PASSION NARRATIVE, John 18:1-19:42
[B] 18:1-19:42 Passion Narrative in John: Kerygma: Arrest, Condemned by Jewish and Roman authorities, he died according to scripture
Mark 8:31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed,
Mark 9:31 “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him,.”
Mark 10:33-4 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him;”
I Cor 15:3-4
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried
Phil 2:7-8
emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
Acts 2:23
this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.
Acts 3:13-14
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life
Acts 10:39
They put him to death by hanging him on a tree
Acts 13:26-30
My brothers, you descendants of Abraham’s family, and others who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. Because the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize him or understand the words of the prophets that are read every sabbath, they fulfilled those words by condemning him. Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him killed. When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
John 18:1-19:42 (Good Friday) is an account of the passion. This gospel has been moving toward the Hour (2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 13:1), and the hour for Jesus has come. The story of the death of Jesus has become a controversial part of his biography. At least in the world of scholars and pastors, and for some outside Christian circles, people have an opinion on the circumstances, causality or meaning of the death of Jesus. For Christians in the pews on Good Friday, this story is both familiar and jarring. One possibility in reading this passage is to focus upon unrecognized elements. John has some distinctive traits regarding the Passion that one can easily misunderstand. Christians following the lectionary hear this passage every Good Friday. For them, we can explore the story in a way that will give it some new life.
One easily misunderstood element of the Passion in John is the group labeled simply “the Jews.” It distinguishes John’s cast of characters from the synoptic gospels. While the synoptic authors usually define Jesus’ interlocutors more specifically — scribes, Pharisees, chief priests, elders, Herodians, etc. — John pits Jesus against “the Jews” and sometimes against “the world.” Indeed, the Passion Narrative in John will bring the Jews and the world together in the answer Jesus gives to Pilate: “If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews” (18:36). The Jews thus travel through John’s gospel as a corporate character, one that appears quite frequently in the passion narrative (about 20 times). Many scholars and pastors of the last generation have worried about the portrayal of the Jews, especially in the passion narrative. In some parts of the world, Christians learn about Jews primarily from their Bibles and not from human interaction. So, what can we do, in post-Holocaust Christianity, to encourage faithful interpretation of the text without promoting antipathy toward Jews and Judaism today?
Most mainline denominations have officially encouraged sensitivity to the portrayal of Jews and Judaism on Good Friday. An exegete has many different options.[1] First, you could balance the negative portrayal of Jews with other aspects of John’s gospel. Jesus as John presents him is fully Jewish, and every character (good or bad) in the gospel is a Jew. John portrays Judaism positively in several instances (4:9, 22; 11:19). John’s overall message of God’s embracing love should guide all interpretation of his account (1:7; 6:39; 10:16; 12:32). Second, one could provide a nuanced analysis of “the Jews” as a character in the story. The part they play as a character in the story John tells is a simplification of the many Jewish authority groups that the synoptics separate into specific groups. Alternatively, they are a foil for Jesus; performing a symbolic function in a comparable way as does “the world” as John tells the story of Jesus. Third, one could de-emphasize the historical question of why authorities crucified Jesus (“Was it the Jews’ fault or not?”). The point in all the accounts of the Passion is getting a response from us as readers now. John has a way of telling the Passion that invites us to see the new revelation God intends us to see in Jesus.
“Where do we read ourselves into the passion narrative?” Christians have grown accustomed to reading themselves into the protagonists of the New Testament, usually Jesus and Paul. Nevertheless, our lives are more like the other characters we meet in their stories. We can make the story of the Passion in John come alive if we read ourselves into the minor characters that we might overlook. For example, Nicodemus reappears in the passion narrative to help prepare the body for burial: “Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds” (19:39). When the disciples of Jesus had abandoned him, Nicodemus was there to help provide a proper burial. What do we know of Nicodemus from before? He was a Pharisee and leader of the Jews who came secretly to Jesus with questions about his signs and teachings (3:1-21). Later he speaks up amid a group of Pharisees to defend Jesus’ right to teach: “Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?” (7:51). We cannot conclude from this slight evidence that Nicodemus was completely committed to Jesus as Messiah. Rather, John portrays him as a curious seeker and an upright leader, unafraid to hear innovative ideas and stand up for the rights of the unjustly accused. When Jesus dies, Nicodemus is there to prepare him for a respectful burial. Though not called a disciple, Nicodemus sees a form of discipleship through to the end.
We could also read ourselves into the other characters that follow Jesus to the end: the women at the foot of the cross. “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (19:25). John emphasizes their role more than the Synoptics do. They are “near the cross” in John but looking on “from a distance” in the synoptics (Matthew 27:55; Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49). Furthermore, one of them, Mary Magdalene, is the first witness to the appearance of the risen Lord as John tells the story. She receives an intimate and private revelation (20:11-18). Because of this, ancient and medieval Christianity called her the “apostle to the apostles” (apostola apostolorum). More than the other disciples, these women beheld the suffering of Jesus face to face. Through the text, we can wonder what caused these women to remain near the cross and watch Jesus die. Why was it important for all the gospel writers to preserve their presence there? Did they fulfill their discipleship more than the others did? If to imitate Christ on Good Friday means to suffer, perhaps to follow Christ on Good Friday means to stand near the cross and witness. On Good Friday, we follow by standing still.
To what extent does the theology of John affect the way it relates the passion?[2] I will be pointing this out through this exploration.
The narrative is also free of the natural eruptions we find in the synoptics. Although the Eucharist is not present, he has dealt with that theme in Chapter 6. Gethsemane as a separate story does not occur, but 12:27-28 recasts the prayer scene. Although it has nothing of the Messiah or the charge of blasphemy, but both play an element in 10:30-39. John contradicts the report in Mark that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross by stressing that he carried his own cross (19:17). He has no reference to the mocking and reviling of Jesus, tokens of sympathy from the women of Jerusalem or one of the robbers, and has omitted, like Luke, the cry of dereliction by Jesus from the cross.
John also stresses details not given in the Synoptics. He stresses the voluntary character of the sufferings of Jesus, the political charge brought against Jesus in the Roman court, the Jewish decline of jurisdiction in the case of Jesus, he emphasizes the innocence of Jesus, a different set of prophecies fulfilled, the episode of the Mother and the Beloved disciple, he asserts the body was anointed for burial (19:38-40).
18:1-12 shows the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, occurring after the private discourse in 13-17, for which see as well Mt 26.47—56; Mk 14.43—52; Lk 22.47—53).
After Jesus had spoken the words of the farewell discourse and offered his intercessory prayer, Jesus and the disciples go to a garden, which he does not name, as do the Synoptics, but the Kidron Valley was on the east side of Jerusalem, the same side as the Mount of Olives. Judas, a pointed reminder that the betrayer comes from the inner circle of disciples, arrives with Roman soldiers, which only John mentions, as well as Temple police from the chief priests and Pharisees, stressing the presence of political and religious authorities, arriving with lanterns, torches, and weapons. Another difference with the Synoptic account is that he shows Jesus taking the initiative in the arrest. This passage shows the contest between light and darkness. Theologically, John stresses this contest throughout his account of the story of Jesus. Thus, Jesus approaches the soldiers, thereby not waiting passively to be arrested, and unlike the Synoptics not waiting for Judas to approach and betray Jesus with a kiss. This fulfills 10:18, where Jesus said that no one takes his life from him, stressing the voluntary nature of the path to the cross.[3]. John assures us that Jesus knows what is to happen to him. He asked Judas, the Roman soldiers, and the police from the chief priests and Pharisees, for whom they are looking. When they say they are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, he responds with the revelation of the divine name we find at the burning bush in Exodus, “I am he (Ἐγώ εἰμι),” developing the theme in Mt 26:53 that as Jesus proves he is the Son of God at his arrest.[4] Judas and those with him heard this, stepped back, and fell to the ground, showing what must happen when darkness encounters light. When he asks a second time, he identifies himself a second time and encourages them to let his disciples go, referring to John 6:39 that he would not lost anyone whom the Father gave him. Jesus gives himself up to the police with the understanding they will let his followers go free. In 18:9, “This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.” This refers to 17:12. The action of Jesus in the Garden was a sign of his action upon a larger scale and a higher plane, which is the higher plane and the true meaning of his action in the Garden. Yet, 17:12 also refers to 6:37-40, where Jesus, having offered himself as Bread of Life to humanity, recognizes that the offer is rejected in unbelief. He stresses that all the Father gives him will come to him, and he will never reject anyone who comes to him, because he came down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him. in 10:27-28, the sheep hear his voice, and they shall never be lost and no one shall snatch them of his hand. He lays down his life for the sheep in 10:15. This is the full, rich content that lies in 17:12, which is behind 18:9. In a hostile world, the will of God for human salvation challenges the powers of evil in the Incarnation and work of Christ, through which eternal life is open to humanity. Once a person has responded by grace alone to Christ takes responsibility for salvation. One can do this only because Christ is devoted to the will of the heavenly Father, to the point of laying down his life, and that will is set toward human salvation.[5] Using a novelistic motif,[6] Simon Peter has a sword, draws it out, and strikes Malchus, an example of the tendency to provide a name where earlier tradition had none,[7] the slave of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. Jesus has Peter place the sword back into sheath, for he must drink the cup that the Father has given him. a metaphor for suffering and death, a gift from the Father which he welcomes, in contrast to Mk 14:36, where Jesus prays that the cup might pass from him. His wrestling prayer helps him attain this readiness, the cup referring to destiny or fate in the evil sense, close to the Old Testament usage, but in context, what confronts him is not cruel destiny but the judgment of God.[8] The soldiers and temple police arrest Jesus.
Unlike the Synoptics, John does not have the clearly marked Gethsemane scene. However, in 12: 27-28, we find Jesus struggling in his soul and wondering if he should pray that the Father save him from this hour of his suffering and death. Yet, he submits to the will of the Father, and then the voice from heaven affirms that the Father has already glorified Jesus and will do so again in the resurrection. Such a voice is also present in the Synoptic accounts of the baptism and the Mount of Transfiguration. Submission to the will of the Father is precisely what the prayer at Gethsemane intended as well. In other words, as often with John, popular scenes in the Synoptic account of the story of Jesus play out differently, but they are present. I should mention that Hebrews 5:7 also refers to the agony of Jesus in prayer. Thus, while true that we do not move from the meal scene to the Garden of Gethsemane, John has included the message of that Synoptic story at a different point in his story.
Judas stands for us as an image, a warning, of how far astray it is possible for us to wander. Judas was with Jesus from the first, surely intended to follow him faithfully. Yet he betrayed his master. Thus, Judas stands for us as a warning. It is possible, the example of Judas reminds us, to become terribly self-deceived. John presents Judas, not only as the betrayer of Jesus, but also as the great self-deceiver. On one occasion in the ministry of Jesus (John 12:1-8), when a woman came in and wasted an expensive jar of ointment, pouring it on Jesus, as an act of affection, Judas condemned her for the waste, saying that the money ought to have been given to the poor. On that occasion, the gospel writer says that Judas was merely deceiving himself and attempting to deceive Jesus. He did not care about the poor but only cared about the money. Judas, the great deceiver. His self-deception is a witness to human reality. We imagine ourselves better than we are. We have an empty image of goodness and imagine that we participate in it. “I think, therefore I am,” Descartes famously said. However, who is this “I”? Some moments this “I” seems jerked around by forces beyond the control of our will and reason. Among our chief problems is the “I” and the reasons it ascribes to itself for its behavior. Our deceit is deep. In that sense, to affirm “I am” is to affirm our profound self-deception. The human heart, your heart and mine, is deceitful and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9). The irony and paradox of humanity is that the more we desire to be good and adhere to the truth, the more prone we are to deceive ourselves that we are expressions of such goodness and truth. In that sense, the cynics among us may be less prone to self-deception than the conscientious person. Yet, the cynic is not off the hook, for the cynic has the self-deception of standing in an imaginary good place from which to pronounce such cynicism. The point is the people who move events toward the crucifixion of Jesus are not particularly evil. In fact, they seem motivated by a desire to be good. I have suggested this possibility with Judas. Jewish leaders adhere to their interpretation of scripture that lead them to the conclusion that Jesus must die. Pilate will be an example of a good man trying to maintain neutrality in a moment that demands a decision. Here is the good news. Granted, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” but also “If we confess our sin, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I Jn 1:8-9).
18:13-27 shows the interrogation of Jesus. In this passage, Jesus stands up to his questioners, while Peter backs down. Peter Denies Jesus (Mt 26.69—75; Mk 14.66—72; Lk 22.54—62) John appears to have a separate tradition concerning the denials by Peter from either that of Mark or Luke. Only John mentions the role of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas and high priest that year. Contemporary texts show that people knew Annas for his greed, power, and wealth.
In verses 13-14, the Roman soldiers and temple police took Jesus to Annas, who had no legal standing, but was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people (11:50). Unlike the Synoptics, there is no formal trial before religious authorities, but in John, Jewish authorities and the Jewish people have put Jesus on trial throughout the gospel.
In verses 15-18, Simon Peter and another disciple, not necessarily the Beloved Disciple, followed Jesus. The high priest knew the unnamed disciple, and he went with Jesus into the courtyard while Peter stood outside the gate. Peter spoke to a woman, and she invited Peter into the courtyard. The woman asked if he was a disciple of Jesus, and he said he was not, being his first denial, contrasting sharply with the bold self-identification of Jesus in saying, “I am he,” thereby not claiming discipleship. Since it was cold, those present build a fire, and Peter stood with them, in the weakened sense of being present,[9] to warm himself with them.
In verses 19-24, the high priest questions Jesus regarding his disciples and his teaching. This appearance heightens the contrast between Jesus and Peter, because Jesus speaks openly throughout the interrogation. Jesus, the one who reveals who God is, says he has spoken openly to the world,[10] referring in a non-polemical way to the fact that he taught in the synagogues[11] and in the Temple, where the Jews gather. He has said nothing in secret. He can ask others what he has said, suggesting the occasion is an information interrogation. Annas wants information for a later trial. One of the police slapped Jesus for responding in this way. Jesus says he has spoken rightly, so he wonders why he struck him. Annas bound him to Caiaphas the high priest. No further proceedings are necessary because Jesus was placed under a death sentence in 11:47-53.
In verses 25-27, returning to Simon Peter, others warming themselves around the fire with him, and now for the second and third denials, asked him if he was one of the disciples of Jesus and he said he was not. A relative of Malchus asked Peter if he had seen him in the garden, and Peter denied it. At that moment, the cock crowed.
18:28 – 19:16a shows the trial of Jesus before Pilate with the theme of the Kingship of Jesus (Mk 15:1-20, Mt 27:1-2, 11-31, Lk 23:1-7, 18-25). Jewish tradition describes Pilate negatively. This trial is the dramatic climax of the story, as Jesus arrives at his hour. The narrative highlights the intersection of religion and politics in Judea, as Jewish and Roman systems each work to protect their political self-interests throughout the trial. There is nothing parallel to its scope or literary artistry in the trial narratives of the synoptic Gospels. The trial is structured like a drama, with the scenes delineated by the movements of Pilate in and out of his headquarters.
John also offers a unique description of Pilate due to his prominent role in the Passion. As a character in the story, John tells us, administrative expediency guides Pilate more than anything else does. He wants only one simple question answered, “Are you a king?” However, he becomes more confused the more Jesus speaks. Moreover, John goes to such lengths to incriminate the Jews and defend Pilate (the Romans) that he describes Pilate as “afraid” (19:8) and continually trying to release Jesus. The Jews respond with an accusation whose historical accuracy cannot be defended; they accuse Pilate of not being a friend of the emperor (19:12), which he obviously was (as the Roman prefect). From extra-biblical sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Philo) we can infer that most Judeans and Samaritans viewed Pilate unfavorably during his tenure (A.D. 26-36). He exercised obstinacy and even wrath through the office of prefect, which combined military, financial and judicial authority over the subjugated region. It is difficult to reconcile this historical figure with the depiction by John of a fearful, temperate pawn who receives slanders from the crowd.
An inscription at Caesarea, placed on a stone and dated from the time of Jesus, identifies “Pontius Pilatus” as prefect of Judea. He held this office from 26 to 36 AD. He was the representative of Roman military, financial, and judicial authority in Judea. Most Judeans and Samaritans viewed Pilate unfavorably, as the most tangible representative of an occupying authority. However, if individuals respected Roman authority and paid taxes, the Romans could be quite neutral in a region. Of course, one could also be in trouble if one gained popularity among the peasants. In Judea, this meant claims to kingship. The time of Passover, a remembrance of deliverance from bondage in Egypt, was a dangerous time for the Romans. Pilate was present, discouraging the crowds from rioting in the streets. Pilate does not want to insert himself into a Jewish dispute. His concern is only whether someone threatens Romans power in the area.
The trial brings to conclusion many of the Christological themes we have explored, such as that of judgment (3:19-21, 9:39-41), in which the world must decide whether it recognizes the revelation of God in Jesus (16:9-11).
To read this story of John is to read about people who make a judgment about Jesus. The world is putting Jesus on trial. The disciples have already fled, leaving Jesus alone. Jewish religious leaders have decided he has broken Jewish laws so thoroughly that he deserves death. Pilate is trying to do something to keep the Jewish crowds quiet. The crowds would rather have the bandit Barabbas freed than they would Jesus. As a public official, a political leader, an important Roman citizen, Pilate has no reason to wallow in the concerns of the bothersome, insignificant Jewish inhabitants of this land. His declaration, however, also serves to free him from appearing to be in alliance with the Jewish authorities who brought Jesus to him. This Jewish problem, Jews accusing another Jew, is not something in which Pilate wants involvement. In these judgments against Jesus, these groups represent us. We place ourselves in the seat of the judge. We view ourselves as competent to judge. Yet, our self-deception and sin blind us to the fact that we are in fact the ones judged.
Jesus defends himself vigorously in both Jewish and Roman courts by focusing on the kingship of Jesus. Jesus is transferred from the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin to that of Pilate.
The story of Pilate as told by John may represent the story of a good man trying to stay neutral in a struggle that demands a total commitment. He is another representative of a reaction to Jesus in this Gospel that is neither faith nor rejection. These proceedings do not suggest, contrary to the idea presented by some scholars based on verses 3 and 12, that Pilate could have initiated the process. The initiation came from Jewish officials.
The trial will show that Jesus is the judge (19:13-16a), but not in the sense of the conventional expectations of the world (6:14-15, 12:13), but is king in the events of his hour.
Episode One is in verses 18:28-32. Jesus before Pilate Jewish authorities asking Pilate to condemn Jesus (Mt 27.1—2, 11—14; Mk 15.1—5; Lk 23.1—5)
John is the only one of the gospels that tries to give a reason for the Jews bringing Jesus to Pilate. They take Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium, the old palace of Herod the Great, about 6 AM. To avoid defilement so that they could partake in the Passover. The Romans will crucify Jesus the day before the Passover. They did not enter, for ritual defilement, entering the home of a Gentile, would render one ineligible to eat the Passover meal (Num 9:9-11). The trial begins in the morning of the before Passover, and thus the Day of Preparation. The chronology of passion does differ from Mark, which makes it a paschal meal, while John presents the view that Jesus was crucified on Nisa 14, the day on which the Paschal Lamb was killed, and thus the day before the paschal meal was eaten.[12] In I Cor 5:7 refers to Christ as the Paschal Lamb, and John alludes to it in 1:29, 36, and again in 19:36. Yet, the idea is not a distinctive or regulative idea of the theology of John. His date is implied in Quartodeciman usage at Ephesus and there is a statement from the Jewish side that Jesus suffered on the eve of Passover (Baraita in Sanh 43a. This indicates he is following a tradition in assigning this date.
Pilate went to them. He stepped outside the protective walls of the "praetorium." Pilate had to meet with the priestly accusers of Jesus. The design of Pilate's politically correct presence in Jerusalem during the festival of Passover was to discourage the throngs of visitors to the city from rioting in the streets. Pilate seems to treat what happened before as making accusations. Pilate asks what accusation they bring against Jesus, and they say he is a criminal, but Pilate tells them to judge him according to their law, which could have led to stoning Jesus for the charge of blasphemy (8:59, 10:31-32). Further, nothing would have prohibited Herod to execute Jesus in Galilee. This suggests that no formal trial has taken place. The Jewish leaders replied that Roman law does not permit them to put anyone to death, meaning only the Roman government could administer the death sentence of crucifixion, which was true for Samaria and Jerusalem, but not Galilee.[13] This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to indicate or intimate the manner of his death, thereby pointing to the dignity of Jesus that enables him to signify something where others are not as yet able to see anything (18:32).[14] This refers to 12:32-3. John asserts the significance in the fact that he died by crucifixion, and the clue to this significance had some currency in Jewish and Hellenistic circles. The reference is back to 12:33, which is connected to 3:13-16, 14:6. The paradox is that the bottom of the descent is exaltation. It is a voluntary condescension. He chooses to die. If Christ chooses to die, he is choosing the final stage of his descent into mortality, but in that act the Father glorifies him. This relates to 17:26. Thus, the paradox is that the death of Christ is at once his descent and his ascent, his humiliation and his exaltation, his shame and his glory, and this truth is symbolized in the manner of his death, the most shameful death of all, crucifixion, which is a sign of his exaltation from the earth.[15]
Episode Two is in verses 18:33-38a, the first interrogation by Pilate of Jesus.
This relates the first interrogation of Jesus by Pilate. He asks if Jesus is King of the Jews (Mk 5:2, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων). Nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels does Jesus designate himself as king, but his messianic consciousness included awareness of kingship.[16] For Pilate, this is a political matter that could lead to treason. John makes clear that kingship is a theological category that redefines power, in that his power comes from God rather than military might or human institutions. He does so by having Pilate asking what Jesus has done and Jesus responding that his kingdom (βασιλεία) is not of this world, made obvious by the fact that his servants (ὑπηρέται, unusual in that it could mean Jesus is a king who has servants whom he could deploy to fight, but that the nature of his rule does not allow such deployment) did not fight to prevent his being handed over to the Jews, here an Aramaic term for biological descent.[17] Such a statement could be a statement John is making to the Romans at the end of the first century as well, wanting them to see that they must not confuse Christianity with a political movement.[18] So, Pilate asks if he is king, and Jesus responds that Pilate says so, but he was born and came into the world, suggesting a Father-Son relation that suggests pre-existence, but could also suggest he is a prophet like Moses,[19] to testify (μαρτυρήσω) to the truth (ἀληθείᾳ). Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to his voice. Any power Jesus has relates to his testimony to the truth. Pilate is a sceptic and asks what is truth?
We have the definition of true kingship, which is the sovereignty of truth. Jesus speaks truth (8:45-7), and to dwell in his word is know truth (8:31-32, the liberating word is truth (17:17), and Christ is himself truth (14:6). The context is the trial scene. Pilate believes himself to be sitting in judgment on Jesus, while he is actually being judged by the Truth. His scornful question, what is truth, marks him as one of those who will not come to the light. Pilate stands for the unbelieving world.[20]
As I Timothy 6:13 puts it, “Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession.” John provides some reflections on the nature of that “good confession.” Jesus does not offer a defense. Jesus did not owe Pilate any defense. He offered only a confession. By offering this confession, he also showed the limits of political power.[21]
The account of the arrest of Jesus by the Romans has focused, until now, upon the innocence of Jesus of the charge against him. In this episode, the emphasis shifts to how Pilate will respond to the truth. Jesus shifts the focus of Pilate’s questions from the realm of provincial political power to the idea of truth.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus has said little about the kingdom of God, although he does have concern that people might make him king. Pilate wants to keep the conversation in terms of power. Which one of us has the power here? Are you king of the Jews (Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων)? In John 6:15, the people tried to make him a king, which is the basis for the question of Pilate. The question is consistent with the other gospels as well. From where do you get your power? While John has not mentioned the rule of God as proclaimed by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, he will now. John will take a theme of the Synoptic account and present it in a unique way. Thus, John expands on the concept of kingship here from Mk 15:2. If so, the kingship of Jesus is, to Pilate, political and is an act of treason against the power of Rome. Jesus challenges Pilate as to his personal knowledge of Jesus and the charges levelled against him by Jewish religious authorities. By suggesting that Pilate only knows what "others tell you about me," Jesus reminds Pilate that he has no "evidence" against Jesus except the hearsay evidence of priests. The question by Jesus is not one of further education but of clarification. By responding that he is not a Jew, Pilate does so with contempt. As a public official, a political leader, an important Roman citizen, Pilate has no reason to wallow in the concerns of the bothersome, insignificant Jewish inhabitants of this land. His declaration, however, also serves to free him from appearing to be in alliance with the Jewish authorities who brought Jesus to him. This Jewish problem, Jews accusing another Jew, is not something in which Pilate wants involvement. Pilate emphasizes that his own leaders have handed him over to him, so what has he done? By forcefully claiming a kingdom "not from this world," Jesus defines the nature of his messianic identity. As proof, Jesus points out that he has no soldiers, no armies, and no lawyers that are fighting for his freedom. Jewish leaders were waiting for a Davidic messiah another glorious warrior king who would free them from exile to a renewed position as the holy kingdom of Israel. This is not Jesus' identity or intent. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. If we go to Matthew 26:53, he could have called upon the Father to deliver him had the point been a kingdom of this earth. For John, the kingship of Jesus is a theological category that redefines the understanding of power of the world. We saw that understanding at work with the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, as the disciples spread palm branches along the way, proclaiming, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord – the king of Israel.” The point here, in contrast, is that any power Jesus comes from God, not military might or human institutions. Because of this, in the world, the kingdom is inconsiderable and from a human point of view and insignificant kingdom, a kingdom that is like leaven in the meal, or a treasure hidden in the field, or the grain of a mustard seed. His kingdom does not come in a way that says, “Look, here it is.” We need to see that even in John, the focus on the concealed or hidden nature of the king and kingdom. His disciples forsook him. In the end, he was alone. The servant of God entered the world in this way but pressed on toward revelation in the resurrection and ascension. In all of this, we have “the royal man.” [22] Pilate asks if he is a king. Pilate is powerful, with Roman armies backing him. He stands strong before Jesus of Nazareth. He knows the power of the sword and the power of Rome in this part of the world, propped up by violence. Jesus arrived in Jerusalem at the beginning of Holy Week with crowds proclaiming him king. Undoubtedly, the crowds desired the restoration of the past glory of the kingdom of David. They envisioned throwing off the oppression of Rome. The concern of Pilate is here. He wants to know if Jesus is the type of king that threatens Rome. Political and military power is the concern of Pilate.
Jesus wants to speak in terms of truth. In fact, his “job description,” if you please, the reason God made him and the purpose God has for him, is to testify to truth. Those who listen to the truth hear his voice. Those who are part of his kingdom listen to his voice. Pilate, the representative of power, will use force. The truth, Jesus, who earlier in this gospel said, “I am the Way, I am truth and life,” uses “voice.” Pilate wants to talk about the claim of Jesus to "kingship." Jesus instead talks about "truth." If John's gospel leans toward Hellenistic notions about "kingdoms," the words Jesus now speaks about "truth" are still overwhelmingly Hebraic in nature. In John 8:47, we read, “Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God." We find a similar sentiment in I John 4:6, “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” "Truth" for Jesus is not merely something that one thinks about; one feels truth and acts it out in life. In Hebraic culture, there is no such thing as a separate intellect. Hebrew thought inextricably binds mind, body and emotions together. The root meaning of the Hebrew emet, "truth," is "trustworthy" or "faithful." In Hebrew, "truth" is a term more descriptive of a person than any intellectual proposition.[23] We should notice the metaphor of “voice” that Jesus employs in his response to the charge of kingship. In explicating whom it is that belongs to the truth, Jesus declares that the members of his kingdom are precisely those people who listen to his voice. In the gospel of John, the voice of Jesus plays a key role in the conversion and ultimate salvation of those who follow Jesus. The metaphor of voice subsumes Jesus’ role both as eschatological prophet and as the word of God. In 5:25-29, during a debate about the authority of Jesus, he explains that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (v. 25). In 10:1-18, the parables of the sheepfold and the good shepherd, Jesus can lead the sheep because they hear and know his voice, but “they do not know the voice of strangers” (v. 5). The metaphor of voice guides the whole discourse (vv. 3, 4, 5, 16, 27). Finally, the first resurrection appearance in John’s gospel, the epiphany to Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20:11-18), centers on the voice of Jesus. Although Mary had already looked at Jesus, she did not recognize him until she heard his voice speaking her name (v. 16). Bringing these insights back to the dialogue with Pilate, we might encapsulate the confrontation in this way: Power (Pilate) uses force, but the truth (Jesus) uses a voice. Pilate wants to know “what” truth is, when what he needs is to know “who” truth is.
Truth in the Greco Roman understanding was purely a cognitive function, an intellectual proposition. For Pilate, rooted in Greek intellectualism and Roman pragmatism, truth was something one thought. Jesus declares himself born "to testify to the truth," and claims as his own those who "belong to the truth." Earlier in this Gospel, we find Jesus saying that he testifies to what he has seen and heard, even while people do not accept his testimony. Yet, one who accepts his testimony certifies that God is true. God has sent Jesus to speak divine words and God gives the Spirit without measure (John 3:32-34).[24] Thus, finally facing Jesus, Pilate conducts his formal inquiry into "the truth" of what has been said and done. The statement by Jesus here is characteristic of the ideas and language of John. His definition of true kingship is the sovereignty of truth. For example, in 8:45-47, Christ speaks truth, and in 8:31-2, where to dwell in his word is to know truth and experience liberation by it. Kingship is one that does not oppress or enslave but sets people free. According to 17:17, his word is truth. Of course, 14:6 says that Jesus is himself the truth. However, by placing the statement in the context of a trial scene, truth is present, and truth judges the people present. In 3:18-21, John closely relates truth and light. We must not lose sight of the irony here. People think they are judging Jesus, when judgment is upon those who do not see the truth in Jesus. The reason John has focused the issue of kingship in the Passion Narrative is that the question of authority to judge, which Pilate claims, is the divinely assigned prerogative of Christ.[25] In both dialogues with Jesus (John 18 and 19), Pilate wants to keep the conversation in terms of power. Which one of us has the power here? In 18:37, he asks, “Are you a king?” From where do you get your power? However, Jesus wants to speak in terms of truth. “I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth …” Earthly political power is not the measure of this king and this kingdom. Rather, the measure is the universal desire human beings have for truth. The power of Jesus is his testimony to the truth. John already indicated this in John 1:14, where the Word is “full of grace and truth.” He also indicated this in John 14:6, where Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The world of ideas, the world beyond practical power struggles, is so foreign to Pilate that he must even ask for help, “What is truth?” (v. 38). The two dialogues between Jesus and Pilate in John 18 and 19 are thus a great example of the confrontation between truth and power. We are not dealing with a question of idly speculative interest. Nor is it an attempt to back up the certainty of faith and proclamation. The truth for which humanity longs is in the act of God in Jesus Christ for us. Truth is the disclosure and recognition of that which is as it appears to humanity, of that which humanity cannot live without. When we encounter that which is, we attain to truth in the sense of disclosure and recognition. Hearing his voice is to be of the truth. We must accept His voice as the voice that speaks of Christ as that which appears as such. Christian experience can be truth and of the truth, but not so in abstraction. It is true to the extent that it proceeds from the truth. Truth rests upon what we learn of Christ.[26] The one who has really heard the voice cannot put the question of Pilate, “What is truth.” One cannot behave as though this had not happened, seeking and enquiring whether the light of the life of Jesus Christ that has shone upon the individual can really be light. One needs to respond as a child of that light. The individual hears the voice of Christ, and so the only question is how the individual will show that he or she is a hearer. One needs to show that one is hearer of the voice of Jesus Christ. One shows one is such by being obedient. One freed by the truth and for the truth might make only a partial or halting use of this freedom. One’s use might leave one much to be desired in the way of clarity and consistence.[27]
Pilate shakes his head and wonders, "What is truth?" Yet, Jesus describes who truth is. He had early said he was the way, truth, and life. Truth is not an idea, principle, or system, as worthy as such attempts by human beings may be. They are still only human attempts, error often dressing up itself nicely. One cannot expect to encounter truth as a phenomenon that we immediately and directly find illuminating, pleasing, acceptable, and welcome. Truth does not come easily and smoothly. It can come to us as alien, threatening, and uncomfortable as it draws near to us. It needs to pierce through the obscurity of human experience and change us by making us open to it. Things gained in an easy and self-evident way might be kindly and good, even true in its sphere, but it would not be the truth of God. The truth of God unmasks us as liars.[28]
We honor truth when we say that we need to speak it, even if our voices shake. In Jesus, we have the self-revelation of God. Preachers and theologians do not have the task of providing easy answers to human questions, even one as important as truth. In fact, the good teacher of Christianity will make us progressively aware of a mystery. God, in Jesus Christ, is the cause of our wonder.[29] We humbly submit the formation of our views and concepts to the revelation of truth we have in Jesus. Yes, that is simple and mysterious at the same time.
The irony of this text is that Jesus was not on trial. Throughout the passion narrative, in fact, the disciples, the religious leaders, Pilate, and the crowds are all on trial before God. Of course, so are we as we engage this story.
Episode Three is in verse 18:38b-40. Jesus Sentenced to Death (Mt 27.15—31; Mk 15.6—20; Lk 23.13—25) Jesus is silent regarding the question of Pilate regarding truth, but Pilate returns to the accusers of Jesus and tells them he finds no case against the man. Since the custom was to release someone imprisoned, he asks if they want him to release Jesus, whom we as readers know is the good shepherd-king, or the bandit Barabbas. By going out to meet with the priests, Pilate reluctantly agrees to hear the case concerning Jesus. He is now launching a formal inquiry into the charges brought against Jesus, Pilate dealing with it as swiftly as possible with a potentially disruptive situation. Historians have no extra-biblical example of the amnesty opportunity presented here. Pilate has already pronounced Jesus innocent, so use of the title “king of the Jews” may be an attempt to get the Jews to renounce their desire for kingship. John constructs the confrontation scene between Jesus and the symbol of Roman authority to emphasize the kingship of Jesus and his divine qualification for judging the entire world.
Episode Four is in 19:1-3. Pilate has Jesus flogged in the middle of the trial, rather than preceding execution as in the Synoptics, and the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and placed it upon his head and dressed him in a purple robe, agreeing with Mark but different from the red robe Matthew describes. They acclaim him King of the Jews. Scourging often occurred before crucifixion, for death by crucifixion could take many days. The soldiers ridiculed and reviled the prisoner as they struck him. it included mockery with the ensuing blows. They are holding up the supposed King of the Jews to incidental ridicule. The misunderstood Messianic claim of Jesus is adequate to explain the scene.[30] However, the focus is the acclamation of Jesus as king. Jesus will stay dressed in royal garb throughout the rest of the trial, a visual symbol of his redefinition of kingship.
Episode Five is in 19:4-8. For the first time, Jesus, Pilate, and the religious leaders are in the same scene. Pilate affirms he finds no case against Jesus, declaring the mocked and beaten Jesus, “Here is the man.” The Christian reader of this text sees here an unwitting testimony to who Jesus is. It has the form of confession, even if unknown by him. The chief priests and police shout from to be crucified. Crucifixion was a degrading and horrible form of punishment that it was fit only for slaves and the worst offenders, those guilty of treason and sedition. Different from the synoptics, the leaders call for crucifixion, asserting their loyalty to the political structures of Rome and highlights the political implications of this trial. He invites the leaders to take him, but he finds nothing against the man. Pilate is not proclaiming his innocence but taunting the religious authorities with their supposed king. These Jewish leaders answered that he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God (Υἱὸν Θεοῦ), a confession-like utterance common in this gospel.[31] The claim to unity with the Father, and to a present inbreaking of the divine rule for those who receive his message, met with the response of an accusation of blasphemy.[32] This charge, based on the idea that he assumed an authority not his, is false, for Jesus continually differentiated himself for his Father.[33] John notes the fear of Pilate, for this trial may place his political career in jeopardy.
Episode Six is in 19:9-11. Pilate talks with Jesus about power. Pilate wants to know where he is from, but Jesus is silent. He could be asking from where he derives his power. He could be asking who Jesus is, as did the people of Cana, as did the woman at the well, as did the crowd in Chapter 6, and the Jewish leaders (7:27, 8:14, 9:29). Such persons are faced with the mystery of Jesus, but so is the reader of this gospel. Pilate warns Jesus that he has the power to release him or crucify him. The response of Jesus is that the only power he has is that which he has received from above, a divine passive reflecting a typical saying of Jesus,[34] stressing the voluntary nature of the path to the cross,[35] a power he exercises in fulfillment of his hour, but those who have handed Jesus over to him have the greater sin, referring to their response to what God has revealed in Jesus. The Jewish leaders have formally rejected that revelation, as Pilate will do when he hands over Jesus for crucifixion.
Episode Seven is in 19:12-16a. Pilate yields to the Jewish demand for the crucifixion of Jesus. John has omitted a trial before the Sanhedrin, probably because of this theological interest in kingship at this point. Jewish leaders say Pilate is no friend of the emperor, since one who claims to be a king is against the emperor. This reveals the primary concern of Pilate. Pilate may find himself accused of sedition if he releases someone who has been charged with sedition. This leads to the solemn and tragic conclusion of the trial, underscored by the formal identification of the site, in Greek and Aramaic, and the detailed reference to day and time. Pilate brings him outside for sentencing. He placed Jesus in a place called the Stone Pavement (Gabbatha), in keeping with the mockery and the taunting of the religious leaders by Pilate. This act lends a profound irony to this final scene of the trial. Pilate intends to mock Jesus and the Jewish leaders by doing this. However, he unknowingly, he places Jesus in his rightful place as judge. The world is judging Jesus in the trial, but Jesus shall judge the world. It was noon on the day of Preparation for the Passover, when the slaughter of the Passover lamb began. He told the Jews gathered that here is their king, unconsciously speaking the truth about Jesus, who is the king. but they responded they wanted Jesus brought away from them, for they have no king but the emperor. The power structure, rather than the people, are carrying out the plan for crucifixion. This is a pathos-filled end to the trial. They have renounced their hope for Messiah and have always affirmed that God is their king. In their zeal to reject Jesus as their king, they also reject the God they claim to serve. As such, they become friends of the emperor rather than the people of God. He handed Jesus over for crucifixion. Pilate joins Judas the Jewish leaders in handing over Jesus and rejecting his revelation of truth, life, and ligh, representing the rejection of Jesus by the world.
19:16b-30 shows the execution of Jesus on the cross.
Episode One is in 19:16b-22. The Crucifixion of Jesus (Mt 27.32—56; Mk 15.21—41; Lk 23.26—49) They take Jesus to Golgotha, Jesus carrying his cross, the customary practice, but which contrasts with the synoptic account. John follows the typology of Isaac carrying his own wood to the altar for sacrifice. He also emphasizes that Jesus is master of his fate. Jesus is in total command of the events of this hour. He was crucified between two thieves, but on his cross was an inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ), written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. This designation is common to all four gospels and indirectly testifies to the claim Jesus made regarding his authority.[36] Jewish leaders wanted to add that this man said he was such a king, but Pilate let his statement remain, continuing to taunt the Jewish leaders. Pilate becomes an unwitting witness to the authority of Christ. The cross itself becomes such a testimony, “lifting up” the Son of Man in this way. His crucifixion is his coronation.
“There they crucified him…” Such simple words. The punishment of crucifixion struck fear in the hearts of the people of the Roman world. It was Rome's means of controlling the people. According to Roman custom, the penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging; after this preliminary punishment, the condemned person had to carry the cross, or at least the transverse beam of it, to the place of execution, exposed to the jibes and insults of the people. On arrival at the place of execution the cross was uplifted. Soon the sufferer, entirely naked, was bound to it with cords. He was then, fastened with four nails to the wood of the cross. Finally, a placard called the titulus bearing the name of the condemned man and his sentence, was placed at the top of the cross. Slaves were crucified outside of Rome in a place called Sessorium, beyond the Esquiline Gate; their execution was entrusted to the carnifex servorum (the place of the hangman). Eventually this wretched locality became a forest of crosses, while the bodies of the victims were the pray of vultures and other rapacious birds. It often happened that the condemned man did not die of hunger or thirst but lingered on the cross for several days. To shorten his punishment therefore, and lessen his terrible sufferings, his legs were sometimes broken. This custom, exceptional among the Romans, was common with the Jews. In this way it was possible to take down the corpse on the very evening of the execution. Among the Romans, though, the corpse could not be taken down, unless such removal had been specially authorized in the sentence of death. The corpse might also be buried if the sentence permitted. It is remarkable that all of this is behind the simple words, “There they crucified him.”
It would take some time, but Jesus is responsible for the abolishment of the cross as a means of capital punishment. In the early part of the fourth century Constantine continued to inflict the penalty of the cross on slaves guilty of, in the old Latin, delatio domini, i.e. of denouncing their masters. But later, he abolished this infamous punishment, in memory and in honor of the Passion of the Christ. From then on, this punishment was very rarely inflicted and finally the practice faded into history. However, Christians remember that history every year as they recall the events of the last week of the life of Jesus.
Episode Two is in 19:23-25a, where the Roman soldiers, following their widespread practice, divided the clothes of Jesus among them. Jesus had a seamless tunic, the clothing of the priest. John identifies Jesus as the High Priest for the people of God. In casting lots for his clothes they fulfill Psalm 22:18 and thus fulfill this part of the plan of God.
Episode Three is in 19:25b-27. John may well want his readers to know that some followers of Jesus did not abandon him. These persons stand as witnesses. Near the cross were his mother, who witnesses the beginning of his public ministry, has aunt, Mary the wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene, the Beloved Disciple, who links the crucifixion with the last supper and the farewell discourses. He told Mary that the Beloved Disciple is her son, and he told the Beloved Disciple that Mary is her mother. The Beloved Disciple would care for Mary. Although one could refer to the simple provision for the mother of Jesus, one could also understand this conversation as a provision for future believers and for the church. Jesus provides for the future. As Eve was the mother of humanity, Mary is the mother of the newly forming people of God who have responded to the revelation of God in Jesus.
Episode Four is in 19:28-30. Knowing all was at long last[37] finished, he said he was thirsty (Ps 69:22), signifying his willingness to drink from the cup (18:11), so a jar full of sour wine was near and the soldiers gave it to him on a sponge, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it to his mouth. After receiving it, he gave up his spirit, also used of the Jewish leaders, Pilate, and Judas, showing Jesus as active even in his death, communicating the Spirit in his glorification, thereby identifying his spirit with the Holy Spirit and anticipating 20:22,[38] and said in verse 30 that it is finished(Τετέλεσται),” suggesting a debt fully paid. It suggests the depths of human sin, symbolized not only in the rejection of Jews (Jewish leaders) and the world (Pilate), but also by the failure of the disciples. If salvation depended upon human action, it would not have happened. The obedience of Jesus to death upon the cross provided atonement. The word is used in 17:4 as well, meaning brought to an end, fulfilled, accomplished, brought to completion. His death is the completion of the sacrifice, regarded as the means of human regeneration, or initiation into eternal life. The very existence of the Incarnate Word on earth is bound with the accomplishment of the work of human salvation according to the will of God.[39]
Episode Four is in 19:31-37, as the soldiers pierce the side of Jesus. It was the day of preparation. Jewish leaders did not want bodies left on the cross during Sabbath, so they asked Pilate asked to have the legs of the crucified men broken, a customary practice that shortened the agony by hastening death and adding to the cruelty of crucifixion.[40] The soldiers do so to the two crucified with Jesus, but when they came to Jesus, they noted he was already dead. They pierced his side with a spear. From the wound in the side which the fatal thrust of the spear opens near the heart there flows blood and water (I John 5:6, where the epistle is contesting a docetic-like Christology).[41]It emphasizes the onset of death. It is also recalling the two sacraments by showing that both derive from the death of Jesus,[42] the water symbolizing living water and the waters of baptism, while blood coming from his body symbolizing the Eucharist. In verses 35-7, a note from the author says that the one who saw this testifies to its truth. These things happened in fulfillment of Psalm 34:20 that not a bone shall be broken and Zechariah 12:10 that they will look upon the one whom they have pierced.
He records the spear-thrust that brought water and blood from the side of Jesus (19:34-5. In the Book of Signs, from the crucified body of Christ flows the life-giving stream, the water being the Spirit given to believers (7:38-9), the water which if one drinks one will never thirst again (4:14), and the blood which is true life (6:55). It is a sign, a symbolic construction of the author. He guarantees the truth of his statement by a solemn appeal to eyewitness, the only such direct appeal in the gospel. Guided by the pointers which John has provided, we find in the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ a sign on the grand scale, to which significance each detail contributes. Here, the sign of the wine of Cana, which we now perceive to be the blood of the true Vine; the sign of the temple, which is the Body of Christ, destroyed to be raised again; the signs of the life-giving word, at Cana and Bethesda, since the Word is life and dies that people may be saved from death; the sign of the Bread, which is the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world; the sign of Siloam, the light of truth which both saves and judges; the sign of Lazarus, life victorious over death through the laying down of life; the sign of the anointing for burial; and the sign of the King of Israel acclaimed on his entry to Jerusalem to die. However, it differs from all other signs. With the event of the cross, the sign is not temporal. It happens within time, but with eternal consequence. Though people may miss its significance, the thing has happened and history is different, for the setting of human life in this world is different. It is an epoch-making event. In history, things can never be the same again. In it the two orders of reality, the temporal and the eternal, are united. The Word is made flesh. The cross is a sign, but a sign which is also the thing signified. The preliminary signs set forth so amply in the gospel are not only temporal signs of an eternal reality; they are also signs of this Event, in its twofold character as word and as flesh.[43]
Episode Five: 19:38-42 shows the removal and burial of the body of Jesus (Mt 27.57—61; Mk 15.42—47; Lk 23.50—56) In contrast to the Synoptics, women are no eye witnesses to the burial, but John assumes that tradition when he has an appearance of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene.[44] Joseph of Arimathea, a secret disciple of Jesus because of his fear of the Jewish leadership, asked Pilate to let him take the body of Jesus away, which Pilate allowed. John adds a novelistic motif[45] in noting that Nicodemus (John 3), also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing 100 pounds, fit for a kingly burial. These sweet-smelling substances were laid in pulverized form between the clothes in which the body of Jesus was wrapped. The body was being protected against rapid decomposition, and thus, a speedy resurrection of Jesus was not expected.[46] They wrapped the body of Jesus with the spices in the linen, acting out their love for Jesus in preparing his body for burial. Only John mentions the place of the burial as a garden that was also in the place where he was crucified, demonstrating the worshipful attitude toward Jesus[47] in adding that it was a tomb in which no one had been laid. At the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the tomb is 125 feet from Calvary. Since it was the day of Preparation, they laid Jesus there.
Within the Gospel of John, we may get more help from something Jesus himself said about the Cross. Shortly before his final week, he spoke to his disciples about his coming "hour," by which he certainly meant all that would be involved in his Passion. He went on to tell them, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." To that, John, the narrator, comments, "He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die" (John 12:32-33). That is Jesus' statement about his death. He offers no theological interpretations but says that his death will have a pulling effect. The cross will draw people to him. Surely, not all who feel drawn will respond, but something about his death and his subsequent victory over death will attract people. The attraction to Jesus is in part because he gave his life for others. The response to many throughout history has been to open their hearts to the crucified and proclaim him Lord. It may well be that the best way to view the cross is an invitation to a relationship that saves us, heals us, liberates us, and lifts us, bringing us peace with God.
[1] (see the excellent compendium:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Goppelt, TDNT VI, 152-3.
[9]
[10] Schlier, TDNT, V, 879-80.
[11] Schrage, TDNT, VII, 835, where he considers that it might have a polemical edge, but I do not see it.
[12] J. Jeremias, TDNT, V, 899, acknowledging the difference is better than trying to harmonize them.
[13]
[14] Rengstorf, TDNT VII, 264-5.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Rengstorf, TDNT VIII, 541-2.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] (For more discussion on this difference, see Ian Pitt Watson, "God's Truth" The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, 7, 1986, 67 75.)
[24] He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted his testimony has certified this, that God is true. 34 He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. (John 3:32-34)
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Kallistos Ware.
[30][30] Bertram, TDNT V, 634-5.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40] Bertram, TDNT VII, 023-4.
[41]
[42] Goppelt, TDNT VIII, 330.
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46] Michaelis, TDNT VII, 458.
[47]
No comments:
Post a Comment