Theology Annual vol.9-10 1985-1986 p.53-124
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
OUTLINE
PART ONE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Theological Inquiry and Hermeneutics
2. The Johannine Theology of History
2.1 The Historical Perspective of the Trial
2.2 The Eschatological Perspective of the Trial
3. The Development of the Narratives of the Paschal Event
PART TWO: ANALYSIS
4. Literary Analysis
4.1 The Context
4.1.1 The Prologue
4.1.2 The Book of Signs
4.1.3 The Last Supper
4.1.4 The Resurrection
4. 2 The Text
4. 3 The Structure
PART THREE: SYNTHESIS
5. Christus, Rex Glorificatus Glorificansque
5.1 Christus, Rex Glorificatus
5.1.1 The Kingship of the Johannine Christ
5.1.1.1 My Kingdom and the Kingdom of God
5.1.1.2 Not of this World but from Above
5.1.1.3 Truth and Judgment
5.1.2 The Way of Proclaiming the Kingship
5.1.2.1 The Lamb and the Light
5.1.2.2 The Rejection of the Jews
5.1.2.3 The Rejection and Judgment
5.2 Christus, Rex Glorificans
5.2.1 The King of the Jews
5.2.2 Behold, the Man
5.2.3 God's Son
PART FOUR: CONCLUSION
6. Evaluation of the Method
7. Towards the Glory of Man
"Are you the King of the Jews?" (Jn 18:33). This is a decisive question Pilate posed to Jesus. By this question, John allows his readers to begin an inquiry about the identity of Jesus (1) . Every question arises from a state of mind with which the questioner directs his investigation. The question of Pilate is not only used by John as a means to furnish some historical information about Jesus, but is intended to be a perennial question of John's readers to Jesus as well.
To the question(s) of Pilate, the Johnannine Christ (2) does not only give an answer but corrects also his way of questioning and requires the questioner(s) to "see" with the eyes of faith. This is exactly what Jesus did in the Trial and John just repeats it in his own way. From the first question of Pilate (18:33) to the seventh: "Where are you from? " (19:9), John has skillfully shown that Jesus managed to shift Pilate's earth-bound mental state to a superior level. Pilate is no longer interested in his Galilean origin, for at that moment he perceives Christ to be something more that a human mortal. His augmented "fear" (19:8) and "solicitude" to release Jesus (19:12) confirm this. The Trial projects a series of solemn and progressive proclamations of Jesus' identity and at the same time is blended with a crescendo of urgency for decision (belief or disbelief). In an ironic yet theologically correct (3) way, he is called "the King of the Jews" (18:39; 19:3), "the Man" (19:5) and "God's Son" (19:7). In the same way John wants to lead his readers into this christological horizon (4) where they will have to face Christ face to face. In fact, a careful reader may realize that as those actors involved in the drama of Jesus' life have to come to a decision (belief or disbelief) in his signs and words, so the reader himself should do the same. This is the very intention stated at the end of the Fourth Gospel (20:30-31), where John addresses his readers (5).
Today when we read this paragraph again, we want to grasp John's theological message so as to enter into the christological horizon he intended to bring forth. Our inquiry will be: Who is this Christ who manifests himself in the Johannine description of the Trial? This is a theological inquiry based on the conviction that Christ still speaks to us through John's Gospel. Thus our essay is mainly a theological one, though it only helps to "see" an answer without pretending to be exhaustive.
At this point, hermeneutics must be called into play. It is a complicated issue that lends itself to endless discussion, for it is concerned with theology, philosophy, history, linguistics, sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and so on. The text (of the Trial) projects a meaning of its own, but at the same time. is open to an infinity of interpretations beyond the intention of the author (6).
However, from the theological point of view. hermeneutics can be considered a service of the word and of the confession of faith. It attempts to bring out the transcendence of the word. which is simply the transcendence of speaking human subjects in relation to their conditionings (7) . Any transcendence presupposes a "breach" and a "leap" over which faith must be involved as pre-comprehension. Thus it should be worked out within the living reality of the Church, which is the recipient of the Divine revelation ("Ecclesia discens") prior to all differentiation of the offices in the hierarchy. Her primary activity preserves with fidelity and docility the revelation which has been given to her in "words and signs'' (8) and still resounds in the present day (9) . For this the Holy Spirit endows different charisms on the Church, and, in particular, on the Apostles and their successors, that in "receiving" and "handing-down" the Divine Truth they may never fall into the wrong path. The interpretation of a scriptural text should help to map out a route that makes possible a common journey for those who want to encounter God (10).
Of course the entire process of the transmission of the Deposit of Faith should not be limited to the moments of infallible canonization of Holy Scripture or proclamation of dogmas; it is, above all, to be "lived" in the worship (11) in which God's glory will dwell upon men. "Homo vivens Gloria Dei". As a matter of fact, every Good Friday when we listen to the "Passio" according to John. we sense that Christ still speaks of himself to men (especially in the Liturgy) through John's writing.
The "Trial" itself was already a route theologically mapped out by John that led his contemporary to Christ. However, the mapping may be blurred by the long distance of time and cultural differences. The "letter" may no longer be a sufficient guide to the "spirit" (12). Through a hermeneutic process, we thus wish to recover its "sufficiency" so that the "Trial" may appear again as an ever renewed route to the threshold of the Mystery for the modem men.
Our working area is the text itself. We do not employ an exegetical process like Text Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism (13) and. so on. All these stages of work are presupposed. By adopting a philologico-semantical analysis, I try to furnish a "hermeneutical space"－a field of possibilities for play in which any man may immerse himself both receptively and actively as a creative perceiver of meanings; for "play" is a mode of receptive-active encountering realities from which meanings of life can be derived (14). Such a hermeneutical space results from an existential interaction between the text to be interpreted and the interpreter who has the conviction that the more he reads the text, the more it becomes telling. The repeated readings should go hand in hand with the analysis of verbs, vocabulary, syntagmas, syntax, textual and contextual structures and so on. Any intelligent reading may lend itself to an interpretation but here it is the philologicosemantical analysis, without excluding other methods and approaches, that throws light upon our readings.
Futhermore, the outcome of a hermeneutic space is based on the mutual relationship between the "event" and "writing". By event here we mean the historical Trial itself. The writing, refers not only to a simple production of text. but above all to that special text so designed (and so inspired) as to provoke faith within the readers (15) . The Trial happened in the past but has a permanent force appealing to men of different times and places. The writing is to save it from forgetfulness, and hermeneutics is to keep it perpetually "alive" to those who seek to step over the threshold of the Mystery.
A careful reader of the Trial will notice that John continously mixed the present tense with the past. He adopts the inceptive use to give a striking effect of continuation－something is happening. John is not only reporting the past in a lively way by using the historical present, but also on the theological level, he is showing us the presence of the Mystery that appeals, here and not. to his readers. In order to understand John's subtlety, it is expedient to dwell at some length on his theology of history.
The conclusion of John's Gospel (20:30-31) reveals two major interests, namely, the Revelation through the events of Christ, and their salvific implications for men who are appealed to make a decision of faith either in the acceptance or refusal of his Revelation.
Now Jesus did many other signs (semeia) in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. and that believing you may have life in his name" (20:30-31).
For John the "semeia" are the events of Christ themselves, the sight of signs should lead people to believe in him (cf 1:51; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 30; 7:31; 9:16. 23 and so on) and his revelation. Now this dominant theme determines also John's conception of time.
The coming of Christ is the irruption of the eternal into the temporal sphere.
"The Word became (aorist) flesh and dwelt (aorist) among us" (1:14).
"For the judgment, j came (aorist) into this world" (9:39).
The use of the aorist indicates subtly the inception of the state in a global sensed that the dwelling and coming of God took place at a certain point of time in the past and has thus inaugurated the New Era of God's Presence in human history. The idea of the irruption of the eternal into the temporal leads us to a conception reminiscent of the kairos of the vision of Paul. All the events take place in the stream of single moments (chronos) one after another. With the coming of Christ, there has come true the fullness of the chronos (Gal 4;4). In the unrolling of the plan of God (oikonomia), there has arrived the climax－the Christ-event in relation to which every event is to be defined as "before" or "after".
"Formerly you were without Christ, strangers to the covenants of the promise" (Eph 2:12).
Now he (Christ) has reconciled you in his body of flesh" (Col 1.22) (17).
However John has skillfully focalized this idea of kairos into the hora of Christ (18).
"Truly, truly I say to you the hour (hora) is coming and now is (nun estin)" (Jn 5:25).
The hour is the full accomplishment and unfolding of the Divine Plan, that is, the glorification: Cross and Resurrection-the returning to the Father and the sending of the Holy Spirit. The accent of the time, therefore, is on the present nun estin. The past and future with reference to chronos are brought together in the "hour" of Christ and they become a unity in the believers (20:31: pisteuontes). The future will bring nothing decisively new. for the eschatological accomplishment no longer takes place in the future at the end of time but right now in the Christ event.
The eschatological hour further supercedes the dichotomy between the past and future insofar as it appeals to man, here and now, who has to decide to accept or to refuse Christ's revelation. That is why Jesus came for judgment (5:22: krisis and 9:39 krima) upon the world - a division between the believers and unbelievers. Thus life and death, light and darkness appear together. The hour is the moment of judgment pregnant with salvation and decisiveness in the present. The hour is no longer a time between times, but is the definite consummation in which one has no need to wait for any end of the historical yet to come. For it is now all consummated (19:30: tetelestai). For the first time. the traditional dualism of the aeons (the present historical time and the future accomplishment at the end of time) derived from the Jewish apocalyptic is now eliminated. The coming of the logos subsumes the entire human "procursus" in the historical time. Instead there is another dualism, expressed by Hellenistic categories, between light and darkness, truth and falsity, believers and world, that which is above and that which is below (19).
In short, the Johannine theology of history is based on the presence of the eternal Word in the temporal world. This presence constitutes the Christ event, the Final Establishment, the Last Word of God towards mankind. Thus the Christ event becomes a contemporizing of eschaton. Salvation history subsumes human history and transforms it into a new creation. Whatever takes place in the world is to be judged with reference to the krisis in Christ.
Thereby the historicity of man comes to expression, namely, that man through faith in Christ moves from decision to decision. In the very decision of faith, man takes his Christie shape or becomes unbeliever. It results in the tension between the light and darkness and constitutes the real drama of eschatological existence－already and not yet－in human history:
"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (...)
but to all who received him, who believe in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:5,12).
However the force that overcomes this tension is Agap6. the Father loves the world by giving the Son (cf 3:16), and the Son loves the disciples with the love which the Father exhibits towards Him (cf 13:1; 15:9) in order that they may love one another (cf 13:34) and that the world may believe that is was the Father's love (cf 17:21; 14:31) for which the Son comes to the world. The love of God. consists not in loving him but in being loved by him, and whosoever is loved by God also loves others (cf 1 Jn 4:7-21). Hence loving others becomes the acceptance of God's love and, at the same time, the unifying force of the light that dissipates the darkness (20).
Granted that John has a theological conception of history which is foreign to empiricopositivistic historiography, it does not follow that the hisotricity of the trial is totally at stake. Some authors, like P. Winter, hold that "from John 18:29 onwards the Fourth Gospel contains nothing of any value for the assessment of historical facts''(21). The statement is wildly sweeping and ungrounded. "While there is evidence of some degree of elaboration by the author, the most probable conclusion is that in substance it represents an independent strain of tradition, which must have been formed in a period much nearer the events than the period when the Fourth Gospel was written, and in some respects seems to be better informed than the tradition behind the synoptics, whose confused accounts it clarifies" (22).
Hence it can be said that there are two perspectives in John's account of the Trial. One is historical: another we could call eschatological. Though they are of two different domains they are both nevertheless real.
By the standard of modem historical certainty, Jesus' Trial and Death on the Cross can be regarded as an assured "nuclear fact". However the history of Jesus that led him to the crucifixion was, above all. a theological one. To qualify it as "theological" is not to slight the authenticity of the fact; on the contrary it furnishes a point of contact between the empirical world (of facts) and the Mystery (of faith). With all this blending of fact and faith, John's account of the Trial is still the most consistent and intelligible that we have ever possessed. Only John makes it clear why Jesus was brought to Pilate. He was accused as an evildoer (cf 18:30) and should be condemned to death. Then he was considered, or at least, insinuated as testes (cf 18:40). This is a term that can refer to a simple robber, a rebel, or even more probably to a Zealot who makes armed conflict against the Roman rule (23).It is nor a simple political offence but a serious rebellion against the Pax Romana (24) which is rooted in a political religion, namely, Caesar is the god and thus requires everyone to offer due obedience to him. The Romans could not bear such a rebellion, or better the Kingship of Jesus, which would endanger the authority of their political god (25). Although John makes it clear from the mouth of Pilate that Jesus was not guilty of this charge (3 times: 18:38; 19:4, 6). he was still condemned on this charge (cf 19:15-16, 20-22).
The portrait of Pilate yielding to the subtle interplay of political forces carries a certain conviction, as John intends to show, that Jesus was reckoned with transgressors of the Jewish Law and was condemned as a blasphemer:
"We have a law and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (19:7; cf Lev 24:16) (26).
This is also in common with the tradition of the Synoptics.
Furthermore John's chronology, where the judicial process takes place on the 14th of Nissan, is more credible than that of the Synoptics, where it takes place on the feast of Passover (27). Though it is difficult to separate the historical kernel in a modern sense from the account of a theological history, yet it would also be too hasty to draw the conclusion that John has tried, at any cost, to jam all the facts into a theological frame in such a way that no trace may be founded in history. If modern historiography is foreign to John's intention, then we have no reason to search for it. For the truth narrated by John is not deprived of historicity, but is chiefly concerned with the interiorization of faith, openness to transcendence and a spiritual journey towards the self-unfolding Mystery.
In the fourth Gospel, it is the "Glory" of the Son that determines the content of the Trial. The whole NT unanimously agrees that the Resurrection was the climax of the Glory of the Son, for it was the mighty act of God par excellence. For John however, this "Glory" had already been visible during the ministry (28). The Glory is the irruption of the eternal into the temporal, and thus the anticipation of the Eschaton. What was supposed to happen at the end of time has now happened to Jesus, who is to unroll the salvific plan of God－the Final Establishment. It all starts with incarnation:
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
full of grace (charis = hesed)
and of truth (aletheia =' emet)
we have beheld his glory (doxa = kabod), glory as of the Only Son from the Father" (1:14).
The Glory of the Son is. thus. the Word (logos) spelt out by God to all men that His Mercy (hesed) and Fidelity ('emet) have now come true. That is why. for John, in the great "hour"－in which the Trial took place－Jesus is not only a simple man who by the envy of the Jews was accused as evildoer, rebel and blasphemer, but the One who has to come to exercise the eschatological function (29). In spite of the ironic setting, Jesus in the Trial is presented solemnly as the King, the Final Revealer, the Universal Judge, the Eternal Light, the Incarnate Truth, the Visible Glory, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (......) and brings forth salvation for those who believe in him.
In John, historical instances are always gilded with theology so much so that Death and Resurrection－two historical instances－form one single Paschal event. In fact in different stages of preaching, the NT writers became more and more aware of this fact. Three stages can be distinguished here.
First, in the early preaching of the Apostles, especially that of St. Paul, we may notice that the Cross and Resurrection had created in the early witnesses two distinct experiences. At first, they were totally disheartened by the scandal of Jesus' Cross, but then were over whelmed with joy at the encounter with the Risen Lord. It is the apparition experience that makes the first witnesses recognize the identity of Jesus as the Son of God sent forth by the Father, born of woman (...) (cf Gal 4:4f), who. being found in human form, humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the Cross: therefore God has highly exalted him (cf Phil 2:8-9). These two contrasting movements, katabasis (descending ) and anabasis (ascending), though they are of the same pre-existent Son of God, are in some way due to the two sharply contrasted experiences of the early witnesses.
In the second stage of the preaching, there emerges also the life-story of Jesus and, at the end of it, the appearance narratives. This does not mean that the preaching Church had now invented new material; rather, always remaining faithful to the earlier traditions, it adopted a new form of preaching for some particular reason. In these narratives. Jesus was presented, right at the announcemnet of Messiah's birth, as the One from above, the Son of the highest; but then there followed the movement of kenosis until the point of death on the Cross. However, it will be an empty Cross－a Cross that projects a light to the Resurrection by the confession of faith of a pagan centurion. This link between the Cross and Resurrection was further explained in the post-resurrection appearances by Christ himself. Hence at this stage, the Cross and Resurrection have been further unified as one single event.
In the third stage, John makes it even clearer that the Glorification takes place right away in the Exaltation of the Son of Man. The use of the verb hypsoo shows exactly the exaltation of the Glory and of the Cross. For John the katabasis movement takes place at the moment of Incarnation, and during the life-time of Jesus the anabasis movement goes upwards until the exaltation on the Cross. Note that in this upward movement, there is a crescendo of the revelation of the incarnate logos and a crescendo of disbelief that lifted him up on the Cross. What is on man's side the katabasis and humiliation, is the anabasis and glorification on God's side. John has marvellously unified these two contrasting movements at the moment of the "hour" where one can hardly disjoin the Cross from the Resurrection. They are of one single paschal Mystery.
Schematically, we can present the development this way:
"While the basic story remains fhe same. it (the Fourth Gospel) has been beautifully rewritten to present the Crucified Jesus as the consummate revelation of God's love (cf 13:1; 12:13; 19:30), lifted up from the earth in a final victory over evil (3:13-14; 8:28; 12:32), drawing all men to himself (12:20-12; 19:25-27) so that they may gaze upon the pierced one (19:37). It is here that God's work (ergon) is brought to fulfillment (see the use of telos and related verbs in 4:34; 12:1; 17:4; 19:29-30)"(30).
The trial for John was not only an important stage historically precedent to the Crucifixion of Christ, but should also highlight theologically the consummate revelation of God's love that invites man to a personal appropriation.
"In the New Testament it is above all St. John who emphasizes this aspect: truth is not simply the revelation which Christ brought by manifesting himself; under the action of the Spirit human beings must also appropriate this truth for themselves. In the Johannine writings 'to do the truth' (poiein ten aletheian) (Jn 3:21; 1Jn 1:6) means precisely to make the truth of Jesus one's own, so as thereby to reach the light" (31).
If John's word speaks about God and invites his readers to a confession of faith, then it is of interest here to elucidate the theological message contained in the trial of Christ described by John.
With these preliminary considerations in mind, we set our theological inquiry in motion by first reading the text in an analytical way. We have three things to do. We first try to understand the division of the Gospel which furnishes the context of the text. In its turn, the context determines and enlarges the significances of the text. Secondly, we tackle the text itself and thirdly its structure in order to draw out the theological themes.
The collocation of the text tells us right away that the passage concerned is at the heart of the Book of Glory. It has three divisions: The Last Supper (chs 13-17): The Passion Narrative (chs 18-19): The Risen Jesus (20:1-19). The Passion narrative also has three divisions: The Arrest and Interrogation of Jesus (18: 1-27): His Ecounter with Pilate and the Jews (18:28-19:16c); The Crucifixion and Burial of Jesus (l9:16d-42) (32)The dramatic presentation of the trial which occupies the central place of the division is to be read in the context of the entire Gospel. And there are four important references to be borne in mind.
Schematically, I would like to present a sort of progressive parallelism between the prologue and the Trial regarding the identity of Christ. We can notice the difference between the believing readers of John who know well the Prologue and the actors involved in the drama of Jesus' Trial who heard the solemn proclamation of Christ without believing it.
|
PROLOGUE |
TRIAL |
|
1:1 The Word was with God |
18:36 My Kingdom is not of this World |
|
1:10 He was in the World |
18:37 For this I was born |
|
1:10 The World knew him not |
18:40 Not this man but Barabas |
|
1:14 We have beheld his glory |
19:5 Here is the Man |
|
1:14 glory as the only Son from the Father |
19:7 He has made himself the Son of God |
|
1:18 It is God the Only Son, who is in the Bosom of the Father |
19:14 Here is your King (then the crucifixion took place－return to the Father). |
While in the Prologue there is a crescendo of revelation on God's side, there is another parallel crescendo of proclamation and disbelief in the Trial on the World's side. This is one of John's techniques to contrast two movements so as to urge his readers to get rid of a world-bound mentality and give room to faith.
After the Prologue, the story of the Gospel opens. There appear the witnessing statement of John the Baptist: "Behold, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of/the world" (1:29): "And I have seen and have borne witness that W\s is the Son of God" (1 :34). We then find a series of confessions of faith:
1:38 Rabbi (= Teacher)
1:41 Messiah (=Christ)
1:45 We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets spoke, Jesus of Nazareth
1:46 Rabbi You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!
All these confessions of faith are in the current categories of Jewish expectation. They are not denied by Jesus, but something more is indicated. The disciples are promised the sight (33)of the "greater things" (1:50-51) which will be realized in the passion when the Son of Man is lifted up and glorified (34). The promise is to be slowly realized as the Gospel unfolds. It will be worked out gradually during the whole of the public life of Jesus (cf chs 2-12), where the "signs" are to be seen. For John, seeing means a believing experience (35).
The Trial presents exactly tthese "greater things" to be seen
19:5 Behold, the Man
19:14 Behold, your King
The verb horao is always the same as that of 1:29: Behold the Lamb of God. and that of 1:51: You shall see greater things. All the earlier confessions are insufficient and to be integrated by the "sight" of the Man humiliated yet the King glorified.
The narrative, here. seems to be addressed to a restricted audience of believers. It describes the climax of Jesus' life and of his "hour". John is keen on theologizing the time and circumstances. It was before the feast of Passover and the next day the slaughter of the paschal lambs took place, exactly the day of the Crucifixion. During the Supper, there occurred the Foot-washing. When Judas went out, "it was night" (13:30)-a phrase laden with theological, as well as chronological, signifcances (36). This time detail insinuates the prevailing darkness of the World. When Jesus was brought to the Roman Praetorium, it was "at dawn" (18:28)－the Light comes to dissipate the darkness. When he was proclaimed, "Here is your King", it was noon on the day of preparation for the Passover(19:14)－the Light was in full splendour and the Lamb was to be slaughtered.
Furthermore the farewell speech highlights the Trial scene:
14:3 to prepare a place for the disciples
16:28 the Son, thus, will return to the Father
17:4 Jesus glorifies his Father by fulfilling the Mission
17.5 The Father glorifies the Son by authenticating his Mission and by receiving him into his pre-existent Glory.
The Son's Mission, the Father's Authentication and the Return to prepare a place are all now focalized in the Trial-the death sentence of man's judgment and yet at the same time God's judgment taking place in man's, for whoever sees and believes the exalted (crucified) One may have eternal life.
The identity of Jesus as Son, as Man and as King is further made clear in the appearance narratives (cf Jn 20). If Jesus is God's Son (19:7), then he is a Son dedicated to enlarging God's family. In returning to his Father and his God, he elevated his followers as his brothers, having the same Father and the same God. The relationships between Jesus and his followers are increasingly put into evidence:
13:16 The disciples are likened to servants in the Foot-washing
15:14 They are called friends for whom Jesus would lay down his own life
20:17 Now in returning to the Father, he elevates them as brothers.
As the Son imparts to his disciples the Holy Spirit, he gives them also the Mission that his Father has given to him－the forgiveness of sins which is the condition of entering the Kingdom of God. John identifies the Christ in the Trial with the Risen One. Thus, it is the 'glory" of the Risen Christ that tints the Trial setting.
The text is taken from Eberhard Nestles's Novum Testamentum Graece, 21st edition (37).As for the textual criticism, I principally adopt B.M .Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1975). Some remarks in the philological notes will also be taken from J. Mateos－J. Barreto. II Vangelo di Giovanni. Analisi Linguistica e commento esegetico (Assisi 1982).
The criterion for dividing the passage, according to most biblical scholars, depends on the personages in the scenes, places and the verbs (38)
The continual use of verbs of motion agousin, eiselthen, exelthen…divides the drama into seven scenes:
|
1: The JEWS demand Jesus' DEATH (18:28-32) |
7: The JEWS obtain Jesus' DEATH (19:12-16b) |
|
|
Actors: Jesus, Pilate and the JEWS |
||
|
Place: Outside the Praetorium |
||
|
LIGHT: at day break (28b) |
LIGHT: the sixth hour (= noon) (14b) |
|
|
LAMB: the Passover (28d) |
LAMB: the day of the slaughter (14a) |
|
|
DELIVERED (paradidomi) by the JEWS to Pilate (30c) |
DELIVERED (paradidomi) by Pilate to the JEW(16d) |
|
|
(KING): Jesus is accused as an evildoer (30c) |
KING: "Here is your KING" (14d) |
|
|
JUDGMENT: Pilate refuses to judge while the JEWS had no power to judge (31) |
(JUDGMENT): Pilate made Jesus sit down on the Tribunal (13c): the rest became the judged |
|
|
(CRUCIFIXION): The JEWS demand Jesus' death (31) and Jesus knows about His death (32) |
CRUCIFIXION: that He should be crucified (16b) |
|
|
2: Pilate questions Jesus about KINGSHIP (18:30-18b) |
6: Pilate questions Jesus about AUTHORITY (19:9-11) |
|
Actors: Jesus and Pilate |
|
|
Place: Inside the Praetorium |
|
|
KING-question: "KING OF THE JEWS?" (33c) Jesus corrects Pilate by turning his political investigation into a religious quest |
KING-question: "Where are you from?" (9b) It is a religious inquiry; Jesus' silence leaves Pilate to decide |
|
AUTHORITY: Pilate's boast of his authority (16) |
|
|
KINGSHIP: "not of this WORLD" (36b) "You say that I am a KING" (37d) TRUTH: Jesus' witness to the TRUTH (37g); he who is of the TRUTH hears His voice (37h); "What is TRUTH?" (38b) |
"FROM ABOVE" (11c) "You have no authority against me" (11b) |
|
3: Jesus is innocent. Barabbas but not the KING OF THE JEWS (18:38c-40) |
5: Jesus is innocent. "Behold, the MAN" "Crucify Him!" (19:4-8) |
|
Actors: Jesus Pilate and the JEWS |
|
|
Place: Outside the Praetorium |
|
|
INNOCENCE: I find no crime in HIM (38d) |
INNOCENCE: No crime in HIM (4b, 6e) |
|
KINGSHIP: Choice between Barabbas and
|
KINGSHIP: Wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Jesus was presented, |
|
"the KING OF THE JEWS"(39b) |
"Here is the MAN" (4d) |
|
REFUSAL: The Jews reject Jesus for they prefer Barabbas, a robber (40) |
REFUSAL: "Crucify Him. Crucify Him" They reject Jesus as the "SON OF GOD" (6b. 7d) |
|
Pilate's uneasiness is here implied |
Pilate's fear is here more explicit (8) |
|
4: Jesus is scourged, crowned, clothed and mocked as KING of the JEWS (19:1-3) |
|
Actors: Jesus and the soldiers Place : Inside the Praetorium |
|
The scene is a subtle piece of irony that describes that －Jesus is the real KING, but not of this WORLD －the crowning and clothing of Jesus fit into the solemn proclamation "no crime in HIM" (19:4.6) "Here is the MAN" (19:5) "Here is Your KING" (19:14) |
As we may notice, this is only a proposed structure presenting a chiastic-circular movement.
"There is a very careful balancing in setting, content, and even in length (1=7; 2+3=5+6). The only episode in which Pilate does not figure prominently is 4, the middle episode. Obviously the hand of a meticulous planner has been at work here"(40).
In these 7 scenes, there \re many possible themes such as Light, Lamb, Delivered, Judgment Kingship, Truth, Revelation, Belief and Disbelief, Above and Below, Authority, the Man, God's Son, Crucifixion, and the like. In order not to lose sight of our original inquiry, the Identity of Christ in the Trial, we try to organize these themes on Christ into four headings:
(1) Christ, the Revealer
who came to the WORLD from ABOVE, as the LIGHT in the DARKNESS, as the LAMB of God who takes away our sins and as GOD'S SON who REVEALS to us the TRUTH.
(2) Christ, the King Glorified
who CAME to restore the Eschatological KINGDOM which takes place in the event of the CRUCIFIXION, where the SON OF MAN is LIFTED UP. He is the Eschatological Protagonist (cf Dan 7:13-14)to whom is given the POWER, the KINGDOM and the GLORY in order to regin universally. His GLORY takes place in the CRUCIFIXION, which is the great ACCOMPLISHMENT of the Salvific Plan of God for it is a Glorious RETURNING to the Father.
(3) Christ, the Judge
who for the JUDGMENT came to the WORLD (9:39). His JUDGMENT is not to condemn but to justify those who BELIEVE. Though submitted to the LAW, he does not JUDGE according to the LAW but according to GRACE and LOVE.
(4) Christ, who comes to provoke FAITH
and invites' us to adhere to the TRUTH to which he TESTIFIES through signs and words. He helps those who fall short of FAITH, but before HIM one must inescapably make a DECISION OF FAITH (41)
Now a sort of schematical synopsis, we try to see how these four themes are interwoven together around the Figure of Christ.
We shall divide the text of Jn 18:28-19:16 according to the following headings:
1. the Jewish authorities ask Pilate to condemn Jesus.
2. Pilate questions Jesus about Kingship (cont.)
3. Pilate seeks to release Jesus; the Jews prefer Barabbas.
4. (Intermediary) The Roman soldiers scourge and mock Jesus.
5. Pilate presents Jesus to his people; the Jews shout for crucifixion.
6. Pilate talks with Jesus about power.
7. Pilate yields to the Jewish demand for Jesus' crucifixion.
So far we have only presented the crude materials, still in some way dispersed. Now we shall try to synthesize all these elements in the key of "Glory" as an attempt to demonstrate a Johannine answer to our leading question: who is this "glorious" Christ condemned to be crucified in the Trial(42)?
If Pilate's question; "Are you the King of the Jews?" (18:33), is John's attempt to see the "Glory" of Christ in his Kingship, then we can pose at least three questions:
(1)What sort of Kingship did the Johannine Christ proclaim?
(2)How did he come to be proclaimed as King by others?
(3) What is the function of his Kingship?
The first two questions will be tackled in 5.1 Christus, Rex Glorificatus, and the third one in 5.2 Christus, Rex Glorlficans.
In the second episode (18:33-38b), there appears a very interesting dialogue between Jesus and Pilate. Laden with theological significance, it furnishes a very dense discourse about the Kingdom of Jesus.
The question of Pilate (18:33) reveals, first of all, his political interest because he only wants to see if Jesus is an evildoer or, worse still, one of the Zealots jeopardising the Pax Romana. Jesus will not categorically refuse to be known as a King but he wants to avoid misunderstanding. As a matter of fact he corrects Pilate's questioning which is still earthbound(43). Although Pilate evades it, Jesus has already John's readers in an attitude of Faith to listen to his speech(44).
Jesus' answer is phrased in a solemn and poetic diction. In the five lines of v.38, the absolute statement of the first line "My Kingdom is not of the World" is rephrased and repeated in the last line, while the intermediary lines 2-4 offer an explanation(45). Now let us concentrate on some keywords.
Jesus speaks of "My Kingdom" here, whereas in the preceding case he speaks of "the Kingdom of God" (cf 3:3,5). Such a change is not insignificant. In the "hour" it is revealed that what belongs to God the Father belongs also to Jesus and vice versa (cf 17:10: all mine are thine, and thine are mine and I am glorified in them). This is the Glory that the Kingdom is given to him. This reminds us of the Son of Man described in Dan 7: 13-14 -an ancient mysterious figure,
During his
ministry, Jesus has already made it clear
about his origin:
You are from below, I am from above:
You are of this World,
I am not of this World"
(8:23)
Note that the parallel contrast between " You" and " I " , "of the World" and "Not of the World". "From Above" and "From Below" is very telling.
The "World" in John has several meanings, and it may mean two or three things at one time. It may refer to the world as created by God (1:10; 17:5, 24). It indicates the sinful situation (1:29; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) from which men are to be liberated by the incarnated logos. Hence the World becomes also the object of love and Salvation for which the Son was given by the Father (3:16). The World, however, is sometimes identified with those (unbelievers) who have turned against Jesus, whose coming has become a Judgment for them (9:39; 12:31). Finally Jesus conquers the World in his "hour" (16:33). The working out of this Victory over the World must be continued after Jesus' departure. For this, he sends his followers into the World (17:18), and their faith in him, expressed by Agape, is to overcome the World (1 Jn 5:34f). Their aim is to make the World believe in Jesus and come to know that his mission is from, the Father (17:3, 21, 23)(46). In fact, this is the Kingdom that Jesus wants to establish. It is in the World, like his disciples, but not of the World (17:11; 18:36), and, as a pilgrim, the Kingdom has to pass from this World to another(47).
On one hand, Jesus has calmed down Pilate by showing that his Kingship will not endanger the Pax Romana, yet on the other he challenges Pilate to recognize the Truth. In 18:37 Jesus without denying his Kingship further clarifies that his birth into the World is to Testify the "Adyent" of the Truth -- the incarnated logos (cf 14:6) -- into the World. Thus the signs and words in his ministry constitute a testimony to the Truth and his testimony has a judgment function (cf 9:39). His judgment consists not in condemning the World but in man's decision "for" or "against" him. John has skillfully demonstrated this by using the genitive after the verb akouein in 18:37, which refers to a listening with understanding and acceptance(48). Everyone who belongs to the Truth, listens to Jesus. This recalls the theme of the Shepherd in 10:3ff, which has its background in the OT portrait of the King-Shepherd (cf Ez 34) (49). Thus those who belong to the Truth are the Sheep given to Jesus by the Father. But now, does Pilate want to belong to the Truth? This is the challenge Jesus made to him. At this moment Pilate knows, at least, one truth, that Jesus is not guilty of anything (18: 38) and that the Trial ought to cease. However, to this True King-Judge, Pilate does not want to submit himself. He retorts, "What is Truth?" (18:38). On a theological level, Jesus' silence to the question suggests that it is Pilate who is under trial and has to answer. For he is indecisive and wants to comply, in some way, with the Jews, so he resorts to the annual amnesty -- either Barabbas or the King of the Jews (18:39) -- as an evasion from the Truth. At this moment the Judgment extends also to the Jews, while they have to pass a judgment on the incarnated Truth by preferring Barabbas to the True King.
The Kingship of Jesus, thus, is related to his Mission of revealing the Truth, is such a way that men may come into his Sheepfold (the Kingdom of Truth) by listening to (believing in) his voice. The refusal or acceptance becomes the discriminating factor (Krisis, krima) of the citizenship of the Kingdom.
We now come to the second question: How is Jesus proclaimed King? The setting of the drama is marvellous and perhaps much Telling than the dialogue itself (18:33-38b).
The verb ago recalls the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53:7 (the same verb in LXX ago as in 18:28):
"Like the lamb that is led (echthe) to the slaughter"(50)
Throughout the "hour" of Christ, John continues to supply details to describe the great fulfillment (telos) of the Divine project. For instance, the present continous tense agousin in 18:28 is not only a historical present but a theological present as well.
It was early (en de proi). In Jn 13:30 after Judas had received the morsel and gone out, John points out that it was night (en de nux) With Jesus' permission to Judas (13:27) and the solemn entrance of Satan into the drama (13:27), the "hour" of darkness has come. However, it is Christ who Takes the initiative to go through the darkness.
" I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness" (12:46)
The night does not last long and soon will have its dawn: the outbreak of the Resurrection light(51) which comes true in the risen Christ who now is about to be crucified and glorified as the King. John is not concerned chiefly with chronology, but rather with the theological present: now it is at dawn. The King to be glorified is the true light that dissipates the darkness. The Light shines stronger and stronger until about the sixth hour (19:14)(52). It is, therefore, the noon of the Preparation Day of the Passover (19:14) when the Light is to shine in splendour and the slaughter of lambs is to take place in the temple. The crowd is in full excitement shouting and pressing Pilate hard, "Away with hiM (...) Crucify him" (19:15). Pilate hopelessly gives in. The Glorified King, thus, becomes the Light to dissipate the darkness, the Lamb to take away the sins of the World (12:46; 1:29).
It is surely not difficult to notice that there is a crescendo of rejection on the part of the Jews. At first, they accuse Jesus of doing evii and demand his death. After the interrogation, Pilate makes a series of proclamations of truth (18:38, 39) but without taking sides. He thought he could have escaped the decision by way of the annual amnesty. It is of no avai1. The Jews reject their King bluntly by opting for Barabbas. Pilate is still indecisive and resorts to the absurd scourging (19:1-3). After Jesus had been scourged, crowned with thorns, dressed in purple, mocked as King, he was brought out again. "Behold, the Man" proclaimed Pilate - a pitiful scene appealing for mercy. It is of no avai1. The Jews reply violently, "Crucify him" (19:6). Pilate still insists that Jesus is innocent (cf I9:4,6). Finally the Jews reveal the ultimate reason of their rejection: he made himself the Son of God (cf 19:7).
As a matter of fact, the Jews would have no problem to have Jesus as their King, so much so that they did try once to force him to be King (cf 6:15: after the multiplication of bread), but only in the way they want Jesus to be - an earthly King. Jesus withdrew himself and refused such a Kingship, because his Kingship is not of this World. This is precisely what the Jews cannot tolerate- that Jesus be the Son of God.
Unfortunately this rejection increasingly widens. In reply to Pilate's solemn proclamation, " Here is Your King" (19 : 14), they shout again. "Crucify him " (19:15). The rejection becomes irremediable to the extent that they even reject their own Yahweh-King (cf Is 26: 13), "We have no King but Caesar" (19: 15). They have calumniated Jesus as blasphemer by becoming blasphemers themselves. Pilate hands over Jesus to the Jews (19:16). Now the Glorified King is to be "Lifted up".
One may ask what the Jews' rejection has to do with Jesus' glorified Kingship. First of all we have to understand the technical use of the term "the Jews" in the Fourth Gospel. Sometimes it has a simple reference to the Jewish people, and so covers Jesus' enemies and his followers and even himself. Yet John creates a son of "theological anti-semitism" to describe those enemies of Truth, as persons devoid of spiritual insight and as spawn of the devil(53).John is not really anti-semitic, but is condemning the rejection of Jesus and those who desire to kill Jesus. The rejection represents subtly the Judgment of the World upon Jesus and that of Jesus upon the World at the same time. The two judgments are entirely different. Let us quickly go through the sense of Judgment in John. Jesus' claim to judge no one (8:15) is true for it is not the aim of his coming (3:17). However the role of Judge is entrusted to him (5:22, 27) in the sense that his judgment results from his presence, before which men have to decide (9:39). He in fact does not come to condemn (judge) the world (12:47), but he who refuses his revelation has already undergone the Judgment (3:24).
Throughout the Trial, Jesus is carefully described as the real Judge in an ironical form of being judged. In 18:31 Pilate told the Jews to judge Jesus but they said they could not do so according to the law. Pilate had found Jesus innocent (3 times: 18:38: 19:4, 6), and had consequently no right to judge Jesus on legal grounds. There is another telling detail in 19:13, ekathisen epi bematos, by which John leaves his readers to intuit that it is Jesus who sits upon the Tribunal and exercises, consequently, his supreme role of Judgments(54), at the moment when the Jews press hard to do away with Jesus. Not only him but also his Father (19: 15)! Pilate, failing to take up a position for the Truth, turns out to be the instrument of the World.
Once again we see here that the judgment of Jesus goes hand in hand with his revelation. The consequence of Jesus' revelation is the Judgment which no one can escape, not even the powerful Roman Prefect (19: 10). At the moment when the Jews think that they are passing judgment on Jesus, the Glorified King becomes the Universal Judges(55).
We now comle to the third question : What is the function of Jesus' Kingship? For brevity's sake, let us resort to the messianic titles which appear in the Trial. As we know, these titles in John do not only indicate the person of Jesus but, above all, point out the specific aspects of his mission, and hence also the function of Christ(56). In our text, we find principally three titles: the King of the Jews, the Man and the Son of God.
Throughout the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed King not a few times. First in the confession of Nathanael: the King of the Israel (1:49). John is careful to make the distinction between the "Jews" and "Israel". The latter is a favourable term describing the real succession to the OT heritage. This confession has laid the ground for the perception that Christ is the Messianic King pre-announced in the OT. However this confession is not sufficient, so Jesus turns Nathanael's attention towards the "greater things" about the Son the Man (1:50-51).
After the multiplication of bread the people want to take Jesus by force and make him King, but Jesus "stole away" (6:15). In this episode, Jesus was' being hailed as the Second Moses, the Prophet who would come to give the manna which would usher in the endtime(57). Yet it is clear that Jesus is not prepared to accept this identification, so he withdrew himself to the hills(58).
At the time of his solemn entry into Jerusalem, he is greeted as the Kina of Israel. John quotes Ps 117:26 (LXX) but elegantly adds this title:
Psl 17:26: Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord(59)
Jn 12:13: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.
This time Jesus does not flee from their acclamations, as he did in 6:15 but enters on an ass. Now he faces acclamations, but sets about correcting them in the light of the text from Zech 9:9: the humility of the King. The "hour" has come for Jesus to affirm his Kingly role (12:23). He will determine the nature of his Kingship, it will not be in the way expected by the crowds and by his disciples (12:16). The Kingship of Jesus is tor worked out through his elevation and glorification upon the cross (12:16); now he is going to face this moment(60).
Then finally in the passion account, Jesus is presented as the King of the Jews (18:33, 39; 19:3: the King of the Jews; 19:14, 15; your King; 19 : 19, 21; the notice on the cross). The change from "King of Israel" to "King of the Jews" is by no means casual, though they both denote the same King of the same people. “Israel” is a favourable term, whereas "Jews” is not. The Jews have brought Jesus before Pilate as an evildoer; Pilate, instead, presents him as the King of the Jews (18:33, 39) and they opt for Barabbas. Then in the scourging, Jesus was crowned with thorns, dressed in purple, mocked as the King of the Jews and struck with hands (19:1-3). The scene (and the use of of rapismata) recalls the third song of the Servant of Yahweh in LXX Is 50:6:
" I gave my back to the smiters, then my cheek to the slaps (rapismata)" (61)
The mockers speak the truth though unbeknown to themselves. The same thing happens to Pilate when he proclaims the title (19:14, 15). It is interesting to note that the Jews do not want to accept this title(19:19-21), but Pilate forces them to confront it. Let us not forget the setting: the Light, the slaughter of lambs, the seating during the Trial and so on.
In John's mind, Jesus is identified with the King of those who act against him and his Father. Such Kingship was inconceivable in the current messianic hope and it was extremely difficult to express this mystery in terms of the Hellenistic categories available to John. However, John narrates the fact by supplying many details (sometimes not very explicit) that continuously point to the kingly function of Jesus: He is the obedient Servant of Yahweh who carries out his will through suffering. Precisely the greatest suffering is to be the King of those who reject, who kill and who even betray his own beloved Father. The narrative is full of contrast, and human logic is of no avail here, for at this moment it is the Mystery of Love that prevails. It is the "hour" to win over the World and the way of doing it is Agape, for which the Father gives up his Son (3:16) and the Son lays down his Life to impart the forgiveness of sins and to bring about the conversion of the World.
The term itself has no special significance. It may have the same meaning as 18:29: "what charge do you bring against this man? " However the context in which the term is used makes a great difference
In John, the Trial is a vehicle that "develops the motif of Jesus' Kingship. Acknowledged by Pilate as the King of the Jews", though not in a political sense (18:39), Jesus is refused by the Jews as they opt for Barabbas (1 8:40). Then Jesus undergoes the ironic investiture and coronation, where he is hailed the King of the Jews by the Roman Soldiers (19:1-3). Now he is brought out "royally bedecked and empurpled, to be presented to his people for acclamation. In John's eyes Israel's long wait for its messianic King thus comes to ironic fulfilment. (...) (However) we may wonder whether the evangelist's creative sense has not been controlled by some details that he found in his tradition. If he were inventing with complete freedom, this would have been the perfect moment to have had Pilate say, 'Behold the King!' (as in 19:14). Instead we find the enigmatic (proclamation) 'Behold the Man!' (19:5)"(62).
The term "Man" in such a solemn context must have had a particular significance. As a matter of fact, the acclamation creates in the Jews a violet reaction: "Crucify him, crucify him!" (19:6). We can duduce that this acclamation is a title of honour which the Jews could never tolerate.
Not a few scholars think that the use of ho anthropos is a reference to the Son of Man(63). The Hebrew ben 'adam or the Armaic barnasha behind the Greek term could have two meanings, as many other semitic expressions, namely, "Man" or the "Son of Man"(64).The argument does not appear very convincing, but if we turn to the use of the term "Son of Man" in the rest of the Gospel, some striking similarities appear between them . We may notice that the last appearance of the term "the Son of Man" is in 13:31, when the hour of darkness (13:30) has arrived. In 13:31, Jesus says "NOW is the Son of Man glorified (aor.)". The word " NOW" is related to the "hour" which 'was not yet at hand' (2:,4; 4:6; 8:20) but NOW has arrived (12:23; 13:1). The aorist passive of "glorified" indicates an inception of state, namely, the glorification of Christ has been set in motion. Again John has no interest in the chronology of time, namely, the exact moment in which the glorification takes place, whether it be the Last Supper, the sixth hour on the cross, or the Resurrection. For him, there is only one theological present in the paschal Mystery.
However John is not discarding history. He makes it clear that the glorification does have its historical ground, namely, the cross; and in 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34 the Son of Man is said to be lifted up. This obviously refers to the event of the Cross: the word "crucify" appears only in the passion account and for the first time in 19:6 after the solemn proclamation of " Behold the Man!" (19:5). There is a parallel between "the Son of Man" and "the Man", "lifted up" and "crucified". This parallel is by no means casual. Before the "hour", namely, in the Book of Signs (chs 2-1 2), Jesus was foretelling the event of the Cross in terms of elevation and the Son of Man the ancient figure in Dan 7:13-14, who is supposed to be the eschatological protagonist that rings forth the accomplishment of the Kingdom of God. As a matter of fact the promise of the "greater things to be seen" is made by Jesus in reference to the son of Man (1:50-51). However in the passion account, John speaks of crucifixion - a term that gives a sense of historical happening. John, thus, did not do away with history for the sake of theology, though it is theology that determines the significance of history. In fact, right in the prologue, John has already prepared his readers for a theological understanding of the narrative of Jesus' life. In this way, the significance of "the Man" in 19:5 is to be linked with the use of "the Son of Man" in the rest of the Gospel, or, at least, it is implicitly a messianic title that indicates something about Jesus' Kingship. One of the reasons why Pilate does not proclaim straight away the Son of Man may arise from John's respect for the title which was traditionally reserved for Jesus to speak about himself (65).
If "the Man " (19:5) is a messianic title and is used after the scourging scene (19:1-3) where Jesus was mockingly crowned and dressed as a King, then we have at once an evident title about the function of Jesus' Kingship. The Messiah-King is the long-waited celestial being (cf Dan 7:12-14) who is to come for the establishment of the Kingdom. His establishment consists in being lifted up so as to be seen and to be of God' Love to men. His kingly glorification, though taking on the form of scandalous humiliation, has reached its high point insofar as God's Love is fully manifested in his humanity and thus men’s salvation is safeguarded. Now the King is not only glorified but is also glorifying insofar as he is to win over the sinful world with Divine Love (16:33).
In 19:6 the Jews refuse Pilate's acclamation, "Behold the Man" by shouting "Crucify him". Pilate reacts at once and for the third time he says. "I find no crime in him". Then in 19:7 the Jews reveal their ultimate reason why Jesus should die, because he has made himself God's Son.
One may notice that the expression "God's Son" is without the article. This usually means one of two things, either one wants to refer to something indefinite, or one wants to call attention (66) to something. The absence of the article in this case is surely meant to draw attention and to give reinforcement to the title. There are three reasons for saying this:
First, in all three synoptic accounts of the Trial before the Sanhedrin , the accused blasphemy is always expressed with the article :
Mk 14:61: ho huios tou eulogetou
Mt 26:63: ho huios tou Theou
Lk 22:67: ho huios tou Theou
Instead John's expression has no article and it must have some particular significance.
Secondly, in John's eyes, the Jews would not have condemned Jesus to death if he had only claimed to be one of the sons of God in a general sense, namely one of the pious Jews loved by God. Definitely not. The Jews refuse categorically that Jesus is God and that he belongs to the sphere of Divinity as described in the prologue.
Thirdly, the anarthrous title has at once its effect on the powerful Roman Prefect; when Pilate hears these words, he becomes more afraid (19:8); he enters the praetorium again and says to Jesus, "Where are you from?" (19:9). Pilate must have known that Jesus is from Nazareth. He is asking of Jesus' Divine Origin.
As a matter of fact, the uses of "the Son", "the Son of God" or "God's Son" have a lot of similarities. They certainly constitute the most outstanding characteristic of the Fourth Gospel (67). If we go quickly through the use of these terms, we find that these sayings nearly express a direct relationship between God and Jesus. Note that John does not intend to talk speculatively about this relationship in terms of the Divine Nature as such, for John has never doubted the Origin and Nature of Jesus (1:1-18); rather he now wants to point to something beyond, namely, the heavenly Father who is unceasingly at work in the human existence of the incarnated logos.
Again John is subtle in expressing this. Pilate in this augmented fear before the silent Jesus (19:8-9), begins to bluster about his authority. Jesus, then, corrects him, "you would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above" (19:10-11). Here we should understand the statement in the light of 10:17-18 where Jesus says, "I lay down my life that I may take again (...) I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father". The power "from above" thus designates clearly a Divine initiative on the handing-over of the Son to the hands of the Roman Prefect. In fact it is by the Father's will that the Son has come into the World (6:38). The raison d'etre of the Son's earthly existence depends entirely on the Father'sWi11 (5:30).
"The Father stands behind the whole of the work and revelatory function of Jesus (12:29); 14:1 9-11) and as such, faith and attachment to Jesus mean 'belonging' to the Father (14:21, 23; 16:28-27). As in the Son of God sayings, we are told that Jesus went out from the Father who sent him and that he returns to the Father (13:1; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 27, 28; 17:11, 13; 20:17) leading the faithful to the place which he has prepared for them (14:2-3; 17:24). (...)
It can be seen that the soterioloaical function which flows from the unique union between the Father and the Son is continued a n d developed" (68).
In this sense, he who delivered Jesus to Pilate has the greater sin (19:11 ) for he who refuses Jesus as God's Son, refuses, also the Father This is exactly what the Jews were doing (19:7, 15).
The title "God's Son" indicates an eternal union between Jesus and the Father, not attained in time, nor ceasing with this life or with the history of the World. This union is made known, above all, propter nostram salutem. John has early scored an excellent insight about this salvific union in his beautiful prologue, 1:1:
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was turned in loving union towards God.
What God was, the Word was" (69).
Now this "movement of the loving union towards God has involved also the entire humanity. Men are to be brought to the Father and, hence, to be glorified in the union between the Father and the Son. Let us borrow the words of C.H. Dodd to express the same idea:
“The human career of Jesus is, as it were, a projection of this eternal relation (which is the divine agape) upon the field of time. It is such, not as a mere reflection, or representation, of the reality, but in the sense that the love which the Father bore the Son ‘before the foundation of the world' and which he perpetually returns, is actively at work in the whole historical life of Jesus. That life displays the unity of Father and Son, in ways which may be described as 'knowledge' or 'indwelling', but are such, not in the sense of withdrawn contemplation like that recommended by 'Hellenistic mysticism', but in the sense that the love of God in Christ creates and conditions an active ministry (...) which is an aggressive conflict with the powers hostile to life, and ends in a victory of life over death through death. The love of God, thus released in history, brings men into the same unity of which the relation of Father and Son is the eternal archetype" (70).
In conclusion, in this chapter we have seen the Kingship of the Rex Glorificatus and in what way he is King. We, then, further demonstrated that his Kingship has a salvation. He thus is the Rex Glorificans, namely, his Glory started a New Glorification of all men.
We have begun with a theological inquiry about the identity of Christ in the Trial believing that some answers can be found from the Johannine text (as inspired) by creating a hermeneutic space through philologicosemantical analysis. Our focal area is the "text" itself which is blended with history and theology. If the text were devoid of history, then John 's theology would become pure imagination. However if the (written) history were a simple record of an ensemble of happenings one after another, then some important meaning might escape our notice. Frequently the chronological report is misleading, which is why John has placed his priority on theology without, however, discarding history.
Now in the historical paschal event, it is God who gives the meaning which transcends human conditionings. John perceives this and tries to convey it to his readers. However John's perception of the event is not closed in itself (or in a text) but has a permanent appealing force to all men of different times and places, insofar as behind these written words it is God who speaks personally. On a theological level, we may present it in the following scheme:
|
God speaks |
God speaks |
God speaks |
|
in |
in |
in |
|
Paschal |
Johannine |
Today's |
|
Event |
Church |
Church |
In each stage God demands of us a faithful listening when he speaks to the contemporaries of Jesus, to the Johannine community and now to the Church. The aim of this essay is precisely to create a hermeneutic space in which the appealing force of the Johannine text may become more "alive" to contemporary readers . Thus our hermeneutic process is not only possible (and in some way necessary) but at t