In the classic vernacular translations of Europe, "paraclete''
was translated as “Comforter” (Wycliffe, Luther, the Authorized
Version). Though this rendering is still found in some versions (e.g. in The
Living Bible), almost all modern translations prefer ‘Helper’,
‘Counsellor’, ‘Advocate’ or even 'Paraclete’. Yet a
real case can be made for the older view and this is what we will explore in
this chapter. (1)
In secular Greek writing, paraklêtos denoted an assistant, usually a ‘helper in court’. According to its strict grammatical construction, as perfect passive participle, it meant a person “called to one’s side”, someone called upon to help (from parakalein, “calling to one’s side”). But parakalein also meant “to encourage, to give comfort”. The question is: Could the noun paraklêtos be taken to have an active meaning in this other sense of encouraging and comforting?
The immediate occasion for investigating this alternative is the context in which the term paraclete appears in John. Apart from some juridical terminology in Jn 16:8-11, the function of the paraclete would not seem to be the one of a helper in court. He does not plead for the disciples before a judgment seat; rather, he teaches them, reminding them of what Jesus had said (14:26); and leads them into the fullness of truth (16:13). He addresses the disciples, not the judge; encouraging them by his teaching. This would be the task of a comforter, not a pleader in court. But could paraklêtos mean ‘comforter’?
A first confirmation may be seen in a first-century Greek translation of the Old Testament by Aquila and Theodotion. In Job 16:2 they rendered the Hebrew term menachemîm, consolers, by paraklêtoi. The two Jewish Rabbis were well aware of the fact that in the Septuagint, parakaleo had become the normal Greek equivalent for Hebrew nicham, ‘to comfort’. In Zech 1:13 the Septuagint had rendered ‘comforting words’ as logous paraklêtikous. By rendering ‘comforters’ menachamîm) as paraklêtoi, the two scholars clearly indicated that the Greek word could have this meaning. Accuracy of expression was their express concern.
But what about the passive construction of the word? Had Aquila and Theodotion perhaps confusedparaklêtês (an active noun) and paraklêtos (the perfect passive participle)? After all, they were Jews and could have been influenced by Septuagint Greek idiom. A wider look at classical Greek is required. lt reveals that, contrary to the general grammatical rule, participle nouns ending in -tos often had an active meaning. Dunatos was a person who possessed power; zestos meant ‘boiling’, ‘hot’; anamartêtos was ‘faultless’; arestos, ‘pleasing’; thnêtos, 'mortal'; pistos, ‘trusting’; sunetos, ‘understanding’; and apseustos, ‘one who does not lie’. Sometimes words may have had a passive origin, but through usage they acquired an active sense. Compare: asôtos, ‘glutton’; misthôtos, ‘aday labourer’; and prosêlitos, ‘convert’. It shows that Aquila and Theodotion were quite right in considering that paraklêtos could have an active meaning. The noun paraklêtês, incidentally, though theoretically possible, was never used.
The Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church, though writing one to three centuries later, also believed that ‘comforter’ was a legitimate rendering of paraclete. (2) They were familiar with the sense of ‘helper in court’ and occasionally commented on the Johannine passages in this vein. But frequently the theme of ‘consolation’ won the day. Eusebius says that Jesus sent the spirit of truth as consoler (paraklêton) in order that he might console (parakalein) and encourage. (3) Cyril of Alexandria states: “He is called Comforter (paraklêtos) because he comforts (parakalein) and encourages and has sympathy with our weakness”. Then thinking of the other meaning of paraclete, he adds: “And it is clear that he stands before God”. (4)
Such texts reveal clearly that both meanings were possible in Greek. The Latin Fathers recognised this ambiguity, too. In one text, Tertullian explained paraclete as ‘an advocate, called in to plead with the judge’; in another text as ‘the one who encourages’ within the context of Is 61:2 ‘to encourage the weakhearted’. (5) Hilary called him ‘advocate’ in one passage; ‘consoler’ in another. (6) Both Rufinus and Augustine declared in so many words that paraklêtos could mean either ‘comforter’ or ‘a pleader in court’. (6) A similar ambivalence is shown in the oldest translations of John. The Vetus Latina and the Palestinian Peshitta favoured ‘Comforter’.
I have gone to some length in presenting this material to show that the interpretation ‘Comforter’ cannot be dismissed out of hand. For men like Eusebius, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, Greek was the mother tongue. For other Church leaders and translators it was a language with which they were very familiar. They cannot have been wrong in judging that the meaning '‘comforter’ was inherently possible in paraklêtos. We may even stipulate that the word was intrinsically ambiguous. While the usual meaning may have been a ‘helper in court’—if we go by the secular texts the association of ‘giving comfort’ was clearly present. If I may give a present-day example, one could think of the word ‘waiter’ in English. In its normal usage it refers to a person serving customers in a restaurant, someone who 'waits upon' others. Yet we are not surprised by the well-known phrase: "They also serve who only stand and wait. The meaning of ‘waiting’, remaining in expectance, is not far from the term ‘waiter’.
The important thing, of course, is to establish, if we can, the mind of the original author. What were John's associations when he employed the term parakêtos? Did he have the function of ‘comforting’ in mind?
In the Old Testament, the theme of Yahweh's consoling role had been strongly voiced, especially in the Deutero- and Trito-Isaian prophecies which were to influence Early Christian thinking so greatly. “Comfort, comfort my people”, Isaiah had said (Is 40:1). “I, I the Lord will comfort you” (Is 51: 12). One of the Servant’s roles was announced to be “consoling the sorrowing” (Is 61:2). The theme assumed such proportions in rabbinical literature that nichâmâh, the comfort, became a comprehensive term for messianic salvation, and the messiah was credited with the title ‘menachem’, comforter. (8) In this climate of thought, Jesus could be said to be a comforter, the Spirit, ‘another comforter’ ( 14: 16).
Turning to the Hellenistic world one finds that consolation (paraklêsis) was a widely acknowledged need. The Greek world had no convincing answers to life’s misfortunes: to sickness, poverty, defeat and bereavement. A note of pessimism was common. Life was not worth living. “Many wise people look on life as a punishment, on one’s birth as one’s greatest misfortune” (Crantor). “By far the best for mortals is never to have been born; and for those who have, to die as soon as possible” (Theognis). “If the happiest thing is not to be born, the next best, in my opinion, is to die in tender age” (Seneca). (9) It reminds us of Kohelet’s sentiment in Alexandria: “Luckier are the dead than those who are still living; luckier still those never born” (Eccl 4:2-3). Comforting (parakalein) oneself or others thus became very relevant. Letters, speeches, short reflections and philosophical treatises were devoted to the theme. (9) Here again, existential comfort held out in the Christian message could offer prospects of a good response.
But John disappoints us. Whereas the thematic of comfort does pervade other NT writings, it is curiously absent from John. Parakalein occurs 103 times in the NT, 54 of which are in Paul; not once in John. Paraklêsis, too, is found quite often: 29 times in the NT, 20 times in Paul; but John uses the word not even once. This can hardly be a coincidence. Knowing the Johannine precision in omitting certain terms and adopting others, we may suspect design, not accident. Why is Jesus never said to ‘bring comfort’?
The startling answer may be that in Johannine thinking Jesus did just the opposite of giving consolation.(10) For Hellenists, comfort consisted mainly in being assured that one would be spared pain, loss or early death. Jesus held out the very opposite. “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it cannot bring fruit” (12:24). “Whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (14:25). When Jesus heard of Lazarus’ sickness, he sent no message of comfort and let him die (11:4). Jesus allowed the man born blind to be harassed by the scribes and be expelled from the synagogue (9:34). Jesus refused to appease the disciples who left him because of his hard words (6:66). Suffering and persecution were to be the disciples’ fate as much as that of their master (15:18). The attitude he demanded was diametrically opposed to the feeble platitudes used by Hellenists to console each other: “Stop weeping, for lamenting is useless”. “Treat each day as your last, then every hour will be a bonus”. “Think of your past happiness to drown your present sorrow”.
But after the time of tribulation, there was to be a time of comfort. For Jesus this meant that after his death, there took place exhaltation and glory. For the disciples it came with the Spirit. We have already seen that in Johannine thought the Spirit could only come after Jesus’ return to the Father (7:39; 16:7). With the Spirit came the gifts of joy (15:11), peace (14:27) and fraternal love (15:12). Through their rising with Jesus, the disciples received the new experience of inner life that was the characteristic experience of Christians. “To be comforted” by God was one aspect of that experience.
Jesus explains this through the parable of the woman in labour. The sufferings of childbirth are painful, but it produces new life and joy (16:21-22). This is why, after twelve chapters without paraklêsos, the promise of comfort suddenly breaks through with the coming of the paraklêtos. In fact, Jesus’ words at the last supper (13-16), encouraging as they are, are an anticipation of Christian paraklêsis:the comfort Christians would receive from listening to the word of the master and breaking his bread at the Eucharist. The risen Christ, always present with the disciples, was their paraklêtos, their comforter. But this function could also, even more properly, be ascribed to the Spirit of Truth, ‘another paraklêtos’ (14:16) or ‘the paraklêtos’ (l4:26;15:26; 16:7). In this way, the distinctive role of the Spirit as Comforter could be fully appreciated.
1. For a similar attempt see J.G. Davies, “The Primary Meaning of Parakletos”, ]ournal of Theological Studies NS 4 (1953) 35-38.
2. Casurella, The Johannine Paraclete in the Church Fathers, Mohr-Siebeck, Tubingen 1983.
3. De Ecclesiastica Theologia III, 5, 11 f .
4. Catechesis Mystica XVI 20 (MPG 33, 948A). See also Chrysostom, Hom in Joh 75 (MPG 59,403); Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 11 (MPG/45, 522B)
5. Tertullian in De Jejunio 13 and Adversus Marcionem IV 15.
6. Hilary, De Trinitate Vlll 19 and Tractatus Super Psalmos 125, 7.
7. Rufinus, quoted by Origen, De Principiis II 7.4 (GCS 22, 151f). Augustine, In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 94,2. See the complete texts in J. Behm, art. Parakletos Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, V, 800-815.
8. H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Beck, Munich 1922, vol. I, p. 195; II, p. 125.
9. Crantor quoted in Plutarch, Consolatio ad Apoll. 27 (II. 115b); Theognis, Elegia I 425-428; Seneca, Dialogi VI, 22.3.
10. G. Staehlin, “Trost und Trostlosigkeit in der Umwelt des Neuen Testaments”, Viva vox Evangelii = Festschrift H. Meiser, 1951, pp. 308-323; see also “Parakaleô” in Theological Dictionary of the NT: ed. G. Friedrich, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1967, Vol V, 773-788.
11. This may also be the reason why the phrase ‘consoling the sorrowing’ is omitted from Is 61, 2 in the quotation of Lk 4:18.