The Trial of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

7/31/2019 The Trial of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

1/18

JBL 103/3 (1984) 395-411

THE POLITICS OF JOHN:THE TRIAL OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

DAVID RENSBERGERInterdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta, GA 30314

Introduction

At least since the time of Clement of Alexandria (apud Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.14.7), John has been regarded, by comparison with theSynoptics, as the "spiritual gospel." The result has been to focus attentionon the abstractions of Johannine theology rather than on a concretesocial and historical context. Even the critical effort to locate the FourthGospel in the history of ancient religions has centered on the relation of its ideas to those of, say, gnosticism, or more recently Qumran.

An important step toward a new approach was taken by C. H. Doddin applying the form-critical techniques developed for the synoptic tradition to the Gospel of John. 1 Despite occasionally overstated claims,Dodd made it once again seem plausible that there is "historical traditionin the Fourth Gospel/' and R. E. Brown, J. L. Martyn, W. A. Meeks, andothers, have gone on to emphasize a particular social milieu in whichthis tradition may have been maintained and been given its presentform. 2 In essence, this milieu is that of a Christian community late in thefirst century locked in conflict with the Jewish authorities, who were

1 Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963).2 Brown, The Gospel according to John (AB 29, 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,

1966-70), esp. 1. lxx-lxxv; idem, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (not availableto me, but see "Other Sheep not of this Fold': The Johannine Perspective on ChristianDiversity in the Late First Century," JBL 97 [1978] 5-22); Martyn, History and Theologyin the Fourth Gospel (2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979; see esp. pp. 15-18 on the necessity of seeking the historical circumstances of the "spiritual gospel"); Meeks, "The Manfrom Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 (1972) 44-72 (see esp. pp. 46-47, 49-50, 68 on the need to understand Johannine language and Christology not only in terms of the history of ideas but also as having social functions within the Johannine community);

idem, "'Am I a Jew?'Johannine Christianity and Judaism," Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (ed. J. Neusner; 4 vols.;SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 1. 180-85; D. M. Smith, Jr., "Johannine Christianity: Some


2/18


3/18

Rensberger: The Politics of John 397

nor the church is a political threat to the Empire. 6 Exceptions to thisview have been very rare. 7 Yet certain features of John's presentationinvite the question whether his attitude toward Rome was necessarily as

conciliatory as that of, say, Luke. Certainly the early church was notabsolutely monolithic in this regard, as the book of Revelation shows,and the studies noted above have brought to prominence the idiosyncrasy, if not the sectarianism, of the Johannine community within earlyChristianity. 8

It is thus reasonable to inquire about the position of the FourthEvangelist in relation to the political realities facing Jews and JewishChristians in the period after 70 CE. It was during this period that thePharisees emerged as the one group from prerevolutionary times with

the ambition and the means for laying claim to leadership within theJewish community, and this emergence was not without political dimensions. M. Smith has long since shown that Josephus's account of the Pharisees in the Antiquities was designed to commend them to the Romansas the one party commanding the popular allegiance to maintain stability in Palestine. 9 Similarly, J. Neusner has brought out the part playedby R. Yohanan ben Zakkai and men like him in creating a postwar structure for Judaism, dedicated to the cultivation of Torah piety, that couldboth meet with acceptance from the Romans and ensure the survival of

the Jewish people. The Pharisees thus commended themselves as theagents through whom Rome could and must deal to achieve the pacification of the Jews, accommodating themselves to Roman rule and so gaining the ascendancy in the guidance of Judaism, which they steeredtoward concentration on religious faithfulness. 10

But it should not be thought that hopes for deliverance from Romansovereignty were merely sublimated by these means. Yohanan ben Zakkai himself died with hope for the Messiah on his lips Abot R. Nat.25a). The Smneh 'Esrh benedictions for which he and his colleagues

6 E.g., Dodd, Historical Tradition, 115; Haenchen, "Jesus," 149-52; the commentariesof Brown (Gospel, 2. 868-69), B. Lindars (The Gospel of John [NCB; London: Oliphants,1972] 536), and E. C. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey (The Fourth Gospel [2d ed.; London:Faber & Faber, 1947] 521); A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18,1-19,30(SANT 30; Munich: Ksel, 1972) 307-11.

7 Meeks stands nearly alone when he doubts that John's narrative could have provided amodel for Christians hoping to ward off a charge of sedition, since it calls for a decisionbetween the kingship of Jesus and that of Caesar (Prophet-King, 64).

8

See n. 2.9 "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," Israel: Its Role in Civilization (ed. MosheDavis; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1956) 74-77


4/18

398 Journal of Biblical Literature

at Yavneh were concerned contained prayers for the restoration of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the house of David, and rabbinic tradition carefully preserved the rules for the conduct of the Temple against its

expected reconstruction. Apocalyptic works continued to express vividanticipations of the messianic destruction of Roman power (see 2 Esdras11-13; 2 Baruch 82), and indeed such works show that the very movement toward devoted and penitent obedience to God was orientedtoward the hope of deliverance: "The messianic hope was a remarkablemixture of political and religious ideals. . . . The political freedom of thenation which they longed for was viewed as the goal of God's ways." 11

And of course it was the redoubtable sage Akiba himself who declared,in the face of opposition, that Simeon ben Kosiba was the King Messiah

(y. Ta'an. 68d). In the Diaspora it was little different. Josephus's JewishWar had been written with the aim of convincing Jews elsewhere thatJudea and Galilee had been wrong to rebel; but the Sibylline Oraclesmourned the destruction of the Temple and looked for the coming of the Messiah and God's judgment on the Gentiles and restoration of Jerusalem (4.2.5-4.3.1 115-26, 4.3.10 171-92, 5.9.4-5.10.3 403-33).Within a decade or two at most after the writing of the Fourth Gospel,violent messianic rebellion broke out among the Jews of Egypt andCyrene, and spread to Cyprus and Mesopotamia (115-117 C.E.). 12 Such,

then, was the political setting of the Gospel of John, a period of accommodation to Rome in some quarters, yet the one in which the seeds of the Bar Kokhba revolt lay germinating in the ashes of Jerusalem.

This article will examine the political implications of the Johanninetrial narrative, particularly the scenes before Pilate, leaving aside theassumption that the Evangelist's purpose was apologetic, in the hope thatfresh insights can be gained thereby. No effort will be made to seek outhistorical reminiscences of the actual trial of Jesus of Nazareth; rather,the aims of the Fourth Evangelist himself will be sought in the way hehas treated his material. 13 His handling of terms like aaiXevs, of Roman officials, and of other elements must also be conceived as far aspossible in relation to the concrete political climate of the late first century in order to appreciate his true intentions. Pilate, for example, is

11 E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.c- A.D. 135) (rev. G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973) 1. 527.

12 Ibid., 529-33.13 No detailed theory of Johannine sources for the passion narrative is presupposed. I

presume that John is dependent not on any of the Synoptics but on a tradition or traditions essentially independent of them (as, variously, Dodd, Historical Traditions, 21-151,

120 th t i l D P i hi ht i 226 27 334 36 B lt


5/18


hardly likely to have represented for John an abstract philosophical con-struct, "the state," 14 but he may well have represented the Roman state,a real, present, and already hostile power that evoked both calculated

submission and passionate resistance in John's Jewish and Christian con-temporaries. Viewing his role in the Fourth Gospel in this light may thenaffect our impression of what John meant to convey by his portrayal of him. In this way we may hope to open up one more of the levels of meaning in John's story. Not that John's interests here are primarilypolitical; the uppermost issues are certainly theological, and it is these, of course, that have always been given the greatest attention. 15 Yet the title"King of the Jews," accorded such prominence in John, necessarily haspolitical connotations, whatever its significance in Johannine Christology.

It will be our task to show that in the late first century CE., when Jewishand Christian religion and politics could seldom be totally separated, theauthor of the Fourth Gospel had his own conception of what those con-notations were.

Jesus' Arrest and Preliminary Interrogation: John 18:1-24

The distinctive characteristics of the Johannine account can be seenalready in the story of Jesus' arrest. Only in this Gospel do the Romancohort and its commander appear with Judas and the Jewish officers inthe garden (18:3, 12). 16 Whether the whole six hundred men of thecohort are understood to be involved or just a detachment is of littleimportance for our purposes, 17 as is the question whether they are aninvention of the Evangelist or were already present in the tradition he

14 Both Schlier and Bultmann fell prey to this over-abstraction (see n. 5 above); yet itwas precisely the presence and character of a real state that elicited Schlier's and Bult-mann's reflections and gave them an unmistakable concreteness of their own.

15 Besides the commentaries, see esp. Dauer, Passionsgeschichte, J. Blank, "Die Ver

handlung vor Pilatus Joh 18, 28-19, 16 im Lichte johanneischer Theologie," BZ N.F. 3(1959) 60-81; and I. de la Porterie, "Jsus roi et juge d'aprs Jn 19, 13," Bib 41 (1960)236-47.

16 D. R. Catchpole, in arguing against the presence of Roman troops at the actual historical arrest of Jesus, denies that John intended the terms and $ to refer toRomans after all (The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography

from 1770 to the Present Day [SPB 18; Leiden: Brill, 1971] 148-51). But his evidence thatthese terms could refer to Jewish forces (p. 149) is not conclusive. Mentions of Jewish and (Jdt 14:11; 1 Mace 3:55; 2 Mace 8:23; 12:20, 22; Josephus Ant.17.9.3 215-16 and J.W. 2.20.7 577-78; Mark 6:21) always refer to military unitsunder the command of local sovereigns or leaders of rebellions, never to anything like

what the Sanhdrin or the chief priests may have had available. In fact, John quite clearlydistinguishes the from the of the "chief priests and the Pharisees," a factthat Catchpole cannot quite account for (pp 150 51) John certainly meant that there


6/18


inherited. 18 The fact is that there is an official Roman interest in thearrest of Jesus from the very beginning in the Gospel of John. At thevery least, then, its author makes no effort to absolve the Romans of

responsibility (as the Synoptics are often suspected of doing), and it ispossible that he has actually introduced them of his own accord.The scene with the high priest that follows, in which Jesus defiantly

refuses to discuss his teaching (18:19-23), is probably meant to be paradigmatic for the Christians of the Johannine community, in a mannersimilar to the story of the blind man in chap. 9 (esp. 9:24-34). Like Jesusand like the blind man (and in sharp contrast to the denial of Peter),they are to give uncompromising testimony when called before the Jewish authorities. But perhaps the most noteworthy feature at this point is

that, in contrast to the Synoptic narrative, no Jewish court ever formallycharges or condemns Jesus, nor do Jews administer any beating or mockery (beyond the single slap in 18:22). "The Jews," of course, have beenvirulently hostile to Jesus throughout the Gospel, and many commentators see the lack of a Sanhdrin trial here as indicating that Jesus' debatewith them has already been concluded. 19 Yet though their instigation of his trial and execution is left in no possible doubt, the omission of theSanhdrin trial rests the formal responsibility for the humiliation andcondemnation of Jesus squarely on the Roman prefect Pilate.

Up to this point, then, the Gospel of John allows for far more officialRoman involvement in the proceedings against Jesus than do the Synoptics. The Fourth Evangelist shows Jesus heatedly refusing to cooperate inhis interrogation by Jewish authorities, but this does not result in anyofficial verdict against him on their part. There is no exculpation of theRomans at the expense of the Jews. If it is correct to suppose that thegeneral inclination of early Christianity, including the Synoptic Gospels,is toward an apologetic aimed at improving relations with the Romangovernment, then John at least does not share in that inclination, and we

18 The decision about the traditionality or historicity of the Roman cohort is in fact verydelicately balanced (see, e.g., Dodd, Historical Tradition, 73-74, 118 n. 2). In favor of historicity is the actual manner of Jesus' death; against it is the implausibility of severalhundred Roman troops turning out, only to take Jesus to the Jewish authorities whilefailing to arrest the disciple who resisted (Catchpole, Trial, 150). Such implausibilitieswould hardly have deterred John from introducing the Romans on his own, and severalcommentators have been able to suggest motives for his doing so (e.g., Bultmann, Gospel,633, 637; Barrett, Gospel, 516, 518; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John[New York: Crossroad, 1982] 3. 223). Yet in favor of their presence in pre-Johannine tradi

tion is the fact that John lays no stress at all on their number or provenance (see Brown,Gospel, 2. 816). They are simply there, like the young man in Mark 14:51, and their verylack of definition is what makes them so puzzling


7/18


shall be justified in reading the rest of his trial narrative without necessarily expecting to find it there.

The Trial before Pilate: John 18:28-19:16 The careful crafting of Jesus' trial before Pilate by the author of the

Fourth Gospel has often been observed. The narrative is divided into sevenwell-balanced scenes, alternating between interviews with the Jews outsidethe Praetorium and interior episodes involving Jesus and Pilate or thesoldiers. 20 Some of the elements found here and there (whether historicalor not) were certainly present in the tradition before John, such as thecharge of blasphemy against Jesus, the reluctance of Pilate to condemnhim, and the politically charged question "Are you the King of the Jews?"Often enough John seems to presume that his readers already know thebasic story. Yet the arrangement as a whole is artificial and tendentious,and the exact nature of John's "tendency" must be sought precisely in hisvery artful construction of the story. It is not impossible that his intentionsare sometimes actually at odds with the material he has inherited. Moreover, John is the supreme ironist among NT writers, so that it is dangerousto attempt to read his meaning naively off the surface. 21 Careful attentionmust be given to the dramatic values of the narrative and to the motives of the three main characters, Pilate, "the Jews," and Jesus. Of these, it is Pilatewho links the whole together. We will begin by following his actionsthrough the story and then turn to the others. 22

Pilate. By virtually universal consent, Pilate is regarded as a more orless sympathetic figure in John, much as he is in Luke: a man who wants tobe fair, who would gladly acquit Jesus, but through lack of resolve andsusceptibility to political pressure all too easily becomes the tool of "theJews" and their malevolence. Along with this goes the usual view of John'spurpose as apologetic, portraying Pilate as Rome's representative con

vinced of Jesus' political innocence and sincerely trying to let him go.23

Atthe very worst he is seen as representing the divinely legitimated state that,

20 Agreeing with the division of, e.g., Brown, Gospel, 2. 858-59; Blank, "Verhandlung,"61.

21 Blank ("Verhandlung," 64-65) sees this in relation to the role reversal in which Jesusthe accused becomes accuser and judge: "Daher ist in dieser Situation fast jedes Wortparadox"; every event has a background that calls its foreground into question, and theexegete must be prepared to conceive of multiple, intersecting or even contradictory references simultaneously.

22 In all of this, of course, no claims are being made about the "historical" Pilate butonly about the character in John's story; and so for the others as well.

23


8/18


through a misplaced effort at neutrality, foregoes its chance to stand for God and so inevitably loses control of events to the world, the forces of darkness. 2 4 Yet even those who accept this understanding have noted prob

lems with it. Pilate's repeated ironic references to Jesus as "King of theJews" seem calculated more to embitter "the Jews" against Jesus than to win his rel ease. 2 5 His motive for scourging Jesus in the middle of the proceedings remains very obscure. 2 6 Pilate is supposedly the weak figure,harried by the implacable "Jews"; but surely their final exclamation in19:15 ("We have no king but Caesar!") is precisely in accord with Romandesires, so that in this sense it is Pilate, not "the Jews," who is the victor.

It may be worth the effort, then , to try reading the Johannine Pilate asa strong character ra ther than a weak one. The Christian portrayal of Pilate

as it had developed by the late first century (Matthew, Luke) contained anobvious contradiction in the reluctance of the prefect to crucify Jesus, which must nevertheless result in his crucifixion. It may be that John hasseen and capitalized on this contradiction, so tha t for him it is turned toirony and Pilate too becomes an agent of "the world," not a good-hearted

but an inexplicably impotent governor. Certainly it would be possible inJohn for a character to proclaim Jesus' innocence without himself believingin it or caring about it. 2 7 Such, we hope to show, is Pilate. He is undeniably hostile to "the Jews," but that does not make him friendly to Jesus, for

whose innocence he is not really concerned. Rather , his aim is to humiliate"the Jews" and to ridicule their national hopes by means of Jesus. A carefulreading of the text will support this claim.

Pilate at first declines any involvement with the case but agrees totake jurisdiction when "the Jews" inform him that it is a capital matter (18:31). If there is an apologetic note in Pilate's diffidence and "theJews'" insistence, 28 it is balanced by the fact that in spite of their refusalto name any specific charges (18:29-30) he is willing to proceed with thehearing when he learns that a crucifixion is in the offing. 29

In the first interview with Jesus, which follows, the framework, consisting of Pilate's question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (18:33) andJesus' reply Ac'yeis, "You say it" (twice [18:34, 37]!), is traditional, 3 0

2 4 This is the particular position of Bultmann (Gospel, 655-65) and Schlier ("Jesus," 58-59, 65-73; "State," 217-25), taken up to some extent by Blank ("Verhandlung," 71).

2 5 Barrett, Gospel, 539.2 6 E.g., Brown, Gospel, 2. 886-89; Schlier, "Jesus," 67-68.2 7 Much as Pilate ironically proclaims Jesus' kingship by the title on the cross (19:19).2 8 Haenchen, "Jesus," 150-51; Dauer, Passionsgeschichte, 308.2 9 This, of course, is the goal of the scene: Jesus must be crucified to fulfill his word

(18 32) d Pil illi b hi illi li h


9/18


but the substance is thoroughly Johannine. Pilate's relations with theother characters begin to become plain here. His contemptuous "Am I aJew?" (18:35) identifies him at once as their antagonist, at least on the

surface.31

As for Jesus, Pilate's questioning of him remains narrowly focused on the question of kingship, while Jesus, in a manner characteristic of John's Gospel, raises the issues higher and higher. 32 Nor is Pilate'sfinal "What is truth?" (18:38) the question of a serious seeker; if it were,he would stay for an answer. 33 Those who are of the truthrather thanof this worldlisten to Jesus (18:37); the Roman is not interested.Thereby, as W. A. Meeks points out, Pilate answers his own questionfrom 35: he would deny it (), but he is ranked alongside "theJews" among those who do not "hear" Jesus' voice. 3 4 He is of the

world.35

Pilate's declaration of Jesus' innocence, together with the Barabbasscene (18:38b-40), has again come from the tradition, though John trimsthem down considerably. 36 In doing so, he makes Pilate's declarationlargely subordinate to his offer to release Jesus (v 39). Yet it is difficult togive full credit to Pilate's offer (and therefore to his declaration), sincehe already knows what "the Jews" want to do with Jesus (18:31): why should he ask them if they want Jesus released? Nor is his slightly sardonic reference to the "King of the Jews" likely to win them over to

Jesus' side.37

In any case, the sequel quite undermines Pilate's pronouncement that Jesus is innocent and shows that this innocence is amatter of indifference to him, for when "the Jews" refuse to accept Jesus'release, Pilate at once takes him to be scourged (19:1). We gain theimpression that Pilate is merely going through a formality, well aware of

what the outcome will be.The scourging and mockery (19:1-3) are made the central scene of

3 1

Despite Haenchen ("Jesus," 151 n. 24), it is impossible not to hear the note of scorn inPilate's question, even though this scorn does not by any means put Pilate on Jesus' side.

At the very least it is clear that Pilate seeks to distance himself from "the Jews" and theirdesire for a king.

3 2 See the discussion of his words below.3 3 Exegetes are rightly agreed that Pilate's question is not meant to express a philosophi

cal skepticism, but merely to identify him as not of the truth (e.g., Schnackenburg, Gos pel, 3. 251; Brown, Gospel, 2. 869.

3 4 Prophet-King, 63, 67.3 5 Thus, the attempt by Bultmann (Gospel, 656) and Schlier ("State," 220, 224; contrast

"Jesus," 65) to depict Pilate as representing a third force, "the state," attempting to remainneutral between accepting the truth and rejecting it in favor of the world, must beregarded as dubious. "What is truth?" expresses not neutrality toward but ignorance of


10/18


John's seven scenes. Only in this Gospel do they occur before Pilate hasactually given Jesus over to be crucified. John does this in order to setthe stage for the final dialogues in which the relations among Pilate, "the

Jews," and Jesus are brought to a climax.Pilate's scourging of Jesus might seem to signal a readiness to gratify"the Jews"* desires, 38 but this is not so. Pilate's intention is not to satisfythem, much less to arouse their sympathy, 39 but to humiliate them.None of his posturing about the "King of the Jews" or Jesus' innocencefrom this point on should be taken seriously; his statements are all ironictaunts, as he proceeds to use Jesus to make a ridiculous example of Jewish nationalism. Thus in 19:4 he says that he is bringing Jesus out inorder to show that he has found him innocent, but the absurdity of this

is deliberately underlined in the following verse by John's description of the scourged Jesus: "wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe."At one level, Pilate may indeed mean that he finds no guiltand nothreatin this ludicrous figure, in whom he portrays just how preposterous he finds the idea of a Jewish "king." At a deeper level, of course,John's irony stands the mockery of Pilate on its head: this is in truth theking, and this is his royal epiphany. 40 "The Jews," of course, do not seethis; they see only the bitter burlesque of Jewish royalty, 41 and neitherPilate nor the reader could seriously expect them to respond otherwisethan as they do. 42 "Behold the man!" he says, and now, beholding him,the chief priests cry out, "Crucify!" (19:5-6). Pilate's suggestion that "theJews" themselves take Jesus and crucify him (19:6b) is again contemptuous. He knows perfectly well that they have no such authority (theyhave told him so in 18:31, and he himself asserts his jurisdiction in19:10), and he is merely driving home to them their lack of nationalsovereignty. 43 (His third declaration of Jesus' innocence here servesmerely to echo and recall with even sharper sarcasm the absurd second

38 I.e., with the hope that they will regard this as punishment enough: so, e.g., Blank,"Verhandlung," 73; Schlier, "Jesus," 67-68; Bultmann, Gospel, 658; Brown, Gospel, 2. 889.

39 So Haenchen, "Jesus," 153; Schlier, "State," 222; but again it must be asked how "theJews," who want to have Jesus crucified (18:31), could be expected to feel sorry for himafter only a scourging.

40 This theme has been worked out most convincingly by Blank ("Verhandlung," 62, 74-75); see also de la Porterie (for 19:13-15), "Jsus," 236-40, 245-46; and Meeks, Prophet-

King, 69-76.41 Here the use of an insane man by the people of Alexandria to mock King Agrippa

(Philo In Flacc. 36-39) may be a relevant parallel.42 Commentators who take Pilate at his word often suppose that he means for "the Jews"

to recognize Jesus' political harmlessness in his pathetic appearance (Bultmann, Gospel,


11/18


one in 4.) Of course his "offer" is tantamount to releasing Jesus, 44

which is neither here nor there to Pilate but causes "the Jews" to insistthat Jesus really does deserve to die (19:7). Here for the first time they

bring before Pilate the charge of blasphemy that they have held againstJesus all along: "He claimed to be son of God." Only John among the NTGospels has this claim mentioned to Pilate; his own christological presentation, indeed, demands that it be so.

The pagan Pilate is brought up short by it: (19:8),"He became fearful instead"; here cannot mean that Pilate

became "more" afraidhe has not been afraid up until now. 45 The wordcan mean "instead," or even just "exceedingly." 46 His fear serves to movethe scene back indoors for one last testimony to the supremacy of Jesus

(19:9-11, to be discussed below). This appears to have an effect, for now,for the first and only time, Pilate seriously tries to release Jesus. Again,the wording is noteworthy, , "at this"but only at this , "he began seeking to release him" (19:12). 47

"The Jews," perhaps sensing that they have taken the wrong line,now revert to the political issue in the strongest terms: "If you releasethis man, you are no friend of Caesar" (19:12). The question of Jesus'divinity, which served to motivate Pilate's reluctance to condemn him,

vanishes at once, and with it Pilate's reluctance. At their words Pilate

resumes his former character, produces both Jesus and the judgment seat(whoever it may be that sits on it), 4 8 and again confronts "the Jews" withtheir "king," this time insisting on giving him title and all (19:13-14).They respond as before, but Pilate repeats the taunt, with an irony thatcan hardly be missed: "Am I to crucify your king?" (19:15). This furtherthrust elicits from them at least an abnegation of their highest national

4 4 Several commentators (Bultmann, Gospel, 659; Brown, Gospel, 2. 877; Dodd, Historical Tradition, 105 n. 1) see it as merely Pilate's sarcastic way of refusing "the Jews'"

demand. This is plausible and would be more so if we could take Pilate's declaration of innocence seriously; but the more often he repeats it, the more hollow it rings.4 5 There seems little point in trying to see in an indication that Pilate must have

been afraid before, as several writers do (Bultmann, Gospel, 661; Blank, "Verhandlung,"77; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 3. 260, with n. 78).

4 6 So Barrett (Gospel, 542) and Lindars (Gospel, 567); see BAG s.v. 3a. The usage inJohn 5:18 (which Schnackenburg [. 45 above] cites) should be carefully compared: there

seems to express precisely the transition from mere persecution for Sabbath- breaking (5:16) to the first efforts to kill Jesus for blasphemy.

4 7 The imperfect should be read as inchoative (see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of theGreek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Nashville: Broadman, 1934]885), not iterative (Schnackenburg, Gospel, 3. 262) or conative (Brown, Gospel, 2. 879).

Again John 5:18 is relevant: TOVTO ovv . . . ,"because of this they began rather to seek his death" (see n 46 above)


12/18


hopes: "We have no king but Caesar"; and Pilate, having heard the onething that he wants to hear, hands over Jesus with alacrity.

This last outcry by "the Jews" is the climax of the trial scenes. It is

what Pilate has been driving them toward, and if it seals their doom inthe thought of the Fourth Evangelist it does so only by bringing theminto agreement with Pilate, for whom also there can be "no king butCaesar." 49 The Roman prefect is thus by no means a man of just intentions but weak character in this Gospel. He is callous and relentless,indifferent to Jesus and to truth, and contemptuous of the hope of Israelthat Jesus fulfills and transcends. He grants "the Jews" their desire, butonly after exacting from them a terrible price. This is fully confirmed inthe incident of the title on the cross (19:19-22), when Pilate refuses to

modify his grim characterization of the crucified Jesus as "King of theJews." In this, as in his "Behold your king" (19:14), Pilate of course is oneof those unconscious witnesses in the Fourth Gospel who say more thanthey know; but this makes him no better than Caiaphas (cf. 11:49-52). 50

Pilate is thus a hostile figure second only to "the Jews" themselves. Hissin may be less than theirs (19:11), but it is sin nonetheless. Moreover, byhaving him bully "the Jews" into accepting the kingship of Caesar, theEvangelist is implicitly critical of that kingship. Certainly he does notagree with Pilate and "the Jews" that Israel has no king but Caesar, and

this must make him inimical not only to Pilate but inevitably also to thesystem that Pilate represents. This conclusion will be further justified aswe look at the story from the viewpoints of the other characters in it.

"The Jews." It is a commonplace of interpretation that "the Jews" inJohn represent the world in its rejection of God's revelation in Jesus. Inrecent times it has come to be emphasized that behind "the Jews" in theFourth Gospel stand also the Jewish opponents of the Johannine Christian community, 51 and in the trial section the Evangelist has used thepolitical aspect of the charge against Jesus as a bludgeon against theseopponents. "We have no king but Caesar," uttered just as the observanceof Passover begins, 52 is a renunciation of Israel's profession to have noking but God, as made in the Passover hymn Nismat kol hay^ but alsoas raised by the Zealots precisely in their struggle against Caesar. 54 Johnwould hardly have been unconscious of this. With this cry, "the Jews"reject the kingship not only of Jesus but of God as well. In its stead they

4 9 To conceive of "the Jews" (or "the world") as standing in contrast to Pilate (or "thestate") in putting all their hope in Caesar, as Schlier claims that John does ("State," 224-

25), would be a political impossibility for anyone in the late first century.5 0 See, e.g., Bultmann, Gospel, 669.5 1 E M t Hi t 37 62 d i B G l 1 l i l


13/18


accept only the kingship of this world and with it Caesar's claim todivinity, so that for John it is they who are the true blasphemers. Thefailure on the part of "the Jews" is thus a religious one; 5 5 but it is a political failure too, and John seems to feel the bitterness of it on bothcounts. 56 Moreover, their rejection of their king takes place precisely

when they see him humiliated by Pilate (19:5-6, 14-15, 21): if this is theKing of the Jews, then "the Jews" will have none of him. If they are tohave a king, it must not be one who can be dealt with so. Indeed, they have already preferred the ) (revolutionary) Barabbas to Jesus(18:40), suggesting that their coerced submission to Caesar is not entirely

wholehearted. 57 John may thus be making his own way among ambivalent political tendencies in the Jewish community between the tworevolts. For him, once the true King of Israel had appeared both the continued expectation of a revolutionary Messiah and the accommodation of the emerging Pharisaic leadership to the kingship of Caesar wereabhorrent. 58 The fact that the climactic rejection of Jesus by "the Jews"comes in the shout "We have no king but Caesar" indicates that althoughthe coming of the Son of God in John is such that it transcends allexpected messianic categories, the relation between the messiahship of Jesus and Israel's political life is by no means obliterated.

Jesus. Jesus' interviews with Pilate very likely represent a model for

the Johannine community's dealings with Roman officials,59

just as hisinterrogation by the high priest reflects the community's relations withJewish authorities (as noted above). The attitude depicted is certainly notone of abject submissiveness, though an apologetic function for some of Jesus' words can easily be surmised. Thus in the first dialogue (18:33-38), when Pilate asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews, Jesus turns the questionaside by asking if Pilate is speaking of his own accord or at the promptingof others (18:34). The Roman is thus reminded that the "kingship" of Jesus

was of no interest to him until "the Jews" raised the question; so why should

5 5 Generally understood as abandoning their role as the messianic people, and so asGod's people (e.g., Bultmann, Gospel, 665; Brown, Gospel, 2. 894-95).

5 6 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 76: "The political element in Jesus' kingship cannot be separated from its religious significance"; "the Jews," having rejected their eschatologicalking, cease to be God's special people and become instead merely one of Caesar's subject.

5 7 That John's is meant to represent the same tradition about Barabbas as thatfound in the Synoptics is widely assumed (e.g., Bultmann, Gospel, 657-58; Brown, Gospel,2. 872; Blank, "Verhandlung," 73). Meeks proposes to connect the contrast between Jesus

and Barabbas with John 10:1, 8, where the Good Shepherd is contrasted with (Prophet-King, 68). O. Cullmann (Jesus and the Revolutionaries [New York: Harper &Row, 1970] 36) sees in these of John 10 a reference to Zealot-style revolutionaries


14/18


he be concerned now? Again, Pilate is reminded that Jesus' followers donot fight to prevent his betrayal to "the Jews" (18:36)they present nothreat of armed revolt. 60 But this verse will bear closer examination. Jesus

says that the lack of violent resistance by his servants proves that his kingship (not "kingdom") is not of this world. Yet what is not of the world, likeJesus and his followers, may nevertheless be in the world (see 17:14-18),and Jesus' declaration about his kingship is not a denial that it is a kingship,with social consequences. Rather, it specifies what those consequences are.It is not a question of whether Jesus' kingship exists in this world but of howit exists, not a certification that the interests of Jesus' kingdom are "otherworldly" and so do not impinge on this world's affairs, but that his kingshiphas its source outside this world and so is established by methods other than

this world's. Indeed, as H. Schlier observes, Jesus' kingship, though rootedin the coming world, nevertheless exerts its peculiar authority already overthis one.

Das Zeugnis, das Jesus . . . ablegt, leugnet also nicht, dass er,Jesus, in dieser Welt einen Herrschaftsbereich habe. Es sagt freilich auch, dass dieses Reich seine Wurzeln nicht in dieser Welthabe. Damit stellt es freilich vor die Welt nur eine Herrschafthin, die jede andere fundamental berragt. . . . Jesu Knigreicherweist sich darin als nicht der Welt verhaftet, dass er, seinKnig, sich freiwillig in ihre Hnde begibt. 61

Schlier correctly insists that the concept of Jesus' kingship expressed hereis quite different from that attr ibuted to the members of his family whoinformed Emperor Domitian that it was "heavenly" and would comeonly at the end of time (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.20.4). 62 Rather, as J. Blank states, it is precisely the "unworldly" character of this kingship thatallows it to call the political sphere into question as well. 63 Thus, whenPilate persists in asking whether Jesus claims to be a king, Jesus in typically Johannine fashion both acknowledges the use of the term and then

transcends it by asserting that his real mission is to bear witness to thetruth (18:37). Kingship, like other messianic conceptions in John, is thusadmitted to the discussion but, as Schlier holds, is redefined not by denying its political nature but by stipulating how Jesus' kingship is realizedand who his "subjects" are. Jesus is king as the witness who asserts theclaim of God on the world, and his testimony achieves its consummationhere before Pilate. 64 Here Jesus sets forth a universal challenge"All

60 See Dauer, Passionsgeschichte, 308-9.61

"Jesus," 62-63.62 Ibid., 61-62; see also Meeks, Prophet-King, 64 n. 4.6 3 "Verhandlung " 70


15/18


who are of the truth hear my voice"which confronts Pilate too, but which Pilate declines. 65 This conclusion plainly implies that if Jesus, hisservants, and his kingship are not of this world, Pilate and the king he

serves definitely are, and that the two must inevitably come into conflict.This impression is confirmed in the second dialogue between Jesusand Pilate (19:9-11). Here the silence of Jesus in response to Pilate'squestioning is part of the tradition, 66 but it has been given a characteristically Johannine transformation. For Pilate has asked Jesus what the

world can never know, namely, "Where are you from?" (19:9). 67 Whenhe receives no reply, Pilate insists that his authority to release and toexecute Jesus demands an answer. Now Jesus respondsand in sharplanguage: "You would have no authority over me at all if it had not been

given to you from above" (19:11). The key term here is , "fromabove." It characterizes Pilate's authority over Jesus as coming in factfrom the same place as Jesus himself. 68 The authority thus does not originate with Pilate or the world in which he governs, and Pilate's ignorance only confirms that Jesus, as , is totally superior to him (cf.3:31). The Roman prefect's only power over the one who is is

what God has granted in order that the world may work out its ignorance and hatred and the Son be glorified. 69 Indeed, it is just because of his powerlessness, his lack of competence in this matter (as in truth), that

those who call God Father yet betray the Son have the greater sin(19:11). 70

Thus in John's hands the idea that Rome's political authority comes"from above" has connotations very different from those it is usually thought to have in Romans 13. That authority is thoroughly relativizedfor the Johannine Christians, who, like Jesus, are "from above" (3:3-8),are "not of this world," and therefore are hated and persecuted by the

world (15:18-21; 16:1-4). Even Jesus' transcendence of the category of

6 5 Schlier, "Jesus," 64-65; Blank, "Verhandlung," 71.6 6 See Dodd, Historical Tradition, 103-4; Dauer, Passionsgeschichte, 118.6 7 See John 3:8; 7:27-28; 8:14; 9:29-30; and Schlier, "Jesus," 70.6 8 Blank ("Verhandlung," 79) very acutely points out that Jesus' words here do not in the

first instance concern the authority and legitimacy of "the state" in general, but Pilate'sauthority in this particular thing, the case of Jesus: "Es handelt sich hier gerade nicht umeine theologische Begrndung staatlicher Autoritt, sondern um eine Auf weis ihrerGrenze."69 See John 10:17-18; 13:31-32; 14-30-31; 15:22-25. So also Blank, "Verhandlung," 79:

Pilate's authority to act against Jesus is grounded, not in the nature of his authority itself,but in the plan of God; but to this authority, and to the freedom of the witness to truth,Pilate remains blind.

7 0 I th l i f th hi i f bl t l i i Pil ' l i d t hi


16/18


kingship is not "apolitical," since the witness to truth confronts Caesar'sman with a challenge beyond his grasp and finally strips him of theauthority he thinks is his.

Conclusion

Seen in light of the political situation of Jews and Christians in thelate first century, the treatment of political subjects in the Johanninenarrative of Jesus' arrest and trial displays a twofold thrust. On the onehand, confrontation with Rome is not avoided. Rather, "what the trialsuggests is that the disciple will always have to decide vis vis theEmpire whether Jesus is his king or whether Caesar is." 71 Roman soldiersparticipate in the arrest, and only they beat and ridicule Jesus. It is aRoman official, and no Jewish court, that condemns him, despite claim-ing to find him innocent. The kingship of Caesar has a cruel advocate inPilate, who spurns both the sovereignty of Israel and the royal witness totruth. Yet the Roman's hold on his authority is not so firm as he believes,for its source is God whose truth and whose rule he cannot comprehend.Being of this world, Rome has no authority of its own over those who areof God, and the witness to truth owes Rome nothing that Rome has thepower to command. The "King of the Jews" thus represents precisely thefact that Israel can have no king but God, or the one sent by God, andrestores sovereignty to Israel by asserting the sovereignty of Israel's Godover against all sovereignties of this world. "The Jews'" compliant accep-tance of Caesar's claim to be their only king is bitterly denounced andused to show that Pilate and they are at one in representing "the world."The rejection of Jesus as prophet, as revealer, as giver of life, climaxes inhis rejection as King of the Jews.

On the other hand, it is exactly because the kingship of Jesus is notof this world that the confrontation between the two does not take placeaccording to the standards of the world or according to its means. Jesusis contrasted not only with Caesar but also, albeit more lightly, withBarabbas, the , the "freedom fighter." For John, freedom comesfrom knowing the truth, that is, from abiding in the word of Jesus (8:31-32). But that is also hearing the voice of the Good Shepherd, who laysdown his life for the flock, not of the hireling, much less the (10:1-13). 72 It is abiding in the love of the one who lays down his life for his friends (15:9-17), hearing the voice of the king whose kingship is totestify to the truth (18:37) and whose ultimate enthronement is on thecross. 73 Only so can it be known who the followers of this king are (see13:35). Telling the world the truth, then, is living in freedom; it is also


17/18


living dangerously, but the conflict with the world's various dominions isnot carried out or won on the world's terms. Yet it is won: , "I have overcome the world," Jesus can say on the verge of

his betrayal (16:33).The Fourth Gospel, for all its sectarianism and inwardness, does notoffer a mere retreat from political and social relationships, though it doesoffer an approach to them that is as radical as its Christology. Indeed, itis just the Johannine alienation from the world that ought to make arefusal of allegiance to the world's political orders somewhat less thansurprising. It was an alienation of consciousness more than an overtly social one, to be sure, yet precisely as such it could be expected to berealized "in the world" as well. The Fourth Gospel thus confronts the

issue of Israel's freedom in the late first-century Roman Empire with analternative to both Zealotry and collaboration, by calling for adherenceto the king who is not of this world, whose servants do not fight, butremain in the world bearing witness to the truth before the rulers of

both synagogue and Empire.


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

The Trial of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

Documents

Transcript of The Trial of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel