William Tyndale: "He is the satisfaction for our sins" (I John 2:2)

Commenting on I John 2:2, William Tyndale (Tyndall) writes: 

And he is the satisfaction for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for all the world’s. (1 John 2:2)

   That I call satisfaction, the Greek calleth Ilasmos, and the Hebrew Copar: and it is first taken for the suaging of wounds, sores, and swellings, and the taking away of pain and smart of them; and thence is borrowed for the pacifying and suaging of wrath and anger, and for an amends-making, a contenting, satisfaction, a ransom, and making at one, as it is to see abundantly in the bible. So that Christ is a full contenting, satisfaction and ransom for our sins: and not for ours only, which are apostles and disciples of Christ while he was yet here; or for ours which are Jews, or Israelites, and the seed of Abraham; or for ours that now believe at this present time, but for all men’s sins, both for their sins which went before and believed the promises to come, and for ours which have seen them fulfilled, and also for all them which shall afterward believe unto the world’s end, of whatsoever nation or degree they be. For Paul commandeth, 1 Tim. 2 “to pray for all men and all degrees,” saying that to be “acceptable unto our Saviour God, which will have all men saved and come to the knowledge of the truth;” that is, some of all nations and all degrees, and not the Jews only. “For,” saith he, “there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, which gave himself a redemption” and full satisfaction “for all men.” David also said in the eighteenth Psalm: “Their sound is gone throughout all the earth, so that the benefit stretched on all men.”

   Let this therefore be an undoubted article of thy faith: not of a history faith, as thou believest a gest of Alexander, or of the old Romans, but of a lively faith and belief, to put thy trust and confidence in, and to buy and sell thereon, as we say; and to have thy sins taken away, and thy soul saved thereby, if thou hold it fast; and to continue ever in sin, and to have thy soul damned, if thou let it slip; that our Jesus, our Saviour, that saveth his people from their sins, and our Christ, that is our king over all sin, death and hell, anointed with fulness of all grace and with the Spirit of God, to distribute unto all men, hath, according unto the epistle to the Hebrews and all the scripture, in the days of his mortal flesh, with fasting, praying, suffering, and crying to God mightily for us, and with shedding his blood, made full satisfaction both a pœna et a culpa1 (with our holy father’s leave) for all the sins of the world; both of theirs that went before, and of theirs that come after in the faith; whether it be original sin or actual: and not only the sins committed with consent to evil in time of ignorance, before the knowledge of the truth, but also the sins done of frailty after we have forsaken evil and consented to the laws of God in our hearts, promising to follow Christ and walk in the light of his doctrine.

   He saveth his people from their sins, Matth. 1, and that he only: so that there is no other name to be saved by. Acts 4. And “unto him bear all the prophets record, that all that believe in him shall receive remission of their sins in his name.” Acts 10. And by him only we have an entering in unto the Father, and unto all grace. Eph. 2 and 3 and Rom. 5. And as many as come before him are thieves and murderers, John 10; that is, whosoever preacheth any other forgiveness of sin than through faith in his name, the same slayeth the soul.

   This to be true, not only of original but also of actual [sin], and as well of that we commit after our profession as before, mayest thou evidently see by the ensamples of the scripture. Christ forgave the woman taken in adultery, John 8 and another whom he healed, John 5. And he forgave publicans and open sinners, and put none to do penance, as they call it, for to make satisfaction for the sin which he forgave through repentance and faith; but enjoined them the life of penance, the profession of their baptism, to tame the flesh in keeping the commandments, and that they should sin no more. And those sinners were for the most part Jews, and had their original sin forgiven them before through faith in the testament of God. Christ forgave his apostles their actual sins after their profession, which they committed in denying him, and put none to do penance for satisfaction. Peter (Acts 2) absolveth the Jews, through repentance and faith, from their actual sins, which they did in consenting unto Christ’s death; and enjoined them no penance to make satisfaction. Paul also had his actual sins forgiven him freely, through repentance and faith, without mention of satisfaction. Acts 9. So that, according unto this present text of John, if it chance us to sin of frailty, let us not despair; for we have an advocate and intercessor, a true attorney with the Father, Jesus Christ, righteous towards God and man, and [he] is the reconciling and satisfaction for our sins.

   For Christ’s works are perfect; so that he hath obtained us all mercy, and hath set us in the full state of grace and favour of God, and hath made us as well beloved as the angels of heaven, though we be yet weak: as the young children, though they can do no good at all, are yet as tenderly beloved as the old. And God, for Christ’s sake, hath promised that whatsoever evil we shall do, yet if we turn and repent, he will never more think on our sins.2

1.  Latin for "from guilt and punishment"

2.  Tyndale, W. (1849). Expositions and Notes on Sundry Portions of the Holy Scriptures, Together with the Practice of Prelates. (H. Walter, Ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 153–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jesus vs. Goliath (John 19:17-30)

John 19:17-30 parallels 18:13-27 in various ways, as seen also in John's neat chiastic arrangement (here). In 19:17-30 Jesus is taken from the Gentile "world" of Pilate's headquarters and back into the "land" near the city to be sacrificed on a cross, and eventually buried in a garden-tomb. Earlier in 18:13-27 Jesus was taken from the garden and sentenced to "die for the people" in that same land (v. 14). There in the land, Jesus declared that he had "spoken openly to the world" (v. 20), and in 19:17-30 Pilate writes an inscription above Jesus' cross for all to see, and he writes it in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek, the three dominant languages of the world. Last of all, John the author is present in the background of both scenes, labeled as "the disciple" (18:15 & 19:26-27). In chapter 18, John is the disciple "known to the high priest" and allowed to enter his house (v. 15), whereas in chapter 19 John is known by Jesus, the true High Priest of God, and adopted into the "temple-house of Jesus' Father."1 

The literary structure of 19:17-30 carries some interesting parallels as well. 

A)  Jesus carries his own cross (19:17)
   B)  The soldiers crucify Jesus, dividing two others, one man crucified on each side of him (19:18)
      C)  Pilate writes: "Jesus the Nazarene,2 the King of the Jews" (19:19)
         D)  Many Jews read the inscription; the inscription was in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek (19:21)
      C')  Chief Priests of the Jews correct what Pilate wrote: "This man said, I am King of the Jews" (19:21-22)
   B')  When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they divided his garments, one for each soldier (19:23-24)
A')  Jesus dies on the cross He carried (19:25-30)

In verse 17 (section A) Jesus is taken by soldiers, carrying his own cross to a place called Golgotha, which in Greek means "Place of the Skull." One Hebrew variant of Golgotha is gulgolet (גלגלת), which also means "skull," and is used throughout the old testament to describe "heads" of Israelites taken into the inventory of God's people. There are, however, a handful of other intriguing uses of gulgolet in the old testament which illuminate the significance of this name and place. The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains lists three occurrences especially worth noting: Judges 9:53; II Kings 9:35; and I Chron. 10:10. 

In Judges 9:53, a woman crushes Abimelech's gulgolet with a millstone, both echoing and foreshadowing the seed of the woman (Christ) promised to crush the "skull" of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). In II Kings 9:35, Jehu storms into the courtyard of Jezreel to fulfill the word of Yahweh's curse against Jezebel, the king's daughter. In Hebew, Jezreel means "that which God planted." There, where Yahweh had planted a wicked queen over Israel to chasten His people, Jehu would come to uproot both the fruit and the root of Israel's idolatry. Where the house of Ahab sowed seeds of wickedness, Israel's Queen would be trampled down by Jehu, leaving behind only her gulgolet, feet, and hands. By coming to crush the skull of Jezebel, Jehu foreshadows one aspect of Christ's work, by crushing a type of seductive harlot-bride, the King's daughter and persecutor of Yahweh's covenant people, as unveiled by Jesus to John (Rev. 2:18-29). 

Finally, in I Chronicles 10:10 we find the Philistines taking the gulgolet of King Saul and bringing it to their central city of worship and into the temple of Dagon. That event echoed King David's triumph over the Philistine giant, Goliath of Gath, whose gulgolet was cut off and taken near the city of Jerusalem (I Sam. 17:51-54). There, where the skull of Goliath of Gath was placed, is where Jesus was crucified: Gol-Gath-a. In the place where King David brought the crushed skull of the giant, there Jesus, the son of David, King of Israel, crushed the skull of the serpent. But John tells the story of skull-crushing a bit different than one might expect. In first Samuel, David carries his victory trophy while Yahweh scatters his enemies. In John's gospel, this section (19:17-30) begins with Jesus carrying his own cross to Golgotha, the "Place of the Skull," and he ends with Jesus on the cross he carried. Like David, Jesus also carries his victory trophy as the Father scatters his enemies, but unlike David, Jesus becomes the trophy lifted up for all the world to see.  His cross is the means of becoming lifted up, drawing all nations unto himself. As Jesus told Nicodemus at night, the Son of man must be lifted up so that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life (John 3:14). Even during the day, within the temple, Jesus proclaimed the same message, saying "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me" (8:28). And in case John wasn't clear enough in that passage, describing the necessity of being lifted up on a cross, it was before Jesus' arrest in the garden that He cried out one last time: "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself." But then John adds, "He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die" (12:32-33). 

In John 19:17-30, Jesus is hung on a tree, cursed of God, crushed for our iniquities. But in dying, the sins of the world are crushed with Him.  When both the "Head" and "Body" are crushed, the Spirit of God raises up a new body, a glorified Body, and they --being one with Him-- crush the head of the serpent. It is through the work of the cross that Satan's head is crushed and Jesus achieves victory, as promised in Genesis 3:15. It is through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and our union with His resurrected life that new creation begins, light overcomes darkness, and the powers of evil are destroyed.

1.  Peter J. Leithart, "We Saw His Glory" Implications of the Sanctuary Christology in John's Gospel, (published in Christology Ancient & Modern: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics; Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders, Editors) p. 128

2.  Peter Leithart makes this interesting remark about the inscription of Pilate: "Pilate's inscription on the cross identifies Jesus not as a but the Nazarene (John 19:19). In John, Nazareth is barely mentioned (cf. 1:45-46), and in John's view Pilate's titlon likely alludes not to Jesus' hometown but to Isaiah 11's prediction of a Messianic Branch (neser) from the stump of Jesse. Pilate's declaration means: "Jesus the Branch, King of the Jews." Qumran texts link Isaiah's Branch to the temple-building Branch (semah) of Zechariah 6:12: "Behold the man whose name is the Branch." Neser and semah are synonymous titles for the Messianic King who will build the eschatological temple. With his famous Ecce homo, Pilate quotes the first half of Zechariah 6:12 as he presents Jesus to the Jews, and then by putting "Nazarene" in the titlon he finishes the sentence and names Jesus as the Messianic temple-builder, a new Solomon." Ibid., p. 127. 

Kingdom Not of this World

In my last post on John, I mentioned briefly the way in which I understand Jesus's statement about His kingdom not being "of this world." In context, I believe Jesus was describing a kingdom which has an origin that is not of ethnic Israel, and therefore Jesus' own kingship is not of ethnic Israel either, which Pilate had asked Him about immediately before. Jesus' response was to clarify that He is a king, but He is not a king in the sense which Pilate had asked concerning uniquely Jewish character and limitations (i.e. "are you the King of the Jews?"), as though being a descendant of David, the King of Israel, limits is His kingly domain and origin to geopolitical Israel.

In response to this perspective of mine, I imagine that someone reading this post might object, arguing that Jesus spoke of a "world," not a Jewish territory, and therefore Jesus was contrasting this present world in which fallen humanity lives (the cursed world prior to the promised consummation of all things) with another "world" that is not essential to this present world (whatever that looks like). My response to such an objection is two fold: first, I have a difficult time understanding why some christians have a fascination with imagining other "worlds," as though the Scriptures actually talk that way, using the term "world" in the same ways they imagine. I especially find this emphasis upon an imaginative duality of "worlds" to be odd considering the dominating emphasis of Scripture upon restoring this present world. And so, even the concept of "dual worlds" seems, in my mind, to be misplaced and even unnecessary. Second, such a duality of emphasis is not the way John uses the term "world" all throughout his own gospel, nor is that the way Jesus used the term in the immediate context surrounding His discussion with Pilate. 

As we saw a couple posts earlier, Jesus' discussion with Pilate takes place in the center of a much larger narrative, in the center of chapters 18 & 19. In the preceding pericope, Jesus uses similar language, arguing before the High Priest, saying,  "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together" (18:20). Here, I think it is clear that "the world" is intentionally parallel with those meeting places of Jews. Jesus began with a reference to the world, but he clarifies further about where in "the world" and to whom in "the world" he spoke publicly. He spoke "in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together." In fact, as far as John's gospel is concerned, there are very few places where Jesus is not found teaching Jews, speaking in "the world" of first century Judaism. John's gospel just so happens to be the only gospel in which the majority of Jesus' ministry takes place in Jerusalem, and I find it incredibly unlikely that John's audience would not have noticed that. All three synoptic gospels portray Jesus teaching outside Jerusalem and finally traveling to Jerusalem at the very end of His ministry. But John portrays "the world" in which Jesus ministered very differently. In John's gospel, Jesus is portrayed as "tabernacling" among His people in "the world" of Jews, especially in the world's capital, Jerusalem. And in John 18:20, Jesus describes this ministry, primarily located in Jerusalem, and more broadly with Jews, as speaking "to the world." In my mind, "the world" to which Jesus made reference about the origin of His kingdom is directly connected with a very Jewish cosmos.

But still there are those who may argue differently, insisting that I'm missing the point (or some excuse like that). A few recent examples come to mind, actually. Not too long ago, an acquaintance of mine told me that Jesus' kingdom does not presently reign over this fallen world, but instead consists of some qualitatively different reality, a reality that is "heavenly" and reigns over a qualitatively different "world" (whatever that means). One result from this view is that our citizenship in Jesus' kingdom consists of this same duality, a duality which does not actually reign over this fallen world. Indeed, through such a view, the kingdoms of this world are presumed to not become subservient to the Kingdom of our Lord, which seems to me to conflict with the dominating themes of Scripture that speak of dominion and victory in and over this world for the people of God.

In another recent discussion, a christian man told me that Jesus' words to Pilate about His kingdom were referring to where Christians ought to focus their attention at all times. He even went so far as to say that Jesus' words are "all the support needed for where our concern should be." In other words, he believed that according to Jesus' words to Pilate, and only Jesus' words to Pilate, Christians should be concerned with things going on in a location that is not "of this world" (ek tou kosmou). Of course, I questioned the arbitrariness of that interpretation. As far as I understood things at that time, I considered Jesus words to be very similar to words which He has spoken just a couple chapters earlier, in His high-priestly prayer. In John 17:14-16, Jesus referred to Himself and His disciples in a similar way as He did with His kingdom before Pilate. There His disciples are said to be not "of the world" (ek tou kosmou). I interpret that as meaning of a "wordiness" akin to the Jews who repeatedly rejected Him throughout John's gospel. Certainly what Jesus did not mean was that His disciples were not located within this present fallen world. That would be absurd because Jesus was in this fallen world as He prayed that prayer. And also, He couldn't have meant that His disciples were to have no direct transformational influence upon this present fallen world, because in the very next verses Jesus prays that they would impact the world in which they are sent. Jesus says, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth." Whatever kind of "world" we think Jesus was sending His disciples into, whether it's a particularly Jewish territory antagonistic to Jesus' message or a region encompassing all the earth, Jesus' point remains the same: He sent them into the "world" to have a transforming affect upon it. The earthly emphasis of Jesus is really difficult to avoid, especially given the much larger context of John's gospel. 

But still some might say, 'Well, what about Philippians 3:20, in which Paul says that "our citizenship is in heaven"?'

To answer that question, I will link to a blog post of John Barach which begins with a lengthy and helpful quote from N.T. Wright, and then follows through with some further thoughts about "citizenship in heaven." That blog post can be found here. Enjoy.

No guilt found in Him (John 18:28-19:16)

Continuing where I left off in John's gospel, we finally arrive at the central section of chapters 18 & 19. As shown below, John structures this section in a seven-point chiasm, with the center focusing upon Jesus' coronation as King. All seven points are easy to distinguish as well, primarily because the most noticeable literary feature of this section is its frequent movement from outside to inside and back outside again, repeated twice (as seen below):

John 18:28-19:6

A)  Outside the Praetorium  (18:28-32)

   B)  Inside the Praetorium  (18:33-38a)

      C)  Outside the Praetorium  (18:38b-40)

         D)  Pilate takes Jesus, punishes Him, crowns and clothes Him as "King of the Jews"  (19:1-3) 

      C')  Outside the Praetorium  (19:4-8)

   B')  Inside the Praetorium  (19:9-11)

A')  Outside the Praetorium  (19:12-16)

There are many ironies found within this central section, only a few of which I have time to list below in this post, but two great ironies come immediately to mind: first, ever since Jesus' arrest in the garden began in chapter 18, no one has been an advocate of Jesus' kingship, but in this section, John portrays Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, as being a ruler over the Jews, a "world ruler" of sorts, able to apply the heaviest punishment upon evildoers, the punishment of death; and in John's narrative, this world ruler is the only sincere advocate of Jesus' Kingship. This is especially noticeable when set in contrast with the second irony, that the chief priests refuse to enter the Praetorium where Jesus and Pilate privately discuss His kingship. John even tells us why they refused to enter the Praetorium. John says that "...it was early, and they [the Jewish Leaders] themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (John 18:28). It was because of their own misunderstanding and distortion of God's Law that a firm belief developed about God disqualifying them from eating the Passover lamb, had they entered "unclean" space among the Gentiles. These kinds of man-made traditions were so precious that their eyes became blinded to who Yahweh really was, and by the time their Messiah arrives on the scene, they cared more about slaughtering and eating a literal lamb in God's sight than they did betraying and slaughtering the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29, 36).

The way John compacts all of this together in chapters 18 & 19 is really interesting. Jesus has been arrested in a garden, examined in a courtyard, and now he's dragged out into the world, outside the courtyard, to be crowned by a world ruler and presented back to the Jews as "your King" (John 19:14). The "chief priests" (18:35) accuse Jesus of "doing evil" (18:30) in order to justify handing Him over to this world ruler to die (18:31-32). They would crucify Jesus themselves, but empirical Law won't allow them to do so (18:31). John also makes a point of telling us that this day of crowning and slaughtering Jesus was also the "Day of Preparation of the Passover" (19:14). So then, while the chief priests stay back in the "courtyard", they think they are spared from defilement in preparation for Passover; but little did they know that by handing Jesus over to Pilate they were defiling themselves by handing over the Lamb of God with hands full of innocent blood.

The narrative gets even more interesting once we see what goes on inside the Praetorium. While the chief priests stay outside, Pilate engages in two private discussions inside with Jesus. Pilate asks Jesus if He is the King of the Jews (18:33), which is an odd question in and of itself unless rumors had already spread throughout Judea about Jesus being the King of the Jews. Jesus' response to Pilate's question is also kind of odd. Instead of answering with a simple 'yes' or 'no', Jesus responds in a way which makes Pilate affirm His kingship (18:36-37). Pilate also asks Jesus what evil He has done to deserve being handed over by the chief priests, and Jesus responds, again somewhat oddly, by talking about His kingdom. By affirming that He has a kingdom, He infers that He is a King. By affirming that His kingdom is not "of this world" (ek tou kosmou), He is inferring that His kingship originates outside of and rules beyond Jewish aristocracy. In other words, Jesus answers Pilate's question negatively about being the "King of the Jews," while at the same time maintaining positively that He is indeed a King who has a Kingdom that is not of Jewish, or "this-worldly" origin. Jesus even repeats Himself, clarifying some of what we might consider to be ambiguity of meaning, saying that His kingdom is "not from this world" (18:36). In the second discussion with Jesus, Pilate asks Jesus where He, not His kingdom, is from, and Jesus gives no answer (19:9). Pilate informs Jesus that he has the authority to crucify or release Him, but Jesus reminds Pilate what it means for His kingdom to not be "of this world." Jesus informs Pilate that he would have no authority over Him unless it had been given to him from above (19:11); therefore Pilate is really off the hook as far as ultimate authority is concerned, and the Jewish rulers have the greater sin for preparing Him for slaughter.

Pilate then offers to release Jesus in the place of an insurrectionist named Barabbas. Pilate doesn't want to be the "bad guy," and so he declares Jesus' innocence and then appeals to the Jewish rulers to choose between Jesus and Barabbas. By appealing to the Jewish rulers to make a decision, the blood is on their hands. Interestingly, the name Barabbas means "son of the Father," but when given the choice between releasing a false son of the Father or the true Son of the Father, the Jewish rulers choose the false "son." This irony only adds to the contrast between Pilate's intentions and the chief priests. After each discussion inside, Pilate goes outside to defend Jesus, declaring Jesus' innocence publicly three times, saying "I find no guilt in Him" (18:38; 19:4, 6, sections C & C' above). By seeking to release Jesus, Pilate takes upon himself the role of a high priest, releasing a scapegoat on the day of atonement, the day in which Jesus would atone for the sins of the world. By publicly confessing Jesus' innocence three times, John also portrays Pilate as a type of Peter who makes a greater confession in all three places where Peter had the opportunity to, but instead denied his Lord. As a greater confessor, Pilate is portrayed as a "good guy" who, above all the people in chapter 18 & 19, seems to actually treat Jesus as a true King, a true world ruler whose authority is not vested in Jewish aristocracy. Pilate wants to release Jesus and He knows there is something significantly wrong with the situation he is in. He knows Jesus doesn't deserve death. He knows Jesus is considered a king of sorts in the eyes of some Jews, and so he shames Jesus by scourging and presenting Him before the Jews in mock-coronation fashion. Jesus is crowned with thorns and arrayed in a purple robe, a royal robe of glory worn by people of nobility. Jesus is even mocked by Pilate's officers, hailing Him as the "King of the Jews." Over and over again Pilate wants to release Jesus, but the Jewish rulers won't stop pressuring him until Jesus is slain. By handing Jesus over to Pilate, along with his repeated declaration of there being no blemish of evil in Him, the chief priests are portrayed as the ones who prepare the paschal lamb to be slaughtered on the Day of Preparation.

Toward the end of all these events with Pilate going inside and out, again and again, John tells us that Pilate finally brings Jesus out and sits down upon a "seat of judgment" in a place called "The Stone Pavement." Here the Greek is ambiguous, leaving at least the grammatical possibility that Pilate sat Jesus down in the "seat of judgment." Regardless of who actually sat down in the judgment seat, whether Pilate or Jesus, the overall scene of Jesus with Pilate, two "world rulers" together, at the judgment-seat is really the main picture John is portraying for us. Here at the judgment-seat, John tells us that the place of this final scene of judgment was called "The Stone Pavement." In Greek this "Stone Pavement" is lithostroton, and is found elsewhere in Scripture, and in a passage that would be very familiar to first century Jews. In II Chronicles chapter seven we find Solomon dedicating the Temple, and in verse 3 Yahweh is described as descending in glorious fire upon His House with the people of Israel bowing down with their faces to the "stone pavement" (lithostroton) before Him. In John's narrative, the King of the world stands before Israel, scourged and bloody, crowned and robed in purple, but they won't bow down with their faces to the stone pavement before Him. They act as though they are in the judgment-seat, saying things like "He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God" (19:7). When faced with a choice of releasing a "son of the Father," they release an insurrectionist. When faced with acknowledging their king on the stone pavement, they cry out, "We have no King but Caesar!" (19:15). When faced with a choice of remaining clean and eating the Passover or defiling themselves by crucifying the Lamb of God, they shout, "Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!" (19:15). The rulers of Israel think the Son of God ought to die, even though there truly was no guilt found in Him. They think they're purging leaven from their house in preparation for Passover, but what they're actually doing is leavening another lump. They think they're preparing for the angel of Yahweh to pass over their house, but what they're actually doing is preparing the blood of the Lamb to be spread upon the doorposts of new "house" prepared by His Father, a house made of disciples of Jesus, filled with the Spirit of God and fed with the flesh and blood of Jesus, fed with true meat and drink indeed.

Poetic Redemption (John 18:13-27)

(This post continues where I left off in my recent series on John's gospel, chapters 18 & 19. The previous two posts in this series can be viewed here and here.) 


John 18:13-27 forms a neat chiastic framework, and there is a lot more packed into John's version of these events than what ordinarily meets the eye. John's chiastic framework is below:

A)  18:13-18 -- "Annas" & "Caiaphas" are both mentioned. Peter is "standing and warming himself" by a charcoal fire. Peter is asked, "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?" and Peter says "I am not" (ouk eimi)
    
    B)  18:19-21 -- The high priest asks a question & Jesus answers with a question. Jesus says he said nothing in secret.
    B')  18:22-23 -- An officer asks a question & Jesus answers with a question. Jesus says he said nothing wrong.

A')  18:24-27 -- "Annas" & "Caiaphas" are both mentioned. Peter is "standing and warming himself" by a charcoal fire. Peter is asked, "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?" and Peter says "I am not" (ouk eimi)

 

First John tells us that Jesus was led away from the garden to "the courtyard of the high priest" (v. 15). This mention of a "courtyard" is, in itself, a peculiar way of describing where the high priest was located. Courtyards are generally associated with the liturgical boundaries of the tabernacle and temple, not the houses of priests. But in this case, John seems to be alluding to these tabernacle boundaries intentionally, as though Jesus had moved from his arrest in a most-holy garden-sanctuary to it's outer courtyard, where sinners meet with their high priest. It is here in this courtyard of the high priest that we first learn of Peter being barred from entrance therein -- at least his initial attempt to enter in.

Next, John says that a slave-girl was the gatekeeper that night, and she expressed her curiosity of Peter's involvement with the trial of Jesus that night. This is where we find Peter's first emphatic denial of Jesus, expressed in a way that paints him as hiding from his Lord, not merely the enemies of his Lord. This intentional act of hiding is inferred from Peter's response to the gatekeeper's question, asking as he entered, "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?" Prior to this question, John had already informed us that he was known to the high priest (v. 15), and so they let him in; and it was him who came back out to tell the gatekeeper to let Peter in also. It is at that time when the gatekeeper asked if Peter is also one of Jesus' disciples. Peter could have said yes, and he still might not have been in any danger by saying so. After all, Peter was with John, and the high priest knew John and welcomed him in; John says so. But as we all know, what Peter says is not yes. Instead, what Peter says is an emphatic no, "I am not!" 

Why say no? And why does John record these two emphatic I am not's the way he does, sandwiching Jesus' trial between?
 

At first glance, this open denial of Jesus seems to have its strategic advantages, and we may want to sympathize with Peter. After all, Peter knows that the rulers of Israel have arrested Jesus because He claims to be the King of Israel. And Peter knows the end result of that arrest isn't going to be pretty. He knows they are going to find some way to try and execute Jesus as a criminal, and he doesn't want to be tried executed along with Jesus. Also, considering the fact that he already mustered up enough courage to strike the high priest's servant with a sword, and he lost that battle because of Jesus' surrender, he's probably not trying to attract too much attention to himself. He just wants to lay low below the radar and see what they do to Jesus. From this perspective, Peter doesn't look as bad as he could. But upon a second glance, we find a different picture.

 

Sandwiched between Peter's denials, we find Jesus on trial for his life while Peter hides himself, standing and warming himself by a charcoal fire. Inside, Jesus speaks openly and boldly while Peter tries to say as little as possible in the background. But there is more.

Inside, the high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his teaching, and Jesus responds by pointing out what should be most obvious to everyone in the room: He spoke openly to the world. He always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews assemble together. Nothing he said was in secret either. So why is the high priest asking Jesus about his own teaching? If he's on trial for something criminal, the high priest should ask other witnesses whom Jesus has spoken to. That is what God's Law requires, after all. In fact, Jesus' disciples should have been brought in as chief witnesses. Perhaps even Peter should have volunteered to speak in defense of Jesus. Perhaps. Interestingly, it is at this point that one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand because of Jesus' seemingly brass response (v. 22). Like Peter in the garden, this officer is bold to strike whom he perceives to be an enemy of God. But Jesus remains faithful in the face of adversity. Jesus responds again by appealing to God's Law and its requirement to bear true witness about His wrongdoing (v. 23). But there is more.

By recording these events this way, John is painting a vivid picture: Inside, Jesus repeatedly speaks out against the false witnesses against him, while Peter's lips are sealed in the background. Inside, the one who has the words of eternal life speaks openly and boldly against the unlawful violence inflicted upon him, while Peter stands and warms himself by a charcoal fire alongside officers of Israel. But there is more.

Immediately after Jesus' response, saying "If what I said is right, why do you strike me?" (v. 23), we are reminded a second time that "Simon Peter was standing and warming himself" (v. 25). This repetition of details is no mere coincidence. John wants us to interpret what is happening to Jesus in light of what Peter is doing nearby. It is while Peter stands there that some officers nearby ask him the same question as the gatekeeper, which means this is another chance for Peter to redeem himself by answering yes. But unfortunately, he denied it and said again, "I am not." Immediately after this, the final fall of Peter comes to fruition. A relative of Malchus who also was a participant in the arrest of Jesus in the garden, asks Peter, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" At that moment Peter denied Jesus' Lordship for a third time, and the rooster crowed, just as Jesus had prophesied (13:36-38). But there is more.

 

The overtones from this trinity of denial alongside a charcoal fire reverberate unto the end of John's gospel where we find the second and only other time this "charcoal fire" (anthrakia) is mentioned in all of Scripture. In John 21:9, the resurrected Jesus sits down with Peter next to a charcoal fire (anthrakia) and asks him one question three times: "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" By asking Peter this question three times by a charcoal fire, Jesus wasn't condemning him or reminding him that some strange form of poetic justice awaited him. Instead, Jesus' choice of words was designed to redeem him. Jesus wasn't challenging Peter's love and faithfulness by the charcoal fire; He was instructing Peter in how to love and serve His sheep more faithfully and boldly in the future. These three questions aren't the only words of Jesus by that charcoal fire. After these instructions, Jesus also prophesied about the kind of death Peter would suffer to glorify God (21:15-19). Just as surely as the rooster crowed according to the word of the Lord, this prophecy of Jesus was a sure sign that Peter would need to prepare to suffer as a faithful witness for the name of Jesus. From that time forward, Peter knew he would have to go where Jesus ultimately went (13:36-38), but because Jesus already went before him and was raised from death to life, his heart wouldn't need to be troubled. Where he would ultimately go is his heavenly Father's house, where Jesus had already prepared a place for him (14:1-4). But there is more.

 

In this brief narrative (John 18:13-27) we don't just learn something about Peter and his fall into sin. We also learn something about Adam and the whole human race united with him. The story of mankind after Adam's fall in the garden is a story about misunderstanding the Son of God and His voluntary surrender to death so that the world united to His resurrected life could live again. Just as Peter attempted to hide himself from the Lord, the whole world stands guilty of doing the same. Just as Peter told Jesus he would lay down his life for Jesus, but couldn't even admit to being his disciple when surrounded by enemies, so all those who remain united to Adam follow that same path to their own destruction. The world is filled with half-hearted people who say they would follow God wherever He leads, but would much rather stand cozy by a fire warming themselves from the cold instead of entering the heat of battle. But the good news of John 18:13-27 is that Jesus came into this fallen world and took upon Himself human nature in order to deliver even those who stumble and fall, over and over again, like Peter. It is because Jesus has overcome all temptation for us, and even faced death for us, and having been raised from death to life for us, that we know who we can go to right now for strength to overcome the next temptation. We know who we can go to now for courage to overcome the next temptation. We know to whom we can go to give us peace of mind as we endure those trials and overcome those temptations. But there is more.

From this brief narrative we learn that the world united to the first Adam only knows what it's like to be Peter, denying his Lord over and over again by the first charcoal fire. The world united to Jesus, however, knows what it's like to be Peter by both charcoal fires, the first convicting him of his sins and the second redeeming him. The world united to Jesus knows what it's like to fail Jesus in the garden and the courtyard too, even as Peter did, but yet still cling to Jesus as He takes that failure with him to a cross and tomb. The world united to Jesus on his cross and in his tomb knows that it must be a martyr for Him, dying each day for Him. But in dying with Jesus, the world is raised in glory with Him, and being raised with Him in glory, every day of resurrected life is one more day to speak openly and boldly in the face of false witnesses. Every day is one more day to testify to the truth of the empty tomb. 

 

The Fall of Peter (John 18:1-12)

As noted in a previous post, after returning from my first intensive course at the Trinity House Institute for Biblical, Liturgical, & Cultural Studies, I have decided to start writing a series of posts on John's gospel, starting with some of my own thoughts about chapters 18 & 19. I'm starting with those two chapters primarily because of a group discussion our class had on those two chapters, and I want to share my own thoughts while our group discussion is fresh in mind. Below are some of my own thoughts.

John 18:1-12 follows a neat chiastic arrangement:

A)  vv. 1-3 -- "band of soldiers" and "officers of the Jews"
    B)  vv. 4-5 -- "ego eimi" ("I AM")       
        C)  v. 6 -- John's observation: soldiers and officers fall down from "ego eimi" ("I AM")
    B')  vv. 7-9 -- "ego eimi" ("I AM")
A')  vv. 10-12 -- "band of soldiers" and "officers of the Jews"

In this section we find many literary connections between Judas's actions and Peter's. Judas is mentioned twice as "the one who betrayed him" (vv. 2, 5) just as Peter is mentioned twice as the one having a "sword" (vv. 10, 11). We also find Judas bringing in backup to arrest Jesus, and they bring lanterns, torches, and weapons with them--a triple emphasis (v. 3). Peter attempts to stop Jesus' arrest with his sword, and there we find another triple emphasis: he draws his sword, strikes with it, and cuts off the right ear of the High Priest's servant, Malchus (v. 10). In the middle of all this, we find another triple action, only it's from the words of Jesus (vv. 5-8). Three times the divine words ego eimi ("I AM") are highlighted, and the central reference comes from John, the author, who says the soldiers fell down to the ground by the Word of God. Interestingly, just as Judas was mentioned twice at the beginning as the one who betrayed Jesus, in the following pericope (18:13-27) it is Peter whose words of betrayal are explicitly stated twice, saying ouk eimi ("I am not", vv. 17 & 25). All these judicial witnesses of two's and three's in a garden can hardly be accidental on John's part.

In this scene, Judas is portrayed as a subtle serpent entering the garden to tempt and trap Jesus, the second Adam. But Jesus knows the will of His heavenly Father (v. 4), and so he doesn't give into the serpent's temptation. Jesus also knows He has complete control over the situation. He manifests His great power with the breath of his mouth, knocking down his enemies. It is only after this manifestation of divine power that find Jesus doing something shocking. He knows His enemies have arrived with lanterns, torches, and weapons to seize Him, but He doesn't defend himself. Instead He defends His disciples by giving up his own life for them: "If you seek me, let these men of mine go." (v.8 ESV). By doing this, Jesus manifests himself as the greater Adam. Jesus does what the first Adam should have done in the Garden. Jesus protects his Bride by laying down his life for Her. 

However, the narrative doesn't end there. According to the way John records this series of events, it seems like Peter had not been paying much attention to what Jesus was saying, or to the fact that some soldiers fell down by His word. Peter, instead, seems to remain focused upon the soldiers with lanterns, torches, and weapons. His response to all of the commotion is to war with the serpent in the garden, seizing authority not given to him by God, by drawing, striking, and cutting off the ear (apparently aiming for the head) of the high priest's servant. By going to war with the serpent, Peter is also portrayed as ignorant of what Jesus' divine mission is. If anyone in this narrative understands the divine mission, it's the soldiers who just fell down on the ground from the mere breath of the Lord. But John doesn't tell us anything more about those who fell down. It is clear enough that those who fell down had perceived Jesus to be the one in complete control. All John continues to tell his readers is that Peter attacks the high priest's servant, Malchus, as though the divine affirmation of Jesus' authority wasn't good enough.

Peter also seems to expect the other disciples to join in with him in the attack. This is like Judas, who brought a band of soldiers with him because he expected resistance from Jesus and his disciples. And so, when Peter attacks Malchus, the high priest's servant, Peter is not thinking Christ's thoughts after Him. He is thinking Judas's thoughts after him. By striking Malchus, Peter is betraying his own High Priest, Jesus. By striking Malchus, Peter is striking Yahweh's servant. Interestingly, the name Malchus means "the kingly one," which again highlights the fact that by disregarding Jesus' voluntary surrender, Malchus is obeying the word of the Lord and Peter is symbolically striking the Kingly One. Malchus' actions are in line with the Father's will, whereas Peter's actions are not. In this regard, Jesus' response to Peter's actions are very telling: "Put your sword into its sheath, shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?"1 (v. 11).

By highlighting Judas' betrayal at the beginning of this garden scene, there is no surprise that Jesus would be arrested and taken away. The real surprise of John's narrative is Peter betraying Jesus. Judas enters this garden with a band of soldiers because he knows Jesus often met there with his disciples, walking and talking with them in the cool of the day. But it is Peter who falls into temptation in the garden. It is Peter who thinks his eyes are open, discerning good from evil. It is Peter who is deceived by the craftiness of the serpent.

1.  Another translation of Jesus' words (however unlikely) could be: "Throw the knife into the grave! The cup that the Father has determined to give me, shall I not drink it?"