John 20:1-10 The tomb is empty!

John 20:1-10 Perhaps the sign of the greatest devotion to Jesus was that Mary Magdalene came to the grave very early, well before sunrise. Just as in the case of Lazarus recorded in John 12, she went to the grave to mourn. When she saw that the stone had been rolled away, she did not investigate but instead went to get help. Peter and John went to investigate. The sequence of events is a bit confusing. Matthew records that the other Mary (Mark records that she was the mother of Jacob and Salome) went with Mary Magdalene. He also records that an angel spoke to them, and that there were also guards who were terrified by the angel. Mark also records the angel, but omits the description as striking terror into the guards. Luke records that there were two angels and three women in the early morning visitation, including Joanna. How do we reconcile these differing accounts?

          The easiest solution would be to infer that different authors talked to different participants and witnesses and got different pieces of or perspectives on the events. But John was a participant and eyewitness, and he omits the angels, the guards, and two of the women. Perhaps John relates his narrative from the heart, not as a court reporter. Mary Magdalene was the one who loved Jesus most strongly, and she was the one who came to him and Peter on that morning. So that is the important part of the story of the discovery of the empty tomb.

          What is the significance of the linen wrappings? The body of a dead person wrapped in linen perhaps signifies the purity of one who is dead. He can no longer be troubled by the cares of the world, its sins and temptations. Jesus had never sinned but what does leaving the linen wraps behind signify? That he had transcended the sins of humankind as well. The purification of sins had been accomplished. (Hebrews 1:3) It would no longer be necessary for people to die in order to be free from sin, because in rising from the dead, He had overcome its power.

          John's autobiographical account is confusing. He says that he went inside the tomb, he saw and believed. But the very next sentence says that neither he nor Peter as yet understood the scripture that He must rise from the dead. (Psalm 16:10) So what did John believe? Evidently John believed what he did not understand, that there is a basis for hope in faith, even when the answer is shrouded in mystery. 

John 19:31-42 Jesus' burial

John 19:31-37 The ritual of the Passover was respected enough by the Jews that even though they despised Jesus, they feared that their observance of the ordnance would be defiled by having dead Jewish bodies hanging on crosses during it. Hence the request to Pilate. In a way it was showing mercy to the condemned, shortening the agony of their terminal suffering. Men hanging from crosses by their hands but unable to put any weight on their legs would quickly suffocate. But Jesus had already given up His spirit, so the soldiers did not need to break His legs. Just to confirm that He was dead, a soldier pierced His side with a spear, but none of His bones were broken, even though that was the normal practice to hasten death. Two more prophecies were thus fulfilled. (Psalm 34:20, Zechariah 12:10)

          What was the significance of the water and blood coming out immediately? Anatomically it probably means that the heart and pericardial sac were both pierced. But more importantly,   the plan of redemption was complete. The water of the word incarnate (John 1:1, Ephesians 5:26) and the blood of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:21-22) were released.

          John cites this as his personal testimony. He was an eyewitness to this event. It really happened. Jesus was really dead. The Roman soldiers verified it. It is one of the essential tenets of Christianity that Christ died for our sins. (1 Corinthians 15:3) It was real death. It was the penalty of sin.

John 19:38-42 After Jesus' death, two men who were not of the twelve apostles, step forward. Both had had contact with Jesus and had perhaps higher stations in society, either through wealth or position, stepped forward to take care of Jesus' body. The record of Nicodemus' conversation with Jesus at night is recorded in John 3. As was perhaps the custom, they wrapped Jesus' body in linen with spices. Although Mary had anointed Jesus body beforehand for His burial (Mark 14:8) Nicodemus stepped forward now. Joseph approached Pilate to obtain Jesus' body. Evidently the garden tomb was very close to Mount Calvary, so they were able to quickly place Jesus' body there, before sundown, so that no one would be defiled by touching a dead body during the Passover. 

John 19:28-30 It is finished

John 19:28-30 Does the statement by Jesus that He was thirsty, followed by the sponge of sour wine, signify the last cup in the Passover Seder? The death angel would pass over those under the blood of the Lamb because the plan had been followed and completed. The blood on the door, in the shape of a cross, had been applied. When Jesus said, "It is finished," is this what He meant? He had observed the Passover with His disciples the night before, but according to many Passover ceremonies, the cup of Elijah is not drunk. Perhaps this is the prophetic fulfillment of that custom.

          When it was finished, Jesus gave up His Spirit. The cross, the loss of blood, asphyxiation did not kill Him. He gave up His Spirit. We have to turn to other passages to learn what happened next. Matthew 27:51 and Mark 15:38 record that the veil of the temple was torn in halves from top to bottom, the earth shook and rocks were split. Matthew 27:52-53 reports that tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones who had died were raised and came out of their tombs after the resurrection and entered Jerusalem and appeared to many people there. Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 record that the Roman centurion who was guarding the crucifixion saw the earthquake and other things was frightened and made what can only be classified as an excited utterance, that truly this was the son of God.  Luke 23:47 reports that the centurion also said that certainly this man was innocent.

          Acts 2:31 and Ephesians 4:9-10 imply that Jesus' soul went to hell, as the consequence of the sins of the whole world being laid on Him, and therefore He bore the punishment for them. But since Jesus was innocent, hell could not contain Him, and in being there though innocent, He destroyed the hold the hell had on those who were identified with Him. (Identification with Christ is a separate issue, relating to salvation,) This was pictured symbolically in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, in the scene in which Aslan explains to the children that the writing on the stone table had a deeper magic which went back to before the beginning of time. When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.

John 19:17-27 Jesus' crucifixion part I

John 19:17-22 Jesus carried His own cross, at least part way. Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, and Luke 23:26 all record that Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service somewhere along the way. Most likely at this point Jesus was so weak from the beatings and torture that He lacked the physical strength needed. It must have been a bit scary for Simon. What if the soldiers got confused about who was supposed to be crucified? Normally the condemned carried their own cross. They came to Golgotha, the Hebrew word for skull, which was apparently the standard location for crucifixion.

          Of the two men crucified with Jesus, Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 tell us they were robbers, Luke 23:33 only that they were criminals. Evidently neither was Barabbas.

          Pilate, in one final ironic act, had an inscription placed on the cross announcing that this was Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews, in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, so all could read it. The priests wanted the sign to say that it was what Jesus claimed, but Pilate refused to concede this point. Whether he had an inkling of the reality of Jesus' true position, that He was born king of the Jews (cf. Matthew 2:2), or simply wanted to poke the priests in the eye, we do not know.

John 19:23-24 The dividing of Jesus' garments among the soldiers was probably a routine thing. But it tells us that He was crucified naked. The ultimate indignity? Perhaps not, but degrading nonetheless. This also fulfilled the prophecy of David in Psalm 22:18. Psalm 22 gives us a glimpse into the anguish of Jesus on the cross, from the first verse, quoted in Matthew 27:46, to the last verse, quoted in John 19:30. The intervening verses fill in the details of Jesus' interior state, which are not discussed in detail in the gospels.

John 19:25-27 Three women stood by Jesus in His hour of anguish, along with John. He speaks of himself again in the third person. Mary, Jesus' mother, must also have been broken-hearted. We have no idea where Mary had lived up to this point, since Jesus had been itinerant. In any event, He gave responsibility for her to the disciple who loved Him. The responsibility of caring for aging parents has been a social norm from time immemorial. (cf. Matthew 15:4-6) It is only since the introduction of governmental social insurance programs in the 20th century that this duty has been carelessly shirked. Jesus, as God, could have supernaturally provided for her, but that is not how the Kingdom of God works. (see Acts 6:1, I Timothy 5:1-16 for an implicit example of how the early church cared for older adults).

John 18:38-19:16 Jesus' Trial Part IV

John 18:38-40 After this initial interrogation Pilate went back out to talk to the accusers. (Parallel passages Matthew 27:15-21, Mark 15:6-11, Luke 23:13-19)  This conversation centered around the custom that Pilate had of releasing a prisoner at Passover as a goodwill gesture to appease the Jews. What was he thinking? The Jewish leaders had brought Jesus to him to be condemned to death. Perhaps he thought that the crowd did not agree with the priests and Jewish leadership. He underestimated them; they had planted people in the crowd to whip up a response that they wanted. Perhaps Pilate often tried to separate the people from the leaders and the leaders expected this ploy. In any event, the crowd cried out for Barabbas to be released.

John 19:1-3 At this point, Pilate had Jesus flogged and gave the soldiers permission to abuse Him. Most likely this was common - a side benefit of entertainment for the soldiers who were stationed in a backwater province. They mocked His statement that He was the king of the Jews with the crown of thorns and purple robe and hailing Him as king, while simultaneously physically abusing Him. The odd thing is that Pilate had not yet pronounced judgment; that does not occur until verse 16.

John 19:4-7 The abuse by Roman soldiers must have been inside the Praetorium because Pilate then brought Jesus out to the Jews and said to them, "See! I am bringing Him out to you so that you will know that I find no fault in Him." At this point, Barabbas being no longer the point, the Jews cried out for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate of course knew that the Jews could not do that legally, but he told them to do it anyway. When they reminded him of that, they also repeated the charge from the religious court, which they had not previously brought up to Pilate that He had claimed to be God, which was a capital offense in Jewish law. Most likely this was a reference to Leviticus 24:16 which called for stoning anyone who blasphemes the name of The Lord. Of course, since Jesus really was the Son of God, this was not blasphemy, but the Priests and Pharisees could not accept this. But why would Pilate care about that aspect of Jewish law? He was Rome's representative, and Rome generally tolerated a multitude of religions; besides which, Pilate worshipped power, and clearly Jesus had none.

John 19:8-11 Pilate then returned into the Praetorium for another conversation with Jesus. First question: Where are You from? Jesus did not answer. But why would Pilate ask this question? Perhaps this is the point at which Pilate sent Jesus to see Herod on the pretext that He was from Galilee and therefore one of Herod's subjects. This is recorded only by Luke, in 23:6-12. Herod quickly returned Jesus to Pilate's court.

          In any event, Pilate's next question was whether Jesus did not know that he had the authority to release or crucify Jesus. Which, from an earthly perspective, he did. But Jesus' response, from the perspective of authority in the Kingdom of God, acknowledges only human authority that has been given from above. God had chosen to give Pilate authority in human affairs, for His purposes. (Romans 13:1) The guilt of Judas and the priests is greater than the guilt of Pilate because Judas betrayed trust, the priests used authority given to them by God to commit sin, and Pilate was only attempting to administer governmental authority in accordance with human rules and principles.

John 19:12-16 It almost seems as if Pilate was bothered by this statement about his sin, because he tried to release Jesus. But he was caught in the trap that the high priests had set. Going back to the earlier charges, when they accused Jesus of setting Himself up as a king, they played on Pilate's fear of Rome, of the emperor who had appointed him, that someone claiming to be a local king might stir up rebellion against Roman authority.

          So Pilate brought Jesus outside the Praetorium to the Pavement. Gabbatha is the Aramaic word for an elevated place, so it must have been something like a hill the top of which was paved with stones. Pilate set Jesus there and said "Behold your king". Perhaps he hoped that the irony of this declaration - in effect confirming the charges - would settle the crowd down. It had the opposite effect, in that they screamed again that He should be crucified. Pilate had previously brought Him out in a purple robe with a crown of thorns and said he found no fault in Him. Nothing had changed. Pilate was out-maneuvered. In this case, the Jews, probably with their fingers crossed, said that Caesar was their king. But they had to say that to Pilate because they were a subject people, and that was the whole point of the crowd trying to get Jesus to be crucified because He said He was a king.

          In the end, Pilate conceded, and ordered that Jesus be crucified.

John 18:28-38 Jesus' trial part III

John 18:28-38 The priests and soldiers led Jesus to the Praetorium. (The Praetorium was simply the governor's palace.) They did not want to enter because they would be defiled so Pilate accommodated them by coming outside to meet them. Perhaps it never occurred to them that setting up a mock trial to have an innocent man condemned to death on false charges would defile them far more than mere contact with a gentile building. The initial discussion about the charges against Jesus are not very enlightening. The Jews' initial complaint was that He was an evildoer. (Greek kakopolos, literally an evil-doer). A bizarre characterization of Jesus. With so general a statement, Pilate could not judge Him under Roman law. The Jews indicated that they sought the death penalty, which required Roman approval. Only Luke records that the accusation the Jews brought to the Romans was that Jesus misled the Jews, forbade His followers to pay taxes to Caesar, and called Himself a King. (Luke 23:2) This is ironic given Jesus' being the truth, and that He specifically on one occasion (Matthew 22:17-21) told his listeners to render unto Caesar the coin of the realm, specifically to pay taxes, and also had Peter go fishing to find a coin to pay the taxes in the mouth of a fish, when asked about whether His disciples payed the two-drachma-tax (Matthew 17:24-27). Perhaps Pilate was aware of this, or perhaps his primary concern was Roman authority being undermined, because the only question that he asked Jesus that is recorded (John 18:33) is whether He was the king of the Jews.

          Jesus does not kowtow or fall into a defendant mode of talking. He speaks to Pilate as though they are on terms of equals, and amazingly Pilate does not rebuke Him for it. Pilate's response is actually fairly reasonable. He asks Jesus what He had done to cause His own nation and chief priests to deliver Him to the Romans for judgment. Jesus' response is from a broader perspective. His kingdom (which He had talked about at length during His ministry) was not of this world. (Greek kosmou toutou, not belonging to the earth, world, universe, world-system). Whether or not it mattered to Pilate, Jesus was explaining a key point about the kingdom of God. Pilate probably had not heard the principles that Jesus presented in the Sermon on the Mount. Clearly, how God intends to rule mankind is not through a government of people who use force to establish control, or who violently seize control. The whole Bible is about the kingdom of God and, in some sense, it is the whole story of mankind.

•    God created the universe and Adam and mankind to rule it on His behalf, and to represent Him and His authority to it and everything it contains, as the Kingdom of God.

•    Adam rebelled and attempted to run the world based on His own, without accepting God's directions.

•    Adam's self-sufficiency was doomed to failure.

•    God selected others to represent Him to the world, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David. They presented God to those around Him but were unsuccessful in permanently establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

•    God selected the nation of Israel to be His people, to establish His kingdom on earth.

•    Israel rebelled and refused to obey God.

•    God sent prophets to Israel, who promised that one day He would establish His kingdom on the earth through a descendant of David.

•    Jesus came to the earth as God incarnate, to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, and fulfilled the promises to Israel.

•    Jesus went about Judea and the gentile regions nearby, doing good, healing the sick, casting out demons, performing attesting signs, and teaching about the Kingdom of God.

•    Jesus always did what the Father told Him to do, and did nothing on His own initiative.

•    Jesus taught his listeners what the kingdom of God is and how people live in it.

The rest of the story of the kingdom of God, not yet unfolded at that point:

•    Jesus would be arrested, tried, and crucified, died, and was buried, shedding His blood for the atonement of sins for whoever believes in Him.

•    Jesus would rise from the dead on the third day, and after forty days of appearing in a physical body to His followers, ascended into heaven.

•    Jesus would send the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers to empower them to do everything He had commanded them.

•    Jesus would establish the church to exercise the authority of shepherding on earth until His return.

•    Jesus will return physically and literally to the earth to establish His kingdom on the earth for eternity, and it will be glorious.

•    At the final judgment, Jesus will establish the right once and for all.

•    Every individual is invited to make Jesus king, to receive forgiveness of sins through faith in His atoning sacrifice, to know and walk with Him and serve Him, doing the things that He says to do, in building His kingdom, representing Him, proclaiming His kingdom to every person and nation, and exercising authority on His behalf, both now and for eternity.

•    Jesus promised that all who make Him king and obey all that He commanded them would have attesting miraculous signs follow them, and that He would be with them until this present age comes to an end and His eternal kingdom is established.

          Pilate's principle concern was whether Jesus represented a threat to Rome's rule or his authority as governor. Jesus' answer was ambiguous enough in his mind that it probably didn't settle the matter, but he apparently didn't immediately accept the accusations of the chief priests.   Jesus did, after all, state that He was a king. But then He immediately linked His presence to the truth. He had earlier said that He was truth incarnate. Here He says that He came to testify to the truth and that everyone who is of the truth hears His voice. In response to this, Pilate uttered the famous philosophical question, "What is truth?"

          Here we could go into a philosophical discussion about what is truth. For most people this is not an issue. Truth is saying what corresponds to reality. If you ask a child if they did something, they either tell the truth, or they lie. There is no philosophical discussion about whether the truth exists, or what it consists of, or how you prove it. They might get away with a lie, but they know it, and sooner or later a parent usually finds out as well. But from the viewpoint of worldly philosophy, there have been as many definitions of truth as there have been schools of philosophy. Partly this is because different philosophical schools have defined truth at different layers, such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and so forth.  Theories include correspondence, coherence, constructivist, consensus, pragmatic, performative, and redundancy.  It didn't matter to Pilate because what he lived by was power. He wasn't really asking a philosophical or theological question when he asked "what is truth"? Most likely he was expressing the opinion of the powerful that truth doesn't really matter because people in positions of authority make pragmatic decisions based on circumstances and their own priorities. For Jesus to bring truth up was irrelevant. 

John 18:12-24 Jesus' Trial part II

The trial before the religious court is recorded in stages. John 18:12-14 describes that Jesus was first led to Annas, the father of the high priest's wife. It is not clear what his exact position was, but the next passage, John 18:19-24, describes Jesus being questioned by the high priest. Since the end of this passage says that Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas the high priest, we have to infer that both of them held that title, perhaps Annas was in an emeritus position or something like that. It is quite clear that they worked closely together and both held positions of high authority.  Luke 3:2 speaks of the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas as though they held the position jointly, even though being of different generations. The prophecy of Caiaphas that it was expedient that one man would die on behalf of the people was recorded in John 11:49-52, as discussed above.

          The questioning by Annas of Jesus was about His teaching and His disciples. Why would Jesus have told him to get witnesses because He spoke openly and there were innumerable potential witnesses to what He taught? Why not just answer the questions? We can only infer or guess. Perhaps Jesus was refusing to go along with a sham pretense of a trial, since He knew the outcome was already decided. Perhaps He knew that Annas was fully sold out to the evil one and that there was nothing He could do but give witness to the truth. Certainly, the Mosaic law required that there be two or three witnesses before someone could receive capital punishment (Deut 17:6, 19:15) And the other gospels record that in the trial before the council, they brought forward various witnesses, although their stories didn't really corroborate the charges. So perhaps Jesus was just being a holdout for actually following the Law of Moses that the Priests and Pharisees claimed to follow so religiously. 

          It seems odd that John does not record what happened when Jesus was with Caiaphas, because the next passage records that the priest sent Him to Pilate for the civil trial. The trial before Caiaphas, and the whole council, is recorded in Matthew 26:57-67, Mark 14:53-65, and Luke 22:66-71. The outcome was predetermined, that Jesus would be sent to Pilate for trial because the Jews did not have the authority to execute people according to their own law.