Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
Jesus Sentenced to be Crucified
1Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2The soldiers twisted
together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed
him in a purple robe 3and went up to him again and again, saying,
"Hail, king of the Jews!" And they struck him in the face.
4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am
bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for
a charge against him." 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown
of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is
the man!"
6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they
shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"
But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for
me, I find no basis for a charge against him."
7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law
he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid,
John 19:1-8
Explanation: The Soldiers Mistreat Jesus (19:1-3)
The theme of kingship continues as we now see the Roman soldiers
dress Jesus up like a king, revere him and greet him as king of
the Jews. They are doing so in cruel mockery, but they speak the
truth. This may be another example of John's use of irony in having
people speak truth that they themselves do not realize, providing
"a sign that the Gentiles will ultimately confess the kingship
of Jesus" (Brown 1970:889). This little section is at the center
of a chiasm (see introduction to 18:28--19:16), which adds weight
to this suggestion, since the center point of a chiasm is usually
the main point.
Pilate turns Jesus over to the soldiers to be flogged (v. 1). In
other Gospel accounts Jesus is flogged right before he is handed
over for crucifixion (Mt 27:26 par. Mk 15:15), whereas here Pilate
will make another effort to get Jesus released before he is eventually
handed over (v. 16). Luke, like John, mentions several efforts made
by Pilate to release Jesus (Lk 23:13-22), but Luke does not refer
to the flogging itself, beyond Pilate's threat to punish Jesus (Lk
23:16, 22). Some think that Jesus was flogged once and that John
has separated that event from the handing over (Sherwin-White 1965:104;
Brown 1994:1:852-53), but more likely there were two floggings (Carson
1991:597). The Romans had several degrees of punishment (Brown 1994:1:851-52),
with the lightest form being a beating that was both a pun-ishment
and a warning (Sherwin-White 1963:27). The more severe forms were
used in interrogations to extract information from people or in
connection with other punishments (Sherwin-White 1963:27). Since
the punishment at this point in John's account was neither of these
severe forms, the reference would fit the lighter form better. Pilate,
who considers Jesus innocent, may have wanted to satisfy Jesus'
opponents with this relatively light punishment. The later flogging,
referred to by Matthew and Mark in connection with the sentence
of crucifixion, would have been the more severe form. This type
of flogging employed a whip made of leather thongs with pieces of
bone or lead attached, which chewed up the flesh. Such flogging
could itself result in death. Jesus' own flogging, while brutal
and inflicting great suffering, was not carried out to this extreme,
since he did not die from it. Indeed, Pilate was surprised he died
so quickly on the cross (Mk 15:44; cf. Blinzler 1959:226). Pilate,
however, did not know the whole story, for he did not know of the
spiritual wounds Jesus suffered as he took away the sin of the world
(1:29), being "pierced for our transgressions" and "crushed
for our iniquities" (Is 53:5).
In addition to beating Jesus, as ordered by Pilate, the soldiers
mocked him. The crown of thorns (v. 2) was most likely made from
the date palm (Hart 1952), the same plant that had supplied the
fronds laid on Jesus' path as he entered Jerusalem a short time
before (12:13). The spikes on this plant can reach twelve inches
long and were notorious for inflicting pain (cf. Midrash Rabbah
on Num 3:1). Such long spikes would give the effect of a starburst
around Jesus' head, in imitation of the likeness of deified rulers
on coins of the period and much earlier. (H. Hart's article includes
photos of such coins and the spikes from a date palm.) The purple
robe (v. 2) and the greeting "Hail, king of the Jews!"
(v. 3)--an imitation of the greeting to Caesar, "Ave, Caesar"--furthered
the sick entertainment. As they lined up and came forward to greet
him (cf. Bruce 1983:358), instead of giving him the kiss of greeting,
they struck him in the face (v. 3).
This scene presents a powerful picture of Christ's glory, since
this caricature of Christian worship, as E. C. Hoskyns calls it
1940b:621), actually speaks of Jesus' true identity as King of the
Jews and, indeed, Lord of all. But throughout the story we have
seen the chief characteristic of the glory of God revealed in Jesus
to be his love. Jesus really is a king beyond the wildest imaginings
of these soldiers. When we realize the power Jesus had we understand
more of his humility and see God's brilliant glory. "Thus the
kingdom which was not of this world overcame that proud world, not
by the ferocity of fighting, but by the humility of suffering"
(Augustine In John 116.1).
Pilate Again Declares Jesus Innocent (19:4-8)
This second declaration of Jesus' innocence forms the fifth section
of the chiasm (see introduction to 18:28--19:16), corresponding
to the third section in which Pilate went out to the Jewish opponents
and said he found no basis for a charge against Jesus (18:38b-40).
This time he brings Jesus out with him--Jesus wearing the mocking
signs of kingship and bearing the marks of the violence done against
him. This very presentation of Jesus, with Pilate's dramatic words,
Here is the man! (v. 5), could itself be a continuation of the mockery,
as though Jesus is coming forth to be presented to his subjects
as on some state occasion. But while Pilate is mocking Jesus and
his fellow Jews he is also making the point that there is no basis
for a charge against such a figure. Jesus may be dressed up as a
king and a god (Hart 1952:75), but in Pilate's eyes he is only a
man.
Once again we have an "unconscious prophet" (Westcott
1908:2:299), like Caiaphas (11:49-52) or the centurion in Mark's
Gospel (Mk 15:39; cf. Bruce 1983:359). Several proposals have been
made for the significance of Pilate's calling Jesus the man (cf.
Barrett 1978:541; Brown 1994:1:827-28). One of the more likely proposals
is Jesus' identity as the Son of Man, since Jesus had said, "When
you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM"
(8:28). Another possibility is an emphasis on Jesus' humanity: Jesus
is indeed man (anthropos), for the Word became flesh (1:14). Since
the real reason his opponents are against him is his claim to deity
(19:7), we would have in Pilate's phrase references to both the
humanity and the deity of Jesus. John may also see here allusions
to Jesus as the last Adam, to use Paul's language (1 Cor 15:45),
in keeping with similar possible allusions through the motif of
the Garden (see comment on 18:1). This association with Adam is
true, but since John does not make an explicit reference to him,
we can't be sure he had it in mind here.
Pilate's bid to release Jesus is once again soundly rejected (v.
6a). The heart of the opposition to Jesus comes from the chief priests
and their officials, and John singles these folk out as the ones
crying, Crucify! Crucify! They want Jesus not merely dead, but crucified.
The reason, most likely, is that this form of death was associated
with the curse in the law against "anyone who is hung on a
tree" (Deut 21:23, see comment on 18:32).
Pilate's little plan failed, so in exasperation he tells the leaders
to take Jesus and crucify him themselves, since, as he says for
the third time, he finds no charge against Jesus (v. 6). Pilate
is trusting in political games rather than standing in integrity
for what he knows to be true. When such people cannot control a
situation they get frustrated and angry. He is not really offering
them a chance to crucify Jesus themselves, and they understand that,
as their actions show.
Pilate and the Jewish leaders are very agitated, but the appeal
they both make is to law. According to Roman law Jesus is innocent,
as Pilate has now said three times. But the leaders now assert that
according to Jewish law (v. 7), Jesus must die because he claimed
to be the Son of God (v. 7). This was the charge that was brought
against Jesus at the trial before Caiaphas, though not recorded
by John (Mt 26:63-66 par. Mk 14:61-64 par. Lk 22:67-71). The law
they seem to have in mind says "anyone who blasphemes the name
of the LORD must be put to death" (Lev 24:16). Later in the
Mishnah blasphemy refers to pronouncing the divine name (m. Sanhedrin
7:5), but the concept was broader in the first century (cf. Robinson
1985:263). The claim to be a "son of God" is not necessarily
a blasphemous claim to deity since the phrase was used in the Old
Testament to describe beings other than God, in particular heavenly
beings (Gen 6:2; Ps 29:1, obscured in the NIV) and the king of Israel
(2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26-27; cf. Wülfing von Martitz et al.
1972:347-53). Since "son of God" was used of the king,
the opponents are not now shifting away from the charge that Jesus
claims to be king, as seen in their repetition of this charge later
(v. 12). Rather, they are helping Pilate understand that there is
a religious as well as a political dimension to the kingship of
Jesus, and the religious aspect is the crucial one. Throughout the
Gospel they have rejected Jesus' claims to a special relationship
with God, and they have already threatened his life because of such
claims (5:18; 8:58-59; 10:33, 36). It is his claim to be God's Son
in a special sense that constitutes the blasphemy (10:36).
The opponents had not introduced this underlying problem to Pilate
at first but rather couched it in its political form to get him
to act. Even now their expression allows Pilate to read his own
content into it. For they say Jesus claims to be "a son of
God" (hyion theou). For a Roman, as for a Jew, this could be
a political claim since the emperor could be referred to as "son
of God" (theou hyios, divi filius). But Pilate does not treat
it as such but rather, it seems, as a claim to be a "divine
man" (theios aner, Dodd 1953:250-51). These "divine men"
were Hellenistic religious philosophers who were "characterized
by moral virtue, wisdom and/or miraculous power so that they were
held to be divine" (Blackburn 1992:189). Pilate's response
is fear (v. 8). Some think this fear is due to his realization that
the situation is getting out of his control and that "he will
not be able to escape making a judgment about truth" (Brown
1994:1:830; cf. Ridderbos 1997:602). But John says it was this saying
(touton ton logon) about Jesus as Son of God that caused Pilate's
fear (v. 8) and led him to ask Jesus where he is from (v. 9). So
he is probably experiencing a fear of the divine, on top of all
the other problems this situation entails for him. The discussion
Pilate had just had with Jesus about his kingdom now begins to make
more sense to Pilate. He must take Jesus back inside and explore
this new dimension to his case.
9-16
9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?"
he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse
to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have
power either to free you or to crucify you?"
11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were
not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over
to you is guilty of a greater sin."
12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept
shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar.
Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."
13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the
judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic
is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week,
about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.
15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify
him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.
16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.
John 19:9-16
Explanation:
Jesus Speaks of Power and Guilt (19:9-11)
In Pilate's earlier discussion with Jesus, which forms the corresponding
section in the first part of the chiasm (see introduction to 18:28--19:16),
Jesus had clearly said he was not from this world (18:36-37). This
obviously raises the question of where he is from. Now that Pilate
knows Jesus claims to be a son of God he investigates more closely,
asking Jesus, Where do you come from? (v. 9). From the context this
is clearly not an inquiry about what country he is from, "but
it is as if he had said, `Are you an earth-born man or some god?'"
(Calvin 1959:172). Pilate's question gets at the central issue regarding
Jesus--that he is from the Father in heaven. Jesus' origin was a
major topic during his ministry (7:27-29; 8:14; 9:29-33), and now
it comes to the fore at the end.
Jesus does not speak about his origin to Pilate. According to the
Synoptics, Jesus has been silent already during his Passion, both
before Pilate, when the chief priests and elders were accusing him
(Mt 27:12-14 par. Mk 15:3-5), and before Herod, with the same opponents
accusing him (Lk 23:9-10). Now he is also silent before Pilate in
private (Jn 19:9). His silence echoes the silence of the Suffering
Servant of Isaiah (53:7; cf. Acts 8:32; 1 Pet 2:22-23). He is silent,
it seems, because Pilate has already revealed that he is not a man
of truth and thus would not benefit from an answer to his question
(see comment on 12:34-36).
Pilate has been exasperated by the Jewish leaders, and now he finds
Jesus exasperating also. No one is cooperating with him! He threatens
Jesus by referring to his power, though his threat comes across
as a little lame given his obvious lack of power over the Jewish
leaders: Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to
crucify you? (v. 10). In Roman law it was said, "No one who
has power to condemn is without power to acquit" (Justinian
Digest of Roman Law 50.17.37; cf. Bruce 1983:361-62). Pilate had
a clear understanding of his legal power, that is, his authority
(exousia). But he is thinking only in terms of this world.
Often in this Gospel we see people who are mistaken about Jesus
and his teaching because they are viewing reality solely in this-worldly
categories, for example, the woman of Samaria (chap. 4). Jesus has
used their misunderstandings to help these people come to a better
view of reality, and that is what he now does with Pilate also:
You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from
above (v. 11). Pilate well understands that his power is dependent
on the one who is over him, the emperor. He could understand Jesus
to be saying nothing more than this. But now that Pilate realizes
Jesus is claiming to be a son of God he has a chance to interpret
Jesus correctly, to understand that God is the source of this power.
Indeed, Jesus' reference to from above gives Pilate a hint as to
the answer to his question of where Jesus is from (cf. 3:31; 8:23).
Thus this is a saying that tests Pilate's heart. Will he hear it
correctly?
There are further hints as well about Jesus and his Father. The
word for power (exousia) is in the feminine, whereas the verb it
were . . . given (en dedomenon) is in the neuter and thus refers
to more than just the power: "You would not have any power
over me if something had not been given to you from above."
In other words, this expression puts all the emphasis on the verbal
idea of giving, a reference to the Father who is the source of all--the
one who gives. Jesus' point is that Pilate, like all of us, is a
recipient. So Jesus is saying, in part, that the power of government
has been given by God (3:27; Rom 13:1-7). Jesus speaks for this
God upon whom Pilate himself is dependent, thereby further hinting
as to his identity and the character of his Father.
In addition to making this general point, Jesus also refers specifically
to the power Pilate has over me. No one has power over Jesus except
the Father. And, in particular, no one takes Jesus' life from him,
but rather he lays it down of his own accord in obedience to his
Father (10:17-18). Here is yet another hint for Pilate: he may have
power over everyone else in Israel, but not over Jesus. If Pilate
realized who was standing before him, he would have a chance of
making sense out of this situation and much more.
And he needs to make sense out of Jesus and this trial and his own
relation to the Father because he is sinning. He should get this
message from the conclusion of Jesus' statement that therefore the
one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin (v. 11).
Pilate's fear is quite justified. He will be held accountable to
God for how he exercises his authority. His sin may not be as great
as someone else's, but he is in fact sinning. Furthermore, this
indictment of Pilate implies something about Jesus' own identity
and role, for he is claiming to know God and God's will. Indeed,
Jesus himself is the point of reference for sin in that to reject
him is sin (16:9) and to receive him is to obey God (6:29). When
Jesus used a similar indirect exposure of the sin of the woman of
Samaria she was able to perceive something of what Jesus was saying
about himself and respond to him (4:16-19). Pilate, however, does
not pursue the issue further. He feels the pressure Jesus has exerted
and thus tries all the harder to release him (v. 12), but he does
not turn toward the light. He is still trying to be neutral and
stay in control.
If Pilate's sin is great, who is the one who has a greater sin?
The reference would not be to Judas, since he did not hand Jesus
over to Pilate. Rather, as Pilate said to Jesus earlier, it was
"your people and your chief priests who handed you over to
me" (18:35). Now Jesus uses the singular, the one who, collecting
all his opponents into a unit, perhaps in the person of the high
priest, Caiaphas. All has been given from above, therefore there
are degrees of sin in keeping with the differences in what has been
given. If Pilate sins by not administering justice to a man he knows
is innocent, how much more sinful are the leaders of God's people
who have received not merely laws of justice but the divine law
that bears witness to the Father and the one whom he has sent. To
whom much is given, much is required (Lk 12:48).
Thus, both Jew and Gentile share in the sin, and therefore the guilt,
of Jesus' death. Indeed, "each of us is as guilty of putting
Jesus on the cross as Caiaphas" (Carson 1991:575) or Pilate,
for that matter. But John clearly says the Jews' sin is greater,
not because John is anti-Jewish, but precisely because of the greater
gifts of God within Judaism. The problem is not Judaism as such
but the rejection of their own Messiah by these particular leaders
and their followers, despite what was available within Judaism.
Thus, these members of the people of God are of this world, not
of God (8:23).
Unfortunately, this Gospel has been read in anti-Jewish ways and
thus has contributed to hatred of Jews and violence committed against
them--all completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Although
this Gospel reflects the conflict between the church and the synagogue
late in the first century, it should not be seen as anti-Jewish
(see comment on 8:44; cf. Brown 1994:1:383-97; Beasley-Murray 1987:308-10;
Robinson 1985:271-75). It is, instead, anti-world. The Jews had
a greater witness to the Light, so they should have embraced the
Light more readily when he came. Accordingly their sin was greater
than that of the Gentile Pilate. But from this perspective there
is now a group whose sin is much greater yet. For from all appearances
a great many Christians throughout the ages--and not least in our
day--have been of the world as much as these Jewish opponents were,
despite having not only the Old Testament but the Holy Spirit, the
New Testament and the witness of the saints throughout the ages.
Indeed, violence done against the Jews has itself been evidence
of being of the world. Anyone, whether Jew or Gentile, who is of
the world is allied with the evil one over against the Son of God
(cf. 8:44). This spiritual contest is the real significance of what
is taking place in the Passion (cf. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).
Pilate and the Jewish Opponents Reject Jesus as King (19:12-16)
This final section of the chiastic account of the trial before Pilate
(see introduction to 18:28--19:16) corresponds with the first section
(18:29-32), in which Pilate was also outside the praetorium and
the opponents called for Jesus' death. Jesus has just borne witness
to the truth about himself, his Father, Pilate and the opponents.
He has made Pilate even more uncomfortable, so Pilate begins to
make further efforts to release him (v. 12; ezetei, NIV tried, is
in the imperfect tense, here signifying repeated action). The Jewish
leaders counter these efforts with a decisive move--they bring in
the issue of Pilate's loyalty to Caesar (v. 12). A later emperor,
Vespasian (A.D. 69-79), had a specific group of people whose loyalty
and importance were recognized by the title friend of Caesar. It
is possible that Tiberius also had such a group and Pilate was a
member (Bammel 1952), though this is uncertain. In either case,
the threat is to Pilate's position, and this settles the issue.
Pilate has already revealed that he is a man of this world, insensitive
to the truth of God. A threat to his political position is an attack
upon the heart of what he knows and cares about. Such a choice between
Jesus and other ultimate concerns in our lives faces each of us,
for Jesus really is King and insists on complete loyalty as strongly
as Tiberius. Pilate is faced with a choice of kings, and he does
not choose wisely.
It is, of course, highly ironic that Pilate's loyalty to Caesar
should be threatened by Jews, members of the most disloyal and unruly
section of the empire. Pilate is being humiliated by them. He knows
he must give in to their wishes, but he is wily enough to humiliate
them also in the process. Upon hearing their threat, he brings Jesus
out and sits on the judge's seat (bema) to pass judgment. This is
the climax of the trial and, indeed, of the ministry of Jesus.
John underscores the importance of this moment by specifying the
place and time, though, unfortunately, the precise meaning of both
is uncertain today. The place where the trial before Pilate occurred
is uncertain (see comment on 18:28), and the addition of the term
Gabbatha does not help. This Aramaic word does not mean Stone Pavement
but is a different word for the same place, probably meaning something
like "elevated" (McRay 1992). The location would have
been well known in the first century because it was the place of
judgment.
The reference to the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about
the sixth hour (v. 14) is problematic when compared to the Synoptics.
If Passover (pascha) refers to the Passover meal itself, then John
has the trial and the crucifixion happening a day earlier than the
Synoptics do (see comment on 18:28). This would mean that this dramatic
point before Pilate's bema occurs just as the lambs are beginning
to be slaughtered in the temple. Jesus' death then took place while
they were continuing to be killed. This setting would tie in with
Jesus' identity as the Lamb of God (1:29) and the several allusions
to the pascal lamb in the Passion narrative (see comments on 19:19,
33-34, 36). On the other hand, if pascha refers to Passover Week,
as in the NIV (cf. Torrey 1931; Carson 1991:603-4), then John's
account is not in conflict with the Synoptics. If the word preparation
(paraskeue) regularly referred to the day before the sabbath, that
is, Friday, this would lend support to the latter interpretation
(Ridderbos 1997:456). For then both John and the Synoptics would
present Jesus as eating Passover on Thursday evening, the beginning
of Friday according to Jewish reckoning in which days begin at sundown.
This usage, however, is contested (cf. Zeitlin 1932; Brown 1994:1:846).
Alternatively, the suggestion that two different calendars were
used (see comment on 18:28) would also account for the differences,
since for some it would still be the period of preparation for the
Passover meal. In this way Jesus ate the Passover and also died
while the Passover lambs continued to be killed. There is no clear
solution to this quesstion.
The sixth hour would be noon, which seems to conflict with Mark's
statement that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, that is, 9
a.m. (Mk 15:25). Again there is a division of opinion, with some
assuming the two accounts simply contradict one another (Robinson
1985:268), perhaps due to a corruption in the text (Alford 1980:897-98;
Barrett 1978:545) or because both John and Mark cite an hour that
has symbolic significance for them (Barrett 1978:545; Brown 1994:1:847).
Others think the imprecision of telling time in the ancient world
accounts for the discrepancy (Augustine In John 117.1; Morris 1971:800-801).
Whatever the solution to these puzzles, John emphasizes this particular
moment because Jesus is now presented to his people as king: Here
is your king (v. 14). Pilate may be making one last bid to get them
to change their minds, but given their threat to him regarding his
loyalty to Caesar this is unlikely. Rather, Pilate mocks the Jews
by saying this battered, weak man dressed in sham regal trappings
is their king. Pilate is perhaps imitating a ceremony formally recognizing
a ruler, somewhat similar to what takes place today at the coronation
of a British monarch (cf. Bruce 1983:365). Jesus is indeed their
king, and here is their one last chance to receive him as such,
but they will have nothing of it. Pilate thereby "makes the
moment of his decision the moment of decision for the Jews"
(Beasley-Murray 1987:342).
The Jewish opponents have trapped Pilate, and now he springs on
them a trap of his own. When they once more reject Jesus as their
king and call for his crucifixion, Pilate replies, Shall I crucify
your king? (v. 15). What they should have said in return was, "We
have no king but God," but in order to force Pilate's hand
with their threat regarding his loyalty to Caesar the chief priests
instead say, We have no king but Caesar (v. 15). Like Pilate, they
are forced to choose which king they will serve, and they also fail
to choose wisely. Here are the spiritual leaders of Israel denying
the very faith they are claiming to uphold in their rejection of
Jesus. God alone was Israel's king (Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:4-20). The
human king was to be in submission to God as a son is to his father
(2 Sam 7:11-16; Ps 2:7). These ancient attitudes found expression
in one of the prayers these chief priests prayed every day: "May
you be our King, you alone." Every year at this very feast
of Passover they sang, "From everlasting to everlasting you
are God; beside you we have no king, redeemer, or savior, no liberator,
deliverer, provider, none who takes pity in every time of distress
and trouble; we have no king but you" (Talbert 1992:241). The
hope was for a redeemer to come, the Messiah, who would be a king
like David. "But now hundreds of years of waiting had been
cast aside: `the Jews' had proclaimed the half-mad exile of Capri
to be their king" (Brown 1970:895; cf. Westcott 1908:2:306).
These opponents stand self-condemned.
Jesus is indeed the King of Israel, and that means true Israel is
found among those who owe allegiance to him. Jesus had already withdrawn
from the temple (8:59) and formed the nucleus of the renewed people.
Now the leadership of the nation completes this judgment, for "in
the breaking of the covenant whereby God or his Messiah was Israel's
king, the movement of replacement comes to a climax, for `the Jews'
have renounced their status as God's people" (Brown 1970:895).
The light is shining brightly at this point, and the darkness's
rejection of the light is equally strong (cf. 3:20).
Pilate then hands Jesus over to them to crucify (v. 16). They themselves
did not carry out the crucifixion, but this way of putting it completes
the cycle of guilt. They had handed Jesus over to Pilate, and now
he hands Jesus over to them. Both Jew and Gentile have rejected
Jesus, and the way is now prepared for the ultimate revelation of
the glory of God. This rejection of the Son of God is the essence
of sin, and Jesus will now die to take away the sin of the world.
16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. The Crucifixion
17So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross,
he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called
Golgotha). 18Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one
on each side and Jesus in the middle.
19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read
this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the
city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21The
chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write
'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of
the Jews."
22Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."
23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing
them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment
remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top
to bottom.
24"Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's
decide by lot who will get it."
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said,
"They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing."[1] So this is what the soldiers
did.
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister,
Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his
mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he
said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and
to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time
on, this disciple took her into his home.
The Death of Jesus
28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture
would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar
of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the
sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips.
30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished."
With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
John 19:16-30
Explanation: Jesus Is Crucified (19:16-30)
Jesus is led to the place of crucifixion and nailed to the cross
(vv. 16-18). While his enemies continue to squabble with one another
(vv. 19-22) and divide his clothes (vv. 23-24), Jesus himself continues
to love his followers and direct their own sharing in his love (vv.
25-27). Then he dies (vv. 28-30).
Jesus Is Hung on the Cross (19:16-18)
John's description of the actual crucifixion is amazingly brief.
People in the ancient world would not need a description, since
such executions were not rare (Hengel 1977:38). Although crucifixion
could take a variety of forms (cf. Hengel 1977:25-32; Brown 1994:2:945-52),
it was common to have the victim carry the crossbeam to the place
of crucifixion where the upright was already in place. Occasionally
the victim was tied to the crossbeam with leather thongs, but most
often nails were used, as in the case of Jesus. The nails were five
to seven inches long and were driven through the feet and wrists,
not the hands (Edwards, Gabel and Hosmer 1986:1459). Crosses in
the shape of an X or a T were used, but since the title was attached
over Jesus' head (Mt 27:37) we know the style used for Jesus' cross
was the shape we usually imagine, a t, which was also a common form.
The person was laid on the ground and nailed to the crosspiece,
which was then hoisted into place. Often the person was only a short
distance off the ground, though the fact that a stick was needed
in order to offer Jesus a drink (v. 29) suggests his head was higher
than arm's length above the people on the ground. The nail wounds
would cause a great deal of bleeding, but death often took place
through suffocation. A little seat rest was attached to allow the
person to maintain a position in which it was possible to breathe,
thus prolonging the agony.
It is not known why the place was called Skull (v. 17; calvaria
in Latin, hence the name Calvary), but the fact that Joseph had
a tomb close by suggests this was not a place of public execution
(Brown 1970:900). The notion that the landscape had the appearance
of a skull is possible, as evidenced by the hill near Gordon's Calvary
today, though the shape of this particular hill is more recent than
the first century. The traditional site at the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, not the Garden Tomb at Gordon's Calvary, is most likely
authentic (R. H. Smith 1976; Brown 1994:2:937-40, 1279-83).
John mentions the other two victims crucified with Jesus (v. 18),
but he does not describe them as fully as the Synoptic writers do.
John also leaves out mention of Simon of Cyrene helping carry Jesus'
cross. This comparison with the other Gospels helps us appreciate
how John's account is very focused, very spare. In what follows
he will not dwell on Jesus' own agony, except for his thirst just
before his death (v. 28). Instead, John describes the activity swirling
around Jesus, showing how it all relates to the glory. While John
directs our attention to various people around the cross, we must
not lose sight of the one on the cross. That which is not described
is actually what dominates the scene.
Pilate and the Jewish Leaders Fight over the Title (19:19-22)
It was common practice to have those sentenced to crucifixion carry
signs indicating the cause of their punishment or to have others
carry the signs for the accused (Brown 1994:2:963). The title Pilate
has written, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS (v. 19), continues
to goad the Jewish leaders, as their reaction demonstrates (v. 21).
They insist that he change it, but for the first time he stands
firm against them. Now that their threat against him has passed
he can afford to be strong (cf. Westcott 1908:2:310), which only
serves to portray his pathetic weakness all the more clearly. His
famous line--What I have written, I have written (v. 22)--sounds,
in the context, merely petulant and childish.
Pilate earlier announced Jesus as "the man" (v. 5) and
as "your king" (v. 14), and now he combines these themes
in the title for Jesus' cross. Designating Jesus as being from Nazareth
focuses on his humble humanity, while giving him the title of king
speaks of his grandeur (see comment on 18:5-6). It was written in
the three major languages of the region and read by many of the
Jews since it was near the city (v. 20). The Romans did what they
could to make crucifixions gruesome and public for the purpose of
deterrence. But John seems to suggest this title over the cross
was itself a form of witness to Israel and the world. Pilate unwittingly
made such a proclamation, of course, as was the case with his having
chosen the title itself. Such features fit with John's theme that
all is working out according to God's will, even despite some of
the participants. Indeed, "the two men who were most responsible
for the death of Jesus became the unwitting prophets of the death
of Jesus: the one declaring it as the means of redemption for Israel
and the nations (11:49-50) the other proclaiming it the occasion
of his exaltation to be King of Israel and Lord of all" (Beasley-Murray
1987:346).
So here we have another irony: the man who does not have a clue
about the truth (18:38) proclaims, unwittingly, the truth about
Jesus. And we have the tragedy of the representatives of the one
true God, who should have recognized the truth, continuing to reject
it.
The Soldiers Divide Jesus' Clothes (19:23-24)
Normally the victim would be led naked to the place of crucifixion.
The fact that Jesus' clothes were not taken from him until the point
of crucifixion may suggest that he was allowed to retain some form
of covering while on the cross itself (Brown 1994:2:953), perhaps
out of deference to Jewish objections to nudity. Since, however,
the normal undergarment was either a tunic or a loincloth, and Jesus'
tunic was taken from him (v. 23; Brown 1970:902), it is perhaps
more likely he was naked. Early Christian tradition is divided on
the subject (cf. Brown 1994:2:953).
It is this undergarment (chiton, the garment worn next to the skin)
that is of most interest to John. It is seamless, and therefore
to prevent its being torn the soldiers decide to draw lots for it
(v. 24). The fact that it is seamless probably does not indicate
that it was unusual or an item of luxury (Brown 1970:903). John's
focus on this feature has led many to find symbolism in this garment
(cf. Brown 1994:2:955-58). The two main proposals for John's detail
have been that it is a symbol either of Jesus as high priest, since
the high priest's chiton was seamless, according to Josephus (Antiquities
of the Jews 3.161), or of the unity of the church (for example,
Cyprian On the Unity of the Church 7), that is, the community as
brought together by the death of Christ (Barrett 1978:550, 552).
Such thoughts are true and edifying, but they are not John's primary
focus. The significance of the garment's being seamless is that
the soldiers are led to draw of lots for it, which in turn echoes
Psalm 22:18 (v. 24). This is the first of four Old Testament passages
cited as being fulfilled in Jesus' Passion, all of which refer to
particular details of what takes place (vv. 28, 36-37). John marshals
these texts around this most central, and most scandalous, event
in order to show that the death of God's Son was in fact the will
of God the Father. Behind the idea of fulfillment is the notion
of God's sovereign control, which weaves repeating patterns: Scripture
expresses God's will, and Jesus is submissive to God's will, so
his activity fulfills the Scripture because it flows from the same
source and is controlled by the same Father.
Psalm 22 is a psalm of King David in his role as a righteous sufferer.
The title above Jesus' head is proclaiming him to be king of the
Jews, and John sees Jesus as replicating a pattern of the greatest
king in Israel's past. Thus, this reference is not a gratuitous
proof text, but a link with a type. Fulfillment of Scripture, in
this sense, is the replication of a pattern, and Jesus is the ultimate
fulfillment, the center of all the patterns. The Synoptics also
allude to this connection regarding the garments (Mt 27:35 par.
Mk 15:24 par. Lk 23:34) as well as the connection through Jesus'
cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me" (Mt 27:46 par. Mk 15:34), which is Psalm 22:1. The figure
of the righteous king who suffers is embodied in Jesus par excellence.
If the opponents understood King David better they might have recognized
King Jesus.
Jesus Cares for His Mother and the Beloved Disciple (19:25-27)
John now turns to another distinct group at the cross (men . . .
de, vv. 24-25), namely those who are there out of love for Jesus.
It was not unheard of for friends and relatives to be near the one
crucified or for enemies to come to jeer (cf. t. Gittin 7:1, 330;
y. Gittin 7; 48c; 39; b. Baba Metzia 83b; Stauffer 1960:136, 229).
Mark tells us there was quite a crowd of women present (15:41),
but John focuses on a handful near the cross. The list of women
most likely refers to four individuals (Brown 1994:2:1014-15). Mark,
in his Gospel, lists three women in particular who were present,
"Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of
Joses, and Salome" (15:40). It has been assumed from early
times that the mother of James and Joses is the one referred to
in John as Mary the wife of Clopas and that Salome is the one John
calls his mother's sister. Salome, in turn, is further identified
with the mother of the sons of Zebedee, as mentioned in Matthew's
account (27:56). Accordingly, the sons of Zebedee were Jesus' cousins.
Raymond Brown considers this identification "dubious"
(1994:2:1017), and the texts admittedly do not allow certainty,
since, as Mark says, there were a number of women present. However,
if the Beloved Disciple, whom I take to be John, the son of Zebedee,
is Jesus' cousin, then Jesus' commending his mother to his care
corresponds a little more with normal family patterns, though much
more is involved as we will soon see. Furthermore, it is striking
that neither Jesus' mother nor his aunt are named, a trait they
share with the Beloved Disciple (cf. Carson 1991:616).
With these supporters standing near him, Jesus focuses on his mother
and the Beloved Disciple (vv. 26-27). Jesus says to his mother,
"Woman, behold your son," and to the Beloved Disciple,
"Behold your mother." Similar language was used in connection
with betrothal (Tobit 7:12) and thus seems to signal some change
of relationship. Jesus' mother is now brought under the care of
the Beloved Disciple (v. 27). In this Gospel there is a symbolic
role for both the mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple, for
they are both examples of true discipleship (see comments on 2:1-11
and 13:23). So in changing the relationship they have to one another,
Jesus is completing the formation of the community gathered around
him--gathered around him precisely as he is on the cross (C. Koester
1995:214-19). The new community is now seen to be a new family (cf.
20:17; Newbigin 1982:255).
A great deal has been made of this text. Many have understood Jesus'
mother to be a symbol of Eve, the mother of the living, or a symbol
of the church (cf. Brown 1970:923-27). Quite often it has been assumed
that the disciple is given into the care of the mother, which has
contributed to the development of views regarding Mary's role in
the lives of Christians, who are symbolized by the Beloved Disciple.
Such symbolism is a further development of John's own focus, which
is on the new family formed among the disciples of Jesus, with the
Beloved Disciple, who is the witness to Jesus par excellence, as
the one exercising care (cf. Ridderbos 1997:611-15). The mother
and the Beloved Disciple together symbolize the new community.
Here at the very end we see Jesus still exercising love and care
(cf. 13:1). This loving concern is the glory that his death itself
reveals most powerfully, since love is the laying down of one's
life (cf. 1 Jn 3:16). In the course of his ministry Jesus was forming
a new community around himself, and in the farewell discourse (13:31--17:26)
he described how that community is to share in his own relation
with the Father and to participate in the divine life, which is
characterized by love. Now he has completed the formation of this
community, at least for the stage prior to the sending of the Spirit
and his own dwelling with them in a new way. This community is the
fruit of his death, for it will be the locus of the divine life
on earth. The divine life is characterized by love and therefore
requires a community to express itself. The life of the community
derives from Jesus' own giving of himself, and in turn such self-giving
is to typify the community itself. Jesus' death is both a revelation
of the love of God and an example of such self-giving love. Such
love is only really possible when sin has been taken away, since
the essence of sin is a false self-love that prevents one from sharing
in the life of God, which is love.
Jesus Dies (19:28-30)
The significance of the formation of the community that has just
taken place is further underscored when John says Jesus knows that
all was now completed (v. 28). This is what he came to do--to form
a community that can share in his own relation with the Father.
With the work completed he can now finalize the completion through
his death, so he says, I am thirsty (v. 28). John notes he said
this in order to fulfill the Scripture--not that he was consciously
thinking of texts and doing things to echo them, but rather that
Scripture reveals God's will and Jesus perfectly accomplishes God's
will (see comment on v. 24). The text he echoes (Ps 69:21) is another
passage featuring King David as the righteous sufferer, and thus
bears witness to Jesus' identity.
John shifts from pleroo, the word usually used to speak of the fulfillment
of Scripture, to telei
oo, the same word in the first part of the verse, there
translated completed, and in Jesus' final cry, It is finished (v.
30). Jesus' own life, including his death and resurrection, is the
primal pattern that Scripture itself replicates. He is the sun whose
rays create shadows both backward and forward in time. Accordingly,
he not only fulfills Scripture in the sense of replicating its patterns,
he brings Scripture itself to completion by being its central referent.
John does not say who soaked a sponge in some cheap wine and lifted
it to Jesus' lips with a stalk
of hyssop (v. 29). The Synoptics also leave this indefinite,
but they say a kalamos was used (Mt 27:48 par. Mk 15:36), that is,
a reed, a staff or a stalk. Perhaps John has referred specifically
to a hyssop stalk to interpret what is taking place, since hyssop
was used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the doorposts just
before the Exodus (Ex 12:22) and later was used for other purifying
rites (Lev 14:4, 6; Num 19:18; Ps 51:7). John would be drawing out
the juxtaposition of Jesus as king and Jesus as lamb, similar to
the description in heave
n of the Lion of the tribe of Judah who turns out to
be "a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain" (Rev 5:5-6).
There seems to be something particularly significant about Jesus'
thirst, since once Jesus receives the wine he says, It is finished,
and dies (v. 30). On one level this thirst is the only reference
in this Gospel to Jesus' actual physical suffering on the cross.
But the idea of thirst may also have spiritual significance. Earlier
Jesus had said, "My food . . . is to do the will of him who
sent me and to finish (teleioo) his work" (4:34). And when
he was arrested he told Peter to put his sword away, saying, "Shall
I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (18:11). "Hunger
and thirst become images for Jesus' desire to fulfill the Father's
will to the end" (Schnackenburg 1982:283). Since the cup represents
wrath and suffering (see comment on 18:11), Jesus' taking of this
drink may suggest the completion of that experience, as the Lamb
of God now takes away the sin of the world. The work he has come
to do is now complete. The great significance John attaches to the
saying I am thirsty would then make sense because it would symbolize
both Jesus' commitment to obey God's will and the fulfillment of
the suffering of the one who is the righteous sufferer par excellence.
Jesus had said that no one takes his life from him but that he lays
it down of his own accord (10:18), and his death is indeed described
as a voluntary act: he bowed his head and gave up his spirit (v.
30). The order of Jesus' actions is important (Chrysostom In John
85.3). John does not say that Jesus died and then his head slumped
over, but rather that he bowed his head, an attitude of submission,
and then gave over (paredoken) his spirit. "At his own free
will, he with a word dismissed from him his spirit, anticipating
the executioner's work" (Tertullian Apology 21). The very form
of his death continues to reveal him as the obedient Son, the key
theme regarding his identity throughout his ministry. As the obedient
Son, submissive to the Father, he fulfills the type of the true
King, confirming the message of the sign over his head.
31-42
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be
a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left
on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the
legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore
came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified
with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to
Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his
legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a
spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who
saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows
that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled:
"Not one of his bones will be broken,"[2] 37and, as another
scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."[3] The Burial of Jesus
38Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus.
Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared
the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.
39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited
Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes,
about seventy-five pounds.[4] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them
wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance
with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified,
there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one
had ever been laid. 42Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation
and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
John 19:31-42
Explanation: The Jewish Leaders Ask Pilate to Mutilate
Jesus' Body (19:31)
Death by crucifixion could take a very long time, but the Romans
did not mind this because it added to the deterrent value. But sometimes
the Romans would smash the victim's legs with a heavy hammer, which
prevented the person from pushing up in order to breathe and thereby
caused death from suffocation within minutes (Edwards, Gabel and
Hosmer 1986:1461). The Jewish opponents ask Pilate to have the soldiers
speed up the dying process in this way in order to get the bodies
disposed of before the next day, which was a special Sabbath. In
the law it says the body of a person put to death and hung on a
tree must not be left on the tree overnight. "Be sure to bury
him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under
God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is
giving you as an inheritance" (Deut 21:23). This law applies
to any day of the year, so how much more to a special feast day.
These Jewish leaders continue to be greatly concerned with ritual
purity (cf. 18:28), but more may be involved as well. They might
intend that such mutilation would emphasize the point already made
clear by the crucifixion itself--that Jesus was accursed (Beasley-Murray
1987:354).
The Soldiers' Actions Provide Further Witness
to Jesus (19:32-37)
The soldiers break the legs of the other two men being crucified,
perhaps working in toward Jesus from the two sides (v. 32; Bruce
1983:375). When they come to Jesus they find him already dead and
therefore do not break his legs (v. 33). In this way, although the
opponents attempted to further discredit Jesus, they unwittingly
bear witness to what he has accomplished. Jesus has drunk the cup
of God's wrath and indeed has become accursed (cf. vv. 28-29; Gal
3:13). But as the Lamb of God, Jesus has taken away the sin of the
world. The opponents' attempt to have Jesus' legs broken ends up
drawing attention to the fact that they were not broken. Thus, another
pattern of Scripture is echoed: Not one of his bones will be broken
(v. 36). The allusion is to the Passover lamb (Ex 12:46; Num 9:12)
and to King David as the righteous sufferer (Ps 34:20), thereby
continuing the juxtaposition of themes that John has emphasized
in his account of the Passion. In this way, the body of Jesus continues
to bear witness to his identity and his accomplishment even after
he has died.
His body also bears witness in another way, which is emphasized
by John. For when the soldiers find Jesus dead one of them stabs
him to be sure he is dead, and out comes a sudden flow of blood
and water (v. 34). The word pierce (nysso) can be used of either
a jab or a deep stab. Medical explanations of this flow of blood
and water differ according to the depth of the wound. One theory
is that the scourging produced "a bloody accumulation"
in the chest, which separated into layers as he hung on the cross,
with the heavier blood on the bottom. The wound from the spear entered
below the level of separation, so the liquid came out first red
and then more clear (Sava 1960). The other main theory is that Jesus
was stabbed in the heart, so the blood came from the heart while
the water came from the pericardial sac around the heart (Edwards,
Gabel and Hosmer 1986:1463).
There have been many suggestions over the centuries for the significance
of this flow (cf. Westcott 1908:2:328-33), and John may see a very
complex web of associations. It is possible, in the light of later
rabbinic thought, that the flow of blood and water mingled together
is yet another allusion to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice. The blood
of a sacrifice had to flow at the moment of death so it could be
sprinkled (m. Pesahim 5:5, 8). Thus, this description may suggest
that Jesus was a valid sacrifice (cf. Ford 1969; Brown 1970:951).
Jesus used both blood and water as important symbols in his teaching,
and this gives us guidance for their import here. Water has been
associated with cleansing (1:26, 31, 33; 2:6; 13:5), the new birth
(3:5) and the Spirit (7:38-39). The reference to living water in
chapter 4 is probably a comprehensive image for the Spirit, revelation
and salvation (see comment on 4:10). Blood has referred to Jesus'
sacrificial death, which brings life to the world (6:53-56). From
these associations it would seem that in this flow of blood and
water "John saw a symbol of the fact that from the Crucified
there proceed those living streams by which men are quickened and
the church lives" (Barrett 1978:557; cf. Dodd 1953:428; Schnackenburg
1982:294).
The fact that water symbolizes purification, the Spirit and the
new birth provides a connection with baptism. The fact that blood
symbolizes the sacrificial death of Christ, which gives life to
the world, provides a connection with the Eucharist. These are "the
ideas which underlie the two Sacraments" (Westcott 1908:2:320)
and thus support the allusion to the sacraments that Christians
have found here throughout the centuries (cf. Hoskyns 1940b:635-38).
As with the unbroken bones, so with the piercing: it is not only
rich in symbolism but also a fulfillment of Scripture (v. 37). The
passage cited is Zechariah 12:10, in which God says, "They
will look on me, the one they have pierced." Here God seems
to be identified with the leader of his people, a shepherd who is
raised up by God (11:16) and yet will be struck by the sword (13:7).
This passage, therefore, picks up the theme of the Good Shepherd
who is one with God, laying down his life. Again, Jesus' identity
and his fulfillment of God's will is conveyed through the replication
of a Scriptural pattern.
The piercing is the point of interest for John (Barrett 1978:557),
but perhaps there is also significance in those who look upon the
pierced one. In Zechariah, the ones who look at him are "the
house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem" upon whom
God has poured out "a spirit of grace and supplication"
(Zech 12:10). Accordingly, they do not look upon him in fear, but
rather "they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child,
and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son"
(Zech 12:10). Given the focus in the Passion account on the salvation
Jesus has accomplished, perhaps "the salvation aspect is to
the fore here also. Naturally the obverse of judgment for those
who persist in looking on the Redeemer in unbelief is not excluded"
(Beasley-Murray 1987:355; cf. Schnackenburg 1982:292-94). If this
is the case, then this echo of Scripture speaks not only of Jesus'
identity and work, but also of the fruit of that work as he is lifted
up and draws all to himself (Jn 12:32). Indeed, the next scene shows
us the first two examples of this fruit.
Between John's description of these events and their fulfillment
in Scripture, there is a parenthetical comment on the truthfulness
of his witness to the flow of blood and water: The man who saw it
has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he
tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe (v.
35). This could be John's own statement of the trustworthiness of
his testimony, but it is not like the other comments he has added
to his account (for example, 2:22; 6:64, 71; 12:6, 16, 33; 18:9,
32; cf. Schnackenburg 1982:291). Instead, it reads very much like
the testimony of the later disciples at the end of the Gospel: "This
is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
down. We know that his testimony is true" (21:24). Possibly,
then, verse 35 was added by John's disciples to underscore his witness
to the death of Jesus. They might have added this because there
were members of the community at a later stage, as reflected in
the letters, moving in a Gnostic, or proto-Gnostic direction. Much
of the argument against these views centered on the nature and significance
of Jesus' death (cf. Whitacre 1982:121-51). Since these false teachers
claimed to be true to the Johannine tradition, this note could have
been added, perhaps originally only in the margin, "underlining
the key text of the Gospel that belies this claim by the later opponents"
(Whitacre 1982:213 n. 217).
Joseph and Nicodemus Bury Jesus' Body (19:38-42)
John's account of the burial may continue to develop the theme of
Jesus' royal identity. The large amount of spice used (v. 39) obviously
expresses their love for Jesus, as had the extravagance of Mary's
gesture earlier (12:3). Such excessive amounts of spice were a feature
of at least some royal funerals (2 Chron 16:14; Josephus Antiquities
of the Jews 17.199). Further associations with royalty may be implied
from the fact that Joseph's tomb is a garden tomb (v. 41), since
the kings of Judah were buried in garden tombs (2 Kings 21:18, 26),
including King David (Neh 3:16 LXX; cf. Brown 1994:2:1270). Plenty
of people besides kings had extravagant funerals and were buried
in garden tombs, but given all the emphasis in the Passion account
on Jesus as king, such details may continue the theme here at the
burial.
The fact that it is a new tomb is emphasized by John (v. 41). Some
think John's point is that Jesus would not be brought into contact
with corruption (Westcott 1908:2:324), or that there would be no
question of mistaken identity when the tomb was empty (Chrysostom
In John 85.4; Brown 1970:959). John may have been conscious of these
notions, but it would seem the main point is simply that a new tomb
is a token of appropriate honor given to a king. It may also tie
in with the theme of the creation of the new community: Jesus has
reordered the lives of his mother and the Beloved Disciple (vv.
26-27), in keeping with the new order of relationships of those
who are united to him (cf. Mt 12:46-50 par. Mk 3:31-35 par. Lk 8:19-21).
Jesus has no ancestral tomb but rather has begun a new family of
those born from above who will never die (11:26).
Indeed, in this story we see this family gaining two new members.
For the two men who bury Jesus had not publicly associated with
him before. Joseph of Arimathea was indeed a disciple, but he was
so secretly because he feared the Jews (v. 38). And Nicodemus, though
not actually called a "disciple," nevertheless had visited
Jesus at night (v. 39) and had affirmed at that time that Jesus
was a teacher come from God (3:2). Thus, these are two of the people
referred to earlier, who were secret believers, "for they loved
praise from men more than praise from God" (12:42-43). Now,
at Jesus' death, they are no longer under this condemnation; they
have passed from hiding in the darkness to coming into the light.
From the Synoptics we learn that Joseph was a wealthy member of
the Sanhedrin who was looking for the coming of the kingdom and
who had not consented to the Sanhedrin's condemnation of Jesus (Mt
27:57; Mk 15:43; Lk 23:50-51). Nicodemus, who is not mentioned in
the Synoptics, was also a member of the Sanhedrin (Jn 3:1) and,
presumably, was wealthy, given the amount of spice he provides for
Jesus' burial (v. 39). John A. T. Robinson considers Nicodemus to
be from a well-established family of Jerusalem, while Joseph is
"the nouveau riche country cousin with his brand-new tomb [cf.
v. 41; Mt 27:60], which may suggest the lack of an established family
mausoleum in the city" (1985:287). In any case, these are both
men of power, privilege and wealth. Although Joseph, and presumably
Nicodemus, had dissented from the vote, as members of the Sanhedrin
they were indeed those who pierced Jesus and now they are looking
upon him and mourning (see comment on v. 37). Jesus has been lifted
up and is now beginning to draw all people to himself (12:32), beginning
with these hidden disciples, who were members of the very group
that insisted on Jesus' death.
It is ironic that these two men come out of hiding and clearly associate
themselves with Jesus at his death, since they would have thought
his movement had come to an end. They had nothing to gain and everything
to lose. This action makes the extent of their dissent evident to
their fellow Jewish leaders. Their request for the body was also
a very courageous act. The Romans would often leave the body on
the cross for days, though they might allow the family to take down
the body for burial. They would not do this, however, in the case
of treason (Beasley-Murray 1987:358). Thus, Joseph had no claims
on the body and, depending on how Pilate viewed the case, would
have been putting himself in considerable danger. But Pilate had
clearly said three times that Jesus was innocent, which may account
for his allowing Joseph to take the body. In addition, by allowing
Jesus to have a decent burial Pilate would be able to further annoy
the Jewish leadership.
The men did not have time to give Jesus a proper burial, which would
include washing the body, anointing it with oil and then clothing
and wrapping it (Brown 1994:2:1261). Instead, the seventy-five pounds
of spices, which were probably in granular or powder form, could
be packed under and around the body and in the strips of linen with
which they wrapped the body. This would offset the smell of decay
and help preserve the body until it could be properly attended to
after the sabbath (v. 42; Robinson 1985:282-83). The meaning of
the word for strips of linen (othoniois) is unclear. There does
not seem to be evidence that Jews wrapped corpses in strips, as
Egyptian mummies were wrapped (Brown 1994:2:1265), and the Synoptics
say a single sheet was the main covering (Mt 27:59 par. Mk 15:46
par. Lk 23:53). Upon his being raised from the dead, Lazarus came
out with "his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen,
and a cloth around his face" (11:44), but the word for "strips
of linen" (keiria) in that verse is not the same word used
here (othonion). Though the plural is used here, it may refer to
a single sheet (cf. Brown 1994:2:1265) or be used generically for
"grave clothes" (Robinson 1985:291). Thus, it is not clear
how exactly they wrapped the body.The action taken by Joseph and
Nicodemus signals a change in their own discipleship as they clearly
break with the rest of the Jewish leadership. By handling the body
they have made themselves ritually unclean and are thus disqualified
from participating in the feast. According to some accounts of the
dating (see comment on 18:28; 19:14), this means they would miss
the Passover itself, in which case Christ has replaced the Passover
for them in keeping with John's focus on Jesus as the Lamb of God
and the fulfillment of the Jewish feasts in general.
