hermann sasse identifies the paraclete

Hermann Sasse Identifies the Paraclete

by N O R M A N N A G E L

IN HIS INAUGURAL lecture at Cambridge in 1954, C.S. Lewis spoke of what it might be like to listen to an ancient Athenian, "even a stupid

one, talking about Greek tragedy." "At any moment some chance phrase might, unknown to him, show us where modern scholarship had been on the wrong track for years."1 Lewis would have been more readily at home with such an ancient Athenian, than any of us with Sasse in 1925 Berlin.

In celebrating the centennial of Hermann Sasse s birth there may be some usefulness in exploring beginnings, and not only endings. In the compass of this paper nothing more will be attempted than following him through his article in the 1925 Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirchen, "Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium."2 If we pay attention only to this, we may be free of the danger of finding only what we are looking for—the temptation offered by hindsight, and history written by the winners. Looking back we would know on which scholars to put our money, but perhaps not so readily a decade or two from now, or in 1925. Ponder the giants as if one were talking about them, "even a stupid one," in Berlin in 1925, Berlin still the Athens of the West, but now a West in the growing decay and darkness of the Weimar Republic. Was such a 1925 Berliner aware of this? Spenglers Decline of the West was causing a great stir.3 We may wonder how such nonsense could have then been so popular, and so engaging of the intelligentsia.4 For Sasse, Spengler provides the point of departure. Elert's Morphologie echoes Spengler s subtitle,5 and the section on Arabic culture,6 from which Sasse quotes, reverberates in his identification of Islam as christological heresy.7 But here we are getting more clever than our imagined 1925 Berliner, and so in danger of losing what only he can see: some chance phrase, some wrong track.

Sasse's article on the Paraclete represents his first appearance, front and center, on the academic stage of New Testament studies and early church history—if not quite the pantheon, very little less in the world of Germany's Athens. Harnack and Bultmann are harbingers of the eastward course of New Testament studies. Lietzmann reviews Hopfner on "The East and Greek Philosophy." Smend draws on the Old Testament for

3

LUTHERAN QUARTERLY Volume X (1996)

4 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

understanding what he calls the Fourth Gospel. Sasse begins with the contemporary Spengler, and pursues his New Testament work in the manner of Adolf Deissmann, his Doktorvater, whose Licht vom Osten appeared in 1908.8 There is some picking up of the pieces after the havoc of the Great War, and confusion of possible directions. Spengler pointed eastwards, and identified John as "the most eastern of the Gospels" which "presents Jesus, emphatically not as the bringer of the final and total revelation, but as the second envoy (der zweite Gesandte), who is to be followed by a third (the Comforter, Paraclete, of John 14:16, 26; 15:26). This is the astounding doctrine that Jesus himself proclaims, and the decisive note of this enigmatic book."9

For Spengler Nestorianism was characteristic of eastern thought. He is indebted here to Loofs for his work on Nestorianism, and before him to Harnack for his work on Marcion.10 Spengler recognized the significance of Mandaeanism and its myth of a redeemer descending into darkness and ascending into light.11 Further pursuit of this may be found in Bultmann's epochal essay in this same volume of 1925.

Building on Harnack's work on Marcion (an essay of his on Marcion appears in this same 1925 volume) Spengler propounds the theory that Marcion is the actual creator of the New Testament, and he was enabled to this by that "enigmatic and unknown figure" who shortly before Marcion had written the Gospel, supplanting what else ought go by that name. Jesus was not the final word; another would come and carry things forward to completion, and "Unless the Logos departs, the Paraclete cannot come." Spengler points to Montanism around 160 in Asia Minor, most active 150-190, and later coalescing with Manichaeism (Mani c. 245). For Spengler the line runs from the Gospel "according to John" to Montanism, to Marcionism, to Manichaeism, to Augustine. And, we may pick up further along: from Harnack, from Deissmann, from Spengler, with Bultmann and Barth booming in, to Sasse. But lineage is never so simple, and Sasse as exegete had not just been dropped down from heaven. He studies John's Gospel in the midst of what is happening around him in 1925. Spengler, who is all the rage, prompts Sasse to study the promises of the Paraclete and their fulfillment for the Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, edited by Hans Lietzmann, high on Olympus. To let the cat out of the bag: it is the evangelist by way of whom the Paraclete does his promised work.

Sasse begins with Spengler on the Paraclete as his point of departure, and then goes on to examine the language in a way approved by Deissmann, and not by Spengler, whose way is followed more by Bultmann.12

H E R M A N N SASSE IDENTIFIES THE PARACLETE 5

If one begins with etymology, Sasse observes, then a paraclete is one who speaks for you on your behalf, advocatus. This idea may be followed to the ora pro nobis addressed to saints, and may be found in Islamic religion. While some of this may be present in what is said of the Spirit it has no connection with what is at the heart of the promises of the Paraclete in John, and for which the etymology gives no indication. The text is decisive, and so first eine literarkritische Untersuchung, before any attempt at interpretation.13

Literarkritisch is a term we are not much helped to understand by etymology. What it meant to Sasse we may see in what he now proceeds to do. He was schooled in this at the University of Berlin prior to the First World War. The index to our volume twenty-four evidences what Kümmel describes as "many studies of literary and historical problems that had their spiritual \geistig as in Geistesgeschichte] roots in the researches of the history-of-religions epoch." What he next observes gives us some clues for better understanding Sasse s thought as expressed in the 1925 essay.

These studies were characterized in part by new and more far-reaching ideas; but at the same time a revolutionary change took place, especially in German-speaking postwar theology, which took its departure from New Testament exegesis and compelled all New Testament research to undertake a radical reconsideration of its task. Naturally the catastrophe of 1918, with its collapse of culture optimism and of confidence in the power of rational thinking, played a decisive role in this return of New Testament research to a properly theological way of posing the issues.

Bultmann claimed the war made no difference to his theology. Kümmel concludes:

The research of the present [1958] is still so firmly rooted in the new stances that become manifest after 1918 that today the permanently important features of this development can only be sketched in very broad outline.14

The question of the new and the permanent in Sasse we may best find answered in what he wrote of the Holy Spirit in 1925, and then in i960.15

We return to observe his literarkritische Untersuchung. Under the heading "Analysis of the Farewell Discourses" the context is identified. The second section will focus on "The Promises of the Paraclete."

John 14:31 clearly makes an ending to what went before. "Rise, let us go hence." This makes sense only if it is followed by 18:1. Yet it cannot be an interpolation. What could have prompted an interpolation? And

6 L U T H E R A N Q U A R T E R L Y

besides 14:27 points to a conclusion. This fact has prompted various solutions by way of critical examination of the text (literarkritisch) toward a basis for distinguishing the sources in the Fourth Gospel.

That chapters 15—17 were spoken along the way is rendered impossible by the "he went forth" of 18:1. It may be objected that to give such weight to this detail may be making of it more than the author intended. It may indeed simply mark the end of a pericope, and this would be quite natural when the whole Gospel is recognized to be a collection of pericopes, a sort of Perikopenbuch as Deissmann was wont to describe it. Sasse finds this view inadequate because if "Arise, let us go hence" simply ended a pericope then what follows would be another, a new pericope. This might be the case with chapters 15 and 17, but 13:31-14:31 has a deep inner relation with 16:4-33, quite beyond what may be found elsewhere in this Gospel of repetition and evocations. The one appears to be a variation of the other. Sasse then proceeds to lay them out in parallel. By this he would show the one to be a variation of the other and so be taking more adequate account of what is in the text than earlier hypotheses: Wendt put chapter 15 behind 16; Spitta 14 behind 17. Wellhausen does better than these when he takes chapters 15—17 as an insertion into the actual text, yet he fails to see its relationship with 13:31-14:31. This sections clear parallels with chapter 16 are then shown by laying out the two passages side by side.

13:3 i f God and the Son of Man glorified.

}} Announcement of departure. 16:5a Announcement of departure.

34f The new commandment of love

(This breaks the coherence. Cf.

15:12)

36a Simon's question: "Where are 5b None of you asks me: "Where

you going?" are you going?"

36b-38 Announcement of Peter's denial.

14:1-4 Announcement of departure and 6 Sorrow has filled your hearts,

reunion. "Let not your heart be

troubled!"

5 Thomas: "We do not know

where you are going; how can

we know the way?"

6f. Jesus' answer.

8 Philip: "Show us the Father!"


9-14 Jesus' answer. His unity with the Father His works and those of the disciples. Promise of prayers heard Cf. 15. 5 & 7.

Cf. 23f

15 Condition for the sending of the Paraclete: Keeping the commandments.

7

I6f. Promise of the Paraclete. 15

18 "I do not leave you orphaned

19

23

Cf 20?

Cf. 14

24

25

26

"Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me."

In that day Jesus' unity with the Father and the disciples will be clear

Keepmg the commandments is the sign of God's love. Its reward is Jesus revealing himself to those who love him. (Cf. I5:9f.)

Judas: "Why will you reveal yourself to us and not to the world?"

Jesus: "With those who love me and keep my commandments I and the Father will come to dwell."

What Jesus says is God's word

"These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you."

The Paraclete will teach the disciples.

16

Cf. 23 (?)

Cf 27

i7f-

19-22

23

Promise of prayer heard.

25a

25b

26f

Condition for the sending of the Paraclete: Jesus' departure

Promise of the Paraclete.

"A little while and you will see me no more; again a Ltde while and you will see me."

Disciples: "What is the meaning of You will see me again?"

Jesus* "Sorrow will be turned into joy, for I will see you again."

"In that day you will not ask me."

"These things I have spoken to you m veiled language."

Jesus himself will speak plainly and not in parable.

In that day the disciples will need Jesus' mediation no more. The Father himself loves them because they believe that Jesus came from the Father.

L U T H E R A N Q U A R T E R L Y

21 Greeting of peace. Cf. 33

28 Once again announcement of de 28 Once again announcement of departure: "I go to the Father" parture: "I go to the Father."

29 Disciples: "Now you speak

plainly and not in parable."

29 Jesus' prophecy so that when it 30 The disciples confess their faith,

happens they believe.

3 if. Jesus: "In spite of their confession

they will be scattered and will

leave me alone."

3of. The prince of this world comes.

God's will be done1 And so,

"Arise, let us go hence."

Cf. 27 33 Greeting of peace.

The agreement extends not only to the overall flow of thought (announcement of going, the question whither, the promise of the Paraclete, the promise of seeing again, what is said of this seeing again, completion of the instruction, again announcement of going, the faith of the disciples, the kiss of peace [placed differently]) but also at several places the same words. In addition to this we may observe some weighty variations.

Sasse is not persuaded by Wellhausen s contention that the "promise of seeing again" is presented differently in the two chapters, to the effect that in chapter 14 the parousia is denied; in chapter 16 it is firmly held. Sasse sees both as related to the resurrection. Even Wellhausen did not make much of his view here, and so Sasse proceeds to tabulate what he counts as differences.

1) In 16:5 Jesus observes that none of the disciples ask him, "Where are you going?" Yet, 13:36 Simon asks "Where are you going?" Similarly, Thomas in 14:5, and the same question is pursued by Philip in 14:8. The disciples together raise the question in 16:17 as does Judas in 14:22.

2) In 16:32 to his disciples who believe in him Jesus says they will be scattered, thus leaving him alone. Sasse notes the verbal parallel with Mark 14:27. This prophecy does not appear at John 14:29 where we might expect it. Here the disciples are admonished to remain faithful in the event of Jesus' departure. This does not quite match 18:8 when Jesus sends his disciples away, whereas 16:32 sees their flight as a fall from the faith they have just confessed.

3) Also, in the matter of the promises of the Paraclete there are differences. In 14:16 and 26 it is the Father who sends the Paraclete; in 16:8

HERMANN SASSE IDENTIFIES THE PARACLETE 9

(and 15:26) it is Jesus himself. In I4:i6f. we are told nothing that the Paraclete will do. Not until 14:26 are we told what he is given to do. This is quite meager in contrast with 16:7-15. Sasse concludes this list of differences with the exclamation.

How much more extensive, concrete and problematical is this prophecy compared with that in chapter 14. We have to let this cursory comparison suffice here. Whether there are still differences here more deep and at the heart of things, could only be answered by probing each detail of the promises of the Paraclete, but that is something we cannot go into here.

This is all acutely scholarly in the sense of allowing the text be decisive over the latest best hypotheses that seek to expound the text. Sasse then makes his contribution. Having taken into account both the agreements and differences in 13:31-14:31 and 16:40-33 it becomes clear that we have here two variations of the same theme.

Sasse then proceeds, perhaps more literarkritisch than by a "There it is" of the text. Where there are two variations they cannot have been both intended to be in the text. One must have been intended to supplant the other. Which is prior? Wellhausen says 13:31-14:31. This is well anchored in the whole, while chapters 15-17 appear as interpolation. The adequacy of this view is indicated for Sasse by the possibility of the presence of older material in 15—17. The question of priority can only be decided by the comparison of the texts in parallel. There are points in chapter 16 that strike us as more original. The more extensive prophecy in 16:8-15 may be seen as an expansion of 14:26. However, 16:8-15 has so many concrete features that one must reckon with the possibility that here we have an older tradition of which we then have a younger tradition in 14, the vigor and color gone.

Decisive for Sasse s conclusion is the way the disciples are dealt with in each passage. If we suppose that 16:40-33 is a reworking of 13:31— 14:31 what could ever have prompted the reviser to ignore the fact that Peter asks, "Where are you going?" and this followed by the questions of Thomas and Philip, and yet have Jesus say, "None of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' " The only possible explanation is that chapter 14 attempts to displace the negative presentation of the disciples in chapter 16 with a more positive one. Verse 16:5 has "None of you asks me," whereas chapter 14 has the disciples' questions. According to 16:32 the disciples fall away, whereas at the parallel place, 14:29, there are no negative behaviors on the part of the disciples reported. "These observations show us that in i6:4b-33 the older, original formulation is preserved."


This conclusion is then tested by the connection of 13:31-41 with the other parts of the complex 15-17. That these three chapters are a unity is shown not only by their being marked off by 14:31 and 18:1 but also by what is in them. This does fall into relatively independent passages (Deissmann's pericopes). The theme of 15:1—17, the unity of the disciples with one another and their being bound up with Christ, and the theme of 15:8-16:4a, the relationship of the disciples to the world, provide the basic thoughts of the Farewell Prayer, 17:1-26. While 16:40-33 is not so closely related in language and thought with chapter 17 it does provide the necessary conditions for the situation of the prayer with its announcements of Jesus' departure. From the foregoing we may conclude that chapters 15-17 belong together.

It is then all the more remarkable that 13:31—14:31 is not similarly tied in with the whole complex. All that is said in 15:18-16:4a has as little counterpart in chapter 14 as does the high priestly prayer in chapter 17. There are only a few thoughts in 15:1—17 which can be found in 13:31— 14:31; absent is the chief matter, the allegory of the vine.

The new commandment in I3:34f. is better grounded in 15:12 and 17. The prayer in Jesus name in 14:14 (as well as in 13) is directed to Jesus; in 15:16 to the Father. Both I5:i3f. and 15:7 move toward the Father being glorified. Verse 14:21 is parallel with I5:çf. (cf. 16:27). These parallels show a relationship between 15:1-17 and 13:31-41. Which is prior? Verses 15:7, 16 are original, not I4:i3f.

Of particular interest is Sasse's taking prayer to the Father as the original, and to Jesus as secondary although that is generally now taken to be the case. Besides considerations inherent in the matter, he appeals to the history of the text, which by the criterion of the lectio ardua, which he has used earlier, would more likely indicate the opposite.

His comparison of 13:31-14:31 with the complex of 15-17 prompts Sasse to conclude that here also 13:31—14:31 evidences a reworking of the earlier material. He acknowledges that his assessment is problematic. If the section 15—17 is an interpolation, how can it have material in a form earlier than 13:31-14:31? It has only a few places where the priority is clear. Thus the fact remains, there cannot be any other interpretation. We cannot but hold to it.

Our hypothesis raises three questions: 1) Why does the Farewell Discourse 13:31-14:31 not have all the material contained in chapters 15-17? 2) Why was the original text reworked? and 3) Why was the basic intention of the reworking not successful in displacing the older text?

1) We do not know the context in which chapters 15—17 stood. Noth-


ing prepares the way for 15:1. The suggestion that it was connected with an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, which then disappeared, is unlikely. This would require more clear expression, as in John 6. On the other hand, the suggestion may find support in the fact that chapters 15-17 followed the account of the Last Supper. Correlation for the allegory of the vine might better be found in the synoptic parable of the vineyard (Mark 12:1-12). However, we simply do not know what other pieces the redactor may have had before him for inclusion or exclusion. Perhaps in chapters 15—17 we have all that remains from a larger source, which may have also supplied other discourses in the Gospel, which we cannot recognize because we lack the parallels. Such might be the reminder in 15:20 of 13:36. We can do no more than simply raise this question here. An attempt to answer it would involve a thoroughgoing sorting of sources (Quellenscheidung), and in view of the contradictory results of what has been done so far no conclusion appears likely. Puzzling is the fact that 15:18-16:4a and 17:1-26 are not used in 13:31— 14:31 although the redactor had them united before him. We can go no further than suggestions. Were there particular reasons for not speaking of the hatred of the world? One might imagine that the prophecy of the world's hatred might have been prompted by later experience, but against this is the similarity of those Johannine prophecies to those in the synoptics, suggesting that the material is old. Probably things were left out which would not serve the flow of the discourse.

The complex 15—17 is more like a collection of materials than a unified discourse. On the other hand, 13:31-14:31 is a well constructed discourse between Jesus and his disciples, which nicely rounds out the Farewell Discourse. The reasons for the reworking (here we come to the answer to our second question) must have been the divergences in the two forms of the text. We have seen the divergence in the way the disciples are presented. Chapter 14 shows them in a more favorable light. Sasse footnotes the objection which points to Peter's denial, and Thomas and Philip being utterly at a loss. He dismisses this objection with, "The important thing is that they make a personal appearance."

Sasse acknowledges in part two of his essay that he has exhausted the evidence in support of his conclusion except for the divergence in the way the promise of the Paraclete is presented. He lures the reader forward by the prospect of discovering the key to what we have been observing as a consideration of dogma.

Hurrying through this article we lose the brilliance with which Sasse lures the reader forward, raising persuasive possibilities, weighing and


testing them, and going on to the next. Something like Strauss' Til Eulenspiegel, or better, Beethoven's treatment of the themes in his Ninth Symphony. No wonder the Erlangen lecture hall was packed. But he is not there yet. The exegete's work has still to show its worth for the church, ecumenically and then pressed by a hostile government.

With Sasse you have to hear him all the way through to the end. In article, lecture, and letter evidence is laid out offering conclusions which are shown to be preliminary or inadequate or on the way, with the weighing in of further evidence toward a final conclusion. In his career the augmenting movement is exegesis, church history, doctrine, pastoralia— the sequence which used to be followed in our pastors' conferences. But we stray, and that is not his way.

2. The Promises of the Paraclete

First 15 and 16 and therein I5:26f. This promise breaks into the context 15:18-16:4 which deals with anticipation of the world's hatred toward disciples. Here there are clear echoes of the mission of the Twelve in Matthew 10. Clearly the synoptic tradition is the basis for this passage in John. Compare 15:20 with Matthew 10:24, and i8ff. and 23fr. telling of the hatred of the world, also Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13. Does this point to a connection between the promises of the Paraclete in John and what is said of the Spirit in the synoptic promise of the Spirit standing with them when they are hauled into court (Mt. 10:20)? The Spirit "who proceeds from the Father" would derive then from "the Spirit of your Father." Such a connection could serve to explain the puzzling word "Paraclete." Paraclete means one who speaks in court on your behalf, advocatus. This is how the Spirit is spoken of in the synoptic prophecy, although the word "paraclete" is not used there. Johannine speculation about the Paraclete has its origin then in the synoptic prophecy of the Spirit who will stand with and for the disciples in court. This is generally taken to be the case.

If this were indeed the case, we would have a development of a synoptic idea which has indeed travelled a very long way from its source. The Johannine Paraclete has nothing at all to do with what goes on in court. The only words in I5:26f. which evoke anything synoptic are paraclete and bearing witness. Yet they do not even do that; the Paraclete has nothing to do with persecutions. There is a glirnmer of the synoptic source shining through, although not a very strong one. Here is the


reason why verses 26f. seem alien, breaking the coherence of the passage,

and for this reason it has been recognized as an interpolation. Whether

from the writer of the passage or an interpolator, in either case it rep

resents an equivalent for the synoptic prophecy. Whoever wrote it (Sasse

sees no compelling reason to assert an interpolation) he clearly intended

to connect it with the synoptic prophecy of the Spirit.

How distant the prophecies of the Spirit are from each other is shown

by the bearing witness. 'Verse 15:27 has nothing to do with a defense put

by the Paraclete into the disciples' mouths as they stood before some

earthly judge. Here is a kerygma, a witness concerning Jesus for evan

gelizing. For the following exposition Sasse acknowledges his indebt

edness to the commentary of Holtzmann-Bauer. The Paraclete's witness

is distinguished from that of the disciples. " H e will bear witness con

cerning me; you also will bear witness that you have been with me from

the beginning." Their witness is the witness of those who can tell of what

they have seen and heard of the history of Jesus. Compare Acts 1:2 if.

Sasse uses "history" here simply as what happened, in thrall to neither

Kahler nor Bultmann. Similarly the risen Lord to his disciples in Luke

24:48. In Acts 1:8 he commissions them as he sends them out even to

the end of the earth, "my witnesses."

Besides this task of witnessing given to the disciples there is another,

that of the Paraclete. They are clearly not identical. The prophecy of the

Paraclete would have to be put quite differently if his task were to be as

in Acts 1:8. Here the reception of the Holy Spirit is the basis for the

disciples' inspired witness.

If there is any connection between the paraclete speculation and the

synoptic promise to the disciples that the Spirit would stand by them, it

can only be by way of a profound transformation. This becomes even

more clear when we examine 16:8-15 more closely and identify what it

discloses of developments and consequences.

Against the unbelieving world the Paraclete will convince (convict,

έλέγχείν, überführen) the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. Whatever difficulty there may be here (iof. may be a later attempt to explain these difficult words), there can be no doubt that the Paraclete will have a weighty task in the great conflict between early Christendom and its enemies. He will show Jesus and his followers to be in the right, and his enemies in the wrong (Recht, Unrecht).

To this function of the Paraclete (έλέγχείν) is added the witness,

about which we have heard in I5:26f. Now we are told the Paraclete

will bring the revelation to completion in proclaiming what Jesus could


not tell his disciples during his days on earth. What is more he will proclaim the future and glorify Jesus. What is explicitly emphasized is that his message is the absolute truth. Any doubt of his trustworthiness is repudiated by the fact that he does not speak what comes from himself, but what he hears is what he will speak.

Those who see here vaticinia ex eventu have it right. We have here what was written of the workings of the Spirit in early Christianity. Heitmüller sees here "early Christian polemics and apologetics in which our document is itself also playing its part." He says the same concerning the prophecy of revelation being carried forward.

Quite clearly what is expressed here is an awareness and a view of what had come of the first years and, more importantly, of what was regarded as the preaching of Jesus. Perhaps the author thinks specifically of his view of what is Christian (Christentum) for which this document comes then as a defense. He covers it with the authority of the Spirit, a genuine carrying further and development of that which had been brought by Jesus.

Sasse agrees completely. Most important is the recognition of the connection between the promises of the Paraclete and the way the Fourth Gospel came to be. Sasse pushes the recognition further. We should perhaps be thinking not so much of the Spirit-filled proclamation of early Christendom in general, but rather of the concrete case of this document. Then the Johannine Gospel would itself be the message of the Paraclete here proclaimed.

What if we take verses I2f. concretely? They point to the case of Jesus' proclamation being developed. Things, which he had not spoken out during his days on earth, would be proclaimed as true in his name and by his commissioning. This is then what happens in the Johannine Gospel. It contains a witness of Jesus, other than the witness of the eye witnesses recorded in the synoptic Gospels, the witness of the Paraclete which in I5:26f. is set in contrast with the witness of the disciples. The prophecy in 16:12-15 tells more and gives defense of this witness of the Paraclete against the suspicion of untrustworthiness. This makes clear why the claim of truthfulness of this new message is so strongly emphasized. This Gospel was bound to incur the sharpest opposition as it become known. The heaviest charge that was again and again leveled against this new writing was that it was a fantasy of one who was here speaking "out from himself." This is the charge which we find explicitly repudiated.

That the task of the Paraclete is to glorify Jesus, to reveal his heavenly


8oça, matches up with the Johannine Gospel. Even if we are persuaded by Wendt to strike the words "he will declare to you the things that are to come" they yet may be seen as referring not to apocalyptic literature in general but particularly to the Johannine Apocalypse which surely has some connection with the Gospel.

Finally we are now able to see chapters 8-11 in a clearer light. The task of the Fourth Gospel with its strong polemical and apologetic tendencies is the same task as that of the Paraclete who "will convict the world." We are at the point where we may expect from Sasse one of his architectonic, culminating, capstone sentences, and he does not disappoint.

That unbelief toward Jesus is the worst sin of all, that the death of Jesus cannot shake the faith in the righteousness of all he stands for, because that death is nothing but his going home to the Father, that the prince of this world is judged: these are thoughts which are at the heart of this Gospel. We may therefore, on the basis of the promises of the Paraclete in 15 and 16, venture the hypothesis that the message of the Paraclete, which Jesus tells his disciples they may expect according John 15 and 16, is nothing other than the Fourth Gospel itself.

But there is yet more shown by the evidence of the two prophecies. Why does 16:3 strike us as strange? "He will not speak of himself; he will speak whatever he hears." This disposes of the suspicion of untrus-tworthiness. That is clearly the case when said of a man, but can it be said of the Holy Spirit that he does not speak of himself, and even less likely that what he hears is what he speaks? Clearly this can only be said of some man claiming divine inspiration, or something heard from God.

There is a further consideration. Where is the Paraclete identified with the Holy Spirit? This happens only once, in 16:13. In 16:7 the Paraclete is introduced with no explanation. He is referred to three times with "this" (εκείνος). It looks very much as if "The spirit of the truth" is here a later addition. This impression is strengthened by the not very apt parallel in 15:26 which Spitta has righdy recognized, and so shown the identification of the Paraclete with the Spirit as a later addition. In both cases then the term paraclete must be understood as referring to some human person.

Who could that be? Spitta, who first put this question, answered, the prophet Elijah who was expected to come again before the Messiah. " H e will convict the world" refers then to the preaching of repentance which is to precede the judgment. This answer depends on Jewish apocalyptic which is remote from the Johannine Gospel, and leaves unanswered what


we are to make of 16:8-11. Spitta was at a loss to think of any one as a better answer than Elijah. There is no place else in early Christendom where this thought is to be found of someone sent by Jesus to carry forward his preaching and bring it to completion.

Spengler enters at this point. His role in Sasse's dramatic presentation is to offer another way of reading the evidence, which we may by now suspect of persuading us only to see it exit, having failed in attempting more than it could deliver.

Spengler posited a new bearer of revelation, a sort of second Messiah promised, who would go beyond Jesus. So it wras with Mani and Mohammed and before them Montanus who had referred the prophecies of the Paraclete to themselves. That can hardly be what is meant in our Gospel. The Logos-Christ, the light of the world, is simply a revelation that cannot be topped.

There remains then only one possibility, which emerges from our examination of the relation between the promises of the Paraclete and how the Fourth Gospel came to be. Behind the enigmatic figure of the Paraclete there hides a prophetic person—none other than the great unknown Christ-prophet from wThom the Johannine Gospel originates.

This could so readily be misunderstood, and so it is no surprise that the effort should be made to suppress these prophecies. In chapter 16 the disciples are shown in a more unfavorable light than usual, and this is ameliorated by the surpassing significance of the Paraclete. The disciples did indeed bear witness to Jesus, but over their proclamation stood the Paraclete who would be the one to disclose the full truth and the complete glory of Jesus. By this way then we arrive at the explanation why there arose another version of the Farewell Discourses, the passage 13:31— 14:41 examined above.

Here the disciples are put in a more favorable light. Here the prophesy of the Paraclete appears in a quite innocuous form. In 14:16 "another Paraclete" is promised to the disciples who keep Jesus' commandments. He is none other than the Holy Spirit who remains with them and is in them.

This prophecy has its contextual place after the prophecy in i6:7ff. It says nothing about what this Spirit will do. Only in verse 26 is there something added about that. Here is the only place where he is called, the Holy Spirit; elsewhere always the Spirit of the truth, and yet of him nothing is said about his proclaiming anything new. "He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."


Here what he teaches and what brings to remembrance are put in the place of the continuation/development of the revelation.

That is the profoundest difference between the two versions of the Farewell Discourses—a difference between two generations. The attempt to displace the older version did not in the event succeed. Although this older version does not belong in the framework of the Gospel as we have been reading it, it came back in appearing now as an interpolation. What was then settled for was a superficial correction of the most blatant difficulties.

A weighty question emerges which we must attempt to answer as best we can according to what we now know of the sources. In the prophecies before us what is the meaning of the word "paraclete"? The easiest answer is none other than the Holy Spirit. The characterization of the Spirit in Matthew 10:20 could prompt his being called Paraclete, and this would go well with the other statement of the Spirit's helping activity in R o mans 8:27. "The Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." Christ's being called Paraclete in 1 John 2:1 may be peculiar to John (Sondergut des johanneischen Christentums) and derive from "another Paraclete" in 14:16. Yet everywhere in the early Christian faith was the conception of the helping divine Spirit (Gemeingut). This explanation of Paraclete would do very nicely if we had only the promises of the Paraclete in chapter 14. But the puzzle remains with this word appearing in the older prophecies referring to a prophetic bearer of the Spirit. For that we can offer no explanation.

However, even if we cannot identify the connection between Jesus' synoptic prophecy and the Paraclete in the form of a prophet, yet, one way or another, that prophecy must stand behind the idea of the Paraclete. What we do know is the impact on Christianity of Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit himself would speak by the mouth of the disciples when they were hauled into court. What else fired that impregnable confidence of the martyrs and confessors? The certainty that they were bearers of the Spirit carrying them through their hour of peril, and so then also the prophetic confidence of that great and unknown Christian from whom the Fourth Gospel originates. What we do not know are the details of how this actually happened, and we may perhaps never know.

The promises of the Paraclete shed some light then on one of the greatest riddles of the beginnings of Christendom, the riddle of the origin of the Johannine Gospel—admittedly without helping to a solution. The mystical darkness which lies over this whole document we have not


been able to clear away. From the enigmatic words with the clues they give there emerge the hazy contours of a prophetic figure full of the Holy Spirit, glimpsing the glory of Christ with profound religious intuitions, and in the confidence of a great and once-only mission to portray that glory to mankind in words which last forever. We do not know where and when he lived. We do not know his name or what sort of person he was. We also do not know the hands through which what he wrote made its way, or what changes it experienced. Yet from its dynamic words we can still recognize one of the greatest religious geniuses who ever walked this earth. He was not an eyewitness, and yet an authentic disciple, one forgotten, and so one in whom the words are fulfilled which he himself put into the mouth of another prophet: "He must increase, but I must decrease." (Finished February 21, 1925)

So there it is, and what use can we make of it? We have at least a 1925 period piece, not only of New Testament studies but also of Sasse's career. In the confusion of directions there is then much talk of Spenglers Decline, of what is Eastern, and what is Johannine? Deissmann s pupil probes and pushes Spitta s work to striking conclusion in an expert exercise of the literary-critical method.16 Did this show the way forward, or was it showing the limits of its usefulness? A wrong turning or a cul-de-sac?

We have foresworn hindsight, but that does not exclude spotting Deissmann's debt to Schleiermacher's exegetical work. Terms appear which are not here working in the way of Form Criticism. They are there in the exegetical workshop. Bultmann presses them into service according to his methodology much indebted to the History of Religion Schools and Heidegger. Geistesgeschichtlich he works existentially, and theologically the top thing about Jesus is Easter, and this Easter Jesus controls the exegesis or vice versa. Jesus comes out on top anyway, a message welcome after "the catastrophe of 1918, with its collapse of culture optimism and of confidence in the power of national thinking." Then there was Barths Commentary on Romans, not bothering too much with the text, which appeared in 1919. "Its message, particularly in the pessimism of the post-war situation, at once gave him a very wide hearing among German-speaking theologians."17

As an exegete Sasse stayed close to the text, the text not susceptible to being taken over by what happened to be the need or fashion of the day. Zeitgeist and Geistesgeschichte, ever eager to fit the text to themselves, had no applause for Sasse. He was left standing with his Johannine studies by Bultmann, and with his Bethel Confession by Barth at Barmen.18

The contrast with Bultmann and Barth does not tell the whole story,


either theirs or his, and yet the clue to understanding any theologian given by what he sees as the present threat and danger, may not be ignored. If this is so, how would it affect our picture of Sasse as the pure-hearted exegete caring for nothing but the text with Archimedean or catholic or Chalcedonian imperturbability toward what is going on around him at the moment.19

With the exegete comes the historian. In 1925 is he running with Spengler or against him, or is Spengler referred to only as a point of contemporary engagement? Sasse goes on using terms rendered problematical by Spengler's way of doing the history of the West. Nowadays we hesitate to speak of Christendom, and avoid abstractions like the plague, for example Christenheit, and behind that something called Urchristenheit. To get at that we need more light than history seems able to give. "Light" appears frequendy in the article and Deissmann was a renowned deliverer ofthat, Licht vom Osten and The Decline of the West may help to give light and shadow to what is running with Geschichte in Sasse (not split as by Bultmann into Historie and Geschichte).

The history that most engages Sasse is the history of the text. His exposition of the text is prompted, tested, and illumined by what happened with the text on its historical way. Its historical way is its church way. Church is first Eastern; Western departures show decline. Perversion of the text is disclosed by its history, for example, Gnosticism, Marcion-ism, Montanism, and Manichaeism, which went west into Augustine. The history of the text is the history of the church.

In 1925 we see the exegete connecting in history with the church. Abstraction is escape from both history and the concrete. Exegesis without abstraction issues in history and church concretely, for Sasse ever deeper. He was among the first German theologians engaged in the ecumenical movement. The exegete who went to the meeting of the World Conference for Faith and Order in Lausanne in 1927 was accompanied by the church historian, who were joined by the confessional theologian. What lasts, not what's new? And so Sasse declined existential subjectifications, demythologizing, and deconfessionalizing, and then also defining the church by its relation to Caesar, either in the way of the German Christians or of Barth, instead of confessing what it has always confessed no matter what Caesar or what Zeitgeist. Ecumenical first, first in protest against Nazi encroachments upon the church, and first in protest against abstracting the Confessions from the life of the church for social or political advantage. Lonely and costly firsts. The Nazis made it impossible for him to travel to further ecumenical meetings


(he did slip out anyway at least once), and they kept him from his chair as Ordinarius. The Bavarian church deprived him of his pension when he would not go along with diminishing the role of the Confessions (Bishop Dietzfelbinger had it restored to him). Such is the history of a man who was not found to be very useful—a consideration which would destroy a faithful exegete. For such a one the question is not what can this be used for, but what does the text say?

The connections suggested above are more than we can get from the text of his article on the promises of the Paraclete. The more modest and scholarly way of his second last paragraph would prompt us to observe that even if we cannot delineate the lines of connection, what actually happened makes it quite clear that there were connections. Behind the confessor stood the church historian, and behind the church historian stood the exegete, and behind the exegete the man who saw the collapse of his world in the mud, insanity, and carnage of the war to end all wars.

This paper has attempted to fill in a gap in what is available from early Sasse, and specifically from his New Testament studies. After concluding a section Sasse was apt to observe that that leaves us with some further questions. Here the ancient Berliner of 1925 would be of inestimable help. Even without his help we might yet attempt a diagnosis of the language and of the methodology enquiring of its adequacy and wondering how much of it remained with Sasse. We should need to begin by reading the whole volume 24 of the ZNTW. This would help to disclose what is uniquely Sasse. We can already point to the clarity and brilliance of his deployment of the data, the drama of each paragraph's ductus, and recognition of not quite there yet, and then the climax of the culminating formulations of how far the data has carried us. A simple underlining of the reference 13:31—14:31 will expose clues which disclose the strategy of the mounting progression. Key words recur, clearer and weightier with each recurrence—very Johannine.

Each attempt at understanding and an assessment of its limitations, are called for when in 1925 there is a "mystical darkness hanging over the whole document." There are things which yet remain as acutely observed by Sasse in the text; these no servant of the text may ignore. These remain, even though the methodology used while discovering them may prove passe.

What, finally, of wrong tracks? Without hindsight we may listen to Elert's observation in 1921 of the various ways theology may travel. He agreed with Spengler that in the diffuse pluralism of the day there were


no forces (Machte) capable of shaping a culture into unity. Having told the sad story of Kulturprotestantismus s hopeful alliances with such forces, Elert concludes:

Whoever would have Christianity, hoping for rescue, make an alliance in the present situation with some such decadent force, whether it be a particular fashion in art, a particular "scientific" way of looking at the world, a particular ethic which works with no need of being Christian, such a one ties Christianity s dinghy to a doomed ship already going down (an ein dem Untergange verfallenes Schiff) Cut the ropes which entangle Christianity with a sinking culture (mit einer untergehenden Kultur) so that it is not torn down in the maelstrom 20

An exegete, a church historian, a confessor is not surprised by maelstroms, nor despairing, nor hopeful of such entangling alliances. Maelstroms may wreck havoc and much loss, but already in the exegete of 1925 we may see portent of resources of faithfulness which carried Sasse through—what goes with being a faithful servant of the text.

N O T E S

1 "De Descriptione Temporum," m They Asked for a Paper, Papers and Addresses (London Geof

frey Bles, 1962), 24 Hereafter Lewis

2 The table of contents of this 1925 volume 24 of the journal (hereafter Z N T W ) has five articles

on the Gospel of John

Bultmann, R Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandaischen und manichaischen Quel

len fùr das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums 100

Dobschutz, Ε ν , Z u m Corpus hellemsticum 43

" " Z u m paulinischen Schriftbeweis. 306

Eisler, R , Das letzte Abendmahl 161

Harnack, Α ν , Über den Verfasser und den literarischen Charakter

des Muratonschen Fragments. 1

" " Kritischer Epilog 203

" Der marcionitische Ursprung der ältesten Vulgata-Prologe zu den

Paulusbriefen 204

Jahnow, Η Das Abdecken des Daches Mc 2, 4 LC 5, 19 155

Juhcher, Α , Zur Geschichte der Monophysitenkirche 17

Lietzmann, Η , Symbolstudien XIII 193

" " Notizen Schulthess, Grammatik des chnstliche-palastinischen Aramäisch,

hrsg, von Enno Littmann / Eno Littmann, Morgenlandische Worter im Deutschen

/ J E C Welldon, Augustins De civitate dei / Η Marriott, The Sermon on the Mount

/ A E Burn, The Council of Nicaea Β Η Streeter, The four Gospels / Pistis Sophia ed

Carl Schmidt, ed G Horner / C Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des N T

/ Burkitt, Beginnings / W Weber, Der Prophet und sein Gott / Th Hopfher, Orient

und griechische Philosophie 310

22 L U T H E R A N Q U A R T E R L Y

Aus Zeitschriften des Auslandes 159, 316

Muller, K., Kleine Beitrage zur alten Kirchengeschichte 278

Mundle, W., Die Herkunft der "marcionitischen" Prologe zu den paulinischen

Briefen 56

Rudberg, G., Die Verhöhnung Jesu vor dem Hohenpriester 307

Sasse, H., Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium 260

Schneider, Th., Das prophetische "Agraphon" der Epistola apostolorum 151

Schmidt, C , Das koptische Didache-Fragment des British Museum 81

" " Die Urschrift der Pistis Sophia 218

Schultze, V, Die Christusstatue in Paneas 51

Smend, Fr., Die Behandlung alttestamendicher Zitate als Ausgangspunkt der

Quellenscheidung im 4. Evangelium 147

Violet, Β., Em Versuch zu Job 20, 17 78

Wendt, H.H., Die Hauptquelle der Apostelgeschichte 293

Windisch, H., Friedensbringer—Gottessohne 240

3. Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte, 2

vols., (Munich: Oskar Beck, 1918, 1924). ET: T\\e Decline of the West, Form and Actuality, trans, by

Charles Francis Atkinson, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1939). Hereafter: Spengler.

4. Sasse, 260: "von Berufenen und Unberufenen viel geredet" which may betray a partisan

loyalty to Deissmann charged with popularizing. See note 8. Lewis, p. 12. " I am not, even on the

most Lilliputian scale, emulating Professor Toynbee or Spengler. About everything that could be

called 'the philosophy of history' I am a desperate sceptic."

5. Morphologie des Luthertums, 2 vols, (Mumch: O H . Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1931,

1932). ET: Tlie Structure of Lutheramsm, trans, by Walter A. Hanson (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing

House, 1962).

6. Spengler, "Probleme der Arabischen Kultur," 2:225—398.

7. " T h e 150th Anniversary of Chalcedon," in We Confess Jesus Christ (We Confess Series ι),

trans, by Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1984), 63.

8. ET: Light from the Ancient East trans, by Lionel R . M . Strachan (New \ork & London: Harper,

1922). Cf. Werner Kummel, Das Neue Testament, Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (Orbis

Academicus III/3) 2nd ed (Freiburg/Mumch: Karl Alber, 1970), 277-281. ET: The Xew Testament

Tlie History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans, by S. McLean Gilmour & Howard C. Kee (London:

SCM, 1973), 218-221. Hereafter, Kummel. Cf. C F . Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922). Thomas Mann's Tod in Venedig appeared in 1911. ET: Death in

Venice and Other Stories trans by Kenneth Burke (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925).

9. Spengler, 2:227.

10. Friedrich Loofs, Sestoriana, Die Fragmente des Sestorius (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1905). Adolf

von Harnack, Marcion, Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott, eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grun

dlegung der katholischen Kirche (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1921).

11. Spengler 2:214. For the Nestorian association see p. 252.

12. Spengler 2:190.

13. Sasse, 261.

14. Kümmel, 325f.; 449 note 395 (German edition, p. 417)

15. " O n the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit." in We Confess the Church (We Confess Series 3), trans,

by Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986), 17-39.

16. Friedrich Spitta, Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu (Gòttingen: Vanden-

hoeck & Ruprecht, 1910).

17. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1961, p. 135.

18. Sasse, in collaboration with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, had written the highly praised but ill-fated

confession at Bethel in August 1933. His efforts on behalf of his church at the Barmen Synod, May

1934, were thwarted by Karl Barth. O n Bethel see Guy C. Carter, Confession at Bethel, August IÇ33—

Enduring Witness Tlie formation, revision and significance of the first full theological confession of the Evan-

H E R M A N N S A S S E I D E N T I F I E S T H E P A R A C L E T E 23

gelical Church struggle in Nazi Germany, Dissertation (PhD), Marquette University, Milwaukee, 1987,

Ann Arbor, MI UMI, 1987 and Christine-Ruth Muller, Bekenntnis und Bekennen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer

in Bethel (1933) Ein lutherischer Versuch (Studienbucher zur kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte, Bd 7), Mün

chen Chr Kaiser, 1989 O n Sasse s role at Barmen see Martin Wittenberg, "Hermann Sasse und

'Barmen,' " in Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Georg Kretschmar & Carsten Nicolaisen, eds , Die lutherischen

Kirchen und die Bekenntnissynode von Barmen Referate des Internationalen Symposiums auf der Reisensburg

1984, Gottingen Vindenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984

19 We Confess Jesus Christ, 56-58

20 Der Kampf um das Christentum Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen dem evangelischen Christentum

in Deutschland und dem allgemeinen Denken seit Schieiermacher und Hegel (Mumch C H Beck, 1921),

489

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

hermann sasse identifies the paraclete

Documents