Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 18

1 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. After Jesus' prayer He and the disciples left and traveled to the garden where Judas would betray Him.
The ravine of the Kidron was a narrow ravine rather than a wide valley. It was located between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. The garden they entered was the Garden of Gethsemane. It is almost certain this was a walled garden with gates that could be closed. It was likely not a tall wall, but high enough to keep out animals that would eat the produce. Each of the gospels refers to this place, but only Mark and Matthew refer to it by its name. John's account makes it clear that this was some distance from Jerusalem. This is why the Jewish leaders were unable to find Jesus at night. It was like looking for a needle in a haystack to try to find where He was in the vast countryside surrounding Jerusalem.
2 Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. Judas was in the process of betraying, literally handing over, Jesus to the Jewish leaders. Here John tells us that the garden was a frequent place Jesus went to with His disciples. It was a remote safe place to spend the night when officials are seeking to kill a person. Since he had been there many times himself Judas knew this would be where Jesus was at night.
3 Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, *came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. There is a lot behind this verse. The Jewish leaders, which includes the chief priests and Pharisees, had conspired with Judas and came up with a plan. They had obtained a battalion of Roman soldiers by lying to the Roman officials that they were trying to capture a rebel who threatened the Roman peace. So the Roman commander and soldiers, servants and slaves of the high priests, Jewish temple officers, and some of the Pharisees were all put in the hand of Judas so he could lead them to Jesus. This was a small invasion army. At the least it was 620 people, and could have been as much as 1,200. They were well armed and equipped and all following the lead of Judas. To a person who didn't know better this would have appeared to be the side of right going out for justice instead of the gross abuse of power that it was.
4 So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, "Whom do you seek?" Jesus knew they were coming, and everything that would follow. Despite that knowledge He stepped out of where he had been praying in private and met them. This was likely inside the garden. Jesus knew who they were seeking. But He asked the question for the formalities of the arrest. He didn't wait for them but acted first.
5 They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He *said to them, "I am He." And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. Judas had been leading this small army. The other other gospels detail that the signal of which one in the garden was Jesus would be who Judas greets with a kiss. A kiss on the cheek was a traditional greeting at this time in the Middle East. In Luke 7:45 Jesus criticized the Pharisee host for not greeting Him with a kiss. John did not include this part of the narrative, choosing to emphasize the excessively large size of the group Judas led and who's side Judas was on. In all the gospel narratives Jesus' foreknowledge is emphasized.
Jesus could have slipped away if He wanted to, even after Judas identified Him. He had done so in the temple which was much more of a miracle. Instead, He told them who He was and walked in the Father's will.
6 So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground. Even in His answer Jesus declared that he was God. He answered with "ego eimi", I am, the name of God given to Moses. Coming with overwhelming force they clearly expected a denial of identity or at least a submissive or evasive attitude with some sort of protestation of innocence. That Jesus openly and boldly declared He was the one they were looking for in a way that declared He was God shocked them so badly that many couldn't stay on their feet. These were most likely the Jewish leaders, officers, and their entourage. The Roman commander and soldiers would know nothing about it. And Judas had heard this from Jesus before.
7 Therefore He again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." Not allowing them to recover, Jesus challenges them again as to who they are after. They again answer the same way as before, probably unable to do more than answer robotically.
8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way," In essence, Jesus replied with I already told you I am. So here I am, take me and let these other go in peace. Despite the overwhelming numbers, it was Jesus that was in charge here.
9 to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one." Here John recalls the part of Jesus' prayer in 17:12. This emphasizes that Jesus' attitude was one of service to His disciples. His going to the cross willingly was for salvation of His disciples. And His concern was for their wellbeing.
10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus. Peter's words are not recorded in John, only his actions. Scripture doesn't say whether this was the slave of Caiaphas the current high priest, or Annas the former high priest who was still called by his old title. Considering the coming events, it is likely that it was a slave of Annas sent to observe and/or assist Judas. Neither high priest went with the party.
The inclusion of details like the name of the slave or the geography of the area between Jerusalem and the garden are evidence of the accuracy of the gospels. These details would have been very easy to refute if they were invented.
Some people get very hung up on mentions of slavery in the Bible. This is based on their ignorance and assumption that all slavery was the same. Chattel slavery, which means total ownership slavery, was illegal in Israel. Chattel slavery is the slavery that was practiced in the south of the U.S. prior to the end of the American Civil War in 1865, in Western Europe until the last country abolished it in 1837, and has been practiced in Africa for millennia and is still openly practiced today. This type of involuntary slavery was punishable by death to the owner and anyone involved in Israel. (Exodus 21:16 & Deuteronomy 24:7)
There was no social safety net like welfare in Israel. Slavery was their social safety net. A person who could not support themselves could voluntarily sell themselves and use to the proceeds to pay their debts. This could not last for more than six years. And when they are freed they are entitled to some of the bounty they helped create. Killing a slave was murder just as with a freeman. Injuring a slave required their freedom and compensation. If a slave decided life under their master was better than the life they could make for themselves, they could choose to make it permanent.
11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" Jesus healing the slave is not mention here, only Jesus' rebuke of Peter. There is another incident like this in Matthew 16:21-23. It seems Peter had a hard time accepting the need for the suffering Messiah. He repeatedly spoke against it and was rebuked by Jesus. Here Peter acted with force trying to stop what needed to happen. And again Jesus rebuked Peter and told him this was the Father's will.
Peter could have been arrested for his attack. However, it is clear that those who came to seize Jesus were overawed by His words and the miraculous healing of Malchus. So they followed His command to let the others go. Their orders were to seize Jesus anyway. And He was willing to go on these terms. It is very likely they doubted their ability to take Jesus if He was unwilling.
Peter was one of the inner three disciples, the ones closest to Jesus. Yet he stubbornly held onto the wrong beliefs and doctrines he had grown up under, even when the Son of God Himself told him otherwise. He even tried to force Jesus to be the conquering Messiah he wanted to see to take place before the time of God's will. If Peter could stay in this wrong-headed thinking after being instructed by Jesus face-to-face, then we are certainly vulnerable to this error as well. We have all been taught unbiblical and anti-biblical things by others. We have all come up with our own as well. We must let these go and accept what scripture tell us.
12 So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, The entire entourage arrested Jesus and bound Him. Binding a prisoner would have been a common practice and we shouldn't read into it. The word for commander is chiliarchos in Greek, which means commander of a thousand. However, this title was also given to the commander of a Roman spiran which is Greek for cohort and was normally a unit of 600 soldiers at this time. As anyone who has served in the military knows, exact numbers assigned to a unit are not rigid. So his command was at least 600 and as many as 1000. Then there were an unspecified number of temple officers. And there were certainly some of the Jewish leaders along as well, probably a large number. John includes these details to show the massive force sent to arrest Jesus.
13 and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. The fact that they took Jesus to Annas first makes it very likely a group of the Jewish leaders were with the arresting party. Regardless, this shows the conspiracy among the Jewish leaders and who was really in charge.
Annas had been the high priest and was removed from office by the Romans. But he was often still referred to by that title. He cooperated and was able to get his relatives appointed to high priest. All were quickly removed until Caiaphas was appointed who stayed in office from 18-37 A.D. Jesus being taken to Annas first is like a former president coming to the White House and all the staffers totally ignoring the sitting president leaving him to wander aimlessly while they treat the former president as if he were the one in office. It would clearly show who is the one really in charge. That is what we are seeing in this verse.
14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. This refers to 11:49-53. However, when Caiaphas said one man he meant Jesus. And when he said for the people he really meant for the Jewish leaders, especially the Sadducees and himself. He was a Sadducee, and they did not believe in resurrection. Thus Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead was a threat to Caiaphas' beliefs and sect, and therefore to his position as the power behind the high priest. The fact that their beliefs contradicted scripture didn't matter. They were willing to kill to defend their false religion.
15 Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, After committing assault with a deadly weapon in front of Roman soldiers and temple officers, yet avoiding being arrested himself by the intervention of Jesus, Peter was very bold to follow along behind the arresting party.
The high priest referred to here is Annas. The other disciple who was known to him was the one who had been conspiring with the high priest, Judas. Thus he entered the courtyard of Annas with Jesus and some of the escort, probably the Jewish leaders that went along, the temple officers, and possibly the Roman commander.
16 but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Peter was not let in because he was not known to Annas, or more specifically, to his doorkeeper and other house staff. Judas vouched for him and Peter was let into the courtyard.
17 Then the slave-girl who kept the door *said to Peter, "You are not also one of this man's disciples, are you?" He *said, "I am not." The word "slave-girl is translated differently in various translations. It doesn't make a difference to the meaning of the passage. The Greek word is paidiske, which always refers to a person of the slave class. As to the specific age, girl or young woman would be accurate but more specific than the Greek. It is almost certain she was of normal working age, but that was younger than than in modern western culture. As she was responsible for manning the door at night and wouldn't have seen Peter before, it is probable that she recognized Peter's clothing and appearance as being Galilean and made the connection because of Judas vouching for him. So she asked if he was a disciple of Jesus and Peter denied it. This was the first of three Jesus prophesied about in 13:38.
18 Now the slaves and the officers were standing there, having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself. The officers were the temple officers, although some went in the house. The slaves probably belonged to Annas. There may have been others present that John didn't mention as they weren't relevant to his account. The humidity in Jerusalem is low in the spring, so the air would cool off considerably at night.
19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. John's narrative switches to what was going on inside the home. The high priest refers to Annas. The purpose of this questioning was to catch Jesus in something they could claim was blasphemy or against Rome to justify killing Him.
20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Jesus response to the questioning by Annas was to call him out for what he was trying to do. Jesus knew Annas wasn't interested in His teaching, but was trying to catch Him admitting to blasphemy. Jesus' statement that He spoke nothing in secret was a rebuke of this illegal secret interrogation.
21 Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said." Jesus is further calling out Annas. The temple officers, priests and the Pharisees had heard Jesus teach. Therefore, Annas already knew the answers to these questions. So they weren't legitimate, but were a pretext for an unjust fishing expedition.
22 When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?" Scripture doesn't say if this temple officer acted on his own or if Annas gave him a nonverbal cue. Regardless, the rebuke in Jesus' answer was clear, and everyone there knew it. The temple officer's words and behavior reinforce that Annas was the real power in the temple despite having been removed from the office of priest.
23 Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" While Jesus' answers were clearly a rebuke, they were actually inoffensive in and of themselves. It was the contrast between the wrong actions of Annas and Jesus' words that gave the context of rebuke. In responding to the actions of the officer, Jesus again rebuked by stating what the correct action should have been.
24 So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Annas gave up and sent Jesus to the actual high priest. As we know from other gospel accounts, Caiaphas convened a secret meeting of the Sanhedrin where Jesus was put through a show trial. It was a show trial because the verdict was already decided before it began. There Jesus admitted to being God by using the name of God, ego eimi, I Am.
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, "You are not also one of His disciples, are you?" He denied it, and said, "I am not." This verse is placed after Jesus had been taken to Caiaphas. Whether this verse occurs in the courtyard at Annas' home or in the courtyard where Jesus was taken to Caiaphas is not specified, and either view is possible. Only John's account details Jesus being taken to Annas' house. As nothing came of it the other gospel writers left this detail out. Luke's account doesn't specify which courtyard Peter's denial happened in. Matthew and Mark have all three denials at the location where Caiaphas gathered the council. Regardless, this does not change the meaning of the passage. Writers at this time were a little more free to place related events together. Writers still do this today. If everything Jesus did was written in detail and in absolute order that gospel would take multiple libraries to contain. It seems likely that the first denial took place in Annas' courtyard, and the last two in the courtyard where the Sanhedrin met to railroad Jesus. But either way it does not change anything. That there are differences in the way the gospels are recorded actually is evidence of their relating actual events. If this was made up they would agree exactly.
When they took Jesus from the former high priest to the current one, it is certain the temple officers went as well. By the time they were waiting in the second courtyard it would have occurred to them that Peter looked and sounded like a Galilean, and looked like one of the disciples in the garden with Jesus. Peter denied knowing Jesus for the second time.
26 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?" It doesn't say which high priest this slave belonged to. But clearly he had been sent to accompany Judas to arrest Jesus. It was common for a family that had fallen on hard times such as their business or farm failing to sell themselves into slavery together. So it is understandable that they would end up working for the same owner. Thus these two related slaves had been sent with Judas to the garden.
That this eyewitness slave wasn't the first to recognize Peter instead of the doorkeeper at Annas' home supports that the denials were split between two courtyards.
27 Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. This is Peter's third denial, and a rooster immediately crowed as Jesus prophesied in 13:38. John does not detail Peter's reaction.
This incident is in all four gospels. Needless to say, it makes Peter look very bad. All of the disciples abandoned Jesus, although John was later present for the crucifixion with Mary the mother of Jesus. There are many other accounts in the gospels that are unflattering to the disciples. These sorts of negative accounts do not appear in falsified narratives and fake religions. This is strong evidence by even secular scholarly standards that the gospels are actual accounts.
28 Then they *led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. John does not relate the interrogation of Jesus by Caiaphas. John's focus is on the conspiracy and overkill by Annas and Caiaphas. What is clear from the other gospel accounts is the Jewish leaders wrongly accused Jesus of heresy. In reality, Jesus was right, He was the Son of God, and He was God. It was the Jewish leaders that were the actual heretics. In their arrogance all the signs and fulfilled prophecies had no impact on them. That is a warning for us. A wise person is humble and ready to change their personal theology, especially when scripture informs them. A fool ignores scripture at the peril of their soul.
That this was early when they got to the Praetorium shows that this was not a legitimate meeting of the Sanhedrin, but had occurred under the cover of darkness in the early morning hours.
Praetorium is the Roman term for the official residence of the governor of a Roman province. Thus this was Pilate's residence. It is very likely that the Jewish leaders entered the courtyard of Praetorium. But it is certain they did not enter the building. To enter the home of a gentile would make them ceremonially unclean which would prevent them from participating in any religious activities until the next day. This is not a Mosaic law, but comes from the Mishna of the Pharisees. Leviticus 11 lists many things that make one unclean until evening, like touching a dead body. The Pharisees added to it that touching a person who touched an unclean thing made one unclean, like some sort of religious cooties. And it went on from there. This unbiblical nonsense they strictly adhered to. But violating the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments explicitly written in the Torah they were fine with.
Scripture doesn't need our help. It is one thing to offer advice on how to follow the commands in scripture. It is completely different to turn one's own ideas into something equal to or above scripture. This leads to going against God and His word.
29 Therefore Pilate went out to them and *said, "What accusation do you bring against this Man?" Pilate coming out to meet the Jewish leaders and ask for the charges was in line with Roman policy of respecting the local religious beliefs. The easiest way to cause an insurrection is to violate or insult a people's religious beliefs.
One of the false claims that the gospel is inaccurate is about Pilate being so accommodating to the Jewish leaders in the gospel accounts, far more than was standard for a Roman governor. The objection is based on the historical record of Marcus Pontius Pilate when he became Prefect of Judea. He had no problem offending the Jews then. He hung worship images of the Emperor around Jerusalem despite there being a special exemption from Emperor worship already in place. He had coins minted with Roman religious symbols on them. And he made sure the Jews knew they were under a Roman leader now, not a puppet Jewish king. But that is an incomplete history of Pilate.
Pilate owed his position to Sejanus who was second only to the Emperor and a favorite. So Pilate was nearly untouchable at the beginning of his rule over Judea. However, Sejanus was later convicted and executed for treason. So Pilate lost his protector back in Rome, and his position was entirely dependent on maintaining the peace in Judea. He was already suspect being associated with Sejanus. Therefore the objection against the gospel accounts is based on taking only the part of the historical story that supports the false accusation out of context. The whole historical record actually supports the gospels.
30 They answered and said to him, "If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you." The Jewish leaders neatly sidestepped the question. They avoided lying outright to the Roman Prefect because if he found out Pilate could impose severe punishment, including execution.
31 So Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death," Pilate's response to a lack of charges was appropriate. It also took the risk off his plate. The Jews, which is the Jewish leaders, then make the point that they are seeking the death penalty. Rome did not allow native governments to impose the death penalty.
32 to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die. Jesus prophesied his death would be by crucifixion in 3:14, 8:28, and 12:32, as well as in Matthew 20:19 and 26:2, Mark 10:33, and Luke 18:32. Only the Romans crucified this way at the time. This also fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, such as the details in Psalm 22 of the Messiah being handed over to dogs, a euphemism for gentiles, and his clothing being gambled for. Psalm 22:16 prophesied that the Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced 1000 years before Jesus was crucified, and 500 years before crucifixion was even invented. These prophecies are so specific that critics claim that they were written after Jesus' death. However, there is clear archeological evidence of their being written beforehand. Among these are the Dead Sea Scrolls that were indisputably copied from other manuscripts between 300 and 100 B.C.
33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" John did not detail the charges the Jewish leaders listed against Jesus in Luke 23:2. However, that account is confirmed by John here as Pilate questioned Jesus about claiming to be King of the Jews. This was the most serious charge in the eyes of Rome. To try to set up a kingdom independently of the authority of Rome was insurrection, and was also a direct usurpation of Pilate's authority. Death by crucifixion was the normal Roman response to make an example of the rebel and preserve the Roman peace.
34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?" Jesus' response is literally, "Is this from yourself, or did others say this to you about me." The other gospels editorially shorten Jesus' reply in verses 34-37.
35 Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?" Pilate's response began with a rhetorical question distancing himself from it all. This was a Jewish matter that he was reluctantly forced to deal with because of the law on the death penalty. Then Pilate states that Jesus' own countrymen had handed Him over. While it is common for the conquered to resent the occupation by the conquerers, in the case of Israel it was an offense against the Jewish identity as the chosen people of God. That these gentiles had authority over even the temple if they chose to exercise it was a threat to their religion. So there was a much higher level of animosity against the Romans in this particular Roman province. Thus for the Jewish leaders to offer up someone who was supposedly a rebel against the Romans was very unusual.
36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." Jesus' reply was truthful, theological, and a direct refutation of the charges against Him. He admitted to being a king, but his kingdom is not of this world. And He specifically stated that His followers were not fighting against Rome for Him, although they would be if His kingdom was earthly. In other words, there is no threat to Roman rule and no evidence of any violence on Jesus' behalf. As Pilate's primary duty was to maintain the peace, he would know of any breaches or rebel actions. Failure in this would cost him his position and possibly even his life. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent.
37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Clearly the Jewish leaders were upset and determined that Jesus be put to death. Even though Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, he tried to find a pretext for him to satisfy the Jewish leaders by pursuing the question of Jesus being king. Jesus' reply here is summarized in the other gospels as "You say so." John gave greater detail that Jesus was teaching theology even to Pilate.
38 Pilate *said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, "I find no guilt in Him. Like all people who know they are on shaky ground or know they are in the wrong, Pilate dismissively mocks the concept of truth. But it is clear from his words and actions, especially from what followed this, that he is concerned with what is actually true. However, this may be more from being able to defend his actions should they be questioned by Rome than a true desire for truth and justice.
Knowing that Jesus was innocent, Pilate stated it to the crowd.
39 But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?" The custom of releasing one prisoner at Passover predated Pilate's rule over Judea. He continued the tradition as it was practiced by the Roman controlled Jewish kings and governors.
Commentators disagree as to why Pilate referred to Jesus as King of the Jews when that was one of the charges the Jewish leaders made against him. However, it may simply be that he was using their own terms and there was no underlying motive.
40 So they cried out again, saying, "Not this Man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a robber. In contrast to Jesus who was accused of insurrection but found innocent by Pilate, Barabbas had been convicted of actual insurrection, and murder committed in support of insurrection. It seems likely that Pilate thought they would certainly choose Jesus over Barabbas. Or it may have been that Pilate was offering a choice between two accused of the same crime.
The term for Barabbas' crime in this verse is lestes in Greek, which means robber, bandit, revolutionary, or insurrectionist. Most translations use robber in John. However insurrectionist would be more accurate, particularly as the gospel of Mark used the Greek word stasiaston which can only be translated as rebel or insurrectionist.
John does not include the detail of Pilate ceremonial washing his hands to separate himself from the blame for the miscarriage of justice. However, John has made it clear that Pilate did not believe there was any truth to the charges against Jesus.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

John 17   -   Gospel of John   -   John 19

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey