The Gospel of John's account of Jesus's trials, crucifixion, and his resurrection and its aftermath are uniquely Johannine. As such, they contain material that is found only in John. Unlike scholars who have promoted the idea that John used other sources than the Synoptic Gospels, I see John as creative work that relied on John's audience's knowledge the Synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus's life to write what I consider the first deliberately doctrinal document of the early church, in gospel form, in order to present a unique theological perspective on the meaning of Jesus as the Christ and to differentiate the differences between being a Christian and being a Jew.
In this post, we will examine the trials and crucifixion of Jesus. In order to appreciate John's perspective and presentation of this event, it would be good to understand the basic structure to the trials and crucifixion of Jesus as depicted in all four of the canonical gospels:
1. After a meal with his disciples, Jesus goes goes with his some of his disciples to a location just outside Jerusalem's city walls and is betrayed by Judas.
2. Jesus's disciples abandon him and Jesus is led to the High Priest where he is questioned and found guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death.
3. Peter follows Jesus at a distance and ends up denying he knew Jesus on three different occasions before a rooster crowed.
4. Since the Sanhedrin didn't want risk a popular uprising against them they try accusing him of insurrection and hand him over to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds no cause to execute Jesus.
5. Pilate attempts to release Jesus by offering them people a choice of who they wanted released, Barabas or Jesus. They chose Barabas.
6. The crowds demand that Jesus be crucified and Pilate reluctantly acquiesces to their demand.Jesus is crucified along with two thieves.
7. Jesus is buried in a rock-hewn tomb.
From there, the gospels vary in details. John maintains this basic structure of events in a rather minimalistic way. In John there are no sleepy disciples - no prayer by Jesus to have "this cup" removed. Judas does not betray Jesus with a kiss and there is no detailed account of Jesus's trial before Caiaphas. Instead there is a brief encounter with the Jew's recognized legitimate high priest, Annas. During all of this John gives his version of Peter's denial of Jesus. After briefly acknowledging that Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, John says Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate.
THE SANHEDRIN
John's editorial comment about Jesus being sent to Pilate in order to fulfill the Hebrew scriptures description as the means by which Jesus would die raises an interesting question.
Setting aside the notion of prophetic fulfillment for the moment, exactly why did the chief priests send Jesus to Pilate?
Stoning would have seemed the appropriate response for blasphemy [ See Leviticus 24:10-23]. In fact, Pilate suggests they take care of the situation under their own laws in John 18. In response, they tell Pilate that it is unlawful for them to execute anyone. This is questionable given, the fact that the New Testament, depicts Jews stoning people without having to appeal to the Roman authorities. John says the reason for sending Jesus to Pilate was to fulfill scriptures. Hmmm.... I suspect there might have been a more pragmatic reason (at least from the Sanhedrin's point of view) for doing so.
There is a subtle implication that one can deduce from reading John regarding the reasons the Sanhedrin sent Jesus to Pilate. The first is an editorial comment reminding us that Caiaphas was the one who suggested that it would be better that one person die "for the people" (rather than risking a massacre). The second is brought up by Jesus, himself, when he reminds the Sanhedrin that he taught in the Temple on more than one occasion. The implication being that he and his teachings were well-known in Jerusalem; that he had a following established in Jerusalem. As Jesus implied after being slapped by a guard, if there was anything wrong in what he said at those times, why wasn't he addressed then? Of course, if we have been paying attention to John, we know the answer to that. The time wasn't right and Jesus avoided being arrested on several occasions.
Given a pragmatic reading of Jesus's trial as recorded in the gospels, the purpose of moving Jesus's case to the court of Pilate was twofold. While blasphemy was their reason for wanting to kill Jesus, the Sanhedrin did not want to risk a popular uprising in Jesus's defense and therefore they sought avoid responsibility for his desired death by pinning it on the Romans. In order to do that, however, they would have to provide the Romans with a reason, because the Romans could have cared less about blasphemous behaviour towards the Jewish God. What the Romans would react to was anyone considered to be an insurrectionist - a rebel.
So they present Jesus as one who would be king, a messianic zealot or did they?
One is led to believe that insurrection is the reason they give Jesus to Pilate, but John says the chief priests and member of the Sanhedrin offered Pilate the vague reason that Jesus was some sort of criminal. We get the notion of Jesus being accused of insurrection from Pilate, not the chief priests or members of the Sanhedrin in John 18.
PONTIUS PILATE
The relationship between Sanhedrin and the Roman governors sent to govern Palestine was at best strained. The Romans had dealt with Galilean zealots before and Sanhedrin knew just how ruthlessly they did. They crucified the lot - and Pilate had a reputation for ruthlessly putting out fires before they started. Pilate was also greatly disliked because of his attempt to place the imperial emblem in the Temple and ended up putting down an insurrection in the Temple precinct, as a result. There was no love lost between Pilate and the Sanhedrin. So the chief priests accomplish two things. They get rid of Jesus and pin his execution on a despised Roman official.
According to all the gospels, Pilate sees through their ruse. It's entirely credible that Pilate would have avoided becoming enmeshed in their religious disputes. Such disputes would have interested him only to the extent that they posed a threat to Pax Romana. So when the chief priests approach Pilate with the Jesus, Pilate tries to turn the tables on them and takes the case to the people as an attempt to throw it back into Sanhedrin's court. The chief priests, however, were banking on their ability to play the people's distrust and hatred of Roman rule and Pilate, and they were right, according to the gospel accounts.
If Pilate wanted to save Jesus, he would have. The reality is that he would not have lost any sleep over executing another Galilean, and ultimately that's what he does. What disturbed Pilate, if anything, was that he was being played. In a failed attempt to turn the tables on the Sanhedrin, Pilate offers an exchange a notorious murderer and insurrectionist, Barabas or Jesus. Underestimating the religious fervor that the Sanhedrin could command, the crowd chooses Barabas and Pilate orders Jesus's execution.
By the time the gospels were written this information would have been well established as fact. By the time the Gospel of John was written this widely known information within the early Church gave the writers of John the ability to focus on the interchange between Pilate and Jesus.
All of the gospel accounts tend to paint Pilate in a favorable light or at least as a man caught "between a rock and a hard place," as the saying goes. In fact, some early church traditions raised Pilate to saint status; having claimed he converted to Christianity later in life. I think that conclusion rather spurious. At the time of Jesus's trial, Pilate was no saint and the Sanhedrin was not being vindictively unreasonable in the context of that time.
If one were to base Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin on Jesus's teachings in John, one would have to conclude that the Sanhedrin had cause to charge Jesus with blasphemy. After all, in John Jesus present himself as God's Son repeatedly.
Try putting John's claim about Jesus in the context of today. Anyone claiming to be God or to be God's Son would more than likely be viewed as suffering from a mental illness, if not a blasphemer. The only way one can accept that Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God is to do so as an idealistic belief. That was true back in the time John was written and remains true today.
John's major condemnation of Judaic Jews is that, given their scriptures, they should have recognized who Jesus was. Typical of John is that he condemns the "Jews" for their lack of belief. In contrast to John's treatment of the "Jews," John places Pilate in a favorable light because of his tacit belief that Jesus could be God's Son.
STRETCHING THE TRUTH
The writer or editors responsible for this gospel's account of Jesus's trial and crucifixion almost paint themselves into a corner regarding their presentation of the events of Jesus's trial and crucifixion. In their zeal to paint the "Jews" as the culprits responsible for Jesus's death and exonerating Pilate, they end up being creative with the basic structure of these events. One can deduce this by a quick comparison with the Synoptic Gospel accounts of these events. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus says nothing to Pilate. In Luke Jesus says very little. and Luke clearly points out that the reason Pilate was hearing Jesus's case at all was because Jesus was presented to him as an insurrectionist and found Jesus to be anything but that. It is also in Luke where Pilate tries to wiggle out of the situation by having Jesus tried by Herod who ruled Galilee.
The Gospel of John, as always, is not concerned with adhering to the facts as using them as a framework to expound the Johannine theological perspective. In contrast to the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus virtually says nothing in his defense, Jesus, in John, becomes quite conversant with Pilate.
The difficulty with Johannine account of Jesus's discourse with Pilate is that it blatantly makes vast assumptions that beg questions that have no answers. When Pilate begins to interrogate Jesus, the first question asked is, "Are you the King of the Jews?"
Where did that come from?
The chief priests said nothing more than he is a criminal in John 18.
So where did Pilate get that information?
Once again one has to question whether this anomaly is indicative of different accounts being merged into one or whether it is an attempt at minimalism, banking off of what the reader knows or believes about these events and Jesus. Or, is it a simple matter of John making a point that Jesus is a king and not bothering to explain Pilate's intuitive insight.
Regardless of how Pilate knew to ask this question, John has his asking it to provide Jesus with a teachable moment - a chance to explain that his kingdom is not of this world.
Jesus stating that his kingdom is not of this world would have been a good place for John to stop. Instead John takes another jab at the Jews by having Jesus say that if he were a worldly king his followers would have raised up to protect him from the Jews. In other words, what John has Jesus saying is that if he were a worldly king, he would have attacked the very people he was claiming to be the king of.
Once again, John takes the opportunity to demonstrate the division, if not the outright enmity, that existed between the Johannine and the Judaic communities. The indicators of enmity between Christians and Jews in this gospel became a contagion that ultimately spread and gave rise to antisemitism some eighteen hundred years later.
While the writers and editors of John didn't have antisemitism in mind, their passion for differentiating their community from the Judaic community was frequently overplayed to underscore one of this gospel's primary thesis, that Jesus as the Truth is the only-begotten Son of God.
During Pilate's interrogation of Jesus regarding his kingdom, Pilate asks Jesus a clarifying question to determine if Jesus was indeed claiming to be a king. As usual, Jesus avoids answering Pilate directly and instead claims his purpose for being in this world was to testify to the Truth and implies that his kingdom consist of those who listen to the Truth, to which Pilate famously responds, What is truth?"
Of course, John's audience knows the answer. The truth is staring Pilate in the face. After trying to release Jesus and losing his wager with the people when they choose Barabas, Pilate decides to have Jesus flogged (beaten to a pulp) to elicit some pity for Jesus which resulted in another famous quote by Pilate, "Behold, the man." When Pilate presents Jesus to the crowd, the chief priests start shouting for Jesus to be crucified and the crowd follows suit.
It is in John 19 that Pilate tells them to crucify him themselves because he finds no reason to. What is odd about this is that in John 18, the chief priests said they were prohibited from executing anyone, but Pilate is telling them they can, but instead of doing so they tell Pilate that Jesus must be killed because he committed blasphemy by claiming to be God's Son. Again, in John 18 the leaders of the Sanhedrin and the chief priests were vague in their reasoning for bringing Jesus to pilot, but in John 19 they reveal their motive as Jesus was blasphemous.
Two different authors, two different accounts, or is it an editorial oversight?
According to John, when Pilate heard this he became paranoid about Jesus, asking where he was from and when Jesus doesn't answer him, Pilate reminds Jesus he has the authority to kill him. Jesus reminds Pilate that he would have no authority unless it was given to him. Jesus also tells Pilate, as if to ease his anxiety over what to do, that those who handed him over to Pilate bear the most guilt for what is about to happen. Once again, John doesn't waste any time to pointing a finger at the "Jews."
What becomes bizarre in all of this is that, if one steps back far enough to look at John's narrative of the events, one can see that the Sanhedrin and Pilate are all being played by God. If Jesus was sent to earth for this purpose, to be sacrificed, why assign guilt. What purpose does it serve? Assigning guilt would seemingly be another waste of ink, but John's doing so is purposeful in that it gives reason for the Johannine community to fully separate from their Judaic roots.
In the end what overrides Pilate's paranoia about Jesus is his more immediate paranoia about the emperor Tiberius. When the cheif priests point out that sparing Jesus's life when he claim to be a king puts Pilate at odds with the emperor who is their only king, Pilate acquiesces, and Jesus is crucified.
Pilate, however, gets last word on the subject. In ordering Jesus's crucifixion, he also orders that a placard be placed above him staying that Jesus is the King of the Jews. This is an outrage to the chief priests who advise Pilate to change the sign to "He said he was King of the Jews." Pilate's response was that what he had written is what he meant. This is also what John wants us to get.
THE CRUCIFIXION
John's account of Jesus's crucifixion is about as minimalistic as the account of Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin. John makes the obligatory references to the prophetic Hebrew scriptures regarding the robe he wore on his way to being crucified and his side being pierced (an editorial catch that was overlooked in the Synoptic Gospels).
While Jesus is recorded as saying more things while on the cross in the Synoptic Gospels, John has Jesus saying very little. In fact the only saying of Jesus, original to John, is when he tells his beloved disciple, presumably John, to take care of his mother Mary, to treat each other as mother and son.
In all the Synoptic Gospel accounts, the disciples have abandoned Jesus and are not present during Jesus's crucifixion. The Gospel of John makes a point, however, about the presumed founder of their community being there. It also demonstrates the connection this community had with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
While all the canonical gospels have women present during Jesus's crucifixion, John specifically lists three named Mary, his mother, his mother's sister - Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Again, numbers mean something in John.
The three Marys represent completion and the divine presence. Add the "beloved disciple" and the number four represents a new creative or relational order, as in a new mother and son relationship. In this case, the writers and editors of John were also claiming Mary as the mother of their community, which will soon be understood as Mary being the Theotokos, the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church. I will discuss the significance of the Marys in my next post.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is portrayed as being fully in control at all times, including his death. It is when Jesus states he is finished, the ordeal of his death and sacrifice is completed.
Unique to the Gospel of John is Jesus side being pierced. The Synoptic Gospels do not mention this event. Yet, it has become such a part of the crucifixion story, that every artistic portrayal of the resurrected Jesus depicts him with this wound, further demonstrating the tremendous influence John has had on Christian theology.
The intent of John in presenting this account is not about historical accuracy but rather to make a theological point of what had taken place. The point being that when Jesus's side was pierced water and blood poured out. This is a bookend completion to Jesus earthly mission. Jesus's mission begins with turning water into wine (the symbols of new birth and the life giving property of Jesus's blood) and ends with water and blood being poured out from him as the emblems of the two life giving sacraments, Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.
At the end of Chapter 19, Jesus's body is removed from the cross, by Joseph if Arimathea and, along with Nicodemus who brought expensive burial spices helped Joseph bury Jesus in a newly hewn tomb. The number two again is significant as it represents validity. That both of these individuals were members of the Sanhedrin also lends an air of authority to their being witnesses of Jesus's burial.
* * * * * * * * * *
The death of Jesus, within the context of John's entire gospel, is meant to represent a New Passover, a new release from the slavery of worldliness. It also marks, a stark departure from the Judaism, the land of the oppressor, in the Johannine point of view. Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed, who pours out both life-giving water and blood by which the new chosen people of God, Christians, are saved for eternal life in Christ's eternal kingdom.
John's account of Jesus's death is by far the most influential account of this event in the canonical gospels. It's doctrinal thesis of Jesus being Truth as God's only-begotten Son sent to bear witness of the Truth, that is God's righteousness in establishing a new creative order is depicted as being assured in Jesus's unflagging willingness to do his Father's will throughout the Gospel of John and fulfilled in sacrificing himself. In this act, Jesus initiates a new order that will come to fruition in his resurrection.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment