We can link the Johannine Jesus with the king in Zechariah 9:9–10. Jesus enters into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (John 12:12–19). The multitude welcomes him shouting “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed [even] the King of Israel.” The multitude regards and welcomes Jesus as the King of Israel. Those prophets who hoped for the restoration of the nation and saw the Branch as a decolonizing king have meaning in terms of the national emancipation. The concept of the king in the post-exilic period of Jewish society is linked to that of the political and religious leader as the decolonizer.119
Thirdly, in Micah 5:1–15 a ruler (מָשַׁל) of Israel (LXX: ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ἰσραηλ) would come not only from Bethlehem Ephrathah but from the beginning (LXX: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς) and even the days of eternity as well. He was a shepherd who will feed his flock, and bring peace to Israel. The ruler of Israel in Micah 5:1 is also related to the Johannine Jesus.120 In the Gospel of John, the origin of Jesus is “the beginning,” like the ruler of Israel in Micah 5:1, although his origin from Bethlehem is not revealed (cf. 7:41–42). Rather, his Galilean origin is employed in the controversy over his messiahship. His pre-existence in the Gospel might be linked to this verse. The ruler of Israel as a shepherd who will feed his flock foreshadows the Johannine Jesus in the good shepherd discourse in John 10:1–11, and the multitude’s attempt to force him to be their king after he fed them in John 6:1–15. Moreover, the prophecy that the ruler of Israel would bring peace to Israel is also suggestive of the message of Jesus about peace (14:17; 16:33) before his crucifixion and after his resurrection (20:19–23). Consequently, just as Lambert comments that the biblical concept of messianism has two main features (the Messiah as a descendent of King David and as an ideal king),121 it is also fair to say that some of the christological titles of the Johannine Jesus have these two features.
The Kingship Motif and the Graeco-Roman Background
The kingship of the Johannine Jesus is more deeply revealed when Johannine christological terms and titles are investigated in comparison with terms and titles in the Graeco-Roman world. Research into the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Graeco-Roman world122 reveals terms and titles which were popularly known in Graeco-Roman culture, and might be employed to reveal the identity of Jesus as king in the Fourth Gospel. For example, some specific terms, i.e., the Savior of the World, my Lord and my God, which are employed to confess Jesus as their king by the believers or the crowds might be used to reveal the kingship of Jesus.123 In this section, I will cite some references, which could elucidate the Graeco-Roman background of the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.
Firstly, it is interesting that the term, ἐυεργέτης (benefactor) was a favourite and striking title for the Hellenistic kings and Roman Emperors, whose funcion was linked with that of Jesus in the Johannine narratives (supplying new wine, feeding thousands, 10:1–18, and the passion narrative). The nature and task of the king is revealed clearly in the fact that he is a benefactor to the whole world.124 Danker demonstrates the Graeco-Roman documents, which attest “the consistency of thematic interest and formulaic patterns in language relating to the benefactor figure.”125 Particularly, inscriptions and documents to give honor to kings in terms of benefactor are likely to relate to the kingship of the Johannine Jesus. We can propose that the Gospel of John characterizes Jesus as the “benefactor” par excellence in terms of kingship.
Secondly, the Hellenistic idea of divine kingship originated with Alexander the Great,126 and was revived in the cult of the Roman emperor. In the time of Augustus (63 BCE–14 CE), the concept of the incarnation of divinity in the emperor took over this idea.127 The Johannine proclamation of Jesus as the incarnate form of God could be the cause of a crucial ideological confrontation with the Roman authorities and be the cause of the persecution of Christians in the period of the Early Church (Prologue; 10:30; 14:8–16:33).128
Thirdly, the stories of Vespasian’s miracles,129 the healing of a blind man and of a man with a withered hand, are reminiscent of the miraculous healings of the Johannine Jesus. In particular, the healing of a blind man by Vespasian is directly paralleled with the healing of the man born blind by Jesus in John 9:1–12. The healing of the blind man with his saliva is similar to that of the man born blind in John 9:6.
In addition, according to Eusebius, both Vespasian and Domitian ordered the hunting down of all who claimed to be a descendent of David.130 It is also possible that Domitian insisted on the title dominus et deus (“lord and god”), which is reminiscent of the confession of Thomas about Jesus, “my Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).131 If it is accepted that the Gospel of John was written during the period of persecution, the readers could read Johannine stories of miracles as a kind of resistance document against Imperialism. In addition, the Samaritans’ coming to welcome Jesus into their village (John 4:40), and the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and the rapturous welcome of the crowd (John 12:12–14) are reminiscent of the triumphal returns of the generals or the kings into the towns of the Graeco-Roman world.132 In short, as I have briefly pointed out concerning the relationship between the Graeco-Roman background and the Gospel of John, the kingship of the Johannine Jesus can be clarified more when giving due consideration to this Gospel in the wider context of the Graeco-Roman world.
The Necessity of the Combination of the Two
Nobody denies that the two main pillars of the background of the Gospel of John are the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman worlds. Consequently, reading the Fourth Gospel with knowledge of these two backgrounds throws a new light on interpretation.133 In order to combine the knowledge from research into these backgrounds, I attempt to discover the common meanings of the terms employed to designate the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.
A reading of this Gospel in the context of Jewish culture could provide an understanding of the text as a microscopic view of Jewish society. The historical subtle and complex relationships of various groups in Jewish society may be seen, namely the conflict between the Jews and the Christians, particularly that of the Jews and the Johannine community, the estrangement between them, and the necessity of a description of the identity of Jesus and their faith, and so on. However, this kind of reading without consideration of the Roman Empire restricts the view of the macroscopic perspectives to be found in the Gospel. In other words, when we consider the macro world relations into the reading of the Fourht Gospel, we could conclude that there were more subtle and complex relationships existing in the Johannine world. In the colonial situation, conflicts between the center and the margins, conflicts among marginal groups and the conflicts caused by the collaborators in the marginal society can be discovered in the Gospel. When we admit that the Johannine world was under colonial power, the identity of the Johannine Jesus can be newly identified in postcolonialism. Therefore, our reading does not imply a totally different manner of reading of the Gospel in relation to the Jewish background or in relation to the Graeco-Roman world. Because the Johannine group/readers and Jewish society were already in the Graeco-Roman world and because the Gospel was a product of the colonial world, we should read this Gospel with the combination of the main two backgrounds of a hybridized society.
