John 18 - The Moody Bible Commentary

IV. Passion Ministry: Sacrificial Nature of Jesus’ Death (18:1–20:31)

So as not to distract from his presentation of Jesus’ matchless resolve as the Son of God to go to the cross, John left out details of Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (for which see the comments on Mt 26:30-46; Mk 14:26-42; Lk 22:39-46). He also included more detail concerning the trial before Pilate. For example, Jesus and Pilate dialog in John (Jn 18:33-38; 19:9-11), but in the Synoptics Jesus is portrayed as silent (Mt 27:14; Mk 15:5; Lk 23:9). John also cited the fulfillment of several messianic prophecies (Jn 19:24, 28, 36, 37).

18:1 John’s words He went forth with His disciples are best understood as their departure from Jerusalem, not from the upper room (Cf. 14:31). They proceeded across the ravine of the Kidron on the east side of Jerusalem, and to a garden or grove of olive trees called Gethsemane (cf. the comments on Mt 26:36; Mk 14:32), which means “olive press,” at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The preincarnate Christ entered the garden of Eden to fellowship with people (Gn 3:8). Now he entered a garden leading to His death and resurrection (Jn 19:41; 20:15) so as to restore this lost fellowship.

A. Betrayal and Arrest (18:1-11)

18:2-3 Judas easily found the garden because he knew the place. In fact, Jesus had often met there with His disciples, perhaps for prayer. The Gentile Roman cohort (v. 3) was a detachment of 600 men, but the full number may not have been deployed. Contrary to religious custom, Jewish officers willingly joined the Gentile soldiers (see also Mt 26:51). The lanterns and torches were for the nighttime search, and the weapons were in anticipation of serious resistance.

18:4-6 Jesus, even though He knew all the things that were coming upon Him, did not retreat from the impending dangers. Instead, He went forth to meet His enemies. By asking Whom do you seek? and gaining the reply Jesus the Nazarene (v. 5), Christ effectively prepared for His disciples’ release. His reply I am He (“He” is not in the Gk.) recalls Jesus’ use of the same term to claim deity (see comments on 4:26; 6:35; 8:58). Precisely when He said to them, I am He (v. 6), His opponents fell to the ground. The collapse of the soldiers came in reaction to a small taste of the divine power of Jesus. If He had chosen to do so, He could have exercised this divine power sufficiently to escape His arrest and crucifixion. But he withheld this power and thereby demonstrated that He was going to the cross willingly (10:17-18).

18:7-9 A second time, Jesus asked, Whom do you seek? leading to the second I am He testimony from Jesus (vv. 5, 8) and a third by John (v. 6). With these words, Jesus both interceded for His disciples (cf. His prayer in chap. 17) and acted as their substitute (cf. His death in chap. 19). Since they sought only “Jesus the Nazarene,” He could request, So if you seek Me, let these go their way (v. 8). Verse 8 indicates that it was Jesus’ wish that the disciples not stay with Him throughout His ordeal, so that their abandonment of Him was not the moral or spiritual failure it is sometimes made out to be. The denial of Peter, however, was inappropriate. The phrase to fulfill the word (v. 9) is used by the author elsewhere of OT Scripture (12:38; 13:18; 15:25; 19:24, 36). But here Jesus’ words spoken earlier (17:12) are given a fulfillment, placing Jesus’ words on a level with Scripture.

18:10-11 True to his character revealed elsewhere (13:8, 37; 21:7; Mt 16:22), Peter impulsively drew his short sword (machaira), probably hidden under his clothes, and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. These details, including John’s knowledge that the slave’s name was Malchus, suggest John personally knew the high priest and his slave (cf. v. 15). Contrary to Peter’s misunderstanding (v. 11), Jesus must drink the cup which the Father had given Him (a metaphor for His crucifixion).

B. Interrogation and Trial (18:12–19:16)

18:12-14 The first phase of the six-phase trial of Jesus took place at night. Jesus was bound and led to Annas first (v. 13). Except for Peter and John, the disciples had all scattered (16:32; Mt 25:56). Annas reigned as high priest from AD 6–15. But he continued to influence the subsequent high priests. Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was high priest from AD 18–36. That year refers to the prophesied year of Christ’s death (Dn 9:24-26). Since Caiaphas foresaw the prudence of one man dying on behalf of the people (v. 14; Cf. 11:49-52), God sovereignly placed him in the position of high priest (cf. Rm 13:1) during the year foreordained for Christ’s death.

18:15-16 In the trial narrative, only two disciples are mentioned: Peter and another disciple—probably John. He was known to the high priest (mentioned twice; vv. 15, 16), Annas. John’s father, Zebedee, seemed to have been affluent (e.g., he had servants, Mk 1:20). This may have brought John into contact with Annas and Caiaphas since they were also wealthy. So John freely entered with Jesus into the court of Annas, but had to negotiate for Peter’s admittance (v. 16).

18:17-18 Peter’s first temptation to deny Christ came through the least likely source—a slave-girl. She asked if Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples. Her question anticipated a negative answer (You are not … are you?) and tempted Peter all the more to deny it. Peter feared being identified as a disciple of Jesus in front of the slaves and the officers there (v. 18). John’s comment that it was cold marks out both the physical and the spiritual climate.

18:19-21 The interrogation before the high priest, Annas, was an unofficial pretrial. In hopes of finding blame, Annas questioned Jesus about His disciples to discern if there were sufficient numbers for a charge of insurrection. He also questioned Him about His teaching in hopes of finding grounds for blasphemy. Jesus replied that He had no secret plans or hidden teachings. With the words I spoke nothing in secret (v. 20), Jesus identified Himself with the God of the OT (Is 45:19; 48:16). Additionally (v. 21), the information about His teachings that Annas sought was readily available from those who had heard what Jesus taught.

18:22-24 Besides the illegal nature of the preliminary investigation, one of the officers standing nearby Annas unjustly struck Jesus. The officer’s actions and his question Is that the way You answer the high priest? show his obsequious respect for the high priest. Jesus responded by calling for witnesses as the law required (8:17; Dt 17:6; 19:15) to testify of the wrong He had allegedly done. With this point, John wrote (v. 24) that Annas sent Jesus still bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Both Annas and Caiaphas are called high priest in John (vv. 13, 15, 16, 22, 24, 26; cf. Lk 3:2) even though Annas no longer had legal authority (see vv. 13-14).

18:25-27 Annas was fearful of the threat posed by the disciples, while ironically Peter was nearby denying Christ. According to the Synoptics, they said to him included the servant girl who kept the door (v. 17; Mk 14:69), another servant girl (Mt 26:71), and another unidentified person (Lk 22:58). Others may have joined in the question You are not also one of His disciples, are you? For a second time, Peter denied Christ. When a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off was sure he saw Peter in the garden with Jesus, Peter then denied it a third time. Just then a rooster crowed, fulfilling Jesus’ earlier prophecy (Jn 13:38). Jesus would have six phases in His trial and would be faithful in each; Peter had three tests and failed in each.

18:28-29 The Jewish leaders led Jesus to the Praetorium (the governor’s palace) early in the morning. They themselves went into the courtyard but not into the palace so that they would not be ceremonially defiled. While their bodies were not defiled, their hearts were. The Passover meal itself was now ended (13:1-2). The words eat the Passover do not refer to the actual Passover meal itself, which Jesus and all the Jewish people had already consumed. “Passover” can include not only the memorial meal, but also the week of celebration that followed it called “the Feast of Unleavened Bread” (see Nm 28:16-19; Lk 22:1). The religious leaders would not enter Pilate’s residence so as to avoid making themselves ritually unclean. By keeping themselves ritually clean they could celebrate and serve during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which followed the Passover celebration. Some maintain that Jesus had a meal before the Passover meal, but that is not the case. Pilate, governor of Judea in AD 26–36, went out to the Jewish leaders to receive their charges against Christ. For more on Pilate, see the comments on Mt 27:1-2.

18:30-32 Since the Jewish leaders hated Pilate for his cruelty, they responded contemptuously, evading a direct answer to Pilate’s request for official charges against Christ. If the Jewish leaders charged Jesus with blasphemy (Cf. 10:33, 36), Pilate would be unconcerned. His reply showed this to be true (v. 31): judge Him yourself according to your law. But the Sanhedrin had no power to put Jesus to death without official Roman approval. If the Jewish leadership put Him to death themselves, He would be stoned to death according to the law of Moses (Lv 24:16). This act would be considered mob action and would be illegal under Roman law. But in order to fulfill Jesus’ own prophecy (v. 32; Cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 33) signifying by what kind of death He was about to die, Jesus had to be crucified under Roman jurisprudence.

18:33-34 Pilate likely had been informed that Jesus claimed to be the King of Jews. If this were political, the emperor would hold Pilate responsible. So he reentered the Praetorium, and asked Jesus directly, Are You the King of the Jews? If Pilate’s question of “king” was from his own political vantage point (Are you saying this on your own initiative …?, v. 34), Jesus’ answer would be “No.” But if the Jews were the source of the question, Jesus indeed was the King of the Jews.

18:35-37 Ultimately, Pilate was uninterested in Jewish debates about their “king.” The chief priests had delivered Jesus to him. So it was necessary for him to ask Jesus what He had done to receive these charges. This afforded Christ the opportunity to define His kingdom (v. 36). Its origin and principles were not of this evil world system (kosmos). Otherwise, His servants would be leading an insurrection. Pilate replied (v. 37), So You are a king? The governor was looking for the truth and Jesus confirmed it—He was a king. The reason He came to earth was to testify to the truth. All those under the influence of truth would respond to Jesus’ teaching.

18:38-40 Overlooking Jesus, the Truth (14:6), Pilate asked sarcastically, What is truth? and went out again to the Jews. What is truth? is typically viewed as a profound theological or philosophical question, but Pilate was simply asking a rhetorical question about the truth related to the case against Jesus, and could be translated, “What is the truth?” Although he now told them, I find no guilt in Him (the first of three times; Cf. 19:4, 6), he would soon sidestep the truth about Christ’s innocence. For a Roman governor’s role in such a case, see the comments on Mt 27:11-14. Pilate is sometimes accused of being indecisive because he went back and forth between Jesus and the religious leaders several times. That is not the case. He was simply doing his job of gathering facts to help him render a verdict. There is yet no clear extrabiblical evidence for the custom of pardon at the Passover (v. 39; but see m. Pesach 8:6, and the comments on Mt 27:15-23). But the Synoptics support that this was Pilate’s practice (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Barabbas (v. 40) was a known insurrectionist and murderer (Mk 15:7; Lk 23:19). The word for robber can also mean “revolutionary” (NET, HCSB). Barabbas, Aramaic for “son of abbey (father),” was released while Jesus, the true Son of the Father, was crucified.