Andrew Lincoln on the Jews, Pilate, and Jesus: Trial!

In Truth on Trial (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), Andrew Lincoln brings out the irony of Jesus’ trial in John’s Gospel.  Actually, to begin the irony, it is more a trial of Pilate and the Jews than it is of Jesus (p. 137).  I don’t have the time and space to type it all out, but suffice it to say, Lincoln does a top-notch job of bringing Johannine themes as well as OT themes (mostly Is. 40-55) together in the trial of the ages, Jesus before Pilate and the Jews.

Here’s how he closes the section, discussing how (ironically) the Jews and Pilate are rendered guilty by this trial while Jesus is cleared as judge.

“In effect, the chief priest’s final words [my note: 'We have no king but Caesar!'] mean that they cease to be the special people of God and become just one of the nations subject to Caesar.  Caesar’s representative in the narrative, Pilate, despite the political power he can employ to toy with ‘the Jews,’ is ultimately shown by his actions to be like the gods of the nations in Isaiah – impotent (cf. Is 44.10; 45.20; 46.7).  As for Jesus, he takes on Israel’s role as the servant-witness: ‘By a perversion of justice he was taken away’ (53.8a).  And the imagery used of his suffering combines with the Fourth Gospel’s Passover imagery: he is ‘like a lamb that is led to the slaughter’ (53.7), however, he is enabled to give his back to be struck and not to hide his face from insult and spitting (50.6, cf John 19.1, 3).  Indeed, he can be seen as confuting every tongue that rises against him in judgment (cf. 54.17) and, even though on trial, as the judge who executes justice (cf. Is 42.1, 2, 4)” (p. 133-138).

As I noted several months back on a similar post, when Lincoln writes something on John’s gospel, get it!  See also his commentary on John’s Gospel, in the Black’s New Testament Commentary series.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Deuteronomy and Jesus’ Farewell Discourse: Not a Parallel Coincidence

Not only do Exodus themes run throughout John’s Gospel, they are concentrated in Jesus’ farewell discourse.

“Most obvious is the fact that both [Moses' final speech and Jesus'] are composed as fare well discourses, spoken by leaders who are about to be separated from those they have led.  Conversely, they are spoken to groups who are about to lose the leaders on whom they depended.  The immediate future of these groups is also similar: the Israelites are about to enter Canaan to establish themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people; the disciples of Jesus are about to become his definitive community.  Both the Israelites and the disciples are in need of consolation in their loss, and of encouragement in the struggle against their enemies that is about to begin.  Finally, both groups require instruction and warning about how they are to act towards one another within each group (the bases of their social structure), and toward the enemies who will surround them: the ‘nations’ for the Israelites, the ‘world’ for the disciples.”

Of course, there are more parallels; this is but a small taste.

The entire excellent article is by Aelred Lacomara “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)” Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1974), 36, p. 66.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Jesus’ Farewell Discourse and The Christian Life: Jesus is Gone!

I’ve mentioned Douglas Farrow before on this blog, but let me do a bit of a re-run, just because I cannot commend his book, Ascension and Ecclesia (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) to you enough. In this 340 page book, Farrow asks, evaluates, and answers the question: Where is Jesus now? He travels through biblical themes, Church fathers, and modern theologians, to show how Jesus’ bodily ascension (real absence) has everything to do with how we view the church and the Eucharist. The book is an amazing trek!

While preaching through Jesus’ farewell discourse, I’m finding Farrow’s book to be helpful. Though John doesn’t go to great lengths to explain the ascension of Christ, it is implied heavily in the farewell discourse (chapters 14-17).

“Where Jesus goes, we are told, is to the Father, whence he also came. Why he goes is to prepare ‘in his Father’s house’ a place to which others will eventually come…. That he goes makes him the way. How he goes is along the path of the cross and the resurrection. And the consequence of his going is a mission of the Spirit aimed at the proclamation of the Father’s open house…” (p. 36).

Notice how all of these points Farrow makes – a good summary of the discourse – has everything to do with Jesus’ leaving (ascension) and living the Christian life. First, Jesus is really gone. Second, he went for our good to prepare a place for Christians in heaven. Third, because he went, he is the only way there. Fourth, his path had pain – cross, suffering, and death – crowned by victory – resurrection and ascension. Finally, because he is really gone, the Spirit is really here, as a witness/advocate of Christ and his word. All this would comfort the disciples (and early readers of John’s Gospel) and prepare them for a rough and sorrowful earthly road, but a road that leads to glory.

Another side note we can take from this is that suffering/hatred/pain/persecution is not a footnote to the Christian life, not in the fine print, but right there in bold print as a perpetual thorn of our pilgrimage. Read the farewell discourse and notice how many times Jesus warns the disciples that they will face intense sorrow and persecution. It is not an accident, but built into the path – the path that Jesus trod first.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Martin Luther on the Witness of the Holy Spirit

This is a golden passage from Luther’s 1532 sermon on John 15.26-16.4 (specifically 15.26).

“Christ says very definitely, the Holy Spirit will witness of me,

The Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel: Another Advocate

In John 14.16, 26; 15.26, and 16.7, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the “Paraclete.” The context is Jesus comforting his disciples: “Even though I am really leaving you, don’t worry – I’m sending another One like me who will dwell in you, teach you, and remind you of who I am and what I’ve done. He is another Paraclete.” Most translations translate that Greek word (Paraclete) by using “helper” or “comforter.” Those two translations are true (i.e. the Spirit is a helper/comforter), but is there a better term we could use here?

Andrew Lincoln thinks so. He argues – persuasively in my opinion – that “the term has a clear primary meaning in Greek – advocate in a legal context.” This doesn’t mean, he says, that ‘Paraclete’ was the name of a professional legal office, but a person who was called into court to speak in favor of a person, “thereby providing advocacy.” A paraclete is a sort of legal assistant.

This fits John’s gospel well: the Spirit is another Paraclete, meaning Jesus is also one. One aspect of Jesus’ mission was advocacy. He had a legal role as witness to who God was, what the OT was about, and what his own role was as Messiah/servant; he also was an advocate as he defended his people against legal attacks. For example, in John 9, Jesus defends the man born blind and accuses those who judge him: he is an advocate. “Another Paraclete” means “that the Spirit is Jesus’ designated successor who will continue the forensic role of Jesus in the ongoing trial after the glorification of Jesus.” The Spirit is the successor of Jesus and reveals, defends, teaches, and upholds the same truths of Jesus in the continuing cosmic trial.

This gift of another Advocate is very much for the disciples’ good: after Jesus’ departure, the Spirit-Advocate “will be with them forever in a way that Jesus in his physical presence could not be.” After Jesus leaves, the Spirit’s role as advocate is to not just reproduce Jesus’ teaching, but to unfold the significance of Jesus’ teaching in new situations in which his people find themselves. It is a remembering and teaching that is both vertical and horizontal: the Advocate brings the past sayings and works of Jesus forward to the present, and he brings the Father and Christ to people on earth. The Advocate is a legal assistant who mediates the past and present as well as heaven and earth.

In summary, Paraclete is best translated as “advocate” or the like. If you’re not convinced, also check 1 John 2.1 where the same term is used for Jesus, our Advocate before the Father.

The above can be found in Lincoln’s commentary, The Gospel According to Saint John (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 393-397. He also expands on the advocate/trial theme in Truth on Trial (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 110-123.

For more information still, Kostenberger pretty much agrees with Lincoln in his background commentary on John’s Gospel found in volume II of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 139-140. Also note Keener in volume II of his excellent commentary, The Gospel of John (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 954-969.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Gem from Calvin on the Love of God

 This phrase from Calvin’s commentary on John 11.5-6 is better than mountians of gold:

…We ought not to judge of the love of God from the condition which we see before our eyes.

Amazing.  Memorize that!  I had a few lines typed, but for fear of ruining Calvin’s gold, I’ll let it stand alone.  

shane lems

sunnyside wa 

John’s Gospel: Moses, Jesus, and Signs

Many scholars split John’s Gospel into two major parts: chapters 1-11 and 12-21.  Scholars differ on the main themes of these parts and the exact location of the “middle,” but generally speaking the first part is about Jesus’ public ministry and the second is his journey to the cross.  Narrative time goes rather quickly in the first part but slows down considerably in the second.  Signs are concentrated in the first part, but not in the second.  The division is a legitimate one to make.

Craig Keener has a great observation on the structure of the first part of John’s Gospel.  He notes that the signs in the first section begin in chapter 2 and end in chapter 11.  They contrast with Moses’ “signs” (the plagues) quite significantly:

“The opening sign (2.1-11) recounts Jesus’ benevolence at a wedding; the last involves a funeral [ch. 11]….  Whereas Moses’ first sign was transforming water to blood, Jesus benevolently transforms it into wine.  Likewise, whereas the final plague against Egypt was the death of the firstborn sons, the climax of Jesus’ signs is raising a dead brother-provider.”

This structure is witness to John’s earlier comment contrasting Moses and Christ – The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1.17).  Or, in other words, as the Pharisees thought Moses would do them well, Jesus used Moses as legal evidence against them: There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.   If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me (4.45-6). 

If John used OT scriptures and OT events as witness for his main point (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God), John can structure his gospel in a way that strengthens his testimony.  The overall structure of the gospel, as noted in the last post here, is further testimony – legal evidence - that Jesus is whom he said: the I AM.  Here at the very center of John’s Gospel is the very center of his message – Jesus, the resurrection and the life.

Quote taken from Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume II (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 835.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

John’s Gospel: Trial, Testimony, Structure, and Minor Characters

John’s Gospel is a gospel of trial and testimony. Trials take place: Jesus on trial, his followers on trial, the world on trial, the Pharisees on trial, the Jews on trial, the reader on trial – it is a book of trials. It is also a book of testimony – legal witness that Jesus is whom he says. There is verbal testimony (truly truly I say to you…) and there is visible testimony (miracles/signs). John’s Gospel contains word and work evidence that Jesus is who he says he is. If you remember from earlier posts, Andrew Lincoln is a great source for this trial/testimony theme in John’s Gospel (Trial and Testimony [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000] as well as The Gospel According to Saint John [Peabody: Hendrikson, 2005]).

Not only is John’s Gospel a gospel of trial and testimony, it is also a narrative masterpiece. There is irony, humor, sarcasm, metaphor, word-play, story, character, conflict, resolution, etc. There are seven minor characters closely associated with Jesus’ words and signs (Jesus’ mother, the royal official & his son, the lame man, Peter, the blind man, Lazarus [including Mary & Martha], and Jesus’ mother once again at the cross). In a helpful article on these seven minor characters and the narrative aspect of John, James Howard argues that these seven drive the narrative along while emphasizing several key Johaninne motifs (belief, unbelief, glory, death, etc.). Howard’s article is good, but he doesn’t draw out the trial and testimony motif enough.

I would add to Howard’s list, following Lincoln, that these seven minor figures are also used by John as witnesses. They are actual and literary witnesses to the veracity of Jesus Christ and his own self-testimony. The minor figures sit on the witness stand of this cosmic trial, proving that Jesus is indeed who he said he was. Jesus is the light of the world: the blind man sees. Jesus is the good shepherd, who, like YHWH in the OT, heals and brings his sheep home: the sick son and lame man are healed. Jesus is the resurrection and life: Lazarus comes out of the tomb after 4 days of death. The list goes on. John brilliantly weaves these witnesses into the overall narrative structure of the gospel, so that as different witnesses take the stand, the reader is more and more convinced that Jesus is the I AM, the Messiah promised long ago, the true Son of God. There is progression in this trial: as it moves on, the witnesses become more convincing, the prosecutors become more hostile, and Jesus ultimately dies and rises again, which is the capstone of all witness, proving that his testimony is undoubtedly true. In all of this there is trial irony: Jesus and his followers are on trial the whole way through, while in the end through his death and resurrection he is the judge who puts unbelievers on trial. There is a divine table-turning as the accused becomes the accuser.

John can do this – he did actually witness these events, after all. Further, he wrote the gospel so that the readers believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God – and that by this faith they may have life in his name (John 20.31). Every drop of evidence proves as much. John could have given more testimony, but guided by the Spirit he chose just this testimony and ordered it just so for the purpose that we believe it, so the testimony frees us because it is the truth.  The minor characters as John uses them serve the purpose of testimony so that by our trust in this testimony we are not in the dock, but with Christ, cleared from all guilt.

The article mentioned above is James Howard, “The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 63-78.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

More on Sukkah and John: Feast of Tabernacles

Here are a few more words from the Sukkah, the Jewish commentary and regulation text on the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths.  Before reading it below, note Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel, 8.12: “I am the light of the world – the one who follows me will certainly not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”  This was most likely spoken during the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, on the last and greatest day of the feast (compare 7.37-52 to 8.12ff). 

Sukkah 2: “The rabbis taught: An eclipse of the sun is an ill omen to the whole world. What does this resemble? A human king making a banquet for his servants, and placing a great lantern before them, when he gets angry he says to his servant: Take away the light, let them sit in the dark.”

Sukkah 5: “There was not a court in Jerusalem [during the feast - my note] that was not illuminated by the lights of the water-drawing.”

The verdict (for me, anyway) is still out on the relationship between the biblical/canonical text and the Jewish commentary/regulations for the feast, but I think it is quite interesting.  Since the OT lies behind both, the Sukkah draws together three similar themes that John draws together: temple, light, and water.  John shows us how they all point to Jesus.  It is perhaps not a coincidence that Jesus stands in the temple during this great feast and says “I am the true water!  I am the true light!”  Also remember Jesus’ earlier words that he is the true temple (Jn 2).

The above “light” Sukkah 2 & 5 phrases may also be helpful for “light” themes in other Johannine and NT literature. 

You can see and search all five chapters of the Sukkah here (along with other Jewish/Rabbinical writings).   It is a helpful website.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths)

What does Tractate Sukkah have to do with John 7? Quite a bit!  In John 7, we find Jesus preaching (lit. “crying out”) in the temple during the Feast of Tabernacles.  He says on the last and greatest day of the feast, “If anyone is thirsty, let him/her come to me and let the one who believes in me drink, as it is written, rivers of the waters of life will flow from his womb/belly” (v 38).

Tractate Sukkah 4 has Jewish prescriptions for the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth).  In it, we read, “The dwelling in the Succah and the pouring out of water lasted seven days…”  We also read, “How was the pouring out of the water? A golden pitcher that held three lugs was filled with water from the brook Siloah. When they came with it to the water-gate, they blew a blast, a long note, and again a blast. The priest then ascended the stair of the altar…”  The priest would pour the water out near the altar each day of the feast.

The imagery here is huge.  Jesus calls the people away from that temple-water and calls himself the water of life.  At the end of the feast, when all the people had seen the water-procession each day, Jesus stands up and says, “I am the water of life!”  Tie this in with water from the rock (Ex 17), the water in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 47.1ff), and the flowing water in the New Creation (Rev 22.1ff), and it is clear to see how Jesus is the center of it all, the true temple (Jn 2) who gives living water (Jn 4) and calms the chaotic sea-waters (Jn 6), etc. 

Side note: Jon Levenson (see previous posts) argues well for the cosmic centrality of the temple, which also has huge implications for this “water.”  This, I submit, is what “womb” (Greek: koilias) is getting at in John 7.38 (cf. previous post on water from Jesus’ womb/belly).

See also Andreas Kostenberger, “John” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentaryed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 78.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa