JESUS THE UNIQUE JUDGE
01. INTRODUCTION
The judges of the First Testament had multi-farious role to play in the history of Israel (cf. Ex 18:15; 2 Sam 15:2-3; Deut 17:12; Ruth 4:2; Gen 18:25; Isa 33:22),[1] pronounced judgement according to the “Law of Moses”. In the Second Testament the Pharisees who “sat in Moses’ seat” (cf. Mt 23:2) judged according to the “letter of the law” (cf. Lk 11:39-42,44), and “according to the appearance” (kata thn sarka Jn 7:24). But the uniqueness of Jesus, as “the judge” surpasses all the judges that the Bible portrays, because “the unique judge”, judges truly, always in communion with his Father (cf. Jn 8:16).
This paper attempts to focus “Jesus as the unique judge of the Bible” – by analyzing the evolution of the concept “judge”; by scrutinizing the development of the role of the judges in the Bible; and by the exegetical analysis, with special reference to John 7:21-24 and John 8:13-16.
02. TERMINOLOGY AND USAGE
The Hebrew roots for the term judge is “spt” and “dyn”. They are often used in parallel, without any distinction of meaning.[2] “Spt” is attested in one hundred and eighty references with the general meaning of “administering”, “ruling”, and “governing” of territory, in the Hebrew usage.[3] The word “sopet”, which comes from the root “spt”, is a participle of the verb “sapat”, which is manifold in meaning - “judge”, “decide”, “rule”, “govern”, “deliver”, etc.[4] The root “dyn” occurs only twenty five times, which generally bear the meaning “judgement” in a juridical sense.[5]
The common Greek terms for judge are: “krithV”, usually refers to a judge or an official; “krisiV”, which denotes an act with various senses - “judgement”, “verdict”, “accusation”, “decision” and “selection”; “krinw”, describes the passing of a judgement in a legal sense and condemnation. The other word groups from the root “dik” could be variously translated as “punishment”, “vindicate”, “justice”.[6] Since there is lack of distinction in the usage of the term, only paying a careful attention to the context in which a term is used would determine the best meaning.[7]
03. THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF JUDGE
The term “judge” is not distinctively used In the Bible. But it has greater importance because there are four hundred and seventy seven references attested to judge and the act of judging.[8] Very often the person who judges is identified by his act of judgement. Hence the judge, the act of judging and the judgement are identical.
The judge in the First Testament was an official with authority to administer justice by trying cases in law. Moses appointed judges upon the advice of Jethro (cf. Ex 18:15). During the monarchy, the king was the supreme judge (cf. 2 Sam 15:2-3). The priests were also judges and so the sanctuary became a place of judgement (cf. Ex 33:8ff; Deut 17:12). The elders of the city could serve as judges at the gate (cf. Judg 8:16; Ruth 4:2; Job 29:7-8). God was also considered the judge (cf. Gen 18:25; Isa 33:22).[9]
In the Second Testament judges were the members of “Sanhedrin” - which judged according to the “Law of Moses” (cf. Jn 18:31; Acts 23:3; 24:6). The emergence of Jesus, “the unique judge” (cf. Jas 5:9; 1 Pet 4:5), in the biblical history superceded the idea of judge, by the new standard of judgement he sets.[10] Therefore an objective idea of the biblical judge is unfortunate, since their “trade marks” differ. But only their “criterion for judgement” could distinguish them clearly, for the judges that the Bible speaks of judged based on the Law, and Jesus judged in union with his Father, which made him unique.
04. JOHANNINE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
4.1 John 7:21-24
This delimited passage forms an entity in the general context of the “Jewish festival of Tabernacle”. It is also a part of the Book of Signs (Jn 1:19-12:50). The immediate context of this pericope is very hostile, because Jesus is cornered by the Pharisees, for “healing”[11] a sick on the Sabbath day. The defence of Jesus, by basing his argument on the “Law of Sabbath”[12] itself is polemic in nature. The source of this pericope seems to be from a common tradition, because the Synoptic Gospels too have corresponding verses.[13] It is in the form of discourse with the literary technique of “dramatic monologue”.[14]
v. 21: The “one dead” that Jesus speaks of refers to the controversial Sabbath miracle of healing a paralytic person in Jn 5:1-18. Though Jn 4:54 documents another healing that Jesus did, the content of the controversy fits perfectly in Jn 5:1-18.[15]
v. 22: Jesus constructs a base for his argument from the hypocritical practices of the “Law of Moses,”[16] to defend his healing against the accusation of the Pharisees. “Circumcision”[17] is part and parcel of the Jewish religious life, which is attributed to Moses. Jesus also makes a meticulous observation that this institution does not originate from Moses (cf. Gen 17:9-14).[18] This may be a redaction element, because it is given in the bracket.
v. 23: Jesus employs a common rabbinical form of argument to begin from lesser (circumcision) to the greater (healing),[19] in order to nullify the hypocrisy of the Jewish Sabbath regulation. The interrogation of Jesus is powerful, that when a practice over rides the Sabbath for the ritual purpose, it also justifies the over riding of Sabbath, in healing a whole person.[20]
v. 24: Jesus the true judge challenges the hostile crowd, which always judge based on the appearances (cf. Jn 7:25-27, 41-42, 8:15,48,53,57), to stop judging according to the sight, because such a superficiality reaches its climax in the hypocritical practice of the law (cf. Jn 7:23; Mk 3:5; Lk 13:12; 14:4). Thus having pointed out their hypocrisy, he radically pronounces an imperative – “judge with right judgement” (cf. Jn 2:11; 4:48; 6:26; 9:3; 11:4).[21]
The intensity of this statement is expressed very well by twice using of the verb “judge” and once the noun “judgement” in a simple sentence (thn dikaian krisin krinete).[22]
4.2 John 8:13-16
This delimited pericope is placed in the context of conflict over the identity of Jesus betwixt Jesus and his opponent, which is a part of the Book of Signs (Jn 1:19-12:50). It has the form of discourse presented in the manner of dialogue, with an antithetical structure - accusation against Jesus (v.13); acceptance with clarification (v.14); counter accusation by Jesus (v.15); and ultimate pronouncement (v.16). The source of this entity seems to be from the special source of John itself, because the content of this text gets repeated in the other places of the same Gospel (cf. Jn 3:17; 5:31-39; 7:24). There is also a minor textual problem in v.16 – “he” is read as “the father” by many other ancient authorities.
v. 13: The “Pharisees”[23] make a prime accusation against Jesus that he bears witness to himself, and so his testimony is wrong. This shows that neither they understand that it is in Jesus, God reveals himself (cf. Jn 8:19), nor they judge rightly (cf. Jn 7:24).[24]
v. 14: Jesus defends his claim, arguing that he is qualified to bear witness, because he knows his divine origin and his destiny.[25] This is why Jesus regularly speaks of his departure from this world through his death, resurrection, and ascension (cf. Jn 7:33; 8:21; 13:3,33; 14:28; 16:5,10). Jesus is the one who can bear witness for he has seen God (cf. Jn 1:18). Since his opponents do not share the knowledge of Jesus (cf. v. 14 b), they cannot recognize the validity of his witness.[26]
v. 15: Jesus points out that the Pharisees judge on the basis of the external appearance (cf. Jn 7:24) – “kata thn sarka.”[27] The verse 15b, makes a contradicting statement. It can be interpreted with reference to the context, that he judges no one as the Pharisees do.
v. 16: Jesus claims that his judgement is true always, because while judging he does not act alone, but always in communion with his Father. Therefore the validity of his judgment is guaranteed by the relationship with his Father, which the Pharisees do not have, and so their judgment is based on human standards (cf. v. 15).[28]
05. CONCLUSION
Jesus the unique judge, unlike the Pharisees who were supreme religious authorities, even though, “sat in Moses’ seat” (cf. Mt 23:2) as judges, judged only by the appearance (cf. Jn 7:25-27, 41-42; 8:15, 48,53, 57), judges truly because he does always in communion with his Father (cf. Jn 8:16), which guarantees the validity of his judgment. The Pharisees who were known for their superficiality by the hypocritical practice of the Law (cf. Jn 7:23; Mk 3:5; Lk 13:12), neither understand that it is in Jesus God reveals himself (cf. Jn 8:19) nor listen to his appeal - “thn dikaian krisin krinete” (judge with right judgment - cf. Jn 2:11; 4:48; 6:26; 9:3; 11:4).
06. BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Herman RIDDERBOS. The Gospel of John. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
J. Carl LANEY. John. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
James McPOLIN, S.J. John. Delware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1979.
Leon MORRIS. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Raymond E. BROWN. The Gospel and Epistles of John. Bombay: St. Paul Publication, 1988.
B. ARTICLES
C.U. WOLF. “Judge”. In George Arthur BUTTRICK. (ed.). The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol.2. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Gerhard KITTEL. and Gerhard FRIEDRICH. (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.
John R. KOHLENBERGER III. The NRSV Concordance Unabridged. Michigan: Zondervan publishing House, 1991.
Leander E. KECK. (ed.). The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol.IX. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
S.H. TRAVIS. “Judgment”. In Joel B. GREEN. Scot McKNIGHT. (ed.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992.
Temba L. MAFICO. “Judge, Judging”. In David Noel FREEDMAN. (ed.). The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.3. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
THE HOLY BIBLE, The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India. Bangalore: The Theological Publications in India, 1993.
G. Robert John Kennedy
II Theology, 07.03.2001
[1] Henceforth, all quotations are from THE HOLY BIBLE, The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: The Theological Publications in India, 1993. They are immediately noted by permitted abbreviations for the particular book in the Bible.
[2] Temba L. MAFICO, “Judge,” in David Noel FREEDMAN, (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.3, New York: Doubleday, 1992, p. 1104; also Gerhard KITTEL, and Gerhard FRIEDRICH, (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985, p. 469.
[3] Temba L. MAFICO, “Judge,” in David Noel FREEDMAN, (ed.), op.cit., p. 1105.
[4] Ibid., p. 1104.
[5] Ibid., p. 1105.
[6] Cf. Gerhard KITTEL, and Gerhard FRIEDRICH, (ed.), op.cit., p. 473; also Cf. S.H. TRAVIS, “Judgment,” in Joel B. GREEN, Scot McKNIGHT, (ed.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992, p. 409.
[7] Cf. Temba L. MAFICO, “Judge,” in David Noel FREEDMAN, (ed.), op.cit., p. 1106.
[8] John R. KOHLENBERGER III, The NRSV Concordance Unabridged, Michigan: Zondervan publishing House, 1991, pp. 707-708.
[9] C.U. WOLF, “Judge”, in George Arthur BUTTRICK, (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol.2, New York: Abingdon Press, 1962, pp. 1012–1013.
[10] Cf. Ibid., p. 1013.
[11] Healing is the constituent element of the Mission of Jesus (cf. Lk 4:18-19), and accordingly has greater theological significance. The Gospels repeatedly narrate that Jesus dares to heal the sick, even the day happens to be a Sabbath (cf. Mt 8:8,13; 14:36; 15:28; Mk 5:29,34; 6:56; Lk 6:18,19; 7:7; 8:36,47; 9:11,42; Jn 5:13; 7:23. John R. KOHLENBERGER III, op.cit., pp. 591–592).
[12] In the First Testament, Sabbath was held high and possessed greater significance in the religious life of the Jews, and so the First Testament predominantly projects Sabbath as sacred and vital (cf. Ex 16:23,25,26,29; 20:8,10,11; 31:16; 35:2; Lev 16:31; 23:3,11,15; 25:2,4; 26:34; Deut 5:12,14-15; Isa 1:13; 56:2,6; 58:13; Jer 17:21; 17:22,27; Ezek 46:1,4,12. John R. KOHLENBERGER III, Ibid., p. 1113).
But in the Second Testament there is a drastic change that the Gospels do not miss any chance to attack this institution, which does not allow Jesus to carry out his mission. Thus it is very much negative and a hindrance to his ministry (cf. Mt 12:1,2,5; 12:10-12; 24:20; Mk 2:24,27; 3:2,4; Lk 6:2,7,9; 13:14-16; 14:3,5; Jn 5:16,18; 9:14,16. Ibid., pp. 1113-1114).
[13] v. 21: Jn 5:2-9; v. 22: Lev 12:13; Gen 17:10; 21:4; v. 23: Mk 3:5; Lk 13:12; 14:4; v. 24: Jn 8:15; Isa 11:3; Zech 7:9.
[14] A monologue is a literary technique in which one alone is active and the other one is merely passive. But a dramatic monologue is constructed in such a way that a listener or a reader is initiated to enjoy the monologue, as if a dialogue.
[15] Cf. James McPOLIN, S.J., John, Delware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1979, p. 80; also Cf. Leander E. KECK, (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol.IX, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, p. 619.
[16] The Bible makes eight hundred and seventy references to Moses. John R. KOHLENBERGER 111, op.cit., pp. 885-888; Moses is the point of reference in the First Testament especially. The biblical expressions like, “The Lord spoke to Moses,” “The Lord commanded Moses,” speak much of him.
[17] Circumcision was considered a mark of membership, for a Jewish male in the covenant community, without which one is considered incomplete (Cf. Gen 17:10-12,14,23-24,26; 21:4; 34:15; 34:22; Ex 12:46; Lev 12:3; Acts 7:8; 15:1,5; 16:3; Gal 5:3; 6:12-13; Jdt 14:10; Phil 3:5; Lk 1:59; 2:21. John Kohlenberger 111, Ibid., p. 235).
[18] Cf. J. Carl LANEY, John, Chicago: Moody Press, 1992, p. 142; also Cf. Leander E. KECK, (ed.), op.cit., pp. 619-620.
[19] Ibid., p. 620.
[20] Cf. Ibid., p. 620; also Cf. James McPOLIN, S.J., op.cit., p. 80; Cf. Raymond E. BROWN, The Gospel and Epistles of John, Bombay: St.Paul Publication, 1988, p. 49; Cf. Leon MORRIS, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 408.
[21] Cf. Leander E. KECK, (ed.), op.cit., p. 620; also Cf. J. Carl LANCY, op.cit., p. 142.
[22] Cf. Herman RIDDERBOS, The Gospel of John, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997, p. 266.
[23] The Gospels constantly present them as disputers and opponents (cf. Mt 9:11; 9:34; Mk 2:18; 2:24; 3:2; 7:1); as people who are unnecessarily worried on the “letter” of the law (cf. Lk 11:39-42,44).
[24] Cf. James McPOLIN, S.J., op.cit., p. 89; also Cf. Herman RIDDERBOS, op.cit., p. 294.
[25] J. Carl LANCY, op.cit., p. 159.
[26] Leander E. KECK, (ed.), op.cit., p. 633.
[27] This expression “according to the flesh” is used in the Bible, both positively and negatively. There fore we can sense the real meaning, from the context only. Here in this context, it is negatively used. But Paul regularly uses this phrase positively with out the definite article before flesh (sarkc), (cf. Rom 1:3; 4:1; 1 Cor 1:26; 2 Cor 1:17; Gal 4:23). Ibid., p. 633.
No comments:
Post a Comment