Bible Commentaries
John 18

Verses 1-40

XVIII-XXI THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION XVIII-XIX The Passion —In recording the events of the night and the day that began in Gethsemane and ended at the rock tomb beside the place of crucifixion, Jn only narrates incidents omitted’ by the Synoptists or, if he rejoins them, otherwise supplements their narratives. The chief headings of the Passion according to Jn are: the arrest of Jesus, 18:1-12, his appearance before Annas and Caiphas synchronizing with the triple denial of St Peter, 13-27, the first interrogation before Pilate, 28-38a, the second interrogation—Ecce homo and condemnation to the cross, 19:1-16, the crucifixion, 17-22, the division of garments, 23 f., the last words and death of Jesus, 25-30, the piercing of the sacred side, 31-37, his burial, 38-42. XVIII 1-12 Arrest —1. The journey with which this chapter opens began at the house of the Cenacle (Supper Room) in the SW. quarter of Jerusalem and possibly followed an old Jewish or Maccabean road discovered in recent years by the Assumptionist Fathers. The Water Gate near the Pool of Siloe would be the most probable exit from the city. Turning to the left or north, Jesus and the eleven would have skirted the eastern slope of the old Jebusite site of the city of David and of the temple esplanade, outside the Porch of Solomon. The crossing of ’the brook of Cedron’— literally meaning ’the winter stream of turbid (water)’ —is mentioned only by Jn, probably with some reminiscence of the pathetic crossing of the same torrent by David, as he fled from Absalom, 2 Kg 15:23. The garden to which Jesus went is named Gethsemane (Oil-press) by the Synoptists. The property evidently belonged to a friend.

2. Judas knew that place on Olivet, because it was a favourite retreat of Jesus; cf.Luke 21:37; Luke 22:39.

3. The arresting party, to which Judas acted as guide, Acts 1:16, was composed of Roman soldiers and Jewish guards. The former, described as a cohort commanded by a tribune, 12, would in strict parlance number 600 men—or at least 200, this being the strength of a maniple often denoted by the same Gk word (?pe?+??a). Thus the whole party was an armed band of soldiers, Levitical police and lackeys of the chief priests, 10. The lanterns and torches on a night when the moon was full, would have been largely a matter of military routine.

4. Jn, who omits the kiss of Judas, is careful to note the full foreknowledge and sovereign freedom with which the Saviour gave himself into the hands of his enemies. The little dialogue, 4-8, with its accompanying circumstances is most awe-inspiring.

5. The band, with which Judas stood, answered the question: ’Whom seek ye?’ by using the ordinary designation of the Master: ’Jesus of Nazareth’; cf.Mark 10:47; Luke 18:37. The words, ’I am he’, uttered by him who could say: ’I am who am’, caused what Jn undoubtedly attributes to miraculous power, namely, a backward stampede, involving an impressive fall to the ground of many, at least, of the arresting party.

7-8. The same question having been asked again and answered, Jesus demanded free departure for his companions—not calling them disciples, in order to save them more surely from arrest.

9. A word of Jesus, 17: 12, had guaranteed the eleven against their moral destruction (which could have happened if they had been arrested), and so Jn does not seem to extend the word unduly to preservation from physical destruction.

10. In describing the apostolic act of violence which ensued, Jn alone names Simon Peter as the one who struck the blow, joins Lk in specifying the right ear, but is the sole recorder of the name Malchus, said to be a Nabataean name (Heb. Melek) equivalent to our Rex or Roy—these being used in English both as baptismal and family names. Malchus was a servant of the high-priest, not one of the temple police.

11. In reprimanding Simon Peter, Jesus made a clear reference to the words of his agony in the garden, otherwise omitted by Jn: ’Chalice’, of course, means the portion assigned to one (in a banquet), not what comes to him by the chance of a lottery cup.

12. In arresting Jesus they bound him, for the traitor had said: ’Lay hold on him and lead him away carefully’, Mark 14:44.

13-27 Before Annas and Caiphas —This narrative raises a difficulty which must be treated briefly here. 24 suggests that Peter’s first denial, 15-18, and the first examination of Jesus, 19-23, took place in the house of Annas, who in this hypothesis, is called highpriest in 15, 16, 19, whereas in 13 and 24 the title is given (as elsewhere in John 11:49) to Caiphas. As the Synoptists place Peter’s denials in the house of Caiphas, one part of the difficulty has been met by supposing that Annas lived in the same pontifical palace as his son-in-law, the Pontiff of the year. Hence the courtyard of Caiphas was also the courtyard of Annas. As there is no trace of a topographical tradition marking a distinct palace of Annas before the 14th cent., this supposition is tenable; but what of the title ’high-priest’ being given to Annas? Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 are appealed to, but the appeal does not clear the Johannine narrative of confusion. A transposition of 18:24 after 18:13 rectifies the situation. This transposition is not purely arbitrary, for it has the support of the Syro-Sinaitic MS, of Cyril of Alexandria, and (it is said) of a minuscule codex 226, which, however, puts 24 in the middle of 13. Certain reasons of internal criticism drawn from the omission or fluctuation of a particle (de+´ or ???) at the beginning of 24 are also alleged. However, the transposition, though not devoid of probability, does not seem to stand before the united voice of the MSS and versions. The difficulty can be satisfactorily met (even without supposing one palace), by understanding ’high-priest’ of Caiphas only and taking 24 as introductory to a resumption of the history of Peter’s denials. The whole passage is so evidently a series of reminiscences, that 24 (though seeming to be out of its logical place) is quite characteristic of the evangelist’s style. Jn alone mentions that Jesus was brought to Annas first. It was an act of courtesy, for the old man was a political power and notoriously shrewd in managing business affairs. Called Hananus (Hananya=the Lord is merciful) by Josephus, he had attained the highpriesthood through Quirinius in 6 b.c., was deposed by Valerius; Gratus in a.d. 15, but still succeeded in having five of his sons (Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananus the Younger) elevated to the highpriesthood. Luke 3:2 sets him before Caiphas (the actual high-priest) in marking the pontifical year, and in Acts 4:6 he is also named first. Jn gives as reason for this present act of deference to Annas that ’he was the father-in-law of Caiphas, the high-priest of that year’. 14. Caiphas, whose personal name was Joseph, was altogether 17 years high-priest, 18-36, and was also, as John 11:50 reveals him, a politician rather than a priest. Jn here cites the Pontiff’s decision of some weeks earlier, to show that the case of Jesus was prejudged.

15 f. Two disciples, Simon Peter and another, followed Jesus. The studious anonymity as well as the association with Peter indicates the evangelist himself. Some have thought of the young man who had fled in Gethsemane, Mark 14:51 f. How the son of Zebedee came to be known to the high-priest has not been explained, but is not thereby made incredible. A word from him to the portress obtained admission for Peter.

17. Her question to the Apostle (expecting however a negative answer) shows that she knew his companion was a disciple. Peter denied discipleship.

18. April nights can be cold at Jerusalem. Hence the brazier in the courtyard, to which Peter drew near, as much to keep up appearances as to warm himself.

19-23. The palace of Caiphas in which this first interrogatory was held, as well as the two judicial sessions of the night, Matthew 26:57-68, and of the morning, Matthew 27:1, Luke 22:66-71, is traditionally located (since the pilgrim of Bordeaux 333, it seems) near the Cenacle, south of the Sion Gate, now called Neby Dâûd. The claims of the Armenian Monastery of Mount Sion are still upheld, but since 1927 the sanctuary brought to light by the Assumptionists and named Saint Peter in Gallicantu has found strong defenders ( Marchet, Power).

19. The questions of Caiphas have reference to two points—disciples whereon a political charge might be grafted, and teaching, in view of religious consequences.

20. Jesus, taking full responsibility, says nothing about the former, and in regard to the latter refers the Pontiff to the public witnesses of his quite open teaching—given in synagogues and in the temple.

22. This just and dignified answer earned him a blow with the open palm from a guard, who pretended zeal for the honour of the Pontiff. 23. Jesus, whose teaching on turning the other cheek, Matthew 5:39, is most often to be observed by a peaceful interior attitude of soul, calmly reminded the striker that one under accusation can demand proper justice and the proper forms of justice—testimony against him, if he speaks ill, respect for his person, when he speaks well.

24. The short sentence or note which says that Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiphas is inserted here as something which the Evangelist recalls for the purpose of continuing the account of Peter’s denials.

25-27. Nine denials of his Master by Peter can be counted in the Gospels, if variations of persons, circumstances, and verbal forms are taken into account. But all insist that the denials were three. Three distinct times, when called to answer by one or more persons at once, Peter denied our Lord. The first denial had no variety of circumstance; the second and third had. Hence they are variously reported according to the particular circumstance or set of circumstances apprehended by the witness. Jn sets these last two denials in relation to queries from bystanders at the brazier, and from a relative of Malchus. The (second) cockcrow, as we said, 13:38, may have been as close to daybreak as the beginning of the 4th watch, 3-6 a.m.

28-38a First Interrogation before Pilate —28. The praetorium to which Jesus was brought from Caiphas was the residence of the governor. The procurators of Judaea, who were subordinate to the imperial Legate of Syria, resided habitually at Caesaraea, but came to Jerusalem for the great festivals or whenever a concourse or other circumstances endangered public tranquility. About Pilate’s place of residence at Jerusalem there has been a difference of opinion. The Herodian palace near the present Jaffa Gate would seem to be naturally indicated as the Jerusalem residence of the supreme Roman magistrate, and we know from Josephus (BJ 2, 14, 8; 15, 5) that a quarter of a century later the governor Gessius Florus lodged there. Pilate also by the famous incident of the shields would have signified his intention of doing so. On the other hand, the arx Antonia or vast fortress-palace built by Herod at the NW. angle of the temple area was undoubtedly the most central and best post of vigilance. Especially, when the air was electric, it would be the proper place for the Governor to lodge. Since the 13th cent. the Via Dolorosa has begun from there, and excavations made between 1927 and 1932 in the property of the Sisters of Sion seem to have given reasonable grounds for connecting this place with the Lithostrotos of John 19:13. Probabilities in favour of the Antonia have therefore decidedly grown in recent years. The time was morning, probably as early as 6 a.m. by our clocks. The Sanhedrists did not enter the pagan residence to avoid legal defilement which would prevent them from taking part in the Paschal rites that evening. Meanwhile they were defiling their consciences with murder. Jesus, we may suppose, was conducted at once to a judgement hall within, entering, perhaps. by the northern long side of the great quadrangular fortress.

29. Pilate is now mentioned for the first time. Procurator of Judaea since a.d. 26 he is known to us not only from the Gospels but also from Philo and Josephus. His haughty and imprudent contempt of Jewish religious susceptibility is shown by two desecrations of the city, first with ensigns bearing the image of Caesar, and secondly with shields similarly adorned which he set up in the Herodian palace. He also offended Jewish feeling by the appropriation of temple monies for the building of an aqueduct. He was often cruel; cf.Luke 13:1. It was an act of cruelty against Samaritans that led finally in 36 to his deposition by the Syrian Legate Vitellius. The Gospels, however, show that he had something of a Roman sense of justice, was at once sceptical and superstitious, but above all weak as an upholder of right, when his position was thereby threatened. He feared above all things the frown of Tiberius Caesar. Jesus seems to have impressed him from the beginning. So, when he went out (on to a balcony ?) to the Jews, he demanded very categorically the formulation of their charge.

30. Having come only for the ratification of a capital sentence, which they could not carry out themselves, they were taken aback. They retorted that they would not have delivered up a fellow Jew to Pilate, if he had not done wrong.

31. Before this vagueness, Pilate pretends to understand the matter as a minor (non-capital) charge, to be judged by themselves according to Jewish law. Thereupon they make it clear that they want the death penalty, admitting that they have not the ius gladii or power of execution.

32. Thus Jesus, as he had foretold, Matthew 20:19; John 3:14; John 8:28; John 12:32, was to die by the Roman provincial penalty of crucifixion.

33. Pilate proceeds to an interrogation in the hall within. Of the three charges given by Luke 23:2, namely sedition, anti-fiscal agitation, pretending to royal sovereignty, the governor takes only the last which was laesa maiestas or treason in a very definite sense. ’(So) thou art the king of the Jews’, is, as the context shows, an assertion uttered with something of an interrogatory tone. Pilate would have expected a negative answer.

34. Jesus distinguished: Did that statement come from Pilate (a Roman) or from others (namely Jews)? If king meant a rival of Tiberius, No; if it meant the Israelite Messias, Yes. This was what was implied in the question of Jesus to Pilate. 35. The latter, having signified that the affair against Jesus was all a Jewish matter, asked definitely: ’What hast thou done?’

36. Jesus does not answer this question, except by clearly defining what his kingship is. It is not of terrestrial origin. If it were, his guards— the military force which in that hypothesis he would have had—would have striven against his arrest. Consequently his kingship is not ’from hence’— terrestrial—and therefore he is no Palestinian rival of the majesty of Roman Tiberius.

37. Pilate, surprised at an avowal of kingship of any kind, asked: ’Art thou a king then?’ The answer given by Jesus is Yes. He is a Teacher-King, born and present in the world to proclaim the royal authority of truth. ’Every one who is of the truth (joined to it by the filial sympathy of true goodness, cf. 3:21) heareth my voice’, i.e. obeys me.

38a. Pilate showed the scepticism of his soul by the question: ’What is truth?’ but went no further. It is at this point that Pilate sent Jesus off to Herod; cf.Luke 23:6-12.

38b. When Jesus was brought back from Herod’s court, Pilate, convinced that he had only to deal with a philosopher or a dreamer, went out and again informed the Jews: ’I find no cause in him’. Up to this Pilate has done his duty as a Roman magistrate, but he did not follow out the course of justice by immediately releasing the prisoner. The sending of Jesus to Herod, Luke 23:6-12, was the beginning of compromise; the proposal of the minor penalty of flogging, Luke 23:16, was a further step on the way of weakness.

39 f. Jn only mentions as a first subterfuge the proposed preference of Jesus to Barabbas (Son of Abba—rather ’Masterson’ than ’Fatherson’ in our English style of names). This suggestion of amnesty likewise violated the innocence of Jesus. Jn tells briefly that the preference was given by the Jews to Barabbas, and ends with one of those characteristically tragic sentences: Now Barabbas was a robber’.