约翰福音

Meditative Reflection
The Glory of God

“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.” (Jn. 17:22)

I will leave it to the scholars to debate what this glory given by Jesus to us really refers to, although I tend to agree with Lenski that

“It is impossible to dissociate the glory that the Father has given to Jesus from the glory mentioned in v. 1 and 5…The gift of the divine glory could not have been made to the divine nature of the Son, for this nature never was without glory, in fact, this glory is His divine nature. This glory (mentioned in Jn. 17:22) was given to Jesus in His human nature at the incarnation when the Logos assumed that nature.”
(Lenski, John, 1160)

As far as the complete oneness is concerned,

“Union with God and with Christ makes us a unit in ourselves (in distinction from and in opposition to the world)…Every deviation in doctrine, life, and practice from the Word mars and disrupts our oneness and hinders the fulfillment of Jesus’s prayer." (Ibid, 1157)

While I do not fully understand what this “glory” means:

- I think of “the Unapproachable Light that no one has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16) and in whose presence all darkness flees;

- I think of that glorious figure of Christ who appeared to the disciples on that mountain in Luke 9:28ff and to John in Revelation 1:12ff before whom I, too, must have lay dead — He being too awesome, too powerful, too immortal;

- But I also think of the Cross on which the Prince of Glory died, defeating death, sin and Satan;

- I think of that glorious Easter morning when the stone was rolled away and the grave could not hold Him captive as Christ rose from the dead to the shouts and joy of angels and all creation; and finally,

I think of the day of His return when we shall rise too to be gathered to Him in glory — Oh, what glory it will be!

Meditative Reflection
Victim or Victor?

“When Jesus said, 'I am He', they drew back and fell to the ground.” (Jn. 18:6)

These days there are fewer people who would dismiss Jesus of Nazareth as a myth, but rather many recognize Him as a historical figure. However, most people still consider Him a mere man — albeit a highly ethical rabbi of peace and love who fell victim to both the religious and political rulers of His time.

Soon after the time of Jesus, there were still surviving witnesses who had heard… had seen… had looked at... and had touched Him, like the Apostle John. So, I believe that people living in first-century Palestine and Rome, would not dismiss Jesus as a myth either. However, they might still consider Him a mere human as well. This was perhaps one of the reasons why the Apostle John chose to write yet another book of the Gospel, being the lone surviving Apostle toward the end of the 1^st century. He wanted to assure the believers and prove to the unbelieving world that Jesus is more than a mere man, He is God Himself.

This is why John forcefully records the several public declarations of Jesus addressing Himself as the Great “I AM”, the very name of Yahweh (see Meditative Reflection for John 8:48-59, Year 4, Week #5, Day 29). And, here, in this account of Jesus’ arrest, John supplements the accounts of the Synoptics with these words:

“Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to Him, went out and asked them, ‘Who is it you want?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am He,’ Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, 'I am He’, they drew back and fell to the ground.” (Jn. 18:4-6)

John emphasizes that Jesus was not a helpless victim but that He knew “all that was going to happen to Him”, but John goes on to affirm once again who Jesus really is with His reply of “I AM”. While the NIV translates, “I am He”, the original Greek simply says, “I AM (Ἐγώ εἰμι)”. At the sound of this name, these soldiers drew back and fell to the ground! No, it was not the loudness of the voice of Jesus that threw them to the ground, it was the power of this name — the name of Yahweh!

Indeed, Jesus was no victim, He was no mere man, but God Himself who had come to “drink the cup” of suffering and death on our behalf so that the sin of world might be redeemed! He is our Redeemer, our Savior, and our God. He is the Victor, not a victim!

Meditative Reflection
A Slippery Slope

“Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.” (Jn. 18:27)

All three Synoptic Gospels have already dealt with the trial of Jesus before the high priest and the whole Sanhedrin with varying details; it was natural that John did not see the need to go into greater details in his Gospel account. However, it is interesting to note that in his brief account, he still chose to include the denial of Peter. In so doing, we see a great contrast between Jesus’ answer to the arresting soldiers with the firm and powerful “I AM” (Jn. 18:5) and Peter’s answer to a mere servant girl’s question of “I am not” (Jn. 18:17). The contrast is unmistakable! It highlights the fact that as God-loving as Peter was, and as brave as Peter was, he was just human; he was not God!

Yes, Peter was brave, far more courageous that the other disciples. He was the only one brave enough to defend Jesus by cutting the ear of the high priest’s servant who was obviously bearing arms! And, he was the only disciple who followed Jesus all the way to the court of  the high priest. Although, many think that “another disciple” known to the high priest was John (Jn. 18:15), based on him being the son of a fisherman, it was unlikely he had such a connection, and Calvin considers such an opinion as pure “weak conjecture”. The more credible suggestion was this disciple was someone like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea (Jn. 19:38ff).

However, how could Peter’s courage dissipate into thin air when he was confronted by the words of a mere servant girl? And how could he then insist on his denial when he was questioned two more times, ending with his calling down curses on himself (according to Mk. 14:71).

I believe his cutting of the servant’s ear was more of a knee-jerk reaction, a spur-of-the-moment kind of courage, especially in the company of the other 10 disciples and Jesus whom he must have expected to exercise His divine power once again, and perhaps, simply “slip away” (Jn. 8:59).

But now it was different!

Jesus did not exercise His divine power at all; He was arrested like a helpless coward, and all His companions, the other ten disciples, fled away.

We have to admire him, not so much for his courage, because by now he must have lost all his courage. What remained in him was love — intense love for his Lord! It was love, not courage that spurred him into taking the risk to follow Jesus all the way to the trial! But alas! At the first questioning of a maid servant, his fear took over. He must have acted in such a way, or perhaps he even put on some form of disguise, so as to avoid being recognized. But it was to no avail. As he was caught by surprise, he reacted again in a knee-jerk way, lying through his teeth!

As with all lies, one lie must lead to another; he denied the Lord three times! If the rooster did not crow, perhaps, he would have lied the fourth time or even the fifth! But, by the grace of God, the rooster crowed, and he was awakened from his sins of betraying his Lord and “he went outside and wept bitterly” (Lk. 22:62)!

Are you, like Peter, on a slippery slope that you cannot stop your lie to God and yourself? The rooster has crowed, and it is time to “go outside and weep”!

John, unlike the other three Synoptic authors, ends his Gospel account with the restoration of Peter by Jesus after His resurrection. He then renewed His call to Peter, “Follow me” (Jn. 21:19).

Meditative Reflection
The Evil of External Religion

“‘We have no right to execute anyone.’ The Jews objected.” (Jn. 18:31b)

As the Jewish officials sought to manipulate Pilate into being their executioner of their Messiah whom they supposedly had been eagerly awaiting, the evil of an external religion void of the fear and love of God was fully revealed. However, students of the Bible often wonder if the Jews really had the right to inflict capital punishment by themselves under the Roman rule. Allow me to share with you the insights of Leon Morris in this respect:

“The statement in John 18:31 is categorical: The Jews had no legal right to inflict the death penalty. But the situation is complicated by the fact the Romans clearly had no hand in the execution of Stephen. It is, of course, possible to regard this death as a lynching rather than an official legal execution…but on the other hand the stoning may have taken place in proper legal form, for the witnesses laid down their clothes, apparently in an orderly manner, at the feet of a young man called Saul (Acts 7:58).

"Josephus (the famous Jewish historian) mentions another stoning at a slightly later time, namely that of James the Lord’s brother (Ant. 20, 200). But this was carried out at a time when there was no governor in the country and Josephus makes it clear that it was considered highly irregular. Indeed, the high priest was deposed on account of it. The Mishnah (a written redaction of the Jewish ‘Oral Torah’), in addition to giving many and detailed regulations about the method of execution, tells us that R. Eliezer spoke of the execution of a priest’s daughter for adultery…It is inherently likely that the Romans would forbid the Jews to execute people, for to permit such a practice would open up the way for subject people to engage in judicial executions of the supporters of Rome. The number of executions cited by those who hold that the Jews did have the right to carry out the death penalty is very low indeed, which seems to indicate that the procedure was rare and irregular.

"The facts are best explained if we hold that the Romans retained for themselves the right to impose the death penalty, but that, in exceptional circumstances, when there was considerable popular support, the Jews might take the law into their own hands without much fear of Roman reprisals. Another view, which amounts to much the same thing, is that they could pass the death sentence, but carry it only when Roman authorities confirmed it. On this occasion, however, the amount of popular support on which the priest could rely was very uncertain. They themselves feared to arrest Jesus during the feast lest there be a riot (Mk. 14:2). Clearly this was a time for sticking to the letter of the regulations, and getting the Romans to take action (and bear the responsibility!)…The best discussion still appears to be that of A. N. Sherwin-White. He makes it clear that, ‘the capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted to the principal assistants of the governors', and that the available evidence strongly supports John’s statement (in Jn. 18:31).”
(NICNT, John, 695-7)

Meditative Reflection
Who Really Has Authority over Jesus’ Life?

“'Do you refuse to speak to me?' Pilate said. 'Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?' ” (Jn. 19:10)

This was a well-known fact that the Romans despised the Jews, and as the governor of the land, Pilate obviously did not care too much about the disputes among the Jews over issues of their own law. At first, he must have treated the bringing of Jesus before him by the Jews as a nuisance. As the Jews were adamant in killing Jesus, Pilate came to realize the seriousness of the situation, because it was not just a matter of killing a Jew. It had ramifications about the administration of fair justice which he ultimately had to give an account back to Caesar, especially should the event develop into some kind of unrest.

The piercing statement about His kingdom being not of the world plus now the charge by the Jews of Jesus alleging Himself as the Son of God (and no doubt compounded by the dream of his wife as mentioned in Matt. 27:19), Pilate, the ruthless ruler, became “even more afraid” (Jn. 19:8).

But Pilate turned his fear into anger and confronted Jesus with a rhetorical question, “Do you refuse to speak to me?” What he meant was, as the Roman governor, he had tremendous authority and power over Jesus. He was the man before whom to stoop, to whom humbly to appeal. He considered Jesus’ silence an overt insult to him. What’s more, given the present situation, he was the only one who could bestow life or death to Jesus at will with the turn of his hand!

Lenski is right as he quotes Euthymius, “Now he is frightened, now he frightens. First God’s Son unnerves him, next he thunders as though he were a god and Jesus, God’s Son, a beggar. Extremes meet.” (Lenski, John 1263)

To this frightened governor, Jesus pointed out that he had no authority “at all” (King James Version) over Him, and for that matter, no human ruler is able to pass on whether God’s Son shall live or die. Jesus alone has the authority to lay down His life (Jn. 10:18).

The truth of the matter was, Pilate had already shirked his responsibility in administering justice by asking the Jews to execute Jesus themselves (Jn. 19:6). Therefore whether Jesus would die in the hands of the Romans or directly in the hands of the Jews was a moot point. It is in this sense that Pilate was guilty of a lesser sin than Caiaphas and his people! But lesser or greater sin is not the point here. The fact is that all were guilty of His death, either directly or indirectly, and that includes you and me!

Meditative Reflection
Carrying His Own Cross

“Carrying His own cross, He went out to the place of the Skull.” (Jn. 19:17)

Although Luke tells us that Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross of Jesus by the Roman soldiers (Lk. 23:26), I believe Jesus must have carried it for some distance to the point that He could no longer do so before Simon was forced to take over; otherwise John would not have said that Jesus was “carrying His own cross” (Jn. 19:17).

It was obvious that Simon did so reluctantly as he was just passing through Jerusalem and had yet to believe in Jesus Christ. It was also obvious that the disciples, from hindsight, wished that they had been courageous enough to be there to carry Jesus’ cross especially at a time when He did not have any strength left to do so. For that matter, it is what many people do these days during the Passion Week, carrying a cross through the Via Dolorosa, expressing the desire to carry the cross of Jesus. And, we would not be any different in that if we were there that day, witnessing the suffering of Christ, we would have rushed to help carry the cross of Jesus — at least that’s what we think we would do, except that in real life when we ourselves face ridicule, misunderstanding, insult and suffering of all kinds, our tendency is to run away. But this is exactly what Jesus wants us to do, and that is, to carry our own cross! (Lk. 14:27).

You see, no one can really carry the cross of Jesus, just as no one can drink the cup of Jesus (Mark 10:38). If we really wish to have carried the cross for Jesus that day, there is no better way to express our desire by carrying our own!

Meditative Reflection
There was No More Terrible Death

“Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” (Jn. 19:30)

“THERE was no more terrible death than death by crucifixion. Even the Romans themselves regarded it with a shudder of horror. Cicero declared that it was 'the most cruel and horrifying death'. Tacitus said that it was a 'despicable death’. It was originally a Persian method of execution. It may have been used because, to the Persians, the earth was sacred, and they wished to avoid defiling it with the body of an evil-doer. So they nailed him to a cross and left him to die there, looking to the vultures and the carrion crows to complete the work. The Carthaginians took over crucifixion from the Persians; and the Romans learned it from the Carthaginians.

"Crucifixion was never used as a method of execution in the homeland, but only in the provinces, and there only in the case of slaves. It was unthinkable that a Roman citizen should die such a death. Cicero says: 'It is a crime for a Roman citizen to be bound; it is a worse crime for him to be beaten; it is well nigh parricide for him to be killed; what am I to say if he be killed on a cross? A nefarious action such as that is incapable of description by any word, for there is none fit to describe it.' It was that death, the most dreaded in the ancient world, the death of slaves and criminals that Jesus died.

"The routine of crucifixion was always the same. When the case had been heard and the criminal condemned, the judge uttered the fateful sentence: 'Ibis ad crucem', 'You will go to the cross'. The verdict was carried out there and then. The condemned man was placed in the centre of a quaternion, a company of four Roman soldiers. His own cross was placed upon his shoulders. Scourging always preceded crucifixion and it is to be remembered how terrible scourging was. Often the criminal had to be lashed and goaded along the road, to keep him on his feet, as he staggered to the place of crucifixion. Before him walked an officer with a placard on which was written the crime for which he was to die and he was led through as many streets as possible on the way to execution.

"There was a double reason for that. There was the grim reason that as many as possible should see and take warning from his fate. But there was a merciful reason. The placard was carried before the condemned man and the long route was chosen, so that if anyone could still bear witness in his favor, he might come forward and do so. In such a case, the procession was halted and the case retried.”
(William Barclay)