Session 26: January 7, 2023

Scripture Reading: John 18:1-27 [originally the post read “John 18:1-40,” but we could not cover all the material]

When he had said these things, Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley. There was an orchard there, and he and his disciples went into it. 2 (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times with his disciples.) 3 So Judas obtained a squad of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. They came to the orchard with lanterns and torches and weapons.

4 Then Jesus, because he knew everything that was going to happen to him, came and asked them, “Who are you looking for?” 5 They replied, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He told them, “I am he.” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing there with them.) 6 So when Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they retreated and fell to the ground. 7 Then Jesus asked them again, “Who are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” 8 Jesus replied, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, let these men go.” 9 He said this to fulfill the word he had spoken, “I have not lost a single one of those whom you gave me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. (Now the slave’s name was Malchus.) 11 But Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

12 Then the squad of soldiers with their commanding officer and the officers of the Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and tied him up. 13 They brought him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 (Now it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jewish leaders that it was to their advantage that one man die for the people.)

15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) 16 But Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. 17 The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.” 18 (Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire they had made, warming themselves because it was cold. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.)

19 While this was happening, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus replied, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” 22 When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus replied, “If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him, still tied up, to Caiaphas the high priest.

25 Meanwhile Simon Peter was standing in the courtyard warming himself. They said to him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” Peter denied it: “I am not!” 26 One of the high priest’s slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” 27 Then Peter denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor’s residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They replied, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.”

31 Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!” The Jewish leaders replied, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” 32 (This happened to fulfill the word Jesus had spoken when he indicated what kind of death he was going to die.)

33 So Pilate went back into the governor’s residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 34 Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”

36 Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?”

When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. 39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

Main Themes

The Passion Narrative

Chapter18 puts us squarely within the “passion narrative.” As one website summarizes:

The term “passion narrative” is used primarily to refer to the accounts given in the canonical gospels of the suffering and death of Jesus. Generally, scholars treat the passion narratives as beginning with Jesus’ agony and arrest in Gethsemane and concluding with his burial. The sections to which these narratives are typically assigned consist therefore of Matthew 26:30–27:66, Mark 14:26–15:47, Luke 22:39–23:56, and John 18:1–19:42.

The passion narratives (plural, to refer to the different passion narratives in each gospel) are quite unique in their literary genre. The Gospels resemble the genre of ancient biographies. Ancient biographies ending with the subjects’ deaths were not unusual, but they rarely ended with the subjects’ martyrdom. If considered on their own (not within the larger context of each gospel), the passion narratives resemble martyr stories but even this comparison is not perfect. The shared elements with ancient martyrdom narratives include a righteous person’s unjust death, betrayal, refusal to compromise, and sentencing. However, the passion narratives do not include other distinctive elements of martyr narratives, such as sensationalistic details, interpretive speeches, and vengeful threats. The passion narratives are also different from the typical Greek apotheosis stories. Jesus is not promoted into divinity (e.g., like when Hercules turns “shiny” in the animated Disney movie); Jesus returns to his preexistent glory with the Father. All this has led at least one scholar (Theissen) to claim that, “There is no analogy to the Passion narrative in all of ancient literature.” To whatever extent this is an overstatement, it is not far off the mark.

The High Priest and the Sanhedrin

The High Priest

The High Priesthood was a religious office instituted in the Old Testament by God (see, e.g., Exodus 28). By Jesus’ day, the office was quite different. According to the Old Testament, the office was held for life and was hereditary. In the first century, the office was appointed and held at the pleasure of the emperor and his political delegates. Thus, Quirinius appointed Annas, Gratus appointed Caiaphas, and Vitellius retired Caiaphas. In the Old Testament, only one person was referred to as the High Priest. In the first century, the High Priest and his sons were commonly referred to as high priests. Finally, the High Priest was meant to hold an incredibly important religious role, which was a linchpin of the Israelite’s religion. As such, we might expect the high priests in Jesus’ day to be Pharisees, given their religious fanaticism. Surprisingly, however, the office was dominated by Sadducees.

The Sadducees

Who were the Sadducees? As one Christian website explains:

The Sadducees were an aristocratic class connected with everything going on in the temple in Jerusalem. They tended to be wealthy and held powerful positions, including that of chief priests and high priest, and they held the majority of the 70 seats of the ruling council called the Sanhedrin.

The Sadducees worked hard to keep the peace by agreeing with the decisions of Rome (Israel at the time was under Roman control), and they seemed to be more concerned with politics than religion. Because they were accommodating to Rome and were the wealthy upper class, they did not relate well to the common man, nor did the common man hold them in high opinion. The commoners related better to those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. Though the Sadducees held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin, history indicates that much of the time they had to go along with the ideas of the Pharisaic minority, because the Pharisees were more popular with the masses.

Not all priests were Sadducees, but many of them were. The Sadducees preserved the authority of the written Word of God, especially the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). While they could be commended for this, they definitely were not perfect in their doctrinal views. The following is a brief list of Sadducean beliefs that contradict Scripture:

1. The Sadducees were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God’s involvement in everyday life.

2. They denied any resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18–27; Acts 23:8). Due to this belief, the Sadducees strongly resisted the apostles’ preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead.

3. They denied the afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life.

4. They denied the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons (Acts 23:8).

Notice what an odd bunch the Sadducees were. They used the biblical tradition as a set of societal rules but denied the underlying spiritual realities. Without an after life, the resurrection of the dead, or even a spiritual world, the Old Testament is rendered nearly meaningless. Judgment, atonement, and the eschaton become, at most, symbolic. God, if real at all, ought to be followed to avoid his wrath, have a pleasant life, and a prosperous nation. When I think about it, the Sadducees don’t sound that odd. In fact, they sound oddly familiar.

Sadducees were rarely concerned with purity rules, particularly the extrabiblical ones followed by the Pharisees. They were much more concerned with politics. And these were the people that dominated the priesthood, the high priesthood, and Jerusalem’s ruling council—the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin

The Sanhedrin was a municipal aristocracy. Large cities in the ancient world often had their own senates or ruling councils. They would be comprised of the wealthy elite. In the case of the Sanhedrin, although a municipal group, its power influenced national affairs. Because the group was dominated by Sadducees, it was more of a political council with a religious veneer than a religious council with political power. Tradition indicates the group had 71 members, although this may have been more of an average rather than an exact number. Some or most of the members may have been appointed by the local rulers, such as Herod. Also according to tradition, the group met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount.

The Romans were glad to interact with and delegate to local councils. The Roman justice system worked with a system of delatores instead of prosecutors. A local individual or group would accuse and then testify against an alleged criminal. Local councils could also issue sentences and administer punishments themselves, without involving the Romans. The Romans, however, reserved the power of capital punishment. Part of the reason for this limitation on local councils was to prevent them from executing fellow provincials for being pro-Roman.

Betrayal and Arrest

After Jesus concludes his speech (recall chapters 13 through 17), he goes out with his disciples to the Kidron Valley. This valley is east of Jerusalem and separates the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives. A creek is found at the bottom of the valley, but it is dry much of the year. The valley runs all the way to the Dead Sea. The Old Testament refers to part of this valley as the "Valley of Josaphat." The location is relevant to some eschatological prophecies.

Jesus reaches an orchard or garden, depending on the translation. At the time, gardens were often enclosed by walls, but that may not be in view here. The word orchard may be a better translation considering that the Gospel of Mark calls the place Gethsemane, which means “olive press.” So, Jesus probably reaches an olive orchard with an olive press as part of the agricultural unit.

Judas knew this place because Jesus often met there with his disciples. Judas guides a “squad of soldiers” and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. The term translated as “squad of soldiers” is literally “cohort.” As translators’ note 6 in the NET explains:

Grk “a cohort.” The word σπεῖραν (speiran) is a technical term for a Roman cohort, normally a force of 600 men (one-tenth of a legion). It was under the command of a χιλίαρχος (chiliarchos, v. 12). Because of the improbability of an entire cohort being sent to arrest a single man, some have suggested that σπεῖραν here refers only to a maniple, a force of 200. But the use of the word here does not necessarily mean the entire cohort was present on this mission, but only that it was the cohort which performed the task (for example, saying the fire department put out the fire does not mean that every fireman belonging to the department was on the scene at the time). These Roman soldiers must have been ordered to accompany the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees by Pilate, since they would have been under the direct command of the Roman prefect or procurator. It is not difficult to understand why Pilate would have been willing to assist the Jewish authorities in such a way. With a huge crowd of pilgrims in Jerusalem for the Passover, the Romans would have been especially nervous about an uprising of some sort. No doubt the chief priests and Pharisees had informed Pilate that this man Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, or in the terms Pilate would understand, king of Israel.

However, the matter is not quite as straightforward as the translators’ note may lead us to believe. Although the term cohort is certainly a Roman one, such military terms had long been transferred to Jewish soldiers. It is more historically probable that the arrest did not involve Roman authorities, which have not been alerted yet in the story. Neither the Synoptics nor John’s Gospel seem to involve the Romans at this point in the story.

Notice that the soldiers come with lanterns and torches. Although this could simply imply it was dark, it may also suggest that the authorities expected Jesus to run and a chase to ensue. That did not occur. Jesus turns himself in since “he knew everything that was going to happen to him.”

In the Synoptics, Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss. In the Gospel of John, the author omits that detail and jumps straight to the dialogue.

I Am He

The dialogue between Jesus and the arresting authorities has a seemingly strange moment. Jesus asks, “Who are you looking for?” They reply, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus responds, “I am he.” Upon saying this, “they retreated and fell to the ground.” Why? As translators’ note 16 to the NET explains (quoted only in part):

When Jesus said to those who came to arrest him “I am,” they retreated and fell to the ground. L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus’ unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall” (John [NICNT], 743-44). Perhaps this is what in fact happened on the scene, but the theological significance given to this event by the author implies that more is involved. The reaction on the part of those who came to arrest Jesus comes in response to his affirmation that he is indeed the one they are seeking, Jesus the Nazarene. But Jesus makes this affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has encountered before in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 8:24, 28, 58. Jesus has applied to himself the divine Name of Exod 3:14, “I AM.”

Jesus identifies himself with a formula that sounds like he is calling himself God. Everyone present certainly takes it as such and reacts to the deadly blasphemy. They drop to the ground almost as if to avoid the lightning that was sure to strike from the sky—so grievous was the offense.

Peter’s Resistance

The Synoptics do not tell us who reacts violently during Jesus’ arrest. The Gospel of John does: Peter. It even tells us the name of the victim, Malchus. Perhaps the earlier gospels omitted this information to protect Peter from arrest and prosecution. John, writing years later, can provide people’s identities without problem.

Peter’s brave attack creates a striking backdrop against his impending abandonment of Jesus. As Craig Keener points out, “Loyalty with a weapon in one’s hand and hope of messianic help is not the same as loyalty when self-defense is impossible . . . .”

Why Peter harmed only Malchus’ ear is unclear. The chances that Peter was confident and dexterous enough with a blade to do so on purpose are slim to none. Peter may have meant a much more serious wound to the face or neck, and Malchus may have partially moved out of the way.

Jesus rebukes Peter and insist Jesus must “drink the cup” that the Father has given him. What is this “the cup?” The cup is a symbol of judgment often employed in the Old Testament. For example:

May he rain down burning coals and brimstone on the wicked! A whirlwind is what they deserve. (In Hebrew, the literal text says, “[may] a wind of rage [be] the portion of their cup.”) Psalm 11:6

You have made your people experience hard times; you have made us drink intoxicating wine. Psalm 60:3

You will be shocked and amazed! You are totally blind! They are drunk, but not because of wine; they stagger, but not because of beer. For the Lord has poured out on you a strong urge to sleep deeply. He has shut your eyes (you prophets), and covered your heads (you seers). Isaiah 29:9-10

Wake up! Wake up! Get up, O Jerusalem! You drank from the cup the Lord passed to you, which was full of his anger. You drained dry the goblet full of intoxicating wine. Isaiah 51:17

Annas and Caiaphas

Annas and the Corrupt Trial

Upon arrest, Jesus is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas “who was high priest that year.” Please recall the discussion of the high priesthood above. According to Jewish law, the high priest was to serve for life. Now that the Romans had conquered the Jews, the high priest could be changed at the whim of the Roman authorities. That was the case with Annas. He had been appointed high priest by the Romans and was later deposed by them. However, there are strong indications that Annas held on to the powerful office albeit unofficially. After Annas left office, all five of his sons followed in office. In all likelihood, Annas remained the powerful figure pulling the strings of his children. Also, Annas was probably still viewed by the people of Israel as the true high priest. John outright refers to him as the high priest while also acknowledging that technically Caiaphas was the high priest that year. All this explains why Jesus was first brought to him although officially Annas held no office.

Beginning with Annas, the Jewish trial of Jesus shows evidence of corruption. For example, Pharisaic tradition prohibited a single individual from acting as judge. Perhaps Annas, who was a Sadducee and not a Pharisee, could be excused from such a requirement. There were other irregularities, however. To the extent that later rabbinic sources give us insight into Jewish first century practices, judges were meant to conduct capital trials during daylight (this may explain the brief meeting with Caiaphas early in the morning), trials should not occur on the eve of or during a Sabbath or festival (although emergency situations could justify doing so), Pharisaic tradition required a day to pass before issuing a verdict of condemnation (Sadducees may not have felt bound to this tradition), and the Sanhedrin was supposed to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Most importantly, Jewish law forbade false witnesses. The penalty for a false witness in a capital case was death. Although not found in John, the other gospels mention such false witnesses (e.g., Matthew 26:59).

The original audience of John’s Gospel would have picked up on the irregularities. Yet, they also would have never expected otherwise. The law in the first century unabashedly favored the wealthy and powerful. There was no expectation of fairness.

Annas Questions Jesus

Annas questions Jesus regarding his disciples and his teachings. Although the text does not say, we can make an educated guess that Annas probably focused on statements like Jesus’ threat against the temple (“Jesus replied, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.’ Then the Jewish leaders said to him, ‘This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?’” John 2:19-20); Jesus’ blasphemous claims (“‘The Father and I are one.’ The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?’ The Jewish leaders replied, ‘We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy because you, a man, are claiming to be God.’” John 10:30-33); and the violent or sacrilegious behavior of Jesus’ disciples (“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.” John 18:10).

Jesus does not directly address the accusations. There might be a legal strategy at work. There is some indication (although from later sources), that a Jewish tribunal could not condemn a prisoner based solely on his own testimony in a capital case. Another possibility is that since Jesus had been confronted by the authorities in public and been vindicated in public (e.g., “The officers replied, ‘No one ever spoke like this man!’” John 7:46), this trial was inappropriate, in a similar way that we prohibit double jeopardy. Regardless of whether the author intends us to pick up on such legal tactics, Jesus certainly does not display the submissive behavior expected of him. Most prisoners brought before an aristocratic tribunal would have known to act self-effacingly and highly adulatory of the authorities.

Jesus’ response to Annas’ questioning makes perfect sense. (“I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” John 18:20-21) Whatever the accusations may be of him, why is an investigation required (i.e., a trial with testimony and evidence)? Jesus taught publicly. There is nothing to discover. Surely if Jesus said anything worthy of death in public, there would have been public opposition. Both Jews and Romans were highly suspicious of secret religious groups—a prejudice on which Annas’ questioning is predicated. Jesus makes clear he is not part of a secret sect. Moreover, Jesus’ response has an implied accusation. He taught in public. The religious elite, however, arrested him in secret.

Annas strikes Jesus because of his disrespect. In Annas’ mind, Jesus ought to beg not challenge. Striking the prisoner during questioning would have violated Jewish law, but as I discussed above, no ancient listener would be surprised by a member of the elite taking certain liberties. Jesus’ response to the strike is another challenge. (“If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me? John 18:23) If Annas has struck Jesus without reason, then the one who has broken the law is Annas while Jesus remains blameless.

Caiaphas Takes Jesus to the Romans

Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas. Caiaphas is the one to turn Jesus in to the Romans. There are a few reasons this was the case. Primarily, we must remember that Caiaphas was technically holding the office of high priest that year. Annas could pull the strings in the background, but Caiaphas’ rubber stamp was still required. Also, and this is much more speculative, Jewish law may have required a daytime trial in a capital case. A brief, early morning hearing with Caiaphas may have technically fulfilled this requirement.

Peter’s Denials

Peter denies Jesus three times. The first denial is found in verses 15 through 18. An anonymous disciple introduces Peter into the high priest’s household. The level of acquaintance between the unknown disciple and the high priest is not described. It could range from a person who regularly supplied the high priest’s household (for example, of fish) and had therefore met his servants, to a person who was a true friend of someone in the high priest’s household. One could speculate regarding the identity of this disciple, but there is no indication that he was even one of the twelve. The options are too many.

In verse 17, the slave girl at the door asks, or perhaps the better word is accuses, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” Perhaps she remembered having seen Peter with Jesus. Maybe Peter’s Galilean accent gave him away. Peter, now surrounded by the high priest’s slaves and guards, responds, “I am not.” Given the value of honor towards one’s teacher, Peter’s behavior would have been seen as bringing shame not only upon himself but upon Jesus as well. Peter fails to do what Jesus requires, “The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” John 12:25-26

Peter’s second and third denials are described in verses 25 through 27. In verse 25, “they” recognize him—probably servants of the high priest. Again we are not told how he is recognized. Peter emphatically denies being one of Jesus disciples, “I am not!” Finally, a relative of Malchus—the man Peter attacked and cut off his ear—recognizes Peter. Then the most damning accusation is made, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” Peter had attacked (with probable lethal intent) a servant of the arresting officials. If Peter were identified, he could have been properly sentenced. Peter denies Jesus one more time and the rooster crows.

The rooster crowing marks the climax, though not the end, to Peter’s story. The words of Jesus are fulfilled. Recall John 13:31-38:

31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. 33 Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,’ now I tell you the same.

34 “I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”

36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” 37 Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!

Notice that Peter’s denials are interspersed with Jesus’ fearless responses to the high priest. This literary device creates a stark comparison between he who is willing to lay down his life and he who is not. Notice as well that Peter’s later restoration (John 21:7-ff) provides hope for all those who have faltered.

[The blog post section that follows was not covered during the session and was copied to the following session.]

Pilate

The Jewish authorities sentence Jesus. Jesus’ apostles—most notably Peter—desert him. Then the time comes for the Romans to get involved.

The first question we ought to ask is: why? Why must the Romans be involved at all? I have discussed this already, so I will be brief. The Romans depended on delatores—accusers—to bring criminals to justice. These accusers could be individuals or councils, such as the Sanhedrin. In particular, the Sanhedrin was composed of the aristocratic elite of the most important city in Israel. The Roman governor would certainly cooperate with such a group.

The Jews deliver Jesus to Pilate “very early in the morning,” probably around 6 am. For Romans, “late morning” in the summer months was before 8 or 9 am. A Roman governor would probably end his public transactions around noon, leaving some time for leisure. In fact, Romans rarely slept in; doing so could carry the implication of drinking or partying the night before.

When the Jews deliver Jesus, they avoid entering into the “governor’s residence”—the praetorium. There is some debate whether the praetorium was Fortress Antonia, adjoining the temple courts, or the old palace of Herod the Great. The lavishness of Herod’s old palace, which would have been preferred by a Roman governor, along with confirmation from other ancient writings seem to support the latter alternative. Either way, why did the Jews not enter the praetorium? Because houses of non-Jews were ritually impure and entering them would render a Jew impure as well, keeping him from fully participating in the Passover festivities. This concern for ritual purity serves as evidence of the aristocrats’ hypocrisy: they spent the night ignoring the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and fairness, to then show concern for more superficial rituals. Recall Matthew 23:23-24:

“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!

Notice Pilate’s attitude. From Josephus’ writings (an ancient Jewish historian) we know that originally Pilate was quite unsympathetic towards the Jewish customs. In John, we find a Pilate much more willing to avoid unnecessary friction. He comes out to meet the Jewish elite, accommodating of the fact that they could not enter the home. However, Pilate also shows some annoyance with the situation. He asks, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” The response is, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” If we read between the lines, Pilate’s question does not seem like an honest request for information. He seems to be aware of the accusation but remains unconvinced that this is a matter worthy of his involvement. The Jews insist they would not seek audience before Pilate if Jesus was not really a criminal.

The Jewish elite finally speak truly when they say, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” As I explained above, only the Roman governor could order a person killed—particularly by crucifixion. Notice, therefore, that the only way in which Jesus’ words could be fulfilled (e.g., “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32) was if the Jews involved the Romans. This was expected, indeed planned, by Jesus.

Roman citizens could not be legally crucified, but slaves and provincials could be, generally for rebellion against Rome.

Pilate was known for his brutality. He had sometimes executed Jews without trial. The Jewish elite knew that if they wanted Jesus dead, they were asking the right guy. They may have expected no hearing at all, even if Roman law technically required one. But there were politics at play. An overly cruel governor could give rise to revolts by the provincials. In fact, later in his life, Pilate’s excessive use of capital punishment cost him his office. We also have other reasons to believe that Pilate may have been trying to be more careful than usual. His patron, Sejanus, was executed in the year 31 AD. If the crucifixion happened in the year 33 AD, then Pilate found himself in a precarious situation with little political support. Even if the crucifixion happened in the year 30 AD (the other widely argued for date), Pilate may have already been feeling the mounting opposition to his patron. Pilate himself was only an equestrian, a class lower than senators. Finally, there is likely some personal animosity at work as well. Pilate had gained some political savvy by this point, but he probably strongly disliked the Jews. Pilate may have been fair to Jesus simply to spite the Jews.

Pilate Questions Jesus

According to normal judicial procedure, the accuser spoke first. So, Pilate had to already be aware of the charge of treason when he begins Jesus’ interrogation. The question Pilate asks is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Ain’t that the million dollar question! In classic Johannine fashion, this moment drips with irony. Pilate is probably employing sarcasm, perhaps even mockery. But the gospel audience understands that the question is serious—the most important question ever, in fact. Is Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, the High Priest, the King, God himself?

Notice that Pilate’s question is strange in one regard: so far no one has used his exact terminology. Jesus’ detractors do not calling him king of the Jews. Jesus himself does not make the claim with those exact words. The title is not even a traditional Christian confession. Christians will call Jesus Messiah, Christ, Lord, or perhaps even King of Israel or King of Kings, but generally not King of the Jews. There is irony in the fact that a Gentile is one to speak with such insight, even if he spoke more than he knew.

Jesus’ reply plays on the irony of Pilate’s question. Jesus retorts, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Allow me to rephrase it as, “Oh, so you can tell? You figured it out on your own or someone told you?” Pilate’s response makes perfect sense, “I am not a Jew, am I?” In other words, “How would I know? I am not a Jew.”

If up to this point the conversation had a mocking tone, it becomes serious as Pilate asks, “Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” This is a hefty question. Paraphrased, Pilate says, “Your people wish me to have you killed. Why?” There is also some legalese at play here. If a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would ask about the charge three times before convicting the defendant by default.

Jesus explains that his kingdom is not of this world. He offers a simple proof. If his kingdom were of this world, his followers would be fighting to free Jesus; they would probably be fighting against Jews to establish Jesus as King and fighting against the Romans to liberate Israel. They are not. “As it is,” meaning, “look around, there is no fighting,” Jesus’ kingdom is certainly not political. But Jesus does not deny the charge against him. Jesus affirms he has a kingdom: “my kingdom is not from here.” If Jesus were trying to win his trial, this was not a wise move.

Pilate picks up on Jesus confession. “So you are a king!” To whatever extent Pilate is following standard trial procedure, notice that this is the third time the charge is brought up to the defendant. The defendant’s lack of defense will result in a conviction by default. (Although, perhaps the conversation simply developed this way and the governor is not thinking in terms of legal procedure.) For the last time, Jesus fails to defend himself. “You say that I am a king.” This statement can be taken in a few different ways. Jesus may mean it as, “You say I am king because I am.” As an older commentary puts it, “Thou sayest; for I am a king.” Another alternative is that Jesus bypasses the title and instead affirms the substance of the accusation. Then we could rephrase Jesus response as follows: “Is King the proper title for someone like me? I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Does that make me king?” However we interpret Jesus’ response, it is not a denial of the charge against him. Jesus may have sealed his fate.

Pilate ends the conversation with another million dollar question, “What is truth?” The true tone and intent behind his questions is hard to discern. Maybe Pilate is mocking Jesus’ and his commitment to truth. After all, Pilate lived a life of Roman politics and military prowess. Truth? Who cares. Power—that’s what really matters. We can almost hear his argument: “Do you think a man is convicted because he is guilty? He is convicted because he is weak. Do you think the powerful escape justice because they are righteous? Don’t be naïve! Do you think only the wicked are conquered and enslaved? We conquer devils and saints alike. Do you think the righteous rule the world? The strong rule over all. Do you think that kings speak only truth? If not, go ahead and disagree with them and see what happens. Do you think truth matters at all? Don’t be a child.”

Maybe Pilate means his question earnestly. The other gospels tell us that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent. Moreover, Pilate’s wife had received a vision confirming Jesus was blameless and should not be convicted.

So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) As he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man; I have suffered greatly as a result of a dream about him today.” Matthew 27:17-19

We can imagine a corrupt ruler of a corrupt nation being asked by a corrupt ruling council to brutally crucify a man he knows to be innocent and asking himself: “What is truth? Is there anything worth fighting for? Anything worth sacrificing for? If so, what is that truth? Where does it come from?” These could be the questions of a wicked man who is beginning to see that what is right and wrong is not simply a matter of power.

Pilate Attempts to Release Jesus

Pilate finds no (legal) fault in Jesus and attempts to release him. Pilate follows a custom of releasing one prisoner during Passover (as scholars call it, the “paschal amnesty custom”). A Roman governor was free to issue amnesties. We have record of Romans sometimes releasing prisoner en masse on local feasts. During their own festivities, Romans usually delayed punishments. So, the custom described in John would not have seemed odd in the ancient world.

Pilate gives the Jewish people a choice: Jesus or Barabbas? To Pilate’s surprise, the people exclaim: “Barabbas!” There is irony upon irony here. Jesus was accused of being a revolutionary but found to be innocent. Barabbas was an actual revolutionary! Technically, the word used in verse 40 is “robber,” but that was a euphemism for revolutionary. As the NET’s translators’ note 118 explains:

Or “robber.” It is possible that Barabbas was merely a robber or highwayman, but more likely, given the use of the term ληστής (lēstēs) in Josephus and other early sources, that he was a guerrilla warrior or revolutionary leader.

Moreover, the Jewish leaders allegedly acted against Jesus to prevent a revolution that could destroy Israel. John 11:49-50:

Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.”

Yet, they requested the release of the very type of person who would bring demise to the nation just 40 years later.