04_Parker_222_244_222-244 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 234 234 FLOYD O. PARKER JR. 234 tete,lestai in 19,30. Yet, the fulfillment mentioned in 19,28.30 likely does not refer to signs and wonders. The seven major signs in John conclude with the resurrection of Lazarus in chapter 11, which means they were accomplished long before the crucifixion. Further- more, there is nothing in the immediate context of 19,28.30 to prepare the reader to revisit that particular option 43. Gundry’s identification of Jesus’ words with “all things” is also fraught with difficulties, for most of Jesus’ words in the Fourth Gospel were spoken prior to his suffering, while the words of Jesus during the passion narrative are few. Furthermore, Jesus did not finish all of his words on the cross, for he continued to speak after his resurrection (20,21-23, 29; 21,15- 23) and also promised his disciples that he would have more to say through the agency of the Spirit after his ascent to the Father (16,12- 13). Since Jesus’ signs were accomplished so long before his state- ment from the cross, his words were not fulfilled on the cross, and the immediate context contains nothing to prepare the reader for the identification of “all things” with either of these two options, Gundry’s overall argument fails to convince. Some scholars connect the words eivj te,loj hvga,phsen auvtou,j (John 13,1) to tete,lestai (19,30), suggesting that “it is finished” refers to Christ’s love for his disciples that was fulfilled upon the cross 44. Although this position is often asserted, no one appears to have mounted a thorough defense of it. Nonetheless, this view could be a viable possibility for several reasons. First, the words te,loj, used only once in John, and tele,w are from the same word group so there could be a connection between them. Of course, there must be more to go on than a shared word group, for, as was argued above, teleio,w and tele,w may have different nuances in John. Second, the foot washing scene in which te,loj appears (John 13,1-20) foreshadows the events of the cross, thereby potentially forging a link between these two passages 45. Third, the language of John 19,28 (eivdw.j o` VIhsou/j … pa,nta) may recall that of 13,1 43 If Jesus’ resurrection (2,18-22) and the miraculous haul of fish are also signs (21,1-14), the case against GUNDRY would be made even stronger, since this would mean that some of the signs were not “fulfilled” on the cross. 44 HAENCHEN, John, II, 194; SCHNACKENBURG, St. John, III, 16; GUNDRY, “New Wine”, 296. 45 E.g. BARRETT, St John, 363-364; A.J. KÖSTENBERGER, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (BTNT; Grand Rapids, MI 2009), 236.