2. John 15.4 and the ΦΙΛ- Lexeme

Robert Kysar is representative of BDAG's interpretive tradition when he states, ‘[the] declaration that the disciples are friends involves a transformation of the usual servant/master pattern … Friendship implies … relationship [and] intimacy, as opposed to the singular quality of the obedience demanded of a slave.’Footnote ⁴ Although in no way dependent, this echoes Ambrose of Milan (333–97 CE), who also defines friendship in terms of close companionship and intimacy, ‘God himself made us friends instead of servants … He gave us a pattern of friendship to follow. We are to fulfil the wish of a friend, to unfold to him our secrets that we hold in our own hearts, and are not to disregard his confidences. Let us show him our heart, and he will open his to us … A friend, then, if he is a true one, hides nothing’ (Duties of the Clergy 3.22.135.42).Footnote ⁵

One of the first modern commentators to recognise a tension between the emotional connotations and the element of obligation was Rudolf Bultmann, who noted that ‘the reciprocity of the relationship created by his [i.e. Jesus’] choosing them is of a different sort from that of a purely human friendship’.Footnote ⁶ Raymond Brown argued in a similar manner that φίλος ‘does not capture sufficiently this relationship of love’.Footnote ⁷ Bultmann, however, contended that v. 14, ὑμεῖς φίλοι μού ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἃ ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν, was ‘not a question of their still having to become his friends by fulfilling his commands; they are his friends already’.Footnote ⁸ Bultmann maintained this interpretation through appeal to v. 15, which, he states, ‘specifies the condition whereby what they already are can be fully realised in them’.Footnote ⁹

In contrast to this view, however, Urban C. von Wahlde notes that ‘the language of contingency here strikes the modern reader as peculiar’.Footnote ¹⁰ Similarly, Ernst Haenchen observes that ‘with respect to his friends Jesus is the one who gives commands, who assigns tasks’.Footnote ¹¹ C. K. Barrett highlights the tension in v. 14 by noting that ‘it is clear that the status of a friend is not one which precludes obedient service; this is rather demanded’.Footnote ¹² Barrett, however, draws back from affirming Adolf Deissmann's observation that φίλος is attested in reference to a highly placed official in the Ptolemaic court,Footnote ¹³ simply stating that ‘there is no need to suppose … that this usage strongly influenced John’.Footnote ¹⁴

D. A. Carson does not permit an interpretation of friendship ‘of the modern variety’,Footnote ¹⁵ yet he seems to do so out of a concern for ‘demeaning God’Footnote ¹⁶ rather than on any lexicographic or contextual grounds. Carson focuses on the ‘revealed plan’ as foundational to the definition of friendship, even though he confesses that such a definition was not a component of the friendship of Moses (Exod 33.11) or Abraham (Isa 41.8; 2 Chron 20.7): ‘In times past God's covenant people were not informed of God's saving plan in the full measure now accorded to Jesus’ disciples.’Footnote ¹⁷ In tacit agreement with Bultmann, Carson argues that ‘obedience is not what makes them friends; it is what characterizes his friends.’Footnote ¹⁸ As noted above, this view is untenable in light of the subsequent conditional phrase ‘if you do what I command you’ (John 15.14b).

J. Ramsey Michaels attempt to avert the conditional nature of v. 14 by suggesting that ‘if it were a true conditional we would have expected “If you do the things I command you, you will be my friends”, making friendship dependent on performance’.Footnote ¹⁹ Yet such an explanation is not sustainable in light of the many examples, even within John's Gospel, of conditional statements consisting of a verb in the present tense followed by the conjunction ἐάν: see for example John 3.2; 5.19; 7.51. So it remains that the friendship of which Jesus speaks in 15.14 entails, and presupposes, obedience as a condition, an aspect that would presumably be difficult to reconcile if φίλος, in this context, was referring solely to intimacy and/or emotional companionship.

3. The Greco-Roman Context

A revealing aspect of the semantic domain of φίλος (and related terminology) is evident in Roman friendships of ‘unequals’. Warren Carter defines this phenomenon as ‘involving people of different socioeconomic levels, where inequalities of wealth, power, and status were common in patron-client relations, with their attendant repertoire of duties and obligations’.Footnote ²⁰ Φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος (friend of the emperor), and the related Φίλος τοῦ Σέβαστοῦ (friend of Augustus), were official titles which Deissmann traced back to the ‘language of the court under the successors of Alexander’.Footnote ²¹

In a compelling monograph, David Braund explores the representation of imperial-period provincial rulers and the portrayal of their relationship with Rome to their subjects.Footnote ²² In providing a study of the institution of client kings as a whole, the study helpfully highlights the extent to which a ruler ‘might advertise his friendship with Rome in his very titulature’.Footnote ²³ As will become evident in our analysis below, not only did this titulature take the form of the φιλ- stem, but this terminology occurs most regularly on the provincial coinage of Rome.Footnote ²⁴ Braund concludes that ‘a king with a special debt to Rome or an emperor might be particularly expected to use these epithets’,Footnote ²⁵ and provides, among other examples, that of Mannus VIII of Osrhoene who, after he was restored to his throne by Rome, issues coins with φιλορώμαιος.

John Crook traces the evolution of the amici principis from the Hellenistic kingdoms through the Republic and into the imperial period.Footnote ²⁶ He suggests that the ultimate catalyst for the designation φίλοι seems to have been that of legitimation,Footnote ²⁷ initially as advisors and then later ‘an honorific institution’.Footnote ²⁸ Crook argues that ‘the concept of amicus was an integral part of the complicated political pattern of the Republic. Political amicitia was bound up with clientele, hospititum, patronatus, as one of the innumerable ways in which a man could win support by lending it – the nearest thing, in fact, that Rome ever had to a party system.’Footnote ²⁹ Relevant to our discussion is Crook's conclusion that ‘[i]t was not necessary, in order to be an amicus principis, to be a personal friend of the emperor in any emotional sense’,Footnote ³⁰ and that this friendship ‘is often shown not as a passive, but an active and arduous honour, which may take a man's whole time and attention’.Footnote ³¹

Further literary evidence for the pervasive phenomenon of the φίλος Καίσαρος comes from the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria's ‘historical’ treatise In Flaccum. In sections 36–40, there is a mocking ceremony, of sorts, against Agrippa, where the antagonists of the Jewish people parade a lunatic named Karabas as a king, paying him royal honours. Philo condemns Flaccus, the governor of Egypt, appointed by Tiberius, for not ‘interfering in this insult … [and] thus giving the Alexandrians immunity and free play in their actions against the Jews’. Philo suggests that it would have been more prudent if Flaccus ‘had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disguisedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king and a friend of Caesar (φίλον Καίσαρος), and one who had been honoured by the Roman senate with imperial authority; but he not only did not punish them, but he did not think fit even to check them, but gave complete license and impunity to all those who designed ill’.Footnote ³²

Similarly, in his discussion of the otherwise unknown Marcus Terentius (Annals 6.8), Tacitus records the deep entrenchment of the patron–client relationship in which Terentius was involved. Tacitus has these words on the lips of Terentius: ‘I confess that not only was I the friend of Sejanus [commander of the Praetorian Guard from 14 to 31 ce], but that I strove for his friendship, and that when I attained it, I rejoiced … The closer a man's intimacy with Sejanus, the stronger his claim to the emperor's friendship.’ Among other references to advisors and colleagues, the political relationship is described in terms of friendship (amicitia) with the emperor.

Furthermore, the geographer Strabo (Geogr. 8.5.5), writing of the political turmoil of the Laconians, refers favourably to their φιλικῶν λειτουργιών (‘friendly services’) to the Romans after the overthrow of the Macedonians. In his description, Strabo refers specifically to a certain man named Eurycles who ‘stirred up some disturbances among them, having apparently abused the friendship of Caesar (τῇ Καίσαρος φιλίᾳ) unduly to maintain his authority of his subjects’.Footnote ³³ In doing so, Strabo correlates ‘the exercise of his authority’ with his τῇ Καίσαρος φιλίᾳ (‘friendship of Caesar’).Footnote ³⁴

The cumulative weight of this evidence, together with that which follows, suggests that the semantic domain of φίλοι included clients who were the recipients of political favours or privilege from their patron. This political matrix indebted the client to a relationship of obligation, responsibility and commitment to their patron, in what could only be described as fidelity and allegiance.Footnote ³⁵

4. The Numismatic Evidence

Turning to the numismatic record, a sample of the relevant material that contributes to this debate is summarised in Table 1. Of particular interest is occurrence of ΦΙΛΙΑ in Roman Provincial Coinage volume i Footnote ³⁶ (RPC i) 4982, a coin of Agrippa I (Fig. 1). The obverse has three figures, and the inscription reads (reconstructed on the basis of several specimens), ΒΑΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ ΣΕΒ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΒΑΣ ΗΡΩΔΗΣ (‘King Agrippa, Augustus [i.e. Claudius] Caesar, King Herod’), LH (‘year 8’). Agrippa is to the left, Claudius in the centre, and Herod of Chalcis (i.e. Agrippa's brother) to the right. Agrippa and Herod have an arm extended and crown the central figure with a wreath. On the basis of Josephus A.J. 19.274–9,Footnote ³⁷ Ya'akov Meshorer concludes that this scene is a reference ‘to a ceremony held in the forum of Rome on the occasion of the signing of a treaty of friendship between Claudius and the Jewish kings’.Footnote ³⁸ And indeed the image of clasped hands (a symbol of agreement) and inscription on the reverse confirms this interpretation, ΟΡΚΙΑ ΒΑΣ(ΙΛΕΩΣ) ΜΕ(ΓΑΛΟΥ) ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΠΡ(ΟΣ) ΣΕΒ(ΑΣΤΟΝ) ΚΑΙΣΑΡΑ Κ(ΑΙ) ΣΥΝΚΛΗΤΟΝ Κ(ΑΙ) ΔΗΜΟ(Ν) ΡΩΜ(ΑΙΩΝ) ΦΙΛΙ(Α) Κ(ΑΙ) ΣΥΝΜΑΧΙ(Α) ΑΥΤΟΥ (‘sworn treaty of Great King Agrippa to Augustus Caesar [i.e. Claudius] and to the Senate and to the People of the Romans, his friendship and alliance’). This was perhaps a result of Claudius’ willingness to grant Agrippa rule of the Judea and Sameria, in addition to consular rank, in effect restoring the extent of territory ‘governed by his grandfather Herod the Great’.Footnote ³⁹ Josephus A.J. 19.339 demonstrates the extent of Agrippa's diplomatic participation in the patron–client matrix when, at a meeting with other Roman client kings in Tiberias (Antiochus, king of Commagene, Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa, Cotys king of the Lesser Armenia, Polemo king of Pontus, and Herod of Chalcis), ‘his converse with all of them when he entertained and showed them courtesies was such as to demonstrate an elevation of sentiment that justified the honour done him by a visit of royalty’. Other coins similarly celebrate the political ‘friendship’ of Agrippa I with the Caesar. RPC i.4983 translates as ‘Great King Agrippa, friend of Caesar’. The reverse depicts a temple with two columns.

Table 1. Sample of relevant material.

¹ Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. France 2. Cabinet des Medailles: Cilicie (Paris/Zurich: BNF, 1993).

² M. Alram, Iranisches Personennamenbuch: nomina propria Iranica in nummis (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986).

Figure 1. PC i.4982 (25 mm, 16.78 g), used with permission.

Among the coins from Stratonicea is RPC ii.1196, a coin bearing the inscription ΤΙΤΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ with the laureate head of Titus on the obverse, and ΣΤΡΑΤΟΝΙΚΕΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΕΒΑΣΤΩΝ with a goddess standing facing holding the patera (libation bowl) and torch. In view, perhaps, is that the city herself is indebted to Titus.

The coins of Philadelphia fall into three categories, the second of which have a Capricorn on the reverse and the title ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣΑΡ. Interestingly all coins from Attalikos, Moschion, Kleandros and Antiochus seem to be from the same obverse die. Under Caligula, no fewer than seven ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣΑΡ types were in circulation. RPC i.3031 has the bare head of Caligula looking right, with the standard inscription ΓΑΙΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ (Fig. 2). On the reverse there is a capricorn leaping to the left, and cornucopia with the inscription ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΕΩΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΩΝ.

Figure 2. RPC i.3031 (18 mm, 5.12 g), used with permission.

The coinage of Tripolis is renowned for illustrating the difficulty in sorting issues by Augustus or Tiberius. However, RPC i.3056 certainly depicts Tiberius, despite some curious features of the portrait on the obverse. The reverse has the inscription ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΦΙΟΛΟΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΤΟ Δ (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. RPC i.3056 (21 mm, 5.99 g), used with permission.

The title ‘friend of the emperor’ (or equivalent) on provincial coinage was certainly not empty titulature but served to ‘indicate to the inhabitants of the Empire the importance of those sent to govern them … [that] they are representative of the auctoritas [authority] of the emperor’.Footnote ⁴⁰ This relationship was one defined by obligation and responsibility rather than affection or an emotional connection. This aspect of obligation is plainly seen in a later episode within the Gospel of John where the Jewish crowds taunt Pilate, in what could be mistaken as political blackmail: οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐκραύγασαν λέγοντες· ἐὰν τοῦτον ἀπολύσῃς, οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος· πᾶς ὁ βασιλέα ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν ἀντιλέγει τῷ Καίσαρι (John 19.12).Footnote ⁴¹ This is precisely the force of the word in the context in John 15.14, that is, being Jesus’ friend (φίλοι μού) comes with responsibilities and obligations (n.b. verse 14b, ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἃ ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν). Just as being a ‘friend of Caesar’ entailed responsibility, duty and obedience, so too does ‘friendship with Jesus’, in which his followers are to ‘do as I say’ or else risk their standing as friends of Jesus.

Warren Carter, and others, have demonstrated that there is a porous interchange between Roman imperial ideology and the New Testament, at the level of literary structure, thematic elements and lexicographic detail. Carter's most recent extended work on the subject, John and Empire,Footnote ⁴² although controversial, has raised the vivid possibility of a profound connection between John and imperial ideology as a viable and attractive contributing feature to the narrative interpretive horizon. The foregrounding of the Roman political context avoids the dichotomy of either the too narrow identification of sectarian disputes or, conversely, the historical decontextualisation of the Gospel. The reading of John 15.14 presented here, confirmed and illuminated through the numismatic record, not only does justice to the semantic range of φίλος, but also coheres with the political and literary context of the Johannine pericope.