2.1 John 14.26e: Antecedent(s) of Relative Pronoun?

According to Ignace de la Potterie and Felix Porsch, the following arguments can be given for the interpretation that the relative pronoun of John 14.26e has two antecedents, namely πάντα of both 14.26d and 14.26aβ: (i) the relative clause of 14.26e cannot be separated from 14.26aβ, because ἐκεῖνος and ἐγώ provide a chiastic structure to 14.26aβ–e that does not allow such a separation;Footnote ⁵ (ii) the inclusio between ταῦτα λελάληκα […] ὑμῖν and εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ does not permit this separation;Footnote ⁶ (iii) Jesus says in 14.26c that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name. If the Paraclete is to reveal Jesus, it would be strange that διδάξει πάντα is detached from ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ.Footnote ⁷

However, scholarly literature has also provided counterarguments to the view that the relative pronoun in John 14.26e has both πάντα in 14.26aβ and 14.26d as its antecedent: (i) according to Christina Hoegen-Rohls, a first counterargument is that the separation of 14.26e from 14.26aβ provides a much stronger parallel structure between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Paraclete. Whereas the pre-Easter era is characterised by the pre-Easter revelatory teaching of Jesus, the post-Easter era is characterised by the post-Easter revelatory teaching of the Paraclete. Both Jesus and the Paraclete have a revelatory function. This, however, does not mean that the teaching of the Paraclete is detached from the word of Jesus. The parallelism between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Paraclete implies that the Paraclete will reveal the word of Jesus, just as Jesus has revealed the word of the Father. Yet, this does not mean that the Paraclete only reminds of what has already been revealed in/by Jesus. The orientation of the teaching of the Paraclete is not conceived as retrospective, but as prospective. The Paraclete will teach what each time (πάντα) is to be said about Jesus and the Father in the future.Footnote ⁸ This counterargument presupposes that the meaning of καί in 14.26d is cumulative; (ii) according to Theodor Zahn, a second counterargument is that if the relative pronoun in 14.26e has also πάντα in 14.26aβ as its antecedent, the use of ὗμας and πάντα in 14.26aβ is superfluous.Footnote ⁹

In my view, it is more likely on the basis of these (counter)arguments that only the πάντα in John 14.26d is the antecedent of the relative pronoun in 14.26e. The argument of Hoegen-Rohls that this interpretation allows for a stronger parallelism between Jesus’ teaching and the Paraclete's teaching is persuasive because of the strong analogies between Jesus and the Paraclete depicted elsewhere in the Gospel: (i) just as the Paraclete is sent by the Father (14.16, 26), also Jesus is sent by the Father (3.17; 5.24, 37–8; 6.38, 44); (ii) the sending of the Paraclete takes place in Jesus’ name (14.26).Footnote ¹⁰ Furthermore, a stronger parallelism between Jesus’ teaching and the Paraclete's teaching helps us understand why Jesus is also called παράκλητος (cf. John 14.16; see also 1 John 2.1).

I consider the arguments of the presumed chiastic structure and inclusio in John 14.25–6 to be unpersuasive, because: (i) ἐκεῖνος is a demonstrative pronoun, whereas ἐγώ is a personal pronoun. These terms do not correspond to each other in 14.26aβ–e. It is also not clear to me how there can be an inclusio between ταῦτα λελάληκα παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένων and ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ. The personal pronoun ἐγώ does not correspond to the demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα. The personal pronoun ὑμῖν is also not the same as παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένων. Nor does the word order of 14.26aβ–e allow for a concentric structure; (ii) the presumed chiastic structure and inclusio presuppose the reading of ἐγώ in 14.26e, which is attested by B L 060 0141 (33 ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν) 127 1819, but not by P^75vid א A D Γ Δ Θ f ¹f ¹³Byz.; (iii) even if one allows for this confused and complex chiastic structure, it is hardly conceivable that an author would have constructed it with the intention of ensuring that the relative clause of 14.26e cannot be separated from 14.26aβ; (iv) furthermore, I do not even see why this presumed chiastic structure and inclusio does not allow for such a separation. In sum, the chiastic structure and inclusio are clearly scholarly constructs to exclude the possibility that the text would say the Paraclete will teach something that Jesus has not yet taught.

The argument that John 14.26c (ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου) implies that ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ] is attached to διδάξει πάντα is also unpersuasive. The idea that the Paraclete is sent in Jesus’ name does not guarantee that the Paraclete can only remind the disciples of the words of Jesus. I admit that other texts in the Fourth Gospel do convincingly demonstrate that the teaching of the Paraclete is repeating the teaching of Jesus. According to 8.40 and 15.15, Jesus revealed everything that he had heard from the Father (cf. 15.15 πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν). The relative clause in 15.15 is non-restrictive. It is not the case that Jesus only revealed that which he has heard from the Father whereas there are still other things that the Father has not told him which can later be revealed by the Paraclete. Jesus is the truth (14.6). Jesus has revealed the name of the Father (17.6, 26).

However, the view that the teaching of the Paraclete can only repeat the teaching of Jesus does not warrant the conclusion that the teaching function of the Paraclete is restricted to reminding the disciples of the words of Jesus. Put differently, this view does not guarantee that ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ] is attached to διδάξει πάντα. Even if the Paraclete can only reveal Jesus, this does not necessarily mean that teaching and reminding are aspects of one and the same function of the Paraclete. He could still have a revelatory function.

Both the first and second interpretations of John 14.25–6 presuppose that attributing a revelatory function to the Paraclete implies that revelation was incomplete in Jesus. In my view, this implication is unjustified. Instead of limiting the revelatory function of Jesus, the revelatory function of the Paraclete strengthens the analogy between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Paraclete. Whereas Jesus reveals the Father (1.18; 14.7), the Paraclete reveals Jesus (14.20, 25–6; 15.26–7; 16.7–11, 12–15). In their collaboration, there cannot be a competition between Jesus and the Paraclete, because both parties depend on each other in this single revelatory process. The relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete is one of co-operation. Therefore, the claim that the Paraclete can only reveal Jesus cannot be used as an argument against the view that the teaching of the Paraclete is revelatory or that teaching and reminding are two distinct functions of the Paraclete. The interpretation of the orientation of the Paraclete's teaching as prospective is still a possibility. Yet it is also the case that the proponents of this interpretation need to be corrected, because they wrongly suggest that the prospective orientation of the Paraclete's teaching implies that the Paraclete will teach things that have not yet been taught by Jesus.

2.2 John 14.26d: Explicative or Cumulative καί?

The study of Vern Poythress distinguishes three different meanings of καί in the sayings of the Johannine Jesus and the commentary of the evangelist on these sayings.Footnote ¹¹ Two of these three meanings can be applied to καί in John 14.26.

(1) The conjunction καί can co-ordinate two sentences or preferably short clauses that are thematically related to each other. Additionally, these clauses often have individual words in common (see e.g. John 14.21(2), 28; 15.1, 2, 16).Footnote ¹² In my view, this is also the case with the use of καί in 14.26. Both 14.26aβ and 14.26d share the same topic, i.e. the activity of the Paraclete. There are also some words in common here, viz. ὑμᾶς and πάντα. This first possible meaning of καί in 14.26 agrees with what we have previously called the cumulative meaning of καί. The teaching and the reminding function of the Paraclete are presented as distinct from each other. The conjunction καί in 14.26 coordinates these two functions.

(2) The conjunction καί is used when the second sentence is a step-wise addition to the first. Only one sub-category of this second use of καί in John is relevant for our discussion, viz. where the second sentence adds information about one aspect only of the first sentence (e.g. John 14.4, 30). As we have seen, this explicative meaning of καί can also apply to καί in 14.26. The teaching activity of the Paraclete is explained as the activity of reminding the disciples of Jesus’ words.

The two uses of καί in the Gospel of John mentioned above do not help us to determine the meaning of καί in John 14.26. The discussion focuses on whether the meaning of καί in 14.26 is cumulative or explicative. In my understanding, the view that καί is cumulative is the better interpretation because it allows for a stronger parallelism between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Paraclete. An additional condition for this stronger parallelism is that the only antecedent of the relative pronoun in 14.26e is πάντα in 14.26d. As demonstrated in the previous subsection, this is more in agreement with the strong analogies between Jesus and the Paraclete depicted elsewhere in the Gospel and explains why Jesus is also called Paraclete. Like Jesus, the Paraclete has a proper revelatory function. Admittedly, this stronger parallel presentation is not warranted, but only made more probable by other analogies between Jesus and the Paraclete depicted elsewhere in the Gospel. Therefore, in the next section we will examine how the orientation of the teaching of the Paraclete is presented in 16.12–13.

3.1 John 16.13c, e: εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν + ἀκούσει or ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ + ἀκούει?

According to Bieringer, the following two internal text-critical arguments can be given for the view that ἐν is secondary to εἰς and ἀκούει to ἀκούσει: (i) the stylistic argument: the combination of ὁδηγέω + ἐν is common in the LXX.Footnote ²¹ The scribe was influenced by the LXX and replaced the original ὁδηγέω + εἰς with the more idiomatic ὁδηγέω + ἐν.Footnote ²² The view that the fourth evangelist was influenced by the LXXFootnote ²³ is less appealing, because one cannot explain on the basis of the LXX why a scribe would have changed ἐν into εἰς;Footnote ²⁴ (ii) the theological argument: the scribe wanted to mitigate ‘the revelatory role of the Spirit’ and avoid ‘a competition with the revelatory activity of Jesus’.Footnote ²⁵ Because ἀκούει ‘is never used together with εἰς readings’ in the textual tradition of John 16.13, a first scribe must have changed εἰς into ἐν. This scribe probably understood εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν as contradicting 8.40 and 16.7. The aim of this scribe was to emphasise that ‘after Jesus’ revelatory activity ἀλήθεια can no longer be a goal’. ‘[I]n a second movement after some time, another scribe’ changed ἀκούσει into ἀκούει to stress ‘that the Paraclete's activity does not embrace anything that the earthly Jesus has not revealed’.Footnote ²⁶

Bieringer gives more weight to the second than to the first argument, because he considers it ‘an open question whether John knew and used the LXX in general and in [John] 16,13 in particular’.Footnote ²⁷ According to Bieringer, the question at stake concerning the choice between ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ + ἀκούει or εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν + ἀκούσει is ‘whether revelation is complete in Jesus or whether the Paraclete also has a revelatory function’. If the Paraclete has a revelatory function, he ‘reveals new things which Jesus had not yet revealed’.Footnote ²⁸ Bieringer thus presupposes that attributing a revelatory function to the Paraclete implies that revelation was incomplete in Jesus. According to my analysis, this view is generally held by proponents of both interpretations of John 16.12–13.Footnote ²⁹ We have, however, demonstrated in subsection 2.1 that this view is incorrect. To attribute a revelatory function to the Paraclete does not imply weakening the revelatory function of Jesus, but rather strengthening the co-operation and analogy between Jesus and the Paraclete.

In my view, the question of which reading is more original is not important for understanding the orientation of the teaching of the Paraclete, because both ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ + ἀκούει and εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν + ἀκούσει support the view that this orientation is prospective. It makes no difference whether one reads ἀκούει or ἀκούσει. In both cases, the verb has a future meaning. Even if one reads ἀκούει, the phrase ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος provides the necessary pragmatic information to understand ἀκούει as having future meaning. Compare John 16.13 with 15.26 and 16.21:

Both ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος and ὅταν δὲ γεννήσῃ τὸ παιδίον express a future expectation. Because of this pragmatic information, the verbs ἐκπορεύεται and μνημονεύει, although morphologically present tense verbs, have a future meaning. Comparably, the verb ἀκούει in 16.13 has a future meaning, because of the pragmatic information provided by ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος.Footnote ³⁰ A correct rendering of 16.13 would then be:

The adverb ‘then’ indicates that the hearing of the Paraclete takes place in the future.

An additional argument for the view that both the variae lectiones ἀκούει and ἀκούσει in John 16.13 have future meaning are the phrases ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν and ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν in respectively 16.14 and 16.15. The shift from the future λήμψεται to the present λαμβάνει in these phrases does not imply a temporal division between that which the Paraclete will receive from Jesus in the future and that which he is currently receiving in the present. Both verbs have a future meaning.Footnote ³¹

Because both the variae lectiones ἀκούει and ἀκούσει in John 16.13 have future meaning, it does not matter whether one reads ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ or εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν. The future meaning of ἀκούει and ἀκούσει implies that the teaching of the Paraclete is not a recollection of Jesus’ words. The future orientation of the teaching of the Paraclete means that the disciples are at present not yet in the full truth. The Paraclete will lead them into the full truth, where they are not yet. Consequently, the preposition ἐν has the same meaning as εἰς in 16.13. Both ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ + ἀκούει and εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν + ἀκούσει support the view that the teaching of the Paraclete is prospective. Text-critically it is more likely that the original reading was ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ + ἀκούει and that a first scribe explicated the future meaning of ἀκούει by changing it into ἀκούσει. A second scribe changed ἐν into εἰς because, in his or her understanding of Greek, the preposition εἰς is more adequate than ἐν to express the goal of future revelation, although the original ἐν already had this meaning of direction and goal because of the future meaning of ἀκούει.

3.2 John 16.13c: The Meaning of πάσῃ/ πᾶσαν

According to Bieringer's analysis, the meaning of πάσῃ/πᾶσαν in John 16.13c has been understood in two fundamentally distinct ways. ‘Some exegetes’ see the adjective πάσῃ/πᾶσαν as expressing ‘the idea of totality, completeness or fullness of revelation’. For Bieringer, this idea of totality suggests that the Paraclete reveals new things in comparison to what has been revealed in/by Jesus. In my analysis, this view corresponds to interpretation two of 16.12–13. Bieringer observes that, because of this allusion to new revelation, many scholars implicitly apply πάσῃ/πᾶσαν not to ἀλήθεια, but to ‘the disciples’ relationship with the ἀλήθεια’, which has been revealed in Jesus. Bieringer correctly claims that in this second interpretation, πάσῃ/πᾶσαν is not seen as an adjective modifying ἀλήθεια, but as an adverb modifying ὁδηγέω: ‘that one will guide you completely in/into the truth’.Footnote ³² In my view, this interpretation of πάσῃ/πᾶσαν implies that the Paraclete will guide the disciples in the truth, where they already are. He will thus not reveal entirely new things, but will only further develop or deepen what was already revealed in/by Jesus. According to my analysis, such an interpretation corresponds to interpretation one of 16.12–13. In this first interpretation of πάσῃ/πᾶσαν in 16.13c, the emphasis is on the completeness of truth, which implies that truth was not complete in Jesus. In the second interpretation, the emphasis is on the completeness of the guidance, which implies that truth was already complete in Jesus, but that the conditions for understanding the truth were not yet given. These conditions will be accomplished by the teaching of the Paraclete.

3.3 John 16.12a: The Meaning of πολλά

I further observe that there is an interrelation between the interpretation of the meaning of πάσῃ/πᾶσαν in John 16.13c and the interpretation of the meaning of πολλά in 16.12a. The word πολλά has been interpreted in two ways, as indicating: (i) additional new revelation that is more difficult and profound than the teaching provided by Jesus; (ii) a more complete explication, development, deepening of that which has been revealed in/by Jesus.Footnote ³³ The first interpretation of πολλά corresponds to the first interpretation of πάσῃ/πᾶσαν. The second interpretation corresponds to the second interpretation of πάσῃ/πᾶσαν.

According to de la Potterie, the first interpretation of πολλά is excluded, because it cannot explain why πολλά is called a burden in John 16.12b and that at the same time the role of the Spirit is described as ‘une illumination pour aider les disciples à mieux comprendre le Christ et son message’ (14.25–6; 16.4, 25).Footnote ³⁴ This description of the role of the Spirit is in opposition to the view of the first interpretation of πολλά that the additional revelation that the Paraclete will bring is more complex and, therefore, harder to bear (βαστάζειν). In my view, however, the argument of de la Potterie is circular, because it presupposes that 14.25–6 characterises the orientation of the teaching of the Paraclete as retrospective. In other words, the argument of de la Potterie assumes that the teaching of the Paraclete retrospectively explains what was already revealed in/by Jesus, whereas this is the issue under discussion.

De la Potterie argues for the second interpretation of πολλά on the basis of the observation that οὐ δύνασθε and ἄρτι in John 16.12b orient the disciples to the future and indicate their present incapacity to understand the words of Jesus.Footnote ³⁵ In my view, however, John 16.12–13 does stricto sensu not say that the disciples are unable to bear words that Jesus has actually spoken. Although Jesus would have spoken these words if the disciples were able to bear them, he has chosen not to. The interrelation between πολλά and πάσῃ/πᾶσαν rather suggests that the words the disciples were unable to bear at that time will be spoken by the Paraclete. These words of the Paraclete thus cannot be an explication, development or deepening of the words that Jesus has actually spoken. Why would the disciples be unable to bear explanations of the words they have already received from Jesus? Explanations are always easier to understand than what is explained. Therefore πολλά cannot refer to explanations of the words that Jesus has actually spoken. This implies that the Paraclete has a teaching function that cannot be reduced to reminding the disciples of what has already been revealed in/by Jesus. Like Jesus’ teaching, the teaching of the Paraclete can properly be called revelatory. Yet, as argued in subsection 2.1, it is not the case that the Paraclete can be held to teach something that has not yet been taught by Jesus. The paradox that we face here is that πολλά in 16.12a designates the teaching of the Paraclete, which Jesus could not teach, because his disciples were unable to bear it. Yet, at the same time, the teaching of the Paraclete can only repeat the teaching of Jesus, because Jesus is ἡ ἀλήθεια (14.16) and has revealed everything there is to reveal about the Father (15.15). In section 4, we will argue that Kierkegaard's category of repetition is the key to understanding this paradox. We will see that this category is able to conceive the teaching of the Paraclete as both new and the same in comparison to the teaching of Jesus.

3.4 John 16.13f: The Meaning of τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ

The double use of λαλήσει in John 16.13de introduces the direct explanation of 16.13c. Because the meaning of καί in 16.13f is explicative,Footnote ³⁶ the phrase τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν is also an explanation of ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ/εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν. There is, therefore, also an interrelation between πάσῃ/πᾶσαν and τὰ ἐρχόμενα. The combination of ἀναγγέλλω with τὰ ἐρχόμενα has been interpreted in two ways:Footnote ³⁷ (i) the prefix ἀνα of ἀναγγέλλω indicates repetition.Footnote ³⁸ The Paraclete will thus only reannounce or reproclaim what Jesus has said before him. He will not announce unknown things that have not yet taken place, but will help to understand the things that will come to pass (τὰ ἐρχόμενα) by reminding the disciples of the teaching of Jesus (see interpretation one of 16.12–13);Footnote ³⁹ (ii) the verb ἀναγγέλλω does not denote repetition or announcement of something that has already taken place, but the prophetic function of the Paraclete. The Paraclete is able to reveal things (τὰ ἐρχόμενα) before they take place (see interpretation two of 16.12–13).Footnote ⁴⁰

In my view, the second interpretation of τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ in John 16.13f is the better one for three reasons: (i) because of the interrelation between τὰ ἐρχόμενα and πάσῃ/πᾶσαν in 16.13, there is a parallel between τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν in 16.13f and ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα in 4.25. The verb ἀναγγέλλω occurs five times in the Fourth Gospel: three times in 16.13–15, once in 4.25, and once in 5.15. It is obvious that ἀναγγέλλω has the meaning of reannouncing or retelling in 5.15. The man healed during the Sabbath at first did not know who healed him (5.13). Only after he saw Jesus again (5.14) was he able to announce (ἀναγγέλλω) this to the ‘Jews’ (5.15). However, this meaning of reannouncing of things that happened in the past is not present in the claim of the Samaritan woman that the Messiah ‘will proclaim all things to us’ (4.25).Footnote ⁴¹ Because of the parallelism between τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν and ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα, this meaning of reannouncing or reproclaiming is also absent in 16.13f; (ii) the Johannine Jesus too elsewhere has the ability to tell things before they happen, for example concerning his death (e.g. John 12.23–4, 32–3; 13.1), Judas’ betrayal (13.18–19) and the persecution of the disciples (16.2–3); (iii) the combination of ἀναγγέλλω with τὰ ἐρχόμενα is unique in the Bible, but almost the same as the combination of ἀναγγέλλω with τὰ ἐπερχόμενα in Isa 41.23; 44.7. According to Franklin W. Young, in Deutero-Isaiah the verb ἀναγγέλλω designates ‘a very significant function of God in contrast to false-gods and false-prophets of alien nations’, namely, the power to announce events that are to come ‘before they actually occur’ (see Isa 41.28; 42.9; 44.7; 47.13; 46.9–10). The correct translation of ἀναγγέλλω in these texts is not to reannounce or reproclaim, but ‘to reveal’.Footnote ⁴²

However, as argued earlier in subsection 2.1, this prophetic function of the Paraclete does not imply that the Paraclete will teach things that have not yet been taught by Jesus. Both Jesus and the Paraclete have a prophetic function, yet there is not competition but collaboration between both. The next section will argue that the key to understanding this enigma is a philosophical reflection on the notion of repetition.

4.1 Kierkegaard's Distinction between Recollection and Repetition

Kierkegaard contrasts repetition with Plato's notion of recollection (ἀνάμνησις). According to Kierkegaard, repetition and recollection are the same movement, but in opposite directions. Whereas recollection is retrospective, repetition is prospective. Recollection is cognitive and means ‘the articulate retrieval of an impression of a past actuality’ from the realm of ideas.Footnote ⁴³ As such, it is a movement from reality to ideality. It is immanent and static, because it deals with that which is and does not bring anything new nor change our existence. Recollection ‘regards knowing the (already existing) truth’.Footnote ⁴⁴ Repetition, on the other hand, is existential and means that ‘a past actuality becomes actual once again: someone who repeats is renewing actuality’.Footnote ⁴⁵ Repetition is a movement from ideality to reality. It is a transcendence, because it is a coming into being.Footnote ⁴⁶ Repetition is a paradoxical movement in which nothing changes, but everything becomes new.

According to Kierkegaard, the occurrence of repetition is dependent on recollection. According to Niels Eriksen, this can be explained on the basis of Luther's distinction between law and gospel. Eriksen finds this distinction ‘reflected at various levels’ in Kierkegaard's thinking on repetition. He defines the law as ‘the word that refers a human being to the horizon of possibilities within his own existence’. This corresponds to Kierkegaard's notion of recollection, because it is a movement from reality to ideality and has a cognitive and retrospective character. When confronted with the law, human beings seek to fulfil their possibilities and at the same time realise ‘the impossibility of this fulfilment’. The law gradually closes ‘the horizon of possibilities’ and ‘makes the individual become as nothing before God’. Human beings are in need of the gospel to ‘create new life’. This corresponds to the meaning of repetition as ‘coming into being’.Footnote ⁴⁷

4.2 The Paraclete's Reminding and Teaching as Recollection and Repetition

Kierkegaard's distinction between recollection and repetition is useful for our understanding of the relationship between the reminding and the teaching function of the Paraclete in the Gospel of John. The category of recollection can be used to understand the reminding function of the Paraclete. It is self-evident that his reminding function is retrospective and cognitive. This is explicitly attested by the parenthetical comments, in John 2.19–22 and 12.12–16, on the resurrection of the temple and Jesus’ royal entry in Jerusalem respectively. Both texts demonstrate that the reminding function of the Paraclete enables the disciples to understand retrospectively Jesus’ words and deeds. As such, the reminding function of the Paraclete is essential for opening the horizon of possibilities in the existence of the disciples.

Yet, according to the gospel story, the knowledge claims of the disciples are not sufficient. When confronted with the task to live authentically, they are at the same time hindered by their impotence. On two occasions, viz. John 6.69 and 16.29–30, the disciples confess and affirm faith. The reaction of Jesus in 6.70–1 and 16.31–2 to these confessions painfully reveals the impotence of the disciples to live authentically. Characteristic of the pre-Easter era is that Jesus opens up a new possibility of existence for the disciples, but that the disciples are unable to let this possibility come into being. Although they are told the truth, they are unable either to do what is true (cf. 3.21) or to worship the Father in truth (cf. 4.23–4). In order to have an authentic existence and let the possibility offered by Jesus come into being, the disciples have to receive the gift of the Spirit (e.g. 14.25–6; 16.12–13).

Just as the category of repetition is prospective, the teaching of the Paraclete is also oriented to the future (John 14.25–6; 16.12–13). Kierkegaard's category of repetition is useful not only for understanding the prospective orientation of the teaching of the Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel, but also for apprehending that this teaching is not in competition with the teaching of Jesus. The category of repetition is the means to being able to attribute a revelatory function to both Jesus and the Paraclete. The analogy that the Paraclete reveals Jesus, just as Jesus has revealed the Father, can only be adequately conceived on the basis of the category of repetition. According to this category, the Paraclete did not teach anything that had not already been taught by Jesus. The Paraclete repeats Jesus’ teaching as a totality, nothing more and nothing less. Yet, his teaching function is not reduced to his reminding function, but is genuinely revelatory. Although his teaching does not add anything new to the old, it does renew the old. Nothing has changed, yet everything has become new.