Good Friday [John 18-19]

John 18:1-11 Mark Stevens

18:1–3. As he told his story, John wanted us to see that Jesus hid from no one. The availability of the fugitive became obvious, since we learn that Jesus had visited this garden often with his disciples. Certainly Judas would have known it well.

In the fulfillment of prophecy and surely the clear anticipation by Jesus, Judas brought quite an entourage—certainly no fewer than two hundred soldiers (the word detachment is speira) and the “big wigs” from among the chief priests and Pharisees. Picture them entering that quiet sanctuary with their torches, lanterns and weapons.

One wonders at this strange group that went out to meet Jesus. At first it looked like the usual religious antagonists and their uniformed guard. But the phrase a detachment of soldiers added a Roman group to this advance party in the garden.

18:4–9. John also wanted us to see that Jesus controlled this night. His response to the events was different than the reaction of the guards. Notice Judas came with them, electing almost total allegiance to those who could make him richer. We can hardly imagine what caused the guards to draw back and fall down. A miracle? The repetition of that familiar I am closely linked to the Lord God of the Old Testament? Parallel passages in the other Gospels (Matt. 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46) do not help us much. This mob of armed officials displayed greater fear than the victim they were looking for.

Twice Jesus asked the same question; twice he received the same answer. He surrendered himself and released the Eleven. John’s commentary reviewed 6:39, again fulfilling the prophecy that Jesus would lose none of those true believers whom the Father had given him. Throughout this Gospel we see reminders that Jesus died for us, what theologians call substitutionary (vicarious) atonement (1:29; 3:14–16; 10:11, 15–18; 12:32; 17:19).

In verse 9 John offered another of his famous hermeneutical helps. He told us how Jesus requested the release of the disciples and then emphasized that this happened because of the prophecy of John 6:39. Surely it would have been easy to take Jesus’ words purely in the physical realm. After all, he was the one they sought; let the other disciples escape. But not John. He saw the clear spiritual connection.

But in Jesus thus stepping to the front and shielding the disciples by exposing himself, John sees a picture of the whole sacrifice and substitution of Christ. This figure of his Master moving forward to meet the swords and staves of the party remains indelibly stamped upon his mind as the symbol of Christ’s whole relation to his people.

18:10–11. Peter displayed admirable courage and loyalty but poor aim. He was a fisherman, not a swordsman. John did not record the healing of the ear, a detail reported by Luke. John’s only reference to Jesus’ final prayer came at the end of verse 11. We read more detail in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22.

Why did John not include more garden narrative as the other Gospels did? The answer seems to lie in his purpose—to focus on the words of Jesus, showing him as the Son of God rather than detailing history of his life incident by incident. The last phrase of this section is important for us, since the rhetorical question gives the motive for Jesus’ behavior on this occasion. The Father has given a cup of suffering and death. The Son, in obedience and subjection, will drink it.

John 18:12-18 Joe Adams

B. Peter: Denial by a Fire (18:12–18, 25–27)

SUPPORTING IDEA: The second person who dominates this chapter is Peter, who was warming himself at the fire built by Jesus’ enemies. The predicted denial now took shape as this confused and frightened disciple offered the wrong answers for the wrong reasons.

18:12–14. We will bypass these three verses at this point since John introduces Annas and Caiaphas, focusing on Annas in verses 19–24. But we can stop long enough to note that the garden contingent did not take Jesus to the high priest but to Annas, father-in-law of the high priest. This gave John one more opportunity to remind his readers of Caiaphas’s famous prophetic announcement of substitutionary atonement back in 11:49–50.

18:15–16. In John’s narrative it becomes necessary to pick up two different segments of text to understand Peter’s role on this fateful night. John first showed us how his friend was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The military and religious intruders had dismissed the eleven disciples, as Jesus asked. But Peter and another disciple followed their Lord and his captors. Almost every reputable scholar agrees this second disciple was John himself. His family had ties to the priesthood through Salome and Elizabeth. His influence allowed both men into the courtyard.

18:17–18. The girl at the door asked what appears to be a rhetorical question, calling for a simple negative response. Peter took the bait and joined the crowd around the fire (anthrakian). John told the story straight: Peter also was standing with them. Having followed too far behind, he now joined a group of the Lord’s enemies. Leon Morris puts it well: “This was the last place where one might expect to find one of Jesus’ followers” (Morris, p. 759).

John 18:19-27 Suzie Adams

C. Annas: Questions in an Apartment (18:19–24)

SUPPORTING IDEA: No longer high priest himself, this powerful man still controlled Jerusalem politics through his son-in-law, Caiaphas. Any Jew of that day knew about the bazaars of Annas where sacrifices were sold for twenty times the honest price.

18:19–21. While Peter stood by the fire, Jesus was taken to Annas, the godfather and power behind the high priestly throne. His residence was close to the wall on the south side of Jerusalem. He had served as high priest from A.D. 6 to 15, and then he watched four sons and a son-in-law (Caiaphas) hold the office. John remembered one good point about Caiaphas: he predicted the substitutionary atonement of Jesus (11:49–50).

In verses 19–24, Jesus asked two key questions while being questioned himself. Although John does not mention blasphemy in this paragraph, Annas tried to establish subversion and revolution on the part of Jesus. But Jesus emphasized the openness of his ministry and asked, Why question me? There was a good bit of switching from house to house as Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas and Caiaphas then sent him to Pilate.

18:22–24. What a lesson these verses contain. Jewish law prohibited self-incrimination (a precursor to the Fifth Amendment). If Annas wanted to find out what Jesus had been teaching, hundreds of people could verify his message. For his defense, Jesus received a blow on the face. Whether this was ordered by Annas or not we do not know. The Lord called for the appropriate application of Jewish law (calling defense witnesses first), and asked the second question, Why did you strike me?

John carried the narrative no further at this point, but showed us that Annas sent Jesus to his son-in-law Caiaphas, who would have occupied another office in the same building.

18:25–27. John jumps back to Peter. Notice how the first two questions were rhetorical, “Surely you are not another of his disciples?” And the third got more personal, Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?

We have already seen this in verse 17, but here it is again. Warming himself at an alien fire, Peter heard the same kind of question and he gave the exact same answer. But the heat increased (someone has said that Peter’s ministry career could be summarized in three stages—at the fire, under fire, and on fire). This time a relative of the servant whom Peter had wounded got too specific for comfort: Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove? For the third time Peter denied Christ, and the prophetic rooster began to crow (13:38).

John 18:28-32 Butch Clark

D. Pilate: Confrontation in a Palace (18:28–40)

SUPPORTING IDEA: Pilate entered the saga ready to play the role that has kept his name notorious for almost two thousand years. This weak man learned that he confronted a king and that he had an opportunity to defend truth rather than protect the fragile political peace of Israel. But he failed, caving in to the screaming crowds stirred up by agents of the high priest.

18:28–32. By now it was approximately 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning. John was about to introduce the longest trial narrative in the Gospels. It began with the charges. Jesus had already been charged with blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64), but on this occasion his enemies offered no charges against him. Instead, we have one of the classic lines of the New Testament: If he were not a criminal … we would not have handed him over to you.

Pilate had no intention of meddling in Jewish religious affairs, though we should hardly consider him a gentle fellow. On five occasions Pilate slaughtered Jews, earning such a violent reputation in Jerusalem that the emperor Tiberias finally yanked him back to Rome.

All this happened early Friday morning, with the beginning of the Passover less than twelve hours away. But Pilate could not get a Roman handle on the charges. It must have been a confusing situation. And this dialogue regarding who should carry out the execution seems like political buck-passing between the Romans and the Jews until we read John’s comment in verse 32: This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled. Had the Jews taken him, he would have been stoned. But repeatedly Jesus had talked about being lifted up to die—an exclusively Roman execution.

John 18:33-40 Ryan Hadden

18:33–37. Pilate could not imagine this broken and beaten man before him was the king of the Jews. But Jesus would not give him the satisfaction of claiming or disclaiming such an office. All this turned Pilate’s disdain for the Jews up another notch in verse 35. He characterized this entire trial as petty religious bickering among these Jews whom he was authorized to control.

Verses 36–37 offer poignant truth from the lips of the Lord. All earthly kingdoms find their source with sinful humanity, but Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world. It needs no human defense. Jesus was not referring to the ultimate millennial kingdom; his spiritual kingdom of truth represents the lordship of the King over the lives of his people. Who forms this kingdom? Everyone on the side of truth listens to me, said Jesus.

Once again Jesus set truth as the dividing standard for right and wrong. But if truth was all he cared about, he posed no threat to Rome. Pilate would have to weasel out of this situation in some other way.

18:38–40. In effect, Pilate declared Jesus innocent: I find no basis for a charge against him. Nevertheless, to appease the Jews, he let them select a prisoner of choice for release at the Passover. He seemed to be saying, “Let’s be done with all this foolishness. You don’t seem to care much for this king of the Jews fellow, but you certainly don’t want Barabbas back out on the streets, so let’s make that choice and get on with life.” But Pilate got caught in his own trap.

In this chapter we see intelligent and religious people warped by hate. We also see a fascinating play on the name Bar-Abbas, which means “son of the father.” One son of a father was released, and the other, Son of the Father, went to death row.

As we look at these four characters, we may ask ourselves where we find a personal likeness. Do we see ourselves in Malchus, an innocent bystander watching the proceedings? Like Peter, who denied the Savior and warmed himself at the enemies’ fire? Like Annas, who illegally put Jesus on trial? Or like Pilate, confused and wanting to be rid of religious hassles as quickly as possible?

One thing is clear from these four witnesses and their four decisions: there is no place to hide when it comes to Jesus. We either decide for him or against him.

John 19:1-16 Stacy and Vivian Hadden

19:1–3. In typical Roman fashion the process began with the humiliation of the prisoner. We are familiar with the flogging, the crown of thorns, and the mockery of the soldiers. Cruelty has always been a major hallmark of sin in the world, and the Romans had honed it to a fine art. It seems apparent that Pilate never intended crucifixion and expected to beat Jesus and release him.

19:4–7. After the humiliation of the prisoner, the law required a formal presentation, and Pilate did the honors. The text seems quite clear that Pilate found no legal basis for arresting and holding Jesus, much less physically punishing him. Perhaps he thought the bloody sight of a beaten countryman would move the Jews to pity. But as he uttered the words Here is the man! (ecce homo), the mob became even more violent in their clamoring for crucifixion. The Jews had no authority to crucify, so Pilate seemed to mock them when he told them to take the crucifixion process into their own hands.

Of all the possible charges bouncing around that day, John settled on the one we find in verse 7, a choice completely in line with his purpose for this Gospel and the only correct charge on the list (John 10:34–38). In this maneuver the Jews attempted to invoke the law of blasphemy as the basis for their claims that Jesus must die (see Lev. 24:16).

19:8–11. Finding no success in any of his attempts to end this religious and cultural nonsense, Pilate returned to another interrogation of the prisoner. He was already afraid of this volatile situation, and now his fear increased. He tried to get some information out of Jesus that would help but was not successful.

But, we can ask ourselves, what did Pilate fear? Quite possibly this quiet prophet who, for reasons unknown to the governor, had evoked such emotional response from the mobs outside the palace. He also feared the mobs lest they break the sacred Pax Romana. Ultimately, however, all Roman governors feared Caesar, and the Jews knew that very well. In a moment the Jews would go to the mat: “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar” (v. 12). But we dare not rush to verse 12 since verse 11 may be the key to this first section: You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.

We do not know why Jesus interacted with Pilate in chapter 18 but now refused to respond at all. The Gospels mention Jesus’ silence at various points during the trial (Matt. 26:63; 27:14; Mark 14:60; 15:5; Luke 23:9). As much as the silence infuriated Pilate, immersed as he was in his own importance, most scholars see it as a clear fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7, He opened not His mouth.”

Suddenly Jesus spoke again when Pilate emphasized his own power. His answer proclaimed that a Roman governorship was nothing in the eyes of Almighty God (Rom. 13:1).

19:12–13. Suddenly we learn this governor did have a sense of justice and conscience, but they were no match for screaming mobs. The deciding factor here had nothing to do with the law or religion—it was purely political. The phrase that changed Pilate’s mind was not connected in anyway to any of the charges against Jesus: If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. This was no small threat on the part of the Jewish mobs. If such a report were sent to him, he would instantly end Pilate’s political career and probably his life, to.

19:14–16. John gave us detailed information on the time and place Pilate actually handed him over to them to be crucified. Backed into a corner of fear and confusion, bewildered by this articulate prophet, and frightened by the threat of some kind of political report to Rome, Pilate caved in.

John 19:17-27 Micheal Foran

B. Cruel Crucifixion (19:17–27)

SUPPORTING IDEA: John gave a detailed account of the crucifixion. Pilate’s sign was written in the language of the Jews (Aramaic), the language of the Roman Empire (Latin), and the language of culture and commerce (Greek). Only John among the apostles remained close as the Savior died. In looking back on that day, the beloved disciple remembered the tender instructions given by Jesus about his mother (vv. 26–27).

19:17–18. We know too well the narrative of our Lord’s crucifixion between two thieves. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John had little to say about the pain and agony of Roman crucifixion. He focused on other accompanying information more in line with his purpose. John’s passion account vested in his eyewitness understanding that the one who hung on the cross was the Messiah of Israel, the Prophet of God predicted in the Old Testament.

In line with the theme of fulfilled prophecy, John emphasized what some other Gospel writers omitted—the division of clothes, the casting of lots for the garment, the offering of wine, the breaking of the legs of the thieves, and the piercing of Jesus’ side with a Roman spear. And he told us repeatedly that these events specifically fulfilled Scripture.

Jesus placement between two thieves was a position probably intended to disgrace the Lord. But even the position of the cross fulfilled prophecy, since Isaiah had said, “[He] was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isa. 53:12).

At the place of the execution, Christ was laid upon the cross. Spikes were driven through his hands or wrists and the crossbar was hoisted into place. His legs were nailed, leaving only enough flex in the knees so that he could begin the horrible up-and-down motion necessary for breathing.

19:19–22. The cross penetrates all of life and slashes through cultural and linguistic barriers. What was Pilate’s intention with this memorable sign that only John tells us was written in three languages? We don’t know for sure but whatever it was this heathen governor unwilling testifies who this man on the cross is…the king of the Jews.

19:23–24. Soldiers gambled for Jesus’ clothes as no fewer than twenty Old Testament prophesies were fulfilled within the twenty-four-hour period at the time of the crucifixion. What seemed to be whimsical display by the soldiers John wanted us to understand occurred as a direct fulfillment of Psalm 22:18.

With his emphasis on biblical fulfillment, John intended us to see even this common division of an executed man’s clothing as a detail of interest to God. It was of such interest to God that he had foretold it in the Old Testament Scriptures.

19:25–27. When taken as a harmony, the four Gospels do not seem entirely clear on how many women were at the cross. Most scholars understand this passage as a commitment of Mary, Jesus’ mother, to John, since Joseph was probably already dead by this point and Jesus knew that none of his half-brothers had yet made a commitment to his mission. Perhaps at that point Mary might have remembered Simeon’s prophecy: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too” (Luke 2:34–35).

But the commitment was mutual, and some interpreters have understood this as a theological statement beyond the boundaries of uniting the two people perhaps most loved by Jesus on earth. As Boice points out:

Though this is the first of the “seven last words” recorded by John, it is in fact a third in the recognized series. It may be useful for us to identify them here in the order they were uttered:

1. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know not what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

2. “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

3. “Dear woman, here is your son” … “Here is your mother” (John 19:26–27).

4. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).

5. “I am thirsty” (John 19:28).

6. “It is finished” (John 19:30).

7. “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46).

John 19:28-37 Nicole Larkin

C. Dramatic Death (19:28–37)

SUPPORTING IDEA: God’s holiness and justice made the cross an absolute necessity. Events at the crucifixion happened as they did so “the scripture might be fulfilled” (v. 24). No fewer than twenty Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled within twenty-four hours at the time of our Lord’s death. Some have speculated that the Lord meditated on Psalm 22 while on the cross, an idea perhaps suggested by the traditional “seven last words.”

19:28–29. The phrase knowing that all was now completed has given scholars pause for centuries. Since Jesus had not yet died, the atonement was not completed and beyond that lay the resurrection and ascension.

Carson observes that “Jesus’ knowledge that all was now completed is the awareness that all the steps that brought him to this point of pain and impending death were in the design of his heavenly Father, and death itself was imminent” (Carson, p. 619). The cry I am thirsty probably refers to Psalm 69:21, a psalm that has already been cited twice in this Gospel (2:17; 15:25).

19:30. Of greatest consequence in John’s narrative is this phrase, It is finished, an idea which occurs for the second time in three verses. Surely this refers to the suffering and earthly life of Jesus, but also the task of bringing salvation to the human race. We should remember the prayer of Jesus John uttered earlier, “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do” (17:4). The words it is finished translate tetelestai that appears in the perfect tense. Even the grammar of the text signifies the full completion of Jesus’ work.

As John has told us repeatedly, the significance of Christ’s death on the cross centers in substitutionary atonement—his death on our behalf. God’s holiness and justice made the cross an absolute necessity.

19:31–33. The Romans quickened death by breaking the legs of victims so they would no longer be able to support their bodies. Consequently, the victims’ lungs collapsed and they died from suffocation. At Calvary, the soldiers carried out this procedure with both thieves, but Jesus was already dead.

Crucifixion brought death to its victims through shock, suffocation, or both. At the beginning victims would brace their feet on the platform and push upward, enabling the lungs to function just a bit. In typical Roman cruelty, the legs would be broken when the soldiers had finished their execution games and asphyxiation would take place almost instantly. But John tells us that did not happen with Jesus. Fulfilling scripture, not a bone on him was broken.

19:34. Perhaps to make sure Jesus was dead, one of the soldiers slashed his side with a spear, causing a flow of blood and water that removed any doubt since, had he still been alive, only blood would have flowed out. Countless pages have been written on this verse and multiple medical explanations offered. But John’s point seems simple. The word had become flesh, genuine flesh that could bleed and die. Many people have argued that John intended some theological symbolism by emphasizing blood and water. It seems to me he was focusing on the reality of the death Jesus died.

19:35–37. Scholars suggest that John may have been the only disciple eyewitness at the cross and therefore referred to himself in verse 35. This language is common his epistles. He wanted his readers to know that he was there, and he wanted his readers to know that the cross, like virtually everything else in Christ’s earthly ministry, fulfilled Scripture (in this case, Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).

John’s mission statement appears in 20:30–31, but note the similarity here in 19:35: He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. John emphasized that the decision not to break the legs of Christ but to pierce him with a Roman spear fulfilled scripture.

John 19:38-42 Hannah Schroer

D. Beloved Burial (19:38–42)

SUPPORTING IDEA: Jesus’ burial was handled by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea—two prominent men who were friends of Jesus, and probably secret believers. The price had been paid. The suffering was over. Satan had been defeated at the cross, but full victory awaited God’s power at the open tomb.

19:38–39. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus—intimate disciples or secret believers? We may never know this side of heaven, but John seemed to imply in verse 38 that Joseph had placed his faith in Jesus and had become a disciple. John probably assumed we would remember the record of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus from chapter 3.

As a member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph would have had some legitimate access to Pilate’s ear. Though his act drew the attention of all four Gospel writers, it would have earned Joseph nothing but contempt from his fellow members of the religious elite.

19:40–42. In this brief and tightly wrapped paragraph about the burial, John provided the basic facts, although the site is still disputed to the present time. From John’s record we have no doubt that Jesus died; we have no doubt these men intended the most caring, perhaps even elaborate burial; and we have no doubt that when John wrote these words, he could hardly wait to plunge into the next section of his Gospel.

We are not actually told in any of the Gospels that the tomb belonged to Joseph, although most Bible readers have assumed that. Why did John belabor the point that Jesus was buried in a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid? Carson claims, “From the perspective of the Jewish authorities, this was doubtless less offensive than burying a crucified sinner in an occupied tomb … but the Evangelist’s concern is unlikely to have been to mollify their scruples. More likely his purpose is to prepare for chap. 20: if on the third day the tomb is empty, only one body had disappeared, and only one person could have been resurrected” Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Carson, pp. 630–31).

MAIN IDEA REVIEW: These chapters remind us again that as believers we participate in both the cross and the empty tomb. God’s spirit “baptizes” all believers into Christ’s death and resurrection. As Christians, we are now partakers in Him who died and rose again. Awareness of that fact can help us live holy lives today.