
therefore,
stressed
the
importance
of
reading
the
text
dialogically.
Anderson
says,
"John's
is
a
theology
of
encounter-
originating
from,
and
leading
to,
the
same
in
the
way
the
narrative
is
constructed."!"
Nowhere,
it
is
so
more
evident
than
in
the
dialogues
of
John.
For
Anderson,
dialogues
are
the
most
distinctive
feature
of
the
Johannine
narrative."
The
primary
function
of
the
dialogues
is
the
way
it
invites
the
readers
to
engage
dialogically
with
Jesus
in
the
text.12
He
says,
"The
dialogues
function
in
two
ways:
comprehending
and
believing
responses
to
Jesus
are
affirming
and
exemplary;
misunderstanding
and
7
Paul
N.
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another:
Johannine
Polyvalence
from
Origins
to
Receptions,"
Anatomies
of
Narrative
Criticism:
The
Past,
Present,
and
Futures
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
as
Literature
(Ed.
Torn
Thatcher
and
Stephen
D.
Moore;
Atlanta:
SBL,
2008),
93.
8
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
93.
9
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
93.
10
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
110.
11
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
117.
12
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
117.
61
unbelieving
responses
to
Jesus
are
disconfirming
and
corrective.
...
As
the
discussants
respond
in
faith
to
the
revelation,
this
is
a
positive
example
for
others
to
follow;
as
they
reject
or
respond
incompletely
to
the
divine
initiative,
this
is
presented
as
a
negative
example."
13
Anderson
says,
"it
is
as
though
the
inadequacy
of
human
initiative
is
mirrored
in
the
actions
of
the
discussants.
The
only
hope
for
humanity
is
that
which
is
of
divine
origin,
and
the
reader
is
drawn
into
an
imaginary
dialogue
with
Jesus
by
being
engaged
in
the
story.
In
that
sense,
each
reader
is
subsumed
into
the
identity
of
Nicodemus,
the
Samaritan
woman,
the
crowd,
the
Beloved
Disciple,
Peter,
Pilate,
Mary
Magdalene,
and
Thomas.
Therein
we
find
our
misunderstandings
challenged
and
our
authentic
understandings
confirmed.
From
one
dialogue
to
another,
the
hearer/reader
is
finally
engaged
in
dialogue
personally,
becoming
a
participant
in
the
story."
14
Anderson
shows
not
only
of
the
narrative
element
of
the
story
but
also
the
dynamics
involved
where
the
reader
is
subsumed
into
the
narrative.
These
dynamics
happen
only
when
the
reader
involves
in
the
reading
of
the
dialogues
and
identifies
himself/herself
with
the
character
in
dialogue
in
the
narrative,
such
as
Nicodemus
or
Samaritan
woman.
Therefore,
this
may
appear
not
purely
as
a
narrative
critical
reading
aspect,
but
it
seems
like
Readers
Response
criticism.
13
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
117.
14
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
117-8.
62
In
anyways,
can
we
still
consider
this
aspect
as
narrative
critical
analysis?
The
presentation
of
the
narrative
itself
seems
to
be
structured
in
such
a
way
that
the
reader
involvement
is
expected.
The
presence
of
the
dialogues
(especially
that
of
Nicodemus
and
Samaritan
woman)
shows
that
Jesus
is
kept
in
a
position
to
clarify
the
misunderstandings
of
the
reader.
The
questions
asked
by
the
interlocutor
resemble
the
possible
questions
any
reader
might
have.
The
travel
or
movement
of
the
dialogue
of
the
interlocutor
moves
like
the
possible
dialogical
movement
of
any
interlocutor
(including
the
reader).
Therefore,
it
is
possible
that
the
narrative
itself
was
constructed
by
the
author
as
a
rhetorical
device
to
convince
any
reader
about
certain
concepts
that
the
dialogue
clarifies
in
the
narrative.
Anderson
points
that
"when
human
actants
come
to
Jesus
asking
a
challenging
question
or
making
a
self-assured
statement,
this
presentation
nearly
always
exposes
their
incomprehension
and
spiritual
inadequacy
."
15
If
so,
the
incomprehension
of
the
interlocutor
is
then
an
indication
of
the
possible
presence
of
misunderstanding
in
the
reader,
and
the
clarifications
of
Jesus
in
the
dialogues
are
the
clarification
of
the
misunderstandings
of
the
reader.
Therefore,
the
misunderstandings
of
the
interlocutor
are
necessarily
misunderstandings
of
the
reader
which
are
clarified
by
the
narrator.
Consequently,
we
can
speak
of
this
in
a
narrative
critical
analysis
itself.
15
Anderson,
"From
One
Dialogue
to
Another,"
117.
63
Therefore,
in
the
practice
of
narrative
critical
analysis
of
the
dialogues,
the
interpreter
should:
l.
Identify
the
characters
involved
in
the
dialogues,
then
2.
Identify
the
concepts
conveyed
by
both
(
or
more)
characters,
3.
Identify
the
movement
of
the
concepts
in
the
dialogue.
4.
Identify
the
persuasion
of
the
hero
(Jesus)
in
the
dialogue.
5.
Identify
how
the
dialogue
ends.
6.
Identify
if
the
characters
are
convinced
by
the
clarifications
given
by
the
hero
or
not
and
see
the
reactions
of
the
interlocutors
to
the
clarifications
given
by
the
hero.
This
way,
the
interpreter
could
see
the
rhetorical
function
of
the
dialogue
in
a
narrative.
Classification
of
Dialogues
In
order
to
understand
dialogues
better,
we
must
know
certain
kinds
of
dialogues
and
certain
aspects
and
elements
of
dialogues.
In
this
space,
we
will
deal
with
several
of
these
which
are
essential
in
interpreting
the
dialogues
better.
The
arrangement
of
these
is
presented
randomly.
Moreover,
the
list
is
not
exhaustive
enough
due
to
space
constraints.
There
are
many
other
kinds
of
dialogues
which
will
be
64
discussed
in
another
paper.
In
this
paper,
the
essential
aspects
of
dialogue
from
a
narrative
critical
perspective
are
kept
in
the
following
subtitles.
Direct
Dialogue:
16
Direct
Dialogue
is
nothing
but
a
dialogue
in
which
the
writer
attempts
using
dialogue
as
a
means
of
setting
up
the
tensions.
Much
of
the
tension
is
shared
in
the
dialogue
itself.
Narration
and
other
means
are
not
used
to
convey
the
tension.
Purely
dialogues
are
used
to
communicate
tensions
in
the
dialogue.
Interpolated
Dialogue:
17
In
interpolated
dialogues,
the
dialogues
are
interpolated
with
the
narratives.
Narratives
are
used
along
with
the
dialogues
to
convey
ideas
and
tensions.
Tensions
are
not
merely
shared
in
the
dialogues
alone
but
also
with
narrations
interpolated.
Misdirected
Dialogue:
18
Often
dialogues
display
random
movements
without
moving
in
one
direction.
Tom
Chiarella
says
that
in
misdirected
dialogues,
"subjects
change
without
warning.
Characters
respond
to
stray
thoughts
and
show
no
interest
in
the
progression
of
tensions.
.
..
Misdirected
dialogue
brings
in
so
many
strands
of
existence
that
1.r;
Tom
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue:
How
to
Create
Memorable
Voices
and
Fictional
Conversations
that
Crackle
with
Wit,
Tension
and
Nuance,
(Ohio:
Story
Press,
1998).
17
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue.
18
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue.
65
its
direction
resists
diagnosis.
It
appears
to
operate
without
direction,
in
open
defiance
of
the
whole
notion."!"
Modulated
Dialogue:
In
modulated
dialogues,
the
narrator
uses,
"commentary
and
scenic
details
to
extend
the
complexity
of
expression."?"
The
narrator
breaks
through
not
just
to
narrate
the
events
as
in
interpolated
dialogue,
but
comments
about
the
dialogue
clarify
words
or
meanings
to
explain
the
tension
in
the
dialogue
further.
Chiare11a
says,
"Here
the
movement
is
not
from
one
character
to
another
(as
in
directed
dialogue)
nor
into
the
life
of
one
character
in
particular
(as
in
interpolated
dialogue).
The
movement
is
not
particularly
between
characters
either
(as
in
misdirected
dialogue).
In
modulated
dialogue,
each
part
of
the
dialogue
becomes
a
point
of
entry
for
the
writer
to
drift
toward
other
details."21
Contrastive
Dialogue:22
There
are
at
times
dialogues
are
contrastive.
Two
characters
talking
in
a
contrastive
manner
is
called
contrastive
dialogue.
For
example,
when
Jesus
predicts
that
Peter
will
deny
Jesus
Christ,
he
says
he
will
never
deny
Him,
but
he
will
even
die
with
him
(Matt
26:35;
Mark
14:31).
Here
Peter's
views
are
kept
in
contrast
to
Jesus'.
Jesus
is
not
convincing
Peter
about
it.
He
was
narrating
19
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
29.
2
°
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
34.
21
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
34.
22
Sydney
Gredanus,
The
Modern
Preacher
and
the
Ancient
Text:
Interpreting
and
Preaching
Biblical
Literature,
(Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans,
1988),
202.
66
what
will
happen.
However,
Peter
negates
that
and
says
he
will
never
deny
Jesus.
This
shows
that
contrastive
ideas
kept
side
by
side.
Persuasive
Dialogue:
The
term
persuasive
dialogue
is
coined
by
the
present
writer
to
mean
one
or
more
persuasive
ideas
present
in
the
dialogue.
In
many
instances,
like
Socratic
dialogues,
one
character's
speech
would
persuade
the
other
character(s).
For
example,
in
the
dialogue
of
Nicodemus
in
John
3,
Jesus'
speech
persuades
Nicodemus
to
accept
his
understanding
about being
'born
again.'
The
whole
persuasion
in
this
dialogue
is
that
Nicodemus
should
understand
that
to
be
born
again
he
must
know
that
Jesus
is
sent
from
God
as
the
Son
of
God
and
that
he
must
believe
in
Him
and
that
through
this
believing
he
will
have
eternal
life.
Therefore,
Jesus'
participation
in
the
dialogue
in
3:1-21
is
to
persuade
Nicodemus
to
believe
in
Him.
This
is
a
common
feature
in
dialogues.
Polyphonic
Dialogue:
Polyphonic
dialogue
is
also
a
term
used
by
the
present
writer;
nevertheless,
it
is
a
rendering
of
Bakhtin'
s
idea
of
polyphony.
For
Bakhtin,
polyphony
means
many
voices.
Then,
the
polyphonic
dialogue
is
nothing
but
a
dialogue
which
contains
many
voices
where
no
voice
is
preferred
over
the
other
voices.
In
polyphonic
dialogue,
each
character's
ideologies
are
presented
while
none
is
subordinated,
even
the
author's
or
the
hero's.
67
Silence
in
Dialogue:
Silence
is
necessarily
part
of
the
dialogue.
In
a
dialogue,
some
characters
may
be
kept
silent
at
some
points
of
the
dialogue.
The
reason
for
the
silence
is
essential
for
the
understanding
of
the
dialogue
itself.
In
a
dialogue
when
one
character
is
silent
at
a
particular
point
of
the
dialogue,
it
leaves
room
for
the
other
character(s)
to
speak
more
which
may
make
the
dialogue
move
into
a
particular
direction.
When
there
are
only
two
characters
involved
in
a
dialogue,
and
when
one
character
is
kept
silent
at
a
particular
point
in
dialogue
then
the
dialogue
may
move
into
a
monologue
for
some
time.
Chiarella
says,
"There
are
moments
when
silence
comes
the
natural
answer,
an
extension
of
the
exchange
between
two
people."23
Silence
is
an
answer.
Silence
is
also
a
response.
Monologue
present
in
dialogue
does
not
show
another
kind
of
genre
mainly.
It
just
shows
that
the
other
character
which
was
active
until
a
certain
point
in
the
narrative
is
kept
silent
as
a
response
so
that
the
other
character
may
speak
further
and
clarify
the
questions
raised
in
the
dialogue.
Sometimes,
a
character
may
be
silent
in
dialogue
because
it
just
does
not
have
anything
meaningful
to
say.
Sometimes,
a
character
may
keep
silence
because
the
tension
in
the
dialogue
is
resolved.
In
other
times,
the
silence
of
a
character
may
mean
that
the
silent
interlocutor
disagreed
with
the
other
in
the
dialogue
so
strongly
that
he
had
left
the
dialogue
(Possibly
Nicodemus
in
John
3).
23
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
34.
68
Dialogue
and
Movement:
Dialogues
display
direction.
There
is
always
a
movement
in
dialogue.
Dialogues
move
from
one
point
to
another.
Chiarella
says,
"Direction
is
a
natural
part
of
the
dialogue.
We
expect
to
be
led
somewhere
by
the
response."24
Chiarella
says,
usually
the
response
of
the
interlocutor
moves
the
dialogue
"slide
forward,
inviting
another
bit
of
news
."
25
Each
part
of
the
dialogue
moves
the
dialogue
forward
conceptually.
And
each
part
of
the
dialogue
adds
"another
bit
of
news."
Conceptually,
the
conversation
between
two
more
characters
travel
from
point
A
to
Point
B.
The
dialogue
may
move
from
ambiguity
to
clarity
or
misunderstanding
to
understanding.
There
are
no
static
dialogues.
There
is
always
movement.
As
each
part
of
the
dialogue
adds
a
new
bit
of
news
there
is
always
movement.
Dialogue
and
Tension:
Another
important
aspect
of
the
dialogue
is
tension.
By
the
conversations
of
two
or
more
characters
tensions
are
displayed
in
the
sense
of
ideologies,
questions
want
desires,
etc.
Chiarella
says,
"Some
element
of
tension
is
generally
shaped
by
the
act
of
speaking."26
All
good
dialogues
have
direction.
It
is
a
mishmash
of
need
and
desire
on
the
part
of
an
individual
character
weighed
against
the
tension
inherent
in
the
gathering
of
more
than
one
person."
Through
the
tension,
the
dialogue
moves
from
one
point
24
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
21.
25
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
11.
26
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
23.
69
to
another.
Chiarella
says,
"Good
dialogue
relies
on
a
stronger
tension."27
Dialogue
and
Question(s):
Questions
are
essential
parts
of
the
dialogue.
Questions
lead
the
dialogue
in
a
direction.
The
question
achieves
the
movement.
One
character
asking
questions
and
the
interlocutor
answering
the
questions
is
classic
forms
found
from
Homeric
dialogues
to
Plato's
Socratic
dialogues
and
the
present.
This
question
and
answer
pattern
in
the
dialogues
usually
involves
the
aspect
of
misunderstandings
and
understandings
in
the
dialogues.
In
Socratic
dialogues,
Socrates,
the
philosopher
asks
questions
so
that
the
interlocutor
will
understand
something
so
that
his
misunderstanding
will
go
away.
Socratic
questions
are
structured
in
such
a
way
the
interlocutor
will
slowly
understand
concepts
and
his
further
misunderstandings
will
be
clarified
by
the
questions
of
the
philosopher
which
will
finally
lead
to
clarity
and
understanding
will
remove
ambiguity
and
misunderstanding.
In
Plato's
dialogues,
Socrates
is
given
questions
which
will
guide
this
movement
from
misunderstanding
to
understanding.
Carefully
selected
questions
in
the
mouth
of
the
philosopher
bring
forth
understanding
in
the
minds
of
the
interlocutor.
In
the
Johannine
dialogues,
especially
in
Jesus
dialogues
with
Nicodemus
and
Samaritan
woman,
Jesus
does
not
ask
the
questions.
The
interlocutor
asks
the
questions.
The
27
Chiarella,
Writing
Dialogue,
22.
70
misunderstandings
of
the
interlocutors
guide
the
questions,
and
the
philosopher
(Jesus)
answers
the
questions
to
clarify
the
misunderstanding
and
to
lead
interlocutor
to
belief.
Therefore,
questions
are
an
essential
part
of
the
dialogues.
Dialogue
and
Conclusion:
The
conclusion
of
the
dialogue
is
significant
in
understanding
the
dialogue.
How
the
dialogue
ends
is
essential
as
the
movement
of
the
dialogue
itself.
There
are
possibilities
that
the
dialogue
may
show
two
characters
sharing
two
worldviews
while
one
trying
to
convince
the
other
and
successfully
convince
the
interlocutor.
The
other
possibility
is
that
one
character
tries
to
convince
the
other
character
while
the
interlocutor
remains
unconvinced
even
at
the
end
of
the
conversation
(John
3?).
The
other
possibility
is
that
two
characters
or
more
share
their
worldviews
without
trying
to
convince
any
of
them
but
merely
present
their
world
views
(polyphonic).
Either
way,
the
conclusion
of
the
dialogue
is
essential
to
understand
the
dialogue
itself.
Dialogue
and
Persuasion:
Along
with
these
is
the
persuasion
of
the
characters
in
the
dialogue
must
also
be
taken
into
consideration.
The
interpreter
must
notice
if
there
is
any
persuasion
in
the
dialogue.
In
a
dialogue,
the
character
will
display
their
worldviews
and
ideologies.
Also,
these
worldviews
and
ideologies
may
clash
bringing
a
conglomeration
of
ideas.
Added
to
these,
one
or
more
characters
in
the
dialogue
may
try
to
persuade
the
other(s)
towards
accepting
his/her
perspective.
This
persuasion
must
be
taken
into
consideration
in
71
the
interpretive
process.
Who
persuades
who?
What
is
persuasion?
How
strong
is
the
persuasion?
Are
there
any
refutations
for
the
persuasions?
All
these
must
be
taken
into
consideration
for
the
better
understating
of
the
dialogue.
Dialogue
and
Characterization:
The
characterization
is
nothing
but
the
way
a
character
is
characterized.
The
character
is
characterized
by
many
things
such
as
narrations
about
the
actions
and
gestures
of
the
characters,
descriptions
of
the
character
such
as
handsome,
ruddy,
etc.,
comments
of
other
characters,
the
speech
of
the
character
itself.
Boris
U
spensky
points
out
that
characterization
can
be
done
in
different
points
of
views,
such
as,
the
spatial-temporal
plane,
which
refers
to
actions;
the
phraseological
plane,
which
refers
to
speech;
the
psychological
plane,
which
refers
to
the
thoughts;
and
the
ideological
plane,
which
refers
to
the
beliefs
and
values
of
a
character.28
Dialogues
contain
speech,
which
means
in
the
phraseological
plane
dialogues
essentially
charact�rize
characters.
Through
the
speech
in
dialogue
the
reader
gets
to
know
what
kind
of
character
a
person
is
and
his/her
ideologies,
worldviews,
etc.
Therefore,
the
dialogue
could
involve
characterization.
28
Boris
Uspensky,
Poetics
of
Composition:
The
Structure
of
the
Artistic
Text
and
Typology
of
a
Compositional
Form
(Los
Angeles:
University
of
California
Press,
1973),
8-100.
72
Dialogue
and
Plot:
All
essential
elements
of
the
narrative
are
parts
of
the
plot
of
the
narrative.
Therefore,
using
dialogue
is
not
digression
in
the
narrative
but
a
means
to
lead
the
narration
to
move
further
in
the
plot.
In
one
sense
the
dialogue
could
itself
function
as
a
plot
or
subplot
in
a
narrative.
For
example,
in
the
dialogue
of
Nicodemus,
3:1-2
share
exposition,
which
introduces
Nicodemus
as
a
Pharisee
coming
to
Jesus
in
the
night
and
speaks
to
him.29
The
problem
generation
is
caused
by
Jesus'
words
about
being
'born
again'
which
puzzles
the
Pharisee
and
creates
a
problem
in
the
narrative.
By
the
end
of
the
dialogue,
Jesus
clarifies
who
will
be
born
again
and
who
will
have
eternal
life.
Therefore,
signaling
problem
resolution
and
resolution."
Hence,
a
dialogue
could
be
a
part
of
a
plot
by
the
same
time
it
could
be
a
subplot
or
plot
on
its
own.
Understanding
the
role
of
the
dialogue
in
the
plot
is
important
for
the
interpretation
of
a
dialogue.
Dialogue,
Narration
and
Reader's
Involvement:
Usually,
if
speech
is
included
in
the
bible,
it
is
direct
speech.31
In
the
Gospels,
narrators
use
extended
direct
speech
materials
to
show
the
teachings,
words,
and
acts
of
Jesus
and
his
disciples.
However,
although
direct
speech
helps
us
feel
being
right
there
in
the
scene,
it
makes
the
situation
more
ambiguous.
If
the
narrator
29
Raymond
E.
Brown,
John
I-XII,
(ABC,
29;
New
York:
Doubleday,
1966),
136.
30
Gredanus,
The
Modern
Preacher
and
the
Ancient
Text,
204--5.
31
Robert
Alter,
The
Art
of
Biblical
Narrative
(New
York:
Basic
Books,
1981),
82.
73
were
to
state
it,
itwould
give
"authoritativeness"
to
the
statement
because
of
the
reliability
of
the
narrator.
32
This
habit
makes
the
narrative
very
dramatically
vivid
and
stylized.
Moreover,
the
dialogues
make
the
readers
involved
in
the
story
by
understanding
the
characters,
their
persuasions, the
movement,
differing
ideologies,
etc.
Dialogue
and
Pace:
Usually,
Biblical
narratives
are
fast-paced
in
nature.
33
They move
in
fast
pace
because
of
"the
short
sentences,
a
lack
of
details,
and
the
absence
of
extended
character
description."
34
The
narrator
slows
the
pace
down
by
including
more
details
or
by
dialogues.
The
dialogues
are
the
common
means
and
an
effective
means
by
which
the
author
slows
the
pace
of
the
narration.
The
many
questions
and
detailed
answers
of
the
characters
in
the
dialogue
will
slow
down
the
narration.
Shimon
Bar-Efrat
points
out
that
one
of
the
major
reasons
for
this
slowing
down
of
the
narration
using
dialogues
is
to
point
out
the
important
points.35
Therefore,
the
pace
of
the
narration·
is
slowed
down
in
the
dialogues
to
show
the
important
elements
which
the
author
wanted
to
convey
in
a
narrative.
Understanding
this
then
is
an
important
thing
for
the
interpretation
of
the
dialogues.
32
Alter,
The
Art
of
Biblical
Narrative,
84.
33
Gredanus,
The
Modern
Preacher
and
the
Ancient
Text,
202.
34
Gredanus,
The
Modern
Preacher
and
the
Ancient
Text,
205.
35
Shimon
Bar-Efrat,
"Literary
Modes
and
Methods
in
the
Biblical
Narrative
in
View
of
2
Samuel
10-20
and
l
Kings
1-2."
Immanuel
8
(1978),
25-
26.
74
Dialogue
and
Reader:
Raj
Nadella
explains
it
in
this
way
while
discussing
the
dialogue
in
Luke
4:23-27:
"Thus,
the
characters
are
in
dialogue,
and
the
texts
are
also
in
dialogue
on
another
level,
Jesus'
self-understanding
as
a
prophet
(4:24-27)
is
in
dialogue
with
the
Nazarenes'
perception
of
him
(son
of
Joseph).
The
reader
is
gradually
getting
caught
in
a
web
of
dialogue,
for
she
or
he
is
in
dialogue
with
text
(4:23-27)
that
is
in
dialogue
with
several
other
text."36
Nadella
also
identifies
another
level
of
dialogues.
He
says,
"At
another
level,
as
Mark
writing
his
account,
he
himself
is
engaged
in
a
dialogue
with
his
sources-oral
traditions-which
he
redacts
and
relativizes.
By
extension,
then,
as
Luke
writes,
he
is
in
dialogue
with
Mark,
who
is
in
dialogue
with
his
sources,
which
are
possibly
engaged
in
dialogue
with
their
sources."37
Here,
Nadella
is
not
talking
about
the
dialogue
in
the
text
(1)
of
the
characters,
(2)
not
of
the
dialogue
of
the
author
to
his
primary
readers,
(3)
not
of
the
dialogue
of
the
text
to
the
present
readers.
However,
he
is
talking
about
the
dialogue
of
the
text
with
its
source:
Luke's
dialogue
with
Mark
and
other
previous
sources
which
were
available
to
the
author.
Therefore,
we
find
four
kinds
of
dialogue
happening
in
this
reading.
The
role
of
the
reader
is
important
in
interpreting
the
dialogues.
Nadella
says,
"readers
ought
to
get
involved
in
the
36
Raj
Nadella,
Dialogue
Not
Dogma:
Many
Voices
in
the
Gospel
of
Luke
(LNTS
431;
New
York:
T&T
Clark,
2011),
61.
37
Nadella,
Dialogue
not
Dogma,
62.
75
dialogue
just
as
bystanders
get
involved
in
a
quarrel."
38
Bakhtin
says,
"the
book
does
not
care
for
indifferent
readers
and
does
not
respond
to
them.
The
true,
engaged
work
on
a
book
is
not
a
passive
appropriation
but
a
living
and
passionate
dialogue
with
it."
39
There
are
two
significant
dialogues
in
a
narrative:
Intradiegetic-Dialogue
between
in
character
in
the
story,
Metadiegetic-Dialogue
between
the
author
and
the
reader
of
the
story.
Therefore,
the
readers'
involvement
with
the
dialogue
should
also
be
considered
when
interpreting
a
dialogue.
Conclusion
Until
now,
several
aspects
of
the
dialogues
are
seen
from
the
perspective
of
narrative
critical
reading.
Some
of
the
important
topics
were
dealt
with
here
so
that
the
interpretation
will
be
informed
about
dialogues
and
use
them
to
interpret
the
dialogues.
Though
this
paper
was
intended
to
show
examples
from
John
3
and
4
and
to
apply
these
principles
in
interpreting
the
dialogues,
due
to
space
constraints
it
could
not
be
done
at
present.
Therefore,
in
this
paper,
the
critical
aspects
needed
for
the
interpretation
of
dialogues
are
dealt
with
which
can
be
further
used
in
the
interpretation
of
the
dialogues.
38
Nadella,
Dialogue
not
Dogma,
80.
39
M. M.
Bakhtin,
Art
and
Answerability,
(trans.
Vadim
Liapanor;
Austin:
University
of
Texas
Press,
1990),
11.
76
An
Ethical/Theological
Significance
of
Genesis
22:1-19.
Balo
Savarikannu
Scholars
have
different
opinions
on
the
ethical
relevance
of
the
OT
texts.
Some
are
less
convinced
that
the
Hebrew
Bible
contains
a
coherent
ethical
perspective.
Cyril
S.
Rodd,
for
example,
asserts
that
the
OT
is
far
removed
from
our
times,
hence
any
attempt
to
bring
moral
relevance
from
OT
texts
is
doomed
to
frustration.
For
Rodd,
the
OT
offers
narrow
windows
in
which
we
glimpse
parts
of
a
panorama,
most
of
which
is
forever
beyond
our
view. It
is
like
a
tall
tower
having
a
few
small
windows
through
which
one
can
only
see
a
limited
view
of
a
beach.
Therefore,
Rodd
argues,
one
cannot
see
any
moral
relevance
to
the
present
day.
because
the
OT
is
a
strange
land
and this
strangeness
is
the
very
virtue
of
the
OT
texts
.1
This
"Rodd's
Route"
is
a
big
challenge
for
Christian
ethicists
as
Rodd
is
skeptical
for
the
whole
effort
to
make
the
Old
Testament
relevant
today.
However,
according
to
Gordon
J.
Wenham,
there
are
OT
narrative
texts
that
can
stimulate
our
ethical
reflection.
The
narrator's
evaluation
of
the
characters
is
a
vital
clue
to
know
the
ethical
dimension.
The
OT
texts
primarily
focus
on
God's
kindness
and
faithfulness.
He
says,"
..
.in
many
...
Old
Testament
BALU
SAVARIKANNU
(Ph.D.,
AGST-BSOP
Manila)
teaches
Old
Testament
at
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College.
He
is
also
the
editor
of
this
journal.
This
article
is
a
revised
version
of
a
paper
presented
at
Nepal
Theological
Forum,
Kathmandu,
January
2019.
1
Cyril
S.
Rodd,
Glimpses
of
a
Strange
Land:
Studies
in
Old
Testament
Ethics
(London:
T
&
T
Clark,
2001),
5-27.
77
stories
God
treats
his
people
much more
kindly
than they
deserve
to
demonstrate
his
faithfulness
to
his
promises."2
The
OT
narratives
witness
God's
tolerance
and
his
faithfulness
to
his
promises
despite
the
unfaithfulness
of
his
people.3
Evangelical
Christians
believe
that
the
Scripture
is
the
product
of
the
faith
community
and
the
canonical
text
is
applicable
for
our
times.
In
this
paper,
I
would
like
to
read
Gen
22:1-19
as
a
test
case
to
talk
about
the
relevance
of
OT
ethics
for
our
times.
For
the
benefit
of
a
broader
audience
and
the
scope
of
the
paper,
I
have
only
read
the
text,
and
I
have
not
attempted
to
study
the
philological,
compositional,
and
historical
aspects
of
Gen
22.
The
Ethical
Problem
in
Gen
22
and
the
Various
Responses
The
sacrifice
of
Isaac
in
Gen
22
(also
called
Akedah,
the
Binding
of
Isaac)
is
one
of
the
enigmatic
narratives
in
the
Hebrew
Bible
because
it
raises
many
questions:
Does
the
story
condemn
the
practice
of
child
sacrifice?
Does
it
have
an
"etiological"
function,
thus
reasoning
out
how
human
sacrifices
animal
sacrifices
replaced
human
sacrifices?
Alternatively,
does
the
story
convey
how
God
tests
the
fidelity
of
his
believers?
Or
does
the
story
intend
to
show
the
nature
of
true
belief?
Etc.
The
narrative
is
also
one
of
the
problematic
texts
to
interpret.
We
wonder
who
the
central
character
in
the
story
is:
Is
it
God
or
Abraham
or
Isaac
or
the
ram?
While
the
Christian
tradition
related
the
story
to
2
Gordon
J.
Wenham,
Story
as
Torah:
Reading
Old
Testament
Narrative
Ethically
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker,
2004),
119.
3
Wenham,
The
story
as
Torah,
154-155.
78
Abraham's
faith
(Heb
11:17-19),
the
Jewish
tradition
sees
Isaac
as
a
central
character
in
the
narrative
possibly
in
reaction
to
the
Christian
interpretation
of
the
story
.4
The
early
Church
saw
the
typology
of
Isaac's
sacrifice
on
Mount
Moriah
to
Jesus'
sacrificial
death
on
Golgotha.
The
Church
read
Isaac
carrying
the
wood
as
a
foreshadow
of
Jesus
carrying
the
cross.5
How
could
a
righteous
God
command
for
a
human
sacrifice,
even
if
it
was
testing
human
faith?
Questions
as
such
are
not
only
modern
ones.
Judaism
and
Christianity
faced
such
ethical
related
question,
and
each
tradition
tried
to
respond
to
it.
When
accused
by
the
critics
that
the
Jews
did
practice
human
sacrifice,
Flavius
Josephus
the
Jewish
historian
responded
to
his
critics
that
God
does
not
require
human
sacrifice.
God
only
intended
to
test
Abraham's
faith
and
obedience.
6
Philo
of
Alexandria
too
faced
a
charge
that
child
sacrifices
were
common
in
Abraham's
time
and
Abraham's
action
is
not
unique.
Philo
defended
Abraham's
actions
saying
that
Abraham
was
counter-cultural
that
he
did not
bother
about
his
customs
or
he
did
not
seek
the
love
of
honor
in
his
society;
instead,
his
actions
were
motivated
by
complete
obedience
to
God.
7
4
Ed Nora
and
Eibert
Tigchelaar
(eds),
The
Sacrifice
of
Isaac:
The
Aqedah
(Genesis
22)
and
Its Interpretations
(Leiden:
Brill,
2002),
93.
5
Albert
van
der
Heide,
"Now
I
know":
Five
Centuries
of
Aqedah
Exegesis
(Leiden:
Springer,
2017),
2-3.
6
Ant.
1.233,
Cited
in
Edward
Kessler,
Bound
By
the
Bible:
Jews,
Christians
and
the
Sacrifice
of
Isaac
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004),
38.
7
LAB
18:5,
Cited
in
Kessler,
Bound
By
the
Bible,
38-39.
79
Modern
philosophers
too
saw
the
ethical
problem
in
the
story
of
Isaac's
sacrifice.
The
German
philosopher
Immanuel
Kant
(
1724-1804)
argued
that
there
is
a
moral
obligation
that
is
intrinsically
valid,
and
everyone
should
obey
these
categorical
imperatives
at
all
situations.
One
cannot
make
an
exception,
but
one
should
be
reasonable
in
all
situations.
Kant
could
not
accept
the
fact
that
God
would
ever
command
a
man
to
kill
his
son
thus
indulge
such
unethical
deed.
Kant
argued
that
Abraham
should
have
disobeyed
God's
command
saying,
"That
I
ought
not
to
kill
my
good
son
is
quite
certain.
However,
that
you,
this
apparition,
are
God-of
that
I
am
not
certain,
and
never
can
be,
not
even
this
voice
rings
down
to
me
from
(visible)
heaven"
because
demanding
a
child
sacrifice
was
against
the
moral
law.
Kant's
reasoning
certainly
undermines
the
integrity
of
the
biblical
account.8
However,
Soren
Kierkegaard
calls
Abraham
as
the
knight
of
faith
because
Abraham
carried
out
God's
command
despite
his
judgment
of
right
and
wrong.
Although
Abraham's
actions
are
not
ethical,
Abraham
believed
that
everything
is
possible
with
God.
According
to
Kierkegaard,
the
universal
nature
of
ethics
may
lead
to
a
"teleological
suspension"
because
from
God's
standpoint
there
are
situations
in
which
ethics
temporarily
ceases
to
apply.
8
Immanuel
Kant,
"The
Conflict
of
the
Faculties,"
in
Immanuel
Kant,
Religion
and
Rational
Theology,
trans.
Mary
J.
Gregor
and
Robert
Anchor
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1996),
283.
80
Thus,
Abraham's
obedience
to
God's
command
could
not
bear
moral
responsibility
.9
Jewish
traditions
defend
God
by
adding
more
to
the
biblical
story.
For
example,
the
Book
of
Jubilees
(160-150
BCE)
says
that
God
did not
put
Abraham
to
the
test,
but
the
demon
Mastema
did."
The
Early
Church
also
did
respond
to
the
problem.
Origen
saw
God's
command
to
sacrifice
Isaac
as
a
supreme
test,
and
that
it
prefigures
ultimate
truth.
Abraham
believed
in
the
resurrection.
He
knew
that
Christ
was
to
be
born
from
his
lineage
and
offer
himself
as
a
substitutionary
victim
for
the
whole
world.
Isaac
is
the
figure
of
Christ.
According
to
Caesarius
of
Arles,
Abraham
is
a
type
of
God
the
Father
and
Isaac
as
a
type
of
Jesus
the
Son.
11
Modern
scholars
differ
in
their
interpretation
of
the
narrative.
Hermann
Gunkel
argued
that
the
biblical
narrative
justifies
the
abolition
of
child
sacrifices
and
suggest
an
alternative
to
animal
sacrifice.
Thus,
the
story
holds
"etiological"
purpose,
explanation
of
how
animal
sacrifice
replaced
human
sacrifice.'?
The
problem
with
Gunkel'
s
approach
to
the
story
is
that
the
text
tells
Isaac
himself
asked
Abraham
about
an
animal
for
the
sacrifice
(Genesis
22:7).
Also,
there
is
not
much
evidence
that
the
9
Soren
Kierkegaard,
Fear
and
Trembling,
trans.
Alastair
Hannay
(London:
Penguin
Books,
1985),
65-109.
10
Jean
Louis
Ska,
"Genesis
22:
What
Questions
Should
We
Ask
the
Text?"
Biblica
94
(2013)
257.
11
Thomas
C.
Oden,
ed.,
Genesis
12-50,
ACCS
(Downers
Grove:
IVP
Academic,
Digital
Edition.
·
12
Hermann
Gunkel,
Genesis
(HK
1/1:
Gottingen,
1910),
240-242.
81
Israelites
practiced
child
sacrifice.
The
Mesopotamian
children's
tombs
do
not
contain
sacrificed
children
bodies
.
13
Gerhard
van
Rad
argued
that
the
whole
narrative
is
about
Abraham
and
Isaac
is
merely
passive
throughout.
Hence,
Gen
22
is
not
the
story
of
child
sacrifice.
Preferably,
it
is
the
story
of
the
problem
of
the
possible
annihilation
of
God's
promise
to
Abraham.
If
Isaac
were
dead,
there
would
be
no
fulfillment
of
God's
promise.
God
tests
Abraham
whether
Abraham
fully
understands
God's
promise
as
a
divine
gift.
The
story
confirms
that
God
will
fulfill
his
covenantal
promises
in
the
end.14
van
Rad's
theological
reading
of
the
biblical
text
is
commendable
because
unlike
Gunkel
who
was
more
interested
in
the
oral
tradition
of
the
story
"he
(von
Rad)
was
able
to
read
biblical
texts,
and
he
wanted
to
teach
others
to
read
biblical
texts.15
Recent
scholars
say
that
God
was
only
testing
Abraham's
faith.
God
would
never
have
allowed
Isaac
to
die
as
a
ritual
sacrifice.
Elsewhere
God
commands
that
the
Israelites
should
not
offer
human
sacrifices
because
they
are
an
abomination
to
the
Lord
(Lev
20:2-5).16
13
Ska,
"What
Questions
Should
We
Ask
the
Text?"
261
14
·
,
'
,
.
Gerh�d
.von
Rad,
Genesis:
A
Commentary,
OTL
(Philadelphia:
Presbytenan
Publishing
Corporation),
239-240.
15"
Konrad
Schmid,
"Abraham's
Sacrifice:
Gerhard
von
Rad's
Interpretation
of
Genesis
22,"
Interpretation
(July
2000)
275-276.
•
16
Jesudasan
Basker
Jeyaraj,
Genesis,
in
Brian
Wintle
(ed.),
South
Asia
Bibi�
Commentary:
A
One-Volume
Commentary
on
the
Whole
Bible
(Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan,
2015),
n.p.,
Kindle
Edition.
82
Close
Reading
of
the
Text
of
Genesis
22
Biblical
texts
are
beautiful
in
form
and
rich
in
content.
We
should
enjoy
reading
biblical
texts
before
we
come
up
with
the
questions
to
the
text.
Genesis
22
is
a
lovely
narrative.
We
get
here
all
the
elements
of
a
narrative
proper:
a
plot,
a
crisis,
and
a
resolution.
The
narrative
begins
with
the
divine
test.
God
tests
people
to
know
what
is
there
in
their
hearts
(Deut.
8:2;
2
Ch
32:31),
if
they
are
loyal
to
him
(Deut
13:3)
and
obey
his
commandments
(Judg
3:4).
However,
the
sacrifice
of
Isaac
narrative
has
enough
to
thrill
the
audience.
God's
command
to
offer
Isaac
as
a
burnt
offering
in
a
chosen
place
does
not
only
shock
Abraham
but
also
the
readers.
God
was
not
joking.
God
knew
what
he
was
asking.
He
commands
with
much
clarity
that
Abraham
should
offer
Isaac
as
a
burnt
offering
(also,
notice
God's
command-cum-entreaty
in
Hebrew,
NrnRkach
na
which
means
"Take
I
pray").
We
are
not
told
the
motive
behind
God's
test
at
this
time.
It
is
also
surprising
that
Abraham
is
quick
in
action.
If
God's
command
for
child
sacrifice
is
bizarre,
so
is
Abraham's
quick
response.
Earlier,
Abraham
was
pleasing
and
protesting
to
God
(ch
18).
Here,
Abraham
is
passive
and
obeys
God
completely.
He
gets
up
early,
saddles
a
donkey,
takes
two
workers
him,
prepares
wood
for
the
altar,
and
travels
with
Isaac.
The
narrative
is
silent
about
what
happened
with
Abraham
during
the
three
days
of
the
journey.
Abraham
keeps
God's
command
secret.
Abraham
says
the
servants
to
stay
where
they
are
and
that
both
Isaac
and
he
will
go up
on
the
mount,
worship
God,
and
return
to
them.
Abraham
takes
everything
that
83
needs
for
a
sacrifice:
wood,
fire,
a
knife,
and
Isaac.
He
did
not
tell
Isaac
and
also
the
servants.
When
asked
where
the
animal
for
slaughter
is,
Abraham
replies
that
God
will
see
to
it
implies
that
it
is
God's
responsibility
and
they
do
not
need
to
worry.
Most
of
the
modern
English
translations
translate
the
Hebrew
phrase,
tJ"i'.l?�
;�-;,�r1_:elohiin
yiryeh
lo
in
verse
8
as
God
will
provide.
However,
the
text
means
God
will
see
to
it.
The
implication
is
that
God
will
intervene
in
situations
and
do
the
needful.!?
There
are
no
assured
provisions
of
God
in
all
situations.
When
they
reached
the
place,
Abraham
builds
the
altar
for
the
Lord,
sets
wood,
binds
Isaac
and
places
him
on
the
altar.
Like
verse
3,
verse
9
also
is
filled
with
action
..
Abraham
picks
up
a
knife
to
slaughter
his
son.
There
he
hears
a
voice
from
heaven,
"Abraham,
Abraham!"
The
angel
of
the
Lord
stops
the
sacrifice
of
Isaac
for
the
reason
that
God
has
known
for
sure
that
Abraham
believes
God's
promises.
Abraham
finds
an
animal
and
offers
it
as
a
burnt
offering
instead.
He
calls
the
name,
the
Lord
sees.
God
speaks
to
Abraham
again
and
assures
his
blessings
to
his
future generations.
The
Theological
Significance
of
Gen
22
Divine
commands
for
child
sacrifice
was
not
uncommon
in
ANE.
Child
sacrifice
existed
in
Canaan.
In
Israel
too,
YHWH
demanded
the
first-born
(Exod
22:29),
but
people
can
offer
animal
sacrifice
17
Michael
Malessa,
"Reflections
on
the
Use
of
"Jehovah
Jireh"
or
Why
This
Expressions
Should
be
Removed
from
Our
Vocabulary,"
Mission
Round
Table
13
(May-August
2018),
22-26,
https://omf.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/MRT-l
3
.2-Reflections-on-the-use-of-Jehovah-jireh-
Michael-Malessa.pdf?x86309
(accessed
10
January
2018).
84
instead
(Exod
34:40).
YHWH
the
sovereign
God
can
require
anything,
but
he
guards
the
sanctity
of
human
life.
Abraham
was
willing
to
offer
his son
as
a
burnt
offering
but
driven
by
the
divine
command
he
did
a
usual
practice
and
offered
an
animal
instead.18
The
Semites
practiced
child
sacrifice.
Though
there
are
traces
of
child
sacrifice
practice
among
the
Israelites,
God's
law
condemns
it,
and
those
who
practice
it
will
suffer
severe
punishment
(Lev
20:2-5).
Child
sacrifice
was
abhorred
in
favor
of
animal
sacrifice
(Exod
13:
12;
34:
19-20).
Perhaps
the
narrator
employs
an
old
cultic
practice
that
was
no
longer
observed
to
highlight
Abraham's
faith-obedience.
19
In
the
ancient
world,
children
were
considered
less
important,
and
they
were
vulnerable
to
abuse.
However,
adults
were
deemed
to
be
vital
because
they
support
families.
A
parent
can
decide
what
to
do
for
children
(Judg
11:34--40).
Abraham
chooses
to
offer
his
son
as
a
burnt
offering.
God
has
the
right
to
ask
because
he
created
everything,
and
he
has
the
right
to
take
back
what
he
wants
(Job
l
:21
).20
The
turning
point
of
the
story
is
that
YHWH
saves
the
child
from
death.
Thus,
YHWH
remains
set
apart
from
other
deities
that
require
child
sacrifices.
He
is
counter-
cultural
and
covenant-bound.
God's
theophanic
encounter
with
Abraham
required
a
dramatic
event.
It
needed
the
proving
of
Abraham's
absolute
fear
18
Thomas
L.
Brodie,
Genesis
as
Dialogue:
A
Literary,
Historical
&
Theological
Commentary
(Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press,
2001),
269.
19
Dianne
Bergant,
Genesis:
In
the
Beginning
(Collegeville:
Liturgical
Press,
2013),
63.
20
R.
W.
L.
Moberly,
Genesis
12-50,
OTG
(Sheffield:
JSOT,
1995),
.
43-45.
85
and
reverence.
The
story
tells
that
Abraham
successfully
responded
to
God's
command,
but
the
narrative
is
"more
revealing
about
God
than
it
is
about
Abraham."
It
seems
the
whole
narrative
centers
around
the
act
of
seeing.
Abraham
sees
the
.Place
of
sacrifice
in
the
distance
(pn·v�
oiprp;:i-n�
N""!�1
v
4).
He
asserts
that
God
wi11
see
to
a
sacrificed
animal
(fril�T
tl";:i?�
v
8).
Abraham
sees
a
ram
(?:�ri"lJD1
Nl�1
v
13).
He
names
the
place
"God
sees"
(
i"l�T
i"lJi"l;v
14a).
The
narrator
explains
why
that
place
is
called
"on
the
mountain,
the
Lord
will
be
seen"
(il�T
i"lJil;
1;:i�
v.
14b).22
Such
an
act
of
seeing
God's
intervention
might
echo
Moses'
encounter
with
God
on
Mount
Sinai.
Thus,
the
narrative
could
be
seen
as
a
theophanic
event
more
than
child
sacrifice
event.
Abraham
had
been
hearing
from
God.
He
needed
to
encounter
with
God
especially
just
like
Moses.
Gen
22
shows
how
God
becomes
relational
to
humans.
To
the
question
of
how
we
can
interpret
God
coming
to
know
Abraham's
faith
('
1
l:lll1;
ill;l�
":P
"for
now
I
know
...
"
in
v
12),
Robert
B.
Chisholm
does
not
deny
that
God
is
omniscient.
He
also
sees
the
narrative
as
"anthropomorphic."
However,
he
argues
that
God
gaining
knowledge
should
be
explained
in
the
light
of
the
larger
context.
Elsewhere
God,
as
a
righteous
judge,
sorts
out
the
21
Victor
P.
Hamilton,
Handbook
on
the
Pentateuch:
Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers,
Deuteronomy
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2005),
98.
22
Abraham
Kuruvilla,
"The
Aqedah
(Genesis
22):
What
is
the
Author
Doing
with
What
He
is
Saying?"
JETS
55
(2012),
466.
The
Hebrew
phrase,
hayyom
behar
adonay
year'eh
in
verse
14b
may
be
translated
as
either
"on
the
mountain
the
Lord
will
be
seen"
or
"on
the
mountain
of
the
Lord,
it
will
be
seen."
The
text
is
open.
86
facts
and
the
evidence
before
rendering
a
verdict
on
the
fate
of
Sodom
and
Gomorrah
(Gen
18).
Although
God
knows
everything,
here,
God
himself
has
become
a
character
so
involved
with
other
characters
in
the
story.
Chisholm
writes
biblical
narratives
are
"not
so
much
concerned
with
making
philosophical
pronouncements
about
the
divine
character
of
God
as
they
are
with
revealing
a
personal,
dynamic
God
who
longs
to
relate
to
his
people
and
move
them
toward
the
goal
he
has
for
them."23
Gen
22
concerns
not
only
the
trial
of
Abraham
but
also
it
concerns
the
trial
of
YHWH.
The
narrative
concludes
that
Abraham
passed
the
test
of
testing
and
this
faith
response
is
not
unique
because
Abraham
has
been
obedient
all
along.
YHWH's
promise,
on
the
other
hand,
has
come
into
question
throughout
this
narrative.
YHWH
proves
to
be
an
actual
deity.24
Therefore
the
narrative
is
about
both
Abraham's
faith
as
well
as
YHWH's
covenant
faithfulness.
The
ethical
question
of
why
YHWH
required
a
human
sacrifice
to
test
Abraham
also
involves
Gods
own
trial
of
himself.
God
himself
put
into
jeopardy.
In
the
end,
YHWH
proves
that
he
is
not
like
other
deities
who
demand
child
sacrifice.
In
contrast
to
the
god
Malech
in
Moab,
YHWH
does
not
wish
for
child
sacrifice.
Israel
was
instead
guilty
of
following
the
practices
of
other
nations
(Der
7:31;
32:35),
but
YHWH
is
set
23
Rober
B.
Chisholm
and
David
M.
Howard,
Jr.,
ed.,
Interpreting
the
Historical
Book:
An
Exegetical
Handbook
(Grand
Rapids:
MI:
Kregel,
2006),
32.
24
Marvin
A.
Sweeney,
The
Pentateuch
(Nashville:
Abingdon
Press,
2017),
29.
87
apart
from
other
gods.25
Instead,
he
is
the
one
who
sees
into
the
situations
of
the
people
and
intervenes
and
delivers
them.
YHWH
is
a
life-giver.
Relevance
for
Today
Child
sacrifice
was
not
uncommon
in
various
parts
of
the
ancient
world.
The
Greeks
and
the
Romans
practiced
child
sacrifice.
Thors,
for
example,
offered
their
sons
to
the
gods.
King
Oen
sacrificed
nine
sons
for his
long
life.
However,
the
Persians
differed
from
their
neighbors
and
did
not
practice
human
sacrifices.
The
Vedic
religion
of
Hinduism
could
have
had
Persian
religious
influence.
It
did
not
tolerate
human
brutality
in
the
name
of
religion.
The
later
development
of
ancient
Hinduism
practiced
animal
and
human
sacrifices.
Bengali
women
used
to
consign
their
first-born
babies
to
the
Ganges
as
part
of
the
religious
ceremony.
For
many
years,
Hindus
performed
the
rite
of
Narabali
(human
sacrifice)
in
various
parts
of
India.
It
was
a
customary
practice
with
the
Hindu
Rajas
to
lay
the
foundations
of
huge
buildings
in
human
blood.26
Child
sacrifice
still
practiced
in
some
parts
of
Asia,
and
the
motivation
is
clear:
to
bring
good
fortune
or
to
appease
gods.
Ashok
Pandey
captures
some
chilling
stories
of
such
case:
25
Cella
B.
Sinclair,
Genesis
(Louisville:
Westminster
John
Knox
1999),
62.
'
26
Rajendralal
Mitra,
Indo_Aryans:
Ancient
and
Medieval
History
Vol
2
(Calcutta:
W.
Newman
&
Co,
Press,
1881),
60-112.
'
88
A
Nepalese
man
has
confessed
to
the
murder
of
a
boy
after
saying
a
local
holy
man
advised
him
that
a
human
sacrifice
would
heal
his
ailing
son.
He
also
burnt
some
incense
and
recited
mantras,
after
killing
the
boy.
After
all,
he
just
believed
the
Shaman,
what
is
usually
the
highest
authority
in
villages
to
announce
the
source
of
the
illnesses
and
bad fortune
that
befalls
them.
The
Indian
couple
kidnapped
and
sacrificed
a
child
to
have
a
child.
The
guru
said
that
they
should
kidnap
a
boy
and
sacrifice
him
on
the
banks
of
the
river.
In
October
2011,
a
7-
year-old
Indian
girl
was
dismembered
by
two
farmers,
who
killed
the
girl
and
removed
her
Ii
ver
as
an
offering
in
a
ritual
sacrifice
to
make
sure
a
better
harvest.27
How
do
we
read
Genesis
22
event
in
the
light
of
the
present
reality?
Gen
22
narrative
will
not
work
with
any
other
child
than
Isaac
because
the
whole
narrative
is
related
to
God's
covenantal
promises.
The
Bible
is
not
a
text-book
for
ethical
questions.
We
need
to
be
careful
what
questions
we
bring
to
biblical
texts.
The
Bible
is
primarily
theological
in
scope.
Ethics
is
primarily
a
faithful
response
to
God.
God's
people
have
to
imitate
the
character
of
God
(Lev
19:
2).
The
OT
is
often
polemic
against
pagan
practices.
If
we
see
the
creation
narratives,
God
creates
the
world
for
the
welfare
of
humanity.
He
creates
everything
and
brings
all
of
them
under
human
control.
The
creation
account
is
more
about
God's
generous
provision
than
his
control
of
what
to
27
Ashok
Pandey,
"Ritual
Killing
and
Human
Sacrifice:
Human
Sacrifice
Today,"
SM
J
Pharmac
Ther.
1
(2015):
1004.
89
eat
and
what
not
to
eat.
In
contrast,
the
ancient
Near
Eastern
creation
accounts
affirm
that
the
gods
created
humans
so
that
humans
will
bring
food
to
those
gods.
Also,
the
OT
historical
narratives
account
Israel's
history
from
the
theological
landscape.
The
Prophets
too
focused
on
the
divine-dimension
in
their
interpretation
of
world
events.
For
example,
the
Scriptures
interpret
the
return
of
the
Israelites
after
the
Exile
as
God's
doing,
not
just
Cyrus'
goodwill.
Thus,
Gen
22
has
its
theological
focus.
God
tested
Abraham
for
a
personal
encounter
with
him.
God
wanted
to
prove
that
he
is
the
most
reliable
God
and
wholly
set
apart
from
other
deities.
Such
a
theophanic
encounter
needed
a
dramatic
event.
Also,
Gen
22
a
limited
event
just
as
Cherem,
the
Just
War
was.
There
are
many
responses
to
Cherem.28
The
OT
texts
are
more
than
a
dry
record
of
bare
facts
about
what
happened
in
the
past.
Instead,
they
are
exciting
and
fascinating
stories
with
God's
purposes
in
mind.
Evangelicals
regard
the
OT
narratives
as
true,
aesthetic
and
theologically
purposeful
.29
Gen
22
is
one
such
extraordinary
event
that
testifies
Abraham's
faith,
Isaac's
submission,
and
also
God's
loyalty
to
his
people.
The
Jewish
28
Some
argue
that
the
wages
of
sin
are
death,
so
the
fate
of
the
Canaanites
in
Joshua
is
no
different
from
the
fate
of
all
human
beings.
If
God
does
something,
it
must
be
right.
The
Canaanites
had
a
choice
to
believe
in
YHWH.
Like
Rahab,
the
other
Canaanites
could
have
escaped
the
danger
by
believing
and
confessing
the
power
of
YHWH.
Cherem
is
a
realistic
solution
to
the
problem
of
ido1atry.
Others
argue
that
Cherem
should
be
understood
spiritually.
The
narrative
tells
us
how
we
should
wage
war
against
sin
in
our
lives.
There
are
those
who
deny
that
the
incident
of
Cherem
ever
happened.
It
was
a
not
factual
history.
For
some,
no
serious
wickedness
constitutes
a
justification
or
genocide.
Chisholm
and
Howard,
Interpreting
the
Historical
Book,26.
29
Chisholm
and
Howard,
Interpreting
the
Historical
Book,
26.
90
readers
would
be
encouraged
to
imitate
Abraham's
faith,
Isaac's
submission,
and
also
God's
covenantal
commitment.
Gen
22
holds
theological
essence,
that
is
YHWH
tests
Abraham
to
prove
him
he
is
not
like
other
gods.
Unlike
pagan
gods
that
demand
child
sacrifice,
YHWH
only
tests
Abraham.
Jesus
also
challenged
the
rich
young
ruler
similarly
(Luke
18:18-23).
The
young
man
was
asked
to
sell
his
wealth
and
give
it
to
the
poor.
Thus,
Jesus
tests
the
young
man's
faith
if
he
can
denounce
all
of
his
loved
wealth."
The
canonical
perspective
of
the
Bible
will help
understand
that
the
overall
biblical
portrait
of
God
is
more
of
a
life-giver
than
a
destroyer.
30
John
H.
Walton,
Genesis,
NIVAC
(Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan,
2014),
n.p.,
Ebsco
Ebook.
91
Moses'
Persuasive
Appeal:
A
Rhetorical
Analysis
of
Deuteronomy
4:1-40
Aniyankunju
J
oykutty
Deuteronomy
is
generally
considered
as
a
series
of
three
sermons,
and
all
who
study
the
book
underscores
its
rhetorical
nature.
Driver
in
his
appreciation
of
Deuteronomy's
rhetorical
nature
states,
"In
Deuteronomy,
a
new
style
of
flowing
and
impressive
oratory
was
introduced
into
Hebrew
literature,
through
which
the
author
strove
to
move
and
influence
his
readers."
1
Barker
goes
a
step
further
and
presents
Deuteronomy
as
a
model
sermon
and
Moses
as
a
skilled
preacher.2
Deuteronomy's
sermonic
nature
and
persuasive
appeal
are
readily
observable,
and
a
detailed
rhetorical
analysis
of
the
book
seems
to
be
a
productive
endeavor
to
bring
out
the
persuasive
element
of
the
book,
rhetorical
skill
of
the
speaker
and
the
mutual
relationship
between
the
text,
the
speaker
and
the
speech.3
Though
the
entire
book
can
be
a
fertile
ground
ANIYANKUNJU
JOYKUTTY
is
currently
pursuing
his
Ph.D.
in
Old
Testament
at
SAIACS,
Bangalore.
He
teaches
Old
Testament
at
Jubilee
Memorial
Bible
College,
Chennai.
1
S.
R.
Driver,
A
Critical
and
Exegetical
Commentary
on
Deuteronomy,
ICC
(Edinburgh:
T.
&
T.
Clark,
1902),
lxxxvi.
2
Paul
A.
Barker,
"Moses
the
Preacher:
Deuteronomy
l-4,"
in
Paul
A.
Barker,
Richard
J
Condie
and
Andrew
S
Malone
(eds),
Serving
God's
Words:
Windows
on
Preaching
and
Ministry
(Nottingham:
IVP,
2011),
32-52.
3
There
are
only
a
few
works
already
done
on
Deuteronomy
applying
critical
rhetorical
methodology,
such
as
A.J.
Poulter,
Rhetoric
and
Redaction
in
Deuteronomy
8:
Linguistic
Criticism
of
a
Biblical
Text
(Ph.D.
Dissertation,
Cambridge
University,
1989);
Timothy
A.
Lenchak,
Choose
Life:
A
Rhetorical-
Critical
Investigation
of
Deuteronomy
28,
69-30,
20
(Roma:
Editrice
Pontificio
Istituto
Biblico,
1993);
Jerry
Hwang,
The
Rhetoric
of
Remembrance:
An
Investigation
of
the
"Fathers"
In
Deuteronomy.
Literature
and
Theology
of
92
for
using
rhetorical
analysis,
Deut.
4:
1-40
deserves
special
attention
because
of
its
excessive
exhortative
language
and
theological
significance.4
Therefore,
in
this
article,
the
author
attempts
to
present
a
rhetorical
analysis
of
Deut.
4:
1-40
using
the
classical
Aristotelian
framework
of
rhetoric.5
Hebrew
Scripture
8
(Siphrut:
Eisenbrauns,
2012);
Shin
Wook
Hur,
The
Rhetoric
of
the
Deuteronomic
Code:
Its
Structures
and
Devices
(Ph.D.
Thesis,
Emory
University,
2013);
Jack
R.
Lundbom,
Deuteronomy:
A
Commentary.
Grand
Rapids;
MI:
William
B.
Eerdmans
Publishing
Company,
2013).
However,
most
of
these
works
failed
to
focus
on
the
persuasive
elements
of
the
text.
4
Tigay
says,
"Chapter
4
is
the
theological
heart
of
Deuteronomy,
explaining
its
most
fundamental
precepts,
monotheism
and
the
prohibition
of
idolatry."
Jeffry
H.
Tigay,
Deuteronomy,
JPSTC
(Philadelphia:
The
Jewish
Publication
Society,
1989),
41.
5
The
present
study
will
employ
the
framework
of
classical
rhetoric
proposed
by
Aristotle.
However,
this
is
not
to
state
that
Moses
was
a
student
of
Aristotle
and
spoke
as
per
the
guidelines
prescribed
in
Aristotle's
"Treaty
on
Rhetoric."
They
were
undoubtedly
far
removed
from
each
other
by
time,
culture
and
geography.
However,
Kennedy
firmly
establishes
a
ground
for
a
philosophical
justification
on
the
universality
of
rhetoric
when
he
said,
"Though
rhetoric
is
colored
by
the
traditions
and
conventions
of
the
society
in
which
it
is
applied,
it
is
also
a
universal
phenomenon
which
is
conditioned
by
basic
workings
of
the
human
mind
and
heart
and
by
the
nature
of
all
human
society."
He
sees
nothing
anachronistic
when
we
use
Aristotle's
framework
to
evaluate
discourses
of
all
times
because
he
says,
"Aristotle's
objective
in
writing
his
Rhetoric
was
not
to
describe
Greek
rhetoric
but
to
describe
this
universal
facet
of
human
communication.
The
categories
he
identifies
are
intended
to
exhaust
the
possibilities,
though
the
examples
of
them
which
he
gives
are
drawn
from
the
specific
practice
of
a
Greek
city-state.
It
is
perfectly
possible
to
utilize
the
categories
of
Aristotelian
rhetoric
to
study
speech
in
China,
India,
Africa,
and
elsewhere
in
the
world,
cultures
much
more
different
from
the
Greek
than
was
that
of
Palestine
in
the
time
of
the
Roman
empire.
What
is
unique
about
Greek
rhetoric,
and
what
makes
it
useful
for
criticism,
is
the
degree
to
which
it
was
conceptualized.
The
Greeks
gave
names
to
rhetorical
techniques,
many
of
which
are
found
all
over
the
world.
They
organized
these
techniques
into
a
system
which could
be
taught
and
learned.
What
we
mean
by
classical
rhetorical
theory
is
this
structured
system
which
describes
the
universal
phenomenon
of
rhetoric
in
Greek
terms.
Before
the
Greeks
conceptualized
rhetoric,
people
practiced
it
and
learned
it
by
imitation
with
little
conscious
effort.
Though
the
Jews
of
the
pre-
Christian
era
seem
never
to
have
conceptualized
rhetoric
to
any
significant
93
The
Rhetorical
Unit
The
first
attempt
in
a
rhetorical
analysis
is
to
recognize
the
rhetorical
unit.6
For
several
years,
the
unity
of
Deut.
4:
1-40
has
been
a
matter
of
contention
among
critical
scholars.
It
was
generally
assumed
that
this
chapter
constitutes
different
literary
units
and
a
faithful
interpretation
demanded
isolation
of
these
independent
literary
units.
7
The
scholars
who
argue
for
the
unity
of
this
speech
divide
the
chapter
into
several
self-contained
small
sections
based
on
its
affinity
with
ancient
near
eastern
treaties.8
degree,
the
importance
of
speech
among
them
is
everywhere evident
in
the
Old
Testament,
and
undoubtedly,
they
learned
its
techniques
by
imitation.
In
understanding
how
their
rhetoric
worked,
we
have
little
choice
but
to
employ
the
concepts
and
terms
of
the
Greeks."
George
A.
Kennedy,New
Testament
Interpretation
through
Rhetorical
Criticism
(Chapel
Hill:
University
of
North
Carolina
Press,
1984),
10-11.
6
In
rhetorical
criticism,
a
rhetorical
unit
is
identified
by
a
distinct
beginning
and
an
ending
with
a
connecting
argument.
This
can
be
a
small
unit
in
the
book
as
well
as
a
whole
book
being
considered
as
a
rhetorical
unit.
Often
small
units
form
a
larger
rhetorical
unit,
and
these
larger
units
make
overall
rhetoric
of
the
book.
See
Yehoshua
Gitay,
"A
Study
of
Amos's
Art
of
Speech:
A
Rhetorical
Analysis
of
Amos
3:
1-15,"
CBQ42
(1980),
294;
Kennedy,New
Testament
Interpretation,
33-34,
Rodney
K.
Duke,
The
Persuasive
Appeal
of
the
Chronicler:
A
Rhetorical
Analysis,
JSOT
Supplement
Series
88
(Sheffield:
Almond
Press,
1990),
35-36;
Thomas
Renz,
The
Rhetorical
Function
of
the
Book
of
Ezekiel,
VT
Sup,
76
(Leiden:
E.J.
Brill,
1999),
1-22;
Karl
Moller,A
Prophet
in
Debate:
The
Rhetoric
of
Persuasion
of
the
Book
of
Amos,
JSOT
Supplement
Series
372
(Sheffield:
Sheffield
Academic
Press,
2003),
37-38;
Soon
Jin
Choi,
A
New
Heart
To
Know
The
Lord:
Rhetorical
Analysis
of
Jeremiah
21-
24
(Ph.D.
Thesis,
University
of
Gloucestershire,
Cheltenham,
2001),
52,
54-96.
7
See
Martin
Noth,
Deuteronomistic
History,
JSOT
Sup
15
(Sheffield,
JSOT,
1981),
58.
Also,
see
A.
D.
H.
Mayes,
"Deuteronomy
4
and
the
Literary
Criticism
of
Deuteronomy,"
JBLI00/1
(1981).
8
Braulik
argues
for
at
least
six
self-contained
sections
(1-4,
5-8,
9-14,
15-22,
23-31,
32-40).
For
a
critical
analysis
on
issues
related
to
the
literary
unity
and
arguments
See
Christopher
T.
Begg,
"The
Literary
Criticism
of
Deuteronomy
4,
1-40:
Contributions
to
a
continuing
Discussion,"
Ephemerides
Theologicae
Lovanienses,
56/1
(1980)10-55.
Mayes
while
retaining
the
unity
of
this
passage
94
However,
a
rhetorical
reading
of
Deuteronomy
4:
1-40
establishes
the
wholeness
of
this
discourse
with
all
the
distinctiveness
of
a
well-organized
speech.
9
Deut.
4:
1-2
is
a
discernible
opening
of
a
speech.
The
speaker
is
introducing
himself
in
the
first
person
singular
and
can
be
identified
as
Moses
.10
The
repeated
phrases
such
as,
I
am
teaching
you
(v.1),
I
am
commanding
you
(v.2a),
I
am
commanding
you
(v.2b),
now
I
teach
you
(v.5),
and
I
am
setting
before
you
(v
.8),
restate
Moses
as
the
speaker.
The
speaker
is
making
primarily
one
major
argument
in
vv.
9-40.
The
rhetorical
logic
win
be
missed
out
if
we
divide
this
section
into
sub-units
because
the
meaning
lies
in
the
unity
of
this
part
not
in
its
division
as
Gitay
says
"The
unity
is
in
the
whole,
not
in
the
parts,"!'
The
argument
is
stated
in
vv.
9-22
and
it
is
reiterated
with
more
explanation
in
vv.
23-40.
considers
vv.
32-40
as
loosely
connected
to
1-31.
See
Mayes,
"Deuteronomy
4,"
25-26.
9
This
is
in
no
way
to
argue
that
this
unit
is
an
independent
unit
inserted
in
the
final
form.
Its
connection
with
the
preceding
chapter
is
affirmed
when
it
begins
with
"and
now
Israel,"
(4:1)
which
is
a
continuation
of
an
earlier
speech.
Here
the
argument
is
that
4:
1-40
is
a
self-contained
speech
though
it
is
part
of
a
long
speech.
Deuteronomy
as
one
single
rhetorical
unit
will
be
argued
in
the
larger
work
I
am
doing.
10
As
it
is
mentioned,
this
speech
is
part
of
a
larger
section
(1:1-4:44),
and
the
speaker
can
be
identified
as
Moses
from
the
previous
chapters
as
well
as
the
reference
to
the
denial
of
permission
to
enter
the
promised
land.
11
Gitay,
"A
Rhetorical
analysis,"
294.
Tigay
and
Hall
divide
this
section
into
9-31,
32-40,
See
Tigay,
Deuteronomy,
Gary
H
Hall,
Deuteronomy,
NIVC
(Joplin;
Missouri,
College
Press
Publishing
Company,
2000),
90;
Driver
divides
this
section
into
9-
24;
25-31,
31-40.
Driver,
A
Critical
and
Exegetical,
65.
Alexander
Rofe
in
his
analysis
of
Deuteronomy
4:
32-40
considers
vv
33-35
as
an
interpolation
by
a
later
edition.
See
Alexander
Rofe,
"The
Monotheistic
Argumentation
in
Deuteronomy
IV
32-40:
Contents,
Composition
and
Text,"
Vetus
Testamentum
XXXV,
4
(1985)
434-445.
95
The
speaker
begins
his
arguments
with
an
emphasis
on
not
forgetting
Yahweh's
laws.
The
phrases
in
v.
9,
1DWil
pi
(
only
take
care),
n::JWn
J!J
(lest
you
forget)
set
the
flow
for
his
argument.12
The
speaker
calls
the
attention
of
his
audience
to
Horeb
Theophany.
In
vv.
10-11,
Moses
as
a
mediator
gather
people
at
the
foot
of
the
mountain
to
hear
Yahweh's
very
words.
The
point
Moses
establishes
is
Yahweh's
self-revelation
through
his
words.
Yahweh
reveals
himself
not
in
any
form
or
images
rather
in
the
word.
At
Horeb,
people
heard
the
voice
of
Yahweh
"speaking
out
of
the
midst
of
fire
(v
12)."
Every
other
deity
Israelites
have
come
across
has
a
form
or
likeness
to
something
or
someone.
However,
Yahweh
is
unlike
the
so-called
counterparts
that
he
has
no
form
but
spoke
to
people
as
loud
as
they
all
could
hear.
Yahweh
demands
observance
of
Ten
Commandments"
which
He
declared
at
Horeb
as
an
expression
of
his
covenantal
relationship
with
Israel
(v.
13).14
Moses
is
commissioned
to
teach
the
new
generation
the
commandments
and
statutes
to
practice
them
in
the
land
(v.
14).
In
vv.
15
-20,
Moses
is
mentioning
the
possibility
of
Israel
being
tempted
by
surrounding
nations
to
make
some
form
or
image
to
liken
Yahweh
or
bow
before
celestial
being
in
worship
(vv.
15-19).
Yahweh's
uniqueness
in
earlier
verses
12
See
J.
G.
McConville,
Deuteronomy,
AOTC
(Leicester:
Apollos,
2002),
105.
13
Literally
it
is
ten
words
rather
than
ten
commandments.
14
Several
scholars
consider
Deut.
5-25
as
an
exposition
of
these
ten
words.
For
a
recent
analysis
on
this
see
Steven
Ward
Guest,
'Deuteronomy
26:
16-19
as
the
Central
Focus
of
the
Covenantal
Framework
of
Deuteronomy'
(Ph.D.,
Southern
Baptist
Theological
Seminary,
2009).
96
forbids
Israel
of
any
attempt
of
idolatry.
Moreover,
Yahweh
rescued
Israel
from
Egyptian
slavery
and
chose
them
as
His
people
who
were
also
unique
events
(v
20).
Yahweh's
words
(at
Horeb)
and
his
deeds
(Exodus
event)
are
the
mighty
manifestations
of
his
existence,
and
He
is
matchless
in
both
events.
Verse
23
begins
with
the
same
caution,
11JWil,
rcwn
J!J
(take
care,
lest
you
forget)
and
ends
with
a
plea
to
obey
every
word
of
Yahweh
that
Israelites
can
live
long
in
the
land.
While
reiterating
the
same
idea
that
idolatry
is
forbidden,
the
disastrous
consequence
will
be
exiled
from
the
land.
The
conclusion
is
an
exhortation
to
obey
Yahweh's
law
and
live
long
in
the
land
(v.
40).
The
following
concentric
structure
affirms
the
rhetorical
unity
of
Deut.
4:
1-40.
A
Keep
the
commandments
v.
1-2
B
Obedience
fulfils
the
mission
of
God
vv.3-14
C
Yahweh
is
unique
so
no
image
or
likeness
vv.
15-20
B
1
Disobedience
distorts
the
mission
of
God
vv.21-39
A
1
Keep
the
commandments
v.40
Rhetorical
Function
Every
communication
happens
in
a
context,
and
no
one
speaks
if
there
is
no
need
for
it.
One
of
the
key
duties
of
a
rhetorical
critic
is
97
to
find
out
the
situation
which
prompted
the
speaker
for
a
discourse.
A
particular
situation
or
an
exigency
that
requires
the
speech
is
called
a
rhetorical
situation.15
Rhetorical
situation
is
"an
internal
literary
context"
than
the
historical
situation
which
lies
behind
the
text.16
By
looking carefully
at
this
internal
literary
context,
one
can
make
out
the
situation
the
speaker
is
addressing.
A
close
reading
of
vv.
32-39
tends
to
explain
the
rhetorical
exigency
of
Deuteronomy
4:
1-40.
Moses
is
asking
a
series
of
rhetorical
questions
in
vv.
32-34.
These
rhetorical
questions
intended
to
influence
the
minds
of
the
audience
to
make
the
decision.
No
nations
ever
heard
a
god
speaking
out
of
the
midst
of
fire
except
Israel
at
Horeb
as
well
as
no
god
ever
delivered
a
nation
from
slavery
through
mighty
deeds
except
Yahweh
delivering
Israel
from
Egypt.
The
answers
to
those
15
For
more
on
rhetorical
situation
see,
Lloyd
F.
Bitzer,
'The
Rhetorical
Situation,'
Philosophy
and
Rhetoric
1,
no.
1
(1968):
1-14.
Lloyd
F.
Bitzer,
'Functional
Communication:
A
Situational
Perspective,'
in
Rhetoric
in
Transition:
Studies
in
the
Nature
and
Uses
of
Rhetoric,
ed.
Eugene
E.
White
(University
Park:
The
Pennsylvania
State
University
Press,
1980),
https
://vdocuments
.mx/
download/bitzer
1980-functional-communication-a-
situational-perspecti
ve.
Arthur
B.
Miller,
'Rhetorical
Exigence,'
Philosophy
&
Rhetoric
5,
no.2(1972):111-18.
Wilhelm
Wuellner,
'Where
Is
Rhetorical
Criticism
Taking
Us?',
The
Catholic
Biblical
Quarterly,
no.
46
(1987):
448-63.
George
A.
Kennedy,
New
Testament
Interpretation
Through
Rhetorical
Criticism,
New
edition
edition
(Chapel
Hill:
The
University
of
North
Carolina
Press,
1984).
16
Jin
Choi,
A
New
Heart
To
Know,
52.
There
isa
difference
between
the
historical
situation
and
the
rhetorical
situation.
Rhetorical
situation
is
an
internal
literary
context
than
the
historical
context.',
For
more
on
this
see
Dennis
L.
Stamps,
"Rethinking
the
Rhetorical
Situation:
The
Entextualization
of
the
Situation
in
New
Testament
Epistles,"
In
Stanley
E.
Porter
and
Thomas
H.
Olbricht
(eds),
Rhetoric
and
the
New
Testament:
Essaysfrom
the
1992
Heidelberg
Conference,
JSNT
Sup
90
(Sheffield:
JSOT
Press,
1993),
193-194.
98
questions
affirm
Yahweh's
exclusive
claim
as
God.
In
vv.
36-38
Moses
is
explaining
the
same
incidents
more
vividly
to
imprint
on
their
hearts
the
exclusive
revelation
and
deeds
of
Yahweh
which
makes
Him
distinct.
The
challenges
of
Israelites
were,
first
to
reconcile
with
the
concept
of
monotheism
and
secondly
to
look
for
some
physical
representation
of
a
deity.
Both
these
challenges
were
posed
by
the
pluralistic
and
polytheistic
surroundings
of
Israel.
However,
these
were
not
separate
issues
but
conflated.
A
flawed
understanding
of
monotheism
resulted
in
the
practice
of
idolatry.
Hence
the
climax
of
this
sermon
is
in
vv.
35
and
v.
39
where
Moses
is
drawing
a
compelling
argument
from
the
rhetorical
questions
he
asked.
"To
you,
it
was
shown
that
you
might
know
that
the
LORD
is
God;
there
is
no
other
besides
him
(v.
35);
know
therefore
today
and
lay
it
to
your
heart
that
the
LORD
is
God
in
heaven
above
and
on
earth
beneath;
there
is
no
other
(v.
39)."
The
issue
at
hand
seems
to
be
addressing
the
most
critical
concept
,which
is
idolatry,
and
it
is
conflated
with
the
theme
of
monotheism."
Moses
is
more
concerned
with
people's
proneness
to
worship
idols.
Since
Israel
is
vulnerable
to
failure,
18
17
The
issue
of
Deuteronomy's
view
on
monotheism
has
been
discussed
at
length
by
various
scholars.
As
Wright
says
'Deuteronomy
is
uncompromising,
ruthlessly
monotheistic.
It
affirms
that
Yahweh
alone
is
God
and
there
is
no
other.'
Christopher
Wright,
Deuteronomy.
NIBCOT
(Peabody,
MA:
Hendrickson,
1996),
10.
For
a
concise
summary
of
the
scholarly
debate
on
Deuteronomy's
view
on
Monotheism
see
Paul
A.
Barker,
"A
Survey
of
Contemporary
Theological
Interpretation
of
Deuteronomy,"
in
David
G.
Firth
and
Philip
Johnston
(eds),
Interpreting
Deuteronomy
(Leicester:
IVP,
2012),
79-
81.
18
According
to
Barker
Deuteronomy
is
pessimistic
about
the
ability
of
Israelites
to
obey
Yahweh
but
at
the
same
time
optimistic
about
the
grace
of
99
the
purpose
of
the
speaker
is
not
to
allure
them
with
rewards
for
obedience
or
threaten
them
with
punishment
for
disobedience
which is
the
normal
principle
of
any
religion.
Rather
help
them
to
know
Yahweh
not
only
cognitively,
but
also
to
translate
that
knowledge
into
practical
aspects
of
their
social,
religious
and
cultural
life.
Hence
the
rhetorical
situation
is
Israel's
tendency
to
water
down
the
idea
of
monotheism
and
assimilate
into
the
religious
and
cultural
life
of
her
neighbors.
That
is
why
Moses
is
asking
them
to
keep
the
commandments
and
do
them
throughout
the
sermon.
Other
nations
bow
before
images
or
celestial
beings
as
an
act
of
worship,
but
Israel's
act
of
worship
is
living
according
to
the
commandments
of
Yahweh.
Modes
of
Persuasion
Any
speaker
who
wants
to
persuade
an
audience
with
his/her
speech
would
use
different
modes
and
manner
of
persuasion,
and
in
classical
rhetoric,
these
are
called
inventio.
19
There
are
two
kinds
of
proofs
named
external
and
internal
proofs
which
the
speaker
considers
for
persuading
the
audience.
The
external
proofs
are
laws,
documents
and
miracles
which
already
exist,
and
the
speaker
needs
only
to
refer
them
relevantly
for
persuasion.
Yahweh
in
restoring
them.
See,
Paul
A
Barker,
The
Triumph
of
Grace
in
Deuteronomy:
Faithless
Israel,
Faithful
Yahweh
in
Deuteronomy
(Milton
Keynes:
Paternoster,
2004).
19
See
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
350
BC,
trans.
W.
Rhys
Roberts,
2:20:6.
For
the
application
of
this
see,
Yehoshua
Gitay,
Prophecy
and
Persuasion:
A
Study
of
Isaiah
40-48,
Forum
Theologiae
Linguisticae
14
(Bonn:
Linguistica
Biblica,
1981).
Duke,
Persuasive
Appeal
of
the
Chronicler;
Hur,
'The
Rhetoric
of
the
Deuteronomic
Code;
Kang,
The
Persuasive
Portrayal
of
Solomon;
Renz,
The
Rhetorical
Function;
Moller,
A
Prophet
in
Debate;
Lenchak,
Choose
Lifel
.
100
However,
internal
proofs
are
artfully
created
by
the
speaker
such
as
a
reference
to
his
credibility,
the
logical
order
of
the
arguments
and
triggering
the
emotion
of
the
audience
as
modes
of
persuasion.
These
modes
are
a
significant
part
of
persuasive
speech,
and
in
this
section,
an
attempt
is
made
to
look
at
both
external
and
internal
modes
of
persuasion.
External
modes
of
persuasion
As
it
is
stated
in
the
previous
section,
the
situation
which
Moses
is
addressing
is
Israel's
temptation
to
be
like
other
nations
culturally,
religiously
and
socially.
To
resist
that
temptation,
Moses
is
arguing
that
Yahweh
and
Israel
are
unique
and
being
like
other
nations
is
a
willful
rejection
of
the
distinctiveness
of
both
Yahweh
and
Israel.
Moses
is
referring
to
past
supernatural
events
to
effectively
persuade
the
audience
to
accept
the
uniqueness
of
both
Yahweh
and
Israel.
Horeb
event
(vv.
10-12;
36)
Moses
is
referring
to
Horeb
incident
twice
in
these
verses
(cf.
Exo19:
16-20).
This
was
the
first
appearance
of
Yahweh
before
the
Israelites,
and
it
was
a
supernatural
event
which
Israel
corporately
experienced.
Whenever
the
children
of
Israel
think
of
the
revelation
of
Yahweh,
they
should
call
to
mind
the
appearance
of
Yahweh
on
Mount
Sinai
and
speaking
to
them
in
the
midst
of
the
fire.
This
is
a
unique
revelation
of
God
w�ich
never precedes
or
followed.
As
Lundbom
comments;
"The
defining
mark
of
Horeb
revelation
was
that there
was
only
sound,
no
visual
101
representation
of
God.
Yahweh
spoke,
and
the
people
heard."?"
Peoples'
eyes
saw
the
smoke
and
fire
on
the
mountain,
and
their
ears
heard
the
voice
of
God
speaking
out
of
the
fire.
Seeing
and
hearing
are
actions
that
lead
to
convictions.
Moses
makes
it
very
personal
in
saying,
"you
heard
the
sound
of
words
(v.
12b),
and
you
heard
his
words
out
of
the
midst
of
fire
(v.
36b)."
Therefore,
Israelites
need
to
be
convinced
of
the
existence
of
a
God
who
speaks
and
at
the
same
time
accept
that
no
form
can
represent
him.
Moreover,
Israel
is
the
only
nation
that
heard
God
speaking
and
experienced
a
theophany
in
this
manner.
Therefore,
this
unique
revelation
portrays
the
distinctiveness
of
both
Yahweh
and
Israel.
Moses
is
using
this
supernatural
incident
as
a
means
of
persuasion
to
motivate
Israelites
to
abstain
from
the
futility
of
idolatry.
Exodus
event
(vv.
22,
34)
Like
Horeb
event,
Moses
is
citing
exodus
event
twice
in
this
sermon
concerning
other
nations.
This
incident
is
highlighted
to
show
the
relationship
between
Yahweh
and
Israel.
It
is
exclusive
and
at
the
same
time
a
unique
relationship.
The
relationship
is
based
on
Yahweh
performing
supernatural
events
like
plagues,
killing
of
the
firstborn,
dividing
the
Red
sea
and
miraculous
provisions
in
their
journey.
No
other
deity
ever
performed
wonders
and
miracles
at
this
proportion
and
attempted
to
deliver
a
nation
as
Yahweh
did
perform.
This
event
thus
substantiates
Yahweh's
claim
of
exclusivity
and
his
relationship
with
Israel.
20
Lundbom,
Deuteronomy,
241
.
102
Yahweh
is
sovereign
God
and
incomparable
in
word
and
deed.
Likewise,
Israel
is
unique
in
her
experience
of
deliverance.
Life
in
Egypt
was in
a
fiery
furnace,
and
from
there
Yahweh
took
them
to
be
his
people.
Therefore,
making
idols
or
worshiping
any
celestial
being
thus
is
a
betrayal
of
the
uniqueness
of
Yahweh.
Internal
Modes
of
Persuasion
The
internal
modes
of
persuasion
are
the
speakers'
creative
work,
and
in
classical
rhetoric,
there
are
three
groups
of
internal
modes
of
persuasion
such
as
logos,
ethos,
and
pathos.21
A
skillful
speaker
creates
these
artificial
modes
to
persuade
the
audience
to
his
point.
Logos:
The
Rational
mode
of
Persuasion
The
rational
mode
of
persuasion
and
is
demonstrated
in
rhetoric
primarily
through
enthymeme
and
example
as
the
way
deductive
(syllogism)
and
inductive
forms
of
demonstration
work
in
dialectic
.22
Aristotle
states,
Everyone
who
effects
persuasion
through
proof
does
use
either
Enthymemes
or
examples;
there
is
no
other
way
...
When
we
base
the
proof
of
a
proposition
on
a
number
of
similar
cases,
this
is
induction
in
dialectic,
example
in
rhetoric;
when
it
is
shown
that,
certain
propositions
being
true,
a
further
and
quite
distinct
proposition
must
also
be
21
Aristotle,
On
Rhetoric:
A
Theory
of
Civic
Discourse,
trans.
George
A.
Kennedy,
2nct
edn
(New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2007),
38-39.
22
Logical
structuring
and
complimentary
use
of
enthymemes
and
examples
are
also
part
of
logos
or
rational
mode
of
persuasion.
I
will
limit
to
the
illustrations
of
enthyrnernes
and
examples
because
of
the
space
limit.
103
true
in
consequence,
whether
invariably
or
usually,
this
is
called
syllogism
in
dialectic,
Enthyrnerne
in
rhetoric."
'Enthymeme,'
is
the
presentation
of
a
common
belief
or
a
conviction
as
an
argument
and
give
reasons
for
accepting
this
belief.
On
the
other
hand,
in
'example'
the
speaker
presents
several
incidents
from
where
parallels
can
be
drawn
to
supplement
enthyrneme.
24
It
will
be
interesting
to
look
at
the
demonstration
of
enthyrneme
and
examples
in
Deut
4:
1-40
to
argue
that
obedience
to
Yahweh's
words
is
the
right
response
to
his
exclusivity.
Illustration
of
Enthymeme
The
enthymernatic
argument
is
presented
in
VY.
12-14
and
VY.
35-
38.
The
first
enthymernatic
argument
follows
Moses'
recalling
of
the
Horeb
incident
(vv.
9-11).
Then
the
LORD
spoke
to
you
out
of
the
midst
of
the
fire.
You
heard
the
sound
of
words
but
saw
no
form;
there
was
only
a
voice.
And
he
declared
to
you
his
covenant,
which
he
commanded
you
to
perform,
that
is,
the
Ten
Commandments,
and
he
wrote
them
on
two
tablets
of
stone.
And
the
LORD
commanded
me
at
that
time
to
teach
you
statutes
and
rules,
that
you
might
do
them
in
the
land
that
you
are
going
over
to
possess
(
vv.
12-14).
23
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
I:
2:5.
24
Duke,
The
Persuasive
Appeal,
82.
For
more
on
enthymemes
and
examples
see
E.E.
Ryan,
Aristotle's
Theory
of
Rhetorical
Argumentation
(Montreal:
Bellarmin,
1984),
95-96,
117-127.
104
The
argument
is
presented
in
the
form
of
a
dialectical
syllogism.
25
Yahweh's
existence
was
proved
through
His
speech,
not
in
showing
any
form.
Israel
saw
no
form
of
Yahweh
but
heard
his
words
spoken.
Therefore,
obeying
Yahweh's
words
(Ten
Commandments)
demonstrate
the
knowledge
of
His
existence.
The
major
premise
is
that
Yahweh's
self-revelation
at
Sinai
was
through
his
words.
The
minor
premise
is
that
Israel
heard
Yahweh's
words
but
did
not
see
any
form.
Hence
the
audience
needs
to
infer
the
conclusion
that
making
idols
demonstrates
deliberate
rejection
of
his
distinctiveness.
The
specific
application
the
speaker
wants
to
emphasize
is
that
obeying
Yahweh
is
the
demonstration
of
Israel's
knowledge
of
Hirn
and
making
idols
and
bowing
before
it
is
their
lack
of
knowledge.
Punishment
is
thus
not
as
a
condemnation
rather
a
pedagogical
functioning.
The
illustration
of
examples
further
substantiates
this
argument.
Illustration
of
Example
According
to
Aristotle,
for
the
rational
mode
of
persuasion,
two
kinds
of
examples
can
be
presented.
Either
the
speaker
can
state
historical
incidents
or
invent
parables
or
fables
to
supplement
the
enthymematic
argurnent.26
However,
historical
facts
are
more
influential
than
parables
as
Aristotle
says,
"But
it
is
easier
to
25
The
simple
difference
between
syllogism
and
enthymeme
is
that
the
former
has
a
definite
conclusion
where
the
latter
leaves
the
conclusion
implied.
It
is
a
rhetorical
strategy
used
by
skillful
speakers
that
the
audience
will
infer
the
conclusion
so
get
involved
in
the
speech.
For
more
on
these
Ryan,
Aristotle's
Theory.
26
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
2:20:2.
105
supply
parallels
by
inventing
fables,
it
is
more
valuable
for
the
political
speaker
to
supply
them
by
quoting
what
has
happened
since
in
most
respects
the
future
will
be
like
what
the
past
has
been."
27
Here
Moses
presents
historical
facts
as
examples
to
supplement
his
enthymematic
argument
that
Yahweh
alone
is
God
and
people
find
either
life
or
death
in
their
responses
to
His
words.
The
examples
are
presented
in
vv.
3-4
and
21-22
as
sandwich
portions
between
hortatory
portions
in
vv.
1-2,
5-8,
and
vv.
15-20,
23-24
respectively.
Right
after
exhorting
the
people
to
keep
Yahweh's
commandments
the
examples
are
given
to
support
the
enthymematic
argument.
The
first
example
is
a
reference
to
the
Baal-Peor
incident
in
vv.
3-4
which
is
mentioned
in
Num.
25.
The
incident
is
mentioned
here
as
a
passing
reference,
but
it
is
a
significant
one
because
it
is
an
example
that
supplements
the
argument
of
Yahweh's
distinctiveness.
In
this
example,
Moses
is
drawing
a
contrast
between
the
past
generation
that
perished
and
the
present
generation
that
is
alive.
Though
the
incident
was
little
mysterious
28
The
audience
was
aware
of
what
Moses
was
talking,
and
hence
there
was
no
detailed
explanation
of
it.
29
For
Moses
and
the
audience,
the
plague
that
killed
24,000
people
at
Peor
(cf.
Num
25:9)
was
an
explicit
sign
of
divine
punishment
rather
than
a
natural
disaster.
It
is
more
perceivable
in
v.
4
where
Moses
affirms
27
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
2:20:5.
28
There
is
no
clear
indication
of
the
nature
of
sin
committed
and
also
the
nature
of
the
plague
which
followed.
29
Moses
says,
"Your
eyes
have
seen
it."
So,
they
were
witnesses
of
the
event.
It
will
be
stated
in
the
later
part
the
reason
for
the
conflation
of
two
generations.
106
that
people
who
held
fast
to
Yahweh
did
not
die
by
plague.
People
who
followed
Baal
perished,
and
people
who
followed
Yahweh
are
alive.
The
audience
witnessed
Yahweh's
mighty.hand
in
sparing
some
and
killing
the
rest.
The
phrase
'Your
eyes
have
seen
what
Yahweh
did
(v
3a),'
connects
this
event
to
Yahweh's
self-
revelation
at
Sinai.
They
saw
the
mountain
burned
with
fire
and
they
heard
Yahweh
spoke
(vv.
12,
36).
Yahweh's
revelation
at
Sinai
was
primarily
through
words
(Exod
19:
16-20),
and
people's
knowledge
of
Yahweh
was
supposed
to
be
evidenced
through
obeying
His
words."
On
the
contrary
lack
of
obedience
is
a
demonstration
of
their
lack
of
respect
for
Yahweh's
words
as
well
as
the
rejection
of
His
existence.
Therefore,
the
disastrous
consequences
confirm
the
credibility
of
His
words
and
assert
his
distinctiveness.
Thus,
Moses
presents
Baal-Peor
incident
as
an
example
of
Yahweh's
demonstration
of
his
power
over
his
people.
Ethos:
The
Ethical
Mode
of
Persuasion
In
most
cultures,
the
audience
receives
a
speech
and
acts
on
it
based
on
the
character
of
the
speaker.
The
credibility
of
the
speaker
and
the
message
he/she
delivers
are
interlinked
and
according
to
Aristotle
persuading
the
audience
by
presenting
the
speaker
as
reliable
and
trustworthy
is
indeed
the
most
effective
mode
of
persuasion.
He
states,
30
Wright
in
his
exposition
of
these
verses
says,
"Sinai
was
a
cosmic
audio-visual
experience,
but
it
was
the
audio
that
mattered."
See
Wright,
Deuteronomy,
50.
107
Persuasion
is
achieved
by
the
speaker's
character
when
the
speech
is
so
spoken
as
to
make
us
think
him
credible.
We
believe
good
men
more
fully
and
more
readily
than
others:
this
is
true
generally
whatever
the
question
is,
and
true
where
exact
certainty
is
impossible
and
opinions
are
divided.
This
kind
of
persuasion,
like
the
others,
should
be
achieved
by
what
the
speaker
says,
not
by
what
people
think
of
his
character
before
he
begins
to
speak.
It
is
not
true,
as
some
writers
assume
in
their
treatises
on
rhetoric,
that
the
personal
goodness
revealed
by
the
speaker
contributes
nothing
to
his
power
of
persuasion;
on
the
contrary,
his
character
may
almost
be
called
the
most
effective
means
of
persuasion
he
possesses.31
Aristotle
in
his
treaty
considers
three
main
features
that
would
make
a
speaker
credible
namely
good
sense,
good
moral
character
and
good
will.32
Aristotle
explains
in
details
the
demonstration
of
good
sense
in
the
book
I
and
a
nutshell
'it
is
the
ability
to
understand
the
need
of
the
hearers
and
through
the
speech
making
them
decide
for
their
good.'33
Good
moral
character
is
necessary
because
a
person
with
a
good
moral
character
only
can think
of
giving
good
advice.
The
third
quality
is
the
rapport
the
speaker
is
31
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
1
:2:5.
32
See
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
1
:9.
Some
call
these
criteria
as
practical
wisdom,
virtue,
and
goodwill.
See
Andre
Resner
Jr.,
Preacher,
and
Cross:
Person
and
Message
in
Theology
and
Rhetoric
(Grand
Rapids;
MI:
Eerdmans,
1999),
25.
'.B
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
1
:9.
108
building
with
the
speaker.
Good
Sense
According
to
Duke,
this
quality
can
be
viewed
in
the
'soundness
of
the
speech.'
By
analyzing
the
speech,
good
sense
of
the
speaker
can
be
perceived
in
speaker's
knowledge
of
the
matter
under
discussion,
his
presentation
of
enthymeme
and
examples,
his
logical
arrangement
of
materials
and
His
desire
for
the
good
of
the
audience
in
making
right
decisions.34
One
of
the
major
problems
in
assessing
the
character
is
to
know
the
true
identity
of
the
speaker/author.
Authorship
of
biblical
books
is
a
contentious
matter,
and
in
the
case
of
Deuteronomy,
it
is
much
more
complicated.
I
will
not
be
arguing
for
a
particular
position
on
this
issue
here
since
the
text
is
stating
Moses
as
the
speaker,
I
prefer
to
consider
Moses
as
the
speaker
.35
This
sermon
is
an
exposition
of
the
first
commandment
(cf.
Exod.
20:3).36
Moses
as
a
speaker
is
thorough
in
knowing
the
topic
and
the
audience's
awareness
of
the
matter.
That
was
why
there
was
no
exact
repetition
of
the
first
commandment;
rather
Moses
is
presenting
rational,
corroborative
and
circumstantial
evidence
to
argue
for
the
existence
of
Yahweh
34
Duke,
The
Persuasive
Appeal,
106.
35
More
on
my
view
on
the
dating
of
Deuteronomy
see
Aniyankunju
J,
"The
Election
of
Israel
and
Its
Implications
for
the
other
nations:
A
Study
from
Deuteronomy,"
(M.Th
Thesis,
SAIACS,
Bangalore,
2012),
14-16.
36
I
Prefer
to
follow
the
numbering
of
Catholics,
and
the
rationale
cannot
be
expressed
here.
DeRouchie
gives
rational
and
theological
backing
for
the
numbering
of
my
preference.
See
Jason
S.
DeRouchie,
"Numbering
the
Decalogue:
A
Textlinguistic
Reappraisal,"
Paper
presented
at
the
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
Evangelical
Theological
Society,
Washington,
DC,
November
2005.
]09
as
well
as
the
futility
of
worshipping
idols
or
celestial
being.
Moses'
historical
accuracy
of
events
mentioned,
and
their
usages
are
appropriate
to
the
contexts
of
the
message.
Moses
is
logical
in
presenting
that
since
none
of
Yahweh's
rivals
could
match
him
in
any
of
these
supernatural
or
historical
acts,
Yahweh
is
the
only
God
and
no
other
god
exists.
Moses'
concern
for
the
people
is
evident
in
his
cautioning
of
future
failure
which
would
bring
catastrophic
consequences
and
appeals
persuasively
to
know
the
fundamental
principle
of
their
faith
that
Yahweh
only
is
God
and
translate
that
knowledge
into
their
faithful
obedience
of
his
words.
Moses'
selection
of
historical
events
is
praiseworthy
because
he
picks
up
appropriate
incidents
for
his
argument
instead
of
giving
a
historical
account
of
events.
These
are
examples
of
Moses'
good
sense
as
a
skilled
rhetor.
Good
Moral
Character
This
virtue
is
seen
in
the
forms
of
liberality,
justice,
courage,
temperance,
magnanimity,
magnificence,
prudence,
gentleness
and
wisdom.37
A
fair
analysis
of
Deut.
4:1-40
depicts
Moses'
good
moral
character
manifested
in
explicit
ways.
His
prudence
is
evident
in
his
conflation
of
the
previous
generation
with
the
current
generation.
Moses
presents
as
though
the
generation
at
Moab
experienced
the
theophany
at
Sinai,
heard
God's
word
(vv.
37
Harvill
presents
a
chart
on
'Aristotle
theory
of
rhetorical
character'
to
summarise
major
clements
character
of
a
rhetor.
See
Jerry
Harvill,
Aristotle's
Concept
of
Ethos
as
a
groundfor
a
modern
Ethics
of
Communication
(Ph.D.
Thesis,
The
University
of
Kentucky,
1990),
182.
110
11,
12,
36)
and
entered
into
a
covenantal
relationship
with
Yahweh
(v.
23).
Barker
comments
that
'"this
makes
God's
word
immediate
and
direct
to
the
audience."38
This
also
demonstrates
Moses'
wisdom
and
prudence
in
understanding
the
mindset
of
the
audience
and
making
them
feel
significant.
Another
important
element
is
the
portrayal
of
Yahweh
in
the
ethical
mode
of
persuasion.
Through
here
the
speaker
is
Moses,
the
words
he
speaks
are
on
behalf
of
Yahweh.39
Thus
he
presents
Yahweh's
character
and
virtues
more
than
his
own.
Yahweh
is
impartial
in
his
execution
of
justice,
and
Moses'
denial
is
an
example
of
it
(vv.
21-22).
Yahweh's
generosity
and
magnanimity
are
displayed
in
giving
the
land
(vv
.1,
21,
38,
40),
keeping
Moab
generation
alive
(v
4),
enabling
them
to
possess
the
land
(vv.
5,
14,
26),
making
a
covenant
with
them
(v.13,
37),
giving
his
words
to
be
in
the
relationship
(v.14),
forgive
the
future
generation
even
after
they
fail
(v.30).
Moses
makes
a
sarcastic
contrast
between
Yahweh
and
his
counterparts.
Yahweh
creates
man
on
earth
(v.32)
and
reveals
himself
in
a
matchless
way
(v
.12,
35)
performs
supernatural
things
(vv
33-34)
that
no
one
can
emulate.
But
the
counterparts
are
made
of
wood
and
stone
created
by
man,
and
they
are
senseless.
Moses
draws
the
distinctiveness
of
Yahweh
quite
persuasively
to
convince
the
audience
that
His
words
are
reliable
and
trustworthy.
38
Barker,
"Moses
the
Preacher,"
4
7.
39
Barker
identifies
the
blurring
of
the
voice
of
Yahweh
and
the
voice
of
Moses
as
a
rhetorical
feature
Moses
sermon.
See
Barker,
"Moses
the
Preacher,"
49.
111
Good
Will
The
third
form
of
ethos
is
the
rapport
the
speaker
is
building
with
the
audience."
Moses
explicitly
states
his
intention
at
the
beginning
of
his
sermon
that
"they
may
live,
go
in
and
take
possession
of
the
land
(v.
1
)."
Moses
desires
the
good
of
the
audience
and
wishes
that
they
would
enjoy
the
good
land
Yahweh
promised
to
their
fathers.
Moses
affirms
their
capacity
to
overcome
the
temptation
by
stating
that
they
held
fast
to
Yahweh
when
others
failed
(v.
4).
Moses
underscores
their
potential
to
be
a
wise
and
an
understating
nation
(v.
6)
and
present
Yahweh
as
a
unique
God
before
other
nations
(v. 7).
By
asserting
these
positive
qualities,
Moses
builds
their
confidence
level
up.
Moreover,
Moses
is
cautioning
them
of
one
of
the
potential
areas
of
failure
which
is
idolatry
and
foresees
a
future
fall
(vv.
25-28).
This
is
to
introduce
them
of
the
greater
issue
of
the
total
depravity
of
human
hearts
which
he
addresses
in
other
parts
of
the
book.41
Moses
as
a
rhetor
is
in
the
anguish
of
their
future
failure
but
confident
of
Yahweh's
gracious
restoration
(vv.
30-31).
lt
is
evident
that
Moses'
rapport
with
the
people
enables
them
to
trust
his
words
and
make
the
decision
he
wants
them
to
make.
Pathos:
Emotional
Mode
of
Persuasion
Pathos
is
the
third
artistic
mode
of
persuasion,
and
it
is
the
speaker's
creative
work
to
move
the
audience
to
a
certain
emotion
4
°
For
more
see
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
1:9.
41
F
1
·
or
more
on
tus,
see
Barker,
The
Triumph
of
Grace,
140-210.
112
to
make
a
decision.
Aristotle
says,
"The
emotions
are
all
those
feelings
that
so
change
men
as
to
affect
their
judgments,
and
that
are
also
attended
by
pain
or
pleasure.
Such
are
anger,
pity,
fear
and
the
like;
with
their
opposites."42
Moses
intends
to
generate
reverence
towards
Yahweh
in
the
minds
of
the
audience
so
that
they
would
decide
to
follow
Yahweh
out
of
their
reverence
for
him.
Moses
portrays
the
revelation
of
Yahweh
on
Mount
Horeb
(v.
10),
Israel's
deliverance
from
Egypt
(v.
20),
and
Yahweh's
signs
and
wonders
at
Egypt
(v.
34)
as
spectacular
events
which
would
create
a
great
amount
of
reverence
towards
Yahweh.
The
destruction
of
thousands
of
people
at
Peor
(v.
3)
and
Moses'
denial
of
entry
(v.
21)
are
events
which
would
generate
fear
in
the
hearts
of
people.
Moses
leads
the
audience
into
a
balanced
emotion
of
reverence
and
fear
where
reverence
for
Yahweh's
greatness
and
fear
of
death
would
lead
them
to
embrace
Yahweh
and
enjoy
life
in
the
land.
Conclusion
The
attempt
made
in
this
paper
is
to
show
the
persuasive
nature
of
Deuteronomy
4:
1-40.
This
rhetorical
analysis
establishes
that
it
is
a
self-contained
persuasive
speech
and
the
speaker,
Moses,
demonstrates
the
skills
of
a
trained
orator.
His
persuasive
speech
is
an
appropriate
response
to
a
rhetorical
exigency
which
existed,
and
he
logically
presents
his
arguments
and
supports
with
examples
and
evidence.
The
exhortative
language,
the
modes
of
42
Aristotle,
Rhetoric,
2:
1
:3.
113
persuasion
used,
structuring
of
the
materials
and
the
style
give
the
impression
that
Moses
intended
to
lead
the
audience
to
a
decision.
Thus
this
rhetorical
analysis
presents
the
mutual
relationship
between
Moses,
his
audience
and
his
speech.
114
The
Christian
Household
Codes:
An
Exegetical
Study
on
Ephesians
6:
1-9
and
Its
Implications
for
an
Indian
Christian
Household
R.Johnson
Paul's
letter
to
Ephesians1,
especially
chapter
6:
1-9
is
known
as
Christian
household
code.
The
crux
of
this
passage
seems
to
be
centered
in
5:21
"submit
to
each
other
in
the
fear
of
the
Lord."
This
passage
(6:
1-9)
is
quite
challenging
to
interpret
because
it
addresses
two
different
pairs
with
the
same
purpose
but
in
different
ways.
First,
the
author
addresses
to
the
children
and
the
parents
(6:
1-4).
In
6:5-9
he
directs
to
the
slaves
and
the
masters.
Both
the
pairs
are
different,
the
former
one
concerns
family,
and
the
later
one
is
about
social
stratum.
The
purpose
of
addressing
both
seems
to
be
the
same
that
is
to
submit
one
another.
The
issue
in
this
passage
is
that
the
masters
are
asked
to
submit
to
the
slaves.
It
is
uncommon
in
both
Jews
and
the
Greco-Roman
world.
Thus,
this
paper
ventures
to
explore
and
shed
light
on
the
household
code
mentioned
by
the
author
by
using
an
exegetical
tool
and
draw
a
few
implications
to
the
Indian
Christian
household.
Hence
this
study
primarily
will
begin
with
the
conceptual
background
of
this
passage.
R.
JOHNSON
teaches
New
Testament
at
HBI,
Chennai.
He
is
also
pursuing
his
Ph.D.
in
New
Testament
at
HBI.
1
Ephesians
considered
being
one
of
the
disputed
letters
of
Paul.
In
the
New
Testament
studies,
Ephesians
is
known
as
deutro-Pauline
letters.
115
1.
Conceptual
background
of
Haustafeln2
Ephesians
5:22-6:9
this
section
adopts
a
pattern
ofinstruction
on
the
duties
of
household
members
from
Col
3:
18-4:
l.
These
codes
are
of
two
types.
"The
first
type
is
a
code
of
duties
for
Mediterranean
households
(Eph
5:22-6:9;
Col
3:18-4:l;
l
Pet
2:13-3:7).
The
second
type
is
a
code
of
duties
in
the
household
of
God,
the
church,
and
is
modeled
after
the
codes
for
households
(l
Tim
2:1-2,
8-12;
3:8-13;
5:1-3,
17-22;
Titus
2:1-10)."
3
The
present
exegetical
work
comes
under
the
former
code.
Karl
Weidinger
argues
that
the
Christian
source
derived
from
stoic
tables
of
duties.
4
A
key
source
for
this
study
was
the
2°ct
century
AD
Stoic
Hierocles,
whose
61
1i
section
on
household
management
offered
the
best
parallels
for
the
Christian
codes.
There
he
dealt
with
husbands
and
wives,
authority
over
the
servants,
education
of
children,
and
use
of
household
income.
The
code
in
their
Christian
dress
served
as
pareneasis
and
addressed
to
no
specific
situation.
The
main
source
for
the
Christian
codes,
however,
lies
in
Hellenistic
Jewish
codes.5
For
example,
"Philo
says
a
household
management
is
assigned
to
men
and
that
women
should
subject
to
them."
6
Women
do,
however,
have
their
sphere
of
authority
within
the
household.
In
the
Decalogue,
he
deals
with
2
Haustafel
is
a
Latin
word
which
means
household
code.
3
Charles
Talbert,
Ephesians,
and
Colossians,
(Michigan:
Baker
Academics,
2007),
137.
"Karl
Weidinger,
"The
historical
settings
of
Ephesians,"
Nov
T
12
(1990):
120-156,
cited
in
Talbert,
Ephesians
and
Colossians,
136.
5
Talbert,
Ephesians,
and
Colossians,
136.
6Talbe1t,
Ephesians,
and
Colossians,
136.
116
parents'
authority
over
children
and
masters'
treatment
of
slaves
and
slaves'
dealing
with
the
masters.
Then,
the
three
sets
of
relationships
are
found,
the
duties
are
mentioned
in
pairs,
and one
member
of
each
pair
is
to
be
subordinate
to
another."7
3.
The
context
of
the
household
code
The
Auctor8In
his
paraenetic
exposition
from
4:
17
ff
enumerates
the
ethical
codes
for
the
believers
to
conduct
themselves
in
the
household
of
God,
ho�e
and
in
society.
Particularly
6:
l-9
is
an
ethical
call
to
relate
well
at
home
and
in
the
community
.Auctor
is
following
on
from
the
exhortations
to
wives
and
husbands
in
5:22-
33,
the
next
groups
within
the
household
to
be
addressed
are
children
and
parents.
The
haustafel(6:
1-9)
in
the
micro
context
is
centered
on
submission
and
obedience.
But
the
submission
in
reversal
is
the
point
of
discussion.
4.
The
household
code
for
the
children
and
parents
vvl-4
The
first
pair
in
the
section
is
delegated
to
children
and parents.
It
is
a
shift
from
husband
and
wife,
but
the
thrust
is
"submission"
isl
continuing
in
this
section
too.
4.1
Children,
obey
your
parents
v
.1
Ta
't"EXVa,
unaXOUETE
't"Ot�
yovEUCJ"lV
uµ.wv
[
EV
xuplCf)].
children
obey
your
parents
in
the
Lord.
The
first
address
to
the
particular
group
in
this
verse
is
"children,"
addressing
instructions
to
children
is in
7
Talbert,
Ephesians,
and
Colossians,
136.
8
Auctor
is
a
Latin
word
for
author
or
originator
here
after
this
exegesis
will
use
the
word
auctor
instead
of
author.
117
itself
not
unusual,
"but
it
is
distinctive
with
discussions
of
household
management
in
the
Greco-Roman
world,
where
it
was
the
male
adult
free
person
who
was
addressed
rather
than
the
subordinate
parties."9The
vocative
of
direct
address
to
the
children
and
the
word
'rExva
is
used
here
as
regardless
of
age
but
of
relationship."
According
to
Boomberly
here
'rExva
refers
to
the
children
who
can
understand
the
precepts
of
the
lord.11
Hence
the
auctor
adds
in
the
first
phrase
EV
xup(4,>
(in
the
lord).
In
Jewish
social
context,
addressing
to
the
children
is
an
honour
because
when
they
are
addressed,
then
they
are
considered
to
be
genuine
and
accepted
by
the
family
which
is
a
social
honour
for
the
child.12Subsequently,
the
auctor
provides
the
first
household
code
with
the
imperative
unaxot>E'rE
"obey."
Here
the
imperative
is
used
in
the
sense
of
command
which
addressee
needs
to
follow.
Then
the
imperative
follows
with
the
appropriate
object,
'rot�
yovEucnv
uµwv
"your
parents."
Children
obedience
to
their
parents
is
a
natural
law.
Conversely
in
the
social
context
in
the
Mediterranean
world
obedient
to
the
parents
was
the
chief
virtue
of
children.l'This
command
is
common
for
non-Jewish,
Jews,
and
Christians.
On
the
other
hand,
Paul
in
Romansl
:30
9
Andrew
T.
Lincoln,
Ephesians,
(WBC
42;
Dallas:
Word
Books,
1998),
456.
10
Peter
R.
O'
Brine,
Ephesians,
(PNTC;
Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
WB.M.Eerdmans,
1991),286.
11
Karl
Ludwig
Schmidt,
"tekna,"
in
Theological
Dictionary
of
the
New
Testament,
Gerhard
Kittel,
eds.,
Trans.
Geoffrey
W.
Bromiley
,
vol.1,
(Grand
Rapids,
MI:
WM.B.
Eerdmans,
1977),
876.
12Abbott,
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians
and
to
the
Colossians,
196.
13
Talbert,
Ephesians
and
Colossians,
144.
118
declares
the
disobedient
children
of
the
depraved
mind.
Children
are
here
addressed
as
responsible
members
of
the
congregations.
They
are
to
'obey'
both
parents
(though
the
corresponding
exhortation
in
v. 4
is
addressed
to
fathers
only),
and this
is
a
further
example
of
the
submission
within
divinely
ordered
relationships
that
is
expected
in
God's
new
society
(v.
21).
Thus,
the
Christ
household
code
made
the
obedience
as
an
important
thing
that
children
should
follow.
On
the
other
hand,
the
phrase
EV
xup(4,>
"in
the
Lord"
here
used
as
a
dative
of
sphere
or
realm.
It
connotes
the
meaning
that
children
should
obey
their
parent
in
the
sphere
of
the
Lord.
Although
"in
the
Lord"
has
the
variants
in
reading
the
committee
had
a
hard
time
to
fix
this
phrase,
but
the
P46
makes
strong
evidence
to
affirm
"in
the
Lord"
as
the
original.
The
phrase
"in
the
Lord"
generates
a
range
of
obedience.14
Rudolf
Schnackenburg
affirms
that
here
the
auctor
does
not
necessarily
want
to
call
for
children's
obedience
'in
everything,'
but
instead
he
substitutes
obedience
'in
the
Lord'
.1
5
Here
the dative
of
sphere
provides
a
sort
of
limitation.
According
to
Brian
Wintel
this
limitation
is
because
of
the
possibility
of
the
gentile
parents
.160n
the
other
hand,
O'Brian
argues
that
"in
the
Lord',
is
virtually
synonymous
with
'as
to
the
Lord'
or
'as
to
Christ'
(cf.
5:22;
6:5)
and
indicates
that
their
14
Talbert,
Ephesians
and
Colossians,
144.
15
Rudolf
Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
(Scotland:
T&T
Clark,1991),
269.
16
Brian
Wintel
and
Ken
Gnanakan,
Ephesians,
Asia
Bible
Commentary,
eds.,
Bruce
J.
Nicholls,
(Bangalore:
Asia
Theological
Association,2004),
161.
119
obedience
is
part
of
their
Christian
discipleship."!"
It
is
not
rendered
simply
because
of
their
parents'
are
from
gentile
or
greater
authority
or
status.
However,
the
phrase
"in
the
Lord"
can
be
understood
that
the
submission
and
obedience
are
in
the
realm
of
God
to
the
parents
as
to
Christ.
4.2
Honour
your
father
and
mother
v.2
The
next
household
code
for
the
children
is
that
they
should
honour
their
parents.
The
phrase
7/µct
7ov
'ffctripa
crov
xal
7�11
µJJTipa,
�n;
ECT'Tlv
E\J'TOA�
npW'TYJ
EV
E1rayy1;11.[c;t
"honour
your
father
and
mother,
which
is
the
first
commandment
with
the
promise"
can
be
called
as
a
mandatory
phrase
for
the
children
in
the
social
context.
The
word
'Ttµa
is
used
here
in
the
present
imperative
sense
it
is
progressive
present
and
used
in
the
sense
of
"weight"
giving
weight
to
their
parent.
On
the
other
hand,
George
stoeckhardt
assert
that
the
word
'Ttfla
"honour"
includes
both
that
the
children
recognize
their
parents
as
their
superior
and
that
they
also
gladly
submit
themselves
to
the
will
of
their
parents.18
In
the
social
point
of
view
in
the
Mediterranean
world,
honour
includes
providing
them
and
burying
them.
Thus,
the
second
household
code
for
the
children
is
to
honour
their
father
and
mother.
The
motivating
part
of
honour
lies
in
the
phrase
�n;
EO"'Tlv
EV'TOA�
npW'TYJ
ev
EnayyEAtc;t
which
is
the
first
commandment
with
the
17
Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
269.
.
18
George
Stoeckhardt,
Ephesians,
Trans
by.
Martin
S.
Sommer
(Missouri:
Concordia
Publishing,1987),
249.
'
120
promise.
The
promise
is
the
motivating
factor
here.
Here
the
word
npW'TYJ
is
not
used
in
a
numerical
sense
but
according
to
the
rank
because
Exodus
20:5-6
the
command
includes
both
blessing
and
cursing.
Here
the
benefit
of
following
household
code
is
to
receive
the
blessing
which
is
a
long
life.
19
Eventually
honouring
parents
in
itself
is
the
submission
to
their
authority.
Thus,
the
haustafel
for
the
children
has
centered
in
again
two
words
obedience
and
submission.
4.3
Fathers
do
not
provoke
your
children
v
.4
Kal
ol
na'TEpE;,
fl�
napopyltE'TE
'Tct
'TExva
VflWV
"fathers,
do
not
provoke
your
children"
In
v
.4
auctor
address
the
superior
power
oi"
na'TEpE;
vocative
of
direct
address
is
used
to
address
fathers.
The
link
between
the
exhortations
to
both
halves
of
the
pairing,
"children
and
fathers
are
underlined
by
the
conjunction
"and"
at
the
beginning
of
v
4.
Both
groups,
not
just
the
subordinate
one,
have
obligations.'?"
Fathers
in
ancient
Rome
had
extraordinary
power
over
their
children.
In
the
Greco-Roman
tradition
'
unwanted
children,
especially
girls,
were
exposed
to
the
elements
or
otherwise
disposed
of.
Abortion
was
also
practiced.
But
Christian
parents,
auctor
says,
must
not
act
as
though
their
children
were
in
their
possession.21
Hence
the
first
household
code
for
the
fathers
fl�
napopyltE'TE
"do
not
provoke"
is
used
in
the
prohibitive
imperative
sense
it
shows
that
fathers
are
not
allowed
19
Stoeckhardt,
Ephesians,
249.
20
Lincoln,
Ephesians,
457.
21
Walter
L.
Liefeld,
Ephesians,
(Illinois:
IVP,
1997),
150.
12]
to
provoke
their
children
to
anger.
Anger
it
includes
"attitudes,
words,
and
actions
which
would
drive
a
child
to
angry
exasperation
or
resentment
and
thus
rules
out
excessively
severe
discipline,
unreasonably
harsh
demands,
abuse
of
authority,
arbitrariness,
unfairness,
constant
nagging
and
condemnation,
subjecting
a
child
to
humiliation,
and
all
forms
of
gross
insensitivity
to
a
child's
needs
and
sensibilities."
On
the
contrary,
the
second
household
code
a.AA'
£,crpE<pens
airra
iv
1ratoE(c;t
xal
vou9Ecrtc;t
xupfou
"but
bring
them
up
in
the
discipline,
and
the
instruction
of
the
Lord"
indicates
that
they
should
concentrate
on
bringing
their
children
in
the
discipline
and
instruction
of
the
Lord.
&Ua
Here
is
used
as
adversative
conjunction
to
bring
the
contrast
behavior
of
the
fathers
towards
their
children.
The
present
imperative
E>crpE<pers
it
in
the
progressive
present,
which
is
an
ongoing
action.
Hence
the
father
must
bring
their
children
up
in
the
instruction
of
the
Lord
it
should
be
done
daily.
Conversely,
even
7TatOEtc;t
xal
vou9wfc;t
is
used
as
a
dative
of
a
standard;
thus,
the
parents
have
to
disciple
their
children,
according
to
the
standard
of
God's
discipline
and
instruction.
5.
The
household
code
for
the
slaves
and
the
masters
Vv.
5-9
Here
auctor
shifts
from
family
set
up
to
social
context
to
some
extent.
The
focus
in
this
pair
is
slaves
and
the
master.
The
household
code
here
is
an
ethical
call
to
relate
well
in
society.
122
5.1
Servants
obey
your
masters
v
.5
Ol
OOU/\.Ot,
U7TctXOUE'rE
'rOl�
xa-ra
crapxa
xup(ot�.
In
this
section
the
household
code
addressed
to
the
third
pair.
In
line
with
the
first
and
second
pair
the
third
pair
also
the
subordinate
group
is
addressed
first.
The
opening
admonition
addressed
to
'slaves'
u1TaxouE'!'E
to
'obey'
(v.
5),
As
a
further
example
of
submission
within
the
divinely
ordered
relationships
that
is
called
for
in
the
programmatic
statement,
'Submit
to
one
another
in
the
fear
of
Christ'
(5:21).
This
section
also
has
a
close
affinity
with
Col3:19-
22.
Qt
ooiJAot
vocative
of
direct
address
and
along
with
the
present
imperative
t'.nraxouE't"E
has
a
grammatical
significance.
It
explains
that
salves
are
subordinate
to
the
superior
power
and
are
obliged
to
obey
their
masters
regardless
of
their
will
daily
.22
On
the
other
hand,
social
context
tells
that
the
command
to
slaves
takes
into
account
the
subordinate
social
position
of
the
slaves:
in
the
Roman
Empire
they
were
not
considered
as
persons
with
rights
but
as
objects
over
which
their
master
had
the
right
of
disposal.23
"But
in
practice,
there
were
various
humane
alleviations,
and
there
were
frequent
instances
of
their
being
set
free.'?"
xarra
crapxa
xupfot�
here
the
phrase
grammatically
dative
of
a
standard
which
means
the
slave
and
master relationship
is
according
to
the
standard
of
the
world
at
that
time.
Thus,
the
auctor
did
not
make
any
attempt
to
eradicate
that
social
status,
but
22
Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
270
23
Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
270
24Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
270
123
they
need
to
remain
in
their
position
in
a
godly
manner.
Likewise,
the
early
Church
did
not
make
any
attempt
at
a
fundamental
change
in
their
social
status
but
tried
to
alter
their
position
in
the
Christian
household,
so
that
they
recognize
slaves
as
full
brothers
in
the
Lord
and
an
appropriate
attitude
was
then
required
on
the
part
of
the
masters.
25
ln
the
Haustafeln
both
sides
in
their
different
social
positions
are
advised
to
strive
appropriately
according
to
the
'virtues
of
their
rank'
which
gain
a
higher
motivation
from
Christ.
Hence
the
command
to
slaves
to
obey
their
earthly
masters
is
obvious,
but
it
takes
on
a
different
appearance
if
they
recognize
in
it
a
service
to
their
heavenly
Lord.
unaxouErrE
this
present
imperative
carries
two
other
modifiers
such
as
µera
¢6�ou
xal
rrp6µou
"with
fear
and
trembling"
the
phrase
is
in
the
genitive
of
manner,
which
means
the
proportion
of
obedience
should
be
in
the
manner
of
fear
and
trembling.
The
word
fear
and
trembling
are
the
two
sides
of
the
same
coin.
cp6�ou
here
the
word
"fear"
is
about
the
'reverence'
that
they
should
have
for
the
master.
The
structure
of
this
word
is
directly
connected
to
the
fear
of
God
which
is
reverential.
The
next
modifier
is
EV
Cl7rAO't'i'J't'l
rr�;
xapo[a;
uµwv
w;
't'4)
Xptcm�
in
the
simplicity
of
your
heart
as
to
Christ
iv
an11.6rri')n
rr��
xapo[a�
here
the
dative
is
a
sphere
and
the
genitive
of
origin
is
used
thus
the
simplicity
should
come
from
their
heart
not
from
external
action
but
internal
attitude.
All
these
codes
need
to
be
done
as
they
do
25Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
270
124
to
Christ.
In
doing
so,
the
auctor
once
again
stresses
the
obedience
and
submission
in
the
Christian
household.
In
vv.
6-8
the
auctor
provides
the
codes
slaves
explaining
how
not
to
behave
to
their
master.
He
begins
with
a
negative
aspect
of
how
not
to
behave.
The
first
one
isµ�
xeer'
6¢9a11.µooou11.[av
"not
with
the
way
of
eye
service."
In
context
here
it
indicates
the
sort
of
service
carried
out
by
slaves
in
order
to
attract
their
masters'
attention.
"It
could
also
refer
to
doing
only
what
the
masters
can
see
and,
therefore,
acting
differently
and
cutting
corners
when
their
backs
are
turned,
they
are
merely
men
pleasers."26
But
with
the
adversative
conjunction
auctor
says
that
how
the
slaves
behave
that
is
a11.11.'
w�
oouAot
Xpurrof
"but
as
the
servant
of
Christ."
Here
the
genitive
of
possession
affirms
that
they
should
behave
as
the
person
who
belongs
to
Christ
does.
According
to
Liefeld,
the
servants
should
serve
their
masters
as
they
serve
Christ.
The
service
of
Christ
should
be
notouv-rE�
-ro
9EAi')µa
Tou
9€ou
Ex
tuxfj�/
like
"doing
the
will
of
God
from
their
heart"
again
the
external
action
is
not
important
but
the
internal
attitude.
The
motivation
to
do
this
explained
in
v.8
that
they
would
receive
back
from
the
Lord
according
to
their
work.
The
haustafeln
for
the
slaves
again
lingers
around
obedience
and
submission
with
internal
attitude
than
external
action.
26
Lincoln,
Ephesians,
501.
125
5
.2
Masters
leave
up
threatening
v
.9
Kal
oi
xuptol,
'rel
atha
7t'Ol£t'r£
npo�
au-rou�,
avtEV'rE�
'r�V
anELA�v,
"master
leaves
up
threatening"
here
auctor
give
the
household
code
for
the
maters
who
are
superior
power.
Here
the
household
code
is
not
only
for
the
subordinate
but
also
for
the
authority.
According
to
O'Brien
here
the
connection
between
the
exhortation
to
slaves
and
the
masters
is
explicitly
made,
27
since
the
auctor
intends
to
underscore
"the
reciprocal,
though
not
symmetrical,28
relationships
between
the
two
groups
."29
In
the
social
context
with
what
is
a
shocking
exhortation
to
slave
owners
in
the
first-century
Greco-Roman
world,
the
apostle
admonishes
masters:
treat
your
slaves
in
the
same
way.
According
to
a
.
proverbial
statement,
'all
slaves
are
enemies,'
while
many
masters
were
tyrants
and
abusive.
In
order
to
deal
with
their
slaves,
owners
were
known
to
"threaten
beatings,
sexual
harassment,
or
selling
male
slaves
away
from
the
households
with
the
result
that
they
would
be
parted
forever
from
their
loved
ones."
Auctor's
cryptic
exhortation
is
outrageous.
It
does
not
mean,
however,
that
masters
are
to
serve
their
slaves.
Nor
does
it
refer
simply
to
their
doing
27
First,
the
concluding
words
of
v.
8,
which
speak
of
the
Lord
rewarding
each
one
who
does
good
provide
a
transition
to
the
advice
given
to
masters
in
v.
9.
Then,
as
in
v.
4,
the
address
to
masters
is
linked
by
xal
('and',
v.
9)
to
that
of
slaves.
Finally,
masters
are
called
to
adopt
a
similar
attitude,
which
is
to
be
expressed
in
appropriate
actions,
to
their
slaves
('do
the
same
things
to
them').
28
Although
masters
are
urged
to
'do
the
same
to
them',
i.e.,
to
have
corresponding
attitudes
and
actions
to
those
required
of
slaves,
they
are
not
admonished
to
'obey'
(v.
5)
or
'serve'
(v.
7)
their
slaves.
29
O'
Brine,
Ephesians,
258.
126
good,
as
in
v
8.
More
likely
it
points
to
their
attitudes
and
actions,
which,
like
those
of
slaves,
are
to
be
governed
by
their
relationship
to
their
heavenly
Lord.
An
outcome
of
this
will
be
that
the
masters
will
abandon
the
use
of
threats"
against
their
slaves.
On
the
other
hand,
Schnackenburg
comments
that
having
the
power
to
command
they
should
not
misuse
it
in
harshness
or
threats
but
exercise
it
according
to
the
will
of
their
common
Lord
that
is
with
mercy
and
kindness.31
Thus
the
household
code
for
the
masters
is
to
give
up
threatening.
At
the
end
of
this
section,
auctor
equates
everybody
by
using
the
term
£t00'r£�
O'rl
xal
au-rwv
xal
uµwv
o
xupt6�
€0"'rlV
EV
oupavoY�
"knowing
that
both
of
your
master
is
in
heaven"
hence
both
the
slaves
and
the
masters
are
coming
under
one
umbrella
of
the
heavenly
master.
Thus
the
sense
of
equality
is
established
in
this
section.
As
a
whole
in
all
the
pairs,
the
obedience
and
submission
to
one
another
are
the
key.
Conclusion
and
Implication
As
the
study
has
highlighted
that
the
crux
of
6:
1-9
is
submission.
The
theme
submission
is
flowing
from
5:21.
ln
6:2-9
the
auctor
used
it
as
an
example
to
contribute
to
the
main
theme.
The
conceptual
background
suggested
that
the
household
code
is
common
in
Hellenistic
philosophy,
even
Ephesians
6:
1-9
find
30
The
participial
clause
('abandoning
the
use
of
threats')
amplifies
the
preceding
clause
('do
the
same
thing
to
them').
Here
the
verb
means
to
'give
up,
cease,
stop.'
31
Schnackenburg,
Ephesians,
272.
127
some
affinity
with
the
Stoic
Philosophy
of
the
household
code.
The
context
of
this
passage
declared
that
this
section
is
the
part
of
pareneasis
whereby
the
submission
is
quintessential
for
the
spirit
filled
person.
Obedience
and
submission
are
expected
in
a
Christian
home.
The
elucidation
of
the
pairs'
children
and
the
parents
and
master
and
the
slaves
emphasized
the
internal
attitude
of
the
person
than
the
external
action.
This
passage
is
very
relevant
for
the
Indian
society.
India
is
known
for
the
rich
culture
the
obedience,
and
the
submission
is
the
part
of
their
lifestyle.
At
present
in
the
contemporary
world,
it
is
losing
the
savor.
Submission
is
becoming
an
unknown
term
in
the
contemporary
world
view.
Social
evils
are
prevailing
in
India.
Due
to
the
generation
gap,
the
relationship
between
parents
and
children
is
diminishing
slowly.
Although
there
are
strong
laws
against
human
slavery,
yet
it
exists
in
different
forms
in
India,
but
it
has
to
be
suppressed
with
an
iron
hand.
On
the
other
hand,
children,
they
leave
their
parents
in
old
age
home
instead
of
taking
care
of
them.
The
old
age
home
becomes
a
human
zoo
where
the
animals
come
to
visit.
Hence
the
household
code
of
Ephesians
is
an
antidote
for
the
lifestyle
of
the
contemporary
world.
j
128
Lord's
Supper
the
Fellowship
Meal:
An
Exegetical
Study
of
I
Corinthians
11:17-34
and
Its
Socio-Theological
Implication
for
Contemporary
Indian
Church
Aneesh
SM
Paul's
letters
are
primarily
occasional
or
situational.
They
were
written
to
address
specific
situations
or
problems
related
to
his
primary
audience
(readers).
None
of
his
writings
is
a
theological
treatise.
Paul's
Letter
to
the
I
Corinthians
falls
under
this
category.
Throughout
this
Letter,
Paul,
the
Pastoral
theologian
deals
with
the
various
behavioral
issues
of
the
Corinthian
Church.
For
example,
in
chapters
1-4,
he
deals
with
the
problem
of
division
in
the
Church
due
to
their
overemphasis
on
one
leader
over
the
other.
In
chapters
5-6,
he
addresses
the
issue
of
sexual
immorality
(
a
man
having
his
father's
wife),
lawsuit
and
prostitution.
In
chapter
7,
he
concentrates
on
the
issues
that
are
related
to
marriage,
divorce,
remarriage,
and
celibacy.
The
8-lOn,
he
focuses
on
the
legitimacy
of
eating the
food
sacrificed
to
idols
(chs
8-10.
ln
chapters
11-14,
he
gives
attention
to
the
issue
of
abusing
Christian
worship.
In
chapter
15,
he
considers
the
Corinthians'
misunderstanding
about
the
bodily
resurrection
of
the
believers.
After
dealing
with
the
issue
related
to
the
head
covering
of
women
during
the
assembly
(11
:2-16),
Paul
takes
up
the
issue
of
abusing
the
community
during
the
Lord's
Supper
(11:17-34)
ANEESH
is
pursuing
his
Ph.D.
in
New
Testament
studies
at
Seoul
Christian
University,
South
Korea.
He
taught
New
Testament
at
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
&
College
during
2013-2018.
129
which
caused
division
in
the
assembly.
Throughout
this
section,
Paul
sternly
rebukes
this
improper
behavior
of
the
Corinthians
and
offers
them
the
corrective
measures.
Not
only
there
was
a
problem
regarding
Lord's
Supper
in
the
first-century
Pauline
Church
at
Corinth,
but
it
has
been
a
debated
area
in
the
Church
through
the
history
of
Christianity.
The
Christians
are
divided
in
their
opinions
over
the
observance
of
Lord's
Supper.
The
different
Churches
have
their
way
of
practicing
it.
The
significant
differences
in
this
matter
could
be
seen
concerning
its
time,
place,
manner,
officiate,
participants,
and
elements.
Most
of
these
differences
are
rooted
in
the
various
traditions
of
the
Churches.
Though
these
so-called
'traditions'
outwardly
do
not
appear
to
be
causing
any
problem,
it
is
not
problem-free.
These
traditions
are
like
the
white
cloth
which
covers
the
table
on
which
the
elements
are
kept.
They
are
"white";
therefore,
they
are
not
considered
wrong
but
holy.
The
popular
theologians'
views
of
former
times
have
knowingly
or
unknowingly
become
the
cause
for
some
of
these
traditions
and
misconceptions
(some
of
them
will
be
briefed
later).
The
people
who
follow
them
find
it
more
comfortable
to
believe
what
is
passed
on
to
them
by
their
churches
than
seeking
to
know
the
reliability
of
them
from
the
Bible
appropriately.
Therefore,
a
proper
understanding
of
the
Lord's
Supper
from
the
Scripture
is
inevitable.
Thus,
this
research
aims
to
sort
out
this
issue
by
dealing
in
detail
with
one
of
the
known
passages
concerning
the
Lord's
Supper,
I
Corinthians
11
:
1
7-34.
130
The
context
of
the
Passage
The
early
Christians
did not
assemble
in
the
church2
and
there
were
no
church
buildings.
The
"private
houses
were
the
first
centers
of
church
life."3
Christians
used
to
meet
together
"in
the
home
of
a
wealthier
member
that
was
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
group
of
believers
(Acts
18:8;
Rom.
16:5,
23;
1
Cor.
16:19;
Col.
4:15)."
4
As
it
is
practiced
in
the
Greco-Roman
associations5
and
the
pagan
assembly6,
a
banquet
was
one
of
the
crucial
aspects
of
the
early
Christians'
fellowship.
In
the
ordinary
banquets
of
the
Greco-Roman
associations
and
the
pagans,
they
expressed
social
discriminations
in
terms
of
the
seating
arrangements
and
the
food
provided.
Along
with
the
patron
(wealthy
host),
the
rich
friends
and
the
socially
elite
groups
were
reclined
7
on
the
couches
in
the
triclinium
(
or
kline
-
dining
room)
and
the
poorer
associates
or
clients
were
forced
to
sit
in
the
atrium
2
The
phrase
"bc:X.ATJCTL(l,
does
not
mean
the
place
of
meeting
in
the
New
Testament."
Rather,
it
refers
to
their
"gathering
as
a
church,"
that
is,
"in
assembly."
David
E.
Garland,
I
Corinthians,
BECNT
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic, 2003),
536.
Jerome
Murphy
O'Connor,
Keys
to
First
Corinthians:
Revisiting
the
Major
Issues
(New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2009),
182.
3
O'Connor,
Keys
to
First
Corinthians,
182.
4
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
536.
5,
the
first-century
Greco-Roman
world
witnessed
various
associations
such
as
trade,
cultic
(religious),
political,
and
others,
various
rules
and
regulations
guided
these
associations.
.
6
In
pagan
temples,
the
sacrificial
meal
was
an
essential
element
of
their
worship
(I
Cor
8-11:l).
They
used
to
recline
on
pagan
shrines
and
eat
the
sacrificed
meal.
They
considered
this
meal
as
sacred.
7
there
are
many
pieces
of
evidence
in
the
NT
that
suggest
that
people
reclined
for
a
meal
rather
than
sitting
down.
For
example,
Jesus
along
with
his
disciples
reclined
for
a
meal
in
various
occasions
(Mathew
6:
10;
26:20;
Lk
22:
14;
Mk
14:
17)
and
John,
the
beloved
disciple
was
reclining
at
table
close
to
Jesus
(John13:23).
The
pagan
worshipers
reclined
on
shrines
to
eat
the
food
offered
to
idols
(I
Cor
8:
10).
131
(courtyard)."
The
highquality
food
was
served
first
in
the
triclinium
and
whatever
was
left
out
(
or
the
lowquality
food),
was
served
to
the
people
who
were
sitting
down
in
the
atrium.
Thus,
they
were
divided
along
the
socioeconomic
lines.
Craig
S
Keener
comments
that
"the
necessary
distinctions
in
such
seating
often
rankled
guests
offended
by
being
seated
lower
than they
had
hoped.
Such
guests
complained
about
being
served
inferior
food
and
inferior
wine;
the
best
was
reserved
for
those
in
the
highest
position."9
Such
existing
custom
in
the
Greco-Roman
world
intensified
social
differences,
and
consequently,
people
were
humiliated.
The
Corinthian
community
faced
a
similar
situation
when
they
gathered
as
a
whole
church
(I
Cor
14:23).
It
is
assumed
that
the
Corinthians
used
to
assemble
at
the
house
of
Gaius,
a
wealthy
member
of
the
Christian
community
at
Corinth
(Rom
16:23).
Paul
does
not
record
the
exact
number
of
8
The
archaeologists
excavated
the
villa
at
Anaploga
which
is
attributed
to
the
time
of
Paul.
It
is
one
of
the
wealthiest
houses
at
Corinth.
It
gives
information
about
the
size
of
the
triclinium
and
atrium.
"In
the
villa
at
Anaploga,
the
triclinium
measures
5.5
x
7.5
meters,
giving
a
floor
area
of
41.25
sq.
meters.
This
volume,
however,
would
have
been
diminished
by
the
couches
around
the
walls;
there
would
have
been
space
for
nine
to
recline.
The
atrium
located
just
outside
measures
5
x
6
meters,
but
the
floor
area
of
30
sq.
meters
must
also
be
reduced
because
at
least
one-ninth
of
the
floor
was
taken
up
by
the
impluvium
(from
the
Latin
word
pluo,
to
rain).
This
was
a
pool
to
collect
the
water
that
came
through
a
hole
of
the
corresponding
size
in
the
roof;
this
was
called
the
compluvium
and
was
designed
to
light
the
atrium
...
The
impluvium
in
the
center
of
the
atrium
would
not
only
have
diminished
the
space
by
one-ninth
but
would
also
have
restricted
movement;
circulation
was
possible
only
around
the
outside
of
the
square.
Thus,
the
maximum
number
that
the
atrium
could
hold
was
fifty."
O'Connor,
Keys
to
First
Corinthians,
182,
183.
However,
they
could
accommodate
more
if
they
sat
rather
than
reclined.
Craig
S.
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
NCBC
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2005),
97.
9
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
96.
132
believers
at
the
Corinthian
house
church.
According
to
Jerome
Murphy
O'Connor,
it
would
be
around
fifty
peoplc.!"
The
Corinthian
community
was
formed
of
the
host
(Gaius)
and
his
family,
his
intimate
friends,
servants,
women,
children
and
the
other
workers
of
the
society.
It
was
a
gathering
of
many
social
subgroups
of
the
Corinthian
city.
As
it
is
stated,
the
meal
(Lord's
Supper")
was
one
of
the
crucial
elements
of
their
fellowship."
Since
the
number
of
guests
was
more
all
were
not
able
to
be
accommodated
in
triclinium
for
the
meal.
It
necessitated
the
host
to
divide
his
guests
into
two
categories.
The
host
invited
his
closest
friends
from
among
the
believers
who
are
of
his
same
social
status
into
triclinium,
and
they
reclined
on
couches
there,
and
others
who
are
of
lower
status
were
forced
to
sit
in
the
atrium.
13
Moreover,
the
high-quality
food
was
served
to
the
leisure
class
(first-class
believers)
at
triclinium,
and
inferior
food
10
O'Connor
comments
that
"from
Paul's
letters
we
know
the
names
of
fourteen
male
members
of
the
Corinthian
community.
We
must
suppose
that,
like
Aquila,
all
were
married.
This
brings
us
to
twenty-eight
persons,
which
is
the
minimum
figure.
Neither
Luke
nor
Paul
intends
to
give
a
complete
list;
specific
circumstances
occasioned
mentions
of
particular
names.
Moreover,
we
are
told
that
the
households
of
two
members
of
the
community,
Crispus
(Acts
18:8)
and
Stephanas
(I
Cor
1:16;
16:15--16),
were
baptized
with
them.
Thus,
we
have
to
add
an
indeterminate
number
of
children,
servants/slaves,
and
perhaps
relations.
It
would
be
more
realistic,
therefore,
to
think
in
terms
of
around
fifty
persons
as
a
base
figure."
O'Connor,
Keys
to
First
Corinthians,
183.
11•
It
is
also
known
as
Christian
meal,
Christ's
meal,
agape
meal,
fellowship
meal,
and
a
communal
meal.
12
For
the
early
Christians,
the
Lord's
Supper
was
one
of four
central
elements
in
Christian
worship,
along
with
prayer,
fellowship,
and
instruction.
They
called
it
breaking
of
bread.
They
celebrated
Lord's
Supper
on
the
first
day
of
every
week
(Acts
2:42; 2:46;
20:7;
20:ll;
27:35).
Craig
L.
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
NIVAC
(Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
Zondervan,
1994),
233.
13
O'Connor,
Keys
to
First
Corinthians,
185-186.
133
was
served
to
the
lower
class
believers
(second-class
believers)
at
the
atrium.
It
left
one
hungry,
and
another
drunk
(1
Cor
11:21)
and
some
were
humiliated
and
shamed
in
the
assembly
(I
Cor
11:
22).
Thus,
the
limitation
of
space
availability
and
the
"different
types
of
food
to
different
categories
of
guests"14
at
Corinthian
Church
during
the
fellowship
meal
(Lord's
Supper)
caused
division
in
the
community.
This
is
the
context
in
which
Paul
is
writing
I
Corinthians
]
l:
17-34.
Exegetical
Analysis
Unlike
the
previous
section
(11
:2-16)15,
Paul
does
not
praise
the
Corinthian
believers
when
correcting
their
conduct
at
the
Lord's
Supper
(11
:17,
22).
The
absence
of
the
voluntary
commendation
is
found
in
the
seriousness
of
the
problem.
He
does
not
praise
them
because their
coming
together
is
not
for
the
better
but,
the
worse
(l
7b).
Paul's
point
is
that
the
Corinthians'
gathering
together
as
an
assembly
neither
profit
(benefit)
them
nor
others;
rather
it
does
more
harm
to
the
congregation.
Gordon
D
Fee
comments
that
"the
Corinthian
problem
was
not
their
failure
to
gather,
but
their
failure
to
be
truly
God's
new
people
when
they
gathered.'?"
Thus,
Paul
14
O'Connor,
Keys
to
First
Corinthians,
185-186.
15
This
section
begins
with
Paul's
praise
for
the
Corinthian
believers
for
remembering
him
in
everything
and
also
for
holding
the
traditions
firmly
as
he
delivered
them
to
the
Church(]
I
:2).
Richard
A.
Horsley
comments
that
as
it
was
common
in
deliberative
rhetoric
which
is
designed
to
persuade
the
listeners
to
change
their
behavior,
Paul
would
then
be
using
commendation
or
praise
in
11
:2
apparently
to
soften
the
Corinthians'
receptivity
to
the
criticism
in
verses
17-22
of
their
procedure
at
the
Lord's
Supper.
Richard
A.
Horsley,
1
Corinthians,
ANTC
(Nashville:
Abingdon
Press,
1998),
157-158.
16
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
536.
134
addresses
the
issue
that
goes
on
when
they
gather
together
as
the
Church.
It
is
noteworthy
that
the
verb
o-uvipxoµac
(to
come
together
or
to
assemble)
occurs
five
times
in
this
section
(11:
17,
18,
20, 33,
34)
and
elsewhere
in
Paul's
letters
only
twice,
i.e.,
in
14:23,
26.17
Fee
states
that
the
"verb
o-uvipxoµac
18
is
one
of
the
keywords
that
hold
the
argument
together.
Given
its
similar
usage
in
14:23
and
26,
it
had
probably
become
a
semi-technical
term
for
the
"gathering
together"
of
the
people
of
God
for
worship."
19
In
Verse
18,
Paul
proceeds
to
explain
how
their
coming
together
is
for
the
worse
rather
than
for,
the
better.
He
says,
"I
hear
that
when
you
gather
together
in
assembly,
there
are
divisions
among
you."
The
division
which
Paul
talks
here
is
the
social
division
during
Lord's
Supper
and
not
the
theological
division
over
it.
The
statement
"to
some
extent
I
believe
it"
(v18b)
does
not
suggest
that
Paul
considers
this
might
be
a
rumor.
Rather,
it
is
an
expression
of
outrage,
like
saying,
"this
is
unbelievable-I
can't
believe
you
are
doing
this.'?"
It
can
also
be
an
irony
to
say
that
"given
the
nature
of
things
in
Corinth,
it
is
inevitable
that
such
things
happen
among
you."21
Further,
he
says,
'for
there
must
be
discriminations
among
you
so
that
it
will
become
clear
of
who
17
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
536
18
In
the
Hellenistic
world,
this
"term
had
strong
connotations
of
a
people
joining
together
to
form
a
society
(as
in
Aristotle's
political
theory,
Pol.
3.4.3;
3.5.10;
3.6.7;
6.5.2),
or
of
factions
being
reunited
(e.g.,
Aelius
Aristides,
Or.
24.49)."
Horsley,
1
Corinthians,
158.
19
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
536.
20
Preben
Vang,
I
Corinthians,
TTCS
(Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
Baker
Books,
2014),
Kindle
edition,
"worship
and
humility."
21
Gordon
D.
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
NICNT
(Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
Wm.
B.
Eerdmans,
1987),
538.
]35
among
you
are
the
distinguished
or
genuine
ones'
(I
Cor
11:
19).
The
terms
aipfocti;
(lCo
11:19)
and
axfrrµarn
(lCo
11:18)
are
synonymous.
In
the
Corinthian
context,
it
could
be
understood
as
division,
faction
or
discrimination;
and
the
word
o6xtµot
means
distinguished
or
approved
ones.
For
Paul,
the
divisions
separate
(and
prove)
true
(genuine)
believers
from
false
believers,
The
fact
is
that
true
believer
will
not
cause
division
in
the
assembly
but
the
pseudo-believers.
Another
reason
why
Paul
does
not
salute
them
is
that
when
they
come
together,
it
is
not
the
Lord's
Supper
that
they
eat
(v20)
because,
in
eating,
each
one
goes
ahead
with
his
meal
(V21).
The
phrase
ExacJ"roi;
To
fotov
oEfovov
npo11.aµ�avEt
"each
one
goes
ahead
with
his
own
meal"
is
debated.
Some
comment
that
here
Paul
"envisions
guests
bringing
their
own
food
(11
:21,
34)"22
and
eat
them
before
the
slaves,
and
the
other
workers
of
the
society
could
arrive
as
early
as
the
socially
elite.
However;
the
problem
with
this
view
is
that
Paul
is
not
saying
that
the
poor
did not
have
food
to
bring
into
the
gathering
or
the
food
was
running
out.
Rather
his
point
is
that
"the
rich
were
humiliating
the
poor
(11
:22)
by
eating
the
superior
food
in
the
triclinium
with
the
poor
watching
from
the
atrium."23
Thus,
they
were
celebrating
their
supper
and
not
the
Lord's
Supper.
They
lacked
consideration
for
the
less
well
to
do
Christians.
24
Therefore,
it
is
not
a
matter
of
22
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
98.
23
Vang,
I
Corinthians,
"worship
and
humility."
24
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
229.
136
"going
ahead"
with
one's
private
food
but
a
matter
of
"invitation"
or
"inclusion."
Ben
Witherington
rightly
comments
that
This
understanding
depends
on
a
translation
of
Exo(:(E0-9E
in
v.
33
as
"wait
for,"
which
is
perfectly
possible.
However,
more
likely
is
the
suggestion
that
the
wealthy
are
eating
in
the
kline
(dining
room)
while
the
poor
are
eating
in
the
atrium
and
that
two
sorts
of
food
are
being
served,
as
was
customary
at
ancient
pagan
banquets.
EXOExoµat
often
has
the
sense
of
"welcome"
or
"entertain"
when
it
is
used
in
the
context
of
an
act
of
hospitality
(cf.
3
Mace.
5:26;
Josephus
Ant.7
.351).
At
any
rate,
whether
the
problem
is
timing
or
location,
the
result
is
a
split
in
the
congregation
between
haves
and
have-nots.25
Some
other
commentators
suggested
the
same
idea.
They
translate
the
word
EXOExw9E
as
receive
or
welcome.26
Therefore,
in
light
of
the
word
EXOEXE0-9E
as
receive
or
welcome,
in
11
:33,
the
more
well
to
do
members
of
the
assembly
were
not
receiving
the
less
fortunate
believers
into
the
meal.
They
went
to
triclinium
and
ate
the
available
food
without
sharing
with
the
poor
believers.
Thus,
they
treated
this
25
Ben
Witherington
III,
Conflict
and
Community
in
Corinth:
A
Socio-
Rhetorical
Commentary
on
1
and
2
Corinthians
(Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
William
B.
Eerdmans
Publishing
company,
1995),
248-249.
26
Vang,
I
Corinthians,
"worship
and
humility."
Bruce
W.
Winter,
After
Paul
Left
Corinth:
The
Influence
of
Secular
Ethics
and
Social
Change
(Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
William
B.
Eerdmans
Publishing
company,
2001),
151-152;
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
98.
137
communal
meal
as
a
private
meal.
As
Keener
comments
"they
defied
the
standard
of
the
tradition
of
a
genuinely
common
meal."
27
Hence,
Paul
writes
in
11
:33
"When
you
gather
to
eat,
you
should
all
eat
together"
(
or
"show
hospitality
to
one
another")."
28
Everyone
should
be
welcomed
to
the
meal,
and
equality
should
have
prevailed
among
you
duririg
the
agape
meal.
Since
those
of
socially
higher
status
failed
to
receive
one
another
for
their
communal
meal,
(1)
some
went
hungry,
another
got
drunk
(21
b
)29,
(2)
the
church
of
God
was
being
despised
(22b)
and
(3)
those
who
have
nothing
were
humiliated
(22b).
Keener
comments
that
"those
with
nothing
were
shamed
in
a
status-
conscious,
honor-centered
society
(11:22)."3
°
For
Paul,
the
meeting
together
for
participating
in
Lord's
Supper
should
be
the
time
or
place
for
honoring
one
another.
Instead,
the
socially
elite
Corinthian
believers
shamed
those
who
have
nothing.
It
can
be
inferred
from
1
Co
8:
12
that
when
one
shames
one's
brother/s
and
wounds
their
conscience,
one
shames
Christ.
Garland
comments
that
by
dishonoring
the
fellow
believers,
they
dishonored
Christ's
self-giving
sacrifice,
which
the
Supper
commemorates."
Thus,
they
dishonored
Christ
by
dishonoring
the
ones
for
whom
�hrist
died.
The
solution
that
Paul
offers
to
this
problem
at
stake
is
to
eat
27
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
98.
28
Vang,
I
Corinthians,
"worship
and
humility."
29
Some
drank
excessively.
Thus,
they
became
drunk.
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230.
3
°
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
98.
31
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
533.
138
and
drink
in
their
respective
houses
(22a)
if
this
is
how
they
will
observe
the
Lord's
Supper
when
they
gather
together.
For
Paul,
Lord's
Supper
strengthens
the
unity,
equality,
oneness,
fellowship,
friendship
and
the
communal
living
of
all
believers.
Instead,
the
Corinthians
were
causing
divisions
during
the
Lord's
Supper.
The
very
meal
that
intended
to
bring
unity
had
become
the
cause
for
the
social
discriminations
in
the
Corinthian
assembly.
After
highlighting
the
social
issues
(17-22)
that
surround
the
text,
Paul
recites
the
last
supper
tradition
in
verses
23-26.
Paul
uses
this
tradition
in
order
to
form
an
argument
against
abusing
the
poor
during
the
Christian
meal.
Pheme
Perkins
comments
that
"unlike
the
meals
of
a
private
association,
whose
sponsors
and
menu
may
be
stipulated
in
the
group's
bylaws,
this
meal
rests
on
a
received
tradition
that
goes
back
to
Jesus
himself
(l
l:23)."32
For
Paul,
the
last
supper
tradition
stands
in
contrast
to
the
behavior
of
the
Corinthians
during
the
Lord's
Supper.
The
terms
"receive
and
pass
on
in
verse
23
reflect
standard
terminology
for
the
transmission
of
oral
tradition."33
Therefore,
when
Paul
says
that
he
received
this
tradition
from
the
Lord,
he
is
not
talking
about
any
direct
revelation
from
the
Lord
Jesus
"rather
he
is
referring
to
that
which
the
Lord
Jesus
spoke
while
he
was
alive,
34
words
32
Pheme
Perkins,
First
Corinthians,
PCNT
(Grand
Rapids,
Michigan:
Baker
Academic,
2012),
143.
33
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
229.
34
The
Passover
narratives
in
the
synoptic
Gospels
highlights
the
event
of
the
last
supper
(Mark
14:
12-25;
Matthew
26:
17-29;
Luke
22:7-38).
139
remembered
by
the
disciples
and
widely
repeated
and
perhaps
even
memorized
in
the
early
Christian
community
."35
The
last
supper
of
Jesus
with
his
disciples
took
place
on
the
night
when
Judas
betrayed
him.
The
night
here
"places
this
occurrence
in
the
realm
of
a
historical
event.'?"
Jesus
opened
this
meal
with
thanksgiving
"EiJxapto-rrisw"
(
expressed
gratitude
to
God)
and
took
the
bread
from
a
common
meal
and
broke
it
and
distributed
some
pieces
of
it
to
his
disciples.
While
giving
the
bread
pieces,
Jesus
said
"t'OU"t'O
µou
forrtv
37
"t'O
o-wµa
"t'O
U7rEp
vµwv·
"t'OU"t'O
'ITOlEl"t'E
El�
"t'�V
Efl�V
avaµV'Y)O"lV
"this
is
my
body38
which
is
for
you.
Do
this
in
remembrance
of
me"
(11
:24).
Craig
L
Blomberg
rightly
comments
that
"the
bread
symbolized
or
represented
his
coming
bodily
death,
atoning
sacrifice
for
the
sake
of
all
who
would
accept
the
forgiveness
of
sins
is
made
available."39
Paul
exhorts
the
Corinthians
to
remember
this
self-sacrificial
attitude
of
Christ
for
the
sake
of
others.
From
that,
he
is
encouraging
them
to
.
have
the
self-giving
attitude
similar
to
that
of
Christ
during
the
Lord's
Supper
and
consider
or
welcome
everyone
together
to
the
Christian
meal.
Because
the
"for
you"
mentality
of.
Christ
(
1
Co
11
:24)
was
not
seen
in
the
Corinthian
believers.
Therefore,
35
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
229.
36
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
545.
37
The
verb
eorw
"is"
simply
means
"signifies,
stands
for,
represents."
Arguments
about
transubstantiation
or
consubstantiation
have
no
substantiation
in
the
intention
of
the
text.
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
546.
38."
Paul
does
not
say
that
the
bread
has
some
mystical
or
spiritual
qualities.
Rather
his
point
is
that
the
bread
represents
or
stands
for
Christ's
physical
body.
However,
the
bread
itself
is
not
Christ.
39
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230.
140
Blomberg
rightly
comments
that
"each
time
the
Corinthians
ate
the
bread
of
the
Lord's
Supper,
they
should
have
recalled
his
death
and
acted
in
ways
consistent
with
Christ's
immeasurable
self-
giving
and
grace
on
their
behalf.'?"
However,
this
was
absent
in
the
Corinthian
assembly,
and
for
the
worst
case,
the
thing
that
happened
was
the
exact
opposite
to
this
attitude.
There
fo11owed
drinking
wine
after
supper.
Both
the
Gospel
writers
and
Paul
omit
the
word
'wine,'
and
they
call
it
'the
cup.'
It
might
have
been
to
express
the
OT
idea
of
"suffering
the
cup
of
God's
wrath
(Ps
75:8;
Isa
5:
17)."41
Jesus
accepted
God's
wrath
by
shedding
his
blood
so
that
we
may
have
peace
with
God.
By
shedding
the
blood,
"he
inaugurated
the
new
covenant"42
where
believers
found
a
new
covenantal
relationship
with
God.
Fee
rightly
states
that
"the
cup
signifies
Christ's
blood
poured
out
in
death,
whereby
he
ratified
the
New
Covenant
between
God
and
his
people."43
Believers
have
communion
(fellowship)
with
Christ
because
of
this
sacrificial
act.
Therefore,
we
must
remember
Christ's
self-sacrificial
love
for
others
during
the
Lord's
Supper
and
act
accordingly
by
which
believers
demonstrate
their
fellowship
with
Christ.
Thus,
the
bread
(the
body
of
Christ)
and
cup
(the
blood
of
Christ)
"refer
to
Jesus'
crucifixion
and
its
significance."44
One
must
acknowledge
that
Jesus
broke
his
body
40
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230.
41
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230.
42
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230.
43
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
557.
44
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
231.
141
and
shed
his
blood
for
the
sake
of
others.
Therefore,
Jesus'
self-
sacrificial
love
should
form
the
basis
for
the
Corinthians'
behavior.
Further,
he
says,
the
significance
of
Christ's
death
which
the
Lord's
Supper
depicts
should
be
proclaimed
until
Jesus
returns
(11
:26).45
Thus,
in
v.23-26,
by
referring
to
the
'source'
and
'purpose'
of
the
Lord's
Supper,
Paul
elevates
the
standard
of
it.
The
Lord's
Supper
is
not
equal
to
the
other
private
association
and
pagan
fellowships'
meal
that
they
had
enjoyed
before
where
they
were
free
to
exercise
division
in
the
name
of
'status.'
The
Lord's
Supper
is
a
superior
meal
where
divisions
have
no
place
because
the
very
meal
represents
unity,
equality,
communion,
and
fellowship
of
all
believers
and
also
their
communion
with
Christ.
Just
like
how
the
table
of
the
Lord
and
the
table
of
Demons
which
Paul
speaks
about
in
lCo
10:14-22
is
irreconcilable46,
the
Lord's
Supper
and
the
Greco-Roman
social
banquet
are
also
incompatible.
After
stating
the
Lord's
Supper
tradition,
Paul
goes
back
to
the
same
tone
of
verse
22
where
he
had
underlined
the
social
issues.
Therefore,
verses
27-34
should
be
understood
in
the
context
of
the
issue
in
the
Church.
He
writes
that
"whoever,
therefore,
eats
the
bread
or
drinks
the
cup
of
the
Lord
in
an
unworthy
manner
will
be
guilty
concerning
the
body
and
blood
of
45
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230.
46
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
84.
142
the
Lord"
(l
Cor.
11
:27).
The
phrase
an
"unworthy
manner"47
is
mostly
misinterpreted
and
misunderstood.
In
the
context
of
this
chapter,
unworthy
manner
(lCo
11:27)
means
"abusing
others
at
the
Lord's
Table?"
by
having
two
different
places
for
the
believers
to
dine;
one
for
the
well-to-do
Christians
and
others
for
the
poorer
ones.
The
person
who
causes
this
social
stratification
in
the
assembly
during
Lord's
Supper
will
be
liable
for
Christ's
death
(guilty
concerning
the
body
and
blood
of
the
Lord).
One
thing
to
·
be
noted
here
is
even
though
it
is
a
social
issue
and
a
group
of
people
together
commit
this
misbehavior,
each
is
responsible
for
the
action.
Words
like
-
"whoever,"
"a
man,"
"himself'
used
by
Paul
in
v
.27-29
speaks
to
individuals.
So,
even
when
it
is
social
stratification,
every
person
can
be
held
guilty.
Therefore,
Paul
exhorts
them
to
examine
themselves
(1
Co
11
:28)
meaning
everyone
must
examine
their
behavior
at
the
Lord's
Supper.
According
to
Fee,
"this
is
not
a
call
for
deep
personal
introspection
to
determine
whether
one
is
worthy
of
the
Table.
Rather,
it
stands
in
contrast
to
the
"divine
examination"
to
which
unworthy
participation
will
lead."49
Therefore,
before
they
participate
in
the
47
Paul
uses
an
adverb
ava�(wc;
here
which
means
unworthily.
If
he
had
used
an
adjective
ava�Lo<;
"unworthy,"
"not
competent,"
and
"inadequate,"
it
could
have
referred
to
a
person's
character.
However,
he
uses
an
adverb
which
indicates
an
action
improperly
or
carelessly
or
in
a
manner
that
does
not
bring
honor.
It
points
towards
the
nature
of
their
action.
They
were
conducting
the
Lord's
Supper
in
a
dishonoring
manner.
Therefore,
Paul's
"warning
was
not
to
those
who
were
leading
unworthy
lives
and
longed
for
forgiveness
but
to
those
who
were
making
a
mockery
of
Lord's
Supper
by
abusing
the
poor."
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
230-231.
48
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
560.
49
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
561
143
meal,
they
should
examine
themselves
in
terms
of
their
attitude
towards
the
body
(church)
as
to
how
they
are
treating
others
since
the
meal
itself
is
a
place
of
proclaiming
the
gospel."
For
Paul,
if
anyone
eats
and
drinks
without
discerning
the
body
eats
and
drinks
judgment
on
oneself
(lCo
11:29).
Fee
writes
that
The
Lord's
Supper
is
not
just
any
meal;
it
is
the
meal,
in
which
at
a
common
table
with
one
loaf
and
a
common
cup
they
proclaimed
that
through
the
death
of
Christ
they
were
one
body,
the
body
of
Christ;
and
therefore,
they
are
not
just
any
group
of
sociologically
diverse
people
who
could
keep
those
differences
intact
at
this
table.
Here
they
must
"discern/recognize
as
distinct"
the
one
body
of
Christ,
of
which
they
all
are
parts
and
in
which
they
all
are
gifts
to
one
another.
To
fail
to
discern
the
body
in
this
way,
by
abusing
those
of
lesser
social
status,
is
to
incur
God's
judgment.">'
Verse
30
says
the
way
God's
judgment
had
been
revealed
on
the
people
who
failed
to
make
this
distinction
between
the
church
(the
body
of
Christ)
and
the
other
Greco-Roman
associations.
Since
they
failed
to
discern
the
gathering
of
believers
as
distinct,
many
of
them
had
become
weak
and
ill,
and
some
had
died
(1
Cor.
11:30).
Keener
comments
that
"the
failure
to
discern
the
corporate
5
°
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
562
51
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
564.
144
body
(l
l
:29)
led
to
sickness
in
their
bodies."?
If
one
examines
himself
or
herself
in
terms
of
his
or
her
relationship
with
the
community,
he
or
she
will
not
come
under
divine
examination
(11:31).
Even,
the
divine
examination
is
God's
way
of
disciplining
his
community
(11:32),
so
that
no
believer
will
be
condemned
along
with
the
world.
Finally,
Paul
gives
the
solution
to
the
problem
in
vv
33-
34.
He
writes
"so
then,
my
brothers,
when
you
come
together
to
eat,
receive
one
another"
(11:33),
or
in
other
words,
Paul
is
asking
them
to
welcome
each
other
when
they
came
together
for
the
Lord's
Supper.
Garland
comments
that
"they
must
welcome
others
by
sharing
with
them"53
and
"if
anyone
is
hungry,
let
him
eat
at
home
so
that
when
you
come
together,
it
will
not
be
for
judgment
(11:34)."
So,
the
amicable
solution
for
the
problem
at
stake
was
to
welcome
the
poor
into
the
meal
without
any
class
distinctions.
It
is
also
important
to
discuss
I
Corinthians
10:16-17
here
since
it
is
one
of
the
two
passages
that
talks
about
Lord's
Supper
in
entire
Pauline
literature.
However,
even
here
Paul's
intention
is
not
to
give
his
doctrine
or
theology
of
Lord's
Supper
but
to
correct
the
behavior
of
the
Corinthians
in
the
matter
of
eating
the
food
offered
to
idols.
Paul
was
giving
two-fold
reasons
(sociological
and
theological)
why
Corinthians
should
abstain
from
eating the
food
offered
to
idols.
He
places
his
view
of
Lord's
Supper
here
(I
Cor
10:
16-22)
in
order
to
support
his
theological
position
against
52
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
98
53
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
535.
145
eating
the
food
sacrificed
to
idols.
For
Paul,
the
intrinsic
nature
of
the
Lord's
Supper
does
not
permit
the
participants
of
the
Lord's
Supper
to
be
part
of
the
sacred
meals
of
the pagans.
Fee
comments
that
"there
is
something
inherent
like
the
Christian
meal
that
makes
participation
in
the
other
incompatible."54
So
the
question
is
what
is
that
something
that
is
intrinsic
with
Lord's
Supper?
He
writes
the
cup
of
blessing55That
we
bless
is
a
xotvwv[a
"fellowship"
in
the
blood
of
Christ
(10:
16a).
Therefore,
the
inherent
nature
of
the
Lord's
Supper
is
nothing
but
xotvwv[a
(fellowship,
participation,
close
association)
with
Christ
in
whose
honor
and
remembrance
we
participate
in
the
Table.
Blomberg
comments
that
"the
Lord's
Table
symbolizes
and
promotes
fellowship
and
unity
with
the
risen
Christ.t''"
Moreover,
Christ
himself
was
considered
to
be
present
during
the
meal.
Therefore,
the
Lord's
Supper
indicates
worshippers'
communion
with
Christ.
Secondly,
Paul
writes
that
the
bread
that
we
break
is
a
fellowship
in
the
body
of
Christ.
According
to
Keener,
the
fellowship
in
the
body
of
Christ
"plays
on
the
two
senses
of
his
body:
his
physical
body
given
on
the
cross
as
a
sacrifice
(11
:23-
24;
cf.
5:7)
and
his
body
the
church
(10:17;
12:12)."57
In
light
of
l
0:
17,
since
there
is
one
bread
and
we
all
partake
of
this
one
54
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
465.
55
TO
Jto't'Y]QLOV
tf];
EuAoy(a;
"the
cup
of
blessing"
is
not
subject
Genitive
(the
cup
that
brings
blessings)
rather
it
is
object
Genitive
(the
cup
which
we
bless).
The
cup
itself
has
no
divine
power
to
say
that
this
is
a
cup
from
which
blessings
flow.
56
Blomberg,/
Corinthians,
199.
57
Keener,
1-2
Corinthians,
87-88.
146
bread,
we
who
are
many
are
one
body.
Therefore,
for
Paul
"Lord's
Supper
generates
partnership,
fellowship,
communion
with
the
fellow
celebrants.':"
Thus,
the
body
of
Christ
(assembly)
is
united
because
of
the
one
bread
which
signifies
Christ.
Garland
writes
that
"the
Spirit,
not
the
meal,
creates
the
unity
among
believers
(1
Car.
12:
13),
but
the
meal
affirms
and
reinforces
this
unity
in
bringing
them
together."?"
Therefore,
the
Lord's
Supper
emphasizes
worshipers'
bond
of
union
with
other
worshipers.
Sharing
of
the
one
loaf
creates
the
solidarity
of
the
fellowship
of
all
believers."
This
intrinsic
nature
(fellowship
with
Christ
and
community)
of
Lord's
Supper
made
participating
in
pagan's
idol
food
incompatible.
The
Lord's
Supper
is
thus
unique.
Implication
Throughout
centuries
churches
have
developed
various
doctrines
and
beliefs
regarding
the
practice
of
Lord's
Supper.
The
Roman
Catholic
Church
developed
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation61,
whereas
Martin
Luther,
the
protestant
Reformer
believed
in
consubstantiation.
62
John
Calvin
who
was
another
popular
figure
in
Reformation
believed
in
what
is
called
suprasubstantiation63,
and
Huldrych
Zwingli
professed
58
Garland,
1
Corinthians,
477
59
Garland,
J
Corinthians,
477--478.
6
°
Fee,
The
First
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians,
466.
61
It
is
the
belief
that
the
bread
and
wine
turned
into
the
body
and
blood
of
Jesus
when
consecrated.
62
It
is
the
belief
that
both
the
bread
and
body
of
Christ
co-exist
after
it
is
consecrated.
This
represented
a
mysterious
presence
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
in
the
elements.
63
The
bread
and
wine
are
the
earthly
symbols
of
spiritual
realities.
147
memoralism.64
Many
of
these
teachings
on
Lord's
Supper
have
gone
far
beyond
and
even
contradicted
the
explicit
teaching
of
the
Scripture.
The
views
of
these
theologians
and
others
have
become
the founding
stones
of
different
belief
or
traditions
of
the
various
denominations
of
today.
The
Christians
today
follow
any
one
of
these
views
or
the
mixture
of
them
and
fail
to
inspect
the
validity
of
them
through
the
Scripture.
The
popular
views
and
human
authority
prevail
in
the
interpretation
of
the
scripture,
not
the
scripture
alone.
Christians
consider
these
traditions
as
inspired
and
fail
to
understand
the
fact
that
tradition
is
not
the
scripture
and
these
theologians
are
not
infallible.
Therefore,
one
should
allow
the
scripture
alone
to
form
the
theology
and
doctrines
(beliefs)
as
much
as
possible.
There
are
lots
of
misunderstandings
and
misconceptions
among
the
present
Christians
regarding
the
practice
of
Lord's
Supper.
Some
claim
that
Lord's
Supper
should
be
taken
only
at
night
because
Jesus
and
his
disciples
had
the
last
supper
at
night.
Some
celebrate
Lord's
Supper
only
on
some
specific
days such
as
the
first
Sunday
of
every
month.
Some
preach
lengthy
sermons
and
invite
people
for
introspection
before
the
congregation
comes
forward
to
be
part
of
Lord's
Supper.
Some
practice
and
teach
that
one
has
to
fast
before
participating
in
Lord's
Supper.
They
believe
fasting
will
prepare
them
for
participating
in
it.
Some
argue
that
only
a
person,
who
is
baptized,
can
be
part
of
it.
S�me
even
go
to
64
Memoralism
says
that
the
Lord's
Supper
is
nothing
but
a
memorial
of
the
suffering
and
sacrifice
of
Christ.
148
an
extent
and
say
that
only
a
person
who
does
not
wear
ornaments
can
take
part
in
it.
In
some
context,
people
wear
white
cloth
on
the
day
of
Lord's
Supper.
Some
remove
their
shoes
or
sandals
during
the
Lord's
Supper.
Some
women
cover
their
head
only
during
the
Lord's
Supper.
All
these
indicate
that
people
show
some
special
piety
towards
the
observance
of
the
Lord's
Supper.
All
these
are
done
because
of
the
unseen
belief
that
hovers
over
the
churches
that
the
observance
of
Lord's
Supper
is
something
more
significant
than
other
parts
of
worship.
So,
the
question
is
if
this
act
of
'Lord's
Supper'
is
given
a
sky-high
reverence
than
the
other
aspects
of
a
worship
service,
is
there
not
an
imbalance
(in
the
service
and
by
the
elevated
understanding
of
Lord's
Supper)?
Supposing
the
Lord's
Supper
is
at
the
end
of
the
service
and
believers
introspect,
retrospect,
repent
and
beseech
God
for
forgiveness
only
then
which
they
did not
do
in
the
previous
parts
of
the
service
(as
they
had
set
it
apart
only
to
be
at
the
end),
will
God
be
pleased
on
the
prior
parts
of
the
service
because
people
were
with
an
unrepentant
heart
then?
Christians
should
not
give
special
importance
to
Lord's
Supper
in
a
worship
service.
It
is
one
of
the
aspects
of
worshipping
God.
For
the
early
Christians,
breaking
of
bread
(Lord's
Supper)
was
one
of
the
elements
in
worshipping
God
(Acts
2:42).
For
them,
the
whole
service
was
equally
important.
Moreover,
the
repentance
of
believers
is
demanded
every
day,
and
introspection
or
retrospection
must
be
a
part
of
everyday
life
and
not
just
a
part
of
149
the
activity
done
during
the
time
of
Lord's
Supper.
Believers
have
to
be
holy
all
the
time.
Paul
deals
with
the
issue
of
Lord's
Supper'
during
Corinthians'
assembly
as
Church.
EXXA>)CJ"t<;t
is
a
community
of
the
saved
where
believers
who
believed
in
Jesus
as
the
one
who
died
for
their
sins
and
justified
them
came
together.
Therefore,
it
was
meant
for
the
people
who
accepted
the
free
salvation
that
Jesus
brought.
Hence,
only
the
saved
people
can
be
part
of
Lord's
Supper.
The
unbelievers
cannot
participate
because
they
cannot
discern
the
body
of
Christ
(church)
as
distinct
from
other
assemblies.
They
neither
have
fellowship
with
Christ
nor
with
fellow
worshipers
whereas
the
Lord's
Supper
demonstrates
one's
relationship
with
Christ
and
his
community.
Blomberg
comments
that
"If
the
Lord's
Table
symbolizes
and
promotes
fellowship
and
unity
with
the
risen
Christ,
then
it
should
be
open
to
all
believers
but
believers
only
."65
However,
a
person
does
not
need
to
go
through
baptism
in
order
to
be
part
of
Lord's
Table;
only
faith
in
Christ
alone
is
enough.
Moreover,
Lord's
Supper
was
a
communal
meal,
and
there
is
no
such
evidence
in
the
New
Testament
that
only
an
ordained
pastor
can
serve
it.
In
the
context
of
the
Pauline
Church
at
Corinth,
there
were
servants
to
serve
the
meal
(Lord's
Supper).
Moreover,
by
participating
in
Lord's
Supper,
one
does
not
receive
grace
from
the
Lord.
Therefore,
it
is
not
a
sacrament.
The
65
Blomberg,
I
Corinthians,
199.
150
term
sacrament
means
a
formal
religious
ceremony
conferring
specific
grace
on
those
who
receive
it.
We
consciously
do
this
because
we
have
already
received
grace
by
faith
in
the
sacrificial
death
of
Christ
and
now,
we
have
communion
with
him.
On
the
other
hand,
we
do
not
make
the
elements
holy;
instead,
we
bless
them
(thanksgiving).
Therefore,
it
is
not
a
Eucharist.
The
term
Eucharist
means
a
Christian
sacrament
commemorating
the
last
supper
by
consecrating
bread
and
wine.
However,
we
do
not
consecrate
the
elements.
The
bread
and
wine
themselves
are
not
holy;
neither
are
they
holy
elements.
They
are
neither
sacred
nor
consecrated
(made
holy)
meal.
Paul
writes
this
is
not
the
table
that
blesses
us;
rather
this
is
the
table
that
we
bless.
It
was
the
practice
of
Jews
in
OT
and
Jesus
and
the
early
Christianity
to
bless
the
meal
and
thank
God
for
the
provision.
The
word
'bless'
means
thanksgiving.
We
thank
God
for
his
provision
and
grace
during
this
meal.
We
also
thank
God
for
Christ
whom
God
gave
us.
However,
today
the
churches
are
making
the
elements
as
holy
(sacred).
Besides,
Lord's
Supper
is
not
a
sacrificed
meal.
It
is
not
sacrificed
to
a
deity
on
an
altar
as
the
pagans
did
(I
Cor
10-11:
1).
The
table
is
not
an
altar,
and
the
meal
is
not
a
sacrifice.
Similarly,
the
food
(bread
and
wine)
is
not
the
Lord
himself.
The
bread
and
wine
are
not
divine.
They
do
not
have
any
mystical
or
spiritual
qualities.
It
is
a
meal
in
remembrance
of
a
sacrifice
which
is
done
by
Christ
in
the
past.
Breaking
the
bread
and
shedding
the
blood
indicate
the
death
of
Christ
for
the
151
forgiveness
of
the
world.
Therefore,
the
elements
(including
tables,
vessels,
clothes
that
we
use
during
Lord's
Supper)
are
not
spiritual
or
sacred,
but
the
occasion
is
because
when
believers
gather
to
worship
Christ
as
an
assembly,
the
Spirit
of
Christ
is
being
presented
among
them.
The
worship
is
done
in
remembrance
and
the
presence
of
him.
Therefore,
we
should
not
practice
Lord's
Supper
as
a
religious
ordinance
or
rite
or
ritual.
One
may
ask
what
form
of
food
and
drink
should
be
used.
Whether
we
must
use
only
the
bread
and
wine,
or
we
can
use
any
other
elements
instead
of
them?
The
answer
is
yes.
Jesus
and
the
early
Christians
used
bread
and
wine
because
that
was
the
common
meal
of
a
Jew.
Here,
the
elements
do
not
have
any
significance
but
the
reason
behind
it.
Therefore,
we
can
use
other
food
and
drink
instead
of
bread
and
wine.
However,
the
.
significance
of
the
Lord's
Supper
should
be
maintained.
Moreover,
it
can
often
be
celebrated
since
it
is
one
of
the
elements
in
the
worship
service.
Its
purpose
is
to
foster
Christian
unity
and
oneness
among
believers.
It
also
demonstrates
believers'
communion
with
Jesus.
It
proclaims
Christ's
sacrificial
death
for
the
sake
of
others'
forgiveness
of
sins.
Therefore,
it
could
be
conducted
often.
However,
it
is
not
mandatory.
In
conclusion,
the
thrust
of
a
Lord's
Supper
is
found
in
the
vertical
and
horizontal
relationship
of
believers
because
the
Lord's
Supper
is
a
symbol
of
believer's
unity
and
fellowship
with
Christ
and
the
other
worshipers.
It
signifies
the
communities'
spiritual
communion
with
God.
By
participating
in
this
meal,
we
152
demonstrate
our
share
in
the
benefits
of
Christ's
death.
It
also
reminds
us
of
the
sacrificial
death
of
Christ
for
the
sake
of
others.
Jesus
selflessly
gave
himself
for
others.
Thus,
it
is
an
expression
of
Christ's
self-giving
love.
In
a
horizontal
level,
it
promotes
the
unity
and
friendship
of
the
believers.
This
meal
expresses
the
equality
and
the
oneness
of
the
believers.
It
calls
for
Christians'
unity.
However,
the
very
meal
that
intended
to
demonstrate
the
unity
of
Christians
has
become
the
means
of
divisions
among
them.
Appendix
Greco-Roman
Triclinium
where
people
are
reclined
for
a
meal
Greco-Roman
Atrium
153
154
An
analysis
of
John's
Use
of
ti;,
µ{a,
and
tv
(One):
Oneness
Motifs
in
the
Fourth
Gospel
Thawng
Ceu
Hnin
The
English
word
"one"
is
a
numerical
number
or
a
digit.
Advanced
English
Dictionary
explains
the
four
various
functions
of
'one':
(1)
as
an
adjective,
(2)
as
a
noun,
(3)
as
a
pronoun,
and
(4)
sometimes
even
as
a
verb.
It
is
frequently
used
in
mathematics
and
also
used
in
business
enterprises.
However,
when
it
comes
to
the
New
Testament,
sT�
is
rarely
used
as
a
digit
or
cardinal
number
(e.g.,
2
Pet.
3:8)1
It
usually
means
"single,"
"once-for-all,"
"unique"
or
"only,"
or
"unitary,"
"unanimous,"
or
"one
of
two
or
many,"
"only
one."2
In
the
gospel
of
John,
the
word
"one"
becomes
a
very
significant
term
which
is
loaded
with
theological
meanings
as
Richard
Bauckham
rightly
contends,
"One
is
much
more
than
a
number."
3
Similarly,
Mark
Appold
asserts,
"In
fact,
it
may
be
said
that
John's
Gospel
is
conceived
and
developed
from
the
standpoint
of
Jesus'
oneness
with
the
Father."4
There
are
several
Johannine
passages
that
describe
oneness
concepts
such
as
l)
apart
from
him
not
even
"one"
was
made
(1:3b),
THAWNG
CEU
HNIN
teaches
Greek
and
New
Testament
subjects
at
Hindustan
Bible
Institute
and
College.
He
is
also
pursuing
his
PhD
in
New
Testament
at
HBl.
1
Stauffer,
"EL;,"
TDNT2:434.
2
Stauffer,
TDNT
2:435.
3
Richard
Bauckham,
Gospel
of
Glory:
Major
Themes
in
Johannine
Theology
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2015),
21.
4
Mark
L.
Appold,
The
Oneness
Motif
in
the
Fourth
Gospel:
Motif
Analysis
and
Exegetical
Probe
in
the
Theology
of
John
(Tubingen:
J.C.
Mohr,
1976),
261.
155
2)
we
have
"one"
father,
God
(8:41),
3)
so
there
will
be
"one"
flock
and
"one"
shepherd
(10:16b),
4)
the
Father
and
I
are
"one"
(10:30),
5)
to
have
"one"
man
die
for
the
people
(11:50),
6)
to
gather
into
"one"
the
dispersed
children
of
God
(11
:52b),
7)
so
that
they
may
be
"one"
as
we
are
"one"
(17:
11),
and
8)
that
they
may
all
be
"one"
(17:21a).
While
numerous
amounts
of
attention
has
been
given
to
Johannine
thematic
studies,
5
the
oneness
motif
has
received
inadequate
attention.
Thus,
this
paper
is
diachronic
in
its
approach.
It
considers
the
function
of
'one'
in
the
Old
Testament,
in
Philo,
in
Josephus,
in
the
New
Testament,
in
the
fourth
gospel
and
brings
out
certain
ecclesiastical
implications
for
the
current
Christendom.
'One'
in
the
Old
Testament
(OT)
The
Hebrew
word
11)�
(
'echadh)
is
a
common
term
which
has
been
translated
as
"one."
It
is
an
adjective,
a
cardinal,
ordinal,
and
distributive
number.6
As
a
cardinal
adjective
and
adverb,
it
means
"only,"
"solitary,"
"prominent,"
"alone,"
"same,"
"uniform,"
"entire,"
"undivided."?
There
are
also
other
lexical
cognates
of
'echadli
which
are
sometimes
used
interchangeably
with
it:
badhadh,
"alone,"
yachadh,
"unitedness,
all
together,''
yachidh,
"only,
alone,
solitary,"
lebhadh,
"alone,"
ri'shon,
"the
first."
8
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
this
term
also
has
a
plural
form
tl'"'Jt:,�
5
For
a
monograph
on
Johannine
Christology,
see,
Oscar
Cullmann,
The
Christology
of
the
New
Testament,
trans.,
Shirley
C.
Guthrie
and
Charles
A.M.
Hall
(Philadelphia:
Westminster,
1963).
6
Bergman
Lohfink,
"iry�"
TDOT
1:
193.
7
Lohfink,
TDOT
1:194.
8
Lohfink,
TDOT
1:
194.
156
(achadim).9
What
does
it
mean?
It
means,
as
Harris
explains,
"it
stresses
unity
while
recognizing
diversity
within
oneness."!"
Johan
Ferreira
calls
it
as
"unity
in
diversity
."11
In
the
Old
Testament,
'echadk
is
used
in
different
ways.
In
Isaiah
36:9;
Jeremiah
24:2;
Ezekiel
4:9;
and
Amos
4:8,
'echddh
is
used
as
a
numerical
adjective.
From
Jewish
religious
perspective,
'one'
is
a
theologically
very
potent
word
because
of
its
occurrence
in
Shema'?
and
it
signifies
the
absolute
monotheism.
The
title
"Shema"
(or
sometimes
"Shema
Israel")
is
derived
from
the
starting
word
of
Deut.
6:4
which
is
the
imperative
P9o/
"Hear!"
13
It
contains
several
other
passages
such
as
Deut.
6:4-9,
11:
13-21;
Num.
15:37-41).
It
was
"the
first
prayer
a
Jewish
child
learns,
and
the
last
words
uttered
by
or
on
behalf
of
a
Jewish
person
on
his
or
her
deathbed."14
The
Israelites
referred
to
Yahweh
as
the
"One
God"
(cf.
Gen.
41
:25;
Deut.
6:4;
Zech.
14:9
[One
Lord];
Mal.
2:
10).
Deuteronomy
6:4,
"Hear,
0
Israel!
The
LORD
is
our
God,
the
9
Johan
Ferreira,
Johannine
Ecclesiology
(England:
Sheffield
Academic,
1998),
133.
The
plural
form
O''Jt:1�
is
used
in
the
following
OT
passages:
Gen
,
11:1;
27:44;
29:20;
and
Dan
11:20.
10
R.L.
Harris,
Theological
Workbook
of
Old
Testament
(vol.
1;
Chicago:
Moody
Press,
1980),
60,
cited
in
Ferreira,
Johannine
Ecclesiology,
133,
11
Ferreira,
Johannine
Ecclesiology,
133.
12
Erik
Waaler,
The
Shema
and
The
Frist
Commandment
in
the
First
Corinthians:
An
Inter-textual
Approach
to
Paul's
Re-reading
of
Deuteronomy,
WUNT
2/253,
(Ttibingen:
Mohr
Siebeck,
2008),
chap.
4,
cited
in
Bauckham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
23.
.
.
.
13
Dean
McBride,
"The
Yoke
of
the
Kingdom:
An
Exposition
of
Deuteronomy
6:4-5,"
Interpretation
27
(1973):
275.
14
Lori
Baron,
"Interpreting
the
Shema:
Liturgy
and
Identity
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,"
ASE
27/2
(2010):
53;
Yitzhaq
Peder,
"The
Aniconic
Tradition,
Deuteronomy
4,
and
the
Politics
of
Israelite
Identity,"
JBL
132, no.
2
(2013):
252.
157
LORD
is
one!"
is
the
most
famous
Jewish
prayer."
It
bears
witness
to
the
experiences
of
the
living
presence
of
God
in
history
who
created
Israel
as
a
people.
It
indicates
that
there
were
no
other
gods
like
the
God
of
Israel.16
As
Duane
L.
Christensen
correctly
writes,
"The
word
11)�
in
the
text
of
the
Sberna
speaks
of'
oneness'
of
God,
for
the
doctrine
of
monotheism
is
implicit
in
this
brief
creedal
statement."
17
It
is
a
statement
of
"rnonoyahwism"
pronounced
against
"poly-Yahwism."18
It
shows
the
nature
of
the
relationship
between
Yahweh
and
Israel
which
includes
the
acknowledgment
that
God
is
one.19
In
the
context
of
developing
monotheism,
both
Deuteronomy
and
Deutero-Isaiah
provide
the
notion
of
Yahweh
as
the
'one
God'
and
the
'one'
and
'only
true
God.'20
Israel's
worship
of
the
'one
God'
also
indicates
her
identity
as
tribal
and
a
sole
dependent
on
him.21
15
N.T.
Wright,
The
New
Testament
and
the
People
of
God
(London:
SPCK,
1992),
248.
16
Duane
L.
Christensen,
Deuteronomy
1-21
:9,
WBC,
vol.
6A
(Dallas:
Word,
2002),
143.
17
Christensen,
Deuteronomy
1-21:9,
143.
Daniel
Block,
however,
argues
that
this
Shema
does
not
talk
about
monotheistic
confession,
"How
Many
is
God?
An
Investigation
into
the
Meaning
of
Deuteronomy
6:4-5,"
JETS
47/2
(June
2004),
211.
Similarly,
Jeffrey
Tigay
also
said
that
this
declaration
is
not
a
declaration
of
monotheism,
Deuteronomy
(Philadelphia:
Jewish
Publication
Society,
1996),
76.
Bauckham,
however,
argues
that
"any
passage
in
Jewish
literature
that
says
that
'God
is
one'
or
that
there
is
'one
God'
(meaning
'only
one
God')
can
be
confidently
regarded
as
an
echo
of
the
Shema,"
Gospel
of
Glory,
23.
18
Lohfink,
TDOT
1:
197.
19
Eugene
H.
Merrill,
Deuteronomy
(NAC,
vol.
4,
Nashville:
Broadman
&
Holman,
1994),
41.
20
Horst
Gietrich
Preuss,
Old
Testament
Theology
(Louisville:
Westminster
John
Knox,
1991),
1
:
34.
21
Preuss,
Old
Testament
Theology,
1:112.
158
Another
significant
aspect
of
1Q�
is
this
that
it
is
used
to
refer
to
Yahweh
as
the
"One
shepherd"
(Eccl.
12:11;
Ezek.
34:23;
37:24).
Jeremiah
32:29
and
Ezekiel
11:19
speak
about
the
phenomenon
of
"one
heart"
which
refers
to
the
work
of
the
Spirit
of
God
in
renewing
the
hearts
of
the
people.
In
addition,
1Q�
is
also
used
to
refer
to
the
concept
of
marriage
that
is
the
two
becoming
"one
flesh"
(Gen.
2:24).
Sometimes,
1Q�
is
used
to
refer
to
God's
giving
of
"one
law"
for
his
people
(Ex.
12:49;
Lev.
7:7;
Num.
15:
l5ff).
Thus,
in
the
OT,
one
is
used
to
indicate
the
oneness
of
God
and
as
a
language
of
polemic
against
the
surrounding
polytheism.
'One'
in
the
Frist
Century
CE
Jewish
Literatures
'One'
in
Josephus
The
cardinal
number
"one"
also
had
its
significant
in
the
first
century
CE
Jewish
sources.
Josephus,
who
was
one
of
the
Jewish
historians,
writes,
Whensoever,
having
conquered
the
land
of
Canaan
and
being
at
leisure
to
enjoy
those
bounties,
ye
shall
determine
from
that
time
forward
to
found
cities,
this
what
ye
should
do
that
your
actions
may
be
pleasing
to
God,
and
your
felicity
assured:
Let
there
b�
one
holy
city
in
that
place
in
the
land
of
Canaan
that
is
fairest
and
most
famous
for
its
excellence,
a
city
which
God
shall
choose
for
himself
by
prophetic
oracle.
And
let
there
be
one
temple
therein,
and
one
alter
of
stones,
not
worked
159
but
picked
out
and
put
together,
and
which,
coated
with
plaster,
will
be
seemly
and
neat
to
look
upon;
and
let
the
approach
to
this
alter
be
not
by
steps
but
by
sloping
embankment.
In
no
other
city
let
there
be
either
altar
or
temple;
for
God
is
one
and
the
Hebrew
race
is
one
(Josephus,
Ant.
4:200-201).
Thus,
in
the
writing
of
Josephus,
"one"
has
both
religious
(
one
altar,
one
temple,
God
is
one)
and
ethnic
(Hebrew
as
one
race)
identities.
In
another
place,
Josephus
again
contends,
"
...
For
we
are
all
of
Abraham's
stock,
whether
living
here
or
there,
and
it
is
one
God
who
brought
our
forefathers
and
yours
into
existence"
(Josephus,
Ant.
5:97;
5:112).
The
Israelites,
in
respect,
bowed
on
earth
and
worshipped
the
"one
God"
and
they
also
recognized
him
as
the
"Almighty
and
only
true
God"
(Josephus,
Ant.
8:343r
When
Alexander
the
Great
came
into
power,
he
was
amazed
by
the
outward
appearance
of
an
Israelite
priest,
and
he
said
"Tell
me,
I
pray,
what
god
you
worship.
For
I
have
never
seen
so
seemly
an
array
of
priests
among
those
of
our
gods."
The
priest,
in
response
to
Alexander
the
Great,
said:
"We
serve
one
God
who
created
heaven
and
earth
and
all
things
in
them"
(Josephus,
Ant.
Appendix
C.
515).
'One'
in
Philo
Philo,
who
was
also
a
Hellenistic
Jewish
writer-philosopher,
continues
the
same
idea
that
is
"one
God."
In
On
the
Special
Laws,
Philo
writes,"
...
the
kinship
of
having
one
citizenship
and
the
same
law
and
'one
God'
who
has
taken
all
members
of
the
nation
for
His
160
portion
...
"
(Philo,
Spec.
Leg.
4:159).
In
his
teaching
on
the
concept
of
God,
Philo
vividly
asserts,
"The
'one'
and
the
'monad'
are,
therefore,
the
only
standard
for
determining
the
category
to
which
God
belongs.
Rather
we
should
say,
the
'One
God'
is
the
sole
standard
for
the
'monad"'
(Philo,
Leg.
All.
2:3).
In
On
the
Creation,
Philo
explicitly
writes,
"God
is
one"
(Philo,
Op.
171).
"The
Levites
have
no
share
among
their
brothers
because
their
portion
is
the
'one
God"
(Philo,
Leg.
All.
2:53).
"One
God"
is
the
ruler
of
the
universe
(Philo,
Mos.2:168).
For
the
Israelites,
"the
first
and
most
sacred
of
commandments
(is)
to
acknowledge
and
honour
'one
God'
Who
is
above
all,
and
let
the
idea
that
gods
are
many
never
even
reach
the
ears
of
the
man
whose
rule
of
life
is
to
seek
for
truth
in
purity
and
guilelessness"
(Philo,
Decal.
65,
Spec.
Leg.
l:52,
Spec.
Leg.
2:258,
Spec.
Leg.
3:29).
When
Gaius
persecuted
the
Jews,
Philo
explains
the
religious
dedication
of
the
Jews,
"For
he
(Gaius)
looked
with
disfavor
on
the
Jews
alone
because
they
alone
opposed
him
on
principle,
trained
as
they
were
we
may
say
even
from
the
cradle,
by
parents
and
tutors
and
instructors
and
by
the
far
higher
authority
of
the
sacred
laws
and
also
the
unwritten
customs,
to
acknowledge
'one
God'
who
is
the
Father
and
Maker
of
the
world"
(Philo,
Leg.115).
In
his
explanation
on
the
book
of
Genesis,
Philo
in
comparison
states,
"
...
the
mind
is
firm,
as
the
'one
God'
is
firm"
(Philo,
Quaest
in
Gn.
4:53).
Sometimes,
the
phrase
'a
single
God'
is
also
used.
For
instance,
Philo
asserts,
"And
the
highest
and
greatest
source
of
this
unanimity
is
their
creed
of
a
single
God,
through
161
which,
as
from
a
fountain,
they
feel
love
for
each
other,
uniting
them
in
an
indissoluble
bond"
(Philo,
Virt.
35).
Thus,
as
seen
from
above,
the
cardinal
number
'one'
has
been
a
very
significant
number.
It
functions
as
'divine
adjective'
meaning
qualifying
God
as
solely
'one.'
Hence,
the
same
idea
has
been
repeated
throughout
the
history
of
Israel
from
the
OT
to
the
early
first
century
CE.
'One'
is
not
just
a
number.
As
for
the
Jews
(and
Christians),
it
indicates
religious
exclusivism
meaning
to
say,
'worship
of
one
God
alone'
or
as
Daniel
Smith
rightly
expresses,
"
...
it
(one)
is
both
monotheistic
and
monolithic."22
Besides,
there
are
also
other
passages
that
carry
the
same
thought.
In
2
Bar.
48.23-24,
it
is
written
that
"For
we
are
all
a
people
of
the
Name,
we,
who
have
received
one
Law
from
the
'One.
11123
1
QS
3
.l
3-4.26
is
a
Qumran
text
in
which
we
find
the
various
concepts
of
dualisms
(e.g.,
the
Sons
of
Light
and
the
sons
of
darkness,
the
Prince
of
light
and
the
Angel
of
darkness,
the
sons
of
righteousness
and
the
sons
of
deceit,
the
spirit
of
light
and
spirit
of
darkness).
In
this
text,
the
author
also
uses
the
cardinal
number
'one'
as
a
divine
adjective
"The
'one
God'
loves
all."24
Both
the
spirit
of
truth
and
the
spirit
of
deceit
(perversity)
are
subjugated
to
22
Daniel
Lynwood
Smith,
Into
the
World
of
the
New
Testament:
Greco-
Roman
and
Jewish
Texts
and
Contexts
(London:
Bloomsbury,
2015),
129.
23
Christopher,
R.
Bruno,
'God
is
One':
The
Function
of
Eis
ho
Theos
as
a
Ground
for
Gentile
Inclusion
in
Paul's
Letters
(London:
Bloomsbury,
2013),
67.
24
John
R.
Levison,
"The
Two
Spirits
in
Qumran
Theology,"
in
The
Bible
and
the
Dead
Sea
Scrolls,
ed.,
James
H.
Charlesworth
(Waco:
Baylor
University,
2006),
170.
162
this
'one
God'25
because
"
...
it
is
He
(God)
who
created
the
spirits
of
Light
and
Darkness
and
founded
every
action
upon
them
and
established
every
deed
[upon]
their
[ways]."
26
Thus,
in
Qumranic
understanding,
this
'one
God'
is
the
source
of
all
things
(both
good
and
evil
which
is
completely
different
from
that
of
John's
gospel)
.
27
'One'
in
the
New
Testament
(NT)
There
are
several
NT
passages
in
which
we
find
the
use
of
'one'
(
or
'only')
as
an
adjective
qualifying
the
noun.
Mark
the
evangelist,
quoting
from
Deut.
6:4,
writes,
"Jesus
answered,
the
first
is,
'Hear,
O
Israel:
the
Lord
our
God,
the
Lord
is
one;
you
shall
love
the
Lord
your
God
with
all
your
heart,
and
with
all
your
soul,
and
with
all
your
mind,
and
with
all
your
strength.'
The
second
is
this,
'You
shall
love
your
neighbor
as
yourself.'
There
is
no
other
commandment
greater
than
these.
Then
the
scribe
said
to
him,
'You
are
right,
Teacher;
you
have
truly
said
that
he
is
one,
and
beside
him,
there
is
no
other"'
(Mark
12:29-31).
Paul,
who
wrote
all
his
writings
before
the
gospels
were
penned
down,
declared
"Since
God
is
one;
and
he
will
justify
the
circumcised
on
the
ground
of
faith
and
the
uncircumcised
through
that
same
faith"
(Rom.
3:30).
In
his
discussion
on
'food
offered
to
the
idols,'
Paul
vividly
mentions
that
"There
is
no
God
but
one"
(1
25
James
H.
Charlesworth,
"A
Critical
Comparison
of
the
Dualism
in
1
QS
3:13-4:26
and
the
'Dualism'
Contained
in
the
Gospel
of
John,"
in
John
and
Qumran,
ed.,
James
H.
Charlesworth
(London:
Geoffrey
Chapman,
1972),
88.
26
G.
Vennes,
The
Dead
Sea
Scrolls
in
English
(Mitcham:
Penguin
Books
Ltd,
1962),
76.
21
Charlesworth,
"A
Critical
Comparison
of
the
Dualism
in
1
QS
3:13-
4:26,"
80.
163
164
Case
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Norn.
?'
µ{a-one
lv-
one
Ett;-
one
Acc.
lva
-one
µ{av-
one
ti
EV-
one
Gen.
Evo�
-
of
one
µu:i�
-
of
one
Evo�
-
of
one
Dat.
Evl
-
to/for
one
µt�
-
to/for
one
t'
to/for
EVt
-
one
As
an
adjective,
it
has
two
important
grammatical
aspects:
case
and
gender.
A
proper
demarcation
is
to
be
made
between
the
cardinal
adjectives
i;t�-
lv
and
the
two
proper
prepositions
i;l�-iv.
Thus,
they
can
be
distinguished
with
the
rough
and
smooth
breathing
marks
above
them.29
Thus,
in
the
fourth
gospel,
all
the
declined
forms
of
d�,
µ{a,
and
lv
are
found.
It
is
also
interesting
to
notice
the
narrative
development
of
Johannine
oneness
as
Andrew
Byers
offers:"
Ecclesiology
Ezek.
34
Jesus:
µ{a
no{µvY),
and
Christology
and
37
et�
notµ�v.
narripa
The
Jews:
Eva
John
Deut.
6:4
OT
Text
Theology
Connotation
Oneness
Verses
8:41
10:16
Cor.
8:4c)
or
"there
is
one
God,
the
Father"
(1
Cor.
8:6a).
In
Galatians
3:20,
Paul
again
explicitly
states,"
...
God
is
one."
In
his
admonishment
to
the
Ephesian
believers,
Paul
uses
'one'
in
ample
of
ways:
"one
body
and
one
Spirit,"
(Eph.
4:4a),
"one
hope"
(
4:4b
),
"one
Lord,
one
faith,
one
baptism"
(4:5),
and
"one
God
and
Father
of
all"
(
4:6a).
In
his
letters
to
his
spiritual
son
Timothy,
Paul
writes,
"For
there
is
one
God"
(1
Tim.
2:5a),
and
"the
only
God"
(1
Tim.
1:
17b).
Finally,
James
also
says
that
"You
believe
that
God
is
one"
(James
2:19).
Thus,
while
there
could
be
many
other
passages
that
talk
about
'one,'
the
references
mentioned
above
are
the
key
ones.
One,
as
seen
from
above,
is
not
just
a
digit
number
instead
it
is
a
divine
adjective.
John's
Use
of
er�,
µ.la,
and
lv
(One):
Johannine
Oneness
Motif's
The
above
discussions
reveal
that
throughout
the
history
of
Israel,
"one"
in
most
of
the
time
is
used
concerning
God
that
is
either
to
say
'God
is
one'
or
'one
God.'
The
fourth
evangelist,
however,
goes
further
when
he
uses
the
word
"one."
Thus,
the
followings
are
the
various
ways
in
which
the
word
"one"
is
used
in
the
fourth
gospel.
However,
before
switching
over
to
the
following
discussions,
it
is
essential
to
provide
certain
grammatical
aspects
of
the
word
"one."
Both
in
Classical
and
Kaine
Greek,
one
is
a
declinable
adjective.
Thus
d�,
µ(a,
and
ev
can
be
declined
as
follows:"
.
28
Je�emy
Duff,
The
Elements
of
New
Testament
Greek
(Cambridge:
Cambndge
U�tversity,20�5),
150;
J.W.
Wenham,
The
Elements
of
New
Testament
Gr�ek(Cambndge:
Cam�ndge
University,
1965),
127;
Rodney
J.
Decker,Reading
Kame
Greek
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2014),
204.
29
Wenham,
The
Elements
of
New
Testament
Greek,
127.
30
Andrew
J.
Byers,
Ecclesiology
and
Theosis
in
the
Gospel
of
John
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University,
2017),
130.
165
166
With
this,
we
will
now,
consider
the
various
functions
of
er�,
µla,
and
EV
in
the
fourth
gospel.
31
Everett
Ferguson,
Backgrounds
of
Early
Christianity
(Grand
Rapids:
Wi1Jiam
B.
Eerdmans,
1987),
503;
G.K.
Beale,
A
New
Testament
Biblical
Theology:
The
Unfolding
of
the
Old
Testament
in
the
New
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2011),
458,
576;
Wayne
A.
Meeks,
The
Prophet-King:
Moses
Traditions
and
the
Johannine
Christology
(Leiden:
E.J.
Brill,
1967),
238.
Theological
Oneness
The
emphasis
upon
monotheism
is
one
of
the
greatest
uniquenesses
of
the
Jews.
31
Udo
Schnelle
correctly
marks,
"Israel's
confession
of
Yahweh
as
the
one
and
only
God
...
became
in
Deutero-Isaiah
the
32
Udo
Schnelle,
Theology
of
the
New
Testament,
trans.,
M.
Eugene
Boring
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2007),
81
33
H.D.
Beyz,
''f:lc;,
µ(a,
Ev,"
EDNT
1:399.
34
Byers,
Ecclesiology,
and
Theosis
in
the
Gospel
of
John,
131.
35
Bauckham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
32.
36
Herman
Ridderbos,
The
Gospel
of
John:
A
Theological
Commentary,
trans.,
John
Vriend
(Grand
Rapids:
William
B.
Eerdmans,
1997),
313.
37
·
Andreas
J.
Kostenberger,
John,
BECNT
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2004),
265.
fundamental
theological
concept."
32
H.D.
Beyz
writes,
"Early
Christianity
consciously
adopts
from
Judaism
...
the
monotheistic
formula
er�
o
9eo�,
'God
is
one."'33
Thus,
this
concept
of
the
oneness
of
Yahweh
is
continued
both
in
early
Judaism
and
Christianity.
In
the
gospel
of
John,
the
idea
of
the
oneness
of
God
is
explicitly
stated
in
8:41.
The
immediate
context
in
which
the
Jews
uttered
this
phrase
isva
narripa
lxoµev
rrov
Be6v
(we
have
one
Father,
God)
is
that
they
were
boasting
themselves
in
being
the
offspring
of
Abraham.
Jesus
tells
the
Jews
concerning
"freedom"
(v.
32).
In
response
to
Jesus'
statement
"Truth
will
make
you
free"
(v.
33),
the
Jews
then
responded
to
him
by
saying
that
they
were
never
enslaved
to
anyone
because
they
were
the
children
of
Abraham.
Jesus,
however,
is
talking
about
slavery
to
sin.
The
phrase
"we
have
one
Father,
God,"
signifies
the
oneness
of
God
which
is
derived
from
the
Shema.34
Here,
the
Jews
by
using
the
Greek
word
isva
(one),
they
mean
that
they
are
"the
children
of
the
one and
only
divine
father
...
"35
This
is
a
reference
to
Jewish
monotheism36
and
it
indicates
that
the
Jews
were
keeping
with
the
OT
teaching
37
or
as
Craig
Keener
asserts,
"they
(the
Jews)
echo
a
long
line
of
biblical
"
EV
't"e't"EAEtwµivot
d�
Jesus:
Yva
6JO"tv
O
leO":KopmO"µEVa
O"Uvayayn
ei;
EV.
anoeavn
:N"arrator:
rra
34
Caiaphas:
O"uµ<f)Epet
uµ'i'v
Yva
er�
avepwno�
34
and
37
Deut.
6:4
and
Ezek.
Ezek.
and
37
Ecclesiology
and
Christology
Theology
and
Deut.
6:4;
Jesus:
€yw
xal
o
Christology
Ezek.
34
narr�p
EV
fo-µev
and
37
Ecclesiology
17:
11,
21-
Theology,
23
Christology,
and
10:30
11:49-52
167
and
Jewish
tradition."
38
Thus,
it
is
understandable
that
oneness
motif
is
also
one
of
the
causes
for
the
execution
of
Jesus
by
the
Jews
as
we
will
see
in
the
following
section.
Son-Father
Oneness
Jesus'
statement
"I
and
my
Father
are
one"39
conveys
equality
and
unity
with
the
Father.
It
suggests,
as
C.K.
Barrett
aptly
puts
it,
"Father
and
Son
is
oneness
in
love
and
obedience
even
while
it
is
a
oneness
of
essence.":"
Jesus'
use
of
the
neuter
EV
suggests
that
he
and
his
Father
are
one
in
action:
"what
Jesus
does,
the
Father
does,"41
and
vice
versa.
In
doing
the
mission,
both
the
Son
and
the
Father
are
mutually
dependent,
and
this
mutual
dependency
also
indicates
their
equality
.
42
The
concepts
of
oneness,
unity,
and
quality
are
found
throughout
the
narratives
of
the
fourth
gospel.
The
prologue
of
John
exhibits
"the
Son-Father
characterization"
43
by
stressing
on
their
oneness
(1:1-3).
The
pre-
existence
of
both
the
Son
and
the
Father
expresses
their
unity
(
1:
1-
2),
closeness
(1:
1-2,
18),
co-creators
in
creation
(1
:3),
and
shared
38
Craig
S.
Keener,
The
Gospel
of
John:
A
Commentary
(Vol.
l,
Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2003),
759.
39
John
Calvin,
however,
argues
"Christ
does
not
argue
about
the
unity
of
substance,
but
about
the
agreement
that
he
has
with
the
Father,
so
that
whatever
is
done
by
Christ
will
be
confirmed
by
the
power
of
his
Father,"
cited
in
Ridderbos,
The
Gospel
of
John,
371.
40
C.K.
Barrett,
The
Gospel
According
to
St.
John
(Philadelphia:
The
Westminster,
1978),
382.
41
D.A.
Carson,
The
Gospel
According
to
John
(Grand
Rapids:
William
B.
Eerdmans,
1991),
394.
42
Adesola
Joan
Akala,
The
Son-Father
Relationship
and
Christological
Symbolism
in
the
Gospel
oflohn
(New
York:
T&T
Clark,
2014),
110.
43
Akala,
The
Son-Father
Relationship,
110.
168
glory
(1
:14).44
As
the
narrative
develops
from
one
scene
to
another,
John
repeatedly
emphasizes
Jesus'
oneness
with
the
Father
particularly
in
the
context
of
Jewish
religious
rulers.
For
instance,
5:17-19
elevates
the
theme
of
unity
when
Jesus
utters
that
he
is
equal
with
God.
Jesus'
healing
on
the
Sabbath
at
the
Pool
of
Bethesda
demonstrates
the
idea
that
he
and
the
Father
are
simultaneously
working
together.
Jesus'
claim
for
equality
with
God
provokes
the
Jews
to
execute
him.
The
climax
on
the
development
of
the
theme
of
oneness
is
found
in
10:30
where
Jesus
says,
"I
and
my
Father
are
one."45
John
in
this
verse
uses
the
neuter
ev
(one).
Jesus'
statement
echoes
the
"fundamental
confession
of
Judaism:
'Hear,
0
Israel:
The
LORD
our
God,
the
LORD
is
one'"46
(Deut.
6:4).
There
are
some
group
of
scholars
who
argue
that
John
10:30
does
not
echo
Deut.
6:4
because
there
is
a
shift
in
the
genre
of
"one."
In
Deut.
6:4,
one
is
masculine
and
neuter
in
John
10:30.
This
argument
seems
to
be
appealing.
However,
it
is
not
the
conclusion.
A
grammatical
explanation
of
the
change
of
gender
can
be
provided.
Chrys
Caragounis
explains
the
change
of
gender
from
masculine
to
neuter
in
the
following
words,
"the
neuter
gender
may
be
used
of
a
person
when
the
emphasis
is
not
on
the
person
as
such,
but
on
qualities
or
characteristics
that
are
true
of
persons
or
that
the
44
Akala,
The
Son-Father
Relationship,
110.
45
Akala,
The
Son-Father
Relationship,
110.
46
Kostenberger,
John,
312.
169
person
in
question
also
possesses."47
Caragounis
further
explains,
"the
neuter
...
also
expresses
inclusiveness
that
is
absent
from
the
masculine
(and
even
more
so
from
the
feminine)."48
Thus,
applying
this
concept
to
John
10:30,
the
neuter
EV
is
neither
talking
about
Jesus
nor
the
father
rather
their
qualities
of
equality,
unity,
and
even
community.
Thus,
it
does
echo
the
Sberna
as
Bauckham
asserts,"
...
the
word
'one'
...
could
not
fail
to
recall
the
Shema
for
any
Jewish
hearer
or
reader.
The
uniqueness
of
the
one
God,
as
asserted
by
the
Sberna,
must,
therefore,
be
evoked."49
While
this
verse
echoes
the
Sberna,
it
also
creates
a
dispute
'what
sort
of
oneness
is
Jesus
talking:
either
functional
oneness
or
oneness
of
essence?'
Most
of
the
scholars,
however,
a
site
with
the
view
that
Jesus,
here,
is
talking
about
the
functional
unity
.5
°
Keener
rightly
points,
"
...
the
use
of
the
neuter
for
'one'
suggests
unity
of
purpose
rather
than
the
identity
of
the
person."51
The
immediate
context
of
John
10
requires
"a
functional
unity
of
the
Son
and
the
Father
in
their
care
for
the
sheep
in
mind."52
In
other
words,
they
are
one
in
what
they
do
but
not
in
person.53
Or
as
F.F.
Bruce
aptly
asserts,
"So
responsive
is
the
Son
47
Chrys
C.
Caragounis,
The
Development
of
Greek
and
the
New
Testament:
Morphology,
Syntax,
Phonology,
and
Textual
Transmission
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2004),
236.
48
Caragounis,
The
Development
of
Greek
and
the
New
Testament,
237.
49
Bauckham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
32.
5
°
Carson,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
394,
Ridderbos,
The
Gospel
of
John,
371;
Kostenberger,
John,
312.
51
Keener,
The
Gospel
of
John,
826.
52
George
R.
Beasley-Murray,
John,
WBC,
vol.
36
(Texas:
Word
Books,
1999),
174.
53
Beasley-Murray,
John,
174.
170
to
the
Father
that
he
is
one
in
mind,
one
in
purpose,
one
in
action
with
him."54
To
go
further,
the
father-son
oneness
is
also
found
in
father's
sending
of
the
son
as
Appold
asserts,
"The
Father's
oneness
with
Jesus
is
present
in
terms
of
his
sending
the
Son
and
Son's
oneness
with
the
Father
in
terms
of
his
corning
as
the
manifestation
of
God
among
men."55
Jesus
vividly
portrayed
himself
as
the
sent
one
from
the
father.
He
describes
the
father
as
6
1ri§µ�a;
(the
one
who
sent)
him56
but
never
portrays
as
6
a1roo-rrE[Aa;
(the
one
who
sent).57
Thus,
the
father-son
functional
oneness
can
also
be
found
in
the
sending
motif
which
also
exhibits
their
intimate
relationship.
The
father-son
oneness
in
function
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
the
son
descends
from
the
father
(8:42),
and
the
sender
is
always
with
the
sent
one
(8:29).
The
father
loves
the
son
(3:35),
and
the
son
knows
the
father
very
closely
(8:55;
10:15).
In
doing
the
earthly
mission,
the
son
does
only
what
he
has
seen
the
father
do
(5:
19),judges
and
speaks
only
what
he
hears
from
the
father
(5:30).
The
father
taught
the
son
(8:28)
and
gave
him
the
54
F.F.
Bruce,
The
Gospel
o.f
John:
Introduction,
Exposition,
and
Notes
(Grand
Rapids:
William
B.
Eerdmans,
1983),
233.
55
Appold,
Oneness
Motif
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,
283.
56
John
1:33;
5:37;
6:44;
7:28;
8:16,
18,
26,
29;
12:49,
as
Tov
1riµt1XVTa
in
5:23; 7:33;
12:44,
45;
13:20;
15:21
and
16:5,
as
Tou
n€µi.j;an6;
in
4:34;
5:30;
6:38,
39;
7:16,
18;
9:4;
13:16
and
14:24.
The
verb
niµnw
is
used
four
times
in
Matthew,
once
in
Mark,
and
ten
times
in
Luke,
Ferreira,
Johannine
Ecclesiology,
168.
57
Ferreira,
Iohannine
Ecclesiology,
192.
171
power
of
judgment
(5:22)
and
of
giving
and
possessing
life
(5:21,
26;
6:57)
.58
John
10:30
is
the
verse
that
provokes
the
Jews
to
annihilate
Jesus.
Thus,
again
it
is
noticeable
that
Jesus'
public
declaration
of
his
oneness
with
the
father
is
one
of
the
main
causes
for
his
crucifixion
in
the
fourth
gospel.
Jesus-Father
oneness
motif
is
still
evident
in
John
17:
11
where
Jesus
prays,"
...
so
that
they
may
be
one
just
as
we
are
one."
Jesus-Father
oneness
motif,
on
the
fourth
gospel,
serves
as
an
epitome
for
the
ecclesiastical
oneness:
how
the
believers
are
to
be
united.
Racial
and
Ecclesiastical
Oneness
The
fourth
evangelist
also
uses
"one"
to
refer
to
the
oneness
of
all
the
believers,
or
we
may
call
it
as
'EccJesiastical
oneness.'
Father-
son
oneness
is
a
set
pattern
or
an
example
after
which
the
believers
are
called
to
unite
together.
John
uses
"one"
to
refer
to
"the
people
of
God"
six
times
(
10:
16;
11:
5
2;
and
four
times
in
chapter
1
7).
These
passages
are
the
echoes
of
the
OT
passages
(Ezek.
37:21-
24).sY
Racial
Oneness
John
l
O
is
a
parabolic
discourse
of
Jesus
concerning
the
shepherd
and
the
sheepfold
which
can
be
related
to
the
OT
passages:
Ezek.
58
Raymond
E.
Brown,
The
Gospel
According
to
John
(I-XII):
Introduction,
Translation,
and
Notes,
AB
(New
York:
Doubleday
&
Company,
Inc.,
1966),
407.
59
Bauck:ham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
32.
172
37:21-24;
Isa.56:8;
Jer.
23:1-2;
and
Zech.
11:3-5.
60
In
Ezekiel,
there
are
two
divided
nations
from
one
single
nation:
the
northern
and
southern
kingdom
of
Israel.
It
is
the
gathering
of
the
uprooted
and
the
scattered
Jews
by
God
from
every
corner
of
the
world.
The
question,
now,
is
'how
does
Ezekiel
fit
into
John
10:
16?'
In
John
10:
16,
the
fourth
evangelist
writes,
"And
I
(Jesus)
have
other
sheep,
which
are
not
of
this
fold;
I
must
bring
them
also,
and
they
shall
hear
My
voice,
and
they
shall
become
one
flock
with
one
shepherd"
(NASB).
In
this
verse,
Jesus
says
"I
have
other
sheep."
Who
are
these
people?
There
are
two
suggestions
given:
(1)
"other
sheep"
are
the
second
generation
believers
who
have
not
been
personal
witnesses
of
the
historical
Jesus
and
(2)
John
might
be
referring
to
"the
uniting
of
Ephraim
and
Judah
under
one
shepherd
in
Ezekiel
37:22-24,
and
that
therefore
the
'other
sheep'
are
the
Samaritan
believers
of
4:39-42."
61
These
two
opinions,
however,
are
not
convincing.
Instead,
it
could
be
as
Bauckham
asserts,
"John
certainly
has
transmuted
that
thought
in
some
way,
most
likely
by
thinking
of,
on
the
one
hand,
Jewish
believers
in
Jesus
('this
fold'),
and,
on
the
other
hand,
Gentile
believers
('other
sheep')."62
If
it
'other
sheep'
are
referred
to
Gentiles
believers,
John
does
not,
however,
repudiate
Ezekiel's
hope
of
gathering
of
all
people.
John
rather
is
escalating
"the
hope
to
include
the
Gentiles
also."63
60
Lori
Ann
Robinson
Baron,
"The
Shema
in
John's
Gospel
Against
its
Backgrounds
in
Second
Temple
Judaism"
(Ph.D.
diss.,
Duke
University,
2015),
335.
61
Keener,
The
Gospel
of
John,
818.
62
Bauck:ham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
30.
63
Bauck:ham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
30.
173
Through
Jesus,
the
Jews
and
the
Gentiles
are
made
united
into
one
flock."
In
other
words,
"the
sheep
of
the
different
folds
are
not
to
remain
in
their
separateness,
but
'they
shall
become
one
flock,'
under
the
care
of
the
one
Shepherd."65
It
is
the
lofty
vision
of
a
community
consisted
of
both
Jews
and
Gentiles,
and
they
are
united
by
faith
in
the
"God-sent
Messiah
."66
Thus,
the
amalgamation
of
Jewish
and
the
Gentiles
Christians
can
be
taken
as
both
racial
oneness
and
ecclesiastical
oneness.
The
phrase
"one
flock
and
one
shepherd"
functions
as
a
metaphor
for
God's
providential
care
for
his
people
which
is
found
in
the
OT
prophetic
literature67
and
which
also
continued
in
the
later
Jewish
writings
(Ps.
Sol.
17:40;
2
Bar.
77:
13-17).68
In
its
immediate
context,
however,
the
phrase
also
signifies
the
vision
of
unity
and
prepares
the
readers
for
the
main
theme
of
chapter
1769
which
is
an
ecclesiastical
oneness.
Ecclesiastical
Oneness
John
17
is
classified
as
"high-priestly
prayer."?"
However,
it
does
do
justice
to
the
prayer
because
even
though
there
is
a
priestly
motif
in
Jesus'
intermediating
for
the
believers,
it
underplays
other
64
Leon
Morris,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
NICNT
(Grand
Rapids:
William
B.
Eerdmans,
1995),
327.
65
Beasley-Murray,
John,
170.
66
Andreas
J.
Kostenberger,
"Jesus
the
Good
Shepherd
who
will
also
Bring
Other
Sheep
(John
10:
16):
The
Old
Testament
Background
of
a
Familiar
Metaphor,"
Bulletin
for
Biblical
Research
12.1
(2002),
67.
67
Jer.
3:15;
23:4-6;
Ezek.
34:23-24;
37:15-28;
Mic.
2:12;
5:3-5.
68
Kostenberger,
John,
307
69
Carson,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
388.
70
Morris,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
455.
1
...
'
�\
174
significant
themes
such
as
the
concept
Son-Father
glorification,
future
believers,
unity,
mission,
discipleship
and
the
context
of
Jesus'
departure.
Instead,
it
is
wiser
to
use
a
neutral
title:
"Jesus'
final
prayer.'?'
This
chapter
can
be
divided
into
four
divisions:
1)
Jesus
addresses
the
father,
informs
the
completion
of
the
given
work,
and
prays
for
father-son
glorification
(vv.
1-5),
2)
Jesus
prays
for
his
disciples
(vv.
6-19),
3)
Jesus
prays
for
the
later
generation
believers
(vv.
20-24),
and
4)
Jesus
reviews
the
results
of
his
mission
on
earth
(vv.
25-26).72
As
a
whole,
the theme
of
ecclesiastical
unity
or
oneness
runs
through
the
chapter.
This
chapter
reveals,
Keener
rightly
notes,
"standard
Jewish
motifs,
such
as
the
unity
of
God's
people
...
"73
John,
the
evangelist,
represents
Jesus
as
the
mediator
of
ecclesiastical
unity.
John,
in·
chapter
17,
vividly
emphasizes
the
oneness
of
the
believers
(vv.
11,
21,
22,
and
23).
The
Greek
construction,
however,
seems
to
be
interesting:
Yva
W<rlV
gv
(11),
Yva
naV'TE�
EV
W<rlV
(21),
Yva
Ci>O"lV
EV
xaew�
�µET�
EV
(22),
and
Yva
Ci>O"lV
't'E'TEAElWµEVOl
EL�
EV
(23).
John
uses,
in
all
three
verses,
Yva
+
present
subjective.
This
sort
of
Yva
can
be
called
as
"final"
or
"telic
Yva."
74
It
focuses
on
"the
71
Francis
J.
Moloney,
The
Gospel
of
John
(Collegeville,
Minn.:
Liturgical
Press,
1998),
458.
72
Barrett,
The
Gospel
According
to
St.
John,
499.
On
the
other
hand,
there
are
also
other
divisions
on
John
17
such
as
(1-8,
9-19,
20-26),
see,
Brown,
The
Gospel
According
to
John
(XIII-XX[),
748;
Moloney,
The
Gospel
of
John,
458-59,
(1-5,
6-8,
9-19,
20-26),
see,
C.H.
Dodd,
The
Interpretation
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University,
1953),417,
and
(1-5,
6-1
la,
1
lb-
19,
20-23,
24-26),
see,
Pale
Marianus
Hera,
Christology
and
Discipleship
in
John
17
(Tiibingen:
Mohr
Siebeck,
2013),
116-17.
73
Keener,
The
Gospel
of
John,
1050.
74
Daniel
B.
Wallace,
Greek
Grammar
Beyond
the
Basics
(Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan,
1996),
472.
175
intention
of
the
action
of
the
main
verb
...
"
75
The
action
that
has
to
be
accomplished
is
that
the
believers
are
to
be
united.
The
use
of
the
present
subjunctive,
here,
is
worthy
of
note.
It
"views
activity
as
durative,
ongoing,
or
repetitive
in
nature"76
while
aorist
subjunctive
denotes
"a
unitary
action,
whether
viewed
from
the
perspective
of
its
beginning
(inceptive),
its
completed
state
(resultative),
or
its
totality
(summary)."?"
It
is
not
to
be
thought
that
the
use
of
subjunctive
necessarily
implies
"any
doubt
about
the
fulfillment
of
the
verbal
action
on
the
part
of
the
speaker"78
since
it
is
used
along
with
Yva.
Thus,
Yva
+
present
subjective
(tva
&aw)
implies
that
the
oneness
of
the
believers
or
the
ecclesiastical
oneness
is
to
be
carried
on
always.
John
here
again
uses
the
nominative
neuter
EV.
The
use
of
neuter
describes
both
male
and
female
believers.
In
order
to
contrast
between
son-father
oneness
and
oneness
of
believer,
John
uses
an
adverb
"xaBw�"
meaning
"as"
or
"just
as"
or
"even
as."
It
is
one
of
the
most
important
words
in
John
because
it
occurs
32
times."
"The
comparative
conjunction
xaew�
is
very
significant
here,
and
indeed
for
the
understanding
of
Johannine
ecclesiology,"
asserts
Johan
Ferreira."
Ka8w�
in
vv.
11,
21,
and
22
has
a
"comparative
force"
and
not
"a
causative
sense"
75
Wallace,
Greek
Grammar
Beyond
the
Basics,
472.
76
James
Allen
Hewett,
New
Testament
Greek:
A
Beginning
and
Intermediate
Grammar
(Grand
Rapids:
Baker
Academic,
2009),
205.
77
Hewett,
New
Testament
Greek,
205.
78
Wallace,
Greek
Grammar
Beyond
the
Basics,
472.
79
John
1:23;
3:14;
5:23,
30;
6:31,
57,
58;
7:38;
8:28;
10:15,
26;
12:14,
50;
13:
15,
33,
34;
14:27,
31;
15:4,
9,
10,
12;
17:2,
11,
14,
16,
18,
21,
22,
23; 19:40;
20:21;
19:40;
20:21.
8
°
Ferreira,
Johannine
Ecclesiology,
118.
176
(that
they
may
be
one
because
we
are
one.)"
The
tone
in
v.
11
is
that
the
believers
are
to
be
united
even
as
the
son
and
the
father
are
united.
The
problem,
however,
is
this
that
"such
unity
is
beyond
human
ability
and
is
the
result
and
gift
of
the
divine
grace."82
Barrett
comments
that
"the
disciples
are
to
be
kept
by
God
not
as
units
but
as
a
unity
...
"83
Carson,
however,
says
that
Barrett
misses
the
point
and
writes
that
"They
are
not
kept
as
a
unity;
rather,
their
unity
is
the
purpose
of
their
being
kept."
84
Which
means
that
"The
unity
prayed
for
is
a
unity
already
given:
Jesus
does
not
pray
that
they
h
'
.
11
b
'
"85
may
'become'
one,
but
that
t
ey
may
contmua
y
e
one.
·
Verse
21
continues
the
theme
of
the
oneness
of
believers
and
provides
the
reason
why
Jesus
is
also
praying
for
future
believers.86
It
is
interesting
to
notice
that
John
in
v
21
presents
the
purpose
of
Jesus'
prayer
with
three
purpose
clauses:
l'va
nane:�
EV
&cnv
(that
they
all
may
be
one)
l'va
xal
aurrol
tv
�µ.rv
&aw
(that
they may
also
be
in
us)
l'va
o
x6uµ.o�
mcrrrEun
O'rl
O"U
µ.E
Cl7t'ECT'r€lAa�
(that
the
world
may
believe
that
you
have
sent
me)
Here,
the
oneness
among
the
believers
is
modeled
after
the
likeness
of
the
interrelationship
of
the
father
and
the
son.87
The
believers'
81
Bauckham,
Gospel
of
Glory,
35.
82
Kostenberger,
John,
494.
83
Barrett,
The
Gospel
According
to
St.
John,
508.
s
4
Carson,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
562.
ss
Morris,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
459.
86
Ferreira,
Iohannine
Ecclesiology,
127.
87
Gerald
L.
Borchert,.lohn
12-21
,NAC,
vol.
25B
(Nashville:
Broadrnan
&
Holman
Publishers,
2002),
206.
177
unity
is
to
be
grounded
in
Jesus'
oneness
with
the
father.88
The
concept
of
reciprocal
unity
is
evident.
Reciprocal
unity
because
son-father
unitedness
is
reflected
in
the
believers'
relationship
with
Jesus.89
The
unity
between
son
and
father
can
be
classified
as
vertical
unity.
Son-father
unity
can
be
understood
in
terms
of
indwelling:
As
you,
Father,
are
in
me
and
I
am
in
you
(v.21).
The
phrases
in
v.
21
(xaBw�
cru,
7rct'"L"Ep,
EV
Eµol
xayw
EV
CJ"Ot
-
just
as,
you,
father,
in
me
and
I in
you)
and
v.
23
(Eyw
EV
at'.nor�
xal
CTU
EV
Eµot
-
I
in
them
and
you
in
me)
suggest
the
concept
of
'indwelling.'
Verse
21
suggests
a
'mutual
indwelling'
as
Murray
Harris
rightly
asserts,
"The
Father
indwells
the
Son,
the
Son
indwells
the
Father,
but
neither
is
'absorbed'
by
the
other.t'"
In
the
same
way,
Harris
continues,
"Christ
indwells
the
believer,
and
the
believer
indwells
Christ,
but
neither
surrenders
individual
distinctiveness
by
this
mutuality."
91
Andrew
Bigger
also
writes,
"Unity
is
then
mutual
and
expressed
by
indwelling."92
To
put
it
differently,
the
oneness
of
believers
is
to
be
found
in
their
love
for
another
in
which
God's
love
88
Ridderbos,
The
Gospel
of
John,
560.
Beasley-Murray,
however,
suggests
that
John
may
have
had
the
Qumran
community's
concept
of
unity
in
mind
and
may
have been
criticizing
against
their
concept
of
unity
with
the
heavenly
host.
It
can
be
called
as
vertical
unity
because
it
is
a
unity
between
the
saints
below
and
the
saints
above;
the
fellowship
between angels
and
men,
John,
301.
89
Andrew
J.
Bigger,
"Christology
and
Ecclesiology
in
the
Fourth
Gospel"
(M.A.
Thesis,
University
of
Durham,
1983),
139-40.·
90
Murray
J.
Harris,
Prepositions
and
Theology
in
the
Greek
New
Testament
(Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan,
135.
91
Harris,
Prepositions
and
Theology,
135.
Borcher
goes
even
further
and
called
this
indwelling
as
"indwelling
in
the
Godhead,"
John
72-21,
206.
The
text,
however,
is
silent
about
the
Holy
Spirit.
The
text
vividly
focuses
on
the
one-
another-indwelling
of
the
Father,
the
Son,
and
the
community/believers.
92
Bigger,
"Christology
and
Ecclesiology
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,"
140.
178
for
them
is
the
foundation.
It
consists
of
both
"vertical
axis
(believers-God)
and
a
horizontal
axis
(between
believers)."93
What
sort
of
oneness
is
Jesus
praying
for?
Jesus
prayed
for
"the
inner
oneness
of
the
community
,"94
"a
unity
of
love,"95
and
not
simply
a
"matter
of
unanimity
."96
They
are
united
in
endless
love,97
"one
in
action
undertaken
with
and
for
one
another,
and
in
a
joint
submission
to
the
revelation
received."98
The
source
of
the
oneness
of
believers, however,
is
not
only
in
Jesus
but
also
in
God,
in
particular,
"in
the
union
of
Father
and
Son."99
According
to
the
last
phrase
(l'va
6
XOCT(-lO�
mCT'"L"Eun
orrt
cru
µe
anforrEtAa�
-
that
the
world
may
believe
that
you
have
sent
me)
of
v.
21,
the
ultimate
aim
of
Jesus'
prayer
for
unity
is
so
that
the
world
may
believe."?
In
other
words,
by
having
the
unity
of
love,
the
outsiders
among
the
Johannine
community
will
come
to
faith
or
belief
in
Jesus.
Alternatively,
as
Magnus
Grovle
Vesteraas
rightly
denotes,
"
...
mission
is
the
telos
of
the
oneness
of
the
believers
...
"
101
Adesola
Joan
Akala
also
stresses
that
"the
unity
of
the
Father,
the
Son,
and
93
Magnus
Grovle
Vesteraas,
"As
the
Father
has
loved
me,
so
I
have
loved
you:
A
Study
of
the
Parallels
between
the
Father/Son
and
Son/Disciple
Relations
in
the
Gospel
of
John"
(MTh.
Thesis,
MF
Norwegian
School
of
Theology,
2016),
68.
94
Bultmann,
The
Gospel
of
John,
512.
95
Bruce,
The
Gospel
of
John,
335.
96
Barrett,
The
Gospel
According
to
St.
John,
512.
97
Vestcraas,
"As
the
Father
has
loved
me,
so
I
have
loved
you,"
68.
98
Carson,
The
Gospel
According
to
John,
568.
99
John
E.
Staton,
"A
Vision
of
Unity-Christian
Unity
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,"
EQ
69:4
(1997):
292.
10
°
Ferreira,
Johannine
Ecclesiology,
128.
.101
Vesteraas,
"As
the
Father
has
loved
me,
so
I
have
loved
you,"
68.
179
the
disciples
is
ultimately
directed
to
the
world.t'l'"
Similarly,
Brown
writes,
"The
unity
and
indwelling
visible
among
Jesus'r"
followers
challenge
the
world
to
believe
in
Jesus'
mission,
and
thus
indirectly
the
world
is
included
in
Jesus'
prayer."?"
The
unity
of
love
can
also
be
categorized
as
lifestyle
evangelism.
Thus,
John,
in
v.
21,
gives
an
idea
that
the
believers
are
to
be
united
with
one
another
in
their
love
and
carrying
out
the
mission
of
God,
with
the
father
and
the
son,
so
doing,
the
world
may
come
to
know
that
Jesus
is
the
sole
sent
one
from
the
father
and
that
he
and
the
father
are
one.
The
idea
in
v,
21
is
this
that
by
the
unification
of
the
believers,
the
world
will
come
to
believe.
John
escalates
this
idea
in
v.
23
(the
disciples
are
to
be
completely
one).
However,
the
shift
here
is
that
by
completely
uniting,
the
world
will
not
only
believe
but
also
it
will
know
that
Jesus
is
one
with
the
father.
Thus,
it
can
be
said
that
in
John,
believing
in
the
oneness
of
father
and
son
results
into
knowing
God.
Conclusion
The
above
study
is
centered
on
the
various
ways
in
which
John
uses
the
numerical/cardinal
number
'one.'
Thus,
from
the
study,
firstly,
it
can
be
concluded
that
when
John
uses
'one,'
he
echoes
the
Shema
of
the
Old
Testament.
As
seen
earlier,
the
idea
of
the
monotheistic
nature
of
Israelite
religion
is
conveyed
by
using
the
word
1��
102
Akala,
The
Son-Father
Relationship,
382.
1
03
Italic
is
mine.
104
Brown,
The
Gospel
According
to
John
(XJJ/-XX.I),
770.
180
(
'echadhs.
It
signifies
the
oneness
or
the
singularity
of
Israel's
God
YHWY;
a
religious
belief
that
was
practiced
and
carried
throughout
the
history
of
Israel.
The
continuity
of
the
oneness
of
YHWH
was
maintained
by
the
prolific
Jewish
writers
such
as
Philo
and
Josephus
as
seen
from
above.
Secondly,
John
does
not
confine
solely
to
the
Shema
of
the
OT,
but
he
also
uses
the
word
'one'
to
refer
to
many
other
things.
In
John,
'one'
also
signifies
the
oneness
of
the
father
and
the
son.
Father-son
oneness
is
seen
in
their
corporate
activities/missions
on
earth.
The
son
does
and
says
only
what
he
hears.
It
is
also
essential
to
notice
that
son-father
oneness
is
also
one
of
the
major
causes
of
Jesus'
glorification
on
the
cross
in
John.
Jesus
equalizes
with
God,
and
then,
he
was
put
to
death.
Thirdly,
'one'
in
John
also
conveys
'racial
oneness.'
As
seen
from
above,
there
is
an
amalgamation
of
Jews
and
Gentiles
under
the
leadership
of
one
true
shepherd
Jesus
Christ.
Finally,
'One'
signifies
the
oneness
of
the
believers
or
ecclesiastical
oneness.
This
oneness
is
missional
because
uniting
in
love
and
action,
and
the
world
will
come
to
believe
and
know
that
Jesus
has
been
sent
from
the
father.
Thus,
to
sum
up,
'one'
in
John
signifies
1)
theological
oneness
(the
oneness
of
God),
2)
the
oneness
of
the
son
and
the
father,
3)
racial
oneness
(the
bringing
or
gathering
together
of
Jews
and
Gentiles),
and
4)
the
oneness
of
the
believers
which
is
also
a
missional
oneness.
