Session 27: January 14, 2023

Scripture Reading: John 18:28-19:16a

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.)

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. 2 The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him again and again and said, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly in the face.

4 Again Pilate went out and said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no reason for an accusation against him.” 5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Look, here is the man!” 6 When the chief priests and their officers saw him, they shouted out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said, “You take him and crucify him! Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against him!” 7 The Jewish leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die because he claimed to be the Son of God!”

8 When Pilate heard what they said, he was more afraid than ever, 9 and he went back into the governor’s residence and said to Jesus, “Where do you come from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” 11 Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.”

12 From this point on, Pilate tried to release him. But the Jewish leaders shouted out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar! Everyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar!” 13 When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus outside and sat down on the judgment seat in the place called “The Stone Pavement” (Gabbatha in Aramaic). 14 (Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover, about noon.) Pilate said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, here is your king!”

15 Then they shouted out, “Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate asked, “Shall I crucify your king?” The high priests replied, “We have no king except Caesar!” 16 Then Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

Main Themes

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 last session, 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? They don’t yet go ahead and disagree with them and see what happens. Do you think truth matters at all? Don’t be a child.”

However, there is a good chance 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 prisoners 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.

Abusing the Prisoner

The Flogging

Jewish law allowed for up to 40 lashings (Deuteronomy 25:3). To make sure that one did not accidentally exceed the lawful numbers of blows, the Jews only dealt 39 lashings. The Romans were not beholden to such a limit. In fact, the text indicates a more severe flogging. As the NET’s study note 1 explains:

Three forms of corporal punishment were employed by the Romans, in increasing degree of severity: (1) fustigatio (beating), (2) flagellatio (flogging), and (3) verberatio (severe flogging, scourging). The first could be on occasion a punishment in itself, but the more severe forms were part of the capital sentence as a prelude to crucifixion. The most severe, verberatio, is what is indicated here by the Greek verb translated flogged severely (μαστιγόω, mastigoō). People died on occasion while being flogged this way; frequently it was severe enough to rip a person’s body open or cut muscle and sinew to the bone. It was carried out with a whip that had fragments of bone or pieces of metal bound into the tips.

The Roman scourging could be so severe that sometimes victims that were not sentenced to death died. There are accounts of scourgings that left the victim’s bones exposed. It was a horrific practice.

Jesus was probably tied to a pillar or post and beaten with flagella, which as the quotation above explains, were leather whips with interspersed knots with pieces of iron or bone, which left skin hanging from the back in bloody strips.

The Mocking

“The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe. They came up to him again and again and said, ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’ And they struck him repeatedly in the face.” (John 19:2-3)

The crown of thorns may have been made for mockery more than torture, although it may have served both purposes. It was probably made from the branches of an available shrub, such as acanthus. The thorns may have been turned outward to simulate a crown instead of inward to produce bleeding. The main point was making Jesus look like a king to then sarcastically mock him. We have records of the Romans abusing other prisoners, even by adorning them as king as well. So, the scene being described is entirely in keeping with Roman practice.

Purple was an expensive dye in the ancient world. Consequently, purple clothing was often worn only by the wealthy elite or royalty. For example, the robes of Hellenistic princes were purple. To complete Jesus’ costume, the Roman soldiers give him a purple robe. However, if purple was so expensive, would the soldiers dare waste such an item of clothing? The Gospel of Matthew gives us an important clue. In Matthew 27:28, the same item is described as a “scarlet robe.” A scarlet robe would have been worn by a Roman soldier and it was cheaply dyed in contrast to expensive royal purple—but it resembled a king’s robe. Imagine a child pretending to be a superhero. His parent may tie a towel around the child’s neck and then refer to it as a cape. On one hand we understand that it is a towel, but on the other hand we clearly understand it is meant to represent a cape and would refer to it as such. Similarly, although the soldiers probably used a scarlet military garment to clothe Jesus, everyone understood it was meant to represent a royal purple robe.

Finally, the soldiers chant, “Hail, king of the Jews!” In the Eastern Roman Empire, those who worshipped Cesar would chant “Hail, Cesar!” The soldiers purposely utilize the same chant for Jesus to add to their sarcastic mockery.

Pilate’s Second Attempt

Pilate’s Attempt to Release Jesus

After the scourging and mockery, Pilate attempts to release Jesus once more. Presumably hoping that the flogging had satiated the Jews’ bloodthirst, Pilate presents the horrifically bloodied Jesus to them an exclaims, “I find no reason for an accusation against him.” In other words, “Hasn’t this innocent man suffered enough for whatever he did to annoy you? Can we be done with this whole ordeal?” The words that Pilate actually uses carry even more irony. Pilate says, “Behold the man!” This sounds strikingly similar to words of God to the prophet Samuel as God presented Israel’s first king:

When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said, “Here is the man that I told you about. He will rule over my people.” 1 Samuel 9:17

Moreover, “behold the man” is the whole reason for the gospel. God became man! To quote C.S. Lewis, “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation.” Had God not become man there would be no Gospel, there would be no story to tell, there would be no chance of killing God. We should behold indeed!

The Jewish religious elite respond by demanding, “Crucify him!” Pilate has no reason to crucify Jesus, so he responds, “You take him and crucify him!” Pilate’s response is a bit metaphorical. The Roman soldiers will have to be the ones to carry out the execution, but it will be done so at the behest of the Jews not the Romans. As we will see throughout the next few verses, John does not exculpate Pilate, who is too weak to save a man he believes to be innocent, but the brunt of the guilt for Jesus’ execution is placed squarely on the Jewish elite’s shoulders.

Why do the “chief priests and their officers” demand execution? Because they have a law and according to that law Jesus ought to die for claiming to be the Son of God. Notice this is a different charge from what Pilate was told earlier—that Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. However, both charges are related. Since Caesar was understood to be divine, a claim to be a son of a god could be understood by the Romans as a political claim to office. Nonetheless, Pilate seems unconvinced. For Pilate to declare Jesus innocent implies Pilate understood Jesus’ claims as merely philosophical, not political.

To the reader of John’s Gospel, the claim that the law demands Jesus’ death because he claims to be God’s son would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. The law would certainly demand such a penalty—if the claim were false! That’s the whole question. Is Jesus telling the truth or not? Jesus provided miracle after miracle after miracle to substantiate his claims, but nothing sufficed for the religious elite. The careful reader will also detect a deep irony. Jesus is the incarnation of their law (“Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us.” John 1:14). To say that the law demands the death of Jesus is to say that Jesus demands the death of Jesus.

Pilate More Afraid than Ever

When Pilate is informed that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he becomes “more afraid than ever.” As a Roman, Pilate would have been familiar with tales of deities appearing in human form and of the harsh consequences to the mortals who rejected them. Consequently, Pilate seems to take the claim of Jesus’ divinity quite seriously—ironically, much more seriously than the Jews who witnessed miracle after miracle. A Roman proves more willing to believe the Jewish Messiah than the Jews.

Pilate takes Jesus’ words so seriously that he immediately grasps the importance of determining Jesus’ origin.

Recall the following verses:

The one who comes from above is superior to all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is superior to all. He testifies about what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. John 3:31-32

Then Jesus told them, “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread all the time!” John 6:32-34

Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began complaining about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” John 6:41-42

The Jews were either too obtuse or too obstinate to understand Jesus when he spoke as being “from heaven,” “from above,” or “from God.” Pilate, who has heard none of these statements, immediately demands such an explanation. “Where do you come from?”

Jesus does not respond. In this way, Jesus seals his fate—a fate not brought upon the Jews or the Romans but controlled by Jesus himself all the while.

Pilate responds either in annoyance, hostility, or (less likely for a Roman ruler) earnest concern: “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” If, against the odds, Pilate is truly concerned for Jesus, we could take his statement as: “I have the power to help you, but you have to give me something to work with! Help me help you!” If we understand Pilate’s statement to be less friendly, we could rewrite his words as saying: “You dare disrespect me while your life is in my hands!” Perhaps Pilate meant his words both ways. Pilate may have been trying to help Jesus while taking offense that, as a scholar (Brown) points out, “by not answering Jesus is somehow looking down on [Pilate].”

Jesus’ attitude towards Pilate is wholly unexpected, which may have been what earned him some credibility before the Roman ruler. A prisoner, particularly one facing crucifixion, would praise the judge’s integrity. Jesus does nothing of the sort.

No Authority Except by God

Jesus makes clear to Pilate that no, Jesus’ life is not in his hands—not ultimately anyways. Pilate has power over Jesus only because God has made it so. If God had so desired, Pilate would have no authority. This statement is partially exculpatory. Pilate may be choosing incorrectly but at least the situation he finds himself in is not of his own making. The Jewish elite, on the other hand, are much guiltier. This messy situation (to use a severe understatement) was not brought upon them. They caused it.

The idea that God establishes and uses rulers is not foreign to scripture. We find it both in the Old and the New Testament. The interaction between God and government is a difficult topic that goes well beyond our current study of John. Merely as a introduction to the topic, I quote other verses that touch on the matter.

Some of the key passages in the New Testament include:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation because it is God’s servant for your well-being. Romans 13:1-4a

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. 1 Peter 2:13-15

Throughout the ages, Christians have interpreted these passages differently. Some take them as universal teachings with no exceptions. They would argue that Christians should obey the government regardless of how wicked it is. Romans 13, for example, was heavily preached by German churches in the 40s to convince Christians to follow the Nazi government. Most Christians have taken a more nuanced approach, recognizing the general principle that Christians should be exemplary citizens for the sake of the Gospel. However, the government should be disobeyed or even opposed in a number of situations, like when the government requires Christians to engage in sinful behavior.

Some of the key passages in the Old Testament include:

“Work to see that the city where I sent you as exiles enjoys peace and prosperity. Pray to the Lord for it. For as it prospers you will prosper.” Jeremiah 29:7

“This is what the Lord says to his chosen one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I hold in order to subdue nations before him, . . .” Isaiah 45:1a

These Old Testament verses may not seem as impactful as the New Testament verses quoted above, but in context they are nothing short of scandalous. The verse in Jeremiah is written as God decrees the exile of the Jews to Babylon, after the Babylonians utterly destroyed the kingdom of Judah and decimated the Israelites. In the midst of the tragedy, as the Jews are carried off as captives and slaves, God commands them to pray for peace and prosperity for the captors! In an unfathomable twist of events, God will use the nation of Babylon—the same nation he used to destroy his people—to prosper his people. The verse in Isaiah has a similar context—God using the Persians to subdue nations. A gentile king is called anointed.

God uses rulers, even the evil ones.

Pilate’s Third Attempt

Pilate is so impressed by his conversation with Jesus that he is determined to release him. Although I have tried to keep my opinion mostly out of the discussion, I think this is clear evidence that Pilate’s dialogue should not be read mostly with a mocking or hostile tone, but in earnest. Some Eastern Christian churches, such as the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox Churches hold that Pontius Pilate later converted to Christianity himself. So they revere Pilate as a saint. These conversion narratives are late and hard to rely on as historical accounts, but I think they make more sense of the text than the negative view of Pilate developed by Western tradition.

Whether Pilate was beginning to believe Jesus or not ends up becoming irrelevant. The Jews twist his arm. The Jewish elite threaten Pilate that if he lets Jesus go free, they will tell Caesar that Pilate released a man claiming to be king—i.e., a traitor to Caesar! Pilate has a political calculation to make. Could he defend himself of a treason charge? Could he explain that Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world? Recall the discussion above regarding Caesar’s precarious political support. His patron had either already been killed or there was mounting opposition against him. Caesar himself was nothing more than an equestrian with a questionable record as a governor. Ultimately, is it worth becoming a martyr for Jesus? Alas, despite Pilate’s belief that Jesus was innocent, he opts for political expediency. He caves to the threats of the Jews and condemns Jesus to crucifixion. Again, this moment shifts the weight of blame between the Jewish elite and the Roman governor. Pilate was guilty of weakness—he knew what was right but lacked the courage to see it through. The Jewish elite were guilty of deliberate wrongdoing.

The trial reaches its climax in a shocking statement. In my opinion, one could argue that all the hypocrisy, antagonism, and wickedness of the Jewish religious elite builds up to this one stupefying statement: “We have no king except Caesar!” The Jewish religion, at its core, believed that God was their ultimate king ruling from everlasting to everlasting. Moreover, God had and would again appoint a human king over the Israelites, but the king would come from their own people. No foreign king could ever be the true king of Israel—much less Caesar who claimed to be divine. I provide scriptural support for these point below.

Notice that in the Old Testament, God is called Israel’s Judge:

I have not done you wrong, but you are doing wrong by attacking me. May the Lord, the Judge, judge this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites! Judges 11:27b

Judge in this context referred to a political office meaning something akin to ruler.

God was not often called King of Israel in the Old Testament, but the implication was always clear from his role, for example, as the one who fought wars for the nation of Israel.

Joshua captured in one campaign all these kings and their lands, for the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel. Then Joshua and all Israel returned to the camp at Gilgal. Joshua 10:42-43

Indeed, when the Israelites demanded a king “just like all the other nations have,” God decried this as a rejection of his kingship.

The Lord said to Samuel, “Do everything the people request of you. For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is me that they have rejected as their king. Just as they have done from the day that I brought them up from Egypt until this very day, they have rejected me and have served other gods.” 1 Samuel 8:7-8a

Was the concept of demanding a human king intrinsically wrong? No, it was the sinful motives underlying the request that amounted to a rejection of God’s authority and plan. In fact, God had promised the Israelites a human king.

When you come to the land the Lord your God is giving you and take it over and live in it and then say, “I will select a king like all the nations surrounding me,” you must select without fail a king whom the Lord your God chooses. From among your fellow citizens you must appoint a king—you may not designate a foreigner who is not one of your fellow Israelites. Deuteronomy 17:14-15

But regardless of whether a human person ruled over Israel, God’s kingship endured forever.

But you, O Lord, rule forever, and your reputation endures. Psalm 102:12 (literally “sit enthroned” forever)

Moreover, God promised a future king to Israel who would rule forever and bring upon the wonderful promises of the eschaton.

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called Wonderful Adviser, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His dominion will be vast, and he will bring immeasurable prosperity. He will rule on David’s throne and over David’s kingdom, establishing it and strengthening it by promoting justice and fairness, from this time forward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7

With that background in mind, again consider the high priests exclaiming, “We have no king except Caesar!” Caesar was not their king, and he was certainly not their only king. This statement amounts to the kind of blasphemy for which they sought to kill Jesus.

Thursday or Friday: When Did Jesus Die?

Verse 14 seems to place Jesus’ death during Passover (Thursday) instead of the day after (Friday) like all the other Gospels. At least initially, this presents a difficult harmonization question. Are the gospels contradictory with one another? Did John make a mistake? I was going to write somewhat extensively about this question, but I found a great summary of the issue and potential answer:

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus dies the day after Passover. But in John, it seems like he dies on the Passover. Can these be reconciled?

The Last Supper is clearly a Seder, a Passover dinner (Matt 26:17-19). Passover lambs were sacrificed earlier that day, Thursday, Nisan 14. Jesus died the next morning, Friday, Nisan 15. However, at first read, John seems to place Jesus’ death on the Passover, making it Friday, Nisan 14 (which would only occur in a different year). The chief priests do not want to enter Pilate’s palace so that “they might not be defiled but eat the Passover” (John 18:28), and Pilate sends the titulus (the sign for Jesus' cross) proclaiming Jesus as king on “the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14).

There have been a number of proposals attempting to deal with these two different accounts. Some suggest that John is ignoring historical accuracy to make Jesus’ death coincide with the slaying of the Passover lambs. Others suggest that John and the Synoptic authors were using different calendars. Although it is true that some early Jews, most notably the Essenes, followed a different calendar, I don't think that really solves the problem in John.

Here’s the solution I find most likely. “Day of preparation” (παρασκευή, paraskeuē) is also the standard word for “Friday” for early Jews and Christians, since Jewish households had to prepare for the Sabbath every Friday. John clearly means Friday, since he says that this παρασκευή was the day before Sabbath (John 19:31). The other Synoptic Gospels also call the day of the crucifixion παρασκευή (Matt 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54). So the phrase “Preparation of Passover” (παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα) can simply mean “Friday of Passover [week]” rather than “preparation for Passover.” That makes it the same day and date as the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels.

What about the chief priests’ desire to “eat Passover” that night, after Jesus’ death? (John 19:31) While this is definitely evidence for the belief that John has a different chronology, there is a reasonable explanation. Passover is not only a single meal, but a week of festivities, with more than one sacred meal. The chief priests would be more likely than most Jews to be involved in multiple rituals during Passover week, and all of them would have required ritual purity.

Personally, I find the suggestion that John got the crucifixion day wrong to be so unlikely as to be untenable. Even if we took the most liberal understanding of the Fourth Gospel’s authorship and postulated it was not written by John or his disciples, the other gospels were already popular. The author of the Fourth Gospel, whoever he was, would have known exactly when the crucifixion occurred. The suggestion that John moves the date of the crucifixion to make a theological point seems to me also highly unlikely. Sure, ancient authors were allowed, even expected, to take more liberties when writing a narrative than a modern author might. But there is no indication in the text that John is writing anything but an accurate and chronological description of events. He even provides the time of day in which the events occur. To take this interpretation is to severely undermine the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel.