The Chiastic Structure Of The Farewell Discourse In The Fourth Gospel, Part 2

By Wayne A. Brouwer

[Wayne A. Brouwer is Associate Professor of Religion, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.]

Abstract

A chiastic reading of John 13–17, validated by Blomberg’s criteria for macrochiasm, shows the repeated “love command” to be a centering element of the Farewell Discourse, recognizes the vine and branches teaching as the turning point for the rest of the discourse, and balances the introductory narrative with the concluding prayer as explications of the “abide in me” theme.

From Poetic Reflexivity To Narrative Art

Biblical scholars universally recognize chiasm as a common structuring device in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. However, as the length of a chiastically developed passage increases and the number of literary building blocks multiply, the immediate clarity of the chiasm is often reduced. Rather than expressing a tight and direct balance of words and phrases across a pivotal center, longer passages (especially in narrative rather than poetry) sometimes hold a more thematic internal correspondence. At this point two streams of scholarly reflection diverge. Some, like Thomson, believe that chiasm functions only on a microchiastic level,[1] while others, such as Blomberg, find ample evidence of the use of macrochiasm throughout biblical literature.[2]

The previous article in this series outlined and tested Blomberg’s nine criteria for identifying macrochiasm.[3] This article suggests that macrochiasm also shapes the Johannine Farewell Discourse. This chiasm centers on the “vine and branches” teaching in John 15:1–17, such that the entire discourse turns on Jesus’s command to “abide in me.”

Reflexive Parallelism In John 13–17

Thomson suggested that the first clue to chiasm in a passage is repetition, and the second clue is a central element of heightened significance that calls attention to the reflexive mirroring of words and themes across the midpoint of the text. The Johannine Farewell Discourse indeed features terms and ideas that balance in somewhat equivalent measure on either side of a pivotal center.

The first occurrence of specific repetition in the discourse comes in 14:27, which mirrors verse 1. There does not, however, appear to be a broader repetition of ideas or themes at this moment. Jesus instead continues the new theme of the peace that his disciples will receive.

With 15:12 we have a clear reiteration of 13:34. Not only that, but 15:17 repeats the command to “love one another.” The intervening verses pick up the theme of masters and servants first expressed in 13:16 and the exhortation to bear fruit from 15:1–8. They also reflect the commissioning theses of 13:31–33.

In the next section, repetitions from earlier statements leap out. John 15:18–25 picks up the theme of the “world” (ὁ κόσμος) from 14:27–31. Similarly, 15:26–27 reiterates words and ideas from 14:25–26.

When Jesus observes, “None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ” the reader may immediately recall Peter’s question to that effect back in 13:36. Yet the theme of 16:4b–15 is largely parallel to that of 14:15–24, where Jesus promises to send the Advocate (παράκλητος) who strengthens those who know Jesus and the Father, but works in opposition to whatever belongs to “the world.”

John 16:16–28 brings back Jesus’s talk of leaving “in a little while” and the comfort to be provided by the Father that was first presented in 14:1–14. In fact, just as at the center of the earlier passage Thomas and Philip questioned the meaning of Jesus’s words, so also at the center of this section the disciples as a group are given to questioning. The section ends in the same way that 14:1 began, with a straightforward declaration by Jesus that he is returning to the Father.

Then, when it seems as if clarity in all things has arrived (16:29) and the disciples are confident in Jesus’s teaching, the dark shadows of 13:36–38 return. Just as there Jesus declared solidarity with the disciples in the coming trauma and then spoke a prophecy about denial, so here in 16:29–33, after the disciples declare great faith, Jesus foretells their desertion.

As chapter 17 opens, Jesus takes command of the group in a way that recalls the beginning of chapter 13. He also repeats a line from 13:1: “the hour has come” (17:1). In 13:3 the evangelist tells us that Jesus knew “that the Father had given all things into his hands.” In 17:2 Jesus declares that the Father “has given him authority over all people.” Then, in parallel to the foot-washing episode in chapter 13, Jesus now announces in chapter 17 that he has prepared the disciples to belong to the Father. Further, he declares that all of them have become one with the Father and Jesus “except the one destined to be lost” (v. 12). This is located within the prayer in a position virtually identical to Jesus’s declaration during the foot-washing ceremony that “not all of you are clean” (13:11).

As Jesus concludes his prayer in 17:21–24, he refers to the glory shared between the Father and himself, repeating again the theme (and almost the wording) of 13:31–33. The prayer culminates in a definitive declaration that shared love will become the norm (17:25–26). These words repeat the injunction of the new commandment stated in 15:12–17 and earlier in 13:34–35.

Clearly the repetition of words and ideas in the Johannine Farewell Discourse suggests the possibility of chiastic reflexivity. Virtually all who read John 13–17 note these repetitions.[4]

The second stage of chiastic investigation, according to Thomson, calls for a closer look at the correspondence between parallel repetitive sections and the manner in which the movement of thought in the elements relates to the conceptual development of the whole. Based on the movement of plot in the discourse, an initial broad understanding of the reflexive movement would look something like this:

A. Symbolic union with Jesus and an act of sanctification (foot washing) (13:1–35)

B. Themes of leaving, denial, trouble, and comfort (13:36–14:31)

C. Life connections (15:1–17)

Bʹ. Themes of trouble, comfort, leaving, and denial (15:18–16:33)

Aʹ. Symbolic union with Jesus and an act of sanctification (prayer) (17:1–26)

Indeed, those who look for elements of chiastic parallelism in the Johannine Farewell Discourse begin here.[5] Yet while the simplicity and clear chiastic reading above has inherent integrity, it is too brief to deal with the larger complexity of the two major discourse sections, 13:35–14:31 and 15:18–16:33. This study proposes the following chiastic outline:

A. Gathering scene (Focus on unity with Jesus expressed in mutual love) (13:1–35)

B. Prediction of the disciple’s denial (13:36–38)

C. Jesus’s departure tempered by assurance of the Father’s power (14:1–14)

D. The promise of the παράκλητος (“Advocate”) (14:15–26)

E. Troubling encounter with the world (14:27–31)

F. The vine and branches teaching producing a community of mutual love (15:1–17)

Eʹ. Troubling encounter with the world (15:18–16:4a)

Dʹ. The promise of the παράκλητος (“Advocate”) (16:4b–15)

Cʹ. Jesus’s departure tempered by assurance of the Father’s power (16:16–28)

Bʹ. Prediction of the disciples’ denial (16:29–33)

Aʹ. Departing prayer (Focus on unity with Jesus expressed in mutual love) (17:1–26)

Testing The Hypothesis

Blomberg’s criteria for assessing perceived macrochiasms (laid out in the previous article) have provided an objective measuring tool for what has often become a subjective field of investigation. All of Blomberg’s nine criteria are useful in reading the Johannine Farewell Discourse, although criteria 2, 3, and 7 are most essential in determining the strength of chiastic movement in John 13–17.

Criterion 1: Other Approaches Must Prove Problematic

There are indeed many problems in perceiving the overall structure of the Johannine Farewell Discourse. If it is read as taking place during a single meal, the logic of the conversations between Jesus and the disciples seems to break down at times.[6] Words, phrases, and themes repeat in very short order, but also seem to appear in isolation from one another.[7] Furthermore, the transitions between 14:31 and 15:1 and between the first and second parts of 16:4 are quite abrupt and seem to thwart simple literary organizational solutions.

The discourse itself begs to be treated as a coherent literary unit.[8] Narrative signals (13:2; 18:1) indicate that all of the action, dialogue, and monologue take place within a single location (a guest room where Jesus and the disciples are sharing an evening meal) and at a single time (on the night before Jesus’s crucifixion). The mealtime activities that open chapter 13 become the opportunity for Jesus to talk with his disciples about their identity and begin to explain the next stage in the process of “glorification.” These discussions continue to explore the same themes through the end of chapter 16. Finally, Jesus offers a prayer in which he raises many of the same issues of identity and future expectations that were expressed in the preceding verses.

Nevertheless, the difficulties of literary development in the Johannine Farewell Discourse remain. The most obvious of these problems is found in Jesus’s command in 14:31, “Rise, let us be on our way.” This command seems strange in its present location,[9] since none of the disciples make any immediate effort to vacate the room. In fact, Jesus’s speech continues without any further reference to departure until 18:1.[10] The interpretations of the unusual location of Jesus’s leave-taking command may be grouped into two major exegetical approaches, one that takes the text as it stands and attempts to develop consistent meaning from the given data,[11] and another that sees 14:31 as a remnant of the multi-layered history behind the final version of the Gospel.[12]

Another significant problem for determining the flow of the discourse emerges near the beginning of chapter 16. In 16:5, as Jesus talks of his imminent departure, he asserts, “But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ” This appears quite troubling when Peter asked exactly that question a short while earlier (13:36). Moreover, Thomas had already challenged Jesus’s departure in virtually the same manner (14:5). Clearly, whatever logical flow or directed movement there might have been in the discourse suddenly seems to break down.

Several solutions have been put forth, but none has achieved consensus.[13] For Bultmann and Bernard, who find the entire text of the Farewell Discourse unfortunately jumbled, the problem is dealt with simply by placing both Peter’s and Thomas’s questions after Jesus’s challenge.[14] Calvin asserted that the disciples are, in fact, growing in their understanding of Jesus’s meaning as the discourse continues its development. “Now,” says Jesus, near the end of his teaching, “none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ” In this reading, Jesus’s statement in 16:5 confirms their growth rather than challenges their intelligence.[15] But by far the most common explanation of 16:5 is that two or more textual sources were blended without careful reflection or polish by the final editor.[16]

Perhaps the best resolution to these apparent syllogistic lapses comes when the diachronic readings, which identify redactional editing at work, and the synchronic interpretations, which read the text in its received form, are brought together in a chiastic approach. The historical background to the present shape of the text explains why these different versions of seemingly the same incidents came into being. The chiastic attention to reflexive parallelism may show how they can be read in location as elements of the discourse folding back upon itself. Certainly, in the literature to date there are no other obvious solutions to the problems presented by the movements of the Johannine Farewell Discourse.

Criterion 2: Clear Parallelism Between Halves

Blomberg’s second criterion calls for reflexive repetition and clear evidence of parallelism between the first and second halves.

Indeed, all who investigate John 13–17 note the many words, phrases, and themes that recur. These repetitions appear to lack direct and focused linear progression. “The logical development and coherence of the discourses are not always immediately obvious,” says Dodd. “There are many repetitions. The argument often seems to return upon itself.”[17] Lussier compares the eddying of themes throughout the discourse to “the circling movements of the eagle,” a “spiral” of “thoughts progressively strengthened and deepened” without “logical divisions” or “systematic developments.”[18] The discourse does not always flow in measured steps.

White sees “fifteen, or perhaps seventeen, examples of this doubling back upon what has already been said.”[19] For the “superficial reader,” he says, it seems a “rambling, almost desultory, talk.”[20] After analysis and a forthright attempt to bring some harmony and direction to the discourse material, Sloyan states that “any division attempted within chapters 14–16 proves artificial” because of the repetitive style.[21]

Brown identifies at least twenty-five specific instances of obviously complementary thought[22] and finds it intriguing that the parallel elements almost always lie on either side of 14:31. Indeed, several larger parallel sections begin to emerge from this comparison. First, virtually all of 14:1–14 is repeated in some form in 16:16–28. Second, Jesus’s teachings about the παράκλητος (“Advocate”) in 14:15–26 and 16:4b–15 are very similar. Third, in 14:27–31 and again in 15:18–27 and 16:1–4a, Jesus’s theme is the troubling that his disciples will encounter from the world, which will be countered by the peace that he provides from within. Fourth, 15:1–8 contains virtually no words that are paralleled anywhere else in the Farewell Discourse. Certainly, there is sufficient parallel between each half to test the next of Blomberg’s criteria.

Criterion 3: Verbal And Conceptual Parallelism

The paired segments of the Farewell Discourse contain many direct verbal and conceptual parallels. For segments A and Aʹ these verbal parallels can be noted: the coming of “the hour” (13:1; 17:1); all things / eternal life given into Jesus’s hands (13:3; 17:2, 7); Scripture fulfilled (13:18; 17:12); the Son glorified (13:31; 17:1, 24); divine love (13:34–35; 17:26).

Conceptual parallels are also evident: the work of the devil / Satan / evil one in Judas (13:2, 27; 17:12, 15); interwoven love between Jesus and the Father now shared with the disciples (13:1, 34, 35; 17:23–24, 26); deliberate declaration of connection between Jesus and the disciples (13:8; 17:6, 10–11, 21–23); Jesus’s imminent departure from the disciples to the Father (13:1, 33; 17:5, 11). Furthermore, the act of washing symbolized becoming clean, holy, or sanctified.[23] Thus, the prayer in chapter 17 and the foot washing event in chapter 13 have the same purpose.

For segments B and Bʹ, focused on predictions of betrayal, there are no direct verbal parallels. The theme of each segment, however, is virtually identical with its counterpart. In 13:36–38 Peter has a brief dialogue with Jesus and asserts his full allegiance. Jesus then asks a question that challenges Peter’s confident declaration and predicts his imminent denial. In much the same way, 16:29–33 begins with the disciples in conversation with Jesus, declaring their full understanding of his identity and absolute confidence in their relationship with him. Again, Jesus asks a question that challenges their boldness and then declares that they will all leave him.

The theme of segments C and Cʹ is Jesus’s nearing departure coupled with a promise of power that Jesus will give. Direct verbal parallels are found in Jesus’s statements about the confidence the disciples can have in prayer (14:13–14; 16:23–24). At the same time, extensive conceptual parallelism exists between the segments in their portrayal of the place to which Jesus is going (“my Father’s house,” 14:2; “I . . . am going to the Father,” 16:28) and the troubling that will give way to patience through Jesus’s peace (14:1; 16:20–23).

All scholars have noted the verbal parallels between segments D and Dʹ: “Advocate” (14:16, 26; 16:7); “Spirit of truth” (14:17; 16:13); Advocate sent (πέμπω) (14:26; 16:7). Besides these direct parallels there are many near-parallel allusions as well as many conceptual parallels. These segments are closely related in their verbal and conceptual development.

Segments E and Eʹ are also reflexive in content, with each predominately focused on the power of the “world” (14:27, 30; 15:18, 19), which will seek to unsettle the disciples, and on the greater power of the Father (14:28, 31; 15:22, 24, 26; 16:3), which will provide safety and peace for the disciples. These examples show the verbal and conceptual parallelism between the reflexive pairs as required by Blomberg’s third criterion.

Criteria 4 And 5: Obvious And Significant Parallelism

The terms and concepts that are parallel in these sections also meet Blomberg’s fourth criterion: the verbal parallelism should involve central or dominant imagery or terminology, not peripheral or trivial language. The terms and concepts listed under each section above are, indeed, the dominant materials of each section.

Blomberg’s fifth criterion states that the verbal and conceptual parallelisms should use words and ideas not regularly found elsewhere within the proposed chiasmus. Apart from one reference to the Advocate in 15:26 and the expression of the “love command” in 15:12,[24] the terms, phrases, and concepts that are found in parallel segments are found only in those parallel segments.

Criterion 6: Multiple Sets Of Paralleled Sections

Blomberg finds stronger evidence of macrochiasm when a passage shows reflexive parallelism across the mid-section through a greater number of paired sections. In the development of John 13–17 as outlined in this study there are five sets of parallels, creating a strong chiastic movement.

Criterion 7: Chiastic Segments Follow Natural Breaks

The major literary cues used to determine boundary points between one section and another include editorial comment,[25] overt changes in setting,[26] temporal designations,[27] and changes in dialogue from one form of interaction to another.[28] Using these it is possible to mark the change that takes place at the beginning of the Farewell Discourse as a whole. The public ministry of Jesus closes in 12:37–50, and a clear change in scene takes place at 13:1, which emphasizes that now Jesus’s “hour” has come. Further, the location changes from the marketplace of chapter 12 to the quiet intimacy of Jesus’s private session with the disciples (chs. 13–17). Together these clues require that chapter 13 be treated either as an introductory subsection of the larger whole or as setting the context for the dialogue.[29] In either case, it cannot be divorced from chapters 14–17.

From a literary perspective, even with the insights of historical criticism,[30] chapter 13 belongs to the Farewell Discourse, as suggested by the announcement of the arrival of Jesus’s “hour” at 13:1 (reaffirmed in Jesus’s identification of Judas as the betrayer [v. 27]), the recurring announcement of Jesus’s imminent departure (e.g., 13:31, 33; 14:25–31; 16:5–7, 16–19), and the finality of the prayer in chapter 17. Moreover, the discourse begins in response to the activities outlined in the table scene of chapter 13, and the conversation and activity in chapters 13–17 appear to take place within that setting (cf. 18:1).

While it is apparent that John 13 belongs to the larger section of chapters 13–17, less evident is the point at which the conversations between Jesus and the disciples take on an overtly discursive character.31 Segovia contends that from a literary point of view the crucial section in determining the length of the “introduction” to the Farewell Discourse is Jesus’s dialogue with his disciples after Judas leaves (13:31–38). The great majority of scholars agree with Segovia that these verses introduce the entire discourse.32 Two literary movements are generally noted in support of this view. First, at the end of verse 30 Judas leaves the group, changing the atmosphere of the gathering. Second, Jesus announces the arrival of the moment of “glory” in verses 31–32. Even though a similar declaration was made by the narrator at the beginning of John 13, this time it comes as a part of Jesus’s personal message to his disciples.

Some view 13:31–38 as separate from what precedes, noting that these verses mark the departure of Judas.[33] Yet verse 31 seems to draw its short speech of Jesus into the context of Judas’s exit. There also appears to be an unusual move from verse 35 to verse 36. While Peter’s question in verse 36 (“Lord, where are you going?”) follows well from Jesus’s statement in verse 33, verses 34–35 break the flow of thought. Thus, it is not entirely clear where the secondary divisions occur within the chapter. In effect, the “new commandment speech” of verses 34–35 appears to be a redactive insertion.[34] If this is the case, it changes the focus of verses 31–38 and appears to announce a distinction between verses 31–35 and the following verses. With the later insertion of the “new command” in verses 34–35, the theme begun in verse 1 is drawn full circle and the unity of the first section of John 13–17 is found in 13:1–35.

It is commonly held that 14:15 opens a new topic of the monologue.[35] There are several reasons to respect this literary division. First, from 13:36–14:14 the discourse exhibits a dialogic character in which Peter (13:36), Thomas (14:5), and Philip (14:8) in rapid succession each ask a question. Jesus immediately responds to these questions, but in 14:15 he appears to begin a monologue.[36] Second, the focus shifts from talk about the character of Jesus as revealed by his past actions and activities (vv. 1–14) to promises of things to come (vv. 15–31).[37] Third, Jesus’s statements in verses 15 and 16 are joined by the conjunction κἀγώ, and verse 16 contains the first of five passages that focus on the coming and ministry of the παράκλητος. Finally, while there is a connection to verses 12–13 based on the idea of doing works, the preceding verses emphasize visible activity; after verse 15 the focus shifts to obedience.

Another minor but distinctive literary movement happens between verses 26 and 27. In verses 15–16 Jesus announced the coming of the παράκλητος, and in verses 25–26 he reiterates that promise. In between, he identifies the function of the παράκλητος, drawing attention to the union the παράκλητος would create between himself, the Father, and the disciples.

With the παράκλητος teaching of 14:15–26 in place, Jesus brings this section of the Farewell Discourse to a conclusion with what Beasley-Murray calls an “epilogue.”[38] Here the teachings that began the discourse return, most notably the injunction “do not let your hearts be troubled” (vv. 1, 27). This beginning section of the discourse reaches an abrupt conclusion when Jesus declares in verse 31, “Arise; let us leave!”

There is general agreement that 15:1–8 forms the nucleus of the next literary unit. These verses pointedly state (vv. 1, 5a), extend (vv. 2, 6), and apply (vv. 3–4, 5b, 7–8) the metaphor of the vine, branches, and caretaker. Except for a reference to “bearing fruit” in verse 16, the metaphor is finished at verse 8.

There is less agreement on the length of the section that begins with 15:1–8. Bernard, for instance, believes that verses 1–8 are separate from what follows. He sees the statement “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you” (v. 9a) as signaling the beginning of a new idea (cf. 13:2).[39] Westcott believes otherwise. He sees 15:1–10 as the first of seven “discourses on the way.”[40] Hendriksen would extend the opening pericope of chapter 15 one verse further and make the break between literary units at verse 12, where “Jesus now proceeds . . . from the precept ‘Abide in me’ (15:1–11) . . . to the next one, ‘love one another.’ ”[41] Several scholars, such as Morris and Tasker, draw the line after the final reference to the vine imagery in verse 16.[42]

Most often, however, 15:1–17 is understood to be a literary unit.[43] Brown notes two reasons for this: “The last mention of the imagery of vine (‘bear fruit’) appears in 16, and there does seem to be a change of subject between 17 and 18.”[44] Bultmann further notes the recurring emphasis on “abide” throughout the passage.[45] These repeated expressions hold the unit together as a single pericope.[46]

It is generally held that the section that begins at 15:18 extends through the first part of 16:4. The initial sentence in 16:4 summarizes and closes the discussion of the previous verses, while most scholars recognize that the final sentence in verse 4 belongs to the paragraphs that follow. Also, verse 5 begins with νῦν, responding to the temporal reference in the last part of verse 4.

There appears to be a clear break between 16:15 and 16:16. The former verse concludes Jesus’s thought on the coming of the Spirit, while the latter begins again the theme of Jesus’s imminent departure, carrying that conversation through to verse 28.

There is a kind of concluding quality about 16:29–33. The disciples seem to react positively to the discourse (vv. 29–30), while Jesus uses his stock discourse phrase ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν (“I have said this to you”) to review several main points (v. 33). In between (vv. 31–32) there is a statement regarding the coming time of denial and desertion that echoes Jesus’s harsh words to Peter in 13:38.

Most scholars view the rest of chapter 16 (vv. 4b–33) as having been authored in a single creative moment. Brown, Carson, and Schnackenburg see verses 4b–15 as the first subunit within this larger section.[47] Segovia notes three primary reasons for assessing a break between verses 15 and 16.[48] First, there is a focus in verses 4b–15 on the παράκλητος that does not resurface. Second, the verses following verse 15 pick up themes that were initiated early in the discourse but were not prominent in chapter 15, namely, Jesus’s imminent departure, the promise of the Father’s power, and the predictions of the disciples’ denials. Third, in verses 16–19 the monologue that began in 14:27 is again interrupted by small segments of dialogue.

Determining the next literary break is more difficult. The repetition between the final clause of verse 27 and the beginning of verse 28 signals a unique role for verse 28. Brown notes that there is a striking chiasm in the verse as it stands:

I came from the Father

and have come into the world;

again, I am leaving the world

and I am going to the Father.

This deliberately crafted declaration appears to conclude the focus on leaving in Jesus’s speech in verses 16–27. In addition, the confident rejoinder of the disciples in verse 29 seems to cause Jesus to address a new theme, that of their common desertion (vv. 31–32). Brodie further supports this division between verses 28 and 29 when he points to λέγουσιν as the opening word of verse 29, noting that λέγω often signals the beginning of a new literary section.[49]

The last section of the discourse is recognized universally as consisting in the prayer of John 17. While Jesus’s prayer in chapter 17 is not an entirely seamless garment, as some have suggested,[50] it has an inner cohesiveness that makes dividing it into subunits difficult.[51] Even Bultmann, who juggles various elements of the text of John 13–17 in hopes of finding an “original” order, does not argue against the integrity of the prayer as a single unit.[52]

Because of Jesus’s mediatorial role in the prayer of John 17, virtually all interpretive approaches that allow the text to stand as it has been received view this chapter as a conclusion to the discourse materials proper. It forms the “culmination” of the broader literary unit (chapters 13–17), gathering the themes of the discourse into a resounding finale.[53]

This review of the research into the literary movements of John 13–17 indicates that the divisions of the chiastic reading suggested by this article do conform to “natural breaks” as required by Blomberg’s seventh criterion.

Criterion 8: A Chiastic Center Of Significance

Blomberg’s eighth criterion calls for the center of the presumed macrochiasm to be a passage worthy of that position. By this Blomberg means that the center section should have a theological or ethical significance that focuses or summarizes the major theme or themes of the chiasm as a whole. Further, according to Blomberg, the chiasm would have additional strength if the central theme or focus was clearly linked to the first and last sections of the passage. The demands of this criterion are met when 15:1–17 is understood as the chiastic center and pivot of chapters 13–17.

When 15:1–17 is read as the chiastic center of the Farewell Discourse, a number of exegetical issues are resolved in a meaningful way. First, the vine and branches teaching makes sense within the whole of the discourse. Rather than intruding in the monologue as a strange form of teaching, it now becomes the climax around which the rest of the discourse turns. Everything that Jesus says and does among the disciples in this Farewell Discourse is intended to draw them into a deep and abiding relationship with Jesus. Insofar as that relationship develops, the blessings he announces (peace in a troubled world; spiritual clarity and strength; union with the Father; confidence in times of crisis; expressions of loving behavior) will unfold. Whenever that relationship is severed or diminished, the reverse of these blessings results.

Second, the problem of the dangling command to arise and leave in 14:31b may be put into perspective. The argument that it belongs at this point because it announces the call to a higher plateau of spirituality does not have support in the tone or content of the dialogue. The best explanation for its present location is that it was found originally at the close of one of the earlier Farewell Discourse traditions that was incorporated into this newer version of the discourse by a redactor. The redactor’s intent, however, was not to rewrite all of the elements of the traditions so that they would give birth to a different, seamless account of the discourse. Rather, the various Farewell Discourse materials were joined in a way that brought a new focus to Jesus’s instruction to “abide in me.” The dangling command of 14:31b becomes, in this reading, a marker indicating the end of the first half of the discourse and a call to recognize the teaching that follows it as the apex of the chiastic movement.

Third, in this reading the “love command” of 15:12–17 links the gathering scene and the departing prayer. Each of those sections ends with what appears to be a later redactional insertion of an echo of the love command.

Understood in this manner, the vine and branches teaching of 15:1–17 stands alone in the discourse, with no clear mirroring in any of the other sections. Moreover, through the central thrust of the vine and branches teaching, Jesus’s exhortation for the disciples to “abide in me” summarizes the meaning of the discourse and binds together its multiple sections: (1) The washing episode (A) and prayer (Aʹ) are designed to bring the disciples into a unique relationship with Jesus and the Father. (2) In B and Bʹ the disciples are warned of the heartbreak of desertion, which separates them from the special relationship Jesus wishes them to have with himself. (3) Jesus’s exhortations in C and Cʹ temper the unrest that was caused in the disciples’ hearts by the announcement of Jesus’s imminent departure. Here Jesus promises that his relationship with them will be strengthened even in his physical absence. (4) In sections D and Dʹ the mode of spiritual union that allows the disciples to abide in Jesus is described as a unique dispensation of the παράκλητος. (5) Sections E and Eʹ identify the troubles that the disciples’ unique relationship with Jesus will cause.

The chiastic outline presented here is consistent, with no ruptures or unusual shifts that step out of the typical chiastic sequence. Because of the consistency of the chiastic development in this reading of John 13–17, Blomberg’s final criterion is also met.

In establishing his criteria for assessing macrochiasm, Blomberg acknowledges that “these nine criteria are seldom fulfilled in toto even by well-established chiastic structures.”[54] He indicates that any “hypothesis which fulfills most of all of the nine stands a strong chance of reflecting the actual structure of the text in question.”[55] Since the chiastic reading of John 13–17 offered above meets all nine of Blomberg’s criteria there is strong affirmation for viewing the development of the Johannine Farewell Discourse in this manner.

John 13–17 As Macrochiasm

The chiastic reading of John 13–17 presented in this article results in an interpretation of the Farewell Discourse that addresses a number of important issues in Fourth Gospel studies. It offers, for instance, an intelligible role for the repeated “love command,” showing it to be part of the chiastic framing and centering of the discourse as a whole. Furthermore, it highlights the vine and branches teaching in 15:1–17, using its metaphor as the guiding principle and turning point for the rest of the discourse.[56] Finally, it balances the introductory narrative, shaped by its expression of union with Jesus at the entrance into the hour of glory, with the concluding prayer, where once again union with Jesus is shown to take place in the experience of the hour of glory.[57]

Indeed, this approach has the potential to bring together some of the best understandings developed by the otherwise divergent synchronic and diachronic readings of John 13–17. Each of those readings is based on a linear movement of either the text or some perceived psychological development behind the text. The synchronic readings too quickly dismiss the disjunctures of the passage at its literary level. The diachronic readings, on the other hand, cannot seem to find a comprehensive understanding of the text as its stands, focusing instead on portions of the discourse and their presumed history.

If, however, the sections of the discourse hold together in a chiastic reading, the disjunctions take on new significance. The strange ending of chapter 14 can be recognized as both a lingering indication of redaction and a signal announcing the move from one section to the next. The repetitious elements of the discourse begin to make sense as parallel teachings on common themes. The vine and branches teaching shapes the flow of meaning for the discourse as a whole. Jesus’s ministry incorporates the disciples into the glory he shares with the Father. He creates the context in which they will abide in him (13:1–35; 17:1–26), producing a community of mutual love. If they should fail to abide in him, life becomes very dark (13:36–38; 16:29–33). In view of Jesus’s imminent departure, therefore, abiding in Jesus takes on eschatological overtones (14:1–14; 16:16–28). The παράκλητος becomes the spiritual link by which the disciples are able to abide in a physically absent Jesus (14:15–26; 16:4b–15), and threats to this link create a challenge for living faithfully (14:27–31; 15:18–16:4a).

This chiastic reading of the discourse goes beyond previous approaches to John 13–17 in several ways. First, it shows the teaching of the vine and branches as the focus of the passage rather than a thematic turn along the way. In other readings of the discourse, emphasis is often placed on the meal, on the discourse as a farewell, or even on the history of the community in which the discourse is transmitted.

Second, the prominent sections that begin (the foot-washing scene) and end (the sanctifying prayer) the discourse are understood as parallel explications of the central theme, “Abide in me!” The discourse holds together in this reading, and the foot-washing scene is directly linked to the theology of the passage. Similarly, the prayer in chapter 17 is neither the climax nor the summary of the discourses. Instead, it concludes the discourses as a reflection of the foot-washing scene, confirming the intimate connection between Jesus and his disciples.

Third, the otherwise cumbersome repetition of themes, from the small references focusing on denial to the larger investigations of the work of the Spirit, are understood in this reading as guiding the reader up toward or down from the central thrust of the whole.

In this manner, a chiastic reading of the Johannine Farewell Discourse provides new insight. If the text of the Fourth Gospel, with the Farewell Discourse developed in its present form, is a finished product designed to convey meaning and significance related to the person and teachings of Jesus, the chiastic reading of John 13–17 presented here provides a new way in which to bring together the insights provided by both the diachronic and synchronic readings of the text. Moreover, it encourages recognition that the multiple sections of the Farewell Discourse reflect each other and build on one another in a manner that allows the whole to become more than the sum of its parts.[58]

Notes

1. Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 29–30; cf. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, “Philippians as a Macro-Chiasm and Its Exegetical Significance,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 221.
2. Craig Blomberg, “The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1–7, ” Criswell Theological Review 4 (1989): 3–20.
3. Wayne A. Brouwer, “The Chiastic Structure of the Farewell Discourse, Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 175 (April–June 2018): 204–7.
4. For example, Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Anchor Bible 29 and 29a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), 588–94.
5. Cf. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 24.
6. For example, Peter’s question in 13:36 is seemingly ignored or forgotten by Jesus in 16:5, and the call to leave at 14:31 seems not to be acted on.
7. For example, see the statements regarding the Advocate in 14:15–26 and 15:26–16:15.
8. Cf. Thomas Brodie, The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 427–46; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 559–62; Fernando F. Segovia, The Farewell of the Word (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 1–58.
9. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 459.
10. Sloyan amusingly suggests that a copyist added these words because he was tired from his tedious efforts at reproducing this lengthy discourse and wanted to get up and walk about a bit. Gerard Sloyan, John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 185. No manuscript evidence supports such a stretch of the imagination.
11. For example, see B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 187; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 409; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953, 1954), 290.
12. For example, Bultmann, John, 459; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 90–91. For a detailed discussion of proposed understandings of 4:31, see Wayne Brouwer, The Literary Development of John 13–17: A Chiastic Reading, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 182 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 89–170.
13. For a more detailed discussion, see Brouwer, The Literary Development of John 13–17, 89–170.
14. Bultmann, John, 461, 485–86; J. H. Bernard, The Gospel according to St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), xvi–xxx.
15. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, vol. 2, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), 137. Cf. Augustine, “Lectures on the Gospel according to St. John,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 367; and Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 412–13.
16. So George Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary 36 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 279; Brown, John, 710; John Painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine Community, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 417; Schnackenburg, John, 126.
17. Dodd, Interpretation, 399. For a full charting of these repetitions, see Brown, John, 589–93.
18. Ernest Lussier, Christ’s Farewell Discourse (New York: Alba House, 1979), 2. Cf. Brodie, John, 428; Brown, John, 589–91; Schnackenburg, John, 58.
19. R. E. O. White, The Night He Was Betrayed (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 6.
20. Ibid.
21. Sloyan, John, 174; cf. Hendriksen, Exposition, 260.
22. Brown, John, 588–89.
23. See Richard A. Muller, “Sanctification,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 321–31.
24. The others occur in 13:34–35 and 17:26.
25. For example, 13:1, 30b.
26. For example, the scene in the public places of Jerusalem comes to a close at the end of chapter 12, while the intimate setting of the Passover meal opens chapter 13. The next change in setting does not happen until the beginning of chapter 18, where Jesus and the disciples actually move from the room of the Passover meal.
27. For example, ὅτε in 13:12 and 31 and the temporal participial phrase ταῦτα εἰπών at the beginning of 13:21.
28. Jean Owanga-Welo agrees that “despite the implied spatial contiguity between chapter 13 and the rest of the Farewell Discourses, chapters 14 through 17 have quite a different unity of their own. . . . A transition from chapter 13 . . . is marked by the change in address, i.e., from Peter to all the disciples. We can also notice the introduction of the psychological atmosphere which points to the introduction of a new situation or theme.” “The Function and Meaning of the Footwashing in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Structural Approach” (PhD diss., Emory University, 1980), 171. But Owanga-Welo has a unique agenda, causing him to find a rather substantive break in the narrative at 13:20, and then positing that the whole of chapters 11:55–20:31 are a larger literary structure (31–33).
29. Cf. the pattern between setting and speech developed in John 3:1–15/3:16–21; 5:1–18/5:19–47; within the whole of chapters 6 and 8; and again in the movement between chapters 9 and 10.
30. Ashton, who thinks narrative criticism has gone much too far in shunning historical and redaction criticism, admits that literary and thematic analysis does offer important insights if used in tandem with honest exploration of the historical development of the text. In fact, “it may be argued that the best practitioners of the historical critical method . . . showed a keen sense of the literary qualities of the Fourth Gospel.” John Ashton, Studying John (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 208.
31. Fernando Segovia, “The Structure, Tendenz, and Sitz im Leben of John 13:31–14:31, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 476.
32. Segovia, Farewell, 62–64. Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, 223; Josef Blank, The Gospel according to St. John, vol. 2 (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 14; Brodie, John, 442–46; Brown, John, 545; Bultmann, John, 457–61; David Deeks, “The Structure of the Fourth Gospel,” New Testament Studies 15 (1969): 119; James McPolin, John (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1979), 145–46; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 53, 65–69; Sloyan, John, 165–66; C. J. Wright, Jesus the Revelation of God: His Mission and Message according to St. John (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950), 281–94. See also the examination of a number of literary approaches in Yves Simoens, La Gloire d’aimer: Structures stylistiques et interprétatives dans le Discours de la Cène (Jn 13–17), Analecta Biblica 90 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), 1–51.
33. For an extensive analysis of the various approaches to the literary outline, see Segovia, Farewell, 64–68.
34. See especially Schnackenburg, John, 53; Brown, John, 609. For consideration of a changing view, see also Segovia, Farewell, 321–23.
35. Cf. Bultmann, John, 473; Brown, John, 623; Beasley-Murray, John, 244–45.
36. There will be other questions from among the disciples, namely from Judas in 14:22 and the group as a whole in 16:18 and 16:29, but these questions will not direct Jesus’s teaching.
37. Beasley-Murray, John, 244–45.
38. Ibid., 262–64.
39. Bernard, John, 483.
40. Westcott, John, 196–97.
41. Hendriksen, Exposition, 305; cf. ibid., 293–94; Schnackenburg, John, 96; Lesslie Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 195–96.
42. Morris, John, 668–69; R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 173–74.
43. Segovia explains: “First, the figure of the vine, introduced and developed within 15:1–8, reappears in 15:16, which in turn forms part of the ongoing development of the theme of love in 15:9–17. Second, as opposed to the immediately following discourse material beginning with 15:18, 15:1–17 focuses on the internal affairs of the community, on the proper relationship of the disciples to Jesus and one another” (Farewell, 125). See also Brown, John, 665; Beasley-Murray, John, 269; Brodie, John, 475; Schnackenburg, John, 95–96.
44. Brown, John, 677.
45. Bultmann, John, 532–41.
46. Some scholars see smaller subsections occurring within 15:1–17, but there is debate as to whether the passage is better divided into two or three sections, and if so, where the section breaks should be located. See, for example, Bultmann, John, 529, 539–40; Schnackenburg, John, 108; Brodie, John, 475–79; and Brown, John, 665–66. Nevertheless, there is universal agreement that the initial discourse section begins at 15:1, that 15:9–17 holds a closer relationship to 15:1–8 than to the material that follows, and that a new section of discourse material begins at 15:18.
47. Brown, John, 703; D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 532–42; Schnackenburg, John, 125.
48. Segovia, Farewell, 215–16.
49. Brodie, John, 501.
50. Cf. Hendriksen, Exposition, 307.
51. For attempts to explain the structure of chapter 17, see Schnackenburg, John, 167–69; M. J. J. Menken, Numerical Literary Techniques in John: The Fourth Evangelist’s Use of Numbers of Words and Syllables (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 168, 229–30; Westcott, John, 240; Brodie, John, 580; Bultmann, John, 490–522; John Marsh, Saint John (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1968), 553; Brown, John, 748–50; Bernard, John, 559; Dodd, Interpretation, 417–18; Beasley-Murray, John, 295–96; Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-anstalt, 1976), 278–91; and E. Malatesta, “The Literary Structure of John 17, ” Biblica 52 (1971): 190–214.
52. Bultmann, John, 849. Cf. Schnackenburg, John, 167.
53. Dodd, Interpretation, 419; cf. Brown, John, 744; Schnackenburg, John, 167.
54. Blomberg, “Structure,” 7.
55. Ibid.
56. Spiritual attachment to Jesus brings one into the circle of divine glory (13:1–30; 17:1–26), safeguards against the tendencies toward denial (13:36–38; 16:29–33), creates a context in which Jesus’s departure holds comfort (14:1–14; 16:16–28), is given substance by way of the Spirit (14:15–26; 16:4b–15), and provides endurance in the face of persecution (14:27–31; 15:18–16:4a).
57. Judas is removed at the time of the cleansing motif and is separated from the subsequent glory (13:18; 17:12).
58. For a fuller treatment of these things with additional data on biblical chiastic expressions and passages, along with a comparison of this reading of John 13–17 alongside several other prominent approaches, see Brouwer, The Literary Development of John 13–17.