John 18 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

18:1 Jesus crossed the Kidron Valley. This parallels David’s flight from Absalom across this valley (2 Sam 15:23) after having been betrayed by Ahithophel, who later hung himself (2 Sam 17:23). John may have seen parallels between the stories (so Westcott, Brown, Whitacre). See Blomberg 2001:228-230; Keener 2003:1070-1073 for a defense of the historicity of the scene.

18:6 they all drew back and fell to the ground. Ridderbos (1997:576) brings out another possible nuance: “These actions . . . convey the transcendent (‘eschatological,’ Cf. 8:28) character of the confrontation between Jesus and the power of darkness that came out against him (Cf. 14:30; 12:31).” He sees a parallel between this and Pss 27:1-3; 56:7-10, in which God triumphs over his enemies.

Yet John’s portrayal is unique in many of its details. As Burge brings out (2000:486), he omits many aspects (the betrayal with a kiss, the Gethsemane prayer, the sleepiness of the disciples, the healing of the servant’s ear, Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross, the mocking crowds, Jesus’ cry from the cross) and adds many others (Roman soldiers and Temple guards falling to the ground, the conversations with Annas and Pilate, the emphasis on the inscription on the cross, the details on the dividing of the garments, Jesus giving his mother, Mary, to the beloved disciple, the breaking of the two criminals’ legs, Jesus being pierced with the spear, and Nicodemus being at the burial). In short, John constructs a rather unique portrayal of the Passion events, centering upon Jesus’ sovereign control of the chaos surrounding him. As seen throughout the Gospel (e.g., in the “lifted up” sayings of 3:14; 8:28; 12:32), all of Jesus’ life has led to this moment. John presents quite a different portrait of Jesus’ crucifixion. Gone is the horror of putting to death the Son of God (Matthew and Mark) or the death of the innocent, righteous martyr with its worshipful atmosphere (Luke). Instead, the Cross is Jesus’ exaltation, the culmination of his glory. “The overall impression of the arrest scene is of a divine Jesus who overwhelms his supposedly powerful adversary by a mere repetition of the divine name” (Witherington 1995:285).

Interestingly, there is more space given here to the role of both the Romans and the Jews (a fact critical scholars often ignore when they assume the ahistorical nature of John’s portrait). Only John mentions the Roman cohort at the arrest (18:3), and Pilate is given a much expanded role. Still, the primary thrust is the Jewish demand for Jesus’ death (in Greek, “the Jews” is found 22 times in chs 18–19). This, however, is not anti-Semitism (a charge often made of late); in fact, both Roman and Jewish guilt are stressed in John. The emphasis is upon the rejection of Jesus by the world as a whole, Jew and Gentile alike. This is a Johannine theme found throughout his Gospel.

Since Judas had agreed to betray his Lord (Mark 14:10-11), the Sanhedrin (the governing council made up of “the leading priests and Pharisees”) sent with him a contingent of troops made up of Temple guards. John alone tells us that a detachment of Roman soldiers also accompanied them (on the historicity of this see Giblin 1984:217). The Greek term indicates a “cohort”—in theory a thousand soldiers and usually at least 600. The term could also refer to a “maniple” of 200 soldiers. This seems an overly large number for such a task, but we do know that their “commanding officer” was present (18:12), and the Romans would want to make certain no riot developed with all the volatile pilgrims present (so Carson, Blomberg, Köstenberger, contra Keener who thinks these are Jewish guards rather than Roman). So it was a fairly sizable group, carrying “weapons” (at least swords and possibly spears as well; Mark 14:48 mentions “swords and clubs”) to keep the peace (so Bruce 1980:8-9). It is a fair guess that a maniple of 200 accompanied Judas (note that 470 soldiers guarded Paul on his trip to Caesarea in Acts 23:23). They also brought torches and lanterns because it was late at night.

The next event (18:4-9) is recorded only in John’s Gospel, and its historicity is doubted by many because it is so supernatural. First, Jesus is once more omniscient (Cf. 1:42, 47; 13:1) in that he “fully realized all that was going to happen to him” (18:4). The theme is his complete authority over all the events, including his death and resurrection (10:18), reminiscent of his supernatural knowledge in 13:1, 3 (so Michaels). Jesus took the initiative and went out of the grove to meet his fate head on. When he asked whom they wanted, they answered, “Jesus the Nazarene” (18:5). It was common then either to use one’s father’s name, “Jesus bar-Joseph (son of Joseph),” or one’s hometown, as here. Jesus’ response, “I AM he” (egō eimi [TG1473/1510, ZG1609/1639]), seems innocuous at first since “he” can be presupposed—but in John it has far deeper connotations, seen in the “I am” sayings (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1) and especially the absolute “I AM” statements (6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19), where it is the equivalent of “Yahweh.”

The results bear this out. As Jesus said this, the whole arresting party “drew back and fell to the ground!” (18:6). Jesus’ words had some extraordinary power, and John drew attention to this by repeating that the response of the soldiers occurred at the moment Jesus said “egō eimi [TG1473/1510, ZG1609/1639].” While it is possible that this indicates nothing more than the soldiers clumsily falling over one another due to surprise at Jesus’ boldness (so Carson, Blomberg), it is far more likely that John was creating an ironic scene of theophany—that is, a manifestation of God. People often fell to the ground when confronted with God’s manifest presence (Judg 13:20-21; Ezek 1:28; Acts 9:4; Rev 1:17), and so it is here (so Brown, Lindars, Barrett, Kysar, Burge, Keener, Köstenberger). Schnackenburg adds the idea of the powerlessness of God’s enemies when confronted by his presence (2 Kgs 1:9-14; Isa 11:4), and Giblin (1984:219) goes so far as to say that the “falling back” is symbolic of those who reject Jesus and are non-disciples (Cf. 6:66). This does not mean that the soldiers understood what was happening; that is the irony of the scene. Soldiers do not fall to the ground; their very life is at stake in remaining upright in the midst of battle. As they picked themselves up, they undoubtedly asked something like, “What happened? An earthquake perhaps?” They were in the presence of deity.

Their consternation was heightened by the fact that Jesus had to repeat his question (18:7-8). This time Jesus’ control of the situation led him to virtually command that they allow his disciples to go free. Their acquiescence is not stated but presupposed, and in its place is a statement on the fulfillment of Jesus’ own prophetic words, “I did not lose a single one of those you have given me.” This refers back to 17:12 (Cf. 6:39; 10:28) and shows that Jesus’ own words had the same authority as Scripture. Judas is not mentioned (though he was among the others) because he was not one of the elect “given” to Jesus but rather was “headed for destruction” (17:12). Earlier, the promise of protection and deliverance related to final salvation, but here it is extended to protection from harm. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, both watches over and protects his sheep from the wolves (10:3, 12) and lays down his life for them (10:11, 15).

The Synoptics tell the story of the disciple drawing his sword (Mark 14:46-47 and parallels), but it is John who tells us the disciple was Peter and the servant was Malchus (18:10-11). While it used to be thought that John’s addition of the names is proof of a later developing tradition (so Bultmann), it is more and more being seen as a sign of an eyewitness account (so Witherington). The sword (machaira [TG3162, ZG3479]) may have been a long knife hidden in Peter’s clothing. It is not hard to imagine why Peter may have acted so brashly. Peter and the other disciples still failed to understand Jesus’ teaching regarding a suffering Messiah, and Peter probably expected the armies of heaven to appear and begin the final war. Instead, his clumsy thrust just cut off the right ear of Malchus (though some think he intended to do just this), and Jesus told him to put the sword back in its sheath. Luke tells us that Jesus healed the ear (22:51), and Matthew has Jesus adding, “Those who use the sword will die by the sword” (26:52). John, however, centers on Jesus’ sense of destiny—“Shall I not drink from the cup of suffering the Father has given me?” (18:11; cf. his Gethsemane prayer in Mark 14:36 and parallels). The “cup” as a symbol of suffering/wrath is found in Psalm 75:8, Isaiah 51:17, 22, Jeremiah 25:15, and Mark 10:38. Jesus had embraced the divine will and wanted to complete his calling, while Peter had unwittingly placed himself against God’s will.

18:12-14 It has been common to deny the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial (found in the Synoptics; John centers on a preliminary hearing) on the grounds that the Sanhedrin tractate of the Mishnah (AD 200) says there could not be a nighttime trial and that such trials had to last two days. Carson (1991:574-575) provides a viable response: (1) Many Mishnaic rules never had the force of obeyed law but were theoretical in nature. (2) There is a lot of evidence that legal rules could be breached if there was an emergency situation, such as would have been the case if Jesus was indeed arrested the night before Passover began. (3) The Gospel accounts point to certain irregularities that would naturally arise in the heat of the moment. (4) Many scholars think much of the Mishnah relates more to the post-70 AD situation rather than the time of Jesus, so we cannot be certain that such rules held sway at the earlier time. One thing is clear: The authorities wanted to execute Jesus for blasphemy. Moreover, the volatile Passover time would indeed have frightened them due to the excitable pilgrims, so the nighttime trial makes perfect sense (cf. Keener 2003:1084-1089).

18:15 another of the disciples. This person has normally been thought to be the “disciple Jesus loved”—that is, John. The problem with this identification is that “acquainted” (gnōstos [TG1110, ZG1196]) points to a close friend (Barrett, Brown, Carson, Keener), and there is a very real question as to how a lowly Galilean fisherman like John could have been a close friend of the aristocratic high priest. Perhaps it was someone at the level of a Nicodemus or a Joseph of Arimathea. (Michaels understands this “other disciple” as a resident of Jerusalem who had become a believer.) However, there are good reasons for assuming it was John. Such people as Nicodemus are regularly named; even Malchus is named (18:10). The only other unnamed disciple is the beloved disciple, and he, like this disciple, is always connected in some way with Peter (13:23-26; 20:1-10; 21:7-8, 18-24). Also, fishermen were not always at the bottom end of the social scale. John’s father Zebedee had servants (Mark 1:20) and may have been the head of a thriving fishing trade and perhaps even of the priests in Jerusalem. Moreover, if Jesus and John were cousins (so Brown), then Mary’s priestly contacts in Jerusalem (Luke 1:36-45) may have been available to John (so Burge).

18:17 The woman asked Peter. The fact that the Gospels differ regarding who challenged Peter in the three denials has caused many to doubt the historical worth of the stories, but as several point out (e.g., Morris, Blomberg), it was probably a group of servants peppering Peter with questions, and the order is not critical. Also, in John it occurs in the courtyard of Annas, while in the Synoptics it is at Caiaphas’s palace. Some have proposed as a solution that the residence of these two men was virtually the same, with both residing in separate wings of the old Hasmonean palace (so Morris), but even if this was not the case, the two accounts are easily harmonized, as John places the last two denials (in 18:25-27) after Jesus has been sent to Caiaphas.

In the next two scenes (18:12-27; 18:28–19:16), John is at his dramatic best; in both he has interspersed scenes for dramatic effect. In this first scene, he placed Jesus’ interrogation by the high priest Annas next to the three denials by Peter for the sake of contrast. Jesus was still in sovereign control in giving himself over to the authorities, while Peter lost all control in his desire to save himself, thus contrasting “the faithlessness of the disciple with the fearlessness of the master” (so Beasley-Murray). The trial at night was a necessity, for the leaders were afraid that Jesus might start a riot by appealing to the volatile pilgrims, thereby bringing down the wrath of Rome on the nation. Moreover, Pilate sat to hear cases shortly after dawn, and they needed to have Jesus on the cross early so he would be dead before nightfall, when the corpses had to be taken down from the crosses due to the Passover festival. They had to find legal evidence to present to Pilate before dawn.

The woman challenged Peter, “You’re not one of [Jesus’] disciples, are you?” She knew the other disciple (John) and assumed that Peter was a disciple as well. Like the other disciples, Peter was still afraid of being arrested, so he lied, “I am not.” At this point, we must remember that while Peter did fail Jesus, he and John were the only ones brave enough to come this far. The rest were hiding behind closed doors (20:19). It was a cold night, so everyone was standing by the fire, warming themselves. The mention of a “charcoal fire” (anthrakia [TG439, ZG471]) is a historical touch in keeping with John’s inclination toward adding such authentic eyewitness details. This was an unusual scene, for it was seldom that such things would happen at night—but these were extraordinary times!

Jesus’ response was fairly curt (18:20-21). He did not answer about his disciples but centered on his own teaching, saying that he had never taught secretly (the normal approach of an insurrectionist—Jesus would be crucified between two of them) but openly in synagogues and the Temple. In fact, he had been teaching in the Temple all week (Luke 21:37). He did not provide one set of teachings for the public and another for his followers. His message was public record and could be determined easily. In short, Jesus said that Annas should have already known his teachings. Then he went on the offensive and demanded that Annas question witnesses, which is what he should have been doing in an official investigation (Roman courts interrogated the accused, but Jewish procedure centered on witnesses). Anyone could tell him what he wanted to know.

When the officials heard Jesus challenging Annas legally, they saw it as disrespect; so one of the Temple guards struck him in the face (18:22). Jesus’ reaction was quite different from that of Paul when he was rebuked for insolence in Acts 23:4-5. Paul took the expected tack of humility and deference (so Brown) by apologizing. Paul, however, had called the high priest a “whitewashed wall” (cf. NLT, “corrupt hypocrite”), while Jesus had said nothing wrong. Jesus responded here by asking them to specify a reason for striking him. He had spoken “the truth” rather than anything wrong. Throughout the fourth Gospel, there has been stress on witness to the truth (1:7; 5:31-40; 8:13-18). Jesus was demanding that proper witnesses be consulted regarding the charges, knowing that he would be exonerated. There was nothing more to be said, and the gambit had not succeeded. Annas terminated the examination and sent him “bound” to his son-in-law Caiaphas for the formal trial. He had been bound at his arrest (18:12) and had probably been unbound for his interrogation. This was probably repeated before Caiaphas as well. By telling us that Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, John shows he was aware of the major trial described in the Synoptics (Mark 14:53-65 and parallels) and had decided not to describe it, possibly expecting his readers to know about it (so Burge, Blomberg). It is also possible that John (as a witness to the trial before Annas) decided to provide only testimony of the trial he himself witnessed, which adds credence to the historicity of the account.

18:28–19:16 While most of the material here is unique to John, and while the insider information is often questioned because it seems private to Jesus and Pilate, this is insufficient reason to doubt its historical worth (contra Bultmann, Haenchen). It holds together well, and the details could have come from the risen Lord himself or from servants who were present (so Carson). In short, while not ultimately provable, the story as a whole is plausible and trustworthy (so Schlatter, Dodd, Brown). It is certainly true that this is a highly theological narrative, but that does not mean it is therefore ahistorical (so Ridderbos).

18:31 Only the Romans are permitted to execute someone. There is considerable debate regarding this, as many (Winter 1974, Barrett) think the Sanhedrin did have the right to mete out capital punishment, as seen in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57-58), including the right to execute a Gentile that entered the inner sanctuary of the Temple. The stoning of Stephen, however, was mob action, and the right to execute those who transgressed the sacred precincts was a Roman exception intended as a concession to the Jews (so Bruce, Sherwin-White, Blomberg, Keener). Most scholars think the situation here is historically correct.

18:36 not of this world. It is possible to see double meaning in “world,” with the surface meaning to Pilate being “not an earthly kingdom” but with the deeper theological overtones of having “no part in the sinful rebellious world”; this view probably reads too much into the context.

18:37 to testify to the truth. Throughout the fourth Gospel, the idea of Jesus bearing testimony to what he had heard from the Father is quite frequent (3:11-12; 8:28, 38; 12:49; 14:10; 17:8). As such, he had come to destroy falsehood, especially the “father of lies” (8:44).

18:39 release one prisoner each year. The so-called “paschal amnesty” has been often doubted (e.g., Bultmann) because there is no definite external evidence from Roman or Jewish sources that it had ever occurred. There is one Mishnaic passage, Pesahim 8:6 [b. Pesahim 91a], that mentions “one who has received a promise to be released from prison” in a list of those who might not be able to participate in the Passover celebration. It seems likely that this is talking about a Roman court situation since there would not be such doubt regarding the release if a Jewish court were involved. This may be a reference to the paschal amnesty (so Beasley-Murray, Carson). Also, Josephus (Antiquities 20.209) and Livy (History 5.13) attest to analogous Roman practices. Most modern critical scholars think that such a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Romans makes good sense and generally accept the likelihood of the event (so Brown, Lindars, Barrett, Schnackenburg, Keener).