ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EUCHARIST by Étienne NODET

Symposium Gospels, 24th-26th Oct., 2013

ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EUCHARIST

tienne NODET, o. p. cole Biblique POB 19053 Jrusalem-IL

[email protected]

Abstract

The Gospels and Paul deal with the Eucharist in different ways. This paper attempts to show in spite of the warnings of ancient writers that by using some tenets of the Stoics, the significance and strength of the rite appear quite concretely, for the border between heavenly and earthly spheres is dimmed. In-deed, pure Stoicism would imply a kind of pantheism, God being identical to Nature, but the NT authors maintain that God is incorporeal. This very pattern of mitigated Stoicism can be detected in Hellenistic Jewish books, too, but no clear dependence can be proved, for it works easily with the OT, which is al-ways the main authority.

Introduction

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper has some astonishing features, among which the commandment of eating the body of Jesus and drinking his blood is not the least, all the more that the disciples who are not upset are not told to repeat the rite. However, the fact that this occurs within a Passover meal may provide a meaning, but Jesus is not identified with the Passover lamb.

In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist introduces Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1.29). One of the meanings is obviously an allusion to the crucifixion, which took place at the moment when the Passo-ver lambs were prepared in Jerusalem (18.28). In the discourse on the Bread of life, Jesus says (6.54): He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. The literary context is Passover, and the concrete violence such a statement implies is somewhat alleviated by a comparison between the early manna of the wilderness and Jesus himself as bread of life. The literary background is the Passover celebrated at Gilgal by Joshua and the sons of Israel, after crossing the Jordan river and the renewal of the covenant. At this point, the manna ceased, and they began to eat the produce of the land (Josh 5.10-12). This would imply a parallelism between the produce of the Promised Land and Jesus himself as produce of the Kingdom of God. According to this line, the most obvious meaning would be an allusion to con-suming the Risen One in some way, but it hardly squares with the reaction of the disciples, who say (6.60): This word is hard. Who can listen to it?

Moreover, Paul gives an account of the institution of the Eucharist, which is very close to the Synoptics, but with some interesting differences (1 Cor 11.23-26): first, there is no allusion to Passover, but in the same epistle he recalls that Christ our Passover has been sacrificed (5.7), which sounds quite close to Johns view. Second, it is clearly stated that the rite has to be repeated in re-

2 TIENNE NODET

membrance of me. Third, performing the rite has the meaning of proclaiming the Lords death until he comes, without a mention of Christs resurrection. Forth, there is a warning: Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. A severe judgment is to come, and the context indicates that the bread and the cup have the power to weaken the unworthy (sickness, death).

The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to justify a precedence of John over the Synoptics, who display a kind of Christianized Passover, culminating at the cross; second, to show how for Paul and John, the Eucharistic rite signifies or generates a mutual indwelling of Christ and the believers in a very concrete, physical way, the agent being the Spirit.

This can be understood in many ways, but we will focus on specific state-ments. Both Paul and John say that the risen Christ has become a life-giving spirit, with a physical and cognitive effect. Paul says (Rom 8.11): But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. (The body is the identity and mindset of the be-liever, in a physical way. In Rom 6.23, Paul says, too, that the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.) He speaks of the believers, suggesting that ordi-nary death is somewhat dimmed, or, to put it otherwise, earthly and heavenly things get blended, without dualism. Although stated differently, John offers similar statements. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus (John 3:5): Unless one is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. How-ever, he later replies to Pilate (18.36): My kingdom is not of this world. He explains to the Samaritan woman (John 4.24): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Again, the border between earth and heaven is blurred.

Following some recent studies,1 we intend to bring in certain aspects of Stoi-cism. Such a lens as this permits a significant reduction of dualism so that hu-man and divine spheres are tightly interwoven. Obviously, this is not to suggest that either Paul or John were Stoics, for this would imply a kind of pantheism. For both, God is immaterial in a kind of Platonic way. Justin Martyr, who had a Stoic teacher before his conversion, says that the moral integrity of the Stoics is comparable to that of the Christians (2 Apol. 8:2-3), but he states, maybe with some exaggeration, that they are unconcerned with God and theology (Dial. 2:3).2

1 G. Buch-Hansen, It Is the Spirit That Gives Life. A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in

Johns Gospel (ZNTW Beiheft 173; Berlin New York: De Gruyter, 2010); T. Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul. The Material Spirit (Oxford: University Press, 2010). Some Stoic influence was already observed by H. C. Kee & F. W. Young, Understanding The New Testament (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1958) 208-10.

2 R. M. Thorsteinsson, Justin and Stoic Cosmo-Theology, JThS 63 (2012) 533-71.

ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EUCHARIST 3

I On the Last Supper in the Synoptics3

The Passion narratives of the Synoptics are not identical, but they have the same general outline, which is quite clear: on a Thursday, a Passover meal after sunset with the institution of the Eucharist; Jesus arrest at Gethsemane; trial before the Jewish council (Sanhedrin); appearance before Pilate, who strove to release him and reluctantly set Barabbas free because of the crowd; then cruci-fixion and burial before sunset (Sabbath eve). But many details entail various difficulties:

1. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus last supper on that Thursday falls one day be-fore Passover, which occurred on a Sabbath that year (Sabbath eve on Friday evening).

2. The Eucharist signs of bread and wine are quite different from the main Passover items: lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exod 12.8).

3. The disciples dont react to Jesus unexpected command to consume him, although at this meal they are not mute.

4. The Jewish council behaves strangely: it convenes in the middle of Passo-ver although it lacks authority; then the judges become witnesses, which should disqualify them.

5. Pilate is very weak, which does not match his profile from other sources. 6. In the Babylonian lunar calendar, Passover occurs at full moon, so that the

solar eclipse mentioned at Matt 27.45 p. is impossible. In a classical study, J. Jeremias strove to explain away all these difficulties,

by separating them in order to avoid a cumulative effect.4 However, his solu-tions are not very convincing.

1 & 6. Since very ancient times, it was known that the lunar revolution lasts ca. 29.5 days, so that in the Babylonian calendar the legal month has 29 or 30 days. Seen from the earth, the moon revolves slower than the sun, almost on the same circle in the sky. Accordingly, the ancient Babylonian (and Jewish) cus-tom was to declare a new month if the faintly glowing lunar crescent could be detected immediately after sunset at the end of the 29th of the current month; otherwise the new month was declared one day later. As a consequence, the le-gal days have to be reckoned from evening to evening. Astronomy can accurate-ly calculate the times of the new moons, even introducing the conditions of vis-ibility in Jerusalem and the orbital perturbations of the earth and moon. During Pilates entire tenure (26-37), the useful coincidences for the date of Passover (Nisan 14th) are:5 in the year 30, Friday, April 7th (or highly improbably the pre-

3 For a fuller statement, see . Nodet, On Jesus Last Supper, Biblica 91 (2010) 348-69 ;

Id., On Jesus last week(s), Biblica 92 (2011) 204-30. 4 J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977; German

orig. 1960) 41-84. 5 C. J. Humphreys & W. G. Waddinton, Astronomy and the Date of the Crucifixion,

Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan (ed. J. Vardaman & E. M. Yamauchi; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989) 165-182. These results refine the conclusions of K. Schoch, Christi Kreuzigung am 14. Nissan, Biblica 9 (1928) 48-56, who suggested another possibility: Thursday, April 26th, 31 (now replaced with Tuesday, March 27th for that year).

4 TIENNE NODET

ceding day); or in the year 33, Friday, April 3rd. Both match Johns chronology and the allusion of 1 Cor 5.7.6 The choice between these two dates can hardly be made on literary grounds. But on the Passover eve in the year 33, a partial lunar eclipse was visible from Jerusalem, just after sunset. Now Joel 3.1-5 hints at both eclipses, lunar and solar, as eschatological signs. The passage is quoted in Peters Pentecost speech (Acts 2.20) and alluded to in Rev 6.12. So the date of 33 might be preferable, for such a heavenly sign would have struck the peo-ple. In a similar way, after Caesars assassination, Octavius organized a festival in his honor, and a comet appeared for seven days (Suetonius, Divus Julius, 88), confirming his divinity.7

As for the eclipse at the time of Jesus death, together with Jesus resurrec-tion on the third day, we may mention Aphrahat, an Assyrian Father of the IVth century who used only the lunar calendar. He offers an explanation, which actu-ally clearly defines the problem (On the Passover, 6-7). In his view, the first night begins when Judas goes out during the last Supper; the three hours of darkness at the time of Jesus death are the second night; the third is the Sabbath night from Friday evening until Saturday morning. And Jesus rose during the following night. And after each night, there is a day: Friday morning, Friday afternoon, and Saturday. For him, the first day of the week (Sunday) begins on Saturday evening. This would match Pauls breaking of the bread in Troas by night, on the first day of the week, at a time unconnected to Passover (Acts 20.7). But Aphrahat does not mention any Lords Day liturgy.

As a matter of fact, a solar eclipse can only happen at new moon. For Passo-ver, in the middle of the first month, this would imply a beginning of the month with full moon, which cannot be reconciled with the lunar calendar. However, another system was extant in some Jewish quarters, the calendar of the Book of the Jubilees, which refers to the Creation week. Every day includes a piece of creation, and then, evening and morning. Thus, the days are reckoned from morning to morning, and on the fourth day God created the two great luminaries (Gen 1.16). This implies a full moon and equinox, for day and night are sup-posed to have the same length. The year of Jubilees contains fifty-two weeks, that is, 364 days, divided into four quarters starting with the solstices and equi-noxes. But the astral year has 365.25 days; this was known of old in Babylonia, and Caesar enforced this system (the Julian Calendar) in Rome in 45 BC. Some Qumran documents show that this system was used, but already in the year II, a discrepancy appeared: the new year began 1.25 day before the vernal equinox, and some corrections had to be devised. It has been suggested by A. Jaubert that Jesus had his last Passover meal according to this calendar, that is, on Tuesday evening.8 Some patristic evidence points to this possibility, which makes sense, since John the Baptist and Jesus were close to the Essenes in some respects. In

6 A Talmudic saying leads to the same conclusion (b.Sanh 43a uncensored) : On the eve

of Passover, Jesus of Nazareth (or rather: the Nazorean ) was crucified (lit. hanged, ) ; it is stated that the (Roman) authorities sought to defend him.

7 Pliny, Natural History II:94. 8 A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965; French orig.

1957).


any case, this does not explain why the Last Supper of the Synoptics took place on Thursday.

2 & 3. As for wine at Passover, the rabbinical custom of four cups for every-one is misleading, for according to a Tannaitic saying (b.Pes 109a) the rejoicing prescribed for feasts was to be done with meat at the time of the Temple, as a communion sacrifice, but after its destruction, wine was necessary instead (cf. Judg 9.13). This means that, if there were a Passover lamb, wine would not be a constitutive element in the feast. Till this day, the Samaritans have kept the cus-tom of eating the Passover lamb without wine.

For the Passover meal, unleavened bread is mandatory. Now, there is no doubt that in early times the Eucharist was performed with normal bread, as stated by ancient writers. The unleavened bread was introduced later, but only in the Western Church, on practical grounds: it is whiter, purer, and it is easier to be kept. Alcuin of York (ca. 740-804) was the first to mention it in the Caro-lingian empire.9 Such a custom was never accepted in the Eastern Churches, for the bread was deemed to be an insult, making Christ without a soul.

Given the importance of such a ritual detail, one cannot imagine that it could have disappeared without any discussion, if it was extant in the original Eucha-rist. Thus, a first addition must be joined to A. Jauberts historical hypothesis: it is necessary to separate the institution of the Eucharist from the days of Unleav-ened bread, which include Passover. A major consequence is that the last Sup-per of the Synoptics must be split into two components: Jesus last Passover meal, and the institution, which of necessity should have taken place before.

This leads us to consider another obvious fact: Passover occurs once a year, while all the available witnesses show that the Eucharist was from the very be-ginning celebrated on the first day of the every week, that is, on the day of Je-sus resurrection, probably starting on Saturday evening. This is consistent with the lack of a commandment to repeat the rite in the last Supper narratives: be-cause of the Passover context, it would have meant performing the rite once a year.

4 & 5. After the Maccabean crisis, the first Hasmoneans were high priests. Then Alexander Jannaeus took the title of king (103-76 BC). After him, the high priests were appointed by the kings until the fall of Jerusalem in 70, and they enforced the Jewish laws, with a council called the Sanhedrin that was composed of different Jewish parties. But there was a parenthesis: after Herods son, Archelaus, tetrarch of Judaea, was dismissed from office by Augustus in 6 AD, a Roman prefect was sent with all the powers according to Roman laws. This situation lasted until the year 41, when King Agrippa 1st arrived from Rome and restored the Jewish institutions. Between 6-41 CE, the high priests were appointed by the governor of Syria. Their authority was reduced to Tem-ple matters and even their festival ornaments fell under Roman custody (Ant. 18:93). The first high priest of this kind was Ananus (), and a scornful pun

9 For more details, see J. A. Jungmann, Missarum solemnia. The Mass of the Roman Rite:

Its Origins and Development (Westminster: Christian Classics, 2 Vol., 1986; German orig. 1948) II:305-6.

6 TIENNE NODET

says that instead of a Sanhedrin he had a shop ( b.Sanh 41a). Thus, during Jesus time, there was no Sanhedrin properly speaking, and his

crucifixion was a Roman penalty; a Jewish one would have been stoning, with the charge of leading the people astray (see Deut 13.7-11). Pilates inscription on the cross king of the Jews indicates that Jesus was supposed to have led a rebellious movement against Roman rule; such a disturbance is alluded to in Caiaphas advice to denounce him to the Romans (John 11.50). According to the biography and trial of Jesus brother James, as reported by Hegesippus, his indicters mentioned a gate of Jesus close to the Temple, which was supposed to provide proof that would discredit Jesus messiahship (apud Eusebius, HE 2.23.8-12). This most probably was an inscription at a Temple gate mentioning Jesus judgment, similar to Pilates on the cross. Official inscriptions bearing the names of the great criminals against the homeland or religion, along with their condemnation, were placed at the entrance of the ancient temples.10

By comparison with these Synoptics problems, the fourth Gospel entails no institutional difficulties (calendars, Jewish customs, Roman authority). Even Barabbas is set free on time to eat the Passover on Friday evening. The only strange feature is the double appearance of Jesus before Pilate on the same day (John 19.13).

II A Christianized Passover

The Passion narratives and especially the Last Supper of the Synoptics can-not be held as mere photographic reports. They have a theological purpose, for which Justin Martyr is a useful guide. He explains to Trypho that the shape of the lamb prepared for Passover recalls Jesus on the cross, or vice versa (Dia-logue 40:3): When the lamb is roasted (see Exod 12.9), it is arranged in such a way as to represent the cross: a spit goes right through it from the lower limbs to the head, another spit is at the shoulder, to which the paws are fastened.

Later he gives a chronological hint (Dial. 111:3): On the day of Passover ( ) you seized him, and that also in the Passover ( ) you crucified him. This phrasing hides a contradiction, for it plays on Passover (), the feast and the lamb: the first part recalls the Synoptic timing, but the second part links the crucifixion with the slaughtering of the lambs, before the Jewish feast itself. This is impossible, since the lambs must be prepared before the Passover meal. But Justin is insensitive to this contradiction and to Jewish rituals. He focuses on the fulfillment of Scripture. For him, Jesus Passover culminates with the cross. This could be termed a Christianized Pass-over, from sunset to sunset.

Thus, the Passover outline of the Synoptics makes sense. As for the rite of bread and wine embedded in it, the best background is Joshuas Passover at Gilgal already mentioned previously when talking about Johns usage. This cel-ebrated the entrance into the Promised land, and the Israelites beginning to eat

10 R. Eisler, IHCOYC BACILEYC OY BACILEYCAC, Die messianische Unabhngigkeits-

bewegung vom Auftreten Johannes des Tufers bis zum Untergang Jakobs des Gerechten usw. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1929) II:537, gives some examples, in particular on the acropolis of Athens.


the produce of the land. The story is quite short, for it skips over another rite: the first-fruits have to be offered to God first before the people partake of them. (Deut 26.2). The most typical is wheat, of which loaves of bread are made that have to be offered at Pentecost (Lev 23.17). In some marginal groups, there was a second Pentecost, seven weeks later, with the offering of new wine (11 QT 19:14, 4 QMMT A). For the Essenes, though, who dont perform sacrifices, the Pentecostal rite of the first-fruits offering could be symbolically offered in the form of a small quantity of bread and wine at every meal where there were ten present. When the table has been set for eating or the new wine readied for drinking, it is the priest who shall stretch out his hand first, blessing the first portion () of the bread or the new wine (1 QS 6:4-5).11

So bread and wine can represent the produce of the Promised Land. Pente-cost, though, adds a ritual meaning: the new produce of the year is available af-ter offering a small portion, which may have a simple eschatological overtone. Obviously, the entrance into the Promised Land can be paralleled to an entrance into a heavenly Kingdom. And while breaking the bread and sharing one cup do not amount to a real, earthly meal, they do suggest a symbolic quantity as first-fruits. Such a small quantity is holy, belongs to God, and consuming it is tanta-mount to a communion sacrifice. However, Jesus words about his body and blood imply a transformation of the bread and wine leading to an intimacy with him, but an obvious problem arises: What can have been the effect on the disci-ples?

In the Last Supper narrative, there is no effect; the disciples dont react. To put this in perspective, we have the story of the Emmaus disciples. They had a weak knowledge of the Scriptures, but the risen Jesus lectures them about a ful-fillment: Moses and the Prophets do speak of the present situation. Then they recognize him and his teaching when he breaks the bread and gives it to them (Luke 24.31): Their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he van-ished from their sight. This recognition, prompted by their eating the bread, has a manifold cognitive and physical effect. They discover the identity of the speaker and the nature of his Biblical speech, and they are aware of a transfor-mation of their own bodies and mindsets: warm hearts and strong legs, while before the event, they appeared thoroughly downcast. In other words, the bread broken by the risen Jesus, together with his words, have permeated through them. Their knowledge has dramatically improved: they now understand Jesus, and they are aware of their new position.

One may wonder why the speech itself was not enough. A concrete reminder of Jesus violent death was necessary: the Risen One is not a mere angel, for he had a human life. In the wilderness, John the Baptist had announced the coming One. He had proclaimed, (Mark 1.8 p.) I baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Later, Jesus warns the disciples not to worry about a personal defense when persecution comes (Mark 13.11): Say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy

11 Before the Sabbath eve meal, the (rabbinic) Jewish custom is still a blessing (qiddush)

over a cup of wine, and the breaking of bread (b.Ber 47a and b.Shab 117b). However, the origin of this specific rite is not clear.

8 TIENNE NODET

Spirit. Put together, these statements indicate that the Holy Spirit is acting after Jesus resurrection by way of speech, which bestows a major role upon rhetoric. This is made plain in Acts 1-2: the baptism in the Holy Spirit will give the disciples the power () to be witnesses of the risen Jesus. Again, the Ho-ly Spirit has prompted a physical and cognitive transformation: strength and verified knowledge.

All this implies a special cosmology, with no dualism: the risen Jesus is not a mere soul, but a transformed body. In his discussion with the Sadducees, he says that in the resurrection, people are like angels in heaven (or in the sky ). He uses the argument that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exod 3.6) are alive in this way, since their God is the God of the living, not of the dead (Matt 22.32 p.). So the patriarchs are already risen, like angels, which extends the eschatological resurrection into the present. This is a bodily reality, albeit not quite earthly. In the Baptists statement, the Holy Spirit is paralleled with fire, so that both should be seen as bodily realities.

At this point it is useful to introduce some Stoic tenets of cosmo-theology. The world is constituted by two principles, passive and active. The former, a substance without quality, is acted upon by the later, which is reason (), or God. These principles are always conjoined in some way, and both are corpo-real, for against the Platonic and Aristotelian schools, the Stoics hold that it is impossible for an incorporeal entity to have causal efficacy. As a consequence, God is corporeal: he is mixed with matter, pervading all of it and making it into the world. So theology is a part of physics. At any given time, the world is a certain combination of four elements: fire and air (active), and water and earth (passive); this follows the hierarchy of the elements of the cosmos, from earth through stars and light. There are two kind of fire: the ordinary one, which is destructive, and another one, which is creative and in fact, identical with God. From it, the world is created and periodically returns to it, in a cosmic confla-gration (), after which there is only God, pure goodness and rational-ity. The created world is perfect, and God is good, and as the father of all, he pervades and governs everything. He is called Zeus, Reason, Nature, Provi-dence or Fate. He is immanent and works everywhere in nature (and as Nature). In other words, he is somehow subject to change, though not to corruption. The vehicle of this activity is breath or spirit (), a mixture of active ele-ments (air and fire), which provides coherence to individual bodies and to the whole cosmos. In modern terminology, this could be compared to an electrical field.

Human beings are included in this cosmology, and by their position in it, are able to partake in divine reason (). The primary emphasis is the well-being of the whole, rather than of the limited parts. Consequently, the individual has to view himself as a part of the whole, so that the goal of human life is to live according to nature, after a proper discernment of the realm of free will. One loses freedom when one gets attached to something that is not given to human dominion, even be it ones own life.

This implies knowledge of nature or Gods will, so that physics, ethics, and epistemology cannot be separated. Of course, education and training are neces-sary: a child receives impressions from the outside world, and must learn how


to discern causes and effects, and little by little, remove mere opinions provided by sensations. This is the progressive appropriation () of the whole world, which leads to ethical behavior according to Nature. It was reproached to the Stoics that the perfect sage almost never exists. But even if the outstanding sage cannot reach complete understanding, a serious, self-aware knowledge may introduce him into ability to foretell the future.

Passions, which are identical with emotionality, are failures to comply with nature and arise from false judgments or insufficient knowledge. The wisdom of impassibility (freedom from emotions, ) is not pure egocentrism or in-humanity, since partaking in the divine logos amounts to sharing ones self with the whole of mankind. However, observation shows significant gaps between emotions (music, etc.) and judgments, and Seneca explains: a psychological dis-turbance does not necessarily affect impassibility, so long it does not involve a willful act. There are three phases: appearance of the emotion, common to ani-mals, which just happens; then may come deliberation according to ones be-liefs; and eventually, assent, impulse, or action follow.

There is no dualism, and the overall result is a kind of pantheism, since God permeates everything. He is predictable, at least in theory, through a perfect knowledge of Nature. This hardly squares with the typical Biblical understand-ing of revelation, which by nature is not predictable. Origen, in his commentary on John 4.24 God is Spirit ( ), grants that according to the lit-eral meaning, God is a body, but he states that such a Stoic view entails absurd consequences, since a body is subject to change and corruption, so that all the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible, mentioning his eyes, ears, feet etc., must be construed as allegories (In Johan. 13:123-131). In fact, he was replying to the attacks of the philosopher Celsus, who claimed that Christianity was a mere brand of Stoicism rebellious to Roman laws (C. Celsum 7.71-72). Like Justin, Origin sticks to Platonism.

However, a partial Stoic approach makes some sense for the Synoptics. As an earthly body, Jesus transmits only limited knowledge: the faith of the disci-ples is weak. Peter pretends to be able to follow Jesus even to death, but he has no knowledge of himself; all are scandalized by the cross. Later, the Risen One, endowed with a higher identity let us say a spiritual body , is able to con-vey the Holy Spirit. It is clear that some frontier between earth and heaven has been dimmed. Now we shall see that in a more significant way, this same ap-proach enlightens various aspects of Paul and John.

III On Paul

We start with Pauls tradition of the Eucharist, as quoted above. He adds comments of his own. In 1 Cor 11.26, he says: Whenever you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim () the Lords death until he comes. The verb is not in the imperative, which would imply a verbal procla-mation. On the contrary, the indicative mood indicates the very fact of consum-ing the bread and wine. So the rite involves two aspects: first, the bread and wine have somehow become the body and blood of the Jesus. The transfor-mation is the outcome of the blessing and speech of the one who takes the posi-

10 TIENNE NODET

tion of Jesus in the rite (see Acts 20.12). This action has a power that is made plain by a previous statement of Pauls (1 Cor 2.4-5): My word and my preach-ing ( ) were not in persuasive words of wis-dom, but in demonstration ( ) of the Spirit and of power. It is hard to overstate the importance of preaching for Paul: it conveys the Spirit of the Risen Jesus that dwells in him.

Now, the same Spirit permeates and transforms the bread and wine, as Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor 10.16-17): Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing () in the body of Christ? Since there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf. It could not be clearer: by con-suming the bread and wine, the assembled faithful become one body, or renew their being as the unique body of Christ (see 1 Cor 12.12). So the transformed bread and wine permeate the faithful, renewing the Spirit. This matches the Sto-ics physics of the body, in which two distinct bodies of different quality can entirely blend together and occupy the same space (). But this can be undone: the believer can sin, that is, get separated from the Spirit, and the com-munion is broken.

In fact, there are divisions in the congregation in Corinth, and in 1 Cor 11.29, Paul goes on about unworthiness: He who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly (). For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number asleep. The lack of love between brethren is related to poor knowledge of Christ and bodily weakness, that is, a kind of refusal of the Spirit or an unrecognized lack of knowledge. The Stoics would say: a refusal to obey God (or nature), which leads to losing freedom. To put it otherwise, the union of the Spirit and the be-lievers can be undone, for human knowledge is never complete because the chain of causes is infinite and difficult to grasp.

So we may ask again why preaching is not enough to convey the proper knowledge. In 1 Cor 12.12 Paul says: For in one Spirit ( ) we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, etc. But the Eucha-rist rite has an additional dimension: by itself it proclaims the death of the Lord. The Spirit is obviously present, but it is not exactly the one announced by the prophets, for instance in Isa 61.1: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel () to the poor. The Spirit of the Risen One has another dimension, for it involves a history on earth, which culminates at the cross. Concretely, when the bread is eaten and the wine drunk, Jesus himself has been eaten and drunk. In other words, the rite repeats his disappearance, as if the faithful were accomplices of his crucifixion, or partaking in his sacrifice. In the Gospel of John we shall see passages to the same effect.

There is another component in Pauls text: Proclaiming the Lords death until he comes. Indeed, his starting point has been eschatology. In his first let-ter, which interestingly is devoid of biblical references, he says to the Thessalo-nians (1 Thess 4.15b-17): We who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep (). For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch-


angel and with the trumpet of God, and [] we will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Although Paul never quotes Daniel,12 the metaphors belong to apocalyptic cosmology, in which the final deflagration breaks through every border. The view of death as sleep suggests that something of the bodily identity of the believers remains, but in the air, that is a higher spot in the cosmos. Such a cosmology sounds Stoic.

Pauls thoughts did not change over time, for much later he uses the same imagery in 1 Cor 15.51-52 (and elsewhere), but with significant elaborations: Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep (), but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. There is no distinction between body and soul. In this context, Paul offers two philosophical views. The first has been uttered before (v. 35-49), by using a comparison of the grain of wheat that has to die before being given another body by God. So with the resurrection of the dead, a psychic body is sown, a spiritual body is raised. Death lies in-between, which implies that the identity of the individual endures beyond death. This leads to Pauls second view (v. 53-54): For this corruptibility must put on the incorruptibility, and this mortality must put on immortality [] Then will come about the say-ing that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory (Isa 25.8). Some gar-ment will be added, which amounts to a bodily transformation, but it is restrict-ed to the believers. So we see that Paul, without compromise, is able to blend three domains that are usually viewed apart: the apocalyptic, the fulfillment of Scripture, and some Stoic tenets.

The comparison with the grain shows how Paul deals with death. God main-tains the identity of the grain when it dies and becomes another body. In the same way, God preserves the ontological identity of us beyond our death in this life or beyond the last trumpet later on; this is the effect of the Spirit in us. The letter to the Philippians gives further clues (1:6): He who began this good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. This work is al-luded to at 1.27, when Paul wants to make sure that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel. This Spirit overcomes death. Concretely, it prompts knowledge and community eth-ics in a somewhat Stoic way (1.9-10): I pray, that your love () may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment ( ), towards your approving () of the things that are excellent. As a result, the believers, in the midst of a crooked generation, will appear as luminaries () in the world (2.15).

This is not mere boasting, for in Pauls or Stoic cosmology, the luminar-ies or stars are heavenly bodies (Gen 1.14). In other words, something of heav-enly life is given on earth by the Spirit. So the gap between earth and heaven is somehow bridged in the present life, and Pauls hope is very clear (1.20),

12 The only probable allusion is at 2 Thess 2:3-4: before the end comes, a man of

lawlessness will be revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god, but this refers to Antiochus IV and his profanation of the Temple (Dan 11:36).

12 TIENNE NODET

Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. This is always Pauls body. Elsewhere he has a similar wording, which takes into account the reality of earthly life and persecution (2 Cor 4.10-11). We are always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. This is made possible by the gift of the Spirit (5.5), He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a pledge (or down payment, ). For this very reason Paul is able to preach in spite of everything (4.13): But having the same Spirit of faith ( ) according to what is written, I believed, therefore I spoke (Ps 116.10) we also believe, therefore we also speak. Pauls choice of this verse is significant, since the second part of the verse reads: I am greatly afflicted. And then (116.11), I said in my alarm, All men are liars. The mention of the crooked generation above is simply biblical, and Pauls time is not different. The key point is that Jesus death and resurrection has anticipated the final trumpet, so that the end has somehow begun (Rom 8.22): We know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

About baptism, Paul explains that being baptized into Christ Jesus means being baptized into his death, hence a sharing of his resurrection on earth (Rom 6.3-4). Baptism is strongly connected with faith (Gal 2.20): It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and in so far I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God. This life is prompted by the Spirit (Rom 8.11): He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

At this point, it is useful to bring Epictetus (ca. 55-135), a quintessential Sto-ic, into the picture. In Dissertationes 4.7.6-7, On freedom of fear, he asks:

Then is it possible for a man through madness to be so disposed towards these things (i.e. indifference towards property, children, wife), and for the Galilaeans through habit ( )? And is it possible that no man can learn from reason and from demonstration ( ) that God has made all the things in the universe and the uni-verse itself completely free from hindrance and perfect, and the parts of it for the use of the whole? [] And if one thinks that his good and his inter-est only are in these things that are free from hindrance and in his own power, he will be free, prosperous, happy, free from harm, magnanimous, pious, thankful to God for all things ( ), in no matter finding fault with any of the things which have not been put in his power, nor blaming any of them.

Epictetus believes in the power of speech and parenesis, in order to convince his disciple to reach proper knowledge and act accordingly, that is, to avoid get-ting attached to what does not fall under his power. What is meant by Galile-ans is unclear, for Epictetus does not display any real knowledge of Judaism or Christianity. However, Paul seems to reply to this kind of views when he says (1 Cor 1.22-25 and 2.4-6a):


For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the proclamation ( ) to save those who be-lieve. For indeed Jews ask for signs () and Greeks search for wis-dom; but we proclaim Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block () and to Gentiles foolishness (), but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power () of God and the wisdom of God ( ). Because the foolishness of God is wis-er than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men []

And my word and my proclaiming ( ) were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit ( ) and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power ( ) of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature ( ).

Pauls view is similar to Epictetus freedom through knowledge and thanks-giving (Phil 3.8): I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of the knowledge () of Christ Jesus. The common denominator is the importance of preaching or teaching, in order to spread the powerful knowledge of God that gives freedom, that is, disengagement from the world. But their per-spectives are quite different. For Epictetus, wisdom is the result of the proper use of reason that leads to that knowledge; God can be known and is predicta-ble. The Stoics grant, however, that only very few people can arrive at true wis-dom, even with serious training. On the contrary, Paul holds that the wisdom of the world has not known God (and Epictetus would agree on a statistical basis), but God has shown his wisdom through the revelation of Christ, followed by the proclamation of the meaning of his resurrection, a mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past (Rom 16.25). Pauls preaching has a twofold cognitive effect (1 Cor 8.3): If somebody loves God, then he has been known by him. This knowledge of Gods knowledge and love is a major tenet of Pauls, repeated elsewhere (Gal 4.9): Having known God, or rather having been known by God. The mindset of the believer, with the ethical effect of lov-ing his brethren, includes the revelation that God loved him first: the believer knows from his experience that God has acted first, so that there is a knowledge of God, in spite of the fact that he is not predictable.

Paul is not a Stoic. His world is full of various powers, which are very per-sonal, from God to various demons. For him, God has no ontology, but he is a person that is not inaccessible to understanding: the believers access his mind, through Jesus and the Spirit, who are persons, too. This brings us back to the Eucharist. When he says that whoever partakes of it in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11.27), the im-plied meaning has been stated before (10.21): You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. The unworthiness, revealed by a lack of communion with the brethren, amounts to idolatry, and the body of such a per-son, being devoid of the Spirit, will disappear.

The broad worldview of Paul is apocalyptic, with conflagration and final judgment, but he has managed to bring back these features to earthly life, with

14 TIENNE NODET

two major components: first, the death and resurrection of Christ being the very beginning of this end-time process; and second, the partial use of Stoicism al-lowing him to display a continuum between heaven and earth, through the Spirit of the Risen One, who is able to permeate and transform everything. For Paul, there is no conflict between these two approaches, which is all the more inter-esting in that his way of thinking is definitely Biblical.

IV On John

Contrary to Pauls apocalyptic views, Johns are scant. According to John 6.39, the will of the Father is that on the last day, Jesus will raise all that ( ) he was given by him. The neutral pronoun indicates a cos-mological denouement larger than merely human beings. There are allusions to the final judgment and resurrection with a second coming of Jesus (e. g. 5.28-29), but receiving eternal life is a present possibility of utmost importance (5.24): The one who hears my words and has faith in him who sent me has eternal life ( ). Such a statement belongs to the story of Jesus as well as the subsequent history of the Church.

Paul wrote his letters to extant Christian communities, which had already heard some preaching. As for the fourth Gospel, one may wonder whether it was written to be read privately, or to be proclaimed and heard. In any case, its first conclusion indicates a clear rhetorical purpose, may be liturgical:13 only a few signs have been selected14 and written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name (John 20.31). So the purpose of Johns writing is to introduce future be-lievers into eternal life, and not to record past history. But we may ask using Pauls words: Is this a display of persuasive words of wisdom, or a demonstra-tion of the Spirit and of power?

In order to clarify this question, we have to consider the narrative dimension of the text. Since it has been recognized that the earthly history of Jesus is min-gled with details from the early Johannine community, scholars have voiced numerous theories about the literary redaction stages, which are complicated by many inconsistencies, both large and small.15 Here, the Gospel will be taken as

13 We read something similar in Rev 1:3: Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the

words of the prophecy. The wording suggests public lectures, or even liturgy. See A. Bchler, The Reading of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle, Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (ed. J. J. Petuchowski; New York: Ktav, 1970) 181-302; B. Louri, The Processions of my God: The Liturgical Structure Behind the Signs in the Gospel of John, A View from a Bridge: In Honor of Annie Jaubert (1912-1980) (ed. H. Jacobus, B. Louri, A. Orlov, B. Outtier, & Madeleine Petit; forthcoming).

14 The second conclusion (21:25) only says that the selection has been drastic, for otherwise the world () itself would not contain the books written. This may be somewhat exaggerated, but it suggests that the Risen One has the same extension as the account of his deeds; this is very physical. As for John 21, see F. J. Moloney, Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13-21 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 182-192.

15 See a summary of various theories in R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; ed. F. J. Moloney; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 69-86.


it actually stands, for two main reasons. First, Jesus divinization or apotheosis was not the result of a supposed

lengthy, Hellenizing process, but was rooted during Jesus lifetime and began immediately following his death. Such a phenomenon, totally foreign to rabbin-ical Judaism, is witnessed in some Jewish quarters. Even Josephus hints at this in his later work, published in 93 CE (Ant. 18:63-64, during Pilates tenure): About the same time there appeared Jesus, a clever man, if at least he must be called a man. In this famous Testimonium de Jesu, he witnesses the Creed of the Christians of Rome, much more than the events in Judea. Some fifteen years before, in the Slavonic version of the War, which was the first Greek draft by Josephus himself,16 he had written much more about an unnamed wonder-worker, who obviously is Jesus, with details of his life (after War 2:174): At that time there appeared a man, if it is allowed to call him a man. His nature and his exterior were like a mans, but his appearance was more than human, and his works divine. Some Qumran texts display a similar perception of an out-standing character (4 QHa 7i and parallels):

As for me amongst the gods ( = angels) I am counted and my resi-dence is in the assembly of saintliness. Who to be despised has been des-pised like me Who like me is abandoned by humans17? Does someone compare himself to me? They did not instruct me, but no teaching is com-parable to my teaching. I am seated on high, exalted in the heavens. Who is like me among the gods?18 And who can counter me when I open my mouth? The verdict of my lips, who takes it upon himself? Who by the tongue will defy me and will be comparable to my judgment?

Against any gnosis-like views, the NT shows that the first Christians insisted upon Jesus humanity, in order to make plain that his passion was real (e. g. Mark 10.17-18).

The second reason is that the two-fold earthly history is wrapped up by a kind of vertical story of the Spirit, as we shall now see. It begins with Johns testimony about Jesus (John 1.32): I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him. The last step is the disciples com-mission by the risen Jesus (20.22): He breathed on them and says (sic) to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they will be forgiven, etc.

So there are three stories which the reader-listener is invited to grasp togeth-er. The first one is of Jesus life, with its progressive levels of opposition: the Jews who first followed him and then want to stone him (8.31, 37); the high priest Caiaphas, who, out of fear of the Romans, decides that he must die; and, finally, the detailed Passion narrative, with death, burial, resurrection, ascension and the commissioning of the disciples.

16 On the authenticity of the Greek vorlage of the Slavonic as reflecting a first draft by the author, see . Nodet, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (ed. Tom Holmn & Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 1495-1544 (Annex).

17 See the Suffering Servant, Isa 53:3: despised and abandoned by humans. 18 See Moses song (Exod 15:11): Who is like you, Lord, among the gods.

16 TIENNE NODET

Caiaphas, a prophet, effectively announces that Jesus is going to die in or-der that he might also gather together into one ( ) the children of God who are scattered (11.50-52). Taken alone, the connection of this sacrifice of Jesus and the recovery of the scattered children of God is not obvious, but viewed from both ends of the story of the Spirit, it concerns the removal of sin.

This should be related to the prologue of the Gospel (1.12-13), To those who received him he gave the power () to become children of God [] who were born of God. In other words, the Spirit was acting through Cai-aphas. Being a high priest, he had access to the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Kippur), that is, an official contact with God in his specific location on earth. This is a first hint at the third story, while caring for the scattered chil-dren belongs to the second.

The second story itself begins with the commission of the disciples intro-duced by Jesus last speeches. It then, however, somehow runs backwards. There are three allusions to the expulsion of the believers from the synagogue, with a special word coined to this effect19 (, 9.22, 12.42, 16.2). Then comes Jesus discourse at Capernaum on the bread from heaven, a bread that initially the Jews want (6.34). Then Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven, and the Jews begin to grumble at him, for they know his earthly parents. But Jesus pursues and prompts a further reaction (6.52): How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus concludes with an enigmatic sum-mary (6.54): Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. At this point, many of the disciples display serious agitation (6.60): This word () is hard; who can listen to it? Eventually, many go away.20

This last passage can be understood within the first two stories. For the first one, Jesus invites the people to consume or kill him, which may seem hard to reconcile with eternal life. However, this is just an anticipation of the subse-quent story, because Jesus later speaks to the Jews who had believed in him and warns them (8.40): You seek to kill me. Later on, the Jews want to stone him for blaspheming (10.33). This surfaces again in Jesus trial before Pilate (19.7).

Now, the theme of eternal life definitely belongs to the second story, the life of the Church after Jesus is gone. He had said (6.56), Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Such a mutual indwell-ing implies a transformation of both the believers and Jesus and is called eter-nal life. The channel to obtain this is the bread of life. Jesus further explains this to the disconcerted disciples (6.62-63), What if you see the Son of Man

19 The exact or legal meaning of the word is unclear. It may or may not be related to the

reproach of Justin to Trypho (Dial. 16:3; cf. 47:4): You are cursing in your synagogues those who believe in Christ. See Edward W. Klink, Expulsion from the Synagogue? Rethinking a Johannine Anachronism, Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008) 99-118. But this is not likely to refer to the Hebrew Birkat ha-Minim, which had no clear Greek equivalent for the diaspora. See S. C. Mimouni, La Birkat ha-minim: une prire juive contre les judo-chrtiens, RSR 71 (1997), p. 275-298.

20 Some commentators think that the scandal is related to the section on Jesus being the living bread living bread that came down out of heaven, in a metaphorical, sapiential way. But this bread has to be concretely eaten.


ascending () to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life [] The words ( ) that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life. This shortened wording has a twofold dimension: first, eating the bread is nothing less than receiving the Spirit; and second, the appearance of the Spirit is a result of Jesus ascension, that is, with the vertical story of the Spirit.

At this point, a comparison with Paul is useful, for their main points are al-most identical: Paul clearly says that the second Adam has become a life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15.45); preaching is the word of Christ (Rom 10.17), and it conveys the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2.4-5). But the same question arises: What does the bread of life add? This leads us to the story of Nicodemus and the third sto-ry.

Nicodemus recognizes Jesus authority. Like the disciples at Capernaum, he first wants to receive more from Jesus, maybe in a mystical way. But he gets immediately puzzled (John 3.3): Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless one is born again (or from above ) he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The con-text indicates that both meanings of are valid.21 The prologue has antic-ipated this process: Jesus was not received by his own, but as many as received him [] were born () of God (1.12-13). This second birth from above implies an experience of death while keeping ones identity, and later, Jesus uses the same comparison as Paul (12.24): Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. The fruit is above all to be one with others instead of being alone , which is the core of Jesus prayer (17.21): I pray [] that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. Here the mutual indwelling is a community attribute.

Then Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he is indeed speaking of earthly things (3.12). He proceeds by presuppositions: for grasping Jesus signs, the new birth is necessary. For this to happen, however, the Son of Man has to be lifted up like Moses brazen serpent that had the power to transform death into life (Num 21.9). This is made possible by Gods love for the world, to which he sent his Son. He is the first cause.

Now, the ascension of Jesus requires a passage through the cross, where he says in one word (John 19.30): It is finished. But this does not mean disap-pearing into heaven. In his last speech Jesus tells the disciples (14.3): When I go and prepare a place for you, Ill come again and will receive you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. Physically, Jesus and the disciples are to occupy the same space, which will be the effect of the Paraclete or Spirit. But the disciples cannot understand as long as Jesus is with them, for two rea-sons: first, Jesus has to go and come back; second, without the Spirit they are unaware of the weakness of their knowledge. Jesus warns them (16.32): Be-hold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave me alone. They will be in the position of the scat-tered children of God. This is exemplified by Peter, who declares to Jesus that he is prepared to lay down his life for him, and then denies him three times.

21 P.-M. Boucher, . La valeur de l'adverbe en John 3,3 et 7,

RB 115 (2008) 191-215 & 568-95.

18 TIENNE NODET

This is a kind of death, for this mindset has collapsed, but he is now freed from false beliefs. Like all Jesus disciples, he was following him full of sincere hope, but a hope that was somewhat misguided.

As for Nicodemus, Jesus calls him the teacher of Israel (3.10). Broadly speaking, he is the master of the instruction that Jesus refers to when he tells the Jews (5.39): You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life ( ); it is these that testify about me. Indeed, learning Scripture is the way to receive life and to obtain the Kingdom. Moses explicitly states (Deut 4.1): Now, Israel, listen to the statutes and the judg-ments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live (LXX adds and multiply) and go in, and take possession of, the land which Yhwh, the God of your fathers, is giving you. Later he announces the coming of a new prophet like himself (Deut 18.15). Starting from the prologue, the fourth Gospel posits Jesus as the new Moses who reveals the Father (1.18). He bridges the gap between heaven and earth, in order to give access to his Kingdom.22 In doing this, heaven becomes plain sky. This implies crossing death, with the vertical motion of the Spirit. (Later, Nicodemus follows Jesus from a distance, for he wants him to receive a fair trial [John 7.51]. He eventually also brings a signifi-cant amount of perfume for Jesus burial. He has come close to a meaningful death.23 )

This brings us back to Jesus Eucharistic words, quoted above: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. The sentence summarizes a two-fold movement: first, a violent action against Jesus, for which the symbol is the cross; second, the instantaneous return of the Risen One, providing eternal life, that is, mutual indwelling, transforming the body of the believers. Of course, the believers remain sinners, but their sins are taken away. This corresponds to what Jesus had foretold the disciples (14.28): You heard that I said to you, I am going away, and I am coming back to you. The present tense indicates a permanent process, which belongs to the second story, in which resurrection (Spirit) immediately follows the killing, without burial and ascension. This is akin to the rite of the scapegoat (Lev 16), in which an innocent victim carries away the sins of the people, and restores the community.24 In fact, Jesus first introduced this at the end of his speech to Nicodemus with a similar perspective (John 3.21): He who practices the truth comes to the light. In the Stoics words, this could be termed proper knowledge as opposed to emotions and false beliefs; and ethical consequences would follow.

John the Baptist has given two different intermingled profiles of Jesus in the third story: first, as the lamb of God crucified and risen, who carries away the sin of the world, provided that it is manifested; this can be termed the divine

22 See A. D. Myers, The One of whom Moses Wrote: The Characterization of Jesus Through Old Testament Moses Traditions in the Gospel of John, What does the Scripture say? Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. C. A. Evans & H. D. Zacharias; London New York: T & T Clark, 2012) 1-20.

23 See D. F. Ford, Meeting Nicodemus: A Case Study in Daring Theological Interpretation, Scottish Journal of Theology 66 (2013) p. 1-17.

24 A rite similar to the Biblical scapegoat is present in many cultures, see R. Girard, Le Bouc missaire (Paris: d. Grasset & Fasquelle, 1982).


side of Jesus. Second, we shall see that he is the model of the Christian. Twice we are reminded that Jesus is son of Joseph, from Nazareth (1.45 & 6.42), meaning that he is a normal individual, without significant pedigree. But John says (1.32): I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him. In other words, Jesus is born again from above, and this is his human side as a believer, so that he can later tell the disciples (14.12): He who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also, and greater works than these he will do. The ultimate commission to the disciples is to bring about the forgiveness of sin, nothing more and nothing less, but with discernment.

Thus, we see that the use of Stoic categories helps us bring together many aspects of this Gospel and its interwoven stories, by removing the border be-tween heaven and earth. This gives the Eucharistic rite a very concrete meaning. In spite of a different style, Johns overall theology is close to Pauls; they share the same stress on Biblical background and on rhetoric.

V On Wisdom and Philo

It has been suggested that such a Stoic approach while maintaining that God is transcendent has been borrowed from Wisdom literature or from Philo. This may or may not be true, for there is no direct quotation or allusion to sub-stantiate the claim. But the fact is that there are striking similarities.

A) Let us begin with the Wisdom of Solomon, which often muses on philos-ophy. In his introduction, the author first uses a Stoic approach (Wis 1.1-4):

In simplicity of heart seek () him (the Lord). For he is found () by those who dont put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who dont distrust him. For perverse thoughts separate from God, and when his power is tested, he convicts the foolish (). For into a malicious soul Wisdom will not enter, nor dwell in the body enslaved to sin.

Here, reason is at work. Finding God means knowledge, and consequently good ethics, but the foolish, perverse or malicious dont really seek God. That wisdom cannot dwell in the body of the sinner implies, conversely, that it in-deed dwells in the body of a person who is simple-of-heart. A transformation of the mindset either occurs, or it does not. So Wisdom is Gods vehicle, and could be named Spirit. In fact, the word appears immediately after (1.7): For the Spirit of the Lord fills the world: and that which contains all things has knowledge of what is said. This is developed later (Wis 7.22-26):

For Wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me: for in her is an understanding spirit, holy, one only, manifold, subtle, lively, clear, unde-filed, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the good, keen, irresistible, ready to do good, kind to man, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, having all power, overseeing all, and penetrating all spirits that are understanding and pure and most subtle. For Wisdom is more moving than any motion: she per-vades and penetrates all things because of her pureness. For she is the breath () of the everlasting light, a spotless mirror of the power of

20 TIENNE NODET

God, and an image of his goodness.

Here, one could replace Wisdom by Spirit or logos, for nature is ration-al. Of course, considering this reality alone, the description could be pure pan-theism with Stoic monism, for the physical breath is Spirit. The world is good. But the author stops short of speaking of Fate, and the last sentence, with mir-ror and image has an effect of locating God elsewhere, maybe in a Platonic way. He is, however, the unpredictable, Biblical God, known by revelation. Later, the author uses a Stoic argument, then criticizes Stoicism, but with some hesitation (Wis 13.1-2.6):

Foolish are all men by nature (), who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him who exists ( ): nor did they acknowledge the craftsman by consider-ing the works. But they supposed that either by fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of the sky, as-sumed to be gods [] Yet these men are little to be blamed, for perhaps they go astray while seeking ( ) God and desiring to find him.

A clear conclusion is missing: these men are both foolish, with their mate-rial gods, and not to be blamed, for they actually do what is recommended in the introduction above. The author hesitates to call them idol-worshippers, and has no ethical reproach against them; these are the Stoics. But he is ferocious against the ones who build earthly idols and images, and worship them.

B) Now let us pay a short visit to Philo. He is above all a philosopher who

remains faithful to the Bible, but he believes that philosophy has become stag-nated on its way to the truth. He mainly follows Plato, but takes advantage of Stoicism as well. With the former, he states that God is incorporeal, not in the cosmos; with the latter, he shares significant worldviews about cosmology and ethics, including impassibility (). He strongly disagrees, however, about the way to acquire knowledge (epistemology), because for him, Scripture provides a way to the Truth that is safer and more direct. Here we will be con-tent to focus upon this topic only.

According to Philo, the philosophers vice is either worshipping Nature at the expenses of the Creator as the Stoics do , or worshipping his own mind as the Platonists do (Heres 98; Leg. 1:49). In either case, philosophy is criti-cized for addressing only a happy few. Plato had already complained about the difficulty of teaching the connection of the perfect Creator with the contingen-cies of the Creation (Timaeus 28C).

Now what is created must, of necessity, be created by a cause, as we af-firm. But to discover () the Maker and Father of this whole would be a task indeed, and having discovered him to declare him to all would be impossible.

Philo proceeds otherwise. Well take as a starting point his comment on Gen 6:8: And Noah found grace ( ) in the sight of the Lord. This is a stock Biblical sentence, but since no good deeds of Noah are reported, the verse


cannot refer to Gods recognition of his merits. On the contrary, Noah was deemed to be righteous for exploring the nature of existence. He found that eve-rything is a grace of God (Leg. 3:78). This is a reversal of the Stoic appropria-tion, for the aim of moral development is not the sages painstaking appropria-tion of nature as his true self, but the attribution of everything to God, including his own reasoning power. In other words, Philo puts a religion of grace above philosophy, although he agrees with the Stoics that the study of Nature is the best knowledge.

Then Philo draws some consequences. In Gen 24:48, Abrahams servant praises his masters God because he has given him a safe and successful way of truth. Philo comments (QG 4:125).

The way which leads to truth, so far as it rests with us, is knowledge and wisdom, for through these it is found. But by an involuntary principle it is found through prophecy. And since what is shorter and of equal goal is a safe road, it leads to truth more evenly, briefly and smoothly than the for-mer.

The first part refers to philosophy, a voluntary though somewhat dangerous task. Prophecy, however, comes involuntarily, that is, as a grace. Contrary to the Stoics, Philo asserts that something which has never been perceived by the senses may enter the mind by revelation. Gods Spirit provokes dreams and prophecies, but this happens only to virtuous men (Heres 98). Moreover, all this knowledge can be inherited, for Moses, the perfect sage, received it when he was called up on Mount Sinai, and wrote it down. Through him it is directly given by the Scriptures to the beginner in virtue.

Between the beginner and the perfect sage, there should be a common de-nominator. To this effect, Philo comments on the two types of men mentioned in the Creation story: the heavenly man is made and stamped in the image of God, incorruptible. The earthly one is molded out of clay, and God breathed into him a power of real life. Both are placed in the garden. This is an allegory for two mindsets: the heavenly man represents the right use of the faculty of reasoning, with persistence in action and tenacity in enduring; he is strong, for he partakes of the divine Spirit. The other man has only received the formal faculty of learning and reasoning, so that he may receive an idea of God, but he is weak (Leg. 1:36-55). So there is a continuum between the two men, a most important feature.

Moses arrived on Mount Sinai on the seventh day, a reminder of the Sab-bath, when God permeates everything. It was his new birth, and he was strong and able to receive the whole Law in one installment. Such a dose would have killed the people, who were still too weak. Therefore they said to Moses (Exod 20:19): Talk you to us, and let not God talk to us lest we die. On the same line, Philo comments on the prohibition against eating of the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:16). The perfect sage, whose guide is God, can eat of it, but it is danger-ous for the mind not yet made perfect, whom the prophet takes care of. Then Philo outlines Moses pedagogy with the earthly man, which is comprised of three broad levels that will lead him to a kind of new birth (Leg. 1:92-94). The bad man obeys the commandments because he thinks for whatever reason that

22 TIENNE NODET

this is the best thing for him to do; his concept of good is only related to his own benefit. The intermediary mans motivation is to do good things for their own sake. He uses the commandments as a means to develop his psychology by studying/scrutinizing the laws in order to discover a higher idea of good and of himself within the world.

Finally, the excellent man grasps the right principles that everything is grace but still needs guidance and exhortation when faced with concrete situa-tions. The Stoics would say the same here, since for them, the need for rhetoric never ends. A special position is given to Moses, the ultimate sage, who pos-sesses virtue automatically and does not need any law, for he is in perfect har-mony with nature. Interestingly, Philo notes that Moses had no real grave, and concludes that he was translated into heaven, like Henoch. Such is his way of understanding resurrection, which is akin to the non-dualistic Stoic conflagra-tion.

In summary, Philo is at home with Stoic monism, but with two major differ-ences concerning God: first, God is transcendent which cannot be reconciled with Stoicism , and second, God provides a short way (cut?) for reaching the truth, available to a whole people. In fact, his wish is that everyone might listen to him, but he is uninterested in converting anyone.

C) In his autobiography, Josephus states that after his training in the three

famous Jewish schools, he chose to follow the rules of the Pharisees, a school which is akin to the school of the Stoics (Life 12). In another passage, he gives a Pharisean doctrine which sounds quite Stoic, for it combines Fate and free will (Ant. 18:13).

Though they postulate that everything is brought about by fate, still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in humanitys pow-er, since it was Gods good pleasure that there should be a fusion and that the will of humanity with its virtue and vice should be admitted in the council-chamber of Fate.

The phrase humanitys power would be freely agreed upon by Epictetus. Josephus mentions Philo, and in his Antiquities, he begins with a paraphrase of the Creation story that has echoes of Philos De opificio mundi. But in the intro-duction he displays a typical Stoic epistemology (Ant. 1:19).

Moses deemed it above all necessary, for one who would order his own life ( ) and also legislate for others, first to study the nature of God ( ), and then, having con-templated his works with the eyes of reason ( ), to imitate so far as possible that best of all models and endeavor to follow it ( ).

Here, Josephus Moses looks like a Stoic sage, with no specific revelation. For him, everything in the law is in keeping with Nature. Philo never said this, because for him, some precepts have only pedagogical purpose. Elsewhere Jo-sephus displays a different view, focusing on his nation (Ag. Ap. 2:168-170).

Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, the Stoics who succeeded him, and in-


deed all the philosophers appear to have held similar views concerning the nature of God. These, however, addressed their Philosophy to the few, and did not venture to divulge their true beliefs to the masses who had their own preconceived opinions. Whereas our lawgiver, by making practice square with precept, not only convinced his own contemporaries, but so firmly implanted this belief concerning God in their descendants to all fu-ture generations that it cannot be moved. The cause of this success was that the very nature of his legislation made it always far more useful than any other. For he did not make religion a department of virtue, but the var-ious virtues I mean justice, temperance, fortitude, and mutual harmony in all things between the members of the community departments of reli-gion.

This is a tolerable summary of Philos views, which is very Jewish, beyond the differences between Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The phrase making practice square with precept is well taken to this effect. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons that the synagogues were so attractive to the God-fearers, by the time of Paul.

VI Conclusion: A Biblical Background?

The common denominator of the authors reviewed is the primacy of Scrip-ture. Their general worldview has two main components: first, a kind of mon-ism with a continuum between heaven and earth, which is most easily described using Stoic tenets of cosmology and ethics; and second, a special position of God who is both outside the cosmos and acting unpredictably within it, that is a non-Stoic epistemology. This is not very different from what we can see in the Bible itself.

This can be shown using an example. In Rom 1.21 Paul states: Ever since the creation of the world, his (Gods) invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly discerned in the things that have been made. So they are without excuses. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks. This way of seeking the truth is a typical Stoic argu-ment. Then Paul explains that the consequence of their refusal to honor Him was sexual perversions, hence Gods wrath. He may be referring to his own time, but this outline perfectly matches the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, too for they were punished without any previous warning. This implies that on their own, they should have discovered God and his will, like good Stoics. They are guilty of poor knowledge and ethics. A similar conclusion could be drawn from the story of Babels tower.

However, the story of Cain has a different perspective. When his sacrifice is not accepted, he gets angry, which is a useless passion as Epictetus would say, for the result of his sacrifice does not depend on him. Then he receives a warn-ing from God (Gen 4.7): Error is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it. He proceeds to kill Abel and collapses into confusion. His knowledge and ethics were very weak: he did not have the strength to know of good and evil, and eventually he is not guilty. In fact, the tree of knowledge had been forbidden to humans two chapters before this, for they could not stand it,

24 TIENNE NODET

like the sons of Israel at Mount Sinai. All this has an entirely different perfume from that of Stoic epistemology.

But Stoic cosmology could very well accept the Decalogue, for YHWH is at the same time your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and the Creator, with a continuum between heaven and earth. The last editors of the Pentateuch may have been philosophers!

Jerusalem, October 2013.

Date post:	10-Jun-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	natalie-rudolph
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EUCHARIST by Étienne NODET

Documents