I think I'm finally getting to the point where I can start to
appreciate the pattern of word usages in the GNT.
> Thus in John 10:15 Jesus as Good Shepherd says of his life
> (YUCH): EXOUSIAN ECW QEINAI AUTHN, KAI EXOUSIAN ECW PALIN LABEIN AUTHN.
> Here it's a matter of what Jesus can do, and if his power has been given
> him by some other, that's completely outside of any consideration.
Re: Joh 10:18 ECOUSIAN EXW QEINAI AUTHN KAI ECOUSIAN EXW PALIN LABEIN AUTHN -
Still, I find even in this example, that Jesus clarifies the source of
his authority in the statement immeadiately following with ' TAUTHN THN
ENTOLHN ELABON PARA TOU PATROS MOU' or 'this commandment' (to give his life
and to receive it again) was given to him by his Father.
This is very similar to his clarification in your example below
where Jesus made it plain that Pilate had the authority because it was given
to him from above. Pilate's authority was given to him by God, albeit
indirectly, as his authority as the Governor of Judea was conferred
to him by Rome, more than likely due to his political savvy.
> Pilate says in an almost identical construction in 19:10 EXOUSIAN ECW
> APOLUSAI SE KAI EXOUSIAN ECW STAURWSAI SE; he means, perhaps, to make as
> absolute a statement as did Jesus in 10:15, but in the very next verse
> Jesus tells him that he holds that EXOUSIA only by virtue of its having
> been delegated to him. One has to be very careful to discern the context in
> order to know whether "power" or "authority" or something in between these
> is most appropriate for EXOUSIA in a particular instance.
> Suffice it to say that this is only a cursory sketch. This is a word that
> will repay the effort taken to examine all the NT instances in their own
> contexts. It is not only profitable but even fun!
> Carl W. Conrad
I will plan to do just that as time permits ! I will be looking for
examples where EXOUSIA means power which is not confered from a
higher authority or power.
Sincerely,
Larry Kruper