In that context, being called under a fig tree marked the arrival of the “Branch” (Zech 3:8), who was understood to be the Davidic Messiah foretold in the Law (Gen 49:10) and the Prophets (Jer 23:6; 33:16; Zech 3:8; 6:12–13) (Koester, Symbolism, 40).
119. In the book of Jeremiah, the concept of king stresses the political qualities of the king. That is, the function of the king in the book of Jeremiah is that of political ruler. The coming king as a branch of David in Jer 33:15–16 will rule on “the earth” with justice and righteousness, and Israel will be saved and safe under him. The king in Jeremiah also functions as a decolonizer.
120. Von Rad, “βασιλέυς,” 567, 569.
121. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 69.
122. To consult recent research, see Cassidy, John’s Gospel; Koester, “Savior,” 665–80; Carter, John.
123. About “Savior” or “Savior of the World,” see chapter 3 of this book; about “My Lord and My God” see also chapter 3 of this book.
124. See Danker, Benefactor, 36–42, 202–36; Danker, “Benefactor,” 58–60; Kleinknecht, “βασιλεύς,” 565; Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron,” 465–92, esp. 471–76.
125. Danker, Benefactor, 29.
126. To be exact, the divine kingship is rooted in the kingship of the Pharaoh in ancient Egypt and the kings in the Ancient Near East. For example, the Pharaoh was regarded as both a god and as the son of a god, the incarnation of god; in the Sumerian period in Mesopotamia, the king was deified and regarded as representative of the god (see Day, “Canaanite Inheritance,” 81–82; see also Rajak et al., Jewish Perspectives).
127. See chapter 1 of this book; Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 372–73.
128. The Christian proclamation of the New Testament “Jesus is the Lord!” might be a crucial anti-language against Rome. On Christ’s challenge to the living Caesar, the polemical purpose of the term, Christ, see Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 174–240. Fantin argues that “given the relational nature of κύριος and the exclusive nature of supreme lord, using the title for Christ with explicit features such as unique modifiers, creedal formulas, and praise hymns would be viewed by the original readers as challenging the default supreme lord” (Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 240).
129. Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 136–37; Tacitus, Hist. 4.81, 5.13; Dio Cassius, Hist. 65.8.1, 66.1.4; Josephus, Jewish War 3.399–404, 6.310–315; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5. In Suetonius, Vesp. 7, the second man was lame.
130. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.12; cf, Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.20, 1–6; Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 150.
131. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 38; Barrett, New Testament Background, 20.
132. Josephus presents imperial connotations as examples of welcoming visiting rulers/emperors: Tiberius (J. W. 398); Vespasian (J. W. 741); Titus (J. W. 425; 752–3) (Koester, “Savior,” 665–80; Catchpole, “‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 319–34). In addition, in Israelite kingship ritual, we can find the ultimate precedents. Particularly, in 1 Kgs 1:32–40 (cf. Zech 9:9) a ceremonial entry with acclamation is described when the king-designate precedes a celebrating crowd. The king rides the royal animal and the crowd play on pipes and rejoice with great joy. This image seems to be “a more or less fixed pattern of triumphal entry” (Catchpole, “‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 319).
133. For good examples of this attempt, see Rajak et al., Jewish Perspectives; Moore, Empire and Apocalypse. Moore’s comment shows well the necessity of these backgrounds for the clarification of the Johannine Jesus’ kingship: “And whereas the principal topic of Jesus’ dialogues with ‘the Jews’ was his relationship to the God of Israel, the principal topic of his dialogue with the Roman prefect will be his relationship to that other, more proximate, god, the Roman Emperor” (Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 55).
134. For an introductory reading on postcolonialism from non-biblical critics, see Césairé, Discourse on Colonialism; Sartre, “Preface”, 7–26; Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory; Childs and Williams, Introduction; Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory; Loomba, Colonialism; Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Postcolonial Studies; Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Empire Writes Back; Young, Postcolonialism.
For important readings on postcolonialism from non-biblical critics, see Memmi, Colonizer and the Colonized; Fanon, Wretched of the Earth; Said, Orientalism; Bhabha, Location of Culture; Spivak, Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Said, Bhabha, and Spivak are regarded as the major figures in postcolonial criticism (for a critical survey of them, see Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 34–151).
On critical approaches of postcolonialism in biblical studies, see Donaldson and Sugirtharajah, Postcolonialism; Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical Hermeneutics; Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Bible; Sugirtharajah, Bible and the Third World, 244–75; Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” 64–84; Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics; Segovia, Interpreting Beyond Borders; Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies; Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading”; Dube and Staley, John and Postcolonialism; Moore, Empire and Apocalypse.
135. Segovia, “Interpreting,” 12.
136. See Segovia, “Interpreting,” 13–14.
137. Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 3.
138. See Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 12–17, esp. 14.
139. On the relationship between reality and ideology in detail, see Althusser, “Ideology,” 294–304; Eagleton, Literary Theory, 169–89; Younger, Ancient Conquest Account, 47–51. Younger argues that “ideology embraces both normative and allegedly factual elements; and these elements are not necessarily distorted” (Younger, Ancient Conquest Account, 48). Hoskins also argues, “Yet distortion is by no means inherent to every definition of the term. It can be defined in a neutral way that does not necessitate distortion” (Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment, 8). However, Culpepper argues, “the influence of the perspective, the culture, and the social location of the interpreter is being recognized. No text, no interpretation, is ever completely unbiased or neutral. Some interests are advocated, privileged, or defended, while others are denied or subjugated” (Culpepper, “Gospel of John,” 118). Therefore, “there is no basic or neutral literary
