| Pilatés inquiry (18:28–38a) constitutes part of a larger scene (18:28–19:16) in which Pilate plays a lead character; as a foil to Jesus, his character dominates 18:28–19:16. Pilate taunts Jewish nationalism with claims of Jesus» innocence and kingship, 9766 but while not friendly to the Jewish aristocracy–the world remains divided (cf. 7:43; 9:16)–he remains a representative of the «world,» essentially hostile toward Jesus because not one of his followers. 9767 A The Jewish leaders demand Jesus» execution (18:29–32) Β Jesus and Pilate talk (18:33–38a) C Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (18:38b-40) D The scourging and crowning with thorns (19:1–3) C» Pilate finds no reason to condemn Jesus (19:4–8) B» Jesus and Pilate talk (19:9–11) Á The Jewish leaders are granted Jesus» execution (19:12–16) 9768 Although the immediate opposition of John " s audience seems to be the synagogue leadership, as most Johannine scholars have argued, the power of Rome stands not far in the background. The mortal threat of synagogue leadership to John " s urban audience is probably their role as accusers to the Romans (see introduction; comment on 16:2). The gospel tradition makes clear that Jerusalem " s aristocracy and the Roman governor cooperated on Jesus» execution even if the Jerusalem aristocracy had taken the initiative. John undoubtedly has reason to continue to highlight this emphasis, although he, too, emphasizes the initiative of the leaders of his own people because it is they who, he believes, should have known better. 1. The Setting (18:28) The brief transition between Jesus» detention at the hands of the high priest and his betrayal to Pilate provides important chronological markers. Some of these are of primarily historical interest («early»), but the most critical are of theological import (reinforcing the Johannine portrait of Jesus» crucifixion on Passover). The former markers might have been assumed by John " s audience without much comment; the latter probably challenge their expectations and, for those familiar with the Jewish reckoning of Passover chronologies (as most of his audience would be), would strike them immediately. 1A. They Came «Early» |
| The diversity mentioned above demonstrates how naturally the actual details of his mission would have redefined the messianic category for the disciples. 2484 Other factors would have contributed to a Messianic Secret during Jesus» public ministry. If Jesus knew anything at all about the political situation in Jerusalem, he would have known that a public messianic claim would lead to his immediate execution; in Mark, it does. 2485 Further, «self-boasting» was rejected in the Mediterranean world. 2486 Our limited information on first-century potential messianic claimants may suggest a reticence to declare their identity prematurely; most apparently felt they had to produce some evidence of their messiahship before publicly claiming kingship. 2487 Many teachers, both Greek and Jewish, also kept some esoteric or secret teachings private among a small circle, and sometimes revealed it reticently even to them. 2488 «Messiah» was a Jewish category, not Gentile, so it is hardly plausible that the title was invented by later Gentile Christians. «Christ» was a natural way to translate «Messiah» into Greek, 2489 and so it translates «anointed one» (not just in the royal sense) regularly in the LXX. But because that term in regular Greek usage simply meant «ointment " –an image wholly unintelligible to most Greeks 2490 –Paul in the Gentile mission normally uses it as Jesus» surname rather than as a title, 2491 in contrast to the more primitive usage in the Gospels. 2492 That John, writing in Greek, should explicitly translate «Messiah» as «Christ» (1:41), need not indicate Gentiles in his audience, as some have thought; quite the contrary, John is the only NT writer to include the Semitic term at al1. As noted in our discussion of signs, John particularly develops the new Moses expectation of early Judaism. 2493 As noted in our discussion of genre, John may borrow some aspects of Deuteronomy as a model for his writing. We should also note that explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19,22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5,12), Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58), or David (7:42). |
| John " s audience could be assured that neither those who left the community in John " s day (1 John 2:29) nor Judas (6:64) took Jesus by surprise. As «son of destruction,» 9451 the betrayer was destined or foreknown for his role (17:12). Jewish wisdom texts could call wicked Sodom «people of destruction» (θνος απλειας), that is, «people for destruction» ( Sir 16:9 ). The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the wicked as «children of the pit» (), that is, those destined for destruction (CD 6.15; 8.14); Jubilees also calls the wicked of past eras «children of destruction.» 9452 Perhaps most strikingly, at least one extant witness to early Christian tradition suggests that some Christians had already designated the anticipated «man of lawlessness» 9453 as a «son of destruction» (2 Thess 2:3; cf. Rev 17:8). Just as many «antichrists» who opposed the true teaching about Christ could reflect the character of a future anticipated antichrist (1 John 2:18) and just as the Fourth Gospel emphasizes the eschatological condition of the present more frequently than future eschatology, Judas functions as a paradigm for human evi1. 9454 Because Judas probably also provides a model for apostate members of the community (cf. 6:66–71; as does the antichrist, 1 John 2:18–19), this association casts apostates in a very negative light (cf. 15:6). Opponents of John " s audience may have complained about what appeared to them an inconsistency in the gospel tradition: Jesus is omniscient, yet he chose a disciple who ultimately betrayed him. John is at pains to point out that Jesus foreknew the betrayer, whose role was part of God " s plan (6:64, 71; 13:21, 26, 27); in support of such a thesis is the point that the only disciple whom Jesus lost was, in fact, the betrayer himself. John reinforces this point by informing his audience that the loss of the betrayer fulfilled Scripture (17:12) and hence was necessary because, as even their opponents recognized, Scripture cannot be broken (10:35). The necessity of a betrayer might be inferred simply from Scripture concerning Jesus» suffering (cf., e.g., 19:24,28,36–37; 20:9), but «Scripture» here probably alludes to the passage already cited in 13about the betrayer. It is not necessary to find a text that directly mentions a «son of destruction.» 9455 When John later refers back to this text, however, it is not only that Scripture (the Hebrew Bible or its Greek translations) might be fulfilled but also that the «word» of Jesus might be fulfilled (18:9); for John, both are God " s message. |
| Apparently unaware of Jesus» previous sign known to Johns audience (2:1–11), the authorities now demand a sign (2:18; cf. again 6:30). 4696 In the logic of his contemporaries, 4697 if Jesus acts on Gods authority, he should be able to demonstrate it supernaturally. (John likely borrows this demand for a sign from authentic Jesus tradition, as appears in Mark 8:11 , which was already applied to the resurrection, perhaps as early as the Q tradition in Luke 11and Matt 16:1–4.) 4698 Paradoxically, however, those without power (2:9) and the more open-minded among those in power (3:2) already know of Jesus» attesting signs. Likewise, some characters in the context need only very small signs to believe (1:48–49; 4:18–19,29), in contrast to these sign-demanding Judeans. 4699 By inviting them to «destroy» the temple of his body (2:19), that is, kill him (cf. 8:28), 4700 Jesus stands in the prophetic tradition of an ironic imperative (e.g., Matt 23:32). 4701 Yet without special illumination, his hearers were doomed to interpret the riddle wrongly, as Jesus» opponents throughout the Fourth Gospel habitually misunderstand him, requiring the evangelist to offer inspired interpretation. 4702 Jesus» words could be understood as referring to the natural temple, which is how the «false witnesses» of Mark " s tradition seem to have understood them ( Mark 15:29 ; cf. Acts 6:14). 4703 One could speak of building the second temple as «raising» it up (εγερειν, Sib. Or. 3.290). 4704 John " s εγερω thus functions as another Johannine double entendre, misunderstood by interlocutors in the story world while clear to the informed audience. 4705 «In three days» is equivalent to «on the third day»; part of a day was counted a whole. 4706 In some traditions of uncertain date the soul hovered near the corpse for «three days» after death; 4707 one might also think of resurrection or resuscitation in Hos 6:2 ; Jonah 1:17. But «three days» has so many possible referents 4708 that, apart from a retrospective understanding, his opponents within the story world could not catch an allusion to his resurrection. To Johns audience, however, the allusion is clear, intensifying their distaste for the ignorance of Jesus» opponents who lack the critical revelatory knowledge that John s audience possesses. 4709 |
| Unlike some in the Gospel who received prior explanation of Jesus» identity (e.g., 1:45; 4:29), the healed man has an experience but not yet an adequate interpretation for it (9:25). Feigned ignorance could function as a rhetorical device (πορα); 7132 whether or not the narrative characterizes the man as sophisticated enough to challenge his interrogators on this level, they would be sophisticated enough to infer it as one possible way to understand him. However we read the motives of characters in the story world, the narrative lays open a clear choice: either Jesus is a sinner (9:24), or Jesus is from God, and it is ultimately only the latter claim that matches the data (9:31–33). The man " s interrogators are clear in the response they are looking for; 7133 ancient prosecutors would grill witnesses harder if they were perceived as friendly to the accused. The phrase «give glory to God» (9:24) can refer to praise, 7134 but in a trial or interrogation context, can mean, «give glory to God by confessing your wrong» (Josh 7:19; 1 Esd 9:8). 7135 Thus they may be exhorting the man to admit that he is following a «misleader» (see comment on 7:12)–and exhorting him to glorify God by repenting. Again this is Johannine irony; 7136 the man does not respond the way they intend, but he does glorify God by testifying of God " s works through Jesus (9:25–33) and then suffering the penalty (9:34)–which was one way to glorify God in truth (12:23–24; 21:19). From the perspective of Johannine witness, any other response on the part of the healed man would have deferred to human glory rather than God " s (12:42–43). He proves more courageous than his parents (9:20–22), an example which may also summon Johannine Christians to courage (cf. 7:3–10; cf. Acts 4:20). 3B. Disciples of Moses? (9:26–28) The healed man claims that he had answered their questions before (9:27; cf. 9:15, 19); their repeated question probably reflects traditional Jewish procedures for cross-examining witnesses (e.g., Sus 48–62; m. " Abot 1:9; cf. Mark 14:56 ). The healed man, however, does naively hope that they are as impressed with his new experience as he himself is (9:27), a hope immediately shown vain by their ridicule (9:28). Some scholars would link their ridicule with the Birkath Ha-minim; the term λοιδορω applies to reviling and abuse, which would be nearly as accurate as the more precise «malediction.» Nevertheless, the term (a Johannine hapax) has broader application in early Christianity (Acts 23:4; 1Cor 4:12 ), including to Jesus» sufferings ( 1Pet 2:23 ). 7137 Like the possible hint in 7:49, this is at most a hint; John " s environment (assuming the Birkath had by this point occurred and exercised noticeable effects even in Roman Asia) does not totally overtake the story, and the story world remains internally consistent and plausible. |
| Most striking are the authorities» appeals to group knowledge («we know,» 9:24, 29) and the healed man " s mistaken supposition that he could still speak as a member of their community (9:31). Rhetorical claims to group knowledge (οδαμεν) could be dishonest (Luke 20:21) or could represent affirmations of faith (e.g., Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14 ; 2Cor 5:1 ). Here they may recall the first use of οδαμεν in the Gospel, when Nicodemus makes a moderate claim about Jesus» identity («We know that you are a teacher who has come from God,» 3:2) and Jesus countered that «we» (presumably himself and his Father) speak what «we know,» divine revelation from above (3:11). Being able to view these competing claims to knowledge from outside the narrative world, the latter claim rooted in heavenly revelation, would certainly encourage Johannine Christians. This is especially the case given admissions of inadequate knowledge (9:29) and claims to knowledge that the Gospel " s narratives prove inadequate (6:42; 7:27). 7101 Although this epistemological conflict surfaces most dramatically here, surrounding narratives provide its context. The previous encounters between Jesus and the authorities during this festival (chs. 7–8) offer sufficient perspective. Jesus knows his identity and knows the Father, whereas his opponents, despite their false claims and partial knowledge, do not (the use of οδα in 7:27–29; 8:14,19, 55); the rough synonym γινσκω 7102 functions in the same polemical fashion with challenges, condemnations, and responses (7:27, 49, 51; 8:27–28,32,43,52,55). The crucial significance of this conflict is resolved only in Jesus» following discourse (10:4–6, 14–15) and appended material (10:27, 38), which interpret the correct epistemology of Jesus and his followers in terms of the covenant knowledge of God and his people in the earlier biblical record (see comment there). 7103 While various forms of discipline were practiced in this period, and one who grants a high degree of historical verity to John " s narrative can argue that the healed man did in fact confront religious teachers or leaders in Jerusalem, no one can deny that John has framed the dialogue in his own language relevant for his own audience (see introduction on the genre and setting of this Gospel). |
| Jesus leaves peace with the disciples (14:27), again encouraging them not to be afraid (14:27; see 14:1); he assures them that his departure will be better for him, not a cause of grief to them (14:28); he gives them advance warning, not to grieve them but so they may have confidence that this is part of God " s plan (14:29); and he must go because it is the Father " s commandment (14:31). 1. Peace in Jesus» Departure (14:27–29) In an assurance oracle, Jesus provides a promise of peace after his departure (14:27). Jesus reiterates his earlier command not to be afraid (14:1), a theme that also closes his direct discourse to the disciples along with another assurance of peace (16:33). This promise relates to a central motif in Jesus» last discourse, recognizing that after Jesus departed, the disciples would have to confront a hostile world (15:18–16:4). The promise begins to be fulfilled in 20:19, 21. 8787 The language of assurance is standard (e.g., Jdt 11:1; T. Ab. 9:4B). «Peace» applies particularly to war 8788 or human relationships, 8789 but also (for Stoic thinkers especially) to tranquility in the midst of hardship 8790 or to the bliss of the righteous after death; 8791 it is also an eschatological hope for Israe1. 8792 The pacifist Pharisaic tradition that survived in rabbinic literature 8793 highly extolled the value of peace. 8794 While the emphasis on «peace» is not unusual, Jesus» statement that he «leaves» it with them (φημι) may sound like a legacy from one departing (cf. 14:18). 8795 Their situation would be peace, and Jesus» situation would be better than it was while he was talking with them; he would be with the Father (14:28), as he had been explaining to his disciples earlier (14:2–6). Love for Jesus was earlier expressed by keeping his commandments (14:15), undoubtedly especially loving one another (13:34–35); here it is expressed by rejoicing for his joy once he returns to the Father. Unselfish joy for the bridegroom " s exaltation also characterizes John the Baptist (3:29), though John " s hearers rejoiced in him (5:35). The Fourth Gospel especially associates joy with Jesus» resurrection (16:20–22, 24; 20:20), hence with the new life believers experience in fellowship with him and with one another (15:11; 17:13). 8796 |
| Jesus returns to the image of sheep (10:1–16) in 10:26–27, continuing a dispute from the recent festival of Tabernacles about the true people of God. 7474 One might believe to become one of Jesus» followers (e.g., 6:47), but it was also those who were his sheep who could believe (or believe adequately; 10:26). John envisioned a conflict between free will and predestination no more than did most of his Jewish contemporaries (see comment on 6:44–45). The point in this text is not the impossibility of apostasy; apostasy appears elsewhere in this Gospel (e.g., 6:66, 70–71; 15:6). But none of those examples contravene the principle here: sheep abandoning the fold is not the same as a wolf «snatching» them; sometimes Jesus appears to have provoked his professed followers (in chs. 6, 8) simply to reveal what was already in their hearts. Many early Christian texts warn of apostasy; one could experience God " s grace and yet fall away. 7475 Johannine theology, however, emphasizes that Jesus knows peoplés responses before they make them; from God " s omniscient standpoint, only those who will ultimately persevere belong to Christ in any event (6:37–39; 10:29; 17:2,9,12; 18:9; 1 John 2:19). These would never perish (cf. 3:16; Rev 2:11; 20:6). 7476 No one could snatch sheep from Jesus the shepherd (this recalls the image of thieves and wolves seeking to seize sheep in 10:1, 8, 10, 12; especially the wolf in 10:12, where αρπζω also appears), just as they could not seize them from the Father (10:28–29). (Possibly the inability of his enemies to seize him before his Father allowed it illustrates the principle on a narrative level; the term differs, but ρπζω would not be as appropriate there.) Although technically this shared power probably reflects Jesus» role as divine agent, it may also suggest some degree of functional (not necessarily ontological) equivalence of the Father and Son here. (This does not require an equivalence of rank; the Father who was greater than all in 10was greater than Jesus in rank as well–14:28.) Certainly this does not identify the Father and Son as the same entity. 7477 |
| Johns use of double entendres, clear to the informed reader but missed by Jesus» continually dense opponents, reflects a broader pattern of polemical irony in the Fourth Gospe1. 1884 In John, Jesus» opponents repeatedly make ironic self-indictments and glaring errors in understanding Jesus» words. This is first of all evident in regard to Jesus» origin (8:14). On the one hand, «the Jews» assume that they know his origin (6:42): Jesus is not from Bethlehem (7:42), and his alleged Galilean origin is hence nonmessianic (7:41; cf. 1:46). 1885 On the other hand, «the Jerusalemites» (7:27) and «the Pharisees» (9:29) admit that they do not know his origin. 1886 Jesus replies that in one sense they really do know: he is from God, and they misconstrue this only because they do not know God (7:28). They cannot know Jesus» real place of origin, that is, from above, because they do not know the Father (8:19). They are also inconsistent in their accusations against Jesus. Jesus, whom the reader knows to be really God " s Son, is not permitted to say that he is (5:18; 10:36), but his opponents claim the title (with an admittedly different significance) for themselves (8:41). Likewise, the leaders want Jesus crucified so that the Romans will not take away their place and nation (11:48). But unless J. A. T. Robinson " s early dating of John is correct, the original reader would have known that the Romans did in fact take away these leaders» place and nation, either in spite of or because of Jesus» crucifixion. 1887 Further, Pilate acknowledges Jesus as the Jewish king, but the Jewish leaders deny it. Indeed, they acknowledge no king but Caesar (19:15; contrast the language of 8:41), 1888 although this acknowledgement may be meant to remind the Johannine community of the claims of the imperial cult. Those who claim to interpret the Law properly repeatedly appear obtuse in their interpretation. Nicodemus, for instance, though a teacher of Israel, misunderstands Jesus (3:1–21), thereby comparing unfavorably with the Samaritan woman in the next chapter (4:7–42). The fact that he later appears to be paradigmatic for first the secret (7:48–51; cf. 12:42–43) and then the open (19:39) believer does not reduce the harshness of this first portraya1. |
| Another text, however, has received some (though less) attention in this connection, namely Gen 22:2 . 4138 The differences between this text and the Markan acclamation are considerably less pronounced. Although γαπητς could conceivably reflect a variant of κλεκτς (cf. Luke 9:35; other manuscripts of John 1:34 ), 4139 in the LXX it sometimes is used to translate yahid (an only son), including in Gen 22 , 4140 where it adds to the pathos of God " s call to a father to sacrifice His son; for Mark, in which Jesus» Sonship is defined in terms of the cross (14:36; 15:39), this makes good sense. That the Fourth Gospel would draw on such a tradition also makes sense, given the prevalence of the «only, that is, beloved» son motif of 1:14,18. New Disciples (1:35–42) The Baptist " s general testimony to the reader (1:29–34) gives way to a specific testimony to his disciples (1:35–36), who trust his witness (contrast 1:19–28) and experience Jesus for themselves (1:37–39; cf. 3:25–30). These disciples in turn become witnesses themselves (1:40–42). John weaves his sources into a theology of witness here, and emphasizes that even those who tentatively accept another " s witness must also experience Jesus for themselves to be fully convinced (1:39,46). On 1:36, see comment on 1:29. 1. Historical Plausibility In contrast to the previous paragraphs of the Fourth Gospel, we lack corroboration from the Synoptic accounts here (a matter which seems not to trouble the writer, in whose day perhaps numerous other sources besides the Synoptics and his own eyewitness traditions were extant; cf. already Luke 1:1). 4141 Although the Fourth Gospel is well aware of the historical tradition of the Twelve (6), 4142 he shows no interest in recounting the occasion of their call ( Mark 3:13–19 ; Matt 10:1–4; Luke 6:12–16) or the Synoptic call stories of the fishermen ( Mark 1:16–20 ; Matt 4:18–22; Luke 5:1–11; although the writer is well aware that some are fishermen and may know the Lukan tradition– John 21:3–6 ). The readiness of those disciples to abandon their livelihoods on the occasion depicted in Markan tradition (or to lend Jesus use of their boat in Luke) may actually make more sense historically if they had encountered Jesus on a prior occasion, as this narrative in John would suggest. 4143 |
|
|
