Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his
disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there
was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.
2Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had
often met there with his disciples. 3So Judas came to the grove,
guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief
priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and
weapons.
4Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and
asked them, "Who is it you want?"
5"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.
6"I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing
there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew
back and fell to the ground.
7Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?"
And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
8"I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you
are looking for me, then let these men go." 9This happened
so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have
not lost one of those you gave me."[1]
10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high
priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name
was Malchus.)
11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not
drink the cup the Father has given me?"
John 18:1-11
Explanation: Jesus Is Arrested (18:1-11)
Jesus and his disciples go out of the city to the east, crossing
the Kidron, which John refers to as a wadi (Valley, NIV; cheimarros,
literally, "winter-flowing," since winter is the rainy
season). This same word is used of the Kidron in the account of
David's flight from Absalom (2 Sam 15:23 LXX), and John may well
be alluding to that story (Westcott 1908:2:264; Brown 1994:1:125,
291). David was betrayed by his counselor Ahithophel, who later
hangs himself (2 Sam 17:23), the only person in Scripture apart
from Judas who does so. Thus David's sorrow and humiliation may
be echoed in Jesus', though in Jesus' case he is actually in control,
and this humiliation is part of his great victory (Hendriksen 1953:376,
383).
They go to a familiar place, an olive grove where Jesus often met
with his disciples (vv. 1-2). In this way he is accepting the coming
betrayal, since Judas . . . knew the place (v. 2). In the Synoptics
it is called Gethsemane, meaning "oil press," which suggests
an olive grove. While it is an olive grove, John does not actually
call it an olive grove (despite the NIV); he calls it a garden (kepos).
John notes that Jesus' death and resurrection also took place in
a garden (19:41; 20:15). "The Passion and resurrection which
effected the salvation of the world are contrasted with the Fall
in the garden of Eden" (Hoskyns 1940b:604). Modern commentators
express doubt that John would have the Garden of Eden in mind. However,
the fact that he mentions the garden setting several times in the
Passion and resurrection accounts suggests he does want to draw
attention to this connection.
The group that came to arrest Jesus was composed of Roman soldiers,
Jewish servants and an apostate apostle (v. 3). John will make it
clear that both Jew and Gentile are guilty of the death of the Son
of God. Jesus is about to die for the life of the world, and the
whole world needs it. The Jewish forces that were sent were the
same as those sent to arrest Jesus once before (7:32, 45-46). They
were not a police force as such but "court servants at the
disposal of the Sanhedrin when necessary for police purposes"
(Brown 1994:1:249). The detachment of soldiers (speira) refers to
a cohort, a group of 600 soldiers under a military tribune (chiliarchos,
vv. 3, 12; NIV, commander). The entire cohort would not have been
deployed on this mission, but there would have been a significant
force. The festivals in Jerusalem were always politically volatile,
and after the welcome Jesus had received there was good reason to
expect trouble--or so it would have seemed to the Roman and Jewish
authorities who understood Jesus so poorly. They bring torches and
lanterns to search for the Light of the World; they bring weapons
against the Prince of Peace (Hendriksen 1953:378).
They may well have expected to have to search in dark corners and
meet with armed resistance once they had cornered the accused. But
Jesus knows what is coming upon him (v. 4; 13:1), that he is going
to engage the prince of this world one-on-one (cf. 14:30). So he
goes out to meet them (v. 4) and asks, Who is it you want? This
is not a question from ignorance, seeking an answer. Rather, it
is like other questions asked by God that are intended to reveal
a situation and bring people to action.
John does not mention Judas's kiss, which would have taken place
just before or after Jesus' question. Judas here takes his place
with those who have come out against Jesus (v. 5). The awkward statement
that tells us where Judas is, which the NIV puts in parentheses,
is an eyewitness detail branded into John's memory. We sense his
shock at seeing Judas with them. John's continual reference to Judas
as the betrayer all stems from this event. John makes it clear that
Judas is not the revealer but rather that Jesus will identify himself.
Enemies had not been able to lay their hands on Jesus before (7:30,
44-45; 8:59; 10:39; 12:36), and it is not Judas's presence that
now brings success. Rather, it is now the Father's will.
They say they are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus responds,
I am he (v. 5, ego eimi). Here the most humble and human of Jesus'
names is juxtaposed with the most exalted and divine. The two together
are the cross hairs that target Jesus' identity: he is the human
being from an insignificant, small town in Galilee who is also God.
Jesus' self-identification has been at the heart of this Gospel,
and this public act of identification produces dramatic effects.
When he uses the divine I AM they drew back and fell to the ground
(v. 6). People falling to the ground in the presence of God are
mentioned elsewhere (for example, Ezek 1:28; Dan 10:9; Rev 1:17),
but here the ones falling are his enemies rather than his worshipers.
This reaction is closer to that of Pharaoh, who fell down as though
dead when Moses said the name of God, as told by Artapanus, a pre-Christian
Jewish apologist (Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel 9.27; Talbert
1992:233). This reaction is a reflection not of their hearts, but
of Jesus' majesty. Here is a little preview of the moment in the
future when every knee will bow to Jesus (Phil 2:10) and all things
be brought into subjection to him (1 Cor 15:27; Phil 3:21), even
those who do not own allegiance to him and thus for whom this submission
is hell.
Jesus puts the question to them again (v. 7). The impression given
by this passage is that they have been completely neutralized and
that he must allow the events to proceed and give them permission
to take him (cf. Talbert 1992:234). Amazingly, they answer the same
as before: Jesus of Nazareth. They have just experienced the numinous,
and it has not spoken to them at all. They are just doing their
job, like those sent to investigate John the Baptist at the beginning
of the Gospel (1:19-27). This repetition of the question "Whom
do you seek?" emphasizes its importance, for it focuses on
Jesus. It is also a question that searches the soul. The very first
thing Jesus said in this Gospel was, literally, "What are you
seeking?" (1:38), his question for the two disciples of John
the Baptist, and their reply indicated they wanted to be with him.
Now we see people seeking Jesus, but they do so not for their soul's
sake. They have their own agenda, as many people do today. There
are ways of seeking Jesus that do not bring life.
Jesus repeats the I AM but now allows the proceedings to continue
by telling them to let his followers go (aphete, an imperative).
He issues orders to those arresting him! Their power has just been
shown to be insignificant compared to the power of his word, and
now the fulfillment of his word is the operative force, not their
designs (v. 9). The formula used to speak of the fulfillment of
Scriptures from the Old Testament is now used of Jesus' own words.
The Word himself, who created all that exists, has spoken of his
protection for those the Father has given him (6:39; cf. 10:28;
17:12), and now he fulfills that word. The protection Jesus spoke
of earlier referred to eternal salvation, and now we see that such
protection includes occasions of temptation that threaten to overwhelm
the disciples' faith (cf. Bultmann 1971:640). Here is Jesus as the
Good Shepherd caring for his flock, a glimpse of the grace that
is at work throughout the Passion as it has been throughout the
ministry.
The temptation the disciples face here is an extreme
case of what all temptation represents. And the Lord's protection
is as necessary in the day to day assaults as it is in this great
test. It is not without reason that our Lord commanded us to pray
daily not to be led into temptation (Mt 6:13 par. Lk 11:4; cf. Mt
26:41 par. Mk 14:38 par. Lk 22:46).
Jesus has demonstrated that he has complete power over these adversaries,
and he has expressed his will that the disciples be let go, but
Peter still thinks he has to resist with force (v. 10). The Synoptics
tell us there were only two swords, and we might have guessed that
Peter would have one of them. He may have been emboldened by their
having fallen to the ground. But he does not go after one of the
soldiers or one of the Jewish force, but rather the slave (doulos)
of the high priest. He takes off the man's right ear! John does
not mention that Jesus healed the slave's ear (Lk 22:51), though
this would account for Peter's not being arrested or killed on the
spot. John does, however, add that the man's name was Malchus. John
was known to the household of the high priest (v. 16) and knew this
man and his family (v. 26). We do not know how well John knew these
men, but such connections add poignancy to the scene.
The fact that Peter only got the man's right ear suggests several
possibilities: that Peter was left-handed, or that he attacked the
man from behind, that the man moved or that Peter simply had bad
aim. In any case, Peter's boldness is as great and as obvious as
his misunderstanding. He is not at all in sync with God's will,
and this isn't the first time he is out of step (cf. 13:6-9; Mt
16:22-23 par. Mk 8:32-33). Jesus says, Shall I not drink the cup
the Father has given me? (v. 11). Jesus is willing to receive all
that the Father gives him, both the disciples (v. 9) and the suffering.
The image of the cup is used in the Old Testament to denote suffering
(Ps 75:8) and, in particular, the wrath of God (Is 51:17, 22; Jer
25:15-29; 49:12; Lam 4:21; Ezek 23:31-34; Hab 2:16; cf. Rev 14:10;
16:19). John has not included the prayer of agony in the garden
in which Jesus asked that, if possible, the cup be removed from
him (Mt 26:39 par. Mk 14:36 par. Lk 22:42). But John includes this
later reference to the cup, which reveals the conclusion of the
earlier agony. "The struggle in Gethsemane is over. Jesus no
longer prays that the cup . . . may pass from him" (Hendriksen
1953:382). The Son's humility and obedience continue to manifest
the glory of God and his pattern of life with God.
Jesus Taken to Annas
12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish
officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first
to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest
that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that
it would be good if one man died for the people.
John 18:12-14
Explanation: Jesus Is Taken to Annas, the High Priest
(18:12-14)
John describes Jesus' arrest and binding as the activity of the
whole party that has come out against him, both Gentile and Jew
(v. 12). John will make it clear that the Jewish authorities have
special responsibility for Jesus' death (19:11), but the Gentiles
have a share as well. Here we have the shocking sight of the one
who brings freedom to mankind (8:31-36) being bound by representatives
of the whole human race.
They took Jesus first to Annas, probably the most respected and
powerful of the Jewish authorities at that time. He had held the
office of high priest earlier (A.D. 6-15), and his influence continued
through his son-in-law Caiaphas, the current high priest (v. 13)
and through his five sons, who had also been high priest for various
lengths of time (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.1-2; 20.9.1;
cf. Chilton 1992:257). Annas was the head of a dynasty, which probably
accounts for John's reference to him as high priest (vv. 15-16,
19, 22, cf. Acts 4:6), even though John is clear that Caiaphas is
the one holding that office at the time (vv. 13, 24).
There seem to be both historical and theological reasons why John
includes this scene of Jesus' questioning before Annas. John mentions
"another disciple" who is "known to the high priest"
(v. 15) and his household (vv. 16, 26). As with the references to
the Beloved Disciple, this is most likely a reference to himself.
Like the Beloved Disciple, this other disciple is unnamed, closely
associated with Peter and characterized as having special knowledge.
It is unclear whether John is saying that he knew the high priest
personally or that he knew just some in his household. He is not
described as speaking to Annas himself, but he does have personal
knowledge of the servants. Perhaps he had contacts through marketing
fish, though in that society this would not itself imply limited
social contact (cf. Brown 1970:823; Carson 1991:582).
Whatever the nature of his familiarity with Annas, John had other
contact with him later when he himself was on trial (Acts 4:6).
John had to bear witness before this man, and his bearing witness
is the main theme that comes through in this story. He can bear
witness to the Passion because he was there (cf. Ridderbos 1997:581).
John does not narrate the scattering of the disciples (cf. 16:32),
but presumably it took place here at the arrest. John was separated
from Jesus at that point, but we now discover it was only for a
brief time. He and Peter recover and return to see what transpires.
In this way, John has not missed much of the action and thus is
able to bear witness to the whole story. Unlike Peter, he is inside
the high priest's palace and witnesses the whole of the Passion.
This theme of witness is also the focal point of Jesus' exchange
with Annas (vv. 20-23). Thus this particular story is important
for John, both personally and for the theme it brings out.
John concludes his introduction to Jesus' interrogation by Annas
by identifying Annas as the father-in-law of Caiaphas (v. 13). John
refers back to an earlier meeting of the Sanhedrin (11:47-53) and
in particular to Caiaphas' prophetic statement that it would be
good if one man died for the people (v. 14). This allusion reminds
the reader of the reason for Jesus' death. John uses Caiaphas' own
statement as a caption under this picture of the Passion, providing
the interpretation of the cross as surely as does the title that
Pilate will require to be nailed above the head of Jesus (19:19-22).
This death is for the sake of the very people who are causing it.
Peter's First Denial
15Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because
this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into
the high priest's courtyard, 16but Peter had to wait outside at
the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest,
came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.
17"You are not one of his disciples, are you?" the girl
at the door asked Peter.
He replied, "I am not."
18It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire
they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming
himself.
John 18:15-18
Explanation: Peter Denies He Is a Follower of Jesus (18:15-18)
Peter and John follow as Jesus is brought before Annas. John's familiarity
with the high priest, or at least with his household, enables him
to enter with Jesus and to get Peter admitted also (vv. 15-16).
The one who reclined next to Jesus a few hours earlier at the meal
(13:23) continues to be close to him. But his going back out to
bring Peter in shows that he, like his master, is also concerned
for others, in particular this fellow believer. The love evident
in this gesture reveals John's character as a true disciple and
as one to whose care Jesus can entrust other disciples, indeed even
his mother (19:27).
Presumably John returns to the room where Jesus is being questioned,
which leaves Peter in the courtyard with the servants and others.
It is not said whether Peter was unable to enter the room with John
or whether he chose to remain outside. The latter seems unlikely,
given Peter's character, but the arrest has shaken him. He is now
sifted, beginning with a question from the woman who attended the
door (v. 17). She asks, literally, "You also are not one of
the disciples of this man, are you?" Her expression "this
man" (tou anthropou toutou, left out of the NIV) seems to suggest
some disdain, as does the use of me ("not"), here with
the sense, "surely not you too." But, of course, there
would be little other reason for a stranger to be there in the courtyard
in the middle of a cold night. Furthermore, the fact that she says
"you also" (kai sy, also missing from the NIV) most likely
indicates that she knows John is a disciple of Jesus.
In this account, therefore, it seems to be Peter's association with
John, the unnamed disciple, that draws attention to his relation
to Jesus. John himself shows no concern about her feelings regarding
his discipleship, for he not only was admitted by her, but also
came back to get Peter in. While Peter's attack with the sword (18:10)
may have made him fearful of being recognized, he is not in a position
of legal difficulty, since there is no warrant for his arrest. Nor
is there indication that he was physically threatened by this woman
or the others. He has no such excuses for his denial. He who a few
hours earlier had said he would die for Jesus (13:37) now denies
any association with him purely out of fear of what people would
think. John, like Luke, is gentle in his account of Peter's denials,
leaving out the curses and oaths he used (Mt 26:74 par. Mk 14:71);
and John will give prominence to Peter's restoration (21:15-19).
But this does not mean that John takes the denial less seriously
than Matthew or Mark do. The very terms of the restoration ("Do
you love me?") show the enormity of the denials and also stand
in contrast to the love that John shows in this scene as he sticks
close to Jesus even in his disgrace.
After Peter's first denial, John's narrative switches back to what
is going on inside between Annas and Jesus. Peter is outside warming
himself at a charcoal fire (anthrakia, v. 18). A charcoal fire gives
off warmth but little light. This dim fire, along with the darkness
in the garden, helps account for Peter's not being recognized immediately
by the relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off (v. 26).
The darkness of the courtyard may also have a symbolic significance,
for it means Peter is outside in the half-light while John is inside
with the Light of the World. Peter is not denigrated in this Gospel,
but he does "serve as a foil for the behavior of another disciple
who is never deflected from his following of Jesus" (Brown
1994:1:623). In the half-light, separated from Jesus, Peter encounters
temptation for which he does not have the resources to resist. The
only hope for any of us in the time of temptation is to remain close
to Jesus.
The High Priest Questions Jesus
19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples
and his teaching.
20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied.
"I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all
the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question
me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in
the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?"
he demanded.
23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify
as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike
me?" 24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high
priest.
John 18:19-24
Explanation: Annas Questions Jesus (18:19-24)
Back inside, Annas is beginning his interrogation. This is not an
actual trial; John has not confused this encounter with the meeting
with the Sanhedrin. Here there are no witnesses, no jury and no
sentence. This is more like "a police interrogation of a newly
arrested criminal before any formal trial procedures are begun"
(Brown 1970:834; cf. 1994:1:412, 423-25; Robinson 1985:248-50).
Annas asks Jesus about his disciples (v. 19), reflecting the Sanhedrin's
earlier concern over Jesus' popularity (11:48), a popularity that
can have only increased after Jesus entered Jerusalem attended by
a great crowd. Indeed, some of the Pharisees said it looked like
the whole world had gone after him (12:19).
Annas also asks Jesus about his teaching (v. 19). He seems to want
Jesus to incriminate himself as a false prophet (Beasley-Murray
1987:324-25) or at least as a false teacher (Robinson 1985:259;
Brown 1994:1:414). But Jesus will not be trapped in this way. Indeed,
in later law it was illegal to have "an accused person convict
himself" (Brown 1970:826), and this rule may have applied at
this time also. Furthermore, Jesus has already completed his public
teaching regarding himself (see comment on 12:34-35). Only one last
statement of Jesus' teaching remains, but that is reserved for the
Gentile Pilate (18:33-37; 19:11). So Jesus tells Annas to check
with those who have heard him, since he has taught quite openly
(v. 20-21). In this way he heightens Annas' anxiety. The very fact
that Jesus has spoken openly and that there are plenty of people
who are familiar with his teaching is what concerns Annas. That
Jesus does nothing to assure Annas that his teaching is kosher would
also increase the high priest's fears. Indeed, Jesus shows chutzpah
at this point, which is so unlike the way others come cringing before
the Sanhedrin (cf. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 14.172), showing
Annas that Jesus is indeed a danger.
Jesus' appeal to the witness of those who had heard him is essentially
a demand for a fair trial (Brown 1970:826), since in Jewish law
the witnesses are questioned, not the accused (see comment on 5:31;
cf. Beasley-Murray 1987:324). Jesus has completed his witness by
word. There remains only the climax of all his ministry as he witnesses
to the Father through his death, resurrection and ascension. It
is now up to those who have heard him to bear witness to him. Such
remains the case today. His abiding presence remains with believers,
but those who abide in him are to bear witness to him before the
world. "The author insists that the teaching of Jesus must
be known through attention to His disciples, who by the guidance
of the Spirit preserve and interpret His words (cf. 2:22; 14:25;
16:4ff.). A true judgement of the world upon the Christ depends
upon the fidelity of His disciples" (Hoskyns 1940b:610).
One of the officials (a "servant," hyperetes) hits Jesus
and says, Is this the way you answer the high priest? (v. 22). Since
Jesus is still bound there is no way for him to defend himself.
The more severe abuse that Jesus suffers later before the Sanhedrin
(Mt 26:67-68 par. Mk 14:65 par. Lk 22:63-65) is not recounted by
John. This blow was more an insult than it was physically damaging
(Brown 1970: 826). It highlights Jesus' dignity and boldness as
well as his respect for the truth, rather than for mere office holders.
His reply to the servant stresses this issue of truth: If I said
something wrong . . . testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke
the truth, why did you strike me? This question applies to all the
opposition he has experienced throughout his ministry (cf. 8:46).In
essence, Jesus' question is a final act of grace extended toward
a representative of his opponents. But Annas does not accept the
offer to consider the truth of Jesus. Instead he sends Jesus, still
bound, to Caiaphas (v. 24). From the Synoptics it seems there was
a preliminary phase in which Jesus was taken before Caiaphas and
a quorum of the Sanhedrin at night (Mt 26:57-75 par. Mk 14:53-72
par. Lk 22:54-65) and then a more formal trial at dawn before the
full Sanhedrin (Mt 27:1 par. Mk 15:1 par. Lk 22:66-71). John signals
where all of this fits in his account (vv. 24, 28), but he does
not recount it, presumably having assumed it was familiar to his
readers. In John's Gospel, therefore, this scene before Annas is
the final encounter between Jesus and his Jewish opponents. A high
priest, as Annas is known in this Gospel, has rejected the true
high priest. From this point on, all contact between Jesus and his
opponents is mediated through Pilate.
Peter's Second and Third Denials
25As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, "You
are not one of his disciples, are you?"
He denied it, saying, "I am not."
26One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose
ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with
him in the olive grove?" 27Again Peter denied it, and at that
moment a rooster began to crow.
John 18:25-27
Explanation: Peter Denies Jesus Two More Times (18:25-27)
Jesus has stood up to this powerful leader, but when John's narrative
switches back to Peter at the fire we find him continuing to deny
that he is a disciple of Jesus. "They said to him, `You also
are not one of his disciples are you?'" (v. 25). "They
said" (eipon) refers either to an unspecified group or, as
in the NIV, to an unspecified individual (cf. Wallace 1996:402-3).
When this unspecified group or individual confronts him he denies
any connection with Jesus. Then there comes a very specific accusation
from a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off: Didn't I
see you with him in the olive grove? (v. 26). Here an eyewitness
testifies to what he has seen--the very thing Peter is supposed
to be doing with regard to Jesus. Instead of bearing witness to
Jesus, he will not even admit to being Jesus' disciple. Just then
the rooster crows, bringing to fulfillment Jesus' prediction that
"before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!"
(13:38). John does not write of Peter's grief at this point (cf.
Mt 26:75 par. Mk 14:72 par. Lk 22:62), waiting instead to recount
the grief Peter experiences at his restoration later (21:17).
The main points of the story of Peter's denial are the same in all
four Gospels, but the Gospels differ in detail (cf. Brown 1970:836-42).
One main difference is the place of Peter's denials (Beasley-Murray
1987:235-36): the Synoptics have Peter in Caiaphas' courtyard (Mt
26:57-58 par. Mk 14:53-54 par. Lk 22:54) whereas in John it is Annas'
courtyard. Unless one or more of the accounts is inaccurate, it
would seem Annas and Caiaphas either lived in the same place or
at least did official business in the same place (Alford 1980:888).
The other main difference is the timing of Peter's denials. In the
Synoptics it is during the session with the Sanhedrin, yet in John
it is earlier, in association with Jesus' meeting with Annas. Efforts
to harmonize such differences have produced suggestions that Peter
denied Jesus more than three times or that the two denials in our
present passage are actually a complex account of the third denial,
John having left out the second denial.
Such solutions do not do justice to John's account,
in particular to the prediction that speaks of three denials (13:38).
Instead, these differences reflect the different emphases of the
evangelists and their own form of precision, which differs from
that of most North Americans, among others. In particular, their
reordering of material in order to bring out nuances of significance--for
example, the difference in the sequence of Jesus' temptations (cf.
Mt 4:1-11 with Lk 4:1-13)--is jarring to some folk. It would seem,
however, that the case at hand has John juxtaposing Peter's denials
and Jesus' own response to Annas. "By making Peter's denials
simultaneous with Jesus' defense before Annas, John has constructed
a dramatic contrast wherein Jesus stands up to his questioners and
denies nothing, while Peter cowers before his questioners and denies
everything" (Brown 1970:842). The foil Peter provides helps
highlight Jesus' regal strength and authority, the hallmark of
John's portrait of Jesus in
his passion.
28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman
governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness
the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat
the Passover. 29So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What
charges are you bringing against this man?"
30"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we
would not have handed him over to you."
31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own
law."
32"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.
This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the
kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.
John 18:28-32
Explanation: Jesus Is Handed Over to Pilate by the Jewish
Opponents (18:28-32)
Jesus is brought to Pilate at the praetorium (NIV, the palace of
the Roman governor, v. 28), which was located either at the Antonia
Fortress at the northwest corner of the temple or, perhaps more
likely, at Herod's old palace to the west of the temple, near the
Jaffa gate (Pixner 1992; Brown 1994:1:705-10). The opponents bring
him early in the morning, which would not have inconvenienced Pilate
because it was common for Roman officials to begin work very early
and complete their business by ten or eleven in the morning (Sherwin-White
1963:45).
The Jewish opponents refuse to enter the praetorium to avoid ceremonial
uncleanness (v. 28). There is no law in the Old Testament against
entering a Gentile's home, but in later teaching it is laid down
that "the dwelling-places of gentiles are unclean" (m.
Oholot 18:7; cf. Brown 1994:1:745; Beasley-Murray 1987:327). The
opponents sought to avoid defilement because they wanted to be able
to eat the Passover (v. 28). Since Jesus has already eaten with
his disciples a meal that the Synoptics say was the Passover (Mt
26:17 par. Mk 14:12 par. Lk 22:8; 22:15), this verse raises questions.
Many interpreters argue either that John has shifted the chronology
in order to have Jesus dying at the very time the Passover lambs
are being sacrificed--making the point dramatically that he is the
Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (for example, Lindars
1972:444-46; Barrett 1978:48-51)--or that his chronology is historically
accurate (especially Brown 1994:2:1351-73; cf. Robinson 1985:147-51)
and therefore the meal he shared with his disciples was not Passover.
Others have attempted to maintain that the meal in all four Gospels
is the Passover. One solution suggests that John is referring here
not to the Passover meal itself, but to the Feast of Unleavened
Bread, a week-long celebration that took place in conjunction with
it. This longer celebration can be referred to as Passover, as it
is, for example, in Luke: "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
called the Passover, was approaching" (22:1; cf. Josephus Antiquities
of the Jews 14.21). These Jewish opponents, then, wish to be able
to take part in the seven-day feast about to begin (cf. Carson 1991:589;
Ridderbos 1997:457). Alternatively, some suggest that "John
has in mind the lunchtime meal known as the chagigah, celebrated
during midday after the first evening of Passover" (Blomberg
1987:177). But although the term Passover may be applied to the
whole sequence, including the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the expression
"eat the Passover" is not a natural way to refer to keeping
the whole feast nor to eating the chagigah, but rather a way to
refer to the Passover meal specifically.
For example, the references in the Synoptics just cited
use exactly the expression here (esthio to pascha) to speak of sharing
in the Passover meal. Furthermore, there is no evidence the term
Passover was used to refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread apart
from the Passover itself (Morris 1971:778-79, but cf. Blomberg 1987:177
n. 2).
Another solution to the discrepancy is that different calendars
were followed. The main calendar used was a lunisolar calendar,
but some groups, apparently including the community at Qumran, used
a solar calendar of 364 days (cf. Schürer 1973-1987:1:587-601;
Vanderkam 1992). The main drawback to this solution is the lack
of evidence for Jesus' having followed the solar calendar (cf. Vanderkam
1992:820). The other main proposal is that the Galileans and the
Pharisees reckoned days from sunrise to sunrise, while Judeans did
so from sunset to sunset. This means the Judeans, including these
opponents, would slaughter their lambs late Friday afternoon, whereas
Jesus and his disciples had theirs slaughtered late Thursday afternoon
(Hoehner 1977:83-90; cf. Morris 1971:782-85). It has also been suggested
that the slaughtering of the lambs actually took place over two
days because of the volume of lambs involved (Hoehner 1977:84).
According to these solutions, Jesus has already eaten Passover,
but the opponents have yet to do so. A major drawback to theories
of different days for celebrating Passover is "the lack of
any hint of such a distinction in the gospels themselves" (Blomberg
1987:176-77).
Whatever the solution to this puzzle, the irony of the opponents'
concern is evident. They wish to remain ritually pure even while
seeking to kill someone by the agency of the Romans. They avoid
defilement while bringing about the death of the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world (1:29), the root defilement that
prevents one from intimacy with God and sharing in his life. Perhaps
most ironic is the fact that their very act is a sin that defiles
in this deep sense yet contributes to the cleansing of their sin
and the sin of the whole world.
Pilate asks for the charges against Jesus (v. 29), and from the
Jewish leaders' response it seems they were upset by this request:
If he were not a criminal . . . we would not have handed him over
to you (v. 30). They wanted Pilate simply to take their word for
it and not begin his own investigation. Pilate is not inclined to
do them such a favor and tells them to judge Jesus by their own
law. In other words, if none of the charges mentioned are relevant
to Roman rule, then this case is a matter for their own legal proceedings.
A reluctance to get involved in matters of Jewish law was common
among Roman governors (Sherwin-White 1965:112-13). It is unclear
whether or not Pilate knew the opponents had already judged Jesus.
John has omitted a description of the Jewish trial, but judging
Jesus by their law is exactly what they have been doing throughout
the Gospel.
Long before now they had come to the conclusion that Jesus had to
be eliminated (7:19-20; 8:40, 44, 59; 10:31; 11:8, 16, 50). This
is still their aim, and their specific request of Pilate now becomes
clear when they respond that they do not have the right to execute
people (v. 31). This could refer to Old Testament prohibitions against
killing (Ex 20:13, Hoskyns 1940b:616; Michaels 1989:314), but more
likely it refers to limitations imposed by the Romans (Brown 1994:1:747-48).
Among the Romans, "the capital power was the most jealously
guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted
to the principal assistants of the governors" (Sherwin-White
1963:36). There were occasions when Jews did put people to death
through mob violence (for example the stoning of Stephen, Acts 7:58-60).
And they were given permission to execute any Gentile, even a Roman,
who entered the temple's inner courts (Josephus Jewish Wars 5.193-94;
6.124-26). But mob violence has not succeeded against Jesus, and
his case is not one for which Rome has given permission for execution.
Presumably they could request permission to kill Jesus themselves,
but this would limit them to the methods of stoning, burning, beheading
and strangling, at least according to later law, which may have
been in effect in the first century (m. Sanhedrin 7:1). They seem
set, however, on having Rome execute Jesus, for then it would be
by crucifixion. They probably want him crucified (19:6, 15) not
only because it was a particularly brutal and painful form of death,
but also because it would signify that Jesus is accursed by God
(Deut 21:23; cf. Gal 3:13, Robinson 1985:257 n. 147; Beasley-Murray
1987:328). In John's Gospel the focus is on Jesus as the revealer
of God. His opponents have rejected that claim and desire his death
in order to vindicate their conclusion.
John, however, sees this desire as a fulfillment of Jesus' statement
that he would die by being lifted up from the earth (v. 32; 12:32-34).
"Both Jewish accusers and Roman judge are actors in a drama
scripted by a divine planner" (Brown 1994:1:748). John's note
reminds us both of Jesus' identity as the Word whose words are God's
words, which will be fulfilled, and of the significance of this
death: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men to myself" (12:32). Even the actions of his enemies are
used to bear witness to the glory of his identity and of what he
is in the process of accomplishing.
33-40
33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked
him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others
talk to you about me?"
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people
and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you
have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were,
my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now
my kingdom is from another place."
37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact,
for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world,
to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to
me."
38"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out
again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against
him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner
at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king
of the Jews'?"
40They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!"
Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
John 18:33-40
Explanation: Pilate Questions Jesus (18:33-38)
In this second of the seven scenes we have the heart of the Roman
interrogation. In a series of four questions Pilate probes the key
topic of this Gospel--the identity and mission of Jesus. Here is
Jesus' final teaching concerning himself before his resurrection.
We are not told what charges the Jewish opponents brought against
Jesus to induce Pilate to consider condemning him to death. In the
Jewish trial Caiaphas had asked, "Are you the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed One?" and Jesus said yes (Mt 26:63-64 par. Mk
14:61-62 par. Lk 22:67-70). John does not recount this exchange,
although its substance is central to his revelation of Jesus throughout
the Gospel and John does seem to allude to the exchange itself later
(19:7, Beasley-Murray 1987:329). Presumably the opponents translated
the matter for Pilate, saying that Jesus claimed to be the king
of the Jews. This was obviously a political title and had even been
used of Herod the Great (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 14.385;
16.311). It was a claim that Pilate would have to take seriously,
especially given the revolutionary setting in Israel, in which many
desired the overthrow of Rome.
Many think Pilate's question expresses incredulity: Are you the
King of the Jews? But more likely he is simply doing his job by
putting the charge to the accused, using direct questions in keeping
with Roman procedure (Sherwin-White 1965:105). What would he have
expected to hear in response? Perhaps either cringing denial or
stormy denunciations of Rome. The answer he gets is something quite
different from either of these responses. Jesus neither affirms
nor denies his identity as king, but he responds like a king. He
speaks of his kingdom and quite calmly focuses the attention on
Pilate, asking a question that tests Pilate's heart (v. 34). He
is speaking to him as a human being, not as the Roman governor.
Is he personally engaged, or is this just a formality? Such a question
should signal to Pilate that he is dealing with someone who is not
speaking merely on a political level. As seen earlier (e.g., see
comments on 1:19-28), such personal interest is necessary to be
able to recognize one come from God and to respond appropriately.
Pilate does not see how this question could be of interest to him
since he is not a Jew (v. 35). He has not gone looking for Jesus,
but rather Jesus has been handed over to him by his own nation and
the high priests. Like the woman of Samaria and other people who
have encountered Jesus, Pilate does not understand the full meaning
of what Jesus says because he does not realize whom he is speaking
with. And as he did with others earlier, Jesus now helps Pilate
understand who he is and what he is offering.
Pilate asks what Jesus has done (v. 35). Jesus follows his common
practice in this Gospel, for he does not directly address the question
put to him, but in fact he gives a profound answer. Instead of speaking
of what he has done he speaks of his kingdom (v. 36). This word
only occurs one other place in John (3:3, 5), unlike in the Synoptics,
where "kingdom" is Jesus' major theme. In Jewish thinking
"kingdom" does not refer to a territory; it is an active
concept referring to rule. "Kingdom of God," then, means
God is king (cf. Kuhn 1964b:571-72). In the Gospels it includes
also the realm of God's rule, in the sense not of a territory but
of the community under his rule
. While Jesus has not used this word much in this Gospel,
all that he has done and said have been manifestations of God's
rule and Jesus' own kingship. In this sense, "the whole Gospel
is concerned with the kingship of God in Jesus" (Beasley-Murray
1987:330). Jesus has said a spiritual rebirth is necessary to even
see the kingdom--the resources of this world are not sufficient
(3:3, 5). Now Jesus continues this emphasis by saying his kingdom
is not of this world. His kingdom is otherworldly because he himself
is not of this world and neither are his followers (17:14, 16).
He and his disciples have their source in God and reflect God's
own life and character.
Both the divine source and the quality of his kingdom are evident,
he says, in the fact that his disciples did not fight to prevent
my arrest by the Jews (v. 36). Peter, of course, did try to do so
and was out of step with Jesus' and the Father's will, as Jesus
told him (18:11). Jesus' response to the opposition from the Jewish
leaders had a divine source for it was determined by God's rule.
Also, his response manifested God's characteristic gracious love.
"Jesus' kingdom is based on something other than . . . power
or protection. It is based on his self-surrender, on his offering
of himself for the sin of the world" (Ridderbos 1997:595).
Thus, Jesus is working on a different level, one not of this world.
Throughout the Gospel it is seen that he does not respond merely
to stimuli from the environment; rather he acts in accordance with
his Father's direction. So in a sense Jesus does answer Pilate's
question about what he has done not by describing his teachings
and signs, but by referring to his acceptance of suffering. If one
does not realize who he is and why he has allowed himself to be
handed over by his Jewish opponents, however, his glory is not evident.
Nevertheless, his arrest, and everything else about him, bears witness
that his kingdom is "not from here" (ouk estin enteuthen,
paraphrased in the NIV as from another place). It is from the Father.
If Pilate had an open heart he would have picked up this hint and
asked where Jesus' kingdom is from, but he does not.
Instead, he focuses on Jesus' reference to my kingdom. My kingdom
(he basileia he eme) is repeated three times (one of them omitted
in the NIV), and the expression my servants uses the same Greek
construction that is used to emphasize the pronoun my (hoi hyperetai
hoi emoi). His kingdom is quite distinct from other kingdoms, but
he does indeed have a kingdom. Pilate picks up on this emphasis
and presses his earlier question, again in keeping with the Roman
practice of questioning the defendant three times (Sherwin-White
1965:105), and says, You are a king, then! (v. 37).
The grace and humility evident in the Passion itself comes through
also in the gentleness of Jesus' dealing with this Roman politician
(cf. Chrysostom In John 84.1). Jesus replies, "You say that
I am a king" (v. 37). This is often taken as an affirmative,
almost as if Jesus were saying, "You said it!" (cf. NIV).
This interpretation is possible (Beasley-Murray 1987:317); however,
it is more likely that Jesus is saying, "That's your term."
He is clearly claiming kingship, but he does not commit to the label
of "king," probably because it is loaded with misunderstanding
(6:15; cf. 1:49; 12:13). It is very much a term "of this world"!
His reticence here is similar to his attitude toward other titles,
such as "Messiah," elsewhere in the Gospels.
Jesus' further explanation reveals that he is king in a sense that
transcends all other kings: for this reason I was born, and for
this I came into the world (v. 37). Given what this Gospel has revealed
of Jesus' identity, this is a profound statement of pre-existence
(for example, 1:1-18; 3:13; 9:39). But if Pilate thought about what
Jesus said at all, he would probably hear it only on a human level,
that Jesus was claiming to be like any other child who was born
a prince, in line to become king. Even this would be striking, since
there was no such dynastic line functioning in Israel. But Pilate
may not have gotten that far in his thinking, for Jesus says that
he came into the world not to be king of the Jews, but to testify
to the truth. This language makes obvious the contrast between his
identity and mission on the one hand and the falsehood of his opponents
on the other. "He is the king of Truth, and He manifests His
royal power not by force, but by the witness He bears to the Truth
(3:32; 5:33; cf. 3 Jn 3)" (Hoskyn 1940b:619). The truth he
refers to is the truth of God.
By using the term "truth" rather than "God,"
Jesus is using language less likely to be misunderstood by Pilate.
For he is still dealing here with Pilate himself: Everyone on the
side of truth listens to me (v. 37), he says--everyone, whether
Jew or Gentile. Jesus continues to walk through this trial on his
own terms. Pilate thinks of Jesus as a defendant, but Jesus is taking
the part of a witness (see comment on 5:31; cf. 1 Tim 6:13), who
"has come to testify against the rule of the lie and for `the
truth,' that is, for God and for God's claim on the world"
(Ridderbos 1997:596). So Jesus is asking for Pilate to pass judgment
not on him as king of the Jews, but on him as the revealer of truth.
And he puts pressure on Pilate, for if he does not decide in favor
of Jesus, he will judge himself as not being on the side of truth.
This expression is, more literally, "of the truth" (ek
tes aletheias); it refers to one's inner disposition as tuned to
the truth, able to hear the voice of truth (cf. 8:47; 10:3). "Absolute
truth is a very uncomfortable thing when we come in contact with
it" (Ward 1994:30).
Pilate's response, What is truth? (v. 38), is probably not a great
philosophical remark, but a dismissal of the whole subject as irrelevant.
Pilate has heard enough to determine that Jesus is not a political
threat, and, therefore, he has gotten from the interview what he
was after. Jesus has sown seed, but it has fallen on a beaten path.
Pilate does not listen to Jesus, so, according to what Jesus has
just said, he is not of the truth. The judge has been judged and
found self-condemned through his response to Jesus. The Jewish opponents
had come to this same place during the course of Jesus' ministry.
So now both Jew and Gentile have been given a chance to respond
to the one come from God, and they have rejected him.Jesus' statement
that his kingdom is not of this world does not mean that it has
no impact in this world. Throughout the Gospels Jesus makes it clear
that his kingdom is both otherworldly in its source and quality
and present here in this world. Its focal point is the body of believers,
who, through their union with the Father in the Son by the Spirit,
are not of this world (cf. Augustine In John 115.2). Because it
is a kingdom, it has to do with relationships, relationships inspired
by God's own presence and manifesting his characteristic love. And
because this network of relations is embodied in a community present
in this world, it is expressed institutionally. Our passage does
not indicate the shape of this institution, but it is clear that
it is not of this world and that it is centered in the truth of
God revealed by Jesus.
These two criteria stand in judgment of much of the
life of the church throughout the ages. All should be evaluated
in the light of the pattern of life manifested in Jesus and revealed
by him regarding the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
Pilate Finds Jesus Innocent (18:38-40)
In scene three Pilate returns outside and announces that he finds
Jesus innocent, that, as the NIV well expresses it, he finds no
basis for a charge against him (v. 38). Luke tells us that the crowd
at this point insists Jesus has been causing trouble all over Judea,
beginning in Galilee (Lk 23:5). This gives Pilate an excuse to send
Jesus to Herod, an occasion that only Luke records (Lk 23:6-12).
This additional material is helpful because with just John's account
it is not clear why Pilate does not simply release Jesus once he
finds him innocent. John seems to refer to the crowd's shouting
at this point when he says, "therefore, again (palin) they
cried out saying" (v. 40).
The crowd's insistence leads Pilate to offer to release
Jesus, in keeping with your custom for me to release to you one
prisoner at the time of the Passover (v. 39). There is no other
evidence for this custom (Brown 1994:1:814-20), but there is "no
good reason for doubting it" (Robinson 1985:261; cf. Horbury
1972:66-67).
Pilate's use of the term king of the Jews (v. 39) is obviously sarcastic
since he has just said Jesus poses no political threat. As is so
often the case with sin, when one is succumbing to temptation one
is given opportunities to come to one's senses and turn back (cf.
1 Cor 10:13; Ward 1994:44-50). Pilate's question can be seen as
a chance for the opponents to renounce this determination to eliminate
Jesus. But, of course, it is far too late. The Jewish opponents
are rejecting Jesus precisely as their king.
So the crowd cries out again (or shouted back, NIV) that they want
Barabbas, not Jesus (v. 40). Such dispute between a crowd and a
Roman governor might seem strange, but it was not that unusual.
Indeed, "Roman jurists expressly warn magistrates against submitting
to popular clamour" (Horbury 1972:67). The picture of Pilate
in Josephus and Philo is of a violent man who hated the Jews, which
would lead one not to expect him to make any such offer to the crowd.
But their picture of Pilate is probably overdrawn (cf. Brown 1994:1:693-705).
Both authors, in fact, cite an instance when Pilate did give in
to Jewish pressure (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.55-59 par.
Josephus Jewish Wars 2.169-174; Philo Legatio ad Gaium 302). The
present occasion, of course, will play out the same way.
John describes Barabbas as a lestes, which the NIV renders by saying
he was one who had taken part in a rebellion. There were many sorts
of revolutionary leaders in Israel in the first century (cf. Brown
1994:1:679-93; Horsley and Hanson 1985; Horsley 1992). The term
lestes is not used to refer to such people during the time of Jesus,
but it is so used later in the century, after the revolt of A.D.
66 (Brown 1994:1:687). However, two of the other Gospels mention
that Barabbas was indeed involved in an insurrection (Mk 15:7; Lk
23:19), so this is probably how John is using the term. The crowd
demands the release of one under arrest for his threat against Rome.
Their decision is very much "of this world."
There is a stark contrast between Barabbas, a violent man concerned
with this world's politics, albeit religious politics, and Jesus,
whose kingdom is not of this world, though it is active in this
world. There is also irony in the name Barabbas itself, since it
means "son of Abba"--the word Abba, "father,"
was used as a proper name (Brown 1994:1:799-800), but, especially
in John's Gospel, Jesus is known as the Son of the Father. The crowd
was choosing between two different approaches to liberation as represented
by two men identified, in different ways, as "son of Abba."
Here is the deceptiveness of sin that has been evident since the
Garden of Eden. There is a path that looks right and seems to be
of God, yet it is actually against him and his ways. The people
choose their own path of liberation rather than God's, and they
therefore choose "not the Savior, but the murderer; not the
Giver of life, but the destroyer" (Augustine In John 116.1).
Every time we choose sin we do the same, whether the sin is blatant
or deceptive.
Pilate has rejected Jesus, his otherworldly kingdom and the truth,
so he is left responding to the demands of the pressures of this
world. He does not like the alternatives offered him by either Jesus
or the opponents, but he is being forced to decide. Here is a picture
of John's dualism, indeed, the dualism found throughout the Scriptures.
God and Satan are both putting pressure on. Both desire us, though
for very different purposes. "There is no neutral ground in
the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed
by God and counterclaimed by Satan" (Lewis 1967:33). Each of
us faces the same challenge Pilate here faces. Even though we are
able to avoid the crunch for now, we will not be able to do so forever.
The Mercy would not allow that.
