John 18 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

IV. The Passion of the Word (18:1–20:31) A. The Arrest in Gethsemane (18:1–11)

1–2 Jesus and the disciples left the room where they had convened, descended from the city, crossed the Kidron Valley, and made their way up the lower slope of the Mount of Olives, to the Garden of Gethsemane (the name assigned to the olive grove on the side of the mountain, meaning “oil press”). Jesus often used this place to meet with his disciples (cf. Lk 22:39). The city was filled with visitors at the Passover season and would have had little room for lodging within its walls. Neither Jesus nor the disciples were wealthy; so they probably camped outdoors during their visit to the temple for the Passover Week. Judas, probably having attempted to find Jesus at the house where he and the others ate the Last Supper, went to Gethsemane, expecting to locate him there.

3 The Greek word for “detachment of soldiers” technically denotes a tenth of a legion, or about six hundred men—probably the detachment of soldiers connected with the Castle of Antonia, the Roman barracks in Jerusalem (see also Mt 26:47; Mk 14:43; Lk 22:52). Possibly the hysterical alarm of the priests caused them to ask aid from Pilate in arresting Jesus, since the temple police had failed on a previous occasion (Jn 7:32, 45–47). The torches and the lanterns were needed, since the arrest took place at night and required a search in the darkness of the olive grove.

4–6 The author has emphasized Jesus’ consciousness of surrounding circumstances and his own destiny (cf. Jn 6:64; 13:1, 3, 11, 18). He was not taken unwillingly or by surprise. For a long time he had been aware of the plot against his life and, had he wished, he could have escaped (Cf. 10:40; 11:54). Now “the time” had come (Cf. 17:1). He did not wait to be apprehended but voluntarily confronted his enemies.

In the darkness of the garden they were not sure which man they wanted. So in answer to his question they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth.” John omits the signal of Judas and mentions only Jesus’ own statement for the identification. That reply startled the arresting party by its openness and readiness and possibly because it was like the claim he had made previously: “I am” (8:24, 28, 58). If it were intended as an assertion of deity, his calm demeanor and commanding presence temporarily unnerved his captors.

7–9 Jesus’ chief intent seems not to have been to advance a claim but to shield the disciples. In a sense, he sacrificed himself for their safety. He had promised the Father that he would protect them (17:12), and he fulfilled his guarantee in the voluntary surrender of his life. The utterance in v.8 is a graphic illustration of the principle of substitutionary atonement that pervades this gospel (Cf. 1:29; 3:14–16; 10:11, 15–18; 12:32; 17:19).

10 The action of Peter illustrates the curious combination of loyalty and obtuseness that characterized him. Realizing that Jesus was endangered, Peter was courageous enough to come to his defense and risk his own safety. To this extent he justified his boastful promise that if all others should forsake Jesus, he would not (13:37; cf. Mk 14:29–31). In his excitement, Peter began swinging his sword, cutting off the right ear of Malchus, probably the special deputy of the high priest. The recollection of this particular man’s name suggests that this account in John rests on an eyewitness testimony.

11 Jesus’ command to Peter declared his disapproval of Peter’s sudden and violent intervention. Had Jesus desired defense, he could have summoned angelic aid (cf. Mt 26:52–53). “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” expresses both the necessity of his suffering and his absolute commitment to fulfilling his Father’s purpose. The word “cup” connects this statement with the prayer in Gethsemane, which the other three gospels record (Mt 26:42; Mk 14:36; Lk 22:42). Though the writer must have known of Jesus’ struggle, he recorded only the outcome. Jesus accepted the Father’s will and calmly moved on to its fulfillment.

B. The Hearing Before Annas (18:12–14, 19–24)

12–14 With the willing surrender of Jesus, the arrest was complete. The “commander” was the officer in charge, possibly the executive of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem (cf. the use of the same term in Ac 22:24–28; 23:17, 19, 22). Jesus was taken at once to the residence of the high priest. Annas had served as high priest from A.D. 6 to 15, when he was deposed by the Roman procurator, Valerius Gratus. Four of Annas’s sons were among those who succeeded him. His son-in-law, Caiaphas, held office from A.D. 18 until 36, during the time of Jesus’ active ministry. Although others held the priestly office, Annas seems to have been the elder statesman and “the power behind the throne,” particularly for Caiaphas. He was regarded with great respect by his contemporaries and must have been considered an expert in religious matters.

John’s gospel alone takes note of Christ’s appearance before Annas, which was probably a preliminary hearing to evaluate the case, prior to the main hearing that followed in the early hours of the morning before the members of the Jewish tribunal.

19–21 The questioning focused on Jesus’ disciples and his teaching. The number and activity of the former would be important if the authorities suspected subversion, and the teaching would be scrutinized for possible revolutionary elements. This interrogation by Annas was unnecessary because Jesus had nothing to hide. He had so frequently and openly declared the principles of his kingdom that there would be many witnesses who could narrate in detail what he had taught.

22–24 Jesus’ answer impressed one of the captors as disrespectful to the high priest, and he struck Jesus in the face. The act was illegal. No sentence had been passed, and a prisoner was not subject to abuse, especially when uncondemned. In spite of Jesus’ protest, nothing was done; and he was sent bound to Caiaphas (possibly to another room in the same building). John writes nothing about the hearing before Caiaphas (see Mt 26:57–68; Mk 14:53–65; Lk 22:66–71).

C. The Denial by Peter (18:15–18, 25–27)

15–16 Peter and an unnamed disciple (possibly John, Cf. 13:23–24; 20:2–3) had traced Jesus and his captors back from Gethsemane over the Kidron Valley to the residence of the high priest in Jerusalem. This anonymous disciple was known to the household of the high priest and readily obtained access for himself and Peter; there is evidence that John may have been distantly related to that family. Peter was in the “courtyard,” standing with servants and retainers by a fire (v.18).

17 Apparently Peter’s first statement of denial accompanied his admittance to the courtyard; the last occurred somewhat later, perhaps just as Jesus was about to be taken to the council chamber. While there are minor differences in all four accounts of the denial (see Mt 26:69–75; Mk 14:66–72; Lk 22:55–62), in general they agree. The first denial was a reply to a question asked by the girl who tended the gate and granted access to Peter and the other disciple. She recognized both the unnamed disciple and Peter as followers of Jesus.

18 Jerusalem is 2,600 feet above sea level, and on a spring night the air is chilly. The servants had lighted a charcoal fire, which would warm only those near it and would not give off a great deal of light. Peter must have edged toward it, hoping to absorb some warmth, yet not wishing to make himself visible. He certainly did not want to be recognized again!

25 The focus of attention on Peter is interrupted by the author’s reversion to the interrogation of Jesus by the high priest (vv.19–24). Then Peter was asked a second time about his association with Jesus. Like the first question, this one called for a negative answer. Peter’s answer drew him into a position he could not escape from, causing him to make an emphatic denial: “I am not.”

26–27 The third question was raised by a relative of Malchus and was worded in such a way as to expect an affirmative answer. He was sure that he had seen Peter in the olive grove. As the questioning proceeded from suspicion to reasonable certainty, Peter became more nervous. With increasing vehemence he disavowed any connection with Jesus, and on this third occasion the rooster crowed (Cf. 13:38). The author adds no further comment at this point, but the fact that he records the denial implies that it was a turning point in Peter’s experience. It was a revelation of his own weakness that he could not escape. Peter’s final response, however, was the opposite of Judas: Judas in his failure fell into despair; Peter returned to Christ.

D. The Trial Before Pilate (18:28–19:16)

This account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate is the longest in the four gospels. Whereas the other three accounts deal largely with the legal charges, John’s narrative places more importance on Jesus’ concern with Pilate and on Pilate’s shifting attitude. Its psychological portrait of Pilate is comparable to that of the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar (Ch. 4) or that of the blind man (Ch. 9). The Johannine presentation makes it more of an interview than a trial.

28 John does not describe the early morning session of the council, with Caiaphas as presiding officer (see Mk 14:53–65 and comments). There Jesus was condemned to death; but because the high priest had no authority to execute a death sentence, it was necessary to transfer the case to the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, who was in Jerusalem during Passover Week in order to keep close control of the city. Jesus was moved to Pilate’s residence about seven or eight o’clock. The Jewish delegation did not enter into the courtroom because entering a Gentile home or business room entailed seven days’ defilement. Inasmuch as the Passover was imminent, they did not wish to be excluded from the feast for ceremonial uncleanness.

29–30 Pilate’s initial question was the normal opening inquiry for a trial under Roman law: “What charges are you bringing against this man?” He would not automatically pronounce a sentence without knowing the alleged crime. The answer was elusive. The high priest no doubt knew that Jesus was not guilty of any crime under Roman law.

31 Pilate took much the same position Gallio later did at Paul’s arrest in Corinth (Ac 18:12–16). An argument about the ceremonial requirements of Jewish law had no standing in a Roman court, and Pilate was ready to dismiss the case. The Jews’ admission that they could not execute the prisoner was a confession of their intention. Pilate was shrewd enough to realize that their motive was not a sincere desire to remove a dangerous revolutionary (see Mt 27:18).

32 The introduction of Roman action at this point ensured death by crucifixion, if the Jews could persuade Pilate to render a verdict against Jesus. Jewish capital punishment was inflicted by stoning; but a Roman crucifixion would place Jesus under the curse of God (Dt 21:22–23; cf. Gal 3:13). His messianic claims would be discredited, and the rejection would be justified. The manner of death is explicitly connected with Jesus’ own prophecy (Jn 3:14; 12:32–33). Ironically, the death that the Jewish hierarchy regarded as a final negation of Jesus’ claims became the means of justification apart from the law (Gal 3:13).

33 Puzzled by the Jewish attitude, Pilate withdrew to the audience chamber within the building and summoned Jesus. His question to Jesus was emphatic: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (italics mine), as if he were asking for a straightforward answer because he did not trust the priests. Pilate may also have been expressing his surprise that Jesus did not look like a pretender to the vacant throne of Judaism. He had expected to meet a sullen or belligerent rebel and met instead the calm majesty of confident superiority. He could not reconcile the character of the prisoner with the charge brought against him.

34 Since he had shown sufficient interest in Jesus to confer with him personally, Jesus began to probe him to ascertain how sincere that interest might be. Was Pilate asking for information on his own initiative, or was he merely following a legal procedure at the instigation of the Jewish hierarchy?

35 Jesus’ reply to Pilate’s question irritated him, for he was accustomed to receiving answers to his questions, not challenges. His question expected a negative answer: “I am not a Jew, am I?” He insisted that he was merely endeavoring to find the key to the puzzling case the Jewish leaders had brought before him. He had not originated the accusation, but he wanted to know what Jesus had done to arouse their hatred.

36 Jesus asserted that his “kingdom” (GK 993) was not of this world because he had no military support and did not relate to any geographic locality. He did not, however, deny that “king” (GK 995) could be his proper title. He affirmed that his kingdom had a different origin and a different character from any that Pilate knew. Had he been an ordinary revolutionary, he would have offered armed resistance to those who took him captive.

37 Jesus’ answer bewildered Pilate. Without attempting to argue about an abstraction that must have seemed irrational to him, Pilate came back to the central question: “So you are a king, then, aren’t you?” (my translation). Jesus assented by confirming Pilate’s conclusion. Then he declared that his purpose was to bear testimony to truth, and he intimated that anyone who was devoted to truth would listen to him. The obvious inference from his words was that he came into the world from another realm, that whoever did not listen to him would not be characterized by truth, and that if Pilate really wanted to know what truth was, he would give Jesus his earnest attention. As in Jesus’ other interviews in this gospel, his focus was not on himself but on reaching the heart of the person he addressed. He appealed to Pilate, not for acquittal or mercy, but for recognition of truth.

The combined statement, “For this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world,” can be linked with Ch. 1 and reinforces Jesus’ statement elsewhere in this gospel that he was fully aware of both his origin and destiny (Cf. 8:14).

38 Pilate’s reply, “What is truth?” is difficult to interpret. Was it facetious, scornful, impatient, despairing, or sincere? Even from the context it is not possible to be sure what he meant. Pilate’s immediate response was to declare Jesus innocent of any crime that would have made him liable to punishment. He may have regarded him as a harmless philosopher or as an impractical dreamer. Certainly he did not look on Jesus as a dangerous subversive.

39 Aware, however, that there were political overtones in the situation that called for some sort of action, Pilate groped for a solution that would be satisfactory to all concerned. Although no other record of it can be found, there must have been the custom of releasing one prisoner at every Passover as a means of placating the Jewish population. Pilate seized on the opportunity to appeal to the masses and suggested that he would release Jesus if they demanded it. His proposal assumed that Jesus was popular with the general crowd, who did not always favor the hierarchy. Pilate may also have been indulging in finely honed sarcasm when he referred to Jesus as “the king of the Jews.” If Jesus were not released, the people would be guilty of the death of the one they called their king.

40 Pilate miscalculated the attitude of the crowd at this point. They had been instructed by the priests to ask for the death of Jesus; so instead of his release, they demanded that of a brigand named Barabbas (a guerrilla “resistance fighter” who was being held for execution). In the eyes of the people, he was considered a champion of a free Israel and possibly something of a hero.

19:1 The flogging of Jesus (see comment on Mk 15:15) was the usual accompaniment of crucifixion. Evidently Pilate intended to make an appeal to the sympathy of the mob, hoping that by scourging Jesus, they would call for his release.

2–3 The legionnaires who had administered the scourging amused themselves by a crude joke. Knowing that Jesus was called “king of the Jews,” they threw a scarlet cloak about his shoulders, twisted a crown from a thorny vine that grew in the vicinity, and mocked him with the salutation “Hail, king of the Jews!” as they slapped his face.

4–5 As the soldiers brought him out to the view of the crowd, Pilate, having once more declared Jesus’ innocence, said, “Here is the man!” Pilate may have thought that the ironic spectacle of a king whose crown was thorns, whose robe a cast-off cloak, and whose status a prisoner would change their attitude. If so, he was speedily disillusioned.

6–7 The Jewish officials demanded crucifixion for no good reason that Pilate could determine. In disgust he told them to crucify him themselves, for no charge could be brought against him. Pilate obviously realized that the Sanhedrin could not execute the sentence; his apparent relegation of Jesus to them was an act of sarcasm. The Jews knew this and made a new approach to Pilate, claiming that by their law Jesus was worthy of death for blasphemy (cf. Lev 24:16), because he claimed to be the Son of God (see comments on 10:34–38).

8–9 To the Jews, Jesus’ claim was the height of sacrilege. For Pilate, however, it had a different meaning. In pagan mythology the Olympian deities frequently consorted with men and women, and their semi-divine offspring, such as Hercules, had appeared on the earth and performed miraculous deeds. Hardened as he was, Pilate feared lest he should offend one of these visitors. Thus he questioned Jesus further, in an attempt to ascertain who Jesus was. If he really was a supernatural being, Pilate did not wish to be responsible for mistreating him, for that would make him liable to divine judgment. The silence of Jesus, like his silence in the presence of Herod (Lk 23:6–11), meant that he could accomplish nothing with a trifler. Pilate had already pronounced Jesus innocent; so the case resolved itself to the alternative of release or a gross perversion of justice.

10 Jesus’ refusal to answer him angered Pilate, whose conceit and arrogance were shown by his question: “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” He was insulted because Jesus had not shown him more deference. Pilate’s assertion of authority seems almost ridiculous in contrast with the weakness and indecision he exhibited in this case. Jesus, who could view the situation in its true light, knew that though Pilate had the legal authority of which he boasted, he was really hampered by political pressures.

11 Jesus looked on Pilate as simply an instrument in God’s purpose. The real guilt lay with those who had delivered Jesus to Pilate in the first place (i.e., Caiaphas and the Jewish hierarchy).

12 Jesus’ penetrating analysis of the situation made Pilate more eager than ever to release him. But the popular pressure was too strong. The cry “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar” carried the day. The phrase “a friend of Caesar” usually denoted a supporter or associate of the emperor, a member of the important inner circle. The cry was a veiled threat: if Pilate exonerated Jesus, the high priest would report to Rome that Pilate had refused to bring a rival pretender to justice and was perhaps plotting to establish a new political alliance of his own. Tiberius, the reigning emperor, was notoriously bitter and suspicious of rivals. If such a report were sent to him, he would instantly end Pilate’s political career and probably his life.

13 Jesus’ analysis of Pilate’s situation accentuated the dilemma he found himself entangled in. If he condemned Jesus to satisfy the Jewish hierarchy, he would be making a travesty of Roman justice. If he released Jesus, he would add to his contention with the hierarchy and would endanger his already shaky political future. But the decision could no longer be deferred.

14–15 The time in view here depends on the method of reckoning “the sixth hour.” If it were reckoned from midnight, it would be about six o’clock in the morning; if from sunrise, which accords better with John’s general procedure, it would be about noon. But Mark states that the Crucifixion took place at “the third hour” (Mk 15:25). Perhaps Mark indicates that the trial came early and that the execution occurred at mid-morning, while John stresses the fact that it was accomplished before noon.

Pilate presented the bleeding, disheveled figure to the crowd with these words: “Here is your king.” In their bitter irony, these words show Pilate’s contempt for the Jews. As the people clamored for Jesus’ crucifixion, Pilate scornfully asked, “Shall I crucify your king?” The reply of the chief priests is astonishing: “We have no king but Caesar.” The official heads of the nation, who would gladly have welcomed independence, put themselves on record as subjects of the pagan emperor. Even allowing for the fact that the Sadducean priesthood was willing to compromise with the Romans for the sake of political advantage, nothing revealed their lack of spiritual principles so vividly as this act of betrayal. It was the final step in the process initially described in 1:11.

16 Realizing that the priests were implacable and that resisting them would only endanger his career, Pilate finally gave in and ordered the Crucifixion. Certain features of Pilate’s examination of Jesus are significant. His behavior shows that he was apprehensive of trouble. He oscillated between public confrontation with the Jewish mob and private interrogation of Jesus. Seven times in this brief narrative the author says or implies that Pilate “went out” or “went in” (18:29, 33, 38; 19:1, 4, 9, 13). Beneath his arrogant manner, there was an uncertainty that came from the conflict between Pilate the Roman judge and Pilate the politician. He finally succumbed to expediency.

From the standpoint of Jesus, Pilate was a person in need; and Jesus gave him the opportunity of receiving truth if he would have it. Jesus made a greater effort to penetrate Pilate’s mind than to defend himself. When Pilate asked, “What is truth?” (18:38), he was near to the kingdom of God because incarnate truth was standing before him (14:6). Pilate sacrificed truth for what he thought was security and lost both.