"The Holy One of God" (John 6 : 69)

Author(s): H. L. N. JOUBERT
Source: Neotestamentica , 1968, Vol. 2, THE CHRIST OF JOHN: ESSAYS ON THE
CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL (1968), pp. 57-69
Published by: New Testament Society of Southern Africa

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43047705

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of
scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

New Testament Society of Southern Africa is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Neotestamentica

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "The Holy One of God" (John 6 : 69)

H. L. N. JOUBERT (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FORT HARE)

In its translation of Jn. 6 : 69 the Afrikaans translation, like

the Dutch Authorised Version, follows the reading: "o xPi(TT0<s 0 rov Oeov rov
£ü)vtos", which undoubtedly cannot be regarded as the best reading. It occurs in the
Uncials C (5th cent.), K, 0 , and II
(all three 9th cent.) and in some 18 Minusculi (some as early as the 9th cent.),
and also in various very early Versions, the Diates-
saron and the Church Fathers Cyprian, Basil and Chrysostom.
Other readings, supported by more or less the same type of wit-
nesses, are: "o xPL€rro<s" f "° XP¿0T0S ° ayio* tov Oeov", "o vios tov Oeov
rov Çcûvtos", and "o xpi0T0S ° vlos tov Oeov". The reading supported by far
better witnesses is "o ay ¿os tov Oeov The result xs tbiat
modern NT-texts invariably accept the last mentioned - the most
recent one2 without hesitation gives it an A-symbol signifying that
it is 'virtually certain'.
These, deviations from the probably correct reading may be due to the fact
that, with the exception of Mk. 1 : 24 = Lk. 4 : 34
where it comes from an unclean spirit, the designation of Jesus as
"o «y ¿os tov Oeov* is found nowhere else in the NT. Sometimes He
is referred to as "the Holy One": 1 Jn. 2 : 20 reads, ' Ve¿s xPL(JP-a
8X£T£ airo TOV ayiov", and ApOC. 3 : 7 has "raSe Aeye¿ o ay los". In Acts
2 : 27 (cf. 13 : 35) Peter, quoting Ps. 16 : 10, speaks of Jesus in
relation to His resurrection as "tov omov", in Acts 3 : 14 he gives
Him the epithet " tov aytov", and in Acts 4 : 27 he refers to Him as God's "tov ayiov
it aiSa". At the Annunciation Gabriel describes the
Child as ēt ayiov". 3 But nowhere is "o ayios" followed by " tov
Oeov". There can be little doubt that by thus stressing the sanctity
of Jesus, the NT-writers brought their readers under the impression
of the messianic nature of Jesus' mission; and now, when they copied the
words "o ayios tov Oeov", some of the scribes thought that no harm could be
done by introducing the messianic wording here too; others, however, perhaps
being aware that something else than mere messianity may be intended, kept to
the original
wording. A careful analysis of the variants indeed shows that four
of them favour the idea that Jn. 6 : 69 presents Jesus as Messiah,

57

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
while only two, by transmitting the brief form, indicate that they
did not succumb to the current messianic connotation implied in
the word "ayios". Th. Zahn pointedly remarks, "hier ist der seltene
oder unerhörte Ausdruck durch eine geläufige christologische
Formel (cf. Mt. 16 : 16) ziemlich früh ersetzt und allmählich ver-
drängt worden".4
Whether this be so or not, the fact is that in the course of
time, and particularly in modern times such a twofold tendency
has more and more asserted itself. On the other hand some
scholars took "the Holy One of God" to be a messianic title; on
the other hand some believed it to be a designation of Deity.
As representatives of the first persuasion we may cite J. A. McClymont:5
"They (i.e. the Twelve) were thoroughly convinced
that He was none other than the Christ"; and A. M. Hunter:6 "If
Peter calls him 'the Holy One of God', this is another way of say-
ing 'the Messiah' On the other side we have scholars like C. E. B.
Cranfield:7 "in Jn. 6 : 69 it is not used as a messianic title but
rather to designate Jesus as from beyond this world and belon
to God"; and G. Sevenster:8 "Waarschijnlijk duidt de benamin 'Heilige Gods' op de
goddelijkheid van Christus: Hij behoort i
een heel unieken zin bij God". Such is also the view of O. Cull-
mann,9 M-J. Lagrange,10 R. Bultmann,11 etc.
Characteristic of the study of the confession by Peter in Jn. 6 : 66-71, is,
further, that it is mostly regarded in some or other way as related to his confession
reported in Mt. 16 : 13 - 20 = Mk. 8:27-30 = Lk. 9:18-21 (known as the 'Caesarea-
Philippi Con-fession'). For an interesting example of this and at the same time

of Source-analysis according to Form Criticism, we turn to O.

Cullmann's treatise on "The Narrative Framework of Mt. 16 : 17 - 19"
in his "Peter, Disciple, Apostle and Martyr" (rev. ed. 1962), p.
176- 191. It runs briefly as follows: The gospel-writers fitted orally transmitted
gospel-units into a framework of their own making
and, in doing so, paid little attention to chronology. One such unit
contained Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah; another the one
in which he confessed Him as the Son of God. In the Caesarea-
Philippi episode Mark embedded the Messiah-confession-unit, and
in this he was followed by Luke. Matthew, however, in accordance
with his habit of inflating sources, combined with it the Son-of-
God-confession-unit with the result that according to him Peter
not only confesses Jesus to be the Christ (Messiah), but also to
be the Son of God. The praise that Peter receives from Jesus really

58

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
concerns only the last mentioned confession; for the Messiah-confession
Jesus rebukes him relentlessly because it is an earthly
Messiah-expectation which has its origin with the devil (similar
to that held by the Jews at that time). The Johannine episode, on
the other hand, embeds the Son-of-God-confession-unit. In Cull-
mann's own words: Here "we actually have a confession of Peter
which gives a direct parallel to the words in Mt. 16 : 17 and so of
the special Matthew tradition concerning Peter's confession".12
Cullmann goes on to say that the feeding of the 5,000 should be
considered in connection with the institution of the Lord's Supper, and that Peter
in fact came forward with his 'good' confession of
the Sonship of Jesus on that occasion. Such a reconstruction is
said to put the prediction of Judas' betrayal in its true setting.
As to the assertion that the gospel-writers made use of sources,
source-critics are unanimous. But as to what these source-units
precisely were, there is frequently difference of opinion. While Cullmann for example,
as we noted, thought that Jn. 6:66-71
reflected Special Matthean material embedded in Mt. 16 : 17 makin
'the Holy One of God' to mean 'Son of Goď, a scholar like C. H.
Dodd is convinced that the said pericope, though very close to
the Markan pattern, reflects an independent Johannine source in which 'the Holy
One of God' occurred in the place of Mark's 'the Christ'. And so 'the Holy One of
God' cannot but have a messianic
connotation.13 In this connection reference should also be made
to the various socalled 'Displacement Theories' - most popular
being the reversing of chapters five and six; but, seeing that there
is less tendency to favour such attempts today, we accept the fourth gospel as a unity in
determining the context of Peter's confession.14
As a matter of principle there can be no objection to the legitimate
assumption of our evangelists having used source-
materials, but when this method calls into question their presenta-
tion of the Gospel-story, then those who still believe in the re-
liability of the gospels cannot but part company with the source-critics. Although it must
be recognized that John's account of
Peter's confession cannot be equated with that of the Synoptics, and although it is a
fact that our Evangelists' primary concern is not chronology, there undoubtedly is a
similarity between the
two accounts.15 If development in the various confessions of the
disciples may be accepted, then the following attempt of this by A. Plummer merits
consideration: "St. Peter's confessions are
worth comparing: 1. 'Thou art the Son of God' (Mt. 14 : 33), in

59

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 this the other disciples joined. 2. 'Thou art the Holy One of God' (Jn. 6 :
69). 3. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Mt. 16 : 16). They
increase in fulness, as we might expect. For
the last is pronounced 'blessed' ".16
Another question which may affect our interpretation of 'the
Holy One of God' is the one in connection with the so-called
'Johannine Sacramentary', and more particularly in how far the
discourse of ch. 6 gives ordinary teaching or specifically Eucharis-
tie teaching of Jesus.17 The Eucharistie flavour of ch. 6 : 51 - 58
cannot be denied, but R. E. Brown goes too far when he says that it "is solely
sacramentar' and, referring to the resemblance be-
tween ch. 6 : 51 and the Eucharistie institution formula in the
Pauline-Lucan tradition, emphatically states: "this verse could well
be called the Johannine institution formula".18 This would mean
that 'the Holy One of God' signifies Jesus as the One with Whom
believers have communion at the Lord's Supper. This may be the
secondary meaning, but whether this is the primary sense is to
be doubted. F. W. Grosheide is nearer to the mark when he says
that Jesus here expresses the same truth as is symbolised by the
Eucharist-sacrament which, however, does not necessarily mean
that He directly refers to the latter.19 It is on good ground that
R. A. Edwards succintly remarks, "we are not reading a 'Eucharist
discourse' ".20

Now we are in a position to concentrate more directly on the

words 'the Holy One of God'. In doing this we should, for our
own benefit, keep in mind that, though the Fourth Gospel has
an unmistakeably messianic note, its dominating accent is the
Deity of Jesus. From among many affirmations of this assertions,
preference is given to that of C. H. Dodd: "Certainly there is no other writing
known to me in which the idea of divine sonship is treated with anything like
such fullness and precision".21 This must not be lost sight of in determining such a
central verse as
ch. 6 : 69.

First must be noted the opening-word 'Kyrie'. Although it is only after His
resurrection that this term is applied to Jesus as
fully equivalent to the OT Yahweh, yet Sevenster seems to be right
in regarding this Kyrios-verse as one of the first in which "men het belijdend
karakter zal herkennen".22 It is, however, when we come to the words "You have
the words of eternal life" (prj^ara
Ccorçç moyvLov exei<s) and "we have believed and have come to know"
(TT£TTi(TTevKa¡xEv Ken eyvùìKOifxev) that the confession of the Messianity

60

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 as well as the acknowledgement of Deity are unmistakeable. By
means of the first is acknowledged, in the words of Grosheide,
"dat Jezus van God gekomen is en goddelijke openbaring brengt";23
by means of the second the disciples, according to a paraphrase
by C. K. Barrett, say: "we are in a state of faith and knowledge".24
and by faith John means faith in Christ the Messiah and Son of
God.25

Now we come to the very words "o oytos tov 0eov".

In the first place it is to be noted that 'Holiness' is a specific
quality peculiar to the Godhead - indeed it is the most intrinsic
element in His Being and basically belongs to Him exclusively
(Ex. 15:11; 1 Sam. 2:2; 6:20; Is. 6:3; 8:14; 10:17 etc.). H.
Cremer says that there can be no doubt "dass dem Begriff der
Heiligkeit die Vorstellung eines Gegensatzes zu dem was allgemein ist, also der
Unterschiedenheit und Besonderheit, bzw. die Aus-
gesondertseins zu gründe liegt".26 This incomparability ('Ausge-
sondertsein') of God, though basic, does not interpret the Holines
of God completely; later on we shall return to 'relationship' a
its essential complement. What concerns us for the moment is
that Holiness belongs to God; whatever Holiness exists is dependent
on Him, is indicative of His active presence. The dominant note
in Cremer's article is that Holiness is from above.27 It is, further-
more, customary to distinguish between Holiness as, on the one
hand, God's religious, and, on the other hand, His moral perfections:
the former making Holiness a cultic concept with accent 'outside-
ness', the latter making it an ethical one with accent on the 'inside-
ness' thereof. This distinction cannot be ignored as it sheds much light on the
usage of the term. The fact, however, remains, as
R. A. Finlayson puts it: "The ethical aspect of Holiness is the
aspect under which the term is applied most commonly to God.
Holiness is a term for the moral excellence of God and His free-
dom from all limitation in His moral perfection (Hab. 1 : 13). In this exalted
sense God only is holy and so the standard of
ethical purity in His creatures".28
It would appear that John, in accordance with his high view
of the Person of Christ, applies the epithet 'the Holy One' to Jesus
in order to express the unique relationship between Jesus and
God the Father: even as God is o ayivs so also His Son is o oryjos.
It is as o «y ios that Jesus, in that most intimate 'prayer-disqourse'
with God, reported in Jn. 17, could address God as "Holy Father' (vs. 11) -
participating in the same Holiness, He converses with

61

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the Father on a level of equality. And in the 'Holy One of Goď-
confession this selfsame note is undoubtedly present too. John,
says W. Bauer, "will sagen dass Christus von Gott mit himmlischen
Wesen erfüllt worden wäre".29 From the grammarian's point of
view this interpretation is the acceptable one, seeing that it brings
out the force of the article in the term 'o ay¿os' Discussing the use of
the article with the adjective alone A. T. Robertson quotes 4 o ayios'
as an example of the article distinguishing individuals,
in other words here we have the individual use of the article.
Hereby Jesus is singled out so as to focus attention on His bein
Holy par excellence J° In the words of Zahn the Twelve confess "dass er und kein
anderer der Heilige Gottes ist".31 If, in our effort
to supply the ellipsis (i.e. the substantive after ay¿os), we consult
the context or nature of the case, as prescribed by Robertson, then
the genitive (tou Oeov) calls for attention. If it is the so-called 'gen. of origin or
relation' then, in the light of the preceding, the some-
what vague 'One' might just as well be replaced by 'Son' so as to
read: 'the Holy Son of God'. Cullmann thus remarks very much
to the point that "This name closely resembles that of Son. It too
describes the unique distinction of Jesus from all other creatures".32
So far the Holiness of God has been dealt with from the angle of His
separateness from creation and His elevation above it, i.e. Holiness as the
revelation of God's inmost Being. Thus we could
establish that when Christ's faithful disciples called Him 'the Holy
One of God', it meant that faith recognised Him to be one with God. But
there is another angle from which Holiness must be viewed. And this, as
already indicated, is that of 'relationship':
Holiness "signifies God's determination to preserve His own
position relative to all other free beings" (Finlayson, in loco). So definite is
Cremer about it that 'qõdes' (Hebr. 'Holiness', with 'qâdôs = 'Holy') is 'ein
Verhältnisbegriff' that he allows himself the following words: "Die Heiligkeit
Gottes kommt zuerst da zur Sprache, wo die Gegenwart Gottes innerhalb eines
erwählten und
für sich bereiteten Volkes beginnt, wo ein geschichtliches Gemein-
schaftverhältnis an die Stelle bisherigen vereinzelten Verkehrs tritt".33 To
these words, heavy with meaning, we add his remark
that Holiness "ein rein israelitischer (biblical?) und heilsökono-
mischer Begriff ist". God's Holiness, then, means that He operates
within history, from among the host of mankind, opposed as they
are to Him, He selects and sets apart for Himself a people - in
the OT with the accent on the physical Israel, but in the NT the

62

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
spiritual Israel - to whom He can be the 'Holy One of Israel'34 and who
by obeying His laws and precepts and separating them- selves from the
world become His 'holy people' (Lev. 21 : 6, 8; Ex. 22 : 31; Deut. 26 : 19;
etc.). Goďs people is 'holy', on the one
hand, in that it is Yahweh Who sanctifies them (i.e. appropriates them for
Himself), and, on the other hand, it is they who sanctify
Yahweh (i.e. serve and worship Him in a comprehensive sense) -
'holy' is predicated to everything and everyone involved in this
mutual sanctification. Holiness, thus, is essentially mercy; but this
obviously implies judgement.
Within God's holy people there are, however, those to whom
a special task is assigned. Not because they are more holy, but because of their
specific task they explicitly bear the epithet 'holy'.
Aaron the High Priest e.g. is called 'Holy one of the Lord' (Ps. 106 : 16), and
in the NT we meet 'holy' prophets (Lk. 1 : 70; Acts
3 : 21; 2 Pt. 1 : 21; 3:2), 'holy' apostles (Eph. 3:5), 'holy' angels
(Mk. 8 : 38; Lk. 9 : 26: Rev. 14 : 10), etc. Because of the uniqueness
of His task Jesus gets the title 'o ay los' (cf. the Spirit also being designated
as 'Holy'). It means, says Bonnard, "that He is the One
in Whom and through Whom God finally accomplishes His work of
judgement and mercy" (in loco). In other words, many are sanctified
but Jesus is sanctified and sanctifies Himself for a unique task.
The messianic nature of this task is abundantly clear if we keep
in mind that "Māšīah (our 'Messiah' is derived from its Aramaic form 'mešīhā')
carries with it the idea of consecration to God's
service, of being specially chosen by Him for a particular task and specially endowed
by him with power to fulfil it".35 There is, in fact, no difference between the task of 'o
ayios tov Oeov ' and that
of Messiah.

Zahn draws attention to the fact that Jesus accomplishes this task as 'the Servant of
the Lord'. He says, "Jesus bekamm von seinen Gläubigen nicht wegen seiner sittlichen
Reinheit sondern
als der Knecht Gottes das Attribut der Heiligkeit (AG. 27, 30 V'.36 With this title
(ebed Yahweh, Trms 0eov)t Cullmann says, "we come straight to the heart of NT
christology" chiefly because "the main
thought behind it, vicarious representation , is the principle by which the NT
understands the whole course of Heilsgeschichte".37
This principle of representation of the many by the minority is basic in
sanctification: what God exacted from His creation, i.e.
that it should sanctify Him, it failed to do, and so Jesus sanctifies
Himself for the sake ( wn-ep ) of His believers (Jn. 17 : 19). We quote

63

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cullmann's well-known 'progressive reduction': "the way proceeds
from the whole creation to humanity, from humanity to the people
of Israel, from the people of Israel to the 'remnant', from the
'remnant' to a single man. The ebed Yahweh- figure is symptomatic
of this development of Heilsgeschichte; He is at the same time the whole
people, the 'remnant' and the One" (in loco, p. 55). In stressing Christ's
vicarious representation John uses 'Lamb of God' as a variant for 'ebed
Yahweh' (Cullmann, p. 71). In the light
of its close affinity with 'the Servant of the Lord', 'o aytos tou Oeov
comes to signify Jesus as the One who vicariously gives even His life for His
own. Though C. K. Barrett warns us that " 'ay¿os' and
'qdš' do not refer specifically to sacrifices",38 yet there is every reason to
agree with R. E. Brown that in 'o aytos rov Oeov there
is "reference set against the background of the altar".39
The counterpart of Jesus' being, as 'the Holy One of God',
by what He does, the representative of God's people, is that as
such He is also the representative of God. This Jesus Himself
states when in ch. 10 : 36 He says that the Father sanctified (-qyiavev) and sent
(airecrTeiXsv) Him into the world. ' rjyiaaev ' (in Jn. only here and ch. 17 : 17, 19; in the
rest of the NT without any real parallel) cannot mean 'consecrated to death'; it has its
ordinary
meaning 'to set apart for a sacred duty' which, however, in con-
junction with 'a-īreaTeikev' and due to the context, expresses a unique relation with God.40
a7reo-retA.ev means that Jesus has been 'apostleď by God, i.e. in whatever He says or
does He acts as God's
plenipotentiary representative. 'Sanctified and sent' cannot be in-
dicative merely of His messianic mission, in which case He would not have been accused
of blasphemy. His hearers must have under-
stood the full implication of these words: in the words of Procksch:
"wen der Vater geheiligt und in die Welt gesandt hat, der ist mit
Recht vtoç rov Oeov".41 Grosheide gives us an even deeper insight
into this impressive utterance of our Lord concerning His sanc-tification. "Dit",
he remarks, "is geschied in den Raad Gods . . . Jezus komt als Heilige in de
wereld, daardoor onderscheiden van
alle menschen".42 'The Holy One of God', therefore, is a title which
takes us to the very Counsel of God; it denotes that He is God
with us, accomplishing what God from all eternity had in mind
for His elect.
From what has been said so far there can be no doubt that
'o aytoç rov Oeov ' is a title by which Jesus, in a very real sen
put on the side of God; it is a 'Hoheitsname'. As to its precise

64

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
messianic character, however, we cannot be equally definite. That
it has messianic affinities is beyond a doubt. But what do these
affinities actually amount to? In our exposition of the term it became
quite clear that its content definitely bears a messianic
character. But the following two questions call for a more pertinent answer:
Does it specifically contain those elements which are
essential to the messianic concept? And can it be regarded as a
truly messianic title? Keeping in mind what has already been said, these two
questions can briefly be answered as follows:
As to the first question we realise that it is no easy task to define the
concept of the Messiah either as it was current within Judaism or as it was
conceived of by Jesus. We do not intend dwelling on this most complicated
subject in any way. We simply
proceed from the customary Reformed view of the threefold office of the
Messiah: Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the Anointed One or the
Holy One because God made Him to be King, Prophet and Priest.43 Careful
investigation brings W. Manson to more or less the same
threefold distinction; the messianic concept according to him
comprises three 'streams', namely Son of God in messianic sense
(we would say King), Son of Man (we would say Prophet) and
Suffering Servant of Yahweh (we would say Priest).44
Our question is whether 'the Holy One of God' can be said
to cover all this? This question cannot but be answered in the
affirmative. Obviously the word dominating this expression is
'Holy' which in its normal sense indicates the same idea as that
conveyed by 'anointed'. Small wonder that a scholar like Grosheide takes it for
granted that Jn. 6 : 69 registers a Messiah-confession.
"Thans", he says, "hebben de apostelen Jezus beter leeren kennen,
hun geloof is uitgegroeid en meer bewust geworden . . . Zoo kan
er nu een volledige, weloverwogen Messiasbelijdenis zijn".45 If we
return to the discourse which resulted in the confession then the
afore-mentioned three constituents of Messiahship can easily be
detected there. Jesus rejected an earthly political kingship but not
kingship as such. Three times He refers to Himself as 'Son of Man'.
And although the word 'Suffering Servant' does not occur, the
idea is, as we have shown, basic to the discourse. We fully agree
with R. A. Edwards: "What was being discussed was the claim of
Jesus to be the Messiah . . . the argument in the book ... is about
the Messiah".

As to our second question, whether 'the Holy One of God' can be styled a truly
messianic title, we cannot be as categorical in

65

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 i

our affirmation. The difficulty is that there seems to be no evidence

that it was a messianic title in Judaism. It remains, however, a
most remarkable fact that much earlier in the ministry of Jesus, on his healing of a
demon-possessed man, the unclean spirit cried
out: "I know who you are, the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1 : 24 =
Lk. 4 : 34). And that here we are confronted with a messianic title
in the phrase 'the Holy One of God' nobody will deny. The following interpretation by
K. H. Rengstorf will meet general agreement: "Die Entmächtigung der Dämonen
wurde für die messianische Zeit
erwartet. 'Der Heilige Gottes' is eine Bezeichnung Jesu als Messias
(4 : 41; Joh. 6 : 69) die aus dem messianisch verstandenen Ps. 16 : 10
stammt".46 C. K. Barrett is even more to the point in commenting:
"it is the confession of the supernatural knowledge of a demon, and should
be understood as a messianic title . . . This meaning
is no doubt retained in John".47 The traditional view48 is that in
the phenomenon of demon-possession we have a special effort on the part of Satan and
his angels to thwart the Messiah as much
as possible in His founding of the Kingdom of God. In this activity
of Christ Satan sees a dangerous threat to his own kingdom of
darkness. He thinks that by revealing who Jesus really is, he might
make it impossible for Jesus to complete His task. The objection
that the designation he gave Jesus was not a current messianic
title and that therefore it is a post-resurrection introduction by
early Christianity, does not carry much weight. Could it not rather
be that 'the Holy One of God' was the most appropriate title for
Jesus and that it is for this reason that Jesus neither here nor in
Jn. 6 : 69 shows any disapproval of it? On the contrary, He seems
to approve of it - a phenomenon which is all the more remarkable
because of Jesus' characteristic reserve when the messianic title
is used of Him.

We conclude: This confession makes it clear that the eternal

Sonship of Jesus is the soul of His Messiahship: in every detail
of the Messiah-figure there beats the mighty pulse of Deity. Jesus
is the Son in the messianic sense; in other words He is the true
King of that kingdom to which He is the giver of eternal life, He is the Son of Man
Who acts as the perfect Mediator between God and His people, He is the
Suffering Servant of Yahweh Who
vicariously gives His life for the life of the world. But He is Son
of God primarily in the metaphysical sense. And it is for this reason
that He can fulfill the messianic task completely. He is 'the Holy One of God'.
This is the cardinal point in Jesus' conception of

66

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Messiahship. For this He was accused of blasphemy and was made to
undergo the death penalty. Such is the presentation which dominates indeed
the whole of the Fourth Gospel, crystallised in
the words 'o aytos tov 6eov'

NOTES

1 These are p75, II, B, C + , D, L, W, and others.

2 The Greek New Testament edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce
M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, 1966.
3 The Ned. Bybelgen. and the Afr. Vert, render it as "Die Heilige", but
most translations prefer the adjectival form.
4 Komm. z. NT, Das Ev. des Joh., p. 269.
5 The Century Bible, St. John (1901), p. 189.
6 The Cambridge Bible Comm., The Gosp. acc. to John (1965), p. 76.
7 The Cambridge Gr. Testament Comm., The Gosp. acc. to Mk. (1959),
p. 77.
8 De Christologie v.h. N.T. (1946), p. 220.
9 The Christology of the N.T. (1959), p. 285.
10 L'Evangile selon S. Marc2 (1947), p. 22.
11 Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941), p. 344.
12 Peter, p. 188.
13 Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1963), p. 219 - 222. "It would appear that
we have here, as in other places in this gospel, a pericope
shaped quite on the traditional pattern, and corresponding in content,
in a general way, with a Synoptic pericope of similar pattern, but con-
taining not the slightest indication of literary derivation from any of
the Synoptic gospels; in fact, a pericope for which there are strong grounds for
inferring an independent tradition" (p. 221).
14 Bultmann's re-arrangements of the text in his "Das Johannes Evangelium" are so subjective
that acc. to Käsemann, they end by making the
Evangelist say what Bultmann thinks he ought to have said.
15 See for instance F. W. Grosheide: Het Heilig Ev. volgens Joh.2 (1956), p. 130;
W. Bauer: Das Johannesevangelium3 (1933), p. 106; etc.
16 Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools, The Gospel acc. to St. John
(1912), p. 165. On historical analysis see: W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah,
1943, p. 1 f.
17 For a survey of this subject see R. E. Brown: New Testament Essays
(1965), p. 51-5. The Antisacramental school is championed by Bultmann,
and the ultrasacramentai one by Cullmann.
18 Op. cit., p. 86 and 88.
19 Op. cit., p. 468 "Wij nemen daarom aan, dat we in vs. 53 lezen, wat in
het avondmaal wordt afgebeeid en geschonken aan het geloof. Deze geeste-
lijke zaak is echter niet aan het avondmaal gebonden, kan er ook zonder
worden gegeven '.
20 The Gospel acc. to St. John (1954), p. 60.
21 The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953), p. 253.

67

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 22 Op. cit., p. 220.
23 Op. cit., p. 489.
24 The Gospel acc. to St. John (1960), p. 253.
25 R. Schnackenburg: Herders theol. Kom. z. NT, Das Johannesevangelium
(1967), p. 518.
26 Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der Neutestamen tlichen Gräcität (1902),
p. 45. P. Bonnard (Art. on 'Holy' in Vocubulary of the Bible (1958), p. 166,
says: "the ideas of holiness and of the glory of Yahweh are often
equivalent".
27 See also H. Bavinck: Geref. Dogmatiek (1928), II, p. 187. O. Procksch
says that in the NT, just as in the OT, "das Prädikat auf Gottes Wesen angewandt
wird, ja die innerste Bezeichnung von Gottes Wesen enthält"
(Theol. Wörterb. z. NT. (1933), I, p. 101. See also Cremer, op. cit., p.
45 - 46.
28 The New Bible Dictionary (1962), p. 530.
29 Op. cit., p. 105.
30 A Grammar of the Gr. NT. (1914), p. 756-8; 763. So also in Blass/Debrun-
ner: Grammatik des nt/schen Griechisch (1949), par. 263.
31 Op. cit., p. 369.
32 Chris tology . . , p. 285.
33 Op. cit., p 50. P. Bonnard: "Yahweh is holy inasmuch as He wishes men to share in His
own divine life as He brings them within the scope of His judgment and mercy. His
holiness is dynamic, exacting: it confronts man to pour out upon him a new life" (in loco).

34 In Isaiah this title occurs 29 times, but is also found in Jeremiah and
the Psalms.
35 Cranfield, op. cit., p. 270.
36 Op. cit., p. 370.
37 Chris tology, p. 51 ff. It is at present common knowledge that this way
of thinking is typically Hebrew. It is of importance to note that 'Son of
Man', explicitly used by Jesus for Himself in the Jn. 6-discourse, has
this same corporate connotation. Both Servant of Yahweh and Son of
Man are 'societary' figures. T. W. Manson, who elaborated this concept
as regards 'Son of Man' (The Teaching of Jesus,2 1935, p. 211-236) says,
"the Son of Man is the lineal descendant of the Servant of Jehovah and
Jesus by being the Son of Man realises the ideals contained in the picture of the Lord's
Servant" (p. 231).
38 Op. cit., p. 320.
39 The Gospel acc. to John, p. 298. Also Cullmann, p. 71 - 2.
40 A. Schlatter (Der Evangelist Johannes, 1930, p. 245): "Die Heiligung einigt
Jesus mit seinem ganzen inwendigen Leben, mit allem, was er denkt
und tut, mit Gott".
41 Op. cit., p. 103.
42 Op. cit., II, p. 138.
43 On the threefold office of Christ see J. Calvin: Institutes II, XV.
44 Jesus the Messiah, 1949, p. 94 - 120. H. E. W. Turner (Jesus, Master and Lord,2 1954, p.
185-212) calls the three leading ideas in Messiahship: The
Son of David, The Son of Man and The Suffering Servant.
45 Op. cit., p. 491.

68

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 NT Deutsch, I,2 1937, p. 58.
47 Op. cit., p. 253.
48 See Norval Geldenhuys: Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 1950, p.
174-5 (Special note on Demon-possession).

69

This content downloaded from

202.94.83.246 on Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:10:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms