76 GEORGE C. HEIDER his followers 21. Moreover, the formation and existence of both communities is credited to the word of God (Deut 4,9-13; John 14,22- 24), and the word is in both cases described as life-giving in specific contrast to mundane bread (Deut 8,3; John 6,27). Arguably more significant for our purposes than the books’ descriptions of the origins of the communities, however, is their explicit assumption that the communities will continue into the indefinite future. This assertion is conveyed in a couple of different ways. Both books employ the theological device of “re-presentation” (or “actualization”), thereby directly weaving future generations into their text. Thus, in Deuteronomy Moses addresses the wilderness generation as if they had been present at the mountain of God and had there bound themselves in covenant with God. Deuteronomy’s Moses goes so far as to spout historical nonsense: “Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deut 5,3 RSV). The point is pellucid: every generation is to see itself as present and participating in the formative events of the community. For its part, John’s Gospel is even more direct. In his “High Priestly Prayer” Jesus intercedes “not only on behalf of these [here present], but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word” (John 17,20), i.e., all future generations — again stressing also the role of the “word” bringing the community to be, only on a continuing basis. And it is, of course, John who most famously identifies the formative mediator with the Word (Λόγος) of God and who testifies that “we” most truly know God through that Word (John 1,1.14.18). Rhetorically, this forward trajectory is notably enhanced by the device of second-person address, thereby pulling the later reader into the implied audience. In Deuteronomy such address is found throughout the book (except for the final four chapters) in the book’s sermonic form (to be sure, alternating between second person singular and plural). By contrast, it is very nearly at the 21 A. LACOMARA, “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31–16:33)”, CBQ 36 (1974) 67-84, spells out extensively the parallels be- tween Deuteronomy and the “FD”, beginning with the respective roles of Moses and Jesus as mediator. Similarly, T.F. GLASSON’s study, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT; London 1963) 75, finds “recurring” Deuteronomic lan- guage in John, particularly in the Farewell Discourse — no great surprise, given that Deuteronomy is an extended version of a farewell discourse itself.