Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries: A Fascinating Icon

On a number of levels, I find this icon fascinating![1]

It takes the phrase homoousion tō Patri (“co-essential/consubstantial with the Father”) from the Greek of the Nicene Creed and adapts it in rather curious ways. Simultaneously, it appears to extract at least one other aspect of the message of the Creed into it.

First of all, the text/icon appears to be an unusual combination of mostly majuscule (akin to UPPER CASE letters) and one or a few minuscule letters (akin to lower case letters).[2] Secondly, and more obviously, the icon has placed one character over another multiple times.[3] Thirdly, it features an unusually depicted staurogram—the superimposition of a rho (P) over a tau (T), designed to visually represent Christ hanging on the Cross.[4] The latter may be a way of incorporating “crucified for us” from the Creed into the word for “Father” (here in its dative form ΠАΤΡΙ), by fashioning the alpha (A), tau (T), and rho (P) into one composite character in which each share one vertical stroke. Perhaps this is the icon-maker’s way of expressing that, in order to maintain the ‘co-essence’ of the Trinitarian ‘Persons’, in a sense, God the Father ‘died’ on the Cross?[5]

Fascinating!

To better explain the particulars, allow me to provide my (non-artist’s) rendering of what this icon would look like if the phrase were in all majuscule without any letters placed atop or superimposed upon any others. In keeping with the usual practice, no spaces are placed between the words (diacritics, aka accents, are included).

The accent over the first omicron (O) is what is known as the rough breathing mark, indicating to sound the vowel with a prepended English “H” (“ha”). This is the reason for its transliterated spelling homoousion.

For comparison, below is the majuscule in modern keyboard text (sans diacritics) and below that is the minuscule (with diacritics, including the iota subscript under the omega):

ΟΜΟΟΥCΙΟΝΤШΠАΤΡΙ

ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ

The 3^rd ‘character’ from the left in the icon, which resembles a ‘snowman’, is actually three letters stacked one atop another. But they are not even in the correct order! They should be omicron (O), omicron (O), upsilon (Y). However, assuming the ‘hands’ of the ‘snowman’ indicate the upper portion of the upsilon (Y), then the icon shows an omicron at top, the chopped upsilon below that, and the second omicron on the bottom. I can only speculate as to why the icon was written this way.

Note that the way the acute accent (΄) is placed in the icon it appears to be intended to go over the truncated upsilon (Y), as opposed to the upper omicron. This would be consistent with where it should be placed had it been written out normally (see my rendering above). I might speculate that the second omicron (O) is at the bottom because of what might be considered an alternate spelling, in which this second omicron is dropped completely.[6]

In order, the next oddity in the icon is the omega (ω) under the tau (T), and the circumflex (˜) over the tau instead of the omega (see my rendering above for correct placement of circumflex). Given the stacking of omega under tau, the positioning of the circumflex makes sense. In other words, the circumflex would normally go over the omega, and since the tau is stacked over the omega, it follows that the circumflex would go over the tau/omega.

This tau/omega constitutes the Greek article (in its dative form), which is translated here as “with-the”. With that in mind, this looks to be simply an artist’s rendition of the article in this important phrase from the Creed. I like the idea!

The final curiosity in the icon is by far the most intriguing. Within the word ΠАΤΡΙ, the artist here has stacked the alpha (A—but see my rendering above for the usual depiction of this letter) atop the tau (T), and the rho (P) just under the tau, in such a way as to approximate the stylized staurogram. Essentially, the artist ‘bent’ the alpha such that the long, angled line of it is verticalized in order to conjoin it with the vertical axis of the tau, while also placing the curved portion of the alpha atop the horizontal bar of the tau. Comparatively, in the usual staurogram it is the curved portion of the rho (P) which sits atop the horizontal bar of the tau (T), in order to resemble a drooping head on a cross. Here it looks as though the artist purposefully drew one head over the horizontal bar of the tau (the curved portion of the alpha) and another head just below the horizontal bar (the curved portion of the rho) in order to depict not one, but two heads on the Cross. Is this to indicate Father and Son (cf. Acts 20:28: “…Ekklēsia of God, which [God] purchased with His own blood”)? Restating from above: Is this the artist’s way of expressing that, in order to maintain the ‘co-essence’ of the Trinitarian ‘Persons’, in a sense, God the Father also ‘died’ on the Cross?

Once again, fascinating!

______________________

[1] This icon is sourced from the Wikipedia page of Nicene Creed, under the History section. I have not yet determined its provenance.

[2] Assuming this icon was intended to appear contemporaneous with the establishment of the 381 (or 325) Creed, the presence of the iota subscript—the tiny downward mark (͵) centered under the omega (ω)—which was introduced ca. 12^th century AD by Byzantine philologists, would render it an anachronism, if the omega is indeed majuscule, which (most of) the rest of the text seems to be. (But see note 3 below.) This is because majuscule (uncial) declined in use ca. 9^th-10^th century as minuscule had emerged (ca. 8^th century) and was favored. But since omega looks the same whether in majuscule or minuscule (besides the smaller size of the latter), it is difficult to determine the intention of the icon maker with respect to this letter. Is the omega here in minuscule instead? If minuscule, why does the rest of the text appear to be in majuscule (but, again, see note 3 below)? If majuscule, why the iota subscript? A curiosity! (Side note: though the majuscule omega is usually depicted as Ω in Greek alphabet listings, Greek NT manuscripts use Ш instead, as far as I am aware.)

[3] Since the omicron looks the same whether in majuscule (O) or minuscule (o), besides the size, one cannot determine which is in mind in the ‘snowman’ character—the third from the left—which is actually three letters (omicron, omicron, upsilon) in one space! It is also possible the upsilon—the ‘hands’ of the ‘snowman’—is in minuscule (υ), as opposed to majuscule (Y). More on this further below.

[4] Staurograms are found in a number of Greek NT manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. In these, the Greek word for “cross” (stauros, CTAYPOC) is abbreviated and styled to resemble Christ hanging on the Cross. See hyperlink in main text above. Cf. the following papyrus at The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, specifically the end of the fourth line of manuscript P75 @ Luke 14:27. Click on manuscript to enlarge. Note that the word here (in the accusative) is CTAYPON, yet the staurogram eliminates both the alpha (A) and the upsilon (Y) as it depicts one hanging on a cross. Also note the overline atop the entire word, which was standard practice for what are known as Nomina Sacra.

[5] This is not necessarily heretical; it depends on how it is construed. See Forsaken For Our Sake, taking special note of footnote 1 there.

[6] See Schaff/Wace, EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS, as found on pp 3­–4 here.

Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries: Important Words

This post is an extension of Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries. Here we look at the color-coded words plus “Almighty” in the 381 Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And (we believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ—the sole-kin/kind [monogenēs] Son of God, begotten [gennaō] of the Father before all ages [aiōn], Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten [gennaō] not made [poieō], coessential [homo-ousia] with the Father—through whom all things came to be; Who, for us men [anthrōpos] and for our salvation, descended from heaven—enfleshed by the Holy Spirit, and of the virgin Mary—and became man [en-anthrōpos] . . .

Comparing Paired Words

Following are the color-coded terms from the Creed and reasons for their highlighting here.

God, the Father is the ultimate “Maker” (Poitēs) of all things, while the Son is the agent through Whom all things came to be. Accordingly, the Son is not “made” (poieō) but “begotten” (gennaō) instead, which means He is not a creature.

The Son is also “begotten” (gennaō) of the Father before all “ages” (aiōn), meaning ‘pre-time’. It is difficult to speak of ‘a time before time’ without using some sort of temporal category (before all ages); but the implication here is the Son was “begotten” in the eternal realm, as opposed to the temporal realm, thereby establishing His eternality. In other words, since time and space are an integral part of creation—and we have established the Son is “not made”—speaking in terms of Him ‘predating’ all “ages” is to express that an intrinsic trait of the Son is eternality.

The use of “before all ages” with “begotten” serves as a means by which to describe what is implied of the Word (ho Logos) in John 1:1–2: In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning the Word [‘already’] was. Stated more succinctly, ‘Before’ the creation event, the Son ‘already’ was with God.

The Son of God became man (en-anthrōpos) when He was “enfleshed” (“became flesh”—John 1:14) “for us men (anthrōpos) and for our salvation”. The Son of God willingly condescended to take the form of man in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to become a sacrifice for us—a Divine mystery for the sake of humanity.

Who is ‘Almighty’?

God is “Almighty”. Jesus is God (the God-man). But can we say Jesus is “Almighty”?

The use of “Almighty” (Pantokratōr) in the very beginning of the Creed prompts this question.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

This word “Almighty” is specifically applied to God the Father, but not to the Son. So, would it be proper to ascribe this same title to Jesus?

Pantokratōr (“Almighty”) is only found ten times in the New Testament. Nine occur in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). The remaining one is in 2Cor 6:18, where it is sourced from the Old Testament (“LORD [YHWH], Almighty”). In Revelation most all instances are in the form “Lord God, Almighty”, except two as “God, Almighty” (16:14; 19:15) and one as “Lord God . . . Almighty” (1:8). This latter one is of special interest here. In the ellipsis is the same verbiage as Revelation 1:4: the One Who is, Who was, and Who is coming, which denotes a Divine Title (or Name)¹ and is clearly a reference to God the Father in this context.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “Who is, Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty.”²

Moreover, the next occurrence of “Almighty” (4:8) also contains this same Divine Title (Name). Therefore, it would appear that the referent in 1:8 is also God the Father. This seems especially so given that the remaining instances of “Almighty” in Revelation all refer to the Father. And if we accept the implications of the language in in the 381 Nicene Creed (“one God, the Father Almighty”), then we should definitively conclude that 1:8 be understood as words of God the Father.

Yet in many ‘Red Letter’ Bible versions, these words are attributed to Jesus. These include: Amplified Bible, BRG Bible, 1599 Geneva Bible, International Children’s Bible, International Standard Version, Legacy Standard Bible, Modern English Version, New American Standard Bible, New American Standard Bible 1995, New Century Version, New International Version 1984, New King James Version, New Life Version, and the World English Bible.³ I contend these versions are in error, unless some strong evidence can be adduced to support such an interpretation.

Now, we must note that contained in Revelation 1:8 is the Title “the Alpha and the Omega” (cf. 21:6), which Jesus applies to Himself in 22:13. Moreover, Jesus also applies “the Beginning and the End” to Himself in 22:13, and this same Title is used by “the One Who sits on the Throne” (God the Father) in 21:6. In other words, there is quite a bit of overlap in the Titles of the Book of Revelation.

But then again, the Title (Name) the One Who is, Who was, and Who is coming is only ever applied to the Father.

Yet perhaps I’m missing a more solid connection to support attributing the words of Revelation 1:8 to Jesus? Thoughts or challenges?

________________________

¹ See Not Declining the Divine Name?

² It is possible the quotation ends just before says the Lord God: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, the One Who is, Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty. But this has no bearing on the issue at hand.

³ These are all found on BibleGateway, except the New International Version 1984, which I have a printed copy of. Following are among those Red Letter versions which do not use red lettering for Revelation 1:8: Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, English Standard Version, English Standard Version UK, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Living Bible, New International Version, New International Version UK, and New Living Translation.

Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries

In the formative years of the Christian Ekklēsia (“Church”)¹ synods (councils) were convened in response to doctrinal controversies and other matters needing refinement. Those synods gaining acceptance in the Ekklēsia at large became known as ecumenical councils.² Eventually a total of Seven Ecumenical Councils were called.³ The very first of these was the First Council of Nicaea in 325.⁴

Nicaea 325 primarily sought to define the Divine nature of the person of Jesus Christ, by clarifying His ontological relationship to God the Father—as revealed by Scripture.⁵ The goal was to settle Christological controversy (see Arius and Arianism).⁶ The Nicene Creed of 325 resulted. Nevertheless the controversy raged on, so a second council was convened to end it at last.⁷ Delegates gathered in Constantinople in 381. Another synod was held in this same city in 553; so, somewhat confusingly, this Second Ecumenical Council became known as the First Council of Constantinople (381).⁸

At this First Council of Constantinople in 381 the Nicene Creed of 325 was both expanded and stream-lined. This new Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) was later known simply as “the Nicene Creed”.⁹ To alleviate possible confusion, we will call it “the 381 Nicene Creed”.

The 381 Nicene Creed

The original text of the 381 Nicene Creed is in Greek. Philip Schaff’s Greek text in The Creeds of Christendom undergirds the translation below.¹⁰ This translation (mine) differs a bit from Schaff’s own English (as found, e.g., in the Wikipedia entry).¹¹ Important Greek words are bracketed and placed just after their English counterparts. Explanations for their importance will follow. Words repeated in the Creed for the apparent purpose of comparison or contrast are color-coded. “We believe” is in the original text only once, opening the Creed, but is parenthetically inserted at points for readability:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And (we believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ—the sole-kin/kind [monogenēs] Son of God, begotten [gennaō] of the Father before all ages [aiōn], Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten [gennaō] not made [poieō], coessential [homo-ousia] with the Father—through whom all things came to be; Who, for us men [anthrōpos] and for our salvation, descended from heaven—enfleshed by the Holy Spirit, and of the virgin Mary—and became man [en-anthrōpos]; Who was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, endured suffering, was buried, rose on the third day according to the Scriptures, and then ascended into heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the Father; and Who again will come with glory to judge the living and the dead—Him in whose kingdom there will be no end.

And (we believe) in the Holy Spirit, the Life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets.

(We believe) in one holy, universal [katholikos], and apostolic Ekklēsia; we profess one baptism for remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and to the life of the age [aiōn] to come. Amen.¹²

Before proceeding further we must acknowledge that the Creed cannot be understood as on par with Scripture. Yet, in agreement with Oliver Crisp, this creedal statement and others from the Seven Ecumenical Councils “are theologically binding because they are repositories of dogmatic reflection upon Scripture by the undivided Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”¹³ Accordingly, we must affirm that the above Creed is an accurate Scriptural interpretation. As such, it erects proper doctrinal borders within which to confine ourselves, in order to remain within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

This is not to state the 381 Creed is an exhaustive treatise on Christology, theology, or the Trinity. It is not. Yet one should be careful not to deviate from any of its language or tenets.

Examining the Text and Context

Applying a bit of discourse analysis may illumine the intents and purposes of the drafters.

While large portions of the 381 Creed adopt or paraphrase Scripture, the majority of the Creed is built around 1Corinthians 8:6, borrowing or mirroring its Greek text.

The first section sources one God the Father, (eĩs Theos ho Patēr) from 1Cor 8:6, inserts Almighty, then adds bits and paraphrasing of Colossians 1:16 (heaven and earth, visible and invisible). Both verses overlap in all things (panta). Yet, interestingly, the New Testament (NT) context of the Colossians verse refers to the Son as agent of creation, with the Father as implied Creator, whereas here in the Creed the Father is explicitly Maker. This appears to serve the dual purpose of making explicit what is implied in Col 1:16 (Father as Maker), while alluding to its explicit meaning (Son as agent). This allusion, then, provides a suitable bridge to the next section.

In the second section of the Creed, the middle portion of 1Cor 8:6 is found in the use of one Lord Jesus Christ (eĩs Kyrios Iēsous Christos). Then the text inserts descriptors of Christ (evidenced by my use of em dashes in the translation) before the resumption of 1Cor 8:6, which illustrates the Son’s agency in creation: through Whom all things (di’ oũ ta panta).¹⁴ This verbiage approximates that of John 1:3 (panta di’ auto, =all things through Him), and the Creed adds came-to-be (egento) from that verse in John.

The second section also appears to contain a chiastic pattern.¹⁵ It opens and closes with the portions of the Corinthians verse noted just above, thus providing an inclusio, framing this subsection:

A₁ one Lord Jesus Christ . . .
–– B₁ monogenēs Son of God
––– C₁ begotten of the Father before all ages
––––– D₁ Light of Light
––––– D₂ true God of true God
––– C₂ begotten not made
–– B₂ homo-ousia with the Father
A₂ . . . through Whom all things came to be

A₁ begins and A₂ ends this subsection. We can readily see that C₂ is intended to parallel C₁ in the repeating of begotten. The same applies to D₁ and D₂, given the obvious parallelism of Light of Light and God of God. Therefore, in similar fashion, B₂ is probably meant to parallel B₁ in some key way. Assuming so, the juxtaposition of monogenēs with homo-ousia may assist in defining the former through an understanding of the latter.

Much more can be gleaned, but this will suffice for our purposes here.

The words highlighted in the Creed will be expounded upon in future posts.

_______________________

¹ I prefer Ekklēsia over “Church” given the convoluted etymology of the latter. For explanation see Re-Assembly Required.

² See Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 14 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp xi–xii. Also found at Christian Classics Ethereal Library—here.

³ But not every current Christian tradition affirms them all. The resultant creedal statements are more likely to be affirmed while the associated canons are more likely to be rejected (or forgotten!). Regardless of tradition, I think it important that the individual believer be at least somewhat familiar with these seven.

⁴ Confusingly, there was another council held in Nicaea in 787, accounting for why this is known as the “First Council of Nicaea”. The 787 is the “Second Council of Nicaea”. A similar thing occurred in Constantinople, as we shall see.

⁵ Though see Schaff and Wace, Seven Ecumenical Councils: “The question they were called upon to answer was not ‘What do I think is probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture?’ but, ‘What have I been taught, what has been intrusted [sic] to me to hand down to others?’” (p 2). However, one must ask what exactly was handed down but that which was assumed to have been properly exegeted and interpreted from the Scriptures? In fact the Schaff and Wace verbiage on the next two pages (pp 3–4 [in EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS]) appears to contradict this statement.

⁶ See Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), pp 368–371.

⁷ See Allison, Historical Theology, pp 371–372.

⁸ So the 553 council became known as the “Second Council of Constantinople”. There was even a third synod convened in this same city, held 680–681, which became known as the “Third Council of Constantinople”.

⁹ See Allison, Historical Theology, p 372.

¹⁰ Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, ed. David S. Schaff, 3 Vols., 6^th ed. (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1931; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), pp II.57–58.

¹¹ See Schaff, Creeds, I.28–29. Translation below is mine, with help from: Rodney J. Decker, Koine Greek Reader: Selections from the New Testament, Septuagint, and Early Christian Writers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), pp 229–235; Gerald O’Collins, The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999), p 115.

¹² Some of the differences between my translation and Schaff’s include “before all ages” in place of Schaff’s “before all worlds” and “through Whom all things came to be” in place of “by Whom all things were made”. On the former, the Greek is (as noted) aiōn, which is more literally “ages”, whereas the word for “worlds” would be kosmos. On the latter, the Greek preposition dia (διά) means’ “through” in dynamic contexts (see here), which seems best suited here, as opposed to Schaff’s “by”. Moreover, Schaff’s “were made” would imply that the Greek word is poieō or something similar (e.g. ktizō), while it is instead ginomai (here as the aorist egeneto), which is better rendered “came to be” or “became”. Taken together, this phrase best represents the Son as agent of creation: The Father, as Maker, created through the Son. See below.

¹³ Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2009), p 13; cf. p 14, esp. note 10.

¹⁴ It should be noted that this entire verse (1Cor 8:6) is verb-less—“to be” is to be assumed from 8:4–5. Accordingly, these are added to English versions in at least three different places in the verse (is . . . are . . . are).

¹⁵ See Palindromes and Chiastic Structures. Such patterns serve as mnemonic devices.

Forsaken For Our Sake

He was tortured for our transgressions, stricken for our sin sickness (Isa. 53:4–12). The One substituted for the multitude, the Just for the unjust. For our justification.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus cried out to God the Father on the Cross. Yet we must consider the refrain of Charles Wesley’s hymn “And Can It Be?”

Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

God died? God is eternal and cannot die.¹ Yet, in a sense, we must affirm that God did die on the Cross (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25).

At the moment of the Incarnation, the pre-incarnate Divine Word (John 1:1) became God in human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14–17; cf. Luke 1:26–35; 2:4–14). That is, Christ is the theanthropos (theos, God; anthropos, man), the God-man, and we must retain the integrity of His theanthropic person. We must not unduly separate His Deity from His humanity in His person, for this would fall prey to the heresy of what is known as Nestorianism—that Christ is two persons in one, a Divine person and a human person.

Yet, at the same time, we understand that it was Christ’s human nature that perished on the Cross, while His Divine nature continued on.² But we state that Christ died on the Cross because of what is known as the communication of attributes. Simply stated, the communication of attributes affirms that what one nature does—whether the Divine or the human—the person of Christ does. Jesus grew tired and slept according to His human nature, though God never sleeps nor slumbers. Jesus Christ died on the Cross, though God does not die.

So Jesus’ cry to God the Father on the Cross emanated from the human nature of His person. Prior to this, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed to the Father, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). This also was spoken from the human nature of His theanthropic person, for we must not think that Jesus as God has a different will from God the Father. Historical Christian orthodoxy affirms that the Trinity has one Divine will, while Christ has two wills—in accordance with His Divine and human natures.³

God willingly condescended to take the form of man in the person of Jesus Christ, in order to become a sacrifice for us. A Divine mystery for the sake of humanity.⁴

____________________________

¹ Strictly speaking, to believe God died—with no further qualification—is a heresy known as theopassianism or, depending on phraseology (“God the Father”), patripassianism. See, e.g., Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), pp 204, 282.

² For those having difficulty conceptualizing this, consider the Holy Spirit-indwelt believer as an analogy. As Christians we affirm that, upon conversion, the Spirit never leaves the regenerated believer. We also affirm that the Holy Spirit in one believer is the same Spirit in another believer. Yet the Spirit is surely not subdivided among believers! There is one Holy Spirit. God IS Spirit (John 4:24); that is, God is by nature a spirit Being. We believe God is omnipresent—that God is everywhere present, and not limited to one physical location or sphere. And, surely, when the believer dies the Holy Spirit does not die with the believer. Similarly, the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in Christ does not mean that the Divine nature is limited to, or wholly contained in, Jesus’ human body. The omnipresence of the Divine Word continued unabated, uninterrupted by the Incarnation. That is, Jesus’ Divine nature and His human nature were distinct in the hypostatic union of the one person of Jesus Christ such that the Divine nature was in no way impacted by this union. Now, of course, the person of Jesus Christ was limited in physical location due to His human nature; yet, in His Divine nature He continued upholding the cosmos (Col 1:17; Hebrews 1:3) even during His earthly existence. Accordingly, His Divine nature did not perish on the Cross.

³ Christ’s two wills—one Divine as part of the Trinitarian ‘Godhead’ and one human—was codified at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680–681.

⁴ And this is no contradiction, as some detractors might say, but a Divine mystery. There is no contradiction, properly understood.

Is Jesus Christ Lord and Savior?

In answering this question a Christian can simply rearrange the words and turn it into a statement, a truth-claim:

Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

But let’s ponder this further.

Let’s break it down into two separate claims. First: Jesus Christ is Savior. Any Christian would have no trouble affirming the truth of this statement. This is an intrinsic and necessary part of the Gospel—the Good News!

Let’s make the second claim: Jesus Christ is Lord. Once again, a Christian would find no difficulty affirming its truth.

Now let’s make it more personal: Jesus Christ is Lord of my life. I cannot speak for you, of course, but I can tell you that I have difficulty affirming this. Honestly—and shamefully—I must confess that far too often Craig is lord of his own life. And, truthfully, I don’t do a very good job in that role. Yet I stubbornly persist.

How easy it is to take up—to merely give mental assent to—the message of the Cross. But how difficult it is to take up your own cross.

God Came to Abide with Us

God came to abide with humanity and at the hands of humanity die,
so forever in His made-without-hands abode could humanity too reside.

__________________________________________________

Posts of Christmas past:

Coming Soon Near You!

Today an Eternal Present was Unveiled in the City of David

God’s Creation

We see such a tiny fraction of God’s vast creation. Yes, on a clear night we can see the shining stars. But we hardly ‘see’ the stars at all. They appear as tiny lights twinkling in the darkened sky. Yet with the assistance of a powerful telescope we can see some celestial bodies in our solar system. But what is beyond the stars—those we catch glimpses of, even with powerful telescopes?

Compared to the unfathomable immensity of this galaxy, we are quite small. As creatures, we are a tiny fraction of the totality of God’s creation.

I drove out of town today, mindful of God’s creation—what I could see of it. I took in and marveled at the rolling hills as I drove by them. Too often I think only of getting to my destination, forgetting to enjoy the journey itself. But this time I delighted in the scenery.

And I saw this:

God came to earth so that we could come to God. The Creator became a creature¹ so that we could be with God, the Uncreated.

How amazing is that?

[Related: Christmas Came Early!]

____________________

¹ Without compromising His Deity one iota.

What Did Pilate State in John 19:22?: Conclusion (repost)

[This is the second of a two-part repost in recognition of Holy Week. See part I.]

In the conclusion here I shall more closely explore the three verses leading up to Pontius Pilate’s pithy phrase in John 19:22. Due to the rather technical nature of the explanation below, I shall provide a summary as preface.

A ‘mismatch’ in Greek grammatical gender in Jesus’ response to Pilate in John 19:11 may well indicate that Pilate’s God-given authority had a more specific application for his role in the Passion (18:28–19:22). His final phrase (19:22) provides the climax to this circumscribed role. Clues to such an elevated role are found in the narrator’s use of specific verbiage in 19:19 and again in 19:20. These include John’s borrowing of the Latin titulus and yet another ‘mismatch’ in grammatical gender. The Latin titulus becomes the Greek titlos, an apparent neologism, and the ‘mismatch’ occurs in this new word and what is translated “it had been inscribed/written”. The latter phrase (and slight variations) is frequently used before Scripture quotations.

Before proceeding to the analysis, some necessary background in John’s Gospel will be provided first.

Events Leading Up to Jesus’ Arrest

In reaction to Jesus’ increasing popularity following the miracle of Lazarus’ revivification (11:38-45; 12:9-11), some of ‘the Jews’⁹ conferred with the chief priests and the Pharisees who then summoned the Sanhedrin (11:46-47). They were concerned they would eventually lose their “place and nation” (11:48). While “place” in its Scriptural context may refer to the Temple, it may well (also) mean the leaders’ privileged positions, which were granted by, yet subject to, Roman authority.

At this meeting Caiaphas, the High Priest (11:49) said, “…it is better that one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish” (11:50; cf. 18:14). The narrator of the Gospel adds:

₅₁ He did not say this of himself but, as High Priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, ₅₂ and not only the nation, but also that He would unite into one the children of God who are dispersed.¹⁰

The Greek words for “children of God” above are found only here and in 1:12 in John’s Gospel. Thus, ironically, the fulfillment of his words would have different consequences than he likely assumed (cf. 7:35), and would result in the inclusion of Gentile believers as children of God on equal footing (12:32; cf. 4:42; Rom 2:28-29).

They then plotted Christ’s death (11:53), apparently conspiring to arrest Him at the next available opportunity toward that end (11:55-57).

In the meantime, the Devil cast into the heart of Judas Iscariot the desire to betray Jesus (13:2; cf. 13:18, 21). Shortly thereafter, at the Last Supper, “Satan entered into him” (13:27), and then Judas left to carry out his betrayal (13:30). Soon after that he went to an olive grove where he knew Jesus often met with his disciples, bringing with him “a detachment of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and the Pharisees” (18:1-3).

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

Jesus was subsequently arrested and brought before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas (18:12-14), who questioned Him (18:19-23) before sending him on to Caiaphas (18:24). Then Christ was led to Governor Pilate’s palace (18:28).

Pilate enquired about the charges levied against Jesus (18:29), and with no direct answer given (18:30) he instructed them to “judge him by your own law” (18:31).¹¹ ‘The Jews’ replied, “We are not authorized to execute anyone” (18:31). This was to fulfill the kind of death Jesus would suffer (18:32; cf. 12:33), as He indicated earlier—being “lifted up”, i.e., crucified (12:32).

Yet the fact that Roman soldiers (18:3) were employed in Jesus’ capture indicates Pilate may well have been apprised of the charges before Christ was presented to him. This would account for his first question to Jesus: “Are you ‘the king of the Jews’?” (18:33). Pilate’s words here could be intended, alternatively, as showing incredulity (cf. Isa 53:2): “You are ‘the king of the Jews’?”¹² After Jesus informed him that His kingdom is not of this world (18:36, 37), Pilate found him without guilt, then asked the Jews if they would agree to release Him as per the annual tradition of freeing one prisoner at Passover (18:38-39). The Jews chose Barabbas instead (18:40).

With that Pilate had Jesus flogged (19:1). The soldiers, mocking Jesus’ ‘purported’ kingship, put a crown of thorns on His head and clad Him in a purple robe (19:2-3).

After this, still unconvinced of Christ’s guilt, Pilate tried once more to persuade them to reconsider (19:4). When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said (19:5), “Behold, the man!” This is probably Pilate’s way of challenging their charge of His [Jesus’] alleged claim of political kingship.

In response the chief priests and their officials shouted out (19:6): “Crucify! Crucify!” In return Pilate told them to crucify Him—knowing they couldn’t of course—again stating he found the charges to be without foundation (19:6). ‘The Jews’ countered using a different tact, “We have a law, and according to this law He must die, for He made Himself God’s Son” (19:7; cf. 5:18; 10:33). They were likely appealing to Leviticus 24:16, accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Upon hearing their new allegation Pilate grew more afraid (19:8). Having been immersed in Greco-Roman polytheism, Pilate may have thought Jesus a ‘divine man’. Whatever the case, this new claim prompted him to ask Jesus, “Where are you from?” (19:9). When Christ remained silent Pilate apparently grew agitated, adding, “Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and I have the authority to crucify you?” (19:10). Jesus responded, “You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above; therefore, the one who has delivered me over to you is guilty of a greater sin” (19:11; cf. 10:17-18).

From this point forward Pilate kept seeking to release Him. But, in persistence, ‘the Jews’ shouted, “If you release this fellow, you are no friend of Caesar’s—anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar” (19:12). Note the verbal connection between “makes himself a king” and “made Himself God’s Son” (cf. 5:18, 10:33) above.

It was around the “sixth hour” (noon) on the Day of Preparation of Passover week (19:14; cf. 13:1). With this time marker we know that Jesus’ impending death, only a short time away, would be around the same time when priests would begin slaughtering paschal lambs (Exo 12).¹³ Now the “Lamb of God” (1:29; cf. 1 Cor 5:7; Heb 9:11-15; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:6) is about to meet a similar fate at about the same hour (cf. Exo 12:46; John 19:33, 36).

In response to their last statement (19:12), Pilate brought Jesus out and said (19:13-14), “Here is your king!” To that they shouted: “Take that man away! Take away! Crucify him!”¹⁴

Pilate answered (19:15), “Shall I crucify your king?”

The chief priests, in feigned allegiance to Caesar for the sake of expediency, answered (19:15), “We have no king but Caesar!” Their claim could be understood as a denial of their own God, their King (Jdg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; Psa 136:3)—at Passover, no less.

Their response was intended to dissuade Pilate from releasing Jesus, as doing so would make it appear he recognized Him as a rival to Caesar’s kingship. And thus Pilate failed in his efforts to free Jesus. ‘The Jews’ and the chief priests forced his hand, and so he handed Jesus over to them for crucifixion. Obviously unhappy with this turn of events, Pilate would exact revenge against them.

The Crucifixion and Pilate’s Enduring Statement

With Jesus formally sentenced, the soldiers took charge (19:16). After carrying His cross, He was ‘lifted up’, placed between two others (19:17-18).

Below is the brief section leading up to and including Pilate’s final statement in John’s Gospel. Each occurrence of the Greek verb root “write” (graphō) is bolded. In addition, titlos is left untranslated, for it is difficult to provide a suitable one-word substitute. An exploration of these terms will commence further below.

₁₉ Yet Pilate also wrote a titlos and fastened it to the cross. It had been inscribed: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. ₂₀ Many of the Jews thus read this titlos, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it had been written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. ₂₁ The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘THE KING OF THE JEWS’, but that man, ‘SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS.’”¹⁵

₂₂ Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

Pilate’s inscription was intended as an insult to the Jews. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword here—in more than one way.

Since first century Greek texts lacked punctuation (and spacing between words!), there is some ambiguity as to the exact request of “the chief priests of the Jews” and how they wished to amend Pilate’s original words. I interpret their intention was to replace ‘…THE KING OF THE JEWS’ in the inscription with ‘…SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS’, resulting in their proposed verbiage JESUS THE NAZARENE SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS. They wanted the words to reflect a claim of Jesus, not a claim of the Jewish nation. From their perspective, the inscription as it stood may “appear to be a formal declaration of Jesus’ identity rather than a charge against Him.”¹⁶

Pilate was well aware their charges had been trumped up, so he was undoubtedly taking much pleasure in making a mockery of them in response to their mocked allegiance to Caesar at Jesus’ expense. They may have forced his hand, but he showed them who ultimately had the upper hand.

But Pilate’s vindication would have other ramifications. While we understand the theological implication in Pilate’s inscription—as it stands it makes a true statement of Jesus’ Kingship—taking a closer look at the context while investigating related historical background provides a stronger foundation upon which to construe it this way.

Other Signs

It was not uncommon in first century Rome for a criminal on his way to execution to be accompanied by a sign stating both his name and the offense for which He was condemned. It was either (a) carried by an official walking in front of him¹⁷ or (b) hung around his own neck.¹⁸ But there is not much historical evidence for placing this same sign on the criminal’s cross, and what is available is ambiguous.¹⁹ We must note that none of the Gospels mention anyone carrying a sign of this sort during the Via Dolorosa. This is not to definitively claim someone had not, however. We merely have no explicit evidence. What we know for certain is that a sign was placed onto Jesus’ cross indicating His supposed crime.²⁰

The word used in both instances above referring to the sign accompanying condemned criminals is the Latin titulus. John’s titlos—found only here in 19:19 and 19:20 in all Scripture (and seems to be first used by John)—is a ‘loanword’ from this Latin term. Titulus had rather broad applications in first century Latin texts. In addition to the two examples previously cited, the word was used by Pliny the Younger (ca. AD 61—113) for a notice to rent²¹ and by Roman poet Ovid (BC 43—AD 17/18) for a notice of public sale.²² It was also used to signify a grave marker.²³ As can be deduced, the term applied to both the object inscribed and its inscription in these instances. However, for our purposes, more important is the fact that at times titulus was used solely for the inscription itself in distinction from the object on which it was inscribed.²⁴

The term can refer to epitaphs (i.e., the inscriptions) as distinct from grave markers.²⁵ Roman historian Titus Livius Patavinus (ca. BC 64/59—AD 12/17) applied it to Hannibal’s self-inscription on an altar in which he glowingly described his own achievements.²⁶ Columella (ca. AD 4—70), a writer on agricultural concerns, used the word to reference titles of books.²⁷ Ovid, in the very same work referred to in the previous paragraph, used titulus to signify the title of a pamphlet.²⁸ And most pertinent here, in a work written around the time Christ was born, Ovid employed the term in reference to honorific titles—as applied to Augustus Caesar, for example.²⁹ In similar fashion, in one context Ovid used it as a title acquired by assuming it from those conquered or from some heroic event, yet also in synonymity with “name” (Latin: nomen).³⁰ Yet, given that Pilate’s purpose with the inscription was to antagonize ‘the Jews’, can we rightly apply any of these meanings (epitaph, title, name) to John 19:19?

The text in 19:19 states that Pilate wrote the titlos (titulus) and affixed it to the cross. The task of placing the titlos onto the beam, however, was almost certainly delegated. Yet given the preceding historical investigation—illustrating titulus could refer to either the inscribed object and its inscription or the inscription only—there are a number of possible scenarios with regard to the writing of the words. Perhaps Pilate dictated the desired text to a scribe for inscribing.³¹ Or maybe he himself penned the words on a papyrus (titlos) and then gave this document to a scribe for inscribing onto the (presumed) board of the titlos.³² It could be that he inscribed the titlos in Latin and then gave it to a secretary to translate and write the Aramaic and the Greek. Whatever the case, in some manner, Pilate wrote the titlos.

Textual Clues and Syntactical Pointers

There’s a grammatical issue in the latter part of v. 19 that may well have a bearing here. The words preceding the inscription—“It had been inscribed” in the translation above (akin to the English past perfect)—are translated from a participle reflecting a neuter subject, yet titlos is masculine. In other words, it does not refer to titlos. (Greek grammar usually requires grammatical gender match.) This exact syntax is found again in 19:20. So, to what or whom does it refer?

This is typically translated impersonally: “There was written” (“It [the inscription] read”).³³ However, as Keener notes, each and every time this syntactical structure with this verb is used up to this point in John it references Scripture (it is written; it had been written).³⁴ Keener concludes, “Thus John may ironically suggest that Pilate, as God’s unwitting agent (19:11), may carry out God’s will in the Scriptures.”³⁵ Could God’s Spirit have superintended the writing of the inscription, despite Pilate’s vindictive purpose?

The words it is written in the verses prefacing Scripture references (2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25; cf. 5:46; 8:17) are in the Greek perfect tense-form, while 12:16 contains a pluperfect—the same form as 19:19 and 19:20. Though all these are important to my argument here, key is the usage of 12:16, best rendered these things had been written.³⁶ In that context, the narrator notes that the disciples recalled earlier events but only fully understood how they fulfilled Scripture from the vantage point of their post-glorification perspective (after Jesus’ resurrection).³⁷ Before considering this line of inquiry further, how might 19:11 (which Keener referenced above) impact the interpretation in 19:19?

While the authority Pilate possessed in a general sense was certainly “from above” (anōthen), as it is for all rulers and authorities, this was not Jesus’ point here. Similar to v. 19, there is a mismatch in gender in v. 11. Just as the participle in 19:19 is neuter, so it had [not] been given is neuter in 19:11. The Greek word for authority, however, is feminine.³⁸ Thus, if it had not been given to you from above does not refer to Pilate’s general conferred authority but instead is circumscribed to his specific role in the events unfolding at the time: “the fact that Jesus has been given into his hands has been determined by God”.³⁹ More specifically, my contention here is that this specific authority was conferred to Pilate for his entire role in the Passion sequence.

Below is the pertinent portion of the verse:

19:₁₁ ouk eiches exousian kat’ emou oudemian ei mē ēn dedomenon soi anōthen
not you have authority over me nothing if not was it having given you from-above
“You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above.”

Going out a bit further, interestingly, this same syntactical format (‘not _____’ if it has/had not been given from God) is first found in John the Baptizer’s response to those who mentioned Jesus’ baptizing and the increasing numbers going to Him (3:26):

3:₂₇ ou dynatai anthrōpos lambanein oude hen ean mē ȩ̄ dedomenon autō̧ ek tou ouranou⁴⁰
not s/he be able person to receive and-not one if not may-be it having given him from heaven
A person is not able to receive not one thing if not it may be given to him/her from heaven
“A person is not able to receive anything if it has not been given to them from heaven.”

Though the Baptizer’s statement serves a particular purpose in its context, it should also be seen as a maxim, a general statement.⁴¹ These words of the Baptizer are the first with this syntactical structure in John’s Gospel, while Jesus’ words to Pilate are the last. Thus, in my opinion these form bookends, one opening and the other closing an inclusio. The Baptizer’s maxim then relates to some intervening uses of “give” (didōmi), such as parts of the Bread of Life discourse (e.g. 6:37, 39), Jesus’ Prayer (17:7, 11, 12, 22), and Jesus’ cup (18:11).⁴² Of course, it also relates to Jesus’ statement in 19:11 (ei mē ēn dedomenon, “if it had not been given”). The remaining verse fitting this grammatical structure (6:65) is thematically relevant:

6:₆₅ oudeis dynatai elthein pros me ean mē ȩ̄ dedomenon autō̧ ek tou patros
no one is able to come to me if not may-be it having given him/her of the Father
“No one is able to come to Me if it has not been given to them by the Father.”

The point here is that while God places individuals in certain positions he also orchestrates specific events, using certain individuals to accomplish specific tasks in these events. Thus, understanding Pilate’s unique role in the Passion per Jesus’ phraseology in 19:11, we might be able to assume that this circumscribed, God-given authority extends to the inscription, especially when we consider the syntax in 19:19 and 19:20 (it had been inscribed) and how that relates to other uses of this same structure. Even still, can we make the leap that his words on the inscription are tantamount to writing Scripture? If so, what Scripture is referenced?

Crucial to understanding the Gospel of John is to grasp that the author is writing from a perspective post-Jesus’ resurrection. After Pentecost, the Spirit had been given. And from this perspective the Spirit brings to remembrance past events, further illuminating them to the disciples (14:26; 16:12-15). At various points the narrator implies this by calling attention to some of Jesus’ previous statements (12:32 via 12:33 and 18:32|6:39 via 17:12 and 18:9). In 2:22 the narrator remarks that after “He [Jesus] was raised” the disciples ‘remembered’ His words and “they believed the Scripture (graphē, noun form of graphō) and the word that Jesus spoke” (in 2:19).  But what “Scripture” is ‘remembered’ here? It cannot be the one referenced in 2:16, for 2:17 specifically explains that particular one. By the context the intended Scripture referent appears to be the OT (Tanakh) in a general sense, as it relates to the resurrection.⁴³

Somewhat similar to 2:22 is 12:16—the Triumphal Entry. Here the narrator states that the disciples fully realized that these things had been written about Him only “after Jesus was glorified”. “These things”—which is neuter in the Greek—refers to the Scripture referenced in 12:13 and 12:15. Yet in this same context the narrator relates it was not only the things that had been written but also these things done to Him. We can construe that this refers to the events acted out in fulfillment of those two Scriptures. However, oddly, if at the time of Jesus’ ministry the disciples didn’t understand that He was being proclaimed king, why did the crowd say these things? The seeming contradiction is reconciled if we understand it more broadly (similar to 2:22 above) to mean Jesus’ Kingship in the post-glorification sense.⁴⁴ In other words, their initial interpretation of “king” was in a political sense, and then after they ‘remembered’ “these things”, God’s Spirit provided further illumination, as in 2:22.

Tying It All Together

Considering the immediately preceding regarding 2:22 and 12:16, and adding in the syntactical connection between 12:16 and 19:19-20, we have a point of contact. One may argue that the grammatical relationship (these things had been written > it had been written/inscribed) is a bit tenuous, but the thematic one certainly applies. Yet the strength of the thematic link should bolster the grammatical. If the narrator relates how the disciples’ remembrance was further illuminated (implying by virtue of the Spirit: 14:26; 16:12-15), then how much more would the narrator/writer himself be likewise illumined?⁴⁵ When we factor in the syntactical relationship between 19:19-20 and all other uses of it is written / it had been written (as pertaining to Scripture) in conjunction with Pilate’s unique authority in the Passion as revealed in Jesus’ words in 19:11 (and this grammatical and thematic link to 3:27), we have a stronger case for tying all this together.

Therefore, my contention is that John wrote this with the understanding of a dual purpose for the inscription: one for Pilate’s vengeance, and one for the Spirit to make a true identity statement. In other words, John himself recognized that the words Pilate wrote had influence from the Spirit, so he chose (under influence of the Spirit) it had been inscribed/written as a way to make this connection. I further contend this is why John borrowed the Latin titulus in his use of titlos.

Assuming my argument here, one can see it is certainly no leap to enlarge the definition of John’s titlos to include “title” (THE KING OF THE JEWS) and/or “name” (JESUS THE NAZARENE) or both/and (JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS). Thus, rather than merely considering the wording on the inscription as an implication, we have grammatical and contextual reasons to assert with confidence that JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS is indeed written as a Messianic title, and/or a name, a proclamation in a literal sense—in addition to Pilate’s vindication. And the prefatory it had been inscribed designates that the words following, similar to the meaning in 12:16, refer to the OT (Tanakh) generally, rather than one specific verse or section. In other words, the Scripture that Pilate references on his titlos—under the superintending of the Spirit—is the OT (Tanakh) in a general sense, as it relates to Jesus’ Kingship.

Given all this, Pilate’s inscription, with the assistance of God’s Spirit, could be perceived as the climactic contravening of two statements by ‘the Jews’: Jesus “made Himself God’s Son” in 19:7 (cf. 5:18; 10:33) and “makes Himself King” in 19:12 (cf. 1:49; 12:13; 18:38), both encapsulated in Nathaniel’s proclamation in 1:49 “you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel” (cf. 12:13).

If all this prevails, then the chief priests of the Jews’ plea to Pilate to amend the title may be interpreted ironically as an indirect attempt at usurping God’s authority by unknowingly trying to change Scripture. Interestingly, the narrator does not record that they ‘wanted to change’ (using allassō, e.g.) or something to that effect; instead they say to Pilate “do not write” (using graphō). This is yet another linguistic/grammatical and thematic link further cohering the four verses (19:19-22).

Yet Pilate refused to alter the altar: What I have written, I have written. What I have written, I stand by. The irony then is that Pilate, a pagan and acting as God’s unwitting agent, stood by God’s words, while the opposing Jews who had just executed their Messiah wanted to amend them.

So, what did Pilate “state”? His final words “What I have written, I have written” affirm his inscription, and by doing so, those words remain in Scripture in a state of having been written. And, if the analysis here is accepted, with God’s ‘hand’ on Pilate’s ‘pen’, Pilate ‘wrote’ New Testament Scripture, words that endure to this very day.⁴⁶

___________________________________

⁹ I place ‘the Jews’ in single quotes when the text uses οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (hoi Ioudaioi), since this is the manner in which the Gospel of John chooses to identify this sub-group. Note, however, that while John’s characterization is mostly negative in the text here, there are quite a few times in the Gospel when the term is used in positive (2:6; 4:22; 8:31; 11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45; 12:9, 11; 19:31) or neutral (1:19; 2:13; 3:1, 22; 5:1, 15; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55; 13:33; 18:20; 19:20, 40, 42) settings (such as in describing a certain festival “of the Jews”), or times in which the group is perhaps understandably perplexed (2:20; 6:41, 52; 7:15; 7:35; 8:57; 10:19). The term’s meaning in John is a bit ambiguous and remains an enigma. Even the designation the Pharisees is sometimes used positively or neutrally (e.g. 9:16). However in this section of John’s Gospel ‘the Jews’ are Jesus’ adversaries.

¹⁰ My translation, as are all Scripture quotations in this article. The Latin is also my translation, assisted by online sources and, at times, by others’ English translations. My goal is to adhere closer to a formal equivalence than a dynamic or functional one. To that end, I endeavor to translate nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.

¹¹ The words of Pilate here may well be an example of artistic license on the part of John the Evangelist. These may have been meant to be ironical in that, according to Mosaic Law—and in truth, of course—Jesus was not guilty of any crime.

¹² Since Greek finite verbs encode person and number, a pronoun is not necessary unless the subject is ambiguous; thus, the presence of the pronoun “you” (συ) here is not necessary, and may be used for emphasis.

¹³ Here I’m following John’s intent in his presentation of events without trying to reconcile them with the Synoptic accounts. See Thompson, John: A Commentary, pp 388-390. Thompson presents a synopsis of (1) the difference between the Synoptic Gospel’s accounts regarding the timing of Jesus’ death as compared to John’s, (2) the problem of associating Jesus’ death with the “sixth hour” (noon) and how this does not seem to correlate with the timing of the slaughtering of Passover lambs.  However, John’s chronology indicates Jesus will be crucified later than noon (he had to first take up his own cross and then walk to the crucifixion site), and so her observations regarding the typical time range for sacrificing Paschal lambs (beginning a bit after 1:30 in the afternoon at the earliest) do not necessarily contradict this. Those attempting to reconcile John with the Synoptics employ various measures. See, e.g. Andreas J. Köstenberger’s contribution in G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), p 500.

¹⁴ The twice-used verb for “take away” (αἴρω, airō) has a somewhat broad semantic range that can mean take up as in to raise up to a higher position, move to another place, carry away. It seems likely a double meaning is intended here. That is, ‘lift that man up’ may be understood as the additional meaning, in irony.

¹⁵ The word translated “Aramaic” is Hebraisti, which some English versions render “Hebrew”. Following Harris (Murray J. Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, Andreas J. Köstenberger & Robert W. Yarbrough, gen. eds. [Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015], p 314), I construe the periphrastic ἦν + γεγραμμένον in v. 19 and v. 20 as akin to the pluperfect of γράφω (cf. 12:16), though I prefer to translate as an English past perfect rather than a simple past.

¹⁶ Thompson, John: A Commentary, p 398.

¹⁷ In Roman historian Suetonius’ (c. AD 69—122) Caligula—Emperor from AD 37 to 41—an account of a slave sentenced to execution by the Emperor for stealing silver (32.2) was “preceded by a sign indicating the cause for his punishment” (Latin: praecedente titulo qui causam poenae indicaret). Cf. for a similar account in the 2^nd century (AD 177) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.1.44, in which someone carried a board (πίναξ, pinax) in front of Attalus with the inscription THIS IS ATTALUS THE CHRISTIAN.

¹⁸ In Suetonius’ Domitianus (10.2-3)—Domitian was Roman Emperor from AD 81 to 96—the sign describing the charge was placed upon the accused gladiator himself (cum hoc titulo: Impie locutus parmularius; “with this sign [upon him]: ‘A Parmularian [gladiator] impiously spoke’”).

¹⁹ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, two volumes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) p 2.1137. “The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well attested, either because those describing the crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried out . . . or because the practice was not in fact standard although, given the variations among executions, in no way improbable . . . (p 2.1137, n 608).

²⁰ Although only Matthew (27:37) and Mark (15:26) specifically refer to a sign stating the cause (aitia) for which Jesus was crucified, this does not mean we cannot infer this from the other Gospels (cf. John 19:6).

²¹ Letters, 7.27 (“To Sura”): Athenodorus legit titulum: “Athenodorus read the notice (to rent the haunted mansion)”.

²² In Remedia Amoris (Cures for Love), for the notice of sale (Latin: sub titulum, “‘under’ the notice”, i.e., “using the notice”) for the household items the unscrupulous girl had plundered (302). Cf. the oft-neglected Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), p II.283. Cf. Tibellus (c. BC 55-BC 19), Elegiae, 2.4.54: ite sub imperium sub titulumque; “you go under her command and under the notice.”

²³ Pliny the Younger: Letters, 6.10.3: post decimum mortis annum reliquias neglectumque cinerem sine titulo sine nomine iacere: “ten years postmortem his remains have been cast down and neglected, without a grave marker and without a name.” That titulus in this context does not mean “epitaph” (the inscription itself as distinct from the marker) is evident by the next line of the epistle, in which the author specifies the words the deceased wanted inscribed (inscriberetur) as his epitaph. Also see Ovid, Fasti, Book IV.23, 44, in which titulus refers to a scroll and the writing upon it (longum scriberet annum vidit  . . . proximus est titulis Epytus: “to see what he might have engraved on the roll . . . next on the scroll is Egyptus”).

²⁴ See F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” Journal of Theological Studies old series 31 (1930), pp 272-273.

²⁵ Martial (ca. AD 38/41—102/104), Epigrammata (published between AD 86 and 103), I.93.4: Plus tamen est, titulo quod breviore legis: ‘Iunctus uterque sacro laudatae foedere vitae, famaque quod raro novit, amicus erat’: “Yet more is what you glean from this brief epitaph: ‘Knit in the sacred bond of life with an honored reputation rarely known: they were friends’.” Cf. Ovid, Epistulae: Sappho Phaoni, 15.190-195; cf. Pliny the Younger, Letters, 9.19.3: . . . si immortalitatem quam meruere sectantur, victurique nominis famam supremis etiam titulis prorogare nituntur: “ . . . if they now seek immortalization, and the names they have so greatly earned in glory and fame to secure, and to perpetuate themselves by epitaphs.” By the context it seems possible that both the inscription and the grave marker are included in titulus here, but the primary meaning is certainly the epitaph/inscription itself.

²⁶ Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita (The History of Rome), 28.46.16 aram condidit dedicavitque cum . . . titulo: “he erected and dedicated an altar with . . . an inscription.”

²⁷ De De Rustica, Book IX, preface: tituli, quern prae-scripsimus huic disputationi: “the title, which we have prefixed to this discourse.” Cf. De De Rustica, Book VIII, preface; cf. Quintilian (ca. AD 35—100), Institutio Oratoria, Book 2.14.4: quos hac de re primum scripserat, titulis Graeco nomine utatur: “from earlier [works] which he had written, Greek name titles were used.” In other words, he used Greek names as titles in earlier works.

²⁸ Remedia Amoris, in the very first line of the poem (1): titulum nomenque libelli, “name and title of this little book”. I interpret this as epexegetical such that “name” further defines titulus. In other words, “name” refers to the title (and ‘title’ refers to the name) on the book’s title page, in order to differentiate it from the other meaning of titulus as both inscription and inscribed object (title page). Alternatively, the terms titulus and nomen could be synonymous here. See note 30.

²⁹ Fasti, Book III.419-420: Caesaris innumeris . . . accessit titulis pontificalis honor; “To Caesar’s innumerable . . .  titles the honor of Pontificate was added.” Cf. M. Tullius Cicero (BC 106—BC43), Against Piso, 9.19: posset sustinere tamen titulum consulatus: “might have the power to sustain the title of consulate.”

³⁰ Fasti, Book I.599-604: si a victis, tot sumat nomina Caesar, quot numero gentes maximus orbis habet, ex uno quidam celebres aut torquis adempti aut corvi  titulos auxiliaris habent. Magne, tuum nomen rerum est mensura tuarum; sed qui te vicit, nomine maior erat: “If Caesar claims names from those conquered, let him take as many as the mighty globe has nations! From one event some celebrate—either from a neck-chain won or allied ravens—the titles they possess. O great one [Pompey the Great], your name is the measure of your deeds, but he who conquered you was greater in name.” Cf. Ovid, Fasti, Book IV.115, in which the goddess Venus is referred to as the titulus of a calendar month. See note 28 for another possibility.

³¹ See Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” pp 271-273.

³² Ibid.

³³ E.g., Harris, John, p 314. See note 15 above.

³⁴ Keener, Gospel of John, p 2.1138. All but one of the Scripture verses Keener cites here are perfects (as the periphrastic ἔστιν γεγραμμένον: 2:17; 5:46; 6:31, 45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25), the lone exception being 12:16, a pluperfect (the periphrastic ἦν + γεγραμμένα). While the perfects are important, it is this exception in the pluperfect that provides the primary link for the argument I shall put forth here.

³⁵ Keener, Gospel of John, p 2.1138. The author understands Pilate’s conferred authority in 19:11 in a general sense (pp 2.1126-27) rather than in the more circumscribed view I shall pursue below. And Keener does not mention the grammar ‘mismatch’ issue at all.

³⁶ It is actually a periphrastic, an equivalent to the pluperfect—see note 34.

³⁷ See, e.g., the late Larry Hurtado’s pre-publication Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John.

³⁸ More specifically, the participle δεδομένον is neuter. It would have to be the feminine δεδομένη to agree with the feminine ἐξουσίαν (authority) here. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2^nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) p 543. In addition, it may be that Jesus’ answer here includes a roundabout answer to the question Pilate posed in 19:9: “Where are you from?” Answer: ἄνωθεν, “from above”.

³⁹ Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, transl. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Gen Ed., R. W. N. Hoare & J. K. Riches (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1971), p 662. Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, D. Hubbard, G. Barker, gen. eds. (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), pp 339-340. Yet neither mentions the grammatical gender mismatch as does D. A. Carson: The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, D. A. Carson, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pp 600-602. But, Carson appears to terminate the circumscribed authority at Pilate’s capitulation in 19:13 (p 603); however, my position here is that this does not terminate until Pilate’s final words in 19:22.

⁴⁰ There is a difference here in that a neuter subject is found in ἕν, hen (one) from the apodosis.

⁴¹ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 222.

⁴² This does mean to imply, of course, that 3:27 (and 6:65 just below) is no longer applicable as a general maxim.

⁴³ See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 201.

⁴⁴ See Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp 433-434.

⁴⁵ See Jörg Frey, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), pp 151-154.

⁴⁶ Alternatively, John the Gospel writer took certain liberties in fashioning his Gospel, and in so doing, re-formed some words to make his theological and christological points.

What Did Pilate State in John 19:22? (repost)

[This is a repost (revised a bit) in recognition of Holy Week. Of necessity, it is a bit technical.]

In reading any common English translation of John 19:22, one finds Pilate saying, “What I have written, I have written.”¹ This is certainly not incorrect, yet I have a feeling some readers may not quite comprehend the significance of this statement, in part, because they are unaware of distinctions in English verb tenses. Some may erroneously think “What I wrote, I wrote” conveys the same meaning. In addition, there is a theologically important connotation in the larger context that readers of the English versions would most likely not perceive.

Below is the Greek of Pilates’s quote, under that is its transliteration (exchanging Greek letters for English equivalents), and below that is a corresponding working English translation:

ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα
ho gegrapha gegrapha
What I have written I have written

The first word is the relative pronoun who/which/what, appropriately translated “what” in this context. Following that are two verbs, the second an exact duplicate of the first. We’ll reserve the final translation until after our investigation. All Greek finite verbs encode person and number (1^st person singular, I; 2^nd person singular, you; 3^rd person singular, he/she/it; etc.), though not grammatical gender (male, female, or neuter). In the above, each verb is 1^st person singular, and they obviously refer to Pilate. Because finite verbs encode person and number, they may form a subject-verb sentence, depending on context. For instance, Jesus’ final word on the cross is tetelestai (John 19:30), translated “It is finished.”

The verb gegrapha is in the perfect tense-form (of graphō), in the active voice and the indicative mood. The indicative is the most common mood—in Greek and English—expressing facts, false statements assumed to be true, false statements as if true, opinions, or questions. The active voice presents the subject performing the action (Jon ate lunch). Comparatively, the passive voice is used when the subject receives the action (Lunch was eaten by Jon).

The precise meaning indicated by the Greek perfect tense-form is in dispute, though there are a number of theories proposed in recent scholarly literature. Specific discussion of any of these theories is not necessary, however, as some of the older Greek grammars address the issues relative to Pilate’s statement, and we can apply them here. While the Greek perfect tense-form has a wide range of applications, for our purposes it is easiest to conceive it as similar to the English present perfect tense. This is what is reflected in all the English translations of John 19:22 at the above hyperlink (have written).

Some Tense Explanations in English

It may be helpful to briefly explain/review the English present perfect as well as a few other English tenses. If you feel like you are sufficiently proficient in the English, you may skip to the next section.

Verbs in the English present perfect tense express past verbal actions that retain some sort of connection to the present. If I were to state I have written over 100 blog posts, you would rightly infer that all 100+ posts are still available for reading on this blog. They are all in a state of having been written, in a state of ‘written-ness’, and available for viewing.

Alternatively, had I constructed the same sentence but in the English simple past tense—I wrote over 100 blog posts—you might infer that the posts were written at some point in the past yet are no longer available for viewing. More on this below.

The difference between these two English tenses can be found in their respective names. The simple past refers to verbal actions in the past with no further implication of present relevance. The “perfect” in present perfect means “complete”, denoting the past (completed, perfected) portion of the verbal action, while “present” in present perfect indicates the verb’s relevance in the present. The “present” portion of the present perfect tense is formed by using the appropriate auxiliary verb for the present tense, matched by person and number: I have (1st person singular), you have (2^nd person singular), she/he/it has (3^rd person singular). The “perfect” (“complete”, past) portion is formed by using the appropriate past participle of the main verb (I have written, you have written, she/he/it has written).

Though the simple past tense does not imply continuing relevance, this does not necessarily mean there is no connection to the present. The simple past is merely silent regarding current relevance. There may or may not be continuing relevance. Further context may (or may not) illuminate.

Comparatively, a verb in the English present perfect always implies something about the present. Thus, the context will determine which one is more suitable. Let’s make a comparison:

I lost my marbles yesterday.
I have lost my marbles! (and I am frantically trying to find them)

In the first instance, reflecting the simple past tense, this is a simple narrative statement, implying no continuing relevance. The second instance reflects the present perfect tense, of course. If it took ten minutes to find my marbles, then that would have been ten minutes I was in a state of having lost my marbles, frantically trying to find them. Upon finding the marbles I would be in a new, much happier (and more lucid) state of having found my marbles. At that point I could exclaim—again using the present perfect tense—“I have found my marbles!”, illustrating this new state.

I could recount the episode by using the past perfect tense: “I had lost my marbles yesterday”. The past perfect indicates a past action that had subsequent relevance in the past following that action (without commenting on present relevance). After finding my marbles yesterday I could have put the two sentences together, stating: “I had lost my marbles, but after a frantic search I have found them!”. Thus, had lost (past perfect) reflects the past action + its subsequent past relevance, while have found reflects the past action + present relevance.

Context will determine which verb tense is best to use:

Francois made dinner last Thursday. He might even make dinner again next month.
Mom has made dinner. (and dinner is now ready to eat)
Myrna has watched all the Die Hard movies three times, and she plans to watch them all again.
Jacob had washed the towels. He has now placed them into the dryer. (they are currently drying)
Johnny has listened to the train coming into the station every day for the past three years.

While the simple past tense of  Francois’ dinner in this context implies this was a one-time only or rare occurrence, the present perfect tense of Mom’s dinner implies that dinner is now ready to eat (and we better do so before it gets cold!). As for Myrna, the present relevance of the present perfect tense is the fact that this apparent Bruce Willis fan enjoys these movies so much she wishes to watch them all yet again. The past perfect tense had washed represents the necessary prerequisite for Jacob’s currently drying towels, the latter implied by the present perfect has placed and the adverb “now”. In the final example, it is reasonable to infer that Johnny will listen to the trains yet again tomorrow, given the daily recurring (“every day”) has listened, i.e., present perfect tense.

With this brief review of a few English verb tenses completed, we are ready to proceed to the Greek.

Some Tense Explanations in Koine  (New Testament) Greek

The idea of a past action with continuing relevance in the present in the English present perfect tense is the primary thrust of the Greek perfect tense-form. Smyth provides a basic definition: “a completed action the effects of which still continue in the present”.² Dana and Mantey use a broader outline:

The significance of the [Ancient Greek] perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses. Emphasis, as indicated by context or the meaning of the verb root, may be on either the completion of the action or on its finished results. This possible difference in emphasis lies at the basis of the variation in the uses of the perfect tense.³

Going back to the aforementioned tetelestai, “it is finished” in John 19:30, this is in the perfect tense-form like the twinned verbs in 19:22. Yet here the verb is in the 3^rd person singular and the passive voice. Note that, with the exception of Young’s Literal Translation, common English versions do not read it has been finished. This is because, though the larger context implies completed actions leading up to the culmination point, translators deem that it is the state of completion that is the emphasis in the immediate context: It is finished.⁴

Similarly, in Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, He answers the Devil’s commands/temptations with gegraptai, “it is written” (Matthew 4:4,7,10, and parallels)—the “it” referring to Scripture. This verb has the same root (graphō) as our subject verse John 19:22, and it is in the same perfect tense-form. The only difference is that here it is a 3^rd person singular in the passive voice. The common rendering “it is written” reflects the primary focus on its state of having been written, not on the fact that Scripture was written. As A. T. Robertson comments on its usage in these contexts, “It was written . . . and still is on record.”⁵ Just like my example of the blog, both the past action and the present results are encoded, but here it is the latter that is understood as the main point: It is written.

Now going back to English for a few moments, let’s say you have a report that needs to be written by 5 o’clock today. At 4:15 your nosy coworker asks if you will meet the deadline. Given that you typically set out to finish a task at least an hour before the deadline (you do, right?), if you express your answer with the verb finish or write, you could say:

I have written the report. (active voice, present perfect)
I have finished the report. (active voice, present perfect)
The report has been written. (passive voice, present perfect)
The report has been finished. (passive voice, present perfect)
The report is written. (passive voice, ___________?)
The report is finished. (passive voice, ___________?)

Though the last two are unquestioningly passive, there is cause to question whether these convey the same meaning as the middle two sentences. To better illustrate, below is a new sentence, stating it in the English present perfect, first in the active voice, then in the passive, followed by a sentence in the same format as the last two above.

Sally has written the book.
The book has been written by Sally.
The book is written by Sally. (?)

To alleviate any possible confusion, observe that the second sentence contains the same exact verb form (has been written) as the passive example further above regarding the report that was due at work. Note the difference between “has written the book” here and “have written the report” above. The different auxiliary verb (has vs. have) reflects the difference between the 3^rd person (Sally has) and the 1^st person (I have). With this clarified, we’ll resume.

Recall that the English present perfect reflects a completed (perfected) action with relevance in the present. The first two sentences certainly are present perfects. But the third one is an attempt at illustrating the state following the verbal action, in order to focus on the result over against the past action. But is this an accurate way to convey this? Let’s take the same basic sentence just above and put it into the English simple past tense, then the simple present tense, both in answer to the question “Who is the author of this book?”

Sally wrote this book. (active) >> This book was written by Sally. (passive)
Sally writes this book. (active) >> This book is written by Sally. (passive)

Notice how the bolded sentence above is identical to the third one in the previous set. Thus, that sentence, like this one, is in the simple present. Speaking on this specific issue, Smyth writes, “When the [Greek] perfect marks the enduring result rather than the completed act, it may often be translated by the [English] present.”⁶ Did you notice what I did in the previous sentence? I prefaced the Smyth quotation with writes, the English simple present, mirroring the first of the second pair of sentences just above (Sally writes this book.). My objective was to signify the enduring words in Smyth’s grammar book. This is typical English convention—that is, substituting the English simple present for the English present perfect when the verb’s enduring result is the emphasis in a given context, as opposed to the verb’s completed action.

Yet this convention does not work as well in the 1^st and 2^nd person for the English present perfect in the active voice. We can quickly deduce that each sentence on the right below cannot be understood to say the same thing as the one on its left:

I have written the document. >> I write the document. (?)
I think you have written this note! >> I think you write this note! (?)

We are now prepared (finally!) to get back to Pilate’s statement. The first instance of gegrapha is best rendered “I have written”, just like the typical English translation.⁷ This reflects the past action of inscribing JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS (19:19) as well as the present results reflected in those words as they appear on the sign. We could paraphrase this first part of Pilate’s statement (ho gegrapha):

“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign…”

The enduring relevance of this first verb began at the point at which the inscribing of the inscription had been completed (19:19) and continued until the time Pilate responded to the chief priests (19:21-22). In other words, the duration was relatively short.

But what does the second occurrence of gegrapha mean and how should it be translated? The Jews were unhappy with Pilate’s phrasing of the sign, strongly suggesting he amend it. But Pilate was resolute—he wasn’t going to change it. So, what is the best way to translate this second Greek perfect-tense verb? Strictly speaking, “I have written” is correct, and we may well leave it that way. Yet this second gegrapha focuses on the then-present enduring result of the sign’s ‘written-ness’. Since we cannot use the passive voice (“it is written”, “it stands written”) because this verb is in the active voice, and we have determined that the active voice in the English simple present (“I write”) does not adequately convey the results of a present perfect (“I write”), we may phrase (paraphrase) it something like:

“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign, I shall keep recorded.” (I shall not change)
“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign, I shall retain.” (I shall not change)
“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign, I stand by.” (I shall not change)

The last sentence above may be the best, since it does not use a future auxiliary verb (shall) as do the others. To be sure, the future enduring results are implied, but it’s the present enduring results that are specifically encoded by the Greek perfect tense-form here. Then again, the state of ‘written-ness’ should be understood as remaining unless and until some further action brings about a new state. With none specified in the larger context, it is safe to assume this state will continue on.⁸

Thus, to capture the overall meaning here—though it’s not as pithy as “What I have written, I have written”—I might render John 19:22:

Pilate replied, “What I have written, I stand by.”

Pilate’s inscription JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS remains written. What does this signify theologically in its context? The next part will elucidate.

______________________________

¹ I am taking the words in the Greek text of John as the words of Pilate, whether or not these reflect his very utterance. The words may well be John’s own rendering in service of a larger theological motif. More on this later.

² Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Gordon M. Messing, rev. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956 [1920]), p 434, § 1945.

³ H. E. Dana & Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (NY: Macmillan, 1955), p 201 § 184.

⁴ Of course, one must concede that because of the verb root itself—complete, finish—the past necessarily recedes in favor of the state of completion. In other words, it cannot later become ‘unfinished’. Note Marianne Meye Thompson’s objection to this rendering (John: A Commentary, New Testament Library, C. Clifton Black, et al eds. [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015]), “…Jesus’ last words from the cross, tetelestai, ‘It is finished!’ (19:30) surely means ‘it has been accomplished’ or ‘it has been completed’ with reference to completing God’s mission and work” (p 395). I have to agree.

⁵ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), p 895.

⁶ Smyth, Grammar, p 434, § 1946.

⁷ Some grammars and commentaries claim this first γέγραφα is “aoristic”, functioning as if an aorist tense, akin to the English simple past wrote. Entailed in this position is that the second γέγραφα is construed as an English present perfect have written, with a focus on the enduring result. Robertson makes a strong case that the perfect never functions ‘aoristically’ in the NT, though it does post-NT era (A Grammar of the GNT, pp 898-902; cf. 895 [β]).

⁸ Yes, of course, the cross was eventually taken down; however, the point here is that the inscription was not altered.

Jesus’ Kingly Appearance

What did Jesus look like? We have no portrait of his likeness. We have no bust showing his facial features.¹

What we know is that Jesus was born in a manger—that it was as a baby he came into our world. Though we don’t know much about his childhood, we can read about him as a twelve-year-old in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52), providing amazement to the teachers there (Luke 2:47). But, again, we don’t know what he looked like: his facial features, build, etc.

Yet we can state with some confidence what Jesus didn’t look like. Almost certainly, he resembled nothing like some images of Him, portrayed as a fair-skinned, fair-featured European. On the contrary, Jesus had Middle Eastern Jewish ancestry. Accordingly, he was likely olive-skinned with dark or brown hair, in keeping with others hailing from the Judean area. But as regards any specific physical characteristics, the New Testament (NT) is silent.

We might be able to infer that Jesus was an average looking man by analyzing some NT scenes. For example, Judas Iscariot pointed Jesus out to the soldiers marshalled to arrest him (Matt 26:47-49; Mark 14:43-45; Luke 22:47-49).² This might suggest Jesus had no special physical qualities to make him stand out amongst the others. But, then again, it was dark, and the light from the torches may have distorted the faces of Jesus and the disciples such that an insider like Judas could more easily identify him. Or, it could be that at least some in the group were in the dark as to what Jesus looked like in the first place.

This Jesus a King?

Perhaps more compelling, Pilate showed apparent surprise upon meeting Jesus. Was he expecting someone more kingly, more ‘regal’ looking? All four Gospels are unanimous in how they record Pilate’s question, which can be phrased either “You are the king of the Jews?” or “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33). By the phraseology (syntax) of the Greek, emphasis seems to be on “you” here.³ But there is no specific wording in the context with which to find a substantive answer as to what exactly provoked Pilate’s response.

However, viewing the description of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 may provide a glimpse. Of Isaiah 53:2 J. Alec Motyer observes and opines:

[H]e looked unimpressive (no beauty . . . to attract). To such an extent was he but a man among men that the ordinary tests of beauty (‘looks’), majesty (‘unimpressiveness’) and appearance could be applied—with negative results.⁴

From this we might conclude that the earthly Jesus was an average looking man. No striking features. But it is possible the physical description here strictly relates to Jesus’ battered body hanging on the cross.⁵ Yet, even if Isaiah 53 is specifically about the Atonement, the description in verse 2 cannot be ruled out as simultaneously providing a description of the earthly Jesus in a general sense.  Whichever the case, this passage, on its face, cannot be used to definitively determine Jesus’ physical features.

Motyer’s statement above may prompt another possible avenue for inquiry. If we consider the example of Saul’s selection as king, we may find a more solid basis upon which to accept Isaiah 53:2 as providing a description of the earthly Jesus. This, in turn, may provide some substantiation for understanding Pilate’s surprise as pertaining to Jesus’ physical characteristics.

To be more specific, recall that one of the apparent reasons Saul was selected king was because he was tall and handsome (1 Sam 9:2; 10:1,23-24). In other words, the Jews seemed to have selected Saul, at least partly, because he ‘looked like’ a king, in their eyes. In comparison, using the same criteria, the Suffering Servant described in Isaiah did not ‘look like’ a king. Thus, if Isaiah 53:2 describes Jesus, Pilate may have been bewildered upon seeing him, for he may have been expecting someone more ‘regal’ in appearance.

A basis for such thought finds itself in the pseudo-science of physiognomy, as detailed in the work of Mikeal C. Parsons.⁶ This term reflects the idea in the idiom ‘judging a book by its cover’. To some even the converse is true: judging a cover by its book. In this latter view, by knowing a person’s character, one can determine corresponding physical characteristics even before first sight.

Returning again to Motyer’s statement, observe his final words, “with negative results.”  It appears the author here understands some sort of physiognomic connection.

Parsons notes the presence—and the possible presence⁷—of the practice of physiognomy in the Old Testament (OT), using the selection of King Saul as but one example. ⁸ Extra-biblical Jewish texts from this time period evidence this same outward/inward connection.⁹ All this could point to the reasoning behind the lack of physical descriptions of Jesus in the NT—if indeed he was an average man in terms of earthly physical characteristics, such as the description in Isaiah 53:2.

In other words, the Gospel writers’ silence on this issue may be quite purposeful. Knowing the contemporary tendency towards judging outward characteristics as the bases for determining inner qualities, the writers may have been dissuaded from describing Jesus’ physical form in any way. They may have been concerned that readers might make a caricature of him.

A stronger connection of this practice of physiognomy rears its ugly head in contemporary Hellenistic (Greek) culture.¹⁰ It “permeated the Greco-Roman thought world.”¹¹ This thought may have emanated from the prominent anthropological and philosophical notions centering on a separate soul and body:

[S]oul and body react on each other; when the character of the soul changes, it changes also the body, and conversely, when the form of the body changes, it changes the character of the soul.¹²

The Hellenistic version of physiognomy encompassed a wide range of criteria, differing a bit according to the eye of the beholder. These include color of hair, eyes and skin; shape and size of forehead, nose, ears, cheeks, hands, etc.; size of head; sizes of features relative to others; asymmetry/symmetry; size of physique generally; as well as gait and other movements.¹³

An example of a negative imagining of Jesus’ physical features based on this pseudo-science is found in Cook’s The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism.¹⁴ In this work Celsus described Jesus as “small and ugly and ignoble”.¹⁵ Celsus apparently arrives at his conclusions on Jesus’ physical features based on distorted understandings of Jesus’ incarnation, death and resurrection, which thereby informed Celsus’ view of Jesus’ morality.¹⁶ Since the crucifixion was reserved for criminals, Jesus’ death ‘confirmed’ his supposed “base origins and unworthy character”.¹⁷ In other words, a person of such ‘lowly’ character—according to Celsus’ misconstruals—surely was correspondingly “small and ugly”.¹⁸

Celsus sarcastically critiques Jesus in his mock-questioning of an imagined Jesus: Upon learning of the child king Jesus, Herod slaughtered innocent children (Matthew 2:3-16),

“lest you should reign instead of him after you were grown. Why then, when you were grown did you not reign? But you, ‘child of God’, ignobly beg in this manner [cf. Matt 10:9-11], poking about in fear and wandering up and down in ruin.”¹⁹

Celsus’ apparent awareness of the Gospel accounts of Jesus carrying neither food nor money²⁰ likely contributed to his scathing judgment as “ignoble”.²¹ In accordance with such a view,

‘Evangelical poverty’ was unimpressive to Celsus. The title ‘king’ for such an impoverished individual is ridiculous to Celsus. Jesus never became a ‘king’ in the sense of the word that Celsus takes for granted.²²

Considering all the above, isn’t it possible, perhaps even probable, the silence in the NT regarding Jesus’ earthly physical form is, in fact, by design? And could this account for why there are no direct NT quotations of the physical features portion of Isaiah 53:2?

Appropriating Jesus’ words in John 8:15, “You judge according to the flesh” (cf. 7:24).

Yes, Jesus is King!

Some use Psalm 45:2 to support the idea of a handsome Jesus. But this is probably best understood—if applicable to Jesus at all—as reflective of the post-earthly Jesus, his glorified form.²³ And while the NT is silent regarding Jesus’ physical features during his earthly ministry, a few NT texts feature descriptions of a post-glorified Jesus.

We catch a glimpse of Jesus’ glory in the Transfiguration scene (Matt 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). But John the Revelator describes Jesus in his post-earthly glory. In the first chapter of Revelation, John witnesses:

₁₃ someone like a son of man, dressed in a foot-length robe and girded with a golden wrap around his chest, ₁₄ his head and hair white like wool—white as snow—and his eyes like flames of fire, ₁₅ his feet similar to fine bronze polished in a furnace, and his voice as vibrant as voluminous waters. ₁₆ In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp double-edged sword proceeds. His face shines like the sun in its full force.

What a description!

With the words “like a son of man” (homoios huios anthrōpou), John evokes the human-like figure in Daniel 7:13 (hōs huios anthrōpou).²⁴ To explain, “son of man” is a rendering of the Hebrew idiom ben Adam, which translates as son of Adam, and is understood to mean human.²⁵ Thus, “son of man” also means human. Comparatively, the particularized the Son of Man, used by Jesus in self-reference throughout the Gospels, refers solely to him. Accordingly, without the attached to “son of man” in both Rev 1:13 and Daniel 7:13,²⁶ this conveys that the figure coming on the clouds (Dan 7:13; Rev 1:7) is human-like in appearance—though, of course this figure is King Jesus at the Second Coming, the parousia. In other words, in Rev 1:13 John is not using the Son of Man, because this term represents Jesus in his earthly ministry. Therefore, the context here (and Dan 7:13) is best understood as referring to King Jesus in his supra–human, glorified form—like a human.

John provides another magnificent description of King Jesus in Revelation 19:

₁₁ Then I saw heaven standing open, and behold! A white horse! The one riding it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and wages war. ₁₂ His eyes are like flames of fire, and on his head are many diadems. A name has been written upon him, which no one knows except him. ₁₃ He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and he has named himself THE WORD OF GOD. ₁₄ The armies in heaven follow him on white horses, wearing pure white linen. ₁₅ Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which he may strike the nations/people. He will shepherd them with an iron staff. And he tramples the winepress of the furious wrath of Almighty God. ₁₆ And upon this robe, where it rests on his thigh, a name is inscribed: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

To use a term that has been diluted in popular culture due to persistent misuse, but here meant in all its original splendor: AWESOME! The verbiage appears to be figurative to some degree, yet we can see points of contact with 2Thessalonians 2:8:

And then the lawless one will be revealed—whom the Lord Jesus will cast away with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of his coming/arrival (parousia).

The “breath of his mouth” seems to be a rephrasing of both Rev 1:16 and Rev 19:15 (cf. Isaiah 11:4). The “radiance of his coming” is similar to the final portion of 1:16, though it is implied in the whole context of 19:11-16.²⁷

Come soon King Jesus!

_________________________

¹ For possible reasons why, see the section titled Use of ΙΧΘΥΣ in early Christianity in Fishers of Persons article.
² John’s Gospel portrays this scene a bit differently (John 18:3-5).
³ The Gospels are uniform here, to include word order: Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Su ei ho basileus tōn Ioudaiōn, You are the king of the Jews? This would be the word-for-word rendering, and the one I prefer here. Since Greek finite verbs encode person and number, a pronoun is not necessary unless the subject is unclear in the context. In this case the referent is obvious: the 2nd person singular encoded in the present tense-form “are” (εἰ̑, ei) can only refer to Jesus. Thus, the presence of the Greek pronoun “you” (σὺ, su) here is unnecessary, for the question can just as easily stand without it: Εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (You are the king of the Jews?). The reading of the text per all four Gospels could even possibly be rendered: You? You are king of the Jews? (see Bernard and Evans just below). This would be in keeping with the context. For these reasons, I deem the use here emphatic.

Though not the consensus, this view of su as emphatic is far from rare. Cf. Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, EGGNT, Andreas J. Köstenberger & Robert W. Yarbrough, gen. eds. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2017), p 333: Σύ is emphatic and may imply a mocking tone . . .; Joel Marcus, Mark 8—16, The Yale Anchor Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2009), p 1033: . . . the sarcastic tone of Pilate’s initial question . . . [is] because the Jewish authorities have reported his royal pretensions and/or reputation…however, such pretensions seem outlandish, since . . . Jesus’ bound condition is the opposite of the unfettered power associated with kingship; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27—16:20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), p 478: The emphatic pronoun carries with it a touch of mockery, perhaps suggesting Pilate had anticipated meeting someone more impressive (i.e., “You? You must be kidding!”); B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Westcott’s Commentaries on the Gospel of John, Ephesians, Hebrews, and the Epistles of John; Accordance electronic ed. version 2.8 (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2006), para 5147: The form of the sentence . . . suggests a feeling of surprise in the questioner: “Art thou, poor, and bound, and wearied, the King of whom men have spoken?”; J.H. Bernard, The Gospel According to St. John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. version 2.8 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), para 15345: “Thou! (σύ is emphatic) art Thou the King of the Jews?” Evidently Pilate did not believe that Jesus was a revolutionary leader . . . There was nothing in His appearance or His demeanor to make such a charge plausible.; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, The Anchor Yale Bible; (New Haven: Yale UP, 1974), p 2.851: In the question Pilate asks, it is possible the ‘you’ is emphatic . . . expressing incredulity. Pilate . . . may have been amazed at the mien of Jesus who has been accused of claiming the title.; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), p 768: “Thou” is emphatic. “Art thou the King of the Jews?”; Murray J. Harris, John, EGGNT (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), p 305:If Pilate’s question is formal, σύ will be without emphasis…but if he is being sarcastic, σύ will have the sense, “Are you, of all people, the king of the Jews?”

Some commentators supporting no emphasis tend to see a direct parallel between Pilate’s question (Su ei . . . ) and Jesus’ response (Su legeis . . . ), therefore construing that if emphasis (“You!”) is understood with Pilate, then Jesus was similarly snarky in return, which is then deemed untenable; however, as Lidija Novakovic remarks (John 11—21: A Handbook on the Greek Text, BHGNT [Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 2020]) regarding Jesus’ response: σὺ [su] is contrastive, distinguishing Pilate from others . . . (p 239).  (Novakovic is non-committal regarding su in John 18:33 [p 238], though.) In all those supporting emphasis there are slight variations as to the reasoning, but most agree Pilate’s surprise relates to fathoming Jesus as king. There is the possibility that Pilate was expecting—at least in part—an individual with more striking physical features, such as being taller in height, handsomer, etc., which then elicited his surprise. See below.
⁴ J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p 377.
⁵ That is, the description here could provide a graphic description of the ‘slain Lamb’ of Revelation 5:6 (cf. John 1:29) instead of the earthly Jesus in his usual appearance. See, e.g., G. K. Beale & Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007): The Isa. 53 background especially highlights the atoning aspect of the lamb’s sacrificial death and also applies the metaphor’s “root” (cf. Rev. 5:5) and “lamb” to the sacrificial victim. In fact, “root” also occurs in Isa. 11:1, 10 (alluded to in Rev. 5:5), which may have inspired attraction to the same metaphor in 53:2 (p 1101). Cf. Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew” in Beale & Carson, who describes, the servant’s disfigured appearance (p 31).
⁶ Mikeal C. Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006 / Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 2011). The Baylor appears to be a straight reissue of the Baker. All references below will refer to the original Baker issue. (See my review of this work here.) Parsons’ main thesis is that Luke/Acts illustrates the reversal of physiognomic thought as “Luke presumes physiognomic principles only to overturn them by story’s end” (p 15).
⁷ Here Parsons references Lev 21 and its requirements for both sacrifice and priest (p 40), noting how some construe the lack of corresponding moral requirements to go with the physical in Lev 21:16-18 as implying “a connection between the outward and the inward” (p 41).
⁸ Parsons, pp 39-40. The author also uses King David (1 Sam 16:12) and Absalom (2 Sam 14:25) as examples (p 40).
⁹ Parsons, pp 42-45.
¹⁰ Parsons, pp 17-37.
¹¹ Parsons, p 17.
¹² Parsons, p 14. I note that this is not foreign to modern culture, as evidenced, e.g., in the band Talking Heads’ track “Seen and Not Seen” (from the 1980 Remain in Light), in which the narrator wishes to change his facial features by consciously adapting his thoughts, assuming others shared this same ability.
¹³ Parsons, 18-37.
¹⁴ John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002).
¹⁵ Cook, p 35.
¹⁶ I draw these inferences from the way Cook frames some of his statements (p 35, 48), but particularly his quote of Celsus—which follows in the main text above—as viewed through the lens of the pervasive influence of physiognomy.
¹⁷ Eugene V. Gallagher, Divine Man or Magician: Celsus and Origen on Jesus (Chico, CA: Publishers Press, 1982), p 122, as cited in Cook, p 48.
¹⁸ See the corresponding verbiage in the main text of note 15, and see note 16 and its corresponding text.
¹⁹ Cook, p 35. Though Cook does not place child of God in quotes, I understand Celsus’ use here as sarcasm, since it is obvious he deemed Jesus unworthy to be a son of god or a king; and, therefore, my quotes are to indicate this cynicism. See also the comments relating to Origen’s Against Celsus in Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli’s Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History: Volume One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005): Celsus . . . criticized the idea of a descent (future for Jews, past for Christians) of a Son of God to earth, for this contradicts the very nature of God by attributing a change to him (p 291). Given such an a priori view (mistaken as it is), Celsus clearly does not grant ‘Son of God’ status to Jesus.
²⁰ Cook, p 35.
²¹ This is my extrapolation of Cook (p 35) here given his earlier quote of Celsus’ “ . . . and ignoble” (see content referenced at note 15 above).
²² Cook, p 35.
²³ Psalm 45:2 is variously translated in the English versions; however, the first part of the verse, which includes “handsome” in some versions, is not quoted or alluded to in the NT—as far as I’ve determined. The latter part of the verse (with “grace” or “gracious”) may be alluded to in Luke 4:22, though. Thus, I infer the possibility of this pertaining to Jesus only insofar as the citing/allusion to other verses in Psalm 45 (6-7) in the context of Hebrews 1:8-9 (See George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews” in Beale & Carson, pp 937, 939). And even if it does apply to Jesus, then it must be post-resurrection, as per the Hebrews context (1:3ff).
²⁴ The words homoios and hōs are synonymous; in fact John uses the latter quite a bit in vv 13-16. John also uses homoios huios anthrōpou in Rev 14:14.
²⁵ For more explanation on this, see ‘Son of Man’ in the LXX here.
²⁶ In other words, these lack both Greek articles—one before huios (“son”) and one before anthrōpou (“man”), in comparison with the other occurrences in the NT where Jesus self-references as the Son of [the] Man during his earthly ministry. Relatedly, I have argued extensively that this same non-particularized huios anthrōpou in John 5:27 is meant to indicate “son of man”, aka “human” in that context in order to tie it to Daniel 7:13 and Rev 1:13; 14:14: see The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 4 and pt 5.
²⁷ And the latter part of 19:16 is parallel to 14:14, and 19:11-16 has other points of contact with 14:14-20.