John 18
18:1–2. “Kidron Valley” is literally the “winter-swollen Kidron”: this brook flowed only in the rainy season—winter—so crossing it in April would not involve even getting wet. The site is still identifiable. Jesus and his disciples had met there other times; cf. Luke 22:39.
The garden is likely to be identified with the orchard of “Gethsemane” on the Mount of Olives (see note on Matt. 26:36), which is how it is identified in the Synoptics (Matt. 26:36; Mark 14:32). The verse mentions that Jesus and his disciples entered, which may suggest Gethsemane was a walled garden.
18:3 The band of soldiers was dispatched to prevent a riot during the festival. The officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees (i.e., the temple police) were the primary arresting officers (cf. notes on 7:32; 7:45–46). Lanterns and torches were needed to track down a suspect thought to be hiding in the dark corners of the garden, and weapons were needed to overcome any armed resistance.
18:4 Jesus, confident of God’s sovereign control, hands himself over to his captors. See also vv. 7–8.
18:5 Jesus’ self-identification, “I am he,” has connotations of deity (see notes on 6:20; 6:35; 8:24; 8:58). This is suggested by the soldiers’ reaction in the following verse.
18:6 Falling to the ground is a common reaction to divine revelation (Ezek. 1:28; 44:4; Dan. 2:46; 8:18; 10:9; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; Rev. 1:17; 19:10; 22:8).
18:8–9 Jesus’ statement summarizes 17:12, which in turn refers back to 6:39 and 10:28. Jesus is portrayed as the “good shepherd” who voluntarily chooses death to save the life of his “sheep” (cf. 10:11, 15, 17–18, 28). Their physical preservation symbolizes their spiritual preservation.
18:10. As slave of the high priest, Malchus would be a powerful person with much authority. On the symbolic effect of his disfigurement, see comment on Mark 14:47.
Capital cases were to be heard by a plurality of judges (according to later tradition, a minimum of twenty-three). No individual could legally act as judge in a capital case, but this law did not stop Annas from exercising his political power and privately interrogating Jesus. Perhaps he would have excused himself by a law that those tried by the supreme Sanhedrin for misleading the people first had to be tried by two lower courts. But that law may be Pharisaic and may be later than the first century, and it is doubtful that Annas is attempting to follow any law. The predominantly Sadducean priestly aristocracy would certainly not follow the Pharisees’ rules: they had to please the Romans, not the Pharisees.
18:19 The high priest is Annas (see note on v. 13). Questioning Jesus about his disciples and his teaching suggests that the primary concern is theological, though political charges are later lodged as well (cf. 19:7, 12).
18:20 nothing in secret. Jesus’ reply echoes God’s words in the book of Isaiah (e.g., Isa. 45:19; 48:16). Jesus’ point is not that he never spoke in private with his disciples but that his message was the same in private as in public; he was not guilty of a sinister conspiracy. John records instances of Jesus’ teaching both in synagogues (cf. John 6:59) and in the temple area (Gk. hieron; cf. 2:14–21; 7:14, 28; 8:20; 10:23; see also note on 2:14).
18:22 One of the officers standing by was probably one of those who took part in Jesus’ arrest (cf. vv. 3, 12). The striking was likely a sharp blow with the flat of the man’s hand (cf. Isa. 50:6 in the Septuagint; Matt. 26:67; Acts 23:1–5). The rebuke may echo Ex. 22:28 (quoted by Paul in Acts 23:5; see also note on John 18:23).
18:23 When challenged regarding his response to the high priest, Jesus alludes to the law of Ex. 22:28 and denies having violated it. Truthful self-defense is not sinful but righteous.
18:25. John takes us back to the fire (v. 18) where Peter stood warming himself. The reason for interweaving Jesus’ first replies to his accusers with Peter’s denials is to make the contrast stand out: ‘John has constructed a dramatic contrast wherein Jesus stands up to his questioners and denies nothing, while Peter cowers before his questioners and denies everything’ (Brown, 2. 842).
18:29 Pilate Roman governor of Judaea from AD 26 to 36.
18:29. Precedent exists for a Roman official’s having to go outside to respect Jewish sensitivities (on the sensitivities, see comment on 18:28). An official charge would be necessary before Pilate would be required to hear the case. Roman law had no public prosecutor in the modern sense and depended on private accusers to bring charges (although rhetoricians could be hired to debate a case, they were not supplied by the state).
The later stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54–60) probably should be viewed more as a mob action (that the Romans ignored) rather than an official sentence.
18:33 king of the Jews The Jewish officials wished to execute Jesus primarily because He claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:36) and the Christ (or Messiah; 10:24)—titles that evoked ideas about King David and God’s anointed deliverer. Jesus was making claims to the throne (see note on Matt 2:2).
18:33–35. Pilate follows a Roman procedure called cognitio, an inquiry to determine what really happened. As prefect, he would make the final decision and answer to no one for it unless a complaint were sent to Rome; but he investigates the matter nonetheless.
The priests charge Jesus with claiming to be a king, which is a charge of treason against the emperor. (Herod Antipas was exiled for simply requesting the title, which an earlier emperor, Augustus, had granted Herod the Great.)
18:36 not of this world Rather than trying to rule the world as it is (John 1:1–4), Jesus is turning it into a new world; He is connecting the kingdom of God to earth. See note on Acts 1:3.
A new kingdom will mean judgment for those who choose the way of the current world and redemption for those who choose to believe in Jesus (see note on John 12:31).
18:37 For this reason I was born Jesus acknowledges that His ultimate purpose in life is to die for the people’s sins. This fulfills His role as Suffering Servant, which John acknowledges throughout the Gospel (see note on 12:41).
18:38a. If Jesus’ kingship is indistinguishable from his testimony to the truth, and if his followers are characterized by allegiance to his testimony rather than by violent upheaval, Pilate is forced to recognize that Jesus is the victim of a Sanhedrin plot. Moreover, there is an implicit invitation in Jesus’ words. The man in the dock invites his judge to be his follower, to align himself with those who are ‘of the truth’. Jesus is not dangerous; he may also be getting under Pilate’s skin. Either way, Pilate abruptly terminates the interrogation with a curt and cynical question: What is truth?—and just as abruptly turns away, either because he is convinced there is no answer, or, more likely, because he does not want to hear it.
18:39. Although unattested in extant Palestinian sources (as are many customs), the specific custom mentioned here is the sort of custom the Romans would have allowed. Roman law permitted two kinds of amnesty, the indulgentia (pardoning a condemned person) and—what Pilate probably has in mind here—abolitio (acquitting a person before judgment). Romans and Greeks seem to have granted mass amnesty at some other regular feasts, and Romans occasionally acquitted prisoners in response to the cries of crowds; Roman provincial officials were also permitted to follow previous officials’ precedents or provincial customs.
18:40. The term translated “bandit” (NRSV, TEV) or “robber” (KJV, NASB) suggests that Barabbas is a revolutionary (cf. NIV)—the kind of person Rome would want to execute. The irony cuts deeply: the people preferred a real revolutionary to Jesus, who was denounced for treason as a would-be king but had no actual record of participation in insurrection.
