Worship in the fourth gospel: a cultural interpretation of John 14-17—Part II

Worship in the fourth gospel: a cultural interpretation of John 14-17—Part II

Jerome H. Neyrey
Abstract

Typical readers interpret John 14-17 as a Farewell Address, and for good reason. But that hardly exhausts its contents, for the form of a farewell address simply misses all that Jesus has to say about worship in the group. From the gospel's beginning we find a steady focus on temple, mountains for worship, feasts and their objects of prayer and celebration, and the like. But in John 14-17 we are told about prayer: Jesus' own prayer to God and his instructions to the disciples to petition "in my name." If prayer is communication to God, God also communicates to his devotees, primarily in words. Hence we find exhortations to remain and to love; oracles of many sorts, such as warning, judgment, assurance, salvation and the like. We find a particular focus on the words of Jesus, things he said but were not understood, special revelations to a special group, all of which is facilitated by the Advocate/Spirit. Most importantly, the personnel of worship are dearly defined: the Patron Father who bestows benefaction on his clients by means of Jesus, the Broker. Jesus, in turn, brokers the concerns to the clients to the Patron. Finally, the household with many rooms is not space out of the world, but relationships brokered by Jesus. These remain miscellaneous pieces until seen in the light of a cultural model of worship.

**********

Part Two: Place of Worship & Patron-Broker

In the first part of this article, emphasis was placed on communication "upwards," as it were: the disciples' learning to pray. In what follows, the emphasis is reversed, as we see Jesus teaching the disciples to listen.

Patron-Broker-Client Relations.

Patrons and Clients

Patron-client relations have long enjoyed the attention of classicists (Saller, Wallace-Hadrill). Frederick Danker's book BENEFACTOR brought to the attention of New Testament scholars the tradition of honoring benefactors, a form of patron-client relations characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean. And Bruce Malina pioneered the formal use of the anthropology of patron-client relations to interpret early Christian literature (Malina 1988). Malina's model of patron-client relations describes those that arise between peoples of unequal status and resources: landlord/vassal, aristocrat/peasant, king/subject, father/son, and God/Israel. Thus patron-client relationships describe the vertical dimension of exchange between higher-status and lower-status persons.

When John Elliott defines patron and client relations, he highlights the mutual exchange of goods and services: "A 'patron' (patronus, patrona) is one who uses his or her influence to protect and assist some other person who becomes the patron's 'client' (cliens). In return, this client provides the patron with certain valued services" (Elliott: 148-49). As noted above, the topic of patron-client relations is not new to the study of the New Testament and early Christianity Mott: 60-72), and so does not need to be rehearsed here. We should, however, widen the model to accommodate another person in the patron-client relationship, the broker (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:117-119). In social or commercial terms, a broker places people in touch with each other, such as a real estate broker, a stock broker, or a marriage broker (Malina 1988:11-18). A broker must be suitably placed to be accessible both to clients seeking aid and patrons who might provide assistance. Thus a broker is a bridge (i.e., pontifex) or link or mediator between patrons and clients.

Broker in Patron-Client Relations

Writing on "mediator" in 1967, Albert Oepke identified the following social roles in the ancient world that exemplify the role of broker or mediator. A mesites is a person who (I) is "neutral" to two parties and negotiates peace or guarantees agreements, (2) arranges business deals, (3) receives as king divine laws and offers sacrifice for the people, (4) offers as priest prayers and sacrifice to God on behalf of individuals and the people, (5) brings as prophet a teaching or mighty work from God, (6) founds a new cult or religion, and (7) delivers as angel communication from God.

As Oepke also notes, the New Testament calls Jesus a broker in many ways: he is the unique mediator between the one God and humankind (1 Tim 2:5), the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) and a "priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). In contrast to the Levitical priesthood, Jesus' priesthood/brokerage is vastly superior because Jesus "is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25).

We are hardly the first to read John 17 in terms of mediation. Already back in patristic times, the prayer comprising John 17 was labeled "the high priestly" prayer, a tag still affixed to it. Our interpretation accepts the perception of Jesus' role as a mediator figure, not simply in chapter 17, but in the whole Farewell Address. Building on past studies of John 14-17, we wish to use the social science model of patron, broker, and client to interpret the role of Jesus as broker as an essential part of understanding worship in the Fourth Gospel (Borgen: 137-48).

What does the role of "broker" look like in a system of patron-client relations (Oepke: 615)? One anthropologist identifies four elements of a broker's functioning: (1) capital (channels of influence and communication), (2) tariff (what the broker receives for services), (3) debt (promises he makes), and (4) interest (his calculation of what and when his tariff will be paid) (Boissevain: 158-62). It helps, moreover, to distinguish what is exchanged in a patron-broker-client relationship. Clients typically seek protection and access to scarce resources, which are called first-order resources. A broker most frequently has second-order goods, namely, access to patrons and skill in connecting the right client with the right patron. In the rough and tumble of village or urban life in antiquity, there might be many clients working through many brokers to gain access to many patrons. But in the Fourth Gospel, there is only one patron (God) and one clientage (Israel, including the Johannine group), but competing brokers (Jesus vs. Moses, Abraham, Temple, synagogue) (Piper:. 295-97).

Jesus as Broker in John 14-17

Let us situate Jesus in relationship, first to the Patron-Father and then to the clients-disciples. It is generally agreed that a successful broker must be part of the two worlds that are joined. The author expresses Jesus' relation to the heavenly world in many ways. For example, Jesus was sent by God (17:3, 21), which social- science interpreters call his ascribed authority or honor. Moreover, in 17:5 and 24 Jesus speaks of glory that he had from his Patron before the world was made, which clearly describes Jesus as belonging to the heavenly world. Thus Jesus' relationship to the Patron is ancient, intimate, and enduring. In John 17, moreover, Jesus repeatedly tells us how loyally he has served the interests of his Patron:

17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished what you gave me to do

17:6 I manifested your name to whom you gave me

17:8 I have given them the words that you gave me

17:12 while I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you gave me

17:14 I have given them Your word

He accomplished what God gave him to do, which specifically means manifesting the Patron's name (also in 17:11, 12) and delivering the Patron's words. In addition, Jesus brokered the following for his earthly clients: (I) power (17:2), (2) protection (17:12), and (3) glory (17:22). Thus Jesus belongs to the Patron's world, shares in the riches of that world, and loyally serves the interests of his Patron.

Jesus the broker also belongs to the clients' world and serves their interests as well. For example, Jesus confesses to the Patron the many ways in which he has brokered the safety of the clients:

17:12 I kept them in your name, none is lost but ...

17:13 These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in them

17:15 I do not say take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil one

17:19 For their sake I consecrate myself, that they may be consecrated in truth

He not only protected them, but seeks their continued safety. Moreover, he envisions a future brokerage, which includes: (1) keeping them from the evil one (17:15), and (2) being with Jesus where he is in glory (17:24). In an expression of limitless brokering, Jesus repeatedly declares that his clients are assured of his brokerage when they "ask in my name":

14:13 Whatsoever you ask for in my name, I will do it

14:14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it

15:16 so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you

16:24 Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loves you.

Jesus is the unique broker, for "no one comes to the Father, but by me" (14:6).

Another Broker or a Sub-Broker?

In the Farewell Address, Jesus announces that a "Paraclete" will come (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), whose chief function seems to be brokering, brokering either the Patron's or Jesus' benefactions. Since most discussions of the Paraclete begin with a history of the term, we do so likewise, but with reliance on Grayston's article especially as revised by Tricia Brown (Grayston: 67-82; Brown: 170-82). The first half of Grayston's study of "paraclete" attacked the univocal meaning of this role defined in classical dictionaries as legal advisor or assistant; as he points out, there was no role in ancient law courts that corresponds to a defense attorney. Supporter, yes, but defense attorney, no. The rare use of the term from Demosthenes to Diogenes Laertius prompts this conclusion: "parakletos was a word of general meaning which could appear in legal contexts, and when it did the parakletos was a supporter or sponsor" (Grayston: 75). In his conclusion, Grayston generalized that the Paraclete is, as it were, "an eminent person through whom the petitioner gains favourable access to the Father" (Grayston: 80). Tricia Brown read Grayston's data, but through the social-science lens of patron-broker-client relations, and in nearly every case, the parakletos can be said to function as mediator between two estranged parties (Philo, Jos. 238-40), as mediator of access to God (Philo, Vita Moses 2.134), as mediator between God and Israel (Philo, On Rewards and Punishments, 166), and as an intercessor with the emperor (Philo, In Flaccum, 22-23). Thus she concludes: "We submit that in most of the texts we have studied the word 'parakletos" would best be translated 'mediator' or 'broker'" (Brown: 181).

Regarding the Paraclete in terms of the patron-broker-client model, the following chart should help us grasp the Paraclete's position and function.

The Paraclete's functions remarkably parallel those of Jesus, a point argued in contemporary Johannine scholarship (Martyn: 143-46; Burge: 137-41). He has, moreover, the same role as Jesus, inasmuch as he is called "another Paraclete," Jesus being the first. Thus he functions in the same role as Jesus; or he serves Jesus, inasmuch as in all three references cited above he (I) brings to mind what Jesus said, (2) bears witness to him, and (3) glorifies him. Thus the Paraclete/Spirit is not an independent player, so to speak. If Jesus' role is that of broker between God/Patron and the disciples/clients, the Paraclete is Jesus' sub-broker. Observations such as these are steadily making their way into Johannine scholarship (Franck: 42, 48, 67-68, 84, 138).

What significance, then, does learning that the Paraclete functions in the role of broker or mediator have for understanding worship in John 14-17? As conveyor both of God's words to the clients and the clients' prayers to God, Jesus-the-broker plays the essential role of mediator or broker in the worship of God. The Paraclete, however, seems to function as a sub- or co-broker to Jesus. He makes intelligible to the clients Jesus' teaching and person; he continues Jesus' forensic judgment of the world. But nothing is said about his being the broker of the group's prayers, which are all made "in my [Jesus'] name." Thus the Paraclete functions as the mediator of God's and Jesus' words/teachings, which might in a worship service be evident in prophecy, preaching and teaching the Jesus story, and even in understanding the Scriptures.

Not on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem. But Where?

As noted earlier, Jesus' declaration that his body would be the new, true Temple (2:19-22) is followed by a dispute with a Samaritan woman about where to worship, Mt. Gerizim or Mt. Zion (4:20), which Jesus de-classifies as sacred places of worship (Swanson: 248-51). Thus, the Johannine disciples have no fixed sacred space in contrast with Samaritan and Israelite temples. Nor does the local synagogue serve as the site of its worship, for public confession of Jesus as the Christ means expulsion from that assembly (9:22, 12:42-43 and 16:l-2).But if_not Mt. Gerizlm, not Jerusalem, not the synagogue, then where? One of the dominant themes discussed in John 14-17 is where worship will take place. We argue that parts of the answer will come from a fresh consideration of (1) "many rooms" (14:2), (2) "being in" and "dwelling in," and (3) physical closeness to Jesus. But first let us employ an anthropological model of space to appreciate Jesus' de-classification of Mts. Gerizim and Zion.

Fixed vs Fluid Sacred Space (4:21-24)

"Not on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" negates fixed sacred space, that is temples and the elaborate systems that surround them: priests, offerings, tithes, revenues, the cultic building, its adornment and maintenance, and hosts of diverse persons to staff it, perform in it, and guard it. Ethnic temples are clear examples of fixed sacred space, which is often expressed by claiming that the temple is the "navel" or "center" of the world. Since discussion of fixed or fluid space depends on some social theory of space, let us briefly examine a model commonly used in the anthropology of space, namely, "territoriality." Robert Sack, a representative of modern research, defines it as follows:

Territoriality will be defined as the attempt to affect,
influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships,
by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic
area ....Territories require constant effort to establish
and maintain [Sack: 19].
This means that groups typically engage in a three-step process: (1) classification of the space (mine/yours, sacred/ profane, etc.), (2) communication of the classification (fences, gates, walls), and (3) control of the space. Within this overarching model, let us examine "fluid" vs "fixed" sacred space. On this point we turn to Mary Douglas and one of her best interpreters, Bruce J. Malina. Of fixed sacred space, Malina writes:

Just as persons have their statuses by ascription and
perdure in that status indefinitely, the same holds true
for places. The topography of the main places where people
in this script live out their lives is rather permanent.
A palace location, a temple location, and a homestead stay
in the same place and with the same lineage through
generations [Malina 1986:31].
Thus fixed sacred space correlates with fixed roles and statuses. All of this is characterized by redundant aspects of stability, permanence and continuity. The temple-city of Jerusalem exemplifies this well. Of fluid sacred space, Malina writes:

This situation of porous boundaries and competing groups
stands in great contrast to the solid, hierarchical, pyramidal
shape of strong group/high grid [fixed space] ... as groups
form and re-form anew, permanence is no longer to be found
outside the group; and where the group is, there is stability.
Sacred space is located in the group, not in some impersonal
space like a temple. The group is the central location of
importance, whether the Body of Christ, the church, for Christians,
or the synagogue gathering for Jews, or the philosophical
"schools." ... Discourse within these groups, whether the
words of a portable Torah, the story of Jesus, or the exhortations
of the philosopher-teacher, becomes the mobile, portable,
exportable focus of sacred place, in fact more important than
the fixed and eternal sacred places [Malina 1986: 38].
Malina's classification is based on considerations of space and time, at which we must look more closely. The following chart should make explicit the contrasts on every level between fixed and fluid sacred space.

This model of fluid vs. fixed sacred space alerts us to certain aspects of worship as they may appear in John 1417. First, significant attention must be given to group, not place; second, the channel of the communication which is worship will not be sacrifice, performed by a priest whose competency rests on birth into the appropriate clan or family, but verbal worship, which is both verbal prayer to God and verbal listening to God's word as this is articulated by competent figures in the group. In short, where the group is, there is the place of worship.

In My Father's House There Are Many Rooms (14:2)

Beginnings are generally significant rhetorical places to establish a topic, and we read John 14:2 in this manner. This verse contains two phrases: (I) "in my Father's house there are many rooms" and (2) "I am going to prepare a place for you." A recent dissertation on these verses offers critical, inventive interpretation of it. McCaffrey notes that "my Father's house" has been variously explained as heaven, the heavenly temple, the messianic kingdom, even the universe (McCaffrey: 29-35). Since there is no longer any fixed sacred space or earthly temple made sacred by God's dwelling, we look to God's "realm" as the place for worshiping God--wherever that may be. McCaffrey, moreover, adds to the discussion an important consideration, namely, that "house" suggests relationships, such as a Father-Son or intimate kinship relationship (McCaffery: 49-64). In this house/household, then, are many relations, Father and son, God and disciples, and perhaps other Christians yet to be brought in--"many rooms" (see John 17:20-22; Swanson: 244-45, 257-60). And when Jesus states that "I go to prepare a place for you," he goes not as an architect but as a broker of relationships which will secure access to God through himself. Thus we are inclined to read 14:2, in terms of personal relationships and not in terms of buildings or space.

Jesus next states that he "goes away and comes back"--he goes "to prepare a place for you" and then says "I will come back and will take you to myself." His purpose is that "where I am you also may be." Having brokered his relationship with the Father, he returns to solidify his relationship with God's clients. He does not say that he will take the disciples to the "Father's house," but rather facilitates his brokerage by maintaining a favored relationship with the disciples. Thus, I would extend the sense of "relationship" to the "place" which Jesus prepares: Jesus functions, as we will shortly argue, as broker in a patron-client relationship first linked with his Father-Patron and then with his disciples-clients. As tortured as it may sound, Jesus is in two "places" at once: in heaven (in relationship with God, wherever God is) and on earth (in relationship with disciples, wherever they gather). Balancing his remark that he has access to God's presence, he also "takes the disciples to myself." Thus they too have access to God's house, but only in relation to Jesus. Poor Thomas, who does not know the way to the Father's house! Jesus tells him, "I am the way ..." (14:6), that is, the exclusive relationship with God and the unique broker to God: "No one comes to the Father, but by me." Jesus, then, is both relationship and access, but he is not "place."

Later Jesus amplifies the meanings we argue for "Father's house" and "place": "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23). Once more, the key to this "geography" is relationship: (1) a disciple loving Jesus and keeping his word, (2) the Father loving this disciple, and (3)their coming to him and making a "home" ("room," as in 14:2) with him. Jesus again serves as the key link, the broker or mediator. The disciple-client, then, must maintain faithfulness with this mediator, which relationship will be honored by the Father-Patron. Thus a link between disciple and Father is forged in and through Jesus. The purpose or utility of this relationship comes from the benefaction the Patron then shows the client, namely, "we will make our home with him." Any disciple may fit this description, and any earthly place is suitable for this relationship to occur. The only exclusive thing that makes this place "sacred" is the fact that only a disciple in such a relationship with Jesus has a relationship with the Father.

Later Jesus petitions God for a benefaction related to the Johannine statement studied above, namely, that "place" = relationship: "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory that you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world" (17:24). The related figures include "Father, ....I," "they whom you gave me," that is, the same persons described in terms of patron-broker-clients above. The Patron has already established the broker with his clients, but he is now petitioned to bestow on them a unique blessing: "to behold my glory that you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world." What can "be with me where I am" mean? Several times in John 17 Jesus recognizes the non-relatedness of the disciples to "the world" While they are "in the world" (17:11), they are not "of the world" (17:14). Nevertheless, Jesus does not ask that they be removed from the world: "I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one" (17:15). Thus "that they be with me where I am" is no heavenly ascent nor a spatial relocation. Rather, the directional and spatial patterns we have been observing suggest that such language is best understood in terms of relationships. The relationship of Jesus with the Father contains elements of obedience, love, and generosity. In John 17, we are told thirteen times that the Father "gave" Jesus something, such as "power over all flesh" (17:2), "those you gave me" (17:6, 9, 24), "everything" (17:7), "the words you gave me" (17:8, 14), "the name" (17:11-12), and "glory" (17:22, 24). And Jesus' numerous petitions suggest that God will continue giving and giving in Jesus' name. Similarly, the Jesus-broker and disciples-clients relationship contains strains of loyalty, generosity and faithfulness. For example, Jesus, gifted with the "name" of God, reveals it to his disciples (17:6, 11, 12, 26); he has given them God's "word" (17:14, 17) and "glory" (17:22, 24). It is not enough that God play patron to his disciples via a broker; the fullest benefaction will occur when the broker "takes" the disciples close to God--a relationship, not a geographical or fixed sacred place.

Thus we return to the phrase "to behold my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world" The "place" of Jesus' pre-creation glory must be in the presence of God--in the bosom of God (i:18; 17:5). Jesus' petition in 17:24 does not require that the disciples be taken to a new place or be transported heavenward. His prayer may be accomplished by some sort of christophany in which the disciples "behold my glory." That is, they who are still in the world will see into heaven, just as Nathanael and others in 1:51 were promised a vision, if not of heaven itself then certainly of heavenly persons (see Acts 7:55-56). Thus Jesus' declaration in 14:2 that there are "many rooms" in the Father's house and its repetition in 14:23 are best understood as descriptions of relationships, not places such as were de-classified in 4:21. No specific earthly place in the world is envisioned, but rather a relationship between the Father, Jesus, and the disciples, which we describe as a Patron-Broker-client relationship.

"Being In" and "Dwelling In"

We find in John 14 and 15 a number of remarks by Jesus describing his relationship with both the Father and disciples, which are seemingly expressed in spatial terms. He expresses his relationship with the Father in two ways: (1) "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (14:10, 11, 20), and "the Father dwells in me" (14:10b). Similarly, Jesus' relationship with the disciples parallels that between him and God: "I am in my Father and you in me and I in you" (14:20). Although one might think of "in" as a spatial term ("in my Father's house there are many rooms"), as we have noted, the disciples do not travel to another place nor does "being in" necessarily imply spatial location.

Likewise with "dwell in." In terms of Jesus' relationship with God, we are told that "the Father dwells in me" (14:10b). The same verb is used 10 times in 15:4-10 to express the relationship of Jesus with the disciples. On the one hand, the disciple must "dwell" in or remain in or sustain loyalty to Jesus: "the branch cannot bear fruit unless it 'dwells' in the vine" (15:4). Conversely, if a branch "dwells" in the vine, the vine curiously will "dwell" in the branch: "dwell in me and I in you" (15:4, 5b). An alternate way of expressing this in 15:7 indicates a basis for this type of dwelling: "If you 'dwell' in me and my words 'dwell' in you ...." Finally, the Spirit will "dwell" in you and 'be' in you (14:17).

Although the metaphors are those of space, we best understand them in terms of relationships. Paul urges the Philippians to have the "mind of Christ," that is, his thoughts, values, relationships, etc. Such a person would then resemble Jesus; one might even say that Jesus dwells in that disciple. A useful image of this might be a coin, with Jesus' image on one side and that of the disciple on the other, only it also resembles Jesus. Often Jesus declares that he has God's powers, words, commands; and so we have another coin, with God on one side and Jesus on the other. Now let us fuse the two coins, with the two Jesus sides face-to-face. Then God dwells in Jesus as do the disciples; and through Jesus, God dwells in the disciples and the disciples dwell in God. What type of relationships do we envision? At least two categories are suitable here: (1) kinship relationships (father, son, household), and (2) patron-broker-client--both the Father and Jesus and Jesus and the disciples.

C. H. Dodd saw the same phenomenon, although he did not interpret it as the foundation of worship in the Fourth Gospel. His observations are worth noting (Dodd: 187).

Consideration of relationships reminds us of the Greek virtue of righteousness in which duties to God, family and polls are articulated. All these relationships demand faithfulness and loyalty. Occasionally one finds "love" cited as a way in which duty is shown. These expressions of relationship have a bearing on how we read parts of the Farewell Address. Juxtaposed to the exhortation to "dwell" in Jesus and to "love," we find a paragraph about "hate." The world hates the disciples (15:18-25), a hatred which is expressed in 16:1-2 where they are told of expulsion from the synagogue and death. Jesus' explains why he tells them this prediction: "to keep you from falling away." Later he predicts that they will not "remain" but will "be scattered, every man to his home" (16:32). In the face of "hate," "scandal," and "scattering," the exhortation to "dwell" in Jesus takes on special significance. Nevertheless, the discourse, while on the level of physical separation and distancing, expresses close relationship of the highest sort. Thus "being in" and "dwelling in" correspond to "love," but "scandal" and "scattering" are the converse. Loyal and faithful relationships, we argue, best explain these erstwhile spatial terms.

Therefore, as regards the place of worship for the Johannine group, we draw the following conclusions. Although the group meets in a particular place, this is not fixed sacred space. When the group finishes its worship, the place becomes secular again. This sort of arrangement suggests that little by way of funding is needed, certainly not the system of sacrifices, dress and adornment of the Temple. Nor do we hear of or expect notice of a leader of worship; there certainly is no system of priestly ministers as found in the Temple. The focus of worship is "text," both the Scriptures but also the words of Jesus. His words are a portable shrine.

Summary, Conclusions, Further Questions

Summary

This study began by providing a current descriptive inventory of worship. In addition, we developed a social science model of worship based on communication theory which adequately explains how both prayer and other types of worship (prophecy, homily, etc.) all belong together as diverse aspects of worship. The communications model identifies and interprets the two directions of communication: (1) worshipers sending a message to the deity for a specific purpose and (2) the deity sending a message to the worshipers for various purposes. The model identifies both the medium of the communication and the channel along which it is sent, as well as a wide variety of purposes for the communication.

In regard to a full interpretation of prayer, the communication model, which led to the typology of prayer, advances our understanding by a detailed and nuanced articulation of various effects that prayer seeks to have on the deity. While we are all familiar with the purpose of petitionary prayer, we found the typology of prayer particularly helpful in identifying self-focused, heuristic and informational prayers.

Moreover, the model allowed for a nuanced reading and understanding of other forms of worship, which in the model describe the communication of the deity with worshipers. But the complete model of communication describes worship, not just that of mortals to God but also of God to mortals. Thus we were able both to surface data according to the forms of group-speech known from early Christianity and to appreciate how they link together as God's speech to the group. If the sub-forms were studied individually, we would not know their relationship to other parts of John 1417. The model gives insight into the parts and the whole.

In examining the issue of "where" the Johannine group worshiped, we were greatly aided by employing the model of fixed vs fluid sacred space. Fluid sacred space, unlike fixed space as found in temples, does not embody the system of temple personnel such as we find in Jerusalem's temple. Thus we can go further than the standard rejections of Mts. Gerizim and Zion and the traditional affirmations of "spirit and truth." The model of fluid sacred space urges us to examine how both the person of Jesus and the persons of the group become the sacred space. Jesus does not take his disciples out of the world, even though he has prepared a place for them. The key element in understanding the "where" of worship for the Johannine group is our appreciation of how Jesus as the ascended Lord continues to offer christophanies to the group, especially by revealing the sacred name "I AM" to them. In short, God draws near to the group through Jesus, especially through the shrine of the sacred name; and the disciples are drawn near through Jesus, especially as the heavenly figure who maintains his presence on earth. Thus we look to relationships as the "where" of worship.

We addressed the issue of the roles that constitute the relationship just described. The model of patron-broker-client, known from both ancient authors and modern anthropologists, seems particularly applicable to worship as we find it described in John 14-17. Broker is the preferred role in which the author of the Fourth Gospel as well as other New Testament authors understand how Jesus relates to God and to the disciples. In particular, it provides a full and apt interpretation of Jesus' communication in John 14-17: all of the client's petitions to the heavenly Patron are made "in my name," just as the Patron's "words" and "commands" all come through Jesus to the disciples. Whether "broker," "mediator," or "priest," we have both a social and functional understanding of Jesus' role in the verbal worship of the Johannine group.

Astute commentators tend to identify one or other of the topics listed above. But interpretation is painfully incomplete unless these data are properly classified as elements of worship. Unless one knows the whole, how can s/he properly recognize the parts? Knowledge of the model of worship surfaces data that are oftentimes overlooked, and then provides the appropriate scenario for understanding their relationship. A very useful tool, this model.

Finally, John 14-17 is normally labeled a "Farewell Address," and with good reason because it contains materials one easily identifies as elements of such an address. But these Johannine chapters are surprisingly found to contain materials obviously related to worship and prayer which do not comfortably fit the model of a farewell address. When one adds to discussions of worship both a communications model and the notion of fluid vs sacred space, then most of the material in John 14-17 can be seen to be part of a large discourse on worship in the Fourth Gospel. A familiar text is thus freshly interpreted precisely because new models of reading and interpretation suggest new data. Are the two models in opposition? No, each can explain data not covered by the other. Both seem to be productive ways of reading.

Further Questions

Because we have focused on John 14-17, our investigation of worship may suffer in two ways. First, how are we to interpret pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem? How do we understand baptism (3:22-26) and eating the bread of life (6:32-56)? As Aune earlier stated (973), worship consists of "various types of rituals experiencing., a Christians gathered to eat together, to baptize new members, to experience healing." The very presence of the foot washing in 13:12-17 suggests a ceremonial welcome of group members by its officials. Is this part of group worship? The details of a purificatory ritual described in 20.'23 are absent, although Jesus authorizes those on whom he breathed to "forgive" and "retain" sins. What, then, still needs to identified and interpreted? Second, the more forms of worship that are identified, the more need we have of a consideration of roles and statuses within the group. How might the patron-broker-client model assist us in interpreting other rituals and other forms of worship? Third, if we have focused only on John 14-17, then are there other data in the Gospel about various forms worship and various aspects of it (time, place, ritual)? We claimed to find most of the elements of worship described by those who make surveys of what constitutes early Christian worship. What, however, have we not found in John 14-177 Finally, the worship models exposed here can only benefit from their application to other worship materials in the New Testament.

Works Cited

Aune, David E. 1992. Worship, Early Christian. Pp. 973-89 in ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY, vol. 6.

Boissevain, Jeremy 1974. FRIENDS OF FRIENDS: NETWORKS, MANIPULATORS AND COALITIONS. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Borgen, Peder. 1986. God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel. Pp. 67-78 in THE INTERPRETATION OF JOHN (Issues in Religion and Theology, 9), edited by John Ashton, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press/London: SPCK: 67-78.

Brown, Tricia Gates. 2003. SPIRIT IN THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS:: JOHANNINE PNEUMATOLOGY IN SOCIAL-SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE. London, UK: T & T Clark International.

Burge, Gary M. 1987. THE ANOINTED COMMUNITY. THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITON. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Danker, Frederick W. 1982. BENEFACTOR. EPIGRAPHICAL STUDY OF A GRAECO-ROMAN AND NEW TESTAMENT SEMANTIC FIELD. St. Louis MO: Clayton Publishing House.

Dodd, C. H. 1968. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, John H. 1996 Patronage and Clientage. Pp. 144-58 in THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION. edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Franck, Eskil. 1985. REVELATION TAUGHT. THE PARACLETE IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Lund, Sweden: Wallin & Dahlohm.

Grayston, Kenneth 1981. The Meaning of PARAKLEITOS, JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 13: 67-82.

Malina, Bruce J. 1988. Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology. Pp. 143-75 in his THE SOCIAL WORLD OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS. London, UK: Routledge.

1986. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AND CULTRAL ANTHROPOLOGY. PRCTICAL MODELS FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

Malina Bruce J., & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. 1998. SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Martyn, J. Louis 1979. HISTORY AND THEOLOGY 1N THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Revised ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

McCaffery, James 1988. THE HOUSE WITH MANY ROOMS. THE TEMPLE THEME OF JN. 14,2-3. Rome, Italy: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Mott, Stephen Charles 1975. The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence. Pp. (30-72 in CURRENT ISSUES IN BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION. edited by Gerald Hawthorne. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Oepke, A. 1967. Mesites. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 4. 598-624.

Piper, Ronald A. 2001. Glory, Honor and Patronage in the Fourth Gospel: Understanding the Doxa Given to the Disciples in John 17. Pp. 281-309 in SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE BIBLE. ESSAYS BY THE CONTEXT GROUP IN HONOR OF BRUCE J. MALINA, edited by John J. Pilch. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Sack, RoBert D. 1986. HUMAN TERRITORIALITY. ITS THEORY AND HISTORY. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Saller, Richard P. 1982. PERSONAL PATRONAGE UNDER THE EARLY EMPIRE. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swanson, Tod D. 1994. To Prepare a Place. Johannine Christianity and the Collapse of Ethnic Territory. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION 62:248--51.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew (ed.). 1989. PATRONAGE IN ANCIENT SOCIETY. London, UK: Routledge.

Jerome H. Neyrey, Ph.D. (Yale University) is professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Notre Dame (neyrey.1@nd.edu). His most recent book is a study on God: Render to God by Fortress. He is the author of sixteen articles on the Fourth Gospel and one book; and he has authored a socio-rhetorical commentary on John for the Cambridge University Press which will appear shortly. He is currently finishing a manuscript on prayer and worship for Eerdmans. He is also a member of The Context Group, which studies the Scripture in its social and cultural context.

Category 14:26 15:26

Title or Name 1. Paraclete 1. Paraclete

2. Holy Spirit 2. Spirit of Truth

Source & Relationship whom the Father will whom I shall send to
to Father and Jesus send in my name you from the Father
... who proceeds
from the Father

Functions 1. he will teach you 1. --
all things

2. bring to your 2. he will bear
remembrance all witness to me
that I have said
to you

Category 16:7-10, 12

Title or Name 1. 16:7 Paraclete

2. 16.12 Spirit of Truth

Source & Relationship 16:7 I will send him to you
to Father and Jesus

Functions 1. he will guide you into all
the truth ... he will declare
to you the things that are
to come.

2. he does not speak on
his own authority ... he will
glorify me, for he will take
what is mine and declare it
to you.

3. he will convince the world
of sin: righteousness, and
judgment

FIXED: Temple FLUID: Group

1. topological, actual space 1. place where the group meets

2. place perduring over time 2. space of opportunistic,
occasional group meetings

3. major mode of worship: 3. major mode of worship: verbal
sacrifice forms

4. focus on altar 4. focus on sacred writings

5. hierarchical arrangement of 5. significant individuals whose
persons by birth competency is based on spirit
giftedness or closeness to the
group's hero

The Father knows the Son The Son is in the Father
(x.15) (xiv.10-11I 29, xvii.21)

The Son knows the Father (x.15) The Father is in the Son
(xiv.10-11; xvii.21, 23)

The Son knows men (x.14) Men are in the Son (xiv.20;
xvii.21)

Men know the Son (x. 14) The Son is in the men (xiv.20;
xvii.23, 26)

Men know (see) Father and Son Men are in the Father and the
(xiv.7-8) Son (xvii.21)
COPYRIGHT 2006 Biblical Theology Bulletin, Inc
COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group