syntax | CrossWise

The Calf is Jesus!

June 8, 2025 Leave a comment

While searching for something else entirely, I came across an item of interest to me. It was discovered in the Epistle of Barnabas, a text dated between AD 70 (post-destruction of Jewish Temple) and 135.

The Epistle of Barnabas is attributed to Barnabas, the companion of the Apostle Paul. This treatise is part of a body of works known as The Apostolic Fathers.

The statement that piqued my interest was the calf is Jesus (bolded below). To better understand its meaning in context, two prior sections (verses) are included. The citation below is from the J. B. Lightfoot translation, since it is in the public domain.

Barnabas 7:11

But what meaneth it, that they place the wool in the midst of the thorns? It is a type of Jesus set forth for the Church, since whosoever should desire to take away the scarlet wool it behoved him to suffer many things owing to the terrible nature of the thorn, and through affliction to win the mastery over it. Thus, He saith, they that desire to see Me, and to attain unto My kingdom, must lay hold on Me through tribulation and affliction.

Barnabas 8:1

But what think ye meaneth the type, where the commandment is given to Israel that those men, whose sins are full grown, offer an heifer and slaughter and burn it, and then that the children take up the ashes, and cast them into vessels, and twist the scarlet wool on a tree (see here again is the type of the cross and the scarlet wool), and the hyssop, and that this done the children should sprinkle the people one by one, that they may be purified from their sins?

Barnabas 8:2

Understand ye how in all plainness it is spoken unto you; the calf is Jesus, the men that offer it, being sinners, are they that offered Him for the slaughter. After this it is no more men (who offer); the glory is no more for sinners.

The larger context plainly reveals the meaning.

My specific interest here is in the Greek text translated the calf is Jesus. In Greek it is a convertible proposition: A = B and B = A. In other words, the subject nominative (SN), “the calf”, and predicate nominative (PN), “Jesus”, are interchangeable. That is, if the PN were placed first and the SN last, the meaning would be unchanged. In the above context, there is one particular calf being referred to and, of course, only one Jesus. So, “Jesus is the calf” has the same meaning as “the calf is Jesus” in this context.

But that’s not all that’s going on here.

Below is the Greek:

ὁ μόσχος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστίν
ho moschos ho Iēsous estin
the calf the Jesus is

Since each noun (nominative) includes the Greek article ὁ (ho), either one could be the subject. To determine which is the subject, we look for the known entity.¹ The larger context seems to reveal “the calf” as the subject.² Furthermore, in cases where both nominatives (ὁ μόσχος and ὁ Ἰησοῦς here) have the Greek article (where both are articular) “word order may be the deciding factor”.³ Therefore, “the calf” is most likely the subject nominative.

Observe that ὁ Ἰησοῦς (ho Iēsous), “Jesus”, precedes the copula, aka copulative verb (CV) ἐστίν (estin), “is”. This placement provides emphasis: The calf is Jesus.

To recap, the Greek phrase above is a convertible proposition (A = B and B = A).⁴ It contains a copulative verb (CV)—a ‘to be’ verb—in this case ἐστίν, “is”.⁵ If we were to switch the subject nominative (SN) with the predicate nominative (PN), the meaning would remain the same. However, the ordering of the sentence in Greek is SN_PN_CV here. Note that a PN is typically placed after the CV (ἐστίν ὁ Ἰησοῦς); so, because the PN here (“Jesus”) precedes the CV (“is”), the PN is emphatic. The best translation, therefore, is the calf is Jesus.⁶

The calf is Jesus!

___________________________

¹ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p 42.

² This is my own analysis, extrapolating from Wallace above (and pp 44–45). That is, Wallace almost solely discusses grammatical particulars in deciding which should be the subject, but he is cautious in affirming that context may imply one over the other when both nominatives are articular (or cases with an articular noun and a proper name). To my way of thinking, the “known entity” by definition would appear to be—at least tentatively—the one the reader would perceive to be the subject due to its focus in the context. In this particular case, the focus appears to be on the heifer (“the calf” being a young heifer) as sacrifice, which would make it the most likely candidate for the subject.

³ Wallace, Grammar, p 44.

⁴ See Wallace, Grammar, pp 41,

⁵ Other verbs such as become, appear, seem, look, sound, smell, taste, feel, and get are sometimes included as CVs, though some might consider these “semi-copulas” or “pseudo-copulas” instead.

⁶ Had the Greek read ὁ μόσχος ἐστίν ὁ Ἰησοῦς instead, the translation would be the calf is Jesus (no emphasis).

Filed under Apostolic Fathers, Christian Culture, Early Christianity, Greek Language studies, Jesus Christ, Passion Tagged with Christianity, copulative verb, Epistle of Barnabas, Greek, Jesus, subject and predicate nominative, syntax, Temple Sacrifice

Did the Centurion Declare Jesus ‘the Son of God’?

May 10, 2025 9 Comments

For the purposes of this post, we are concerned only with Matthew 27:54 (not the parallel passages in Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47). This will limit the scope and keep this post as concise as possible.

To paraphrase the question posed in the title: Upon witnessing the events at Jesus’ crucifixion, did the centurion make a Christian proclamation? The answer hinges, in part, on how the exegete interprets the specific syntax in this verse. Word order in the Greek makes this a bit ambiguous:

θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος
theou huios ēn houtos
of-God Son was this

To begin the process of disambiguation (clarification), we start by finding the subject. The pronoun οὗτος, “this” is clearly the subject.¹ Because it is placed after the verb (ἦν, “was”), it is emphatic: this.² The verb ἦν, “was” is a linking verb, also known as a copular or copulative verb (CV).³

Continuing backwards, υἱός, “son” is a noun, and so it is the predicate nominative (PN). Because it is placed before the verb (PN_CV), it is emphatic: son.⁴ The genitive (possessive) θεοῦ, “of-God” (or “God’s”) is typically placed behind the word it modifies, yet here it precedes the noun, thus marking it emphatic: of God.⁵ The tentative translation, then, is “This was son of God.”

So all except the verb have emphasis! But that’s not all there is to this sentence.

When the PN precedes the CV (PN_CV) and is without the Greek article ὁ (ho),”the” (-art), this particular construction (-artPN_CV) may be functioning in one of three ways: definite (“the son of God”), indefinite (“a son of God”) or qualitative (something akin to ‘in nature son of God’). These three exegetical possibilities must be kept top of mind before interpreting further.

To assist in narrowing these three exegetical possibilities, we might consider what the centurion could have said instead.⁶ That is, we could investigate other possible ways of phrasing this.

Had the centurion wanted to mark this indefinite, he could have placed θεοῦ υἱὸς behind the verb (CV_PN): ἦν οὗτος θεοῦ υἱὸς.⁷ This would then much more likely say “This was a son of God.

Had the centurion wanted to mark this definite, he could have simply added the Greek article ὁ (+art) to υἱός (+artPN_CV), which would then unambiguously read “This was the Son of God”. Alternatively, he could have placed θεοῦ υἱὸς after the verb and added the article ὁ to υἱός (CV_+artPN).⁸ This would unambiguously say “This was the Son of God”.

But since the above options were not taken, we are probably on firm ground to assume “Son of God” should be understood qualitatively. This, then, would focus on Jesus’ sonship.⁹ However, this is rather difficult to properly translate into English.

At any rate, from there we must consider historical context. The centurion was a ~~Greek~~ Roman and, accordingly, steeped in the polytheism of his day. Understood through this lens, he may have meant something like: “Surely, this individual had the qualities of a son of God!”

Yet his words appear to indicate he was not only taking note of the all the events occurring but also listening to Jesus’ mockers, some of whom specifically used the phrase “the Son of God” (27:39–44).¹⁰ With all this in mind, it is certainly possible the centurion, led by the Spirit, did make a Christian proclamation. To further support this, Harner and (separately) Wallace recognize that this specific syntactical structure tends toward qualitativeness and to a lesser extent definiteness; however, some can even be qualitative with a further nuance of definiteness.¹¹ This could possibly make the centurion’s proclamation something akin to:

“Surely, this individual had the qualities of the Son of God!”

It could even be: “Surely, this individual had the qualities of God’s Son!”

________________________________________

¹ Finite verbs encode person and number and so contain a built in subject. In this case, the verb ἦν is third person singular (he, she, it), and we have the subject explicitly expressed as the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος.

² If the subject is expressed, as here, the usual placement is before the verb; so, placing it behind the verb indicates emphasis. Cf. Donald A Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC, Vol. 33B (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), p 848.

³ In English, “helping verbs” are sometimes used with participles in verb conjugations (“was going”, was trying”). This is not the verb’s usage here, though Greek does sometimes use such periphrastic constructions.

⁴ See Hagner, Matthew 14–28, p 848; cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), p 1220.

⁵ See Hagner, Matthew 14–28, p 424. Here Hagner compares the similar syntactical structure in 14:33.

⁶ Or what Matthew could have recorded the centurion as saying. The exegesis here might depend on the interpreter’s specific position on Scripture. While orthodoxy requires a belief in the inspiration of Scripture (that God superintended all Scripture), the individual may be somewhere on a continuum between very rigid or more flexible on what this entails. Are these words the words of the centurion verbatim? Or might the NT writer mean to convey the basic message of the events but portray them in a particular way to bring forth a particular emphasis (e.g., Christological)? See Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), esp. pp 123, 306, 350–351.

⁷ See Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): p 76.

⁸ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 76–77.

⁹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–81.

¹⁰ The formulations vary a bit.

¹¹ See Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–81, 82–83, 87. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p 263, particularly Chart 27: The Semantic Range of Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives.

Filed under Bible, Christology, Greek Language studies, Jesus Christ, Passion, Scripture Tagged with Bible study, Christianity, copulative verb, exegesis, predicate nominative, syntax, The Centurion, The Son of God

Dan McClellan’s Faulty Analysis of John 1:1c

August 17, 2024 7 Comments

This post is an extension of my recently published “And the Word was ‘Deity’?” in response to Dan McClellan. And my most recent “What to Believe” serves as a sort of backdrop. That is, I am willing to reassess my positions in light of further study; with regard to John 1:1c, is McClellan similarly inclined?

Below I engage with another McClellan vlog covering much the same ground as the one referenced just above. In each one, he dogmatically declares that John 1:1c does not convey “the Word was God”. And he makes the same faulty claims regarding the use and non-use of the Greek article (~the) to support his position (see bold in quotation below).¹

The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Theos is being used qualitatively, as many scholars have recognized. If the author wanted to say “the Word was God,” they would have included the definite article, because in Greek predications, if you have a definite noun preceding the verb, that noun takes the article if its referent is either well-known or has already been mentioned, and both of those are true of Theos in John 1:1.

Having previously studied and written about the Greek article in relation to this specific syntactical ordering, I can only speculate as to where this Bible scholar gets such an erroneous notion.

Continuing where we left off from his vlog:

Now, scholars who acknowledge this still like to avoid the rendering “the Word was divine,” because after John was written that would become a heresy. And so they have to retroject conceptual frameworks into the first century that did not exist when John was written—ideas like God exhausts the category of divinity. Therefore, if anybody has divinity, they have to be God. Additionally, this notion that you can have multiple persons within one Being—that way you can say that “what God was the Word was,” or “the Word was fully God,” or anything to avoid the plain and simple rendering “the Word was divine.”

Essentially, the two separate arguments—the erroneous grammatical/syntactical assertions in the first paragraph and the claims in the second paragraph which rely on the faulty premises of the first—are both examples of the straw man fallacy.² The latter is fabricated from the former’s faulty foundations.

His DOGMA > DATA

In the video above, McClellan wears a hoodie which reads DATA > DOGMA. I like this expression. My contention here, though, is that in the contents of the above he has flipped it to DOGMA > DATA. In other words, it appears he is imposing his preferred dogma onto the related data. To illustrate, below I first shall overturn his Greek grammar assertions by using counter-examples in the Gospel of John. I shall then demonstrate how John’s Gospel and other associated Johannine literature (1 John, Revelation) contain what amounts to “conceptual frameworks” to support the dogma he criticizes.

Despite his faulty reasoning, McClellan arrives at the correct interpretation that “Theos is being used qualitatively” in the context of John 1:1c. I’m reminded of my high school Algebra II class, in which students could lose some or all credit if they failed to provide the proper methodology (‘work’) by which the answer was obtained. The correct answer mattered little or not at all if it was not properly substantiated. Scholarship requires a firm grasp of, and proper presentation of, relevant principles.

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

(It may be helpful to begin with this explanation. “Grammar” is the umbrella term for a set of language rules, which includes “syntax”. “Syntax” specifically refers to the ordering of words in a sentence.)

McClellan is quite dogmatic in his claim: The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Is he right? It depends on how the two renderings are individually interpreted.

Before proceeding I must state that it is only fair to take his argument as he intends it so that I don’t straw-man his position. Yet, strictly speaking, it is anachronistic for him to use an English translation of the Greek to state that John’s Gospel does or does not say this or that, because English wasn’t even a language when this Gospel was penned.³ My hunch is he begins in this somewhat provocative manner in order to quickly grab his audience’s attention.

Now, to put his general stance in the way I think he intends it regarding John 1:1c, he is saying that Theos (“God”) cannot be understood in a definite sense, which is how he construes “the Word was God”. Rather, per McClellan, it is qualitative, describing a quality or qualities of the subject nominative (SN) ho Logos (“the Word”), which he thinks should be translated “the Word was divine”. And to advance his claim, he marshals the specific grammatical/syntactical structure of John 1:1c. It is ordered PN (predicate nominative), CV (copulative verb), art (Greek article), SN (subject nominative), PN-CV-art-SN:

Theos (PN) ēn (CV) ho (art) Logos (SN). God-was-the-Word.

For English, we reorder it art-SN-CV-PN: “the Word was God”.

His specific grammatical/syntactical argument—the bolded portion in his first paragraph in the above vlog quote—can be paraphrased: Because the noun Theos (“God”) in John 1:1c lacks the Greek article (~the) in the predicate nominative (PN) which precedes the copular verb (CV, “to be”), this noun Theos cannot be understood in a definite sense. To be definite, McClellan asserts, the article (ho, “the”) must be present before Theos. Therefore, he declares, because the article is absent (-art) in the PN, it must be understood as functioning in a qualitative sense (~“the Word had God qualities”) instead of a definite sense (~“the Word was ‘the’ God”).

He is basically right about Theos functioning qualitatively in John 1:1—but for the wrong reasons.

Comparing John 8:12 (cf. John 1:4) with John 9:5 easily overturns McClellan’s dogmatic stance regarding the absence of the Greek article in the PN of John 1:1c.

8:12 is ordered just like we would in English: subject nominative (SN), copulative verb (CV), article (art), predicate nominative (PN), SN-CV-art-PN:

Egō (SN) eimi (CV) to (art) phōs (PN) tou kosmou. I (SN) am (CV) the (art) light (PN) of-the world.

“I am the light of the world.”

(Before going further, some explanation is in order for the non-Greek reader. Every finite verb in Greek encodes person and number. In other words, finite verbs automatically include a built-in subject. So, in John 8:12 above, eimi is itself a complete sentence: I-am. This particular finite verb form is a first person singular in the present. With that clarified, we can proceed where we left off.)

In 9:5, John records Jesus saying essentially the same thing as 8:12. But it is ordered differently and similar to John 1:1c—without the Greek article before the noun in the PN: PN-[SN]-CV. The subject nominative (SN) “I” is not explicitly expressed but provided in the verb:

Phōs (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tou kosmou. Light (PN) I-am ([SN-]CV) of-the world.

For English we would, of course, reorder it and add the English definite article (the) before “light”: “I am the light of the world.”

So, in 8:12 we have the PN “light” with the Greek article and placed after the verb. But in 9:5 we have the PN “light” without the Greek article and placed before the verb. And the noun “light” is clearly functioning in a definite sense in both cases.

Now, going back to McClellan’s assertions and comparing to our findings here: We have in 9:5 an example of a ‘Greek predication’ (PN) in which there is “a definite noun preceding the verb” (PN-CV) and “its referent…has already been mentioned” (in 8:12; cf. John 1:4), yet the definite noun in the PN in 9:5 lacks the Greek article.

McClellan is demonstrably wrong here. A predicate nominative lacking the article (-art) and placed before the copular (“to be”) verb (PN-CV) can certainly be definite.

To provide relevant background, we need to look at what is known as “Colwell’s rule”.⁴ This is variously stated in Greek grammars, so I shall quote directly from E. C. Colwell himself as he phrased his general, tentative findings (bold added): A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.⁵ This concurs with our example above. And the bolded portion is the polar opposite of McClellan’s claim.

One of Colwell’s first examples was John 1:49.⁶ Here Nathaniel identifies Jesus in two different ways. His first statement is ordered SN-CV-art-PN, just as we would in English:

Su (SN) ei (CV) ho (art) huios (PN) tou Theou. You-are-the-Son-of-God.

Nathaniel’s second statement is SN-(-art)-PN-CV:

Su (SN) Basileus (PN) ei (CV) tou Israēl. You-King-are-of-Israel.

Proper English would be “You are the King of Israel.”

Both “Son” and “King” are definite nouns in this context, yet “Son” has the Greek article, while “King” does not. Furthermore, “Son” follows the CV, while “King” precedes the CV. Therefore, one might conclude that “Son” has the article specifically because it follows the CV, while “King” lacks the article specifically because it precedes the CV. This concurs with Colwell’s general ‘rule’ as stated above.

But this ‘rule’ is not universally true.⁷ In other words, Colwell found this to be only a guide, not an absolute ‘rule’ that was followed by the Greek writer. And there is some amount of subjectivity involved in making any judgment regarding definiteness when the article is lacking (-art) in a PN-CV ordering.⁸

One more example: Pilate’s sign over the crucified Jesus reading “The King of the Jews” (John 19:19) includes the article before “King” (ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn). The High Priests were displeased with the wording, which could be understood as a title proclaiming Jesus really was the King of the Jews (cf. John 18:33)—which, of course He was/is—so they asked Pilate to change it (19:21). They first restated Pilate’s verbiage verbatim (do not write “ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn”), and then offered their preferred reading: That man said, “Basileus (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tōn Ioudaiōn”, “King-I-am-of-the-Jews.” “King” is surely definite, yet it lacks the Greek article. For English we would reorder it and add the English definite article before “King” to render it “I am the King of the Jews.” So, once again, the definite PN lacks the article and comes before the verb, and the referent is both well-known and had recently been mentioned. And, once again, this is contrary to McClellan’s assertion regarding this syntax.

Qualifying Qualitativeness

This section will further explain how to interpret this particular syntactical ordering and then offer another possible rendering of John 1:1c.

Colwell himself stressed that context would be the primary factor in determining whether or not an anarthrous (-art) preverbal PN (PN-CV) would be definite.⁹ Yet Colwell apparently favored definiteness in such syntactical constructions to the point of bias.¹⁰ This appears to be what led him to conclude that John 1:1c is definite and rendering it “the Word was God”.¹¹ Some others have followed Colwell’s conclusion of definiteness here.¹² Is it possible this contributed to McClellan’s faulty analysis? Might this be why He necessarily interprets “the Word was God” as strictly definite?

Helpfully, Wallace called an anarthrous (-art) PN-CV ordering a “Colwell’s construction” in order to differentiate between “Colwell’s rule” and the syntactical construction he tested.¹³ And this syntactical construction is what Philip Harner had investigated 40 years after Colwell.¹⁴ Harner, and later Dixon, found that a “Colwell’s construction” ([-art]-PN-CV) most often functions qualitatively.¹⁵ And while this syntactical construction can function in a definite sense (depending on context), this is a far second to a qualitative understanding.¹⁶

Moreover, Harner convincingly argued that qualitativeness does not necessarily preclude a further underlying nuance of either definiteness or indefiniteness.¹⁷ Context must decide, yet he admits to a certain amount of subjectivity.¹⁸ Harner concludes 1:1c to be qualitative, with no shade of definiteness: the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.¹⁹ He suggests a rendering such as “the Word had the same nature as God.”²⁰ His rationale: ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.²¹

With this background, Wallace specifically analyzed John 1:1c as to whether it could be indefinite (“a god”), definite, or qualitative.²² The grammarian ultimately concluded it to be qualitative, adding (bold in original): The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.²³

Without stating so explicitly, Bernard, in his ICC commentary, appears to affirm qualitativeness with an underlying nuance of definiteness: [John 1:1c] asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated [ED: in 1:1a, 1:1b]; cf. 10:30; 20:28; and Philippians 2:6.²⁴

Because of the context, Theos in John 1:1c cannot be construed as strictly definite. John 1:1b already describes the Word in relationship with ho Theos, “’the’ God”. Ho Theos In this context refers to the Father. Thus, if one were to construe Theos in 1:1c as strictly definite (as if the Greek article were present), this would make nonsense of 1:1 generally.²⁵ That is, 1:1c would then imply that the Word is the same entity as ho Theos in 1:1b—that the Word is the Father. This obviously cannot be true.

The main issue for translators here is attempting to best capture the meaning for the average English reader. Rendering the PN of John 1:1c as “was divine” or “was Divine” can be interpreted or misinterpreted in myriad ways. In common English “divine” can refer to a well-made dinner or dessert. It can refer to a beautiful artwork, a beautiful woman, etc. Thus, it is too ambiguous, too weak.

The translation “the Word was God” is an attempt at more closely capturing what is perceived as John the Gospel writer’s intent. It is not perfect. And it is not meant to be understood as definite but, rather, qualitative.²⁶

Alternatively, we might translate John 1:1c And the Word was qualitatively God. And since ho Theos (the Father) is in relationship with the Word (“the Word was with God”), it would seem reasonable to understand the qualitative aspect of Theos for ho Logos (“the Word”) as being equal to that of ho Theos in 1:1b. In other words, given the immediate (and larger) context, there appears to be no reason to deem this qualitative aspect of ‘God-ness’ in the Word as in any way diminished from that of ho Theos (the Father). This concurs with Harner’s rationale above.

Summarizing

In summary, Dan McClellan’s grammatical/syntactical assertions have been shown to be erroneous.

In John 1:1c, the lack of the Greek article in front of Theos in and of itself does not preclude a possible interpretation of definiteness. The same syntactical structure is present in other verses in John’s Gospel, and some of those are definite rather than qualitative. It’s the context that determines the sense. And it’s the context of John 1:1c that eliminates definiteness, not the lack of the Greek article.

Similarly, McClellan’s claim that John 1:1c would be definite only if the article were placed before Theos has also been refuted. Had the Greek article been placed in front of Theos, it would make nonsense of the clause in its larger context. That is, in 1:1b the Word is described as in relationship (“with”) ho Theos, which, in context, is the Father; so, adding the article (ho) to Theos in 1:1c would make the Word and the Father (ho Theos in 1:1b) the same entity (ho Theos was ho Logos).

Generally, the absence of the article in this syntactical structure leaves open three possible interpretive senses: indefinite, definite, and qualitative. The context is the decisive factor.

The John 1:1c translation “the Word was God”, as found in many modern translations, is not to be interpreted in a strictly definite sense. It is qualitative (and perhaps with an underlying nuance of definiteness). While “the Word was Divine” might be considered a suitable substitute, it is too ambiguous and too weak for the immediate context and the larger context of John’s Gospel. This is elaborated upon in the next segment (Interpreting Conceptual Frameworks), which also addresses the content of the second paragraph in the vlog quotation.

________________________

¹ Admittedly, McClellan is more measured in his statement in the vlog referenced in my previous article “And the Word was Deity?”. While he basically makes the same claim about the presence/absence of the Greek article for definite nouns, his complete statement is different there. There he says that to be definite “then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively.” The first part of this excerpt (“then it should carry the definite article”) basically mirrors the current blog post in this specific regard. And it is incorrect. The second statement (“without it [the Greek article], it is most likely being used qualitatively”) is not incorrect—in isolation (by itself). In other words, Theos is most likely being used qualitatively in John 1:1c due to: (a) the lack of the article; (b) the context. This will be explained as we progress.

² To be completely fair, I cannot definitively know his intent. Is he erecting a straw man (i.e., knowingly misrepresenting the position in order to more easily tear it down, and thus be able to charge Christian scholars with theological motives for the rendering “the Word was God”), as opposed to simply being mistaken regarding the Greek article’s use and non-use in this specific syntactical construction? From my perspective the latter would be difficult to believe, for he consistently self-identifies as a Bible scholar, claims to have addressed issues in Mormon New Testament translation, and has made a very specific grammatical claim here—all of which lead me to think he has specifically studied this issue before making his assertions. (And see footnote 1 above.) Should he be mistaken instead, I would expect him to make a correction or retraction; and, if he makes such a correction or retraction, I will note it here on the blog.

³ Ironically, McClellan uses this charge of anachronism (retrojection) against those interpreting Trinitarianism in John’s Gospel (or the entire NT—he’s not specific here), while he can be accused with the same in this regard.

⁴ See E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12-21.

⁵ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁶ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁷ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 17. According to his analysis, anarthrous definite PNs precede the CV 97 times, they follow the CV 26 times. And arthrous definite PNs precede the CV just 15 times, follow it 229 times.

⁸ Colwell adds: Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article (“Definite Rule”, p 21).

⁹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, pp 20–21.

¹⁰ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 259–260. Cf. Paul Stephen Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), pp 11–12. Colwell even claimed the converse of his own ‘rule’ (‘a preverbal PN lacking the article is definite’), which is a non sequitur. The converse states what first needs to be determined!

¹¹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”: [John 1:1c] looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or ‘qualitative’ when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the Gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20:28) (p 21).

¹² See Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 257–258.

¹³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 262–270.

¹⁴ Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973), pp 75–87.

¹⁵ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”.

¹⁶ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 262. Contra David L. Mathewson & Elodie Ballantine Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), pp 85–86. The authors here are critical of Wallace’s (and, by extension, Harner’s and Dixon’s) approach, finding it too subjective. They agree with Wallace’s expressed Trinitarian theology, yet: …[W]e are not at all convinced that John’s grammar was intended to reflect such fine trinitarian nuances (p 85). The authors believe the structure merely presents “the Word” as the subject with the presence of the article, while they do not proffer a specific verdict on the nuance of the PN, though definiteness may be implied (p 85).

¹⁷ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–87; Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 263.

¹⁸ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 83.

¹⁹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²⁰ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²¹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²² Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 266–269; cf. 243–247. Wallace also references Dixon “Significance” here.

²³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 269.

²⁴ J.H. Bernard, The Gospel According to John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), para 11469. He seems to assert a qualitativeness with an underlying definiteness by his added cross-references that: (a) more unambiguously assert that the Incarnational Jesus (Logos-become-flesh) is (ho) Theos (John 10:30 and 20:28) in an undiminished sense, and (b) forthrightly claim His preexistence as Theos (Philippians 2:6: en morphē Theou hyparchōn, “in (the) form of God existing”) in conjunction with his verbiage “asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos”. In other words, the local context seems to indicate a qualitative-definite understanding of Theos in John 1:1c, and when considering the larger context of John’s Gospel (10:30, 20:28) and the even larger corpus of the New Testament (Philippians 2:6), this stance is bolstered.

²⁵ And it would amount to what became known as Sabellianism; cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934 {1914}), pp 767-768.

²⁶ I would judge qualitative with an additional nuance of definiteness. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar: “…anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives usually fall within the qualitative-definite range” (p 263; emphasis in original).

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Dan McClellan, Greek Language studies, Incarnation, Jesus, Jesus Christ, logical fallacies, Pop Culture, Scripture, Trinity Tagged with anachronism, anarthrous, And the Word was God, arthrous, Christianity, Colwell, context, copulative verb, Dan McClellan, Dan Wallace, DATA > DOGMA, definite article, definiteness, Divine, Dixon, english, God, Grammar, Greek article, interpretation, John 1:1c, King of the Jews, logos, Philip Harner, predicate nominative, qualitative, qualitativeness, right for the wrong reasons, scholarship, straw man fallacy, subject nominative, syntax, Theos

And the Word was ‘Deity’?

July 28, 2024 5 Comments

Dan McClellan—an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon Church, LDS Church)—is a well-credentialed Bible scholar and a relatively popular social media personality. I’ve recently stumbled across a number of his YouTube vlogs, having never heard of him previously.

In this blog post I will partly engage with his short vlog on John 1:1c. Most Christian Bibles render this and the Word was God (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV). Over against this translation, McClellan claims it should be and the Word was deity instead.

My focus here will be on the grammar and syntax, as well as the local and larger context of John 1:1c. In Greek this is καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, and transliterated (exchanging Greek characters for English letters) kai Theos ēn ho Logos. I shall forgo comment on his claims regarding the Christian Trinity.

I begin here with where we agree. I agree with McClellan’s claim Theos in John 1:1c should be understood as qualitative. John the Gospel writer, by way of his use of syntax (ordering of words), is stating that the Logos inherently possesses the quality, or qualities, of Theos. In terms of essence, the Logos is Theos.

But I challenge part of McClellan’s reasoning and, more pointedly, the validity of the claim that Theos here should be “deity” instead of “God”. I also take exception to him calling the Greek article “the definite article”. Some may see this as quibbling (as many Christian scholars indeed do the same as McClellan here), but with no corresponding indefinite article in Greek, it seems best to call it simply ‘the article’.¹ In English, we have both a definite article (the) and an indefinite article (a/an); however, we should be mindful of not subconsciously imposing English grammar concepts upon the Greek.²

To explain the Greek syntax of John 1:1c, we will begin with a brief refresher course of English. Let’s assume Fred has recently been promoted to President of ZYX, Inc. following Ed’s retirement. So we can say:

Fred became President.

Here Fred is the subject, became is the verb, and President is the predicate. Both Fred and President are nouns. So, more specifically, Fred is the subject nominative (SN), while President is the predicate nominative (PN). The verb became (become, to become) is a copulative verb (CV), along with other verbs such as be, seem, etc.

In John 1:1c (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) Logos is determined to be the subject by both the local context—the Logos is the subject of the two previous sections (1:1a and 1:1b) as well as John 1:2—and, more importantly, by the presence of the article in front of Logos (making it arthrous) and the corresponding lack of the article in front of Theos (making it anarthrous). Thus, the ordering of 1:1c is PN (Theos), CV (ēn), SN (ho Logos).

Taking this in syntactical order and translating word-for-word, as literally as possible, we have God-was-the-Word. For English translation we would reorder SN-CV-PN: the-Word-was-God.

As one can readily see, Greek word order is flexible. Word order in Greek can be formatted to emphasize a particular word or clause and/or to signify a particular nuance.

With this background in mind, below I quote McClellan, beginning at 0:19 in his vlog:

The noun Theos there does not have the definite article and it is occurring before the ‘to be’ verb in a predicate nominative clause—an X-is-Y clause. And in the Greek of this time period, if a noun is referring to a specific agent that is either well known or has already been mentioned in close context, and both of these things would be true of the use of Theos in reference to the God of Israel, then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively—in other words, to refer to some quality of the subject of the clause. And so here probably the best interpretation would be “and the Word was deity”.

If the Greek article had been present before both nouns in 1:1c, we would have a convertible proposition in which the SN = PN and the PN = SN. In other words, ho Logos would be identified as identical and interchangeable with ho Theos.³ Using our English example, it would be like stating Fred’s entire identity is wrapped up in being President of ZYX, Inc. But in 1:1b the Gospel writer had already established that there was another entity present with ho Logos, specifically ho Theos (in the accusative, direct object form ton Theon)—and the Word was with [‘the’] God. Thus, John did not use the article in front of Theos in 1:1c so as not to confuse with or contradict the use of ho Theos (again, in the accusative ton Theon) in 1:1b.

John’s ingeniousness is evident in his formatting of 1:1c. By ‘fronting’ Theos he emphasizes it, and without the article he makes Theos qualitative (anarthrous PN-CV-arthrous SN). As Westcott states:

The predicate (θεός) stands emphatically first . . . It is necessarily without the article (θεός, not ὁ θεός), inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.⁴

Now I wish to address McClellan’s implicit claim that ho Theos in 1:1b (again, as ton Theon) is “in reference to the God of Israel”. I find this woefully deficient. In considering merely the prologue (John 1:1–18), it is clear that [ho] Theos generally refers to God the Father and that John’s focus is on the special relationship between the Father and the Son of God. This is especially evident in 1:14 (doxan hōs monogenous para patros, “glory as of a one-in-kind from [the] Father”) and, most of all, in 1:18 (Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs Theos[/Huios], ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato, “No one has ever seen God; the one-in-kind, God[/Son], who is in the bosom of the Father, that-one has revealed [Him]”).

Therefore, John 1:1c should be understood within this framework—ho Logos has the same essence/nature as ho Theos in 1:1b.

But perhaps I’m overreacting through misunderstanding? Maybe McClellan would agree with me on the above (while remaining in opposition to any Trinitarian understanding)?

Whatever the case, his rendering and the Word was deity has problems. A qualitative understanding is akin to the anarthrous noun Theos as acting adjectivally. As such, a possible rendering would be and the Word was Divine—with the capital “D” in “Divine” understood as connoting exclusivity over and differentiation from any other “divine” beings (or things). McClellan’s preferred “deity”, even if changed to “Deity” is problematic because this word is not ever used adjectivally. But, then again, “God” is not understood to function adjectivally in standard parlance either.

Yet, had John the Gospel writer wanted to use an adjective related to ho Theos, he could have used Theios (“D/divine”), which is found in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pet 1:3, 1:4. But that would have fallen short of the force of the construction John ultimately used.

Perhaps if McClellan would render ho Theos in 1:1b “the Deity”, I would be more inclined to accept “Deity” (capitalized) in 1:1c. As it stands right now, I stand with Wallace: “Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, ‘and the Word was God.’”⁵ Elsewhere, I render this “and the Word was by nature God.”⁶

_______________________________________

¹ Quoting Rodney J. Decker (Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014]), “There is no such thing as a definite article in Greek—only an article that may or may not express definiteness. Likewise, the lack of an article is not necessarily an expression of indefiniteness but may express a qualitative meaning or some other nuance” (p 39). Cf. Wallace (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996]) notes, “No one questions that the article is used frequently to definitize, but whether this captures the essential idea [of the article] is another matter” (p 209).

² See footnote above!

³ See A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. [Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934], pp 767-768) who references this very clause, adding: “[W]hen the article occurs with the subject . . . and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable” (p 768). Cf. Wallace, Grammar, pp 258, 268.

⁴ B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1908), p 6 [http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026844228;view=1up;seq=210;size=125].

⁵ Wallace, Grammar, p 269, note 31.

⁶ See The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 6, Conclusion and Probing the Prologue in The Gospel According to John: John 1:1-2.

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Dan McClellan, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Pop Culture, Scripture, Trinity Tagged with anarthrous, And the Word was God, arthrous, B. F. Westcott, Christian Apologetics, Christianity, context, copulative verb, Dan McClellan, Daniel Wallace, english, God, Grammar, Greek article, John 1, John 1:1c, LDS, logos, predicate nominative, qualitative, qualitativeness, subject nominative, syntax, The Word, Theos, translation, Writing

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Concluding Exegesis/Interpretation—it’s about TIME!

July 22, 2023 37 Comments

Gathering together everything discussed so far related to our subject verses 2:6–7—the Introduction describing the main interpretive issue, Grammatical Parameters, and An Alternate Angle for exegesis—I now offer my own exegesis and interpretation. I shall call it a ‘tentative conclusion’, for it has not been subjected to any sort of peer review. However, I have made every effort to stay faithful to the grammar and syntax, and—more importantly, in my view—the context.

What if “the restrainer” is not a restrainer at all?

Position Revealed and Contextually Justified

If we had to reduce the Thessalonians’ misconception to one word, it would be timing. Apparently due to ongoing persecution (1:4–7), and perhaps some erroneous foreign communication (2:2), they mistakenly thought the Day of the Lord had already begun (2:2).¹⁹ Under that false premise, they then seemed to have assumed Jesus’ Parousia was imminent (2:1).²⁰ Paul corrects this notion by reminding them of what he had told them in a previous face-to-face teaching (2:5), specifically that the rebellion (apostasia) and the revealing of the man of lawlessness had to occur before the Day of the Lord could begin (2:3–4).

The presumption Paul had provided ‘in-house information’ (2:5) only contemporary Thessalonians were privy to²¹ encourages speculation upon the passage (2:6–7). It abets eisegesis. We ought to question this premise. The idea that Paul is referring to some oral teaching absent from the epistle itself begs the question: Why would we presume Paul would withhold such crucial information from subsequent audiences of his epistle? Certainly there would be later converts to the Thessalonian ekklēsia, who would then be in the dark as to the exact meaning here without assistance from other congregants. Perhaps more pointedly, if we take the position this letter is Holy Spirit inspired—as all Scripture—then we should seek an interpretive solution within the context itself.

Thus, it is better, I submit, to understand Paul’s “these things” (tauta) in 2:5 as strictly referring (anaphorically) to the events in 2:3–4, which are a re-explanation of an earlier oral teaching.²² From this foundational premise, Paul then restates (2:6–7) what he had just re-explained (2:3–4) in order to correct their misconception (2:1–2). In other words, 2:6–7 should be interpreted as Paul’s encapsulation of the issue at hand (2:1–2) and his re-explanation (2:3–4) of his earlier face-to-face teaching (2:5) to correct it. Through this interpretive lens, I suggest Paul is not speaking of some elusive “restrainer” holding back the lawless one but, rather, a “detainer” figuratively ‘holding back’ Jesus’ Parousia (cf. Luke 4:42, “crowds were keeping/detaining Him”).

With this framework in mind, below is my translation of our subject passage. Explanations of the referents for katechō in v. 6 and v. 7 as well as the two pronouns in v. 6 are in italics and brackets. Each occurrence of katechō is interpreted transitively, with the corresponding implied direct objects supplied in italicized red text:

2:₁Now, dear brothers and sisters, concerning the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you ₂ not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. ₃Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, ₄the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. ₅Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And now you ~~know~~ understand what [rebellion and man of lawlessness’ revealing] detains Jesus, that He [Jesus] may be revealed [apokaluptō] in its [what detains’] season. ₇ For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until that which [season (of lawless one’s revealing)] detains Jesus now becomes out of the middle. ₈ At that time the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— ₉which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Jesus is ‘detained’ by the yet future season of the lawless one, in which the lawless one will be revealed. Once this season “becomes out of the middle” between the current “mystery of lawlessness” and the Parousia of Jesus, the revealing of the lawless one will occur. This in turn will prompt the Day of the Lord, and Jesus’ Parousia would then be imminent.

This interpretation concurs with v. 8, in which Paul follows at that time the lawless one will be revealed immediately with whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His Parousia. In other words, once this season “becomes out of the middle”, first will come the rebellion and the lawless one’s revealing, which will be followed by the Day of the Lord and Christ’s Parousia.

We should understand “detain” not that the future Day of the Lord and Jesus’ Parousia are actually being delayed, but that Paul is clarifying the proper sequence of events. For sure, God’s timing prevails, God’s sovereignty is secure.

The word “season” (kairos) should be understood, per usual, as a segment of time, rather than a point in time. Thus, the revealing of the lawless one occurs within the ‘season of the revealing of the lawless one’.

Paul has no intention of being chronological in a strict sense. We might call his argumentation here a poetical paraphrasing. In his rhetorical style—using two different referents for katechō as he restates his correction to the Thessalonians’ mistaken timing—Paul is tautological. Yet, the Apostle likely repeated katechō for emphasis. First century Thessalonians probably well understood Paul. Comparatively, we later readers view the passage through anachronistic lenses, thereby obscuring Paul’s intent.

Using the interpretation above, we could paraphrase the passage:

And now you ~~know~~ understand that it is the rebellion and revealing of the lawless one that detains Jesus, so that He is to be revealed in the season of this revealing. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until this season detaining Jesus becomes out of the middle (between the already present mystery of lawlessness, which you are now enduring, and the Day of the Lord, which will bring Jesus’ Parousia). At that time the lawless one will be revealed…

Grammatical (and Inter-Contextual) Justification

Here we shall go through 2:6–7 clause by clause to grammatically justify the exegesis and interpretation.

And now (kai nyn): Most interpreting to katechon as “restrainer” understand “and now” in v. 6 as temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”).²³ In contrast, the view herein interprets it as logical. The sense is and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you ~~know~~ understand. This is where Paul begins to restate the clarification of 2:3–4 and the issue of 2:1–2.

And now you ~~know~~ understand what detains (kai nyn to katechon oidate): The grammatical rubber meets the road right here. Where do we find the neuter referent for “what detains” (to katechon)? The verb is singular, so is it possible to see it as referring to the neuter plural tauta, “these (things)” in v. 5? Maybe, but perhaps it is better to view it as correlating simply to v. 3’s the rebellion and revealing of the man of lawlessness, as opposed to the entire description in 2:3–4. [See Addendum for further explanations.]

The New Testament uses the singular “it is written” (gegraptai) to refer to a single verse or short section of Scripture. But when more than one Scripture is referenced the plural is used. An example is John 12:16 in which these (things) had been written about Him (tauta ēn ep’ gegrammena) refers to the multiple Scriptures mentioned in 12:13–15.

The account of Jesus healing the man at the pool of Bethesda in John’s Gospel provides a good back-and-forth comparison. In John 5:14 the narrator uses the plural meta tauta, “after these (things)”, to refer to the sequence of events related to the healing of the man (5:5–13). Yet in 5:16 the narrator first uses the singular dia touto, “because of this” to refer back strictly to 5:15 (The man departed and reported to the Jews that it was Jesus who made him whole). Yet in the same verse “because of this” is later followed by the plural hoti tauta, “that these (things)” (were done on the Sabbath), referring to 5:5–13 once again. Then in reaction to 5:17 (So Jesus told them, ‘My Father still works, and I am working’) the narrator records them in 5:18 with the singular dia touto, “because of this” (the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him).

So, as we can deduce, the singular “this” (touto) refers to one event. In 5:16 “this” (touto) refers to the healed man’s reporting. In 5:18 it refers to the reaction to Jesus’ response. Comparatively, the plural “these (things)” (tauta) refers to something more expansive, a series of events—in this case the entire account of Jesus’ healing of the man (5:5–13).

Given the above, I interpret the plural “these (things)” in 2:5 as referring (anaphorically) to all of 2:3–4. In comparison, I understand the singular “what detains” (to katechon) in 2:6 as referring (anaphorically) to only a small portion of 2:3, specifically the rebellion and revealing of the man of lawlessness. The rest of 3–4 detail the aftermath of his revealing, and so are not pertinent to the issue of a ‘delayed’ Parousia.

what detains Jesus: Interpreting “what detains” (to katechon) transitively, I construe Jesus as the implied direct object. This brings us back to the main issue: What is delaying Jesus’ Parousia? The Thessalonians were apparently anxiously anticipating Jesus’ Parousia to bring them relief from their persecution (1:4–7).

Alternatively, the Day of the Lord could work as the implied direct object.

that He may be revealed (eis to apokalypsthēnai auto): Over against other interpretations—excepting Schaefer/Frame (noted in An Alternate Angle)—I construe the masculine pronoun as referring to Jesus.

As Witherington observes, in this chapter Paul is employing a rhetorical synkrisis, which contrasts one thing or person with another by using similar verbiage for each.²⁴ In this case, the Apostle contrasts one Parousia with another—a true Parousia, and a false parousia. I also construe one “revealing” (apokaluptō) contrasted with another. The two other instances of “revealing” in this chapter clearly refer to the lawless one (2:3, 8), but here I deem the occurrence as relating to Jesus. The verbal form (article + infinitive) is different from the other two (finite verbs), and I interpret this one as an allusion to 1:7 (article + noun form of the verb), which explicitly refers to Jesus.

Those who view this clause through the lens of a “restrainer” holding back the lawless one usually interpret it as expressing purpose. The method herein favors the clause expressing result:²⁵ As a result of the yet-future revealing of the lawless one “detaining” Jesus, He will be revealed… (see next section).

in its season (en tō̹ heautou kairō̹): The (emphatically placed) reflexive pronoun (heautou) can be interpreted either as masculine or neuter. Under the construal here, most naturally the emphasized pronoun is intended to refer to the neuter “what detains”: in its season. Jesus will be revealed in the season of the lawless one’s revealing. The true Parousia follows the false one (2:8–9).

The word “season” (kairos) here may well be intended as an allusion to 5:1 of the first Thessalonian epistle: Concerning the times [chronos] and the seasons [kairos], brothers and sisters, you have no need to be written to you. It appears they did need this!

For the mystery of lawlessness is already working (to gar mystērion ēdē energeitai tēs anomias): This (independent) clause is fairly straightforward. This is Paul’s way of putting the Thessalonian persecution in perspective. They are currently living in “the mystery of lawlessness”, apparently a subdued level of lawlessness—and persecution—as compared to what will be present at the revealing of the lawless one. Yet this fuller (full?) manifestation of the lawless one will be no match for the Coming One.

Revelation 10:6–7 provides a corollary to the overall interpretation here:

10:₆ …“There shall be no more delay! ₇ But in the days of the sound of the seventh angel, when he should be about to trumpet, then the mystery of God is finalized, as he proclaimed to his servants, the prophets.”²⁶

only until that which detains now (monon ho katechōn arti eōs): only until provides the termination point for “the mystery of lawlessness”.²⁷

The masculine grammatically gendered “that which detains” (ho katechōn) is (anaphorically) correlated to the masculine “season” (kairos) at the end of v. 6. In turn, “season” is (anaphorically) correlated to the neuter “what restrains” (to katechon) via the modifying pronoun “its” (heauton). In this way each referent flows nicely in the text. Each one refers back to an antecedent, as opposed to (cataphorically) looking forward to a postcedent, which is less natural. I submit this better suits Paul’s intention here, for he would surely not want to further confuse the beleaguered Thessalonians!

that which detains Jesus now: Like the earlier instance in v. 6, I interpret “that which detains” transitively, while also understanding “Jesus” to be the implied direct object.

becomes out of the middle (ek mesou genētai): Here I think it best to retain Paul’s apparent poetical intention. It is the lawless one’s season that “becomes out of the middle”, and such a pure translation seems appropriate to suit Paul’s rhetorical style here. Recognizing God’s sovereignty over seasons, “becomes” (genētai) is probably functioning as a so-called “divine passive”; that is, God is the implied agent.²⁸ The lawless one’s revealing, just as the lawless one himself, is subject to God’s sovereignty.

In this context, the phrase “becomes out of the middle” may well be alluding to Matthew 24:34: …this generation shall not pass away until all these things come to be (panta tauta genētai).

And at that time (kai tote): Those interpreting “And now” in v. 6 temporally (as referring to then-current time) also construe v. 8 as beginning with “And then” (referring to the future). By contrast, I understand this word (tote) as “at that time” (see Weymouth NT and Berean Study Bible) and the clause as logical: Once its season “becomes out of the middle” the lawless one’s revealing occurs.

Afterword

This article is the culmination of literally years of thought and work. When I initially had a germ of this interpretation, I lacked the confidence and competence to complete it. I hope I am not now overconfident and my conclusions flawed!

Critique is welcome, both pro and con—especially con. If I have made any blunders, please identify them by commenting. Thanks for reading!

_____________________________________

¹⁹ “Day of the Lord” was likely understood not as one twenty-four hour period, but as the time period encompassing the end of the age. See, e.g., Wanamaker, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, p 240. It is beyond the scope of this article to more fully engage other works regarding the possibilities for the Thessalonian misconception. Space will allow only a brief summary.

²⁰ As Witherington opines (Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006]): “[T]hey may have simply thought that their current sufferings were part of the [D]ay of the Lord, and that Jesus’ coming must then be imminent, all being part of the final events” (p 215). This succinctly captures my own view.

²¹ Even BDAG—“κατέχω” in Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd. ed. (Chicago, IL: Chicago, 2000)—presumes this in a parenthetical note: “vs. 5 appears to imply in-house information” (p 532.1.c).

²² See Frame, Thessalonians, pp 257–258. Using the neuter plural tauta, “these (things)” is a very common way of referring back to things just stated or written, e.g., Matthew 1:20, John 5:16. See further below.

²³ I’ve yet to find a source that interprets καί νυ̑ν as logical, though some admit it as a possibility, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p 286. Fee, though, ultimately favors a temporal interpretation (pp 286–7).

²⁴ Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, p 217.

²⁵ Though Fee, First and Second Letters, favors a “restrainer” holding back the lawless one, he understands the clause expressing result, leaving purpose unmentioned (p 287). In other words, it appears Fee does not see purpose as a possibility here. Cf. Decker at note 10 from the second segment.

²⁶ Many thanks to PowerPoint with Dr. Jack Graham, pastor of Prestwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX for this insight. I heard part of his sermon/exposition of Revelation on KDRY while driving just this past week. As soon as he quoted Revelation 10:6–7, the Spirit immediately correlated “no more delay” and “mystery of God” with “mystery of lawlessness” and the interpretation “what detains” here.

²⁷ On initial inspection, the syntax seems a bit convoluted. But see note 7 above (in the Grammatical Parameters segment) for explanation.

²⁸ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 437–438.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", "divine passive", "the detainer", "the mystery of God", "these things", "The Restrainer", Chronos, context, exegesis, false parousia, God's sovereignty, Grammar, grammatical gender, interpretation, κατέχω, kairos, katechō, Matthew 24:34, parousia, pool of Bethesda, Revelation 10:6-7, season, synkrisis, syntax, tauta, tauto, tautology, the Day of the Lord, Time, timing

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: An Alternate Angle

July 15, 2023 6 Comments

In the Introduction, a brief overview of the main issue in 2:6–7 was discussed. In the Grammatical Parameters segment, relevant grammatical, syntactical, and—to a lesser extent—contextual issues were considered. In this segment, we will take the information gathered thus far and explore another’s alternative exegesis of this passage.

Throughout the centuries, a particular methodology seems to have straight-jacketed exegetes. It was just assumed and followed. This restrained other possible exegeses. For our purposes here, I shall borrow Guthrie’s imperative: “We must continue to ask questions of our methodologies as well as of the text.”¹⁴

Following are some questions we should ask of our subject text, starting with the first clause of 2:6 and finishing with the final clause of 2:7. Questioning the text afresh could yield other interpretive avenues foreign to those usually assumed:

-Is “now” to be understood as logical (‘and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you know’) or temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”’)?
-If intransitive use of to katechon (v. 6) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder”?
-Who does the pronoun (“he”) refer to in the middle clause (the accusative/direct object)?
-Whose/which (“his”/”its”) season/time is referred to?
-If intransitive use of ho katechōn (v. 7) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder?
-What is the best way to translate ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes”?

In some cases, an answer to one will directly impact, or even eliminate, another. The alternative interpretation below rather radically ‘reinterprets’ the passage by answering some of these questions differently than prevailing exegesis. A brief background will serve as a preface.

The Schaefer/Frame Interpretation

James Everett Frame, in his early 20^th century International Critical Commentary, references a work (from 1890) by Schäfer (Schaefer), an obscure Roman Catholic scholar.¹⁵ Since Frame’s work is now in the public domain, we shall quote at length.

First, however, owing to the commentary’s technical nature, Schaefer’s exegesis—as interpreted, in part, by Frame—shall be laid out just below. Brackets identify the referents:

2:₆ And as to the present, you know what holds sway [the secret of lawlessness], that He [Jesus] may be revealed in His season. ₇For the secret of lawlessness has already been set in operation [by Satan], only until he who is now holding sway [Satan] becomes out of the middle. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed…¹⁶

Thus, in v. 6 Schaefer/Frame interprets the first clause temporally (“as to the present”), the verb intransitively and (cataphorically) referring to v. 7’s “secret of lawlessness”. The direct object is “Jesus”, and, presumably it is in Jesus’ season that He Himself will be revealed. Since, in the Schaefer/Frame conception, the source of “the mystery/secret of lawlessness” is Satan’s power (mysterion, “mystery” is neuter), then the masculine “restrainer” in v. 7 is Satan himself.

Schaefer in his commentary (1890) agrees with Döllinger in taking κατέχειν [“to hold”] intransitively and in translating it “herrschen,” “rule,” “hold sway.” In his exegesis of the passage he comes to the conclusion not only that τὸ κατέχον [v. 6, “what holds sway”] is the mystery of lawlessness and that αὐτόν (v. 6 [“He”]) is Christ, but also that ὁ κατέχων [v.7, “who holds sway”] is Satan. This identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, original apparently with the Roman Catholic scholar, has the advantage of fitting admirably into Paul’s thinking both here and elsewhere. Assuming Schaefer’s identification as a working hypothesis and applying it in our own way, we suggest first of all that just as Christ is to Paul both the exalted Lord and the Spirit operating in believers, so Satan is both (1) “the god of this age” (2Cor. 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the (temporary) ruler (ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι [“who holds sway now”]) of the spiritual hosts of wickedness, and (2) the evil spirit (τὸ κατέχο) that energises in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). The effect of the operation of Satan, the spirit or person who is now holding sway, is characterised as “ the mystery of lawlessness,” that is, the lawlessness which is secretly growing in unbelievers under the spell of Satan. This control of Satan is in accordance with the divine purpose, for it prepares the way for the revelation of the Anomos [“lawless one”] in the time set him by God and not before, the reason being that the mystery of lawlessness, which Satan sets in operation, is to culminate in a definitive apostasy on earth which is the signal for the advent of Satan’s instrument, the Anomos. But this apostasy will not come, and the Anomos will not be revealed until Satan, who is now holding sway, is put out of the way…But the unsolved difficulty in our passage is the reference intended by ἐκ μέσου γένηται [“out of the middle becomes”]. It is just possible that Paul is alluding to the war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 ff.), the religious revolt led by Satan, which is the signal for the sudden apostasy on earth. In this case, ἐκ μέσου [“out of the middle”] refers to Satan’s expulsion from heaven to earth. Though he is thus removed, he makes use of his peculiar instrument, the Anomos, who now issues forth from his place of concealment, and gives him all his power, just as the Dragon (Revelation 13:2) gives the beast his power, his throne, and great authority. Equipped with this power, the Anomos, whose advent is for the doomed alone, gathers his forces for war against Christ (cf. 1Cor 15:24 ff.), attempts the assault on the throne of God in his holy temple in heaven, but is slain in the attempt by the Lord Jesus with the breath of his mouth and is destroyed with the manifestation of his advent. To this conjecture, based on Schaefer’s identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, it may be objected not that Satan is described in reference to his function of κατέχειν, for Paul calls Satan ὁ πειράζων [“the tempter”] (1Thess 3:5), but that (1) Paul might not subscribe either to the identification or to the deductions therefrom indicated above, and (2) that ἐκ μέσου, which to be sure designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal, does not at first blush suggest an ἐκβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὴν γῆν [“throwing down to the earth”] (Revelation 12:9).¹⁷

In Frame’s conception of Schaefer’s position (which seems to have not been fully fleshed out by Schaefer), Satan and “the mystery of lawlessness” are “connected both essentially and temporally.”¹⁸ In other words, Satan is the spirit behind the mystery of lawlessness in the time before the revealing of the lawless one. Concurrent with when this more subdued lawlessness reaches its zenith, Satan “becomes out of the middle” via his expulsion from heaven, which results in the adversary directly operating through the lawless one in a mock ‘incarnation’.

The Schaefer/Frame position can be seen as bolstered by Paul’s use of the same root word (energeō) for “is working” (above as the dynamic equivalent “set in operation”) in v. 7 and in v. 9 (noun form [energeia] of verb: “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”). That is, “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, which was already in operation/working at the time when Paul penned his epistle, culminates in the lawless one’s energization “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”. The energy source is the same, only the latter more manifest, probably to the full.

And yet it is at this point that this schema is open to criticism, as Frame freely admits. More pointedly, if Satan’s (more subdued) power is behind “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, and it is also the adversary’s manifest power energizing the lawless one upon his revealing, then it becomes a question of why Satan would be construed as the one who “becomes out of the middle”. It all seems a bit convoluted.

Another Alternative?

Using the same framework as the lengthy quote above, we might substitute Michael the archangel for Satan here, by construing ho katechōn (v. 7) as transitive (Michael restraining Satan) rather than the Schaefer/Frame intransitive. Once Michael “becomes out of the middle” (Rev 12:9), Satan is able to fully possess the lawless one. But then the issue of context rears its head again. Michael is found nowhere in the context. And this same problem plagues the ‘usual’ interpretations.

Yet, positively, this alternative framework above can induce other conceptions. Is there another way of viewing this passage, while simultaneously remaining faithful to the context? One such view will be presented in the next segment, the conclusion.

_____________________________________

¹⁴ George H. Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay: Reflections on the Use of Linguistics and Literary Analysis in Biblical Studies,” in Stanley E. Porter & D. A. Carson, eds. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p 32. After this statement, which was used as a section header, the author comments: The fundamental question has to do with how meaning functions—how a specific meaning comes to be obtained by the reader of a literary text. In other words, what is the nature of the author–text–reader relationship? Certain queries in this regard will occupy those who seek to integrate newer literary criticism with linguistics (p 32).

¹⁵ James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs, International Critical Commentary (ICC), (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912). See p 64 for first reference to Schäfer’s commentary; no title is provided. See here for digitized version.

¹⁶ The exegesis and translation are gathered from Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–264. It’s important to note that Frame himself differs at points from Schaefer, though sharing in an intransitive interpretation for both verses. Also prefering this interpretation is Wanamaker (1 & 2 Thessalonians, pp 253–256).

¹⁷ Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–262.

¹⁸ Frame, Thessalonians, p 264.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", "the mystery of lawlessness, "The Restrainer", 2 Thessalonians 2, energeia, energeo, Grammar, holds sway, intransitive, James Everett Frame, katechō, lawless one, Michael the archangel, parousia, Satan, Schaefer, syntax, transitive

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Grammatical Parameters

July 9, 2023 9 Comments

[See part I: Introduction.]

To assist in identifying “the restrainer” we might scan through the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians for possible points of contact. At least one commonality is found below.

First, I will translate 2:1–9, even though we’ve yet to explore other interpretive avenues for 6–7. One available option is evident in the forward slash ( / ) between two alternatives. Elsewhere, the grammar and syntax allow other renderings. Explanations will follow further below. Greek words repeated in the text are bracketed and in colored font for easy reference and comparison.

2:₁Now, dear brothers and sisters, regarding the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you ₂ not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. ₃Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, ₄the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. ₅Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And now you know what restrains_[nt] [(him)], that he may be revealed [apokaluptō] in his/its_[ms/nt] season. ₇For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until the one who/which now restrains_[ms] becomes out of the middle. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— ₉which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Few would find Paul the model of clarity in 2 Thessalonians 2. Besides the run-on sentences and digressions, he even leaves out part of the sentence in v. 3!⁷ The italicized text between the subscripted brackets ( ⸤ ⸥ ) fills it in.⁸ Paul also deviates from the plural “we” used throughout this epistle (…we ask you…), to the singular “I” in his digression of 2:5 (…when I was with you, I was telling you these things?).

Grammatical and (Inter-)Textual Considerations

Note the repetition of both Parousia and apokaluptō. On the former (Parousia), Paul uses it twice to refer to Jesus (v. 1, 8) and once to “the lawless one” (v. 9—illustrated here by the use of lower case parousia). Paul contrasts the ‘coming’ of the lawless one with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He juxtaposes the lawless one’s counterfeit parousia with Christ’s true Parousia.⁹

Regarding apokaluptō, this word is explicitly used twice in reference to the lawless one (v. 3, 8) and once seemingly to him (v. 6). Yet, v. 6 is in a different verbal form (infinitive¹⁰) than the others. Interestingly, the noun form (apokalypsis) of this verb signifies Jesus’ revelation in 2Thess 1:7.¹¹ Larger context better illustrates:

1:₅ …proof of God’s righteous judgment that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you are suffering, ₆ since it is a righteous thing for God to repay those afflicting you with affliction, ₇ and to you who are being afflicted with relief with us, at the revelation [apokalypsis] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power.

Paul pastorally comforts the persecuted Thessalonians by assuring them that he, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1) will join them in their relief at Jesus’ revelation, aka Parousia (2:1, 8). Chapter 1, then, serves as a preface to his correction in chapter 2.

Paul specifically uses apokaluptō for the counterfeit parousia. That is, in 2:8–9, he defines the lawless one’s “revealing” by parousia. If we remove the portion of v. 8 referring to Christ’s Parousia (between the em dashes), we are left with: “Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]…which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan…”

Zeroing in on 6–7, we must first mention the verb katechō. At root, it carries the meaning “hold”, though in translation we may further nuance it according to context. Yet it may be important to keep this basic definition in mind, for this could foster out-of-the-box thinking in our subject verses.

The New Testament (NT) uses the word in a variety of ways, with “hold” underlying each occurrence:

-Luke 4:42: crowds were holding [keeping, detaining, delaying] Him, that He not depart from them
-Luke 14:9: in shame, you would begin to hold [occupy] the lowest place
-Acts 27:40: hoisting the mainsail to the wind, they began holding course [heading] towards shore
-Rom 1:18: the wrath of God is revealed against men who hold back [suppress] the truth
-Rom 7:6: having died in that which we were held [bound, confined]
-1Cor 7:30: those buying (things), as if not holding [possessing, owning] (things)
-1Thess 5:21: hold [hold fast, cling] to the truth

This briefly summarizes NT applications, providing fodder for possible alternate renderings in 2:6 and 2:7.

In v. 6, note “him” in brackets. The verb for “restrainer”, katechō, can be understood as acting either intransitively (without accusative direct object) or transitively (with direct object). Either interpretation is possible here. If we assume the word is functioning intransitively, then we simply end the clause with “what restrains” and leave it at that.

If transitive use is assumed, then we supply the direct object from context—“him” in the tentative translation above. Luke 8:15, in which the transitive is surely implied, exemplifies: and having heard the word, they hold [katechō]. In this verse, katechō has no expressed direct object, so translators follow “hold” with a supplied “on to it” (“it” referring to “the word”).

No matter how this is interpreted, there is the accusative direct object “that he may be revealed” in the very next clause. In the intransitive application, this clause further explains in some way “what restrains”. In the transitive application, we would then have a double accusative/direct object structure, in which the second one further explains the first in some manner: “…what restrains him, that he may be revealed”.

The verse begins with the Greek kai nyn, “and now”. The “now” can be interpreted one of two ways: temporal or logical. If temporal, it is rendered like the NASB: “And you know what restrains him now”. In other words, ‘you know what is currently restraining him’. If logical, it is akin to the rendering in the above translation: “And now you know what restrains”. The sense is ‘now that I’ve re-explained things (2:1–5), you know what restrains’.

The final clause in v. 6 is ambiguous, in that the pronoun can be either masculine or neuter: “in his season” or “in its season”. If masculine is assumed, the pronoun most naturally refers to “he” in the previous clause. But, could it be neuter? If so, what would be the referent?

At first glance, v. 7 appears to contain a syntactical anomaly. It seems to consist in two separate sentences, the second one missing the main verb. However, the solution is to construe it as one sentence, with word order in the latter portion intending to emphasize the subject (“the one restraining now becomes…”) of the dependent clause.¹² The effect would be to understand “only” and “until” as a consecutive unit, despite the Greek having “the one restraining now” sandwiched between the two. The International Standard Version (ISV), e.g., renders it in this manner: For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way.

The first part of the sentence—the main, independent clause—is relatively straightforward: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already working”. The final phrase ek mesou genētai (ἐκ μέσου γένηται, “out of the middle becomes”, “from the midst becomes”) in the dependent clause, however, has occasioned some difficulty. This exact phrase is absent in the NT. Though the verb (from ginomai, “become”, “come to be”) is very common, ek mesou occurs only a handful of times. Excluding 2Thess 2:7, here are the NT ek mesou occurrences:

-Matt 13:49: The angels will…separate the evil ones from among the just
-Acts 17:33: Paul went out from the midst of them
-Acts 23:10: snatch him [Paul] from the middle of them
-1Cor 5:2: removed from the middle of you
-2Cor 6:17: come out from among them and be separate

Each of the above is, essentially, “from the middle/midst” or “out of the middle/midst”, though context may favor slightly different wording in English. The meaning is very much the same, however.

Some have tried to interpret this final clause using “the mystery of lawlessness” as the subject of “becomes out of the middle”. However, “the one who/which now restrains” is certainly the subject. The capable F. F. Bruce refutes such a notion:

Attempts have been made to construe the clause as though the reference were to the mystery of lawlessness “coming to pass out of the midst”—i.e. emerging from its place of concealment, but that would require εἰς μέσον [ED: accusative] not ἐκ μέσου [ED: genitive].¹³

Excursus: Becoming out of the Middle

To further assist in exegeting ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes” we will compare this phrase with a very similar one (same verb but different form) in a Greek romance, likely composed in the 2^nd century AD. The selection below is from Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon.

To set the stage, Clitophon and Leucippe become attracted to each other after circumstances place the latter in the former’s household in Tyre. After a time, the two conspire to partake in a nighttime rendezvous in her [Leucippe’s] chambers, with the assistance of household servant Satyrus and Leucippe’s personal maidservant, Clio. On that night, moments after Clitophon lies down in her bed, Leucippe’s mother, Panthea, awakens from a nightmare, provoking her to run to her daughter’s room. Upon seeing the silhouette of a man in Leucippe’s bed, Panthea erupts in hysterics. Under cover of darkness, Clitophon escapes, eventually making his way to his room, unsure if Leucippe’s mother recognized him as he fled. He assumes the worst.

Panthea interrogates Leucippe and Clio [her maidservant] in order to determine the identity of the nighttime visitor. In this, Panthea reveals that she did not realize it was, in fact, Clitophon in her daughter’s room. With this knowledge, Leucippe lies to her mother, saying she did not know the identity of the man. Meanwhile, aware of Panthea’s revelation to her daughter, both Clitophon and Satyrus plan to flee before the entire conspiracy is exposed. With this plan conceived, they proceed to the house of Clinias, Clitophon’s cousin, in order to further prepare.

Soon after, Clio arrives at Clinias’ house, desiring to escape from her sure interrogation by torture come morning. With this, she informs Clitophon, Satyrus, and Clinias that Panthea was as yet unaware of the identity of Leucippe’s visitor. Upon hearing this, Clinias pulls Clitophon aside, suggesting they secretly and swiftly send Clio off, out of harms’ way. This would provide the opportunity for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them, as well.

Following is Clinias’ reasoning in suggesting to Clitophon that Clio be sent away. First is the Greek, which is followed by a word-for-word working translation, then a more readable rendering:

Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 2.27.2:

Οὔτε γὰρ νῦν οἶδε τῆς κόρης ἡ μήτηρ τίνα κατέλαβεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε,
ὅ τε καταμηνύσων οὐκ ἔσται τῆς Κλειοῦς ἐκ μέσου γενομένης:
τάχα δὲ καὶ τὴν κόρην συμφυγεῖν πείσετε.

And-not for now she-knows, the girl’s (the) mother whom she took, as you spoke,
that but will-make-known not be (the) Clio’s out of the middle becomes.
Perhaps now and the girl flee-along-with you-persuade

“For now, the girl’s mother [Panthea] does not know whom she saw, as you said,
and there will be no one to inform her when Clio becomes out of the middle.
And then perhaps you could persuade the girl [Leucippe] to flee with you.”

Clio is currently caught between Leucippe and Leucippe’s mother, Panthea. She does not want to divulge the conspiracy, thereby incriminating herself, Leucippe, Clitophon, and Satyrus; yet, Panthea, who wants to know the identity of the night visitor, will surely attempt to torture her for the information. By following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would become out of the middle.

Her escape would also buy some time for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them all.

To restate, following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would no longer be in the middle of the situation—in the middle between Leucippe and Panthea. She would become out of the middle, removed from the entire situation. Yet, note that it is Clio’s escape that makes her become out of the middle. In other words, her escape is the means by which she becomes out of the middle. It is not some external force removing her—with help from the others, she removes herself (“becomes out of the middle”) by escaping.

We might render the above, “and there will be no one to inform her when Clio escapes”. But, this would fail to retain the poetic value of the original “becomes out of the middle”. We must be careful not to over-translate when rendering texts, thereby imposing our own interpretation upon it.

Application

Applying this excursus to 2Thess 2:7, the overarching point is that the exegete should not be constrained by the common English versions, which use verbiage such as “is removed”, “is taken out of the way”, or “gets out of the way”. It is prudent to begin with the ‘bald’ translation “becomes out of the middle”. To the extent possible, begin with a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Reach an exegetical conclusion only after considering all grammatical and contextual options.

In v. 7, the verb “becomes” can be either passive or middle. If passive, some external force/person provides the action. If middle, ‘the restrainer’ has some part in becoming out of the middle.

Considering the context of v. 8, we know that once “the one who/which now restrains” becomes out the middle, the result is the revealing of the lawless one.

Opened Avenues

Within the framework provided by this part of the current series, one can begin to explore other exegetical possibilities, unencumbered by the usual interpretations. The next segment will provide one such alternative: An Alternate Angle.

___________________________________________

⁷ Many would argue there is also an ellipsis in 7b, requiring the addition of a finite verb to complete it. However, it is possible ἕως, eōs (“until”) is placed postpositively, after ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι, ho katechōn arti (“the one who/which restrains now”) in order to emphasize “the restrainer”. Assuming so, 7b should be understood as a dependent clause to “The mystery of lawless is already working” instead of a separate sentence. This is the approach taken above. See, e.g., Charles A. Wannamaker, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), pp 255–256.

⁸ More specifically (and technically), v. 3 is missing the apodosis, which is the main (independent) clause in an ‘if-then’ conditional statement. Only the protasis, the dependent clause, is stated here (“unless [‘if not’] the rebellion comes first and…”). In other words, in the case of vv. 3–4, it is the ‘then’ part that is absent. It is probably best to place the ‘then’ in the beginning of the sentence—as most English versions do—though it can be appended to v. 4, which would yield: “…proclaiming that he himself is God, [then] that Day will not begin.” See Young’s Literal Translation (“…the day doth not come.”).

⁹ Relatedly, see this post Not One Parousia, But Two.

¹⁰ More specifically, it is an articular infinitive within a prepositional phrase, indicating result. See Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp 368, 372.

¹¹ This same noun is used to begin the final book of the Bible, Revelation: The revelation/apocalypse [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ…

¹² See note 7 above.

¹³ F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p 171.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Early Christianity, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", "mystery of lawlessness", "The Restrainer", 2 Thessalonians 2, accusative, Achilles Tatius, Ancient Greek Romance, apodosis, apokaluptō, direct object, Discourse Analysis, ek mesou genētai, ellipsis, excursus, Grammar, intransitive, katechō, Leucippe and Clitophon, parousia, protasis, syntax, the lawless one, The man of lawlessness, transitive

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

April 14, 2022 28 Comments

[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

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.

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.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Craig Keener, Early Christianity, Greek Language studies, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Passion, Post-Resurrection Era, Sanhedrin, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with "from above", 'the Jews', Authority, Caiaphas, Columella, Crucifixion, Discourse Analysis, Easter, false teaching, Gospel of John, Grammar, grammatical gender, inclusio, Irony, Judas Iscariot, King of the Jews, Lamb of God, linguistics, nomen, Ovid, Paschal, paschal lamb, Passover, Passover Lamb, Pilate, Pliny the Younger, Post-Glorification, Post-Resurrection, syntax, titlos, titulus, Triumphal Entry

What Did Pilate State in John 19:22?: Conclusion

March 14, 2019 16 Comments

[See part I]

In the conclusion here I shall more closely explore the three verses leading up to Pontius Pilate’s pithy phrase in 19:22. 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’⁸ 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.⁹

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 Caiaphas’ 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).

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

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).¹⁰ ‘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’?”¹¹ 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).

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). As 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).

It was around the “sixth hour” (noon) on the Day of Preparation for 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).¹² 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!”¹³

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

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).

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.’”¹⁴

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.

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 him¹⁶ or (b) hung around his own neck.¹⁷ But there is not much historical evidence for placing this same sign on the criminal’s cross, and what is available is ambiguous.¹⁸ 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.¹⁹

In the previous paragraph, the word used referring to the sign accompanying condemned criminals in both instances 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 rent²⁰ and by Roman poet Ovid (BC 43—AD 17/18) for a notice of public sale.²¹ It was also used to signify a grave marker.²² As can be deduced, the term applied to both the inscription and the object on which it was inscribed in these instances. However, more importantly, at times titulus was used solely for the writing itself.²³

The term can refer to epitaphs (i.e., the inscriptions) as distinct from grave markers.²⁴ 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.²⁵ Columella (ca. AD 4—70), a writer on agricultural concerns, used the word to reference titles of books.²⁶ Ovid, in the very same work referred to in the previous paragraph, used titulus to signify the title of a pamphlet.²⁷ And most pertinent for our purposes 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.²⁸ 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).²⁹ Yet, given that Pilate’s purpose with the inscription was to antagonize ‘the Jews’, can we rightly apply any of the latter two meanings (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.³⁰ 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.³¹ 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, while titlos is masculine. In other words, it does not refer to titlos. This exact syntax is found again in 19:20. So, to what or who does it refer? This is typically translated impersonally: “There was written” (~ “It [the inscription] read”).³² 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).³³ 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.”³⁴ 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 (2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25; cf. 5:46; 8:17) are in the 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.³⁵ In that context, the narrator notes that the disciples recalled earlier events but only fully understood how they fulfilled Scripture from their post-glorification perspective (after Jesus’ resurrection). Before considering this line of inquiry further, how might 19:11 (which Keener references 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 in 19:11. The Greek word for authority, however, is feminine.³⁶ Thus, if it had not been given to you from above does not refer to Pilate’s general conferred authority but 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”.³⁷

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 been given you from-above
“You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above.”

This same syntactical format (‘not this’ 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 ouranou³⁸
not s/he be able person to receive and-not one if not may-be it having been 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.³⁹ These words of the Baptizer are the first with this syntactical structure, while Jesus’ words to Pilate are the last. 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).⁴⁰ Of course, it also relates to Jesus’ statement in 19:11. 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 been 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.”

Crucial to understanding the Gospel of John is to grasp that the author is writing from a post-resurrection perspective, with the Spirit bringing to remembrance past events, further illuminating them (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 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 states they remembered it. By the context the intended referent appears to be the OT (Tanakh) in a general sense, as it relates to the resurrection.⁴¹

Somewhat similar to 2:22 is 12:16. Here the narrator states that the disciples fully realized that these things had been written about Him only “after Jesus was glorified”. “These things” 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.⁴² In other words, their initial interpretation of “king” was in a political sense, 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?⁴³ When we factor in the syntactical relationship between 19:19-20 and all other uses of it is written and 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.

If all this prevails, then the chief priests of the Jews’ plea to Pilate to amend the title may be interpreted 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 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.

_________________________________________

⁸ 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.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ 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.

¹² 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.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ Thompson, John: A Commentary, p 398.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ 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’”).

¹⁸ 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).

¹⁹ 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).

²⁰ Letters, 7.27 (“To Sura”): Athenodorus legit titulum: “Athenodorus read the notice (to rent the haunted mansion)”.

²¹ 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.”

²² 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”).

²³ See F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” Journal of Theological Studies old series 31 (1930), pp 272-273.

²⁴ 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.

²⁵ 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.”

²⁶ 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.

²⁷ 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 29.

²⁸ 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.”

²⁹ 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 27 for another possibility.

³⁰ See Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” pp 271-273.

³¹ Ibid.

³² E.g., Harris, John, p 314. See note 14 above.

³³ 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; 6:31, 45; 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.

³⁴ 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.

³⁵ It is actually a periphrastic, an equivalent to the pluperfect—see note 33.

³⁶ 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”.

³⁷ 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; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, D. A. Carson, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pp 601-602

³⁸ There is a difference here in that a neuter subject is found in ἕν, hen (one) from the apodosis.

³⁹ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 222.

⁴⁰ This does mean to imply, of course, that 3:27 (and 6:65 just below) is no longer applicable as a general maxim.

⁴¹ See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 201.

⁴² See Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp 433-434.

⁴³ See Jörg Frey, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), pp 151-154.

⁴⁴ 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.

Filed under Christ, Christology, Craig Keener, Greek Language studies, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Passion, Sanhedrin, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with "from above", 'the Jews', Caiaphas, Columella, Crucifixion, Easter, Gospel of John, Grammar, inclusio, King of the Jews, Lamb of God, nomen, Ovid, Paschal, paschal lamb, Passover, Passover Lamb, Pilate, Pliny the Younger, syntax, titlos, titulus

	Craig on God Raised Jesus from the…
	Bruce Cooper on God Raised Jesus from the…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Citizen Tom on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Citizen Tom on What is Going On with the Blog…
	La razón por la cual… on Bill Johnson’s Christology: A…
	La razón por la cual… on Bill Johnson’s Christology: A…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Bruce Cooper on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Bruce Cooper on What is Going On with the Blog…

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

His DOGMA > DATA

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

Qualifying Qualitativeness

Summarizing

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

Position Revealed and Contextually Justified

Grammatical (and Inter-Contextual) Justification

Afterword

It's Appropriate To Share:

The Schaefer/Frame Interpretation

Another Alternative?

It's Appropriate To Share:

Grammatical and (Inter-)Textual Considerations

Excursus: Becoming out of the Middle

Application

Opened Avenues

It's Appropriate To Share:

Events Leading Up to Jesus’ Arrest

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

The Crucifixion and Pilate’s Enduring Statement

Other Signs

Textual Clues and Syntactical Pointers

Tying It All Together

It's Appropriate To Share:

Events Leading Up to Jesus’ Arrest

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

The Crucifixion and Pilate’s Enduring Statement

Other Signs

Textual Clues and Syntactical Pointers

Tying It All Together

It's Appropriate To Share:

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Other Blogs to Check Out

Worthy Charities:

Blog Stats

Archives

Categories