Good Friday
Commentary on Isaiah 52:13-54; Hebrews 4:14-10:31; and the Passion according to John 18:1-19:42
Verses 52:13—15, spoken by Yahweh about the amazement of the nations; thanksgiving for sorrow, subdivided into: vv 1—3, narrative of sorrows; vv 4—6, sorrow as part of the servant’s ministry; vv 7—9, sorrow, silently accepted; vv 10—a, good results; (3) 53:11b— 13, conclusion again spoken by Yahweh about the good effects of the servant’s ministry. Against those who would separate 52:13—15 (Whybray, Isaiah 40—66 169), the unity of the poem is defended by the envelope effect of referring to the servant in 52:13—15 and 53:llb—13. For translations, see Clifford, Fair Spoken 173—75, and Scullion, Isaiah 40—66 117—18.
In these introductory lines God announces the triumph of the servant. prosper: The Hebr word implies prudence or insight, as though the servant’s victory is a result of obeying God’s wise plan of salvation (cf. Vg “intelligent”; Dan 12:3; Isa 50:4). many: This key word (52:1 lc,12a,14,l5; 53:12) is not the opposite of “all” but implies “many beyond all count,” like the sand on the seashore (Josh 11:4). amazed: This word is often used of vast desolate wastes (Gen 47:19; Lam 2:15; Isa 49:8,19); here, as in Ps 46:9, it carries the sense of being stunned into silence, at him: The MT, LXX, reads “at you,” as though Yahweh turns for a moment toward the silent servant, then immediately resumes his words about him. startled: So most translators, but năzd means “to sprinkle” or ritually cleanse for sacrifice. This liturgical allusion in a non ritual setting is typical of Deutero Isaiah (cf. 44:28).
We hardly notice the abrupt change in speakers from Yahweh to the prophet or his disciples. While 52:13 denies that anything has been heard, 53:1 asks paradoxically: “Who would believe what we have just heard?” This effective intervention on God’s “arm” does not imply military action (TDOT 4.136). These words have a generic sense of Yahweh’s victory from hidden roots and tender sprouts (cf. Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5). The servant is rejected by his own people. The collective interpretation that considers the servant to be “Israel” (49:3) remains valid, here with a bitter sense of loneliness. The servant relives the persecuted role of Jer (15:17) and Job (19:13—19). avoided: Hebr hadel can mean “fat” or “gross” and, in this context, “obtuse” and “foolish” (see P. J. Calderone, CBQ 24 [ 416—19). hiding his face: Like an outcast leper (cf. Lev 13:45—46). 45 4—6. Some Israelites, won over to the servant, repent of their persecution of him. The servant is said to bear the infirmity of others and even to become their sin—offering. The innocent servant is not a substitute before God for sinful Israelites, no more than the ritual killing of an animal automatically obtained grace for the offerer and reunion with the community and God. Num 5:5—10 clearly states the prerequisites of confessing one’s guilt and restoring stolen goods plus 20 percent before performing the ritual acts at the sanctuary (see C. Stuhlmueller, Communio 1 [ 20—46). The ritual act externalized the interior attitude of the offerer and through this externalization the offerer began to participate in the full life of the community. The servant, therefore, is not freeing others of their responsibility for repentance but is suffusing within them his own spirit of sorrow and hope. thrust through: A strong word; in 43:28 it was translated “repudiated” or “profaned.” offenses: A rebellion against God’s personal concern, chastisement: Recalls the disciplinary or educative power of suffering. God teaches repentance through the calamity evoked by sin. laid upon him: Soon a technical term, particularly in its ancient Gk translation. paradidomi), used in the Christian kerygma to designate God’s handing over his Son to death (Matt 17:22; John 8:30,35; Acts 3:13; 1 Cor 11:23).
The servant’s silence is most unusual, for people in agony usually cry aloud, harshly treated: Exod 3:7 uses the same word for the Egyptian oppression. A crux in’ terpretum, variously emended and translated. The servant, after being seized, tried, and convicted, is taken away, psychologically into a loneliness almost to the point of despair. destiny: The word means a “state” or “change of fortune.” H. Cazelles concludes to a “state” or “place” inaccessible and mysterious (RSR 43 [ 40). Is this passage implying that the servant was killed or at least died a natural death? Not necessarily, because identical language is used in Pss 3 1:23; 89:49; Lam 3:54; Jer 11:18—20, without the outcome of death (seeJ. A. Sog gin, ZAW 87 [ 346—55). The MT reads “my people,” thus strengthening the bonding between the servant and all Israel. Although innocent, the servant suffers with the sinful people and infuses his own heroic goodness into their attitudes.
Victory, although never enjoyed by the servant during his lifetime, is proclaimed. These verses are textually very disturbed. pleased: A key word in Dt—Isa (44:28; 46:10; 48:14). In the NT it expresses God’s designs as fulfilled in Jesus (Matt 26:42; John 4:34; cf. Bonnard, Second Isale 282 n. 5). offering for sin: Dt-Isa advances beyond the ancient liturgical sacrifice for sins of inadvertence (Lev 4—5) to a heightened awareness of sacrifice for willful sins. Although Dt—Isa is transferring ritual language to a non sanctuary sphere of life, nonetheless, passages such as this accentuated the heavy sin consciousness of Israel during the exile and so influenced the cult. From the exile, penitential liturgies commonly occur (Zech 7—8, Joel).
In the conclusion God is again the speaker. through his suffering: The Hebrew reads “by his knowledge,” i.e., by a full experiential union with a suffering, sinful people. justify many: He will share his own goodness with them and thus fulfill all divine promises (cf. 40:14). Although the servant’s innocence separates him from the rest of Israel, he is always slip ping back into the collectivity.
(Clines, D. J. A., I, He, We, & They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 [ 1; Sheffield, 1976]. Whybray, R. N., Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet [ 4; Sheffield, 1978] -. 6 above).
HOPE IN THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS
The theme of the second major section of Hebrews is the role and activity of Christ as unique high priest whose once-for-all sacrifice of himself for the sins of humanity accomplished what the elaborate sacrificial ritual of the ancient Israelites could not do. Consequently, the sacrifice of Christ inaugurates a new covenant and replaces the entire old order described in the Old Testament. Yet the Old Testament is still the word of God, and there fore it will still be used to interpret the meaning of Jesus’ death in this section.
Just as the first major section of the sermon was enclosed between two passages on the word of God, so the second is bounded by two passages of exhortation (4:14-16 and 10:19-31) that have many similarities, even verbal ones (see especially 10:19-23). We shall note some of them in discussing chapter 10 below.
Jesus had been introduced as high priest for the first time in 2:17, where he was called merciful and faithful. Having discussed his faithfulness in chapter 3, the author turns now to his quality of mercy, first in the transition passage 4:14-16 and then further in 5:1-10. His mercy is rooted in his sharing of human nature, to the point of being tempted in every way that all humans are, yet without yielding to sin (v. 15).
Jesus’ passage “through the heavens” (v. 14) perhaps reflects the common Jewish view of a series of heavens above the earth, in the highest of which God dwells. His successful entry into God’s presence grounds the hope and confidence of his followers, as will be repeatedly stated in the sermon. The reference to “our confession of faith” in verse 14 leads us to use caution The text literally says only “let us hold fast to the confession.” As the parallel verse 10:23 will show, it is a confession of hope, not faith.
This short passage introduces us to an important shift in the imagery of exhortation in Hebrews. It is the shift from holding fast to hope and confidence, or the confession (see 3:6, 14; 4:14), to moving forward: “approach the throne of grace” (4:16). The imagery of forward movement was already anticipated in 4:11 and will be prominent from now on. It has three dimensions, which we shall note as they occur: continuing on the journey to ward God’s rest, approaching God as worshipers approached the altar of sacrifice, and growing up in one’s understanding of Christianity.
5:1-10 Christ as high priest. By this point the author has identified Jesus as high priest several times (2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15), but he has not explained or justified this notion. Now he does so in a classic rhetorical way by def in ing what a high priest is and showing how the definition fits Jesus. For these ten verses it is important to recognize the structure used by the author. He first defines a high priest by stating three qualifications, which he derives from interpretation of the passages relevant to Israelite worship in the Pentateuch. The high priest is the descendant of Levi described there, and though historically Jesus does not qualify (see 7:13-14), nevertheless he fulfills the proper conditions. The qualifications are stated in verses 1-4: (1) the high priest is chosen from human beings and represents them in the sacrifice he offers; (2) he can perform his representative function because he shares in human weakness; and (3) he is called to this office by God and not by his own choice.
Verses 5-10 show how Christ meets these qualifications, but in reverse order. In addition, they introduce a new element of comparison, the priesthood or the shadowy figure Melchizedek, who will be dealt with formally in chapter 7. First, Christ did not assume the office of high priest, but he received it from God, as the Scripture attests, understanding Pss 2:7 and 110:4 as addressed to him. One should note that the latter passage speaks only of a priest, not a high priest. Melchizedek will be “elevated” to the high priestly status starting with verse 10 because this status is important for the author’s argument. Verses 7-9 demonstrate the solidarity of Christ with human beings in weakness, but the argument is a subtle one because Jesus has been declared to be sinless (4:15) and thus cannot offer “sin offerings for himself as well as for the people” (v. 3). This nuance will continue to be a delicate issue.
Verse 7 in particular has long been a focus of interest. Traditionally it has been taken to be a reference to the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, as reported in Mark 14:32-42 and parallels. But two factors make one hesitate to understand it in this way: it has nothing in common with the Gethsemane story from a language point of view, and also this would be the only reference in Hebrews to a specific Gospel passage. The alternative is to suppose that the verse is a depiction of the typical Jewish hero, such as Abraham or Moses, who prays demonstratively to God, and the language used has notable parallels in Philo’s description of such persons. If there is any reference to the Gospel story, it is very indirect.
Verses 9-10 clearly illustrate the role of Christ as the representative of the people for whom as high priest he offers sacrifice. His intercession was so effective that he became a source of salvation for others. The transition from a priest like Melchizedek to a high priest like Melchizedek takes place quietly, but the reader will have to wait until chapter 7 before perceiving its significance.
The Passion Narrative 18:1-19:42
The Johannine passion narrative is cast in separate scenes: 13:1—11; 18:12—27; 18:28—19:16a; 19:16b—30; 19:31—42. It presents complex questions about the extent of John’s sources and his redaction of them (see T. A. Mohr, Markus- und Johannes passion [ 70; Zurich, 1982]). We have already encountered elements of the Synoptic “agony in the garden” in 12:27—28 and puzzles in Johannine chronology and understanding of the high priesthood. There is no formal proceeding before a Jewish body, the proceedings in 11:45—53 have decided the issue ofJesus’ fate. A hearing before Annas appears in place of a Jewish trial or hearing. Annas lays the groundwork for a religious charge. His questions point toward the charge of being a “false prophet” or deceiver (cf. Deut 18:28). The trial before Pilate focuses on the political dangers of Jesus’ popularity, the motive given in 11:45—53 for seeking Jesus’ death. The question becomes one of the nature of Jesus’ kingship. While it remains a matter of no little dispute among historians whether the preponderance of the gospel evidence suggests that those responsible for Jesus’ death acted on religious or political grounds, one cannot either use the Johannine material to decide that question or consider it sufficiently answered to use as a criterion for distinguishing tradition and redaction in the Johannine narrative. In the trial before Pilate, Jesus acts as he has throughout the Gospel. He shows that Pilate is really the one who is on trial, and with supreme irony, Pilate forces the Jews to show their own disloyalty to God by declaring Caesar their king (1 9:14—15). The reader of the Gospel is already well aware that Jesus’ death is not a humiliation or defeat but a glorious return to the Father.
THE ARREST OF JESUS (18:1—11).
John 18:1 appears to belong directly after 14:3, since the evangelist immediately establishes their destination and the fact that Judas is familiar with the location. The evangelist may also have highlighted the fact that Judas and his party had to come to arrest Jesus with lights as well as weapons, just as he dramatically referred to the fact that it was night when Judas left the supper room in 13:30. The question of whether or not Roman soldiers would have been included in such a party, clearly not a “cohort” (speira usually means a cohort) in any case, depends on the likelihood of collusion between Jewish and Roman authorities. Many scholars think that it would be unlikely even for Caiaphas to turn so vehemently against a fellow Jew. Pilate seems unacquainted with the case when Jesus is brought before him. John 18:12 repeats the term in question and even mentions the military tribune of a cohort. Therefore, the addition of Roman soldiers may be due either to a modification in a source that originally referred to Jewish police or to a desire on the evangelist’s part to demonstrate unequivocally that Jesus is in control of what happens to him. The core of the scene consists in the double confrontation between Jesus and those who have come to arrest him, clearly the work of the evangelist. then Jesus: He goes to meet the party, asks whom they seek, and when he identifies himself by saying “I Am,” they all fall to the ground. Jesus repeats the question (vv 7—9) and uses the opportunity to secure release of his followers, thus fulfilling the promise of safety for those entrusted to him (6:39; 10:28; 17:12)—except Judas, who has been lost to the circle of disciples since Jesus commanded him to depart (13:27). Malchus: An independent development of the story that one of Jesus’ disciples cut off the ear of one of the high priest’s slaves (Mark 14:47; John and Luke 22:50 agree in specifying the right ear). John and Matt have Jesus speak to the disciple. Matt 26:53—55 appeals to a proverb about “living by the sword,” Jesus’ power to summon heavenly angels, and the necessity to fulfill Scripture. 11. Peter: John has already demonstrated Jesus’ power to stop the proceedings; he instructs Peter to put the sword away and alludes to the necessity of drinking the “cup” that the Father has given. This allusion would appear more appropriate to a source that had contained a “cup word” in the garden (e.g., Mark 14:35—36 par.).
BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST (18:12—27).
The evangelist has shaped the episode of Jesus’ questioning before Annas, the “high priest,” actually the former high priest whom the Romans had deposed in favor of Caiaphas, so that the lack of understanding shown by Peter’s use of the sword in 18:10—11 pales beside his explicit denial of Jesus. Given the persecution faced by Johan nine Christians, Peter must have served as a negative example for the Gospel’s readers.
Jesus is brought toAnnas (18:12—14). While in Matt 26:57—68 and Mark 14:53—65 Jesus is brought to a formal trial, Luke 22:54,63—65, has an episode of mockery at the high priest’s house before Jesus is led to the sanhedrin, where he is questioned about his messiahship, though no verdict is reached (Luke 22:66—71). Caiaphas: John has already recounted a “trial” by the sanhedrin (11:47—50). He may have known an independent tradition about Jesus being questioned at the house of the high priest and used it to set up the dramatic contrast between Peter’s denial and Jesus’ “confession” (R. T. Fortna, NTS 24 [ 371—83).
Peter denies Jesus (18:15—18). Peter’s denial is even more striking in John than in the Synoptics because he is not a scared disciple, following along to see what happened to Jesus after all the others had fled. Nor does the setting suggest that Peter is in danger of his life if he answers truthfully. another disciple: Peter enters the house in the company of a disciple of Jesus who is known to the high priest. Though some exegetes think that this unnamed disciple was the Beloved Disciple, one would expect him to have been so designated if the evangelist had intended that we make such a connection (see F. Neirynck, ETL 51 [ 113—41).
Annas interrogates Jesus (18:19—24). the high priest: Annas’s questions appear to represent an attempt to show that Jesus is a false prophet and leads the people astray (as charged in John 7:45—52). answered him: Jesus’ answer appeals to the great controversies which make up his public ministry in the Gospel narrative. The reader will not miss the overtones of Jesus’ mission in both testifying and bringing “the world” to judgment for its unbelief in Jesus’ words, “I have spoken openly” (or “boldly,” parrhesia) “to the world.” Jesus challenges Annas to answer his own questions by interrogating the crowds who heard him. Yet the reader of the Gospel knows that they did not really “hear” Jesus and that the true “witness” about the Son is the Father (5:30—40). struck Jesus: The physical attack and mockery of Jesus derive from the evangelist’s source (cf. Mark 14:65). Jesus answered: The response is purely Johannine. Jesus has given a sin answer to those who attempted to stone him in 10:32, and he challenges “the Jews” to convict him of sin in 8:46. 24. This verse shows that John knows of an interrogation before Caiaphas.
Peter denies Jesus (18:25—27). Simon Peter: Ironically, one of those who should be most able to “testify” to the “good” which Jesus has done will continue to deny that he has anything to do with him. The bold-faced lie involved in Peter’s action is intensified by the fact that John has identified Peter as the disciple who cut off the slave’s ear (v 10). a kinsman: Even when confronted by a relative of the wounded man, who is presumed to have witnessed the episode, Peter persists in his denial (see C. H. Giblin, Bib 65 [ 210—31).
TRIAL BY PILATE (18:28—19:16a)
The trial before Pilate can be divided into scenes marked off by the alternations between “the accusers” outside and Jesus inside (1 8:29,33,38b; 19:1 [ ,4,8—9,13). Only in the last scene is Jesus brought “outside,” still clothed in the “royal robes” of the soldiers’ mockery. To increase the irony, 19:13 leaves it unclear whether Jesus or (more likely) Pilate sat on the judgment seat. Only when the Jews have renounced all kings but Caesar is Jesus handed over to “them” (another ambiguity), for crucifixion (19:15—16). The confession that Jesus is indeed “king of Israel” was made at the beginning and end of the narrative (1:49; 12:13,15). Jesus rejected the desire of the crowd to make him king (6:15). Now that Jesus has come to trial, the issue of his kingship can be raised. Since the reader knows that Jesus is “from God,” the political issue of Jesus as “king” can only serve as an ironic mask for the real issue; rejection of the “king of Israel” is rejection of God. Just as earlier stories had been structured around ascending statements of belief, so the accusations made at the trial are forced to become sharper. They move from: (a) he is an “evildoer,” whom we have no authority to kill (18:30); to (b) he made himself “Son of God” (19:7); to (c) he makes himself “king,” implying rebellion against Caesar (19:12).
Scene one (18:28—31)
The introductory scene contains several unresolved historical problems. early: In addition to the question of the day itself, the verse suggests that Jesus was brought to Pilate around dawn. While some have suggested a symbolic reference to Jesus as light after all that has taken place during the “night,” dawn would be a common time for the Roman governor to conduct such a hearing. But then the condemnation of Jesus at noon (19:14) seems out of order. Some suggest a symbolic reference to the slaughter of the Passover lambs, did not enter: There is no coherent explanation for the claim that the accusers would have been “defiled” by entering the praetorium. Mere contact with a Gentile in a legal setting would not have constituted such a defilement. Pilate went out: While a Roman governor could conduct a trial extraordinem according to his own rules, the accused does have to be handed over with a more “formal charge” than that given by Jesus’ accusers. There is much dispute over the question of whether this verse preserves an accurate piece of historical information. Jews were permitted to execute those Gentiles who violated the Temple precincts. Some Roman historians think that they are unlikely to have been allowed to carry out any other capital sentences, esp. in Judea. For the Johannine reader, this verse is highly ironic, since Jesus has already charged “the Jews” with acting against their own law in seeking to kill him (8:37—47); Nicodemus accuses them of condemning Jesus illegally (7:51). Now they show a sudden concern for “Caesar’s law.” The evangelist’s comment reminds the reader that Jesus had predicted he would die by being “lifted up” (3:14—15; 12:32—33), i.e., crucified.
Scene two (18:33—38a)
Jesus’ exchange with Pilate about kingship is the final time that we hear the word “truth” in the Gospel. The reader already knows that Jesus testifies to the “truth” (5:33; 8:40,45,46) and that “the Jews” have rejected the truth (8:44), while the disciples receive it from Jesus (14:6; 17:17,19). The reader also knows that such dialogues between Jesus and an antagonist quickly turn to showing up the character of the latter. Pilate is not being “excused” for his role in the death of Jesus. Am I a Jew?: Pilate’s scorn for the Jews is made evident. my kingship: Jesus’ answer to the question separates his kingship from anything that could threaten Pilate, since he claims that it can be proved that his kingship is not of this world. He has no followers fighting to secure his release. At the same time, Jesus’ reference to “the Jews” puts a gulf between himself and “the Jews,” whom the reader knows have already rejected him. you are a king then?: Jesus must also testify to the truth. He was sent as “king,” but Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” shows that he is ranked with “the Jews” as one of those who cannot hear Jesus’ voice.
Scene three (18:38b—40). Though Pilate cannot hear Jesus’ words as those which reveal the truth, his actions can still create further levels of irony in the narrative. you have a custom: John uses the Barabbas episode, probably from a source (e.g., Mark 15:9,13), to confront the Jews with a choice: their real king or a “robber.” The reader of the Gospel will recall that 10:1,8 contrasted the behavior of the true shepherd with that of “robbers.” The term lçstes, “robber,” was often used for persons who stirred up rebellion, a charge that Jesus has explicitly denied. Pilate seems to have declared Jesus innocent in v 38b (so Luke 23:4). His scorn for the Jews may be reflected in the choice he offers them. The reader may also see this episode as an example of the type of “justice” for which the world is condemned (16:9—11). An innocent person is exchanged for one who is guilty.
Scene four (19:1—3). flogged him: Scourging a prisoner would normally have been part of the punishment, as it is in Mark 15:16—20 par. John has abbreviated and relocated the tradition of Jesus being flogged and mocked as “king” to the center of the trial so that for the rest of the proceedings he appears as “king.”
Scene five (19:4—7). Again Pilate claims to have found nothing for which to condemn Jesus and shows him to the people, with the comment, “Look, the man!” Directed toward Jesus, who has been beaten and is still attired in the crown and robe, the expression may be one of contempt for the wretched victim. Others have found a second meaning in the words, since normally a “new king” would be presented to his subjects in royal attire, his throne-name would be announced, and the people would offer cheers acclaiming their new ruler. It has been suggested that “the man” (anthröpos, which can mean simply “human being”) is an ironic throne-name derived from a prophecy in Zech 6:12, “Behold, a man whose name is branch.” crucify him: Those who brought Jesus to Pilate demand his death. take him yourselves: For a second time, Pilate throws the case back at the Jews. They now specify the charge more precisely: according to their law Jesus ought to die for making himself “Son of God” (cf. 10:31—39). The issue of Jesus’ claim to a special relationship with God is the one that has been contested throughout the Gospel (e.g., 5:18; 8:59).
Scene six (19:8—11). feared even more: The reason for Pilate’s fear is not clear. It may be a reaction to the truth that Jesus is “Son of God” (cf. 18:6). where are you from?: The focus of controversies in 7:27—28; 8:14; 9:29—30. gave him no answer: While Jesus’ silence before Pilate is taken from the tradition (e.g., Mark 15:5), the Johannine reader knows that it a deeper significance. Jesus cannot reveal that truth to Pilate, who has already shown himself unable to “hear” Jesus’ voice (see comment on 18:37). But Jesus can reply to Pilate’s false claim to power. unless it had been given from above: Jesus’ answer reminds the reader once again that his death is not the victory of his enemies but follows the divine plan (10:17—18). On the other hand, Jesus’ willing self—offering does not exempt any of those involved in bringing about his death from sin.
Scene seven (19:12—16a). if you release him, you are not Caesar’s friend: In later times, “friend of Caesar” was an honorific title bestowed on persons in recognition of their special service to the emperor. The circle around a Hellenistic king, known as “friends of the king,” usually comprised persons of special influence. Coins of Herod Agrippa I bear an inscription philokaisar, “friend of Caesar.” In order to compel Pilate to execute Jesus, the authorities have shifted away from their real charge against Jesus, religious claims, to a political- charge that he “makes himself king” against Caesar, and they threaten to report Pilate as a “traitor” to the emperor. Pilate gains his revenge by forcing the Jews, whose original actions had been predicated on the claim that Jesus would bring Roman retaliation and destruction of their Temple (11:48,50), to renounce any king but Caesar. look, your king!: Pilate ironically repeats the “truth” that Jesus is “king.” He also leaves the death sentence to be pronounced by the “Jews” — a sentence that the reader knows they had already passed (11:53; see D. Rensberger,JBL 103 [ 395—411).
THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS (19:16b—30).
As in the previous sections, John’s account of the crucifixion goes its own way. The crucified is the exalted Son. There is no mockery by the crowd or abandonment. Instead, Jesus dies with his mother and the Beloved Disciple at the foot of the cross. In some incidents where John parallels the Synoptics, he emphasizes different elements of the story. Jesus carries his own cross (v 17); Pilate has deliberately formulated the charge on the cross (vv 19—22);Jesus’ tunic was seamless, so that the soldiers had to cast lots for it (v 23); Jesus’ thirst is predicted in Scripture (v 28). Jesus’ death is described as “handing over” the Spirit (v 30).
The charge on the cross (19:16b—22). John has none of the episodes associated with the journey to the place of crucifixion in the other Gospels. Either he had no tradition about such incidents as Simon being enlisted to carry Jesus’ cross (e.g., Mark 15:21), or he chose to have Jesus carry his own cross as a sign that he was still in control of his fate. the King of the Jews: Instead of the inscription leading to mockery by the crowd (as in Mark 15:26—32), it provokes a final confrontation between Pilate and “the chief priests” (v 21). what I have written. . . : By insisting that his inscription will stand as written, Pilate affirms the truth about Jesus that Jesus’ opponents desperately seek to reject. He also emphasizes the public and universal character of the inscription, since it could be read by all: Jews, Greeks, and Romans.
At the foot of the cross (19:23—27). Whereas the Synoptics have a number of words and actions take place around Jesus on the cross in which outsiders react to Jesus, John focuses on Jesus and “his own.” They are not at a distance as are the women in Mark 15:40—41. 23. took his garments: The evangelist has expanded the tradition that the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments (Mark 15:24) into a double action of dividing the clothes and then rolling dice for the seamless tunic. This double action is then presented as fulfillment of the Scripture (Ps 22:19). 25. Expansion of the garments-scene makes it a doublet with the second scene in which Jesus speaks to the Beloved Disciple and his own mother. In the Synoptic tradition the women who followed Jesus stood at a distance, and all the other disciples were in flight; John has the women at the foot of the cross. behold your mother :John 2:3—5,12 is the only other place where Jesus’ mother is mentioned (see I. de la Potterie, “Das Wort Jesu, ‘Siehe deine Mutter’ und die Annahme der Mutter durch den JUnger,” Neues Testament und Kirche [ 97 abovel 191—219). It is impossible to decide what the relationship is between this tradition that she comes under the care of the Beloved Disciple and that in Acts 1:14, which places her and the brothers of Jesus in the circle gathered around the Twelve. Nor is it entirely clear how much symbolism should be attached to the figure of the mother of Jesus. Clearly, entrusting the Beloved Disciple and his mother to each other shows that Jesus’ mission is completed in the care and provision that Jesus has made for “his own.” Other suggestions rely on importing symbols, which are not directly hinted at in this passage, such as that of a new Eve or of the messianic Zion giving birth to her children. Both interpretations of the passage became extremely prominent in the mariological piety of the 12th cent.
Jesus dies (19:28—30). Jesus remains in control of his death until the end. I thirst: His thirst, which John must have derived from his source, and the drink of vinegar are mentioned only to show that every thing is accomplished. John does not actually cite the Scripture that is linked with that episode. Possibly he has Ps 69:22 in mind, though that psalm understands the offering of sour wine as a hostile gesture. Exegetes have also suggested that this gesture was understood in John as fulfilling the words about drinking the “cup” which the Father has given (John 18:11). it is finished: Announcing that his mission from the Father is now completed (cf. 8:29; 14:31; 16:32; 17:4), Jesus “hands over” his spirit. This expression once again reminds the reader that no one has “taken” Jesus’ life. He has given his life willingly (e.g., 10:18).
THE BURIAL OF JESUS (19:31—42). John’s narrative shows considerable development in the burial account. Some of the details, like the soldiers’ treatment of the body, may have come from John’s source. Skeletal re-mains of a crucified man have suggested that the legs of victims might be broken near the time of death in order to hasten the process of suffocation. Verse 33 may correctly reflect that procedure. Others, like the authentication of the “blood and water” from the side of Jesus may have found their way into the Gospel as part of its final editing (vv 34b—35).
Authorities certify his death (19:31—37). This section appears to be based on a source, which comprises vv 31 (without the explanation about the sabbath), 32.- 34,36,37(?). blood and water: In the original story, these elements, flowing from the side of the victim, may have simply been a detail of a martyr story. 4 Macc 9:20 has blood and water flow out of the side of one of the martyrs. However, the Gospel has already interpreted “water” as the Spirit, which the glorified Jesus will bestow on his followers (John 7:39). 35. This verse has been attached to that detail by its final editor. It sets the groundwork for the affirmation made in I John 5:6—7 that makes the “blood” (death) of Jesus necessary for salvation (also I John 1:7). 36—37. The passage is unusual in having two Scripture citations at the end. The second, Zech 12:10, can only apply to the detail given in this tradition, that the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side. It may have been added by the evangelist in order to provide a Citation for each of the soldiers’ actions. If the citation came from the source, then as in Rev 1:7 it must have referred to the crucifixion as “piercing.” The people will see the crucified one (in judgment). For John, the judgment has already been accomplished in Jesus’ death. The citation does not function as an oracle of judgment against the people. The source of the first citation is not as clear. If the passage intended to parallel Jesus with the Passover lamb then the rule against breaking the lamb’s bones would be its origin (Exod 12:10 LXX; 12:46; Num 9:12). If the author just looks to the image of the suffering righteous one, then one of the psalms traditionally associated with the passion may be the source of the citation (e.g., Ps 22:19 John 19:24]; 69:22 [ 19:28]).
Joseph and Nicodemus bury Jesus (19:38—42). The account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph appears to have been derived from a different tradition than the previous story. Here, Joseph is responsible for obtaining the body from Pilate. There is no reference to the actions by the “Jews” in the previous account (cf. Mark 15:42—45). Mark makes Joseph a member of the sanhedrin who is seeking the kingdom; in John he is a secret disciple (12:42). Nicodemus: Some think that the figure of Nicodemus originally came into the Johannine tradition through this story. The evangelist reminds the reader that this is the Nicodemus of the earlier episode (3:1—12; 7:50—5 1). myrrh and aloes: The large amount of spices (cf. the amount of precious ointment used by Mary in 12:3) may have been intended as a sign of the great honor due to Jesus. linen cloths: Unlike the tradition in Mark 15:46, which presumes that the body was placed in a single linen shroud, John’s tradition holds that it was anointed and wrapped in strips of linen (as was Lazarus 11:43—44). a new tomb: The detail that the tomb was in a nearby garden and had never been used may have come into the story as a piece of resurrection apologetic: when Mary and the disciples went there on Easter morning, they could not have been mistaken about the location of the tomb.