In depicting Jesus' identity and mission within his Gospel, the evangelist John was concerned to present elements and themes that were especially significant for Christian readers facing Roman imperial claims and for any who faced Roman persecution. Such a statement is offered at the outset of this study as an orientation for the analysis that will be made in the chapters that follow. Even when stated in such an introductory fashion, this thesis may well prove startling for many readers and students of the Gospel of John. The reason for such surprise is simply that John's Gospel has traditionally not been approached with a particular sensitivity for its Roman context.

John's Gospel has frequently been analyzed as a Gospel emphasizing personal belief in, and an "abiding in," Jesus. Yet may there not also be a message within the Gospel to Christians who faced significant political challenges and pressures as a result of their personal allegiance to Jesus? Within scholarly circles John's Gospel has frequently been regarded as responding to Hellenistic culture, to Gnosticism, and to the rupture between Judaism and Christianity. But, apart from these considerations, may it not be the case that the Gospel consciously responds to significant developments within the Roman world? To express these questions in such a manner serves to advance the view that John was influenced by multiple cares and concerns when he published his Gospel. Simultaneously, such questions also emphasize the new insight that Roman actions and policies were significant influences upon John at the time when he published his account.

In effect, then, what is signaled by these questions is the intention of achieving a modification in the conceptual scaffolding traditionally used to investigate the various dimensions of John's Gospel. While the presently existing scaffolding is extremely useful, it is far from comprehensive. In particular, the present scaffolding needs to be expanded with new materials and perspectives derived from considering features of the Gospel that relate extraordinarily well to significant elements in Roman rule at the end of the first Christian century and the beginning of the second century.

1. THE AUTHORSHIP OF JOHN'S GOSPEL

Within contemporary New Testament studies there are scarcely more disputed topics than those pertaining to the composition and authorship of John's Gospel. The traditional view is that the present twenty-one chapters of the Gospel were written by a single person, a member of Jesus' group of apostles. However, many recent interpretations have disputed this view and have, in the main, posited a much more complex process of composition, one involving a redactor (editor) in addition to the initial writer and quite probably the contributions of others as well.

Readers of the present study who wish to investigate the question of authorship at greater depth should give their attention to the discussions of the subject that can be found in virtually all of the leading commentaries on John's Gospel. The same recommendation is also made in regard to the much discussed subject of the sources that may have been utilized in the composition of the Gospel. However, at this juncture, the point to be grasped in relation to the present study is that its principal thesis is fundamentally compatible with either the traditional or the more recent views regarding the authorship of the Gospel.

The rationale for such an assertion has essentially to do with the fact that, whatever the exact process of composition, John's Gospel eventually reached a final form and began to be circulated within the early Christian community. Conceivably, a single author may have written the Gospel out of personal energy and inspiration. Conceivably, one writer may have written a draft of the present Gospel with the prologue (1:1-18), other passages, and an appendix (21:1-25) supplied by a later editor-publisher. Conceivably, other members of a "Johannine school" may also have been substantially involved in the process. Nevertheless, at some stage, the Gospel achieved its final form and began to be read as a finished account.

The image of a scroll or codex containing the Gospel being formally prepared for circulation is perhaps a useful image to adduce here. At some point in time someone with ultimate responsibility for the text made the decision that the Gospel was now finished and took steps to circulate it within the surrounding Christian community. Within the present study, the person who took these steps will henceforward be referred to as "John" or as "the evangelist." Once again, this person (or persons) may have become involved in the authorship of the Gospel after another (others) had already written the major portions of what is now the finished Gospel. However, on the other hand it must not be precluded that the person who finalized the Gospel was indeed the very person who composed it from the beginning. In any event, humanly speaking, John is now named as the person who ultimately determined what perspectives regarding Jesus' identity and mission would reach the first readers of the Fourth Gospel.

2. THE DATE OF JOHN'S GOSPEL

At what date did John finalize his Gospel and commend it to his readers? On this question contemporary scholarly opinion is widely diversified with a few scholars on one end of the spectrum favoring a date as early as 65 C.E. and a few on the other end arguing for dates as far into the second century as 130. Perhaps it is safe to say that the preponderance of scholarly opinion favors a date somewhere within the last decade of the first century, i.e., a date between 90 and 100 c.e. Yet even scholars who advance plausible reasons for regarding this decade as the most probable time of composition are careful to leave open the possibility that John may have completed his work on either side of that decade.

Significantly, just as the central thesis of the present study is congruent with a single or multiple-author theory of composition, so is it also generally compatible with virtually all of the views traditionally expressed regarding the Gospel's date of publication. For, as will be indicated in chapters two and three, the Roman policies and procedures that this study asserts as influences upon John were substantially in place from the decade of the 70s onwards.

Nevertheless, these considerations relative to general compatibility should not be taken to mean that there are not intervals within the spectrum of dates that are more congenial to the thesis of this study. As will be seen below, developments highly relevant to John's final account occurred during the reigns of the Roman emperors Domitian (81-96) and Trajan (98-117). And thus, if it can be established on other grounds that John published his account sometime after the early 80s, additional grounding will be available for the principal argument being advanced here. Still, it must be noted that definite evidence concerning Trajan's decision that Christians be executed "for the name" does not preclude the possibility that the execution of Christians on comparable grounds had already taken place many years earlier.

3. THE LOCATION OF JOHN AND HIS READERS

If it can be said that there is a certain clustering of scholarly opinion around the decade of the 90s as the likely date of John's work, it can also be said that there is a certain convergence of scholarly opinion in favor of Ephesus as the most likely location for the Gospel. On what grounds is Ephesus so favored? Usually a judgment about the Gospel's place is influenced by elements within the text that presumably congrue well with the known features of a particular location. In addition the testimony supplied from external sources, e.g., Irenaeus and other early Christian writers, may well be utilized.

In addition to Ephesus other locations that have been advanced include Antioch in Syria, Alexandria in Egypt, and a location within Palestine. Each of these other locations does have adherents and, given the paucity of incontrovertible evidence, it hardly seems possible to move beyond relative grades of plausibility in seeking to identify John's exact location.

Within the framework of the present study, though, it is not John's exact location, but rather his general location that is of inestimable importance! For, as can easily be determined from a brief glance at the map on page 92, Ephesus itself as well as Antioch, Alexandria, and the Palestinian territories are all located within the confines of the Roman empire. Stating this point virtually borders upon stating a truism. Yet this fundamental insight is critical for the interpretation of the Gospel that will be advanced in the succeeding chapters.

Where was John located? It is unassailable that John was not located in Parthia or Dacia or anywhere else outside of the boundaries of the Roman empire. In contrast, what can immediately be said of the territories of Asia, Syria, Judea, and Egypt is that, at the time of John's work, they all were located within the territories ruled by Rome. And thus, wherever John's location when he published his Gospel, he published it within the geographical and political context of Roman rule.

What is more, as incontrovertibly as John himself is to be located within the context of Roman rule, so too are his intended readers. Did John envision his Gospel as a resource for the Christians and potential Christians of one locality only? Or rather, did he envision it as a document that would serve Christians and those proximate to Christianity wherever they were located? Did John supervise the production of copies of the Gospel for use outside of the locality in which he himself resided? Posing such questions as these serves to emphasize again that the Roman empire is both the venue for the Gospel and the venue for its readers.

At this point it is also important to reflect again upon the reality of John's Gospel as a document that circulated. John, located somewhere within the empire, circulated the Gospel as an authoritative document to readers who were located with him in one province of the empire, but also to readers located in the adjacent provinces.

What this means, obviously, is that John and his readers both possessed a common frame of reference as to the various facets and the basic patterns of Roman rule. For both John and his readers, Roman provincial rule was a common experience. For both John and his readers, Roman political and military procedures were understood realities. And for both John and his readers, the initiatives of a new emperor, or even those of a new governor, were very definitely phenomena to be reckoned with.

4. THE STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

From the foregoing considerations the basic rationale for the present study should now be evident and it remains to indicate the principal structural lines of the chapters that follow. Initially there will be two chapters delineating important imperial practices in the approximate time frame of John's Gospel. These brief chapters will then be followed by four chapters in which passages in John's account that seem to respond to these Roman realities will be analyzed. The final chapter of the book will then summarize the intervening analysis and state, in developed form, the thesis of this study.

Readers should be cautioned at this juncture, a caution that will be explained more fully at the outset of chapter four, not to expect that definitive empirical proof will be given to establish that John consciously responded to the realities of Roman rule in setting forth his Gospel. Rather, what will be illuminated is (a) that John's Gospel generally responds to the phenomena of Roman claims and Roman persecution with extraordinary effectiveness and (b) that particular features and elements of the Gospel have a truly amazing congruence with key terms and key practices that the Roman authorities utilized in their governance and in their dealings with Christians.

What information about Jesus did John's readership already possess before John published his Gospel? Seemingly, whether they were newly oriented to the Christian faith or whether they had matured in their faith through many years, one feature of Jesus' story about which they would have been well informed was the fact that Jesus had been tried and executed by the Roman governor of Judea. And thus it is reasonable to presume that John's narrative concerning this aspect of Jesus' life would have possessed great moment for all of his readers and especially any of them who were themselves subject to trials by the Roman authorities.

What would such readers have learned from John's account of Jesus' Roman trial? What would they have learned from John's reports concerning the circumstances of Jesus' death? These questions are of primary interest within the present chapter. However, it must be recognized that John's descriptions of Jesus' interactions with Pilate are embedded within a completely woven narrative fabric in which Jesus' principal opponents also interact with Pilate and press for Jesus' destruction. And therefore considerations about Jesus' adversaries and their maneuvers against him appropriately precede an analysis of the significant exchanges that occur between Pilate and Jesus.

1. JESUS' OPPONENTS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

Who are Jesus' opponents according to John? And what is the nature of his conflict with them? To frame these questions and to seek answers for them involves coming to terms with the Fourth Gospel on various levels and engenders a profound respect for the subtleties and nuances of the account that John has provided.

John depicts the following individuals, groups, and entities as exhibiting hostility toward Jesus: the Pharisees, the chief priests, Annas, Caiaphas, the authorities, the Jews, the Council (Sanhedrin), Judas, Satan, and the world. Yet in essence, once John's complex use of the term "the Jews" is properly appreciated, the way is paved for the understanding that all of the just mentioned persons and entities essentially constitute a single allied group that willfully rejects Jesus' identity and consciously seeks his demise.

Significantly, a close analysis of the occurrences of "the Jews" within John's narrative establishes that, when John uses this term with negative connotation, the reference is either to the chief priests or to the Pharisees or to both of these groups simultaneously. In addition it can be shown that, when John uses the term "the authorities," the chief priests are again the group referred to. Finally, it can also be demonstrated that John regards this alliance of the chief priests and the Pharisees as having been influenced by "the ruler of this world," who is Satan.

The foregoing insights have particular importance with regard to the interpretation of John's account of Jesus' trial. It signifies that, for John, those pressing for Jesus' death are essentially an adversarial group comprised of chief priests and Pharisees. Clearly this also is an insight that carries major implications with respect to the tragic phenomenon of anti-Semitism within subsequent Christian tradition. Mistakenly, these Johannine references to "the Jews" have again and again been taken to signify opposition to Jesus by all Jews.

To emphasize this important point by restating it, the group pressuring Pilate for Jesus' death is essentially an alliance of chief priests and Pharisees and is distinct from the Jewish populace of Jerusalem. Their dispute with Jesus extends well back into the body of the Gospel, and fundamentally their hostility has been engendered by Jesus' exalted status and the claims he advances. The Roman authorities themselves are not mentioned until relatively late in the Gospel. However, once the Roman governor enters upon John's stage, he too becomes embroiled in the controversy about Jesus' identity. From beginning to end John's Gospel is essentially christological. In a very real sense Jesus comes to be tried before the Roman governor because he insists upon his own exalted identity and sharply attacks the Pharisees and the chief priests ("the Jews") for refusing to accept him.

How then does John depict the exact developments and circumstances that eventuate in Jesus' Roman trial? The first attempts of Jesus' adversaries to arrest him or kill him are spontaneous or at most "semi-official." However, as 11:47-53 indicates their efforts subsequently assumed an official and. . a more coordinated character. Given the important turn of events that is signaled by the high priest's intervention at this juncture, this passage is appropriately cited in full:

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death (11:47- 53).

Perhaps the most difficult aspect to reflect about in the foregoing passage regards the degree of sincerity that John wishes to ascribe to the chief priests and the Pharisees when he reports the concluding part of their statement, "... and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." There is comparatively little difficulty in interpreting the first part of their reaction, because Jesus has just performed the major sign of healing the blind man (9:1-41) and now the unsurpassed sign of bringing Lazarus back to life (11:1-44). John's readers are thus not surprised that the chief priests and Pharisees, upon receiving the report of Lazarus' restoration (11:45-56), become alarmed that everyone may soon believe in Jesus.

But what plausibility does John want attached to his report that these adversaries feared a forceful intervention on the part of the Romans? Interestingly, this verse marks the first reference to Roman rule within John's Gospel. By including it here, John recalls to his readers that Roman rule was fundamental to the political landscape of Palestine during the time of Jesus' ministry. (Again, all of John's readers themselves live under Roman rule.) This preliminary notice regarding the Romans also functions as a kind of "bridge" to John's subsequent reports that Roman soldiers participated in the arrest of Jesus (18:30) and to his report of the actual trial before the Roman governor. Yet to what degree do Jesus' adversaries fear that the Romans will move against "our holy place" and "our nation" because of Jesus' successors? That is still the question.

When this passage is read in the context afforded by John's portrayal of these adversaries up until this point in the narrative, it is hard to conceive that John now credits them with any significant degree of sincerity. Their harsh criticism of Jesus and their machinations against him and his searing indictments of them in turn have dominated the preceding chapters. Thus it is hardly conceivable that John intends that his readers accept at face value Jesus' enemies' words that they are now acting because they altruistically fear for the preservation of the temple and the safety of the people. Rather, is it not John's sense that these adversaries are now acting because Jesus' successes greatly imperil their own vested interests? And is it not John's sense that they are somehow trying to persuade themselves and others as well that their motives are not craven but somehow laudatory?

The foregoing line of interpretation regarding John's subtle meaning in presenting the council members' words is extended by a similar reading of the statement by Caiaphas that John next portrays. In this interpretation Caiaphas' phrasing, "... it is expedient for you that one man should die,..." is of central importance because, in effect, the self-interest of the conspirators comes closer to the surface. Caiaphas' words indicate that it is expedient for them that Jesus should die. What then is the force of his further intimation that Jesus die".., for the people, that the whole nation would not perish"?

Clearly the evangelist is interested in these words as representing an unintended prophecy regarding the salvific consequence of Jesus' death for the Jewish people and for the children of God everywhere. That meaning is unmistakable given the explicit editorial comment that John himself makes in the immediately following verse. Still, how does John precisely understand the meaning of Caiaphas' words as words uttered to the Sanhedrin? The answer is that, at this level of meaning, Caiaphas' words represent nothing less than a cynical formulation of a cover story to be used in justifying the Sanhedrin's formal initiatives to destroy Jesus.

In effect then, the fundamental dynamic of Caiaphas' intervention is to chide his fellow Sanhedrin members for ineffective handwringing about what is to be done. It is to their fundamental interest that Jesus be eliminated. And any popular outcry arising from the Sanhedrin's initiative against him will be met by the response that they were forced to act in order to avert a catastrophic Roman intervention that would jeopardize the entire nation.

John's next report and one several verses later witness to the fact that Caiaphas' emphatic intervention was favorably received and galvanized the Sanhedrin into formal measures against Jesus. "So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death," John tells his readers in 11:53. And then, using terminology that suggests that a formal warrant was issued against Jesus, John states, "Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if any one knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him" (11:57).

Given the necessary limitations of this study and the fact that John's Roman trial account remains the primary concern of the present chapter, only brief mention can be made at this time to two developments that occur within John's narrative between this point and Jesus' appearance before Pilate more than five chapters later. Both of these items shed important light upon the circumstances under which Jesus arrived at Pilate's praetorium.

The first of these narrative developments centers upon the initial lack of success that the chief priests and Pharisees have in their efforts to apprehend Jesus. Throughout the Gospel John portrays Jesus acting in such a way that his adversaries are kept off balance regarding his movements and his intentions, and this modus operandi is evident here as well. John relates that Jesus no longer went about openly but rather withdrew with his disciples "to the country near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim" (11:54). After an interval, though, he traveled once more to Bethany, proximate to Jerusalem, to the house of Martha, Mary and Lazarus (12:1). At this point John's sense is that Jesus once again comes under surveillance from his adversaries (12:10). However, despite this surveillance, his enemies are powerless to prevent him from receiving a great welcome and royal acclaim when he enters Jerusalem on the next day (12:12-19).

The second narrative development centers upon the role of Judas and Satan in achieving the arrest of Jesus. The chief priests and Pharisees were virtually powerless at the time of Jesus' entry. However, within days, they have him in custody and on trial before the Roman governor. When John's account is read closely with a view to explaining the adversaries' sudden success against Jesus, it emerges that John never explicitly mentions any formal or even informal contact between the chief priests and the Roman administration prior to Jesus' arrest. In contrast, what John does indicate is that Judas' betrayal of Jesus (a betrayal influenced by Satan; see 13:2,27,30) was the critical factor in allowing the chief priests and Pharisees to apprehend Jesus and bring him to trial.

When Judas departs from the final supper, John does not relate that Judas left in order to conspire with the chief priests and the Pharisees. Nor, as just mentioned, does John indicate that there were prior contacts by these parties with the Roman authorities regarding Jesus. Nevertheless, from John's description of the arrest that subsequently took place in a secluded garden across the Kidron valley, it emerges that these contacts have been made. For, when Judas arrives upon that scene, he has with him attendants (guards) from the chief priests and Pharisees and a cohort of Roman soldiers with their tribune (18:3,12). After at first being disoriented by Jesus' sovereign presence, this arresting party recovers its purpose, seizes Jesus, and leads him bound to the high priest Annas (18:12-13).

2. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN JESUS' ADVERSARIES AND PILATE

After his arrest Jesus was taken to Annas, who asked questions about Jesus' disciples and his teaching only to have him respond with an indignant, even defiant declaration (18:13,19-23). Annas then sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas (18:24), and from there Jesus was subsequently taken to Pontius Pilate's praetorium (18:28).

As is well known, John's portrayal of Jesus' trial before Pilate has a dramatic quality to it. Like an actor moving between two locations on a single stage, Pilate is shown to move back and forth between Jesus' adversaries, who remain outside the praetorium, and Jesus, who is under guard inside. It should be noted that John's descriptions of these interactions are exceedingly complex and that a clear appreciation for the outcome that emerges can only be gained by giving careful attention to the gradual shifts that Pilate makes as the drama unfolds.

From the standpoint of the present study, the multifaceted assertions of his own sovereignty that Jesus makes to Pilate are of primary interest and will be treated separately in the next section of this chapter. Nevertheless, because they supply important data to John's readers as to the outcome of Jesus' public ministry and because they also obviously supply the immediate context for Jesus' interactions with Pilate, it is important to analyze the principal points that John presents in detailing Jesus' adversaries' encounter with Pilate. Finally, the fact that loyalty to Caesar emerges so prominently at the end of these encounters also makes them of more than passing interest.

Because this material is complex, it will be useful to provide a general overview of the parties' interactions before delving into a more detailed exegesis of the specific exchanges. In particular, three characteristics of John's narrative are to be observed: (a) that throughout the proceedings Jesus' adversaries remain absolutely uncompromising in their demand for his execution; (b) that they sequentially shift their charges against him until they finally arrive at a charge and at a threat that proves effective with Pilate; and (c) that while Pilate gradually loses his dominant position, he still retains sufficient leverage to ensure that the chief priests debase themselves as the price for Jesus' death.

Keeping these considerations in mind, it is now possible to delve more deeply into the particular exchanges between Pilate and Jesus' adversaries that John reports. Essentially John reports six of these interchanges with each except the last ending in such a way that Pilate remains face to face with the demand for Jesus' execution.

The second interchange with the adversaries (18:38b-40) occurs after Pilate has had a somewhat extended exchange with Jesus. (As indicated, Pilate's dialogues with Jesus will be treated below; however, it is noted here that Pilate's interrogation of Jesus has turned on the issue of whether he is "the king of the Jews."). The governor declares that he finds Jesus guilty of no crime and offers the adversaries a face-saving way for them to retreat from their demand. While he is rejecting their case, he nevertheless proposes that he release Jesus, "the king of the Jews" (18:39b), not by an outright dismissal of the charges but rather by the utilization of an existing custom? Adamantly, the adversaries reject this offer and then squelch any use of this "Passover" custom to free Jesus by demanding that Barabbas be the one released under this provision.

The third interchange occurs after Pilate has ordered Jesus' scourging and his soldiers have mocked him with the derisive, "Hail, king of the Jews" (19:1-2). Opening this scene, Pilate reiterates to the adversaries that he finds no crime in Jesus and presents him to them scourged and mocked and now wearing a crown of thorns (19:4-5a). Pilate's famous words in presenting Jesus to them, "Behold the man," appear designed to win a measure of sympathy for Jesus as one who has been dealt with severely, with a view to gaining his release (19:5a). However, the chief priests and their attendants remain unmollified by Jesus' condition and raise the chant, "Crucify him, crucify him" (19:6a).

The fourth interchange then follows immediately (19:6b-8). The briefest of the six alternations, it is also the one that is least susceptible to succinct summary. In context, Pilate's statement to the chief priests that they should take and crucify Jesus themselves essentially emphasizes his own position as the only one possessing authority and power for crucifixion. And even as his statement reminds Jesus' adversaries of this, it also re-emphasizes to them that Pilate does not find Jesus guilty of any crime requiring death. In light of the preceding chants to crucify Jesus, Pilate's present declaration indicates his own continued refusal to do so.

However, again Jesus' adversaries are intransigent. They emphatically insist that Jesus must die, now giving as the rationale for his execution that he had made himself the Son of God. John then indicates that, upon hearing these words, Pilate was "the more afraid" (19:8b). The exact meaning of this latter phrase has proved elusive, but it may be John's sense that Pilate now became increasingly uneasy about his own role in the proceedings once he heard this reference to Jesus' exalted status.

It is the fifth exchange between Pilate and Jesus' opponents that first signals the turn toward Jesus' execution. In the aftermath of his final dialogue with Jesus, Pilate sought once again to release him. However, at this juncture Jesus' adversaries pressed a new charge against him, coupling it with a threat to denounce Pilate to Caesar. And Pilate then began to retreat from his previously strong declamations that Jesus should be released!

As John reports them, the charge and the threat reinforce each other, and loyalty to Caesar is a central moment in each. The charge, expressed in the second part of their response to Pilate, transposed a title that was initially used by Pilate, and then subsequently used as an epithet by his soldiers. That title, of course, was "the king of the Jews." And now the chief priests' charge against Jesus is that he is a king against Caesar: "Every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar" (19:12b).

Jesus' adversaries accompanied this charge with an ominous, scarcely concealed threat. Although John never expressly states that Pilate was shaken by the threat of being denounced to Caesar, such a consequence is implicitly recorded as his narrative now moves forward and Pilate ends by handing Jesus to his soldiers for crucifixion. It is therefore appropriate that this threat be explicitly cited: "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" (19:12a).

The final interchange that John describes should be regarded as a careful portrayal of how a Roman governor, at once powerful and threatened, finally acceded to the pressure of Jesus' intransigent adversaries for his death. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor in question, did accede to the chief priests' demand. However he did not do so without first exacting a price of his own from them.

In contrast with the circumstances of several of the preceding interchanges, John does not here depict Pilate interacting further with Jesus before proceeding. Rather, in 19:13 John portrays Pilate acting directly in response to the adversaries' threat. He brings Jesus out for formal judgment and seems to be on the verge of sentencing him to crucifixion. Yet he undertakes two additional steps.

Pilate's first move can be regarded as a final attempt to gain Jesus' release. Earlier he attempted to gain sympathy for Jesus by presenting him with the words, "Behold the man." Now he presents Jesus with the words, "Behold your king." In the former instance Jesus' adversaries cried, "Crucify him, crucify him." Now, still unrelenting, their cry is, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him" (19:15).

The intent of Pilate's second step only becomes clear when the full meaning of the response that it elicits from Jesus' adversaries is reflected upon. Pilate's next words "Shall I crucify your King?" (19:15b) mark a critical turn in the proceedings. His receptiveness to Jesus' execution is now indicated, yet he continues to play upon the term "king", seemingly in an effort to have his own position respected. So intent are Jesus' adversaries upon his death-is this not the sense of John's scene at this point--that they now abjectly demean themselves in order to overcome this last obstacle, the Roman governor's insistence that his own prerogatives be verbally respected.

What is the response that the chief priests give to Pilate's provocative reference to Jesus as their king? It is the craven, self-debasing protestation: "We have no king but Caesar" (19:15c). John then reports that upon hearing these words Pilate handed Jesus over for crucifixion.

In effect, then, the chief priests have won their objective, Jesus' death. Nevertheless, while having had to turn from his own conviction about Jesus under their pressure, Pilate still has managed to maintain vestiges of his prerogatives as governor. As the narrative proceeds, he additionally asserts these prerogatives by refusing imperiously to accede to the chief priests' request that the wording of the inscription on Jesus' cross be altered (19:19-22).

3. JESUS' SOVEREIGNTY MANIFESTED BEFORE PILATE

As noted in the preceding chapter, John's Gospel is permeated by references to Jesus' sovereign standing from the prologue forward. These references are intensified, if anything, in the descriptions that John now provides regarding Jesus' arrest, his trial before Pilate, and his death. Indeed, the passages pertaining to these events are so alloyed with indications of Jesus' sovereignty that a full presentation of this aspect cannot be undertaken within the space available here. The paragraphs that follow should thus be regarded as an attempt to treat only certain elements in John's presentation of Jesus' sovereignty. Also, the formal task of correlating John's trial narrative with the presumed experiences and sensibilities of his readers will not be undertaken until the following chapter.

With respect to John's arrest scene, it should be noted how fully sovereign Jesus is before the arresting party. John relates that Jesus knew in advance what would befall him and took the initiative in addressing the arresting party (18:4). When he identified himself to them, stating "I am he," those in the arresting party drew back and fell to the ground (18:6). Following this, Jesus asked again whom they were seeking and then mandated the release of his disciples in fulfillment of his earlier word (18:7-9). Finally, in rebuking Peter for striking with the sword, Jesus emphasized that he himself was consciously choosing to drink from the cup which the Father had given him (18:11).

At a general level two things may be said with respect to the dialogues between Jesus and Pilate that John relates within the framework of his longer trial narrative. Negatively, Jesus is neither obsequious before nor intimidated by Pilate. Positively, he takes the "interrogation" into channels of his own choosing, using Pilate's questions as a vehicle for the communication of his own truth. In both dialogues Jesus' sovereign standing is amply delineated. In both dialogues Jesus' beating and response make an impact upon Pilate even though this Roman prefect succumbs in the end to the pressure of Jesus' adversaries.

In John's description the first dialogue (18:33-38) is the longer of the two and consists essentially in a central question with two related questions by Pilate and three responses by Jesus. Within John's framework Pilate's great question, "Are you the king of the Jews?" establishes a fundamental category for the rest of the interrogation and for the remainder of the passion narrative? Jesus' initial response, asking Pilate a counter-question, also sets the tone for much that follows. It is so assertive, so independent as to border on being confrontational: "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" (18:34).

Pilate imperiously brushes this response aside and re-commences his interrogation (18:35). At this point Jesus' reply is relatively extended. Given in a somewhat complex "A-B-A" form, it provides important perspectives on his own self-understanding of his kingly role. His response especially emphasizes and explains that his own kingly rule must be distinguished from the type of militarily based rule that Pilate envisions in his question about the "king of the Jews." For Jesus' reign is "not of this world" and "not from the world" (18:36a, 36c).

Importantly, the evidence for these assertions is supplied by the fact that Jesus' servants have not fought to oppose his arrest:" ... if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight that I might not be handed over to the Jews" (18:36b). Jesus, then, does not seek to supplant Roman rule in Judea through force of arms.

At this juncture Pilate questioningly surmises that Jesus must then be a king (18:37). In his reply Jesus again implicitly acknowledges that he is a king, but once again insists upon his own meaning of that term. In this instance he refers to his pre-existence and incarnation and stresses that his kingship is focused upon bearing witness to the truth: "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth" (18:37a). Essentially then, Jesus' kingdom is a kingdom that has to do with truth and his kingly role involves bearing witness to the truth.

The final sentence in Jesus' response, "Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (18:37b), carries a subtle note of invitation for Pilate to accept Jesus' words and his authority? And thus does John portray Jesus epitomizing his sovereignty. Jesus, the prisoner whose kingship is not to be reckoned in Roman terms, now moves to invite Pilate, his judge, to acknowledge a kingship defined in Jesus' terms. The final aspects of John's scene suggest that Jesus' words have engaged Pilate in some way. There is a reflective element to Pilate's concluding question "What is truth?" (18:38). And the governor then goes out to Jesus' adversaries intent on releasing him.

Jesus' second dialogue with Pilate (19:9-11) resumes the discussion of Jesus' origin and then broadens in focus to indicate the limits of Pilate's power in a larger framework that is essentially ordered from above.

At this stage John's portrayal of Jesus' sovereignty is particularly memorable. Jesus does not consider that he is dependent upon Pilate for his life, and he is not intimidated by Pilate's brandishing of his powers. The nuances of the original Greek are somewhat difficult to capture in English translation. However, the actual force of Jesus' reply is to witness to Pilate concerning the existence of a higher order. Thus, far from negotiating with Pilate for his life, Jesus confronts the governor with the fact that he would have no power over him unless Jesus' betrayal had been permitted to occur in accordance with the Father's ordered plan.

Further, the meaning of Jesus' statement is not that Pilate is thereby exonerated from sin for his role in the proceedings. Rather, it is that, within the framework given from above, the preeminent guilt belongs to those who have betrayed Jesus and handed him over. In the citation of this passage now given, an insertion is made in an effort to communicate more carefully the meaning of the Greek text on both of these points; i.e., the Father's ordered framework and the relative degree of guilt involved:

You would have no power over me unless it [this framework of events] had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin (19:11).

As previously mentioned, at the conclusion of this second dialogue John again shows Pilate to have been significantly influenced by what had transpired. However, as considered previously, Pilate, faced with the intransigence of Jesus' adversaries, ultimately betrayed his own convictions and handed Jesus over for crucifixion.

4. JESUS' SOVEREIGNTY IN CRUCIFIXION AND IN DEATH

The concept of Jesus' kingship continues as a significant element within the larger portrayal of Jesus' sovereignty that John provides in describing the circumstances of Jesus' death and burial. Kingship will accordingly be the subject of the initial paragraphs of this section and will be followed in turn by a brief treatment of several other indications of Jesus' continuing sovereignty.

John indicates in 19:17-18 that, pursuant to the governor's orders, Roman soldiers took Jesus to Golgotha and crucified him there along with two others. Significantly, Pilate wrote a titulus for Jesus' cross giving the grounds for his execution. This titulus, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews," stated formally that Jesus was being crucified for the offense of subversion, However, John's descriptions of Pilate in the preceding and subsequent passages also establishes a second facet of meaning beyond this formal aspect. Pilate is in effect personally affirming that something about Jesus is kingly.

This second dimension of meaning is attested to by the vigorous negative reaction that John attributes to the chief priests in 19:21. Their demand to Pilate is that he change the wording so that no suggestion be given that Jesus is a king; rather, let the titulus read minimally that Jesus claimed to be a king of the Jews. Regarding the circumstances of their request, John suggests that the priests were galvanized by the fact that many Jews were reading this inscription since it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (19:20). However, as previously noted, Pilate haughtily refused to accede to their petition.

What then is to be said with respect to John's overall portrayal of Jesus' kingly identity? It can be suggested here that this topic presumably held more than minimal interest to John's readers throughout the Roman empire. Do John's various reports supply a coherent presentation of this aspect of Jesus' identity? This is the question to be briefly considered.

In the previous analysis of Jesus' dialogue with Pilate, it has been observed that Jesus affirmed his own kingship but stressed that his reign was "not of this world" and would not be established through violent means. Instead, his kingship was oriented toward truth and involved him in witness to the truth. Coming as they do in a formal trial before one who holds Roman imperium, these pronouncements by Jesus mark the culmination of the references to the subject of kingly rule that have preceded in the narrative of the Gospel. However, when the three earlier references to this topic are analyzed, what emerges is that Jesus has twice previously acted in a manner consistent with the premises that he now articulates in his testimony before Pilate.

Before proceeding to the two principal passages that serve to delineate Jesus' stance in this matter, an initial occurrence in which Jesus accepts "king of Israel" as a term of acclaim should be mentioned. In the first chapter of the Gospel, at the outset of his ministry, Jesus is acclaimed with exalted titles by John the Baptist and several of his first disciples, Nathaniel included. Impressed by Jesus' clairvoyant remark to him, Nathaniel responds: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (1:49). As just mentioned, Jesus' response is to accept this title, even as he briefly instructs Nathaniel regarding other dimensions of belief (1:50-51).

Yet if this passage indicates Jesus' acceptance of kingly standing, subsequent passages in chapters 6 and 12 demonstrate that his acceptance of this title and role will not involve him in replacing Roman rule with his own political reign. This issue, in effect, is the issue that arose in the wake of Jesus' powerful sign in feeding the five thousand with five barley loaves and two fish (6:1-13). The response of the people assembled is to view Jesus as God's definitive prophet (6:14) and to try to force him to be king. Jesus, however, rejects this attempt to install him as a political ruler. For as John reports: "Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself" (6:15).

A somewhat comparable situation involving a large crowd publicly giving acclamation to Jesus as a king is also described by John in chapter 12. Here the preceding context has included Jesus' definitive sign in restoring Lazarus to life. And now the crowd of Passover pilgrims welcomes Jesus into Jerusalem with the palm branches used for hailing victors and the cry, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!" (12:13).

What response does Jesus give to this popular acclaim for him as a king? In John's report his response is a symbolic action chosen specifically to dispel any sentiments that his purpose in arriving in Jerusalem was to inaugurate political rule. Jesus' symbolic deed was to secure a young ass (the antithesis of a war stallion or a military chariot) and make his entry into the city in a gentle fashion. In effect, such a startling step could only serve to dampen any nationalist expectation on the part of the crowd while still allowing them the opportunity for suitable acclaim. John's own citation of a Scripture text derived substantially from Zechariah 9:9 interprets the meaning of this action in unmistakable terms for his readers: "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold your king is coming, sitting on an ass's colt!" (12:14b). Jesus is indeed arriving as a king, but not as one whose kingship is "of this world."

In the verses following this citation John states that initially Jesus' disciples did not understand this event, "but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him" (12:16; italics added). This concept of Jesus being glorified is perhaps an appropriate construct with which to move to some of the other aspects of Jesus' sovereign standing that complement his identity as a king. For "glorification" is one way of expressing the fundamental meaning that John the evangelist espouses as he describes the events pertaining to Jesus' crucifixion and death. It is John's thesis, in effect, that Jesus is not being destroyed by these events but is instead being "lifted up" by them and is glorified in them .

John provides additional indications of Jesus' sovereignty in his descriptions of the circumstances of Jesus' death and burial, and at least a cursory treatment should be given here before concluding. Beginning with Jesus' time on the cross, perhaps the first point to be observed is John's portrayal of Jesus' sovereignly providing care for his mother and the beloved disciple (19:26-27). Jesus' solicitude in this scene recalls the solicitude he earlier exhibited in providing for his disciples' safety at the time of his arrest (18:8b).

John then indicates that, after he had made this important provision, Jesus knew that all was now accomplished (19:28a). This report again emphasizes that Jesus retained a sovereign consciousness regarding all aspects of his mission right to the very end.

Then, because he wished to have the Scriptures fulfilled, Jesus expressed his thirst (19:28). Once again, Jesus is in the position of one consciously initiating steps that are in accordance with God's will. After receiving this proffered drink, he gave formal, even public, expression to this consciousness as to the accomplishment of his mission by stating solemnly: "It is finished" (19:30a). Upon these words he then bowed his head and autonomously gave up his spirit (19:30b).

Dying in such a manner, Jesus was spared the experience of having his legs broken to hasten death; John again adduces a scriptural text to indicate the felicitousness of this outcome (19:31-33,36). Similarly, the remarkable event of blood and water flowing from his side when it was pierced also is interpreted favorably by John (19:34-35,37). In short within John's framework, Jesus' dignity, Jesus' sovereign bearing, Jesus' autonomy remain untarnished even though he undergoes all of the specific aspects of Roman crucifixion.

This same fundamental consideration also prevails with respect to Jesus' burial as it is described by John. Two men of standing, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, intervene to accord him a careful, reverent burial. They use a generous amount of the burial spices, bind Jesus' body with strips of linen, and bury him alone in a new garden tomb. In summary, Jesus who exhibited such startling majesty throughout his life and even in his death, is now the recipient of a dignified and reverent burial. Indeed such a burial testifies to one whose standing is that of a king.