Down to Earth But Heavenly Minded

What does John Chapter 18 mean?

The events of this chapter fulfill several predictions made by Jesus earlier in His ministry (Matthew 20:18; John 12:32–33; 13:26–27). First is His betrayal by a close associate (John 13:21). The traitor is Judas, who has already conspired with Jesus’ enemies (Mark 14:10–11). Since John is writing well after the circulation of the other three Gospels, he leaves some details of Jesus’ arrest and trials to those writers (Matthew 26—27; Mark 14; Luke 22—23). The words John refers to here are those from the High Priestly Prayer, recorded in chapter 17.

The first verses of this passage evoke several other parts of Scripture. Human history begins in a garden (Genesis 2:8) and eventually returns there (Revelation 22:1–5). Adam’s sin and disobedience created death; Jesus’ obedience will be part of atoning for that sin (1 Corinthians 15:45; Philippians 2:8; Genesis 3:12). David learned of betrayal by a former ally while crossing Kidron on the way to the Mount of Olives (2 Samuel 15:23–31).

Judas is a key piece of the plot against Jesus (John 11:57). In that era, there were no photographs or telephones. Clothing, hairstyles, and other fashion were usually nondescript. That made it difficult to find and identify people without help from someone who knew them personally. Judas not only knows Jesus personally, he knows when and where Jesus can be found away from a supportive crowd. Most likely, the scribes and Pharisees used the excuse of a possible rebellion (Luke 23:1–5) to justify sending armed soldiers (John 18:1–3).

Rather than running away, Jesus actively engages those coming to arrest Him. This is partly to establish that only Jesus, not His disciples, is to be taken in. It also marks a final demonstration of Jesus’ power and willingness to obey God. Jesus evokes the same words used by God when identifying Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14). Christ can flatten an entire squadron of armed men with a word, proving no one can force Him to comply (John 10:17–18). This will be the last truly “active” action of His earthly ministry. After this, Jesus’ life will be entirely submitted to the actions of others (John 18:4–9).

Earlier in the evening, Peter bragged about his willingness to follow Jesus into death (John 13:37). To his credit, he acts with a form of bravery by lashing out at Jesus’ attackers. Then again, Peter may have been driven by simple, blind rage. There’s little cause for Peter to attack a servant, rather than a soldier. In an era where everyone was expected to be right-hand dominant, it’s awkward for Peter to hit someone on the right side of their head. Either he was an especially clumsy swordsman, or he missed while attempting to hit someone else—such as Judas. Jesus condemns the action and heals the injured man (Luke 22:50–51). Only John mentions the name of the servant, possibly because he alone had contact with the high priest’s family (John 18:10–11).

According to the Old Testament, high priests were meant to serve for life (Numbers 35:25). The Roman Empire was in the habit of installing their own leaders. It’s possible Annas was the “real” high priest, replaced in an official Roman capacity by his son-in-law, Caiaphas, in AD 18. It was Caiaphas who ruthlessly insisted that Jesus needed to die (John 11:49–53), innocent or not, to prevent Rome from retaliating against Jerusalem. The details of these sham trials, mostly left to other Gospels, make it clear Jesus has long since been condemned by His enemies (John 18:12–14).

Despite Jesus clearly advocating for them to be left unharmed, Peter and John—the unnamed disciple of this passage—have secretly followed the group who were bringing Jesus into custody (Matthew 26:56–58). John might have been an extended relative of the high priest. His mother (Matthew 20:20) may have been Jesus’ aunt (Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25), and so related to the family of priests (Luke 1:13, 36). This may be why John is able to enter the courtyard easily, but needs to go back and advocate for Peter to be brought in. Peter’s obvious Galilean accent (Matthew 26:73), among other things, makes him the target of suspicion. Despite earlier boasts, Peter begins to deny his relationship to Christ out of fear (John 18:15–18).

Jesus knows that His fate is sealed. However, He does not offer His enemies excuses. He calmly and clearly points out that there is no reason for Him to be arrested at night, or any question about what He is really teaching. If they had evidence against Him, they would be able to produce it. Those in power often confuse disagreement with disrespect, and that results in Jesus being abused while in custody. The two references to “high priest” in this passage reflect the difference between Israel’s official role and the one recognized by the Roman government (John 18:19–24).

After the brief interlude explaining Jesus’ initial meeting with Annas, John returns to Peter’s awkward situation. Not only has his accent marked him as a Galilean, those nearby are becoming suspicious. As with the servant girl at the door, the first question expects a negative answer. After all, who would be foolish enough to show up at the home of the high priest when their master is under arrest? Even worse, one of the men there not only saw Peter’s violence on the Mount of Olives, he’s related to the victim. This leads to two more lies from Peter, who is afraid of being arrested himself. Jesus prophecy is fulfilled (John 13:38). Instant regret and shame overwhelm Peter (Luke 22:61–62; Matthew 26:75; Mark 14:72). This, in part, is because Jesus is just now being brought back outside and has heard Peter’s loud denials (John 18:25–27).

History indicates that the relationship between Pilate and Israel was extremely poor. Pilate’s heavy-handed style often included violence and outright insults. This was not ideal for Rome, who preferred to maintain peace. Pilate likely already knew something about Jesus (Matthew 21:1–11; John 12:12–19) but did not consider Him a threat (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). Accusations of rebellion, however, mean he needs to find out whether Jesus claims to be a king, and what that means. Scholars suggest Pilate was afraid another ugly incident would result in being removed from his position. This partly explains the weak-willed approach he takes to Jesus’ obvious innocence. It does not stop him from making snide, dismissive remarks (John 18:28–35).

Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus makes it clear that He is not attempting to overthrow Roman control. On the contrary, Jesus makes it extremely clear that the kingdom He came to establish is not political or worldly. The same writer, John, will record the future event where Jesus does come to rule on earth (Revelation 19:11–15), but that is not the purpose of His first coming. In a moment of incredible irony, Pilate dismissively quips about truth, while turning away from the Truth (John 14:6). Pilate will seek to have Jesus released, but does not yet know the lengths to which the scribes and Pharisees will go (John 18:36–38).

The choice of Barabbas, a known murder and rebel (Luke 23:18–19) is an obvious ploy. If Pilate was the first to suggest it, this may be his way of trying to outmaneuver the scribes and Pharisees. Agreeing to release a confirmed criminal would contradict their accusations against Jesus. If suggested by the priests, this could be a way of sneering at Rome by supporting someone who actively fought against their rule. In either case, mob pressure (Matthew 27:24) is beginning to mount and Pilate is running out of options (John 18:39–40).

In the following passage, Jesus’ enemies will lean heavily on the threat of civil unrest. This is a major religious holiday for Israel (John 18:28), so the area is overcrowded with devout Jews. The combined elements of blasphemy, insurrection, rioting, and stubbornness will eventually wear Pilate down, and he will make the cowardly choice to execute an innocent man (John 19:12–16).

Chapter Context
John’s Gospel was written well after the other three, so he frequently chooses to present different details. Chapter 17 detailed Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer, just before He entered the garden of Gethsemane. This chapter describes Jesus’ arrest, sham trials before Jewish leadership, and the beginning of His trial before the Roman governor. In the following chapter, Jesus will be unfairly condemned, executed, and buried.

Verse by Verse

Verse 1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered.

The words Jesus has just spoken include the High Priestly Prayer (John 17) as well as His final teachings to the disciples at the Last Supper (John 13—16). During feast days (Deuteronomy 16:16), Jerusalem was overcrowded, so travelers would often camp nearby. Jesus and His followers are spending their nights in a grove on the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:37; John 18:2). Other Gospels identify this location as Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36).

Upcoming verses will explain how Judas will lead Jesus’ enemies (John 11:57; 12:9–11) to this location. In an era without photography, even well-known figures could be difficult to identify in person. For this reason, those seeking to eliminate Christ needed Judas (Matthew 26:14–16) to indicate where to find Him, as well as point Him out to the arresting guards (John 18:2–3).

John notes that Jesus is in the Kidron brook on the way to the Mount of Olives; he will soon explain Jesus’ betrayal by a friend. This echoes a similar moment in the life of David, who was also betrayed by a supposed ally, while crossing Kidron en route to the Mount of Olives (2 Samuel 15:23–31).

Context Summary
John 18:1–11 occurs after Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer (John 17). The garden setting evokes both the beginning and end of human history (Genesis 2:8; Revelation 22:1–5). Christ’s obedience contrasts with the disobedience of Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45; Philippians 2:8; Genesis 3:12). Writing after the other Gospels were in circulation, John skips over Jesus’ prayers in the garden (Matthew 26:36–46). Judas arrives to identify Jesus so He can be arrested. Christ provides a last demonstration of power before submitting to His enemies. Peter’s maiming of a servant is mentioned, along with Jesus’ rebuke of Peter, but not the healing of the servant’s ear (Luke 22:50–51), or the disciples retreat (Matthew 26:56). David, also, experienced betrayal by a close ally while crossing Kidron on the way to the Mount of Olives (2 Samuel 15:23–31).

Verse 2. Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples.

Judas has already been identified as the traitor who will turn Jesus over to local religious leaders (John 13:2–3; Matthew 26:14–16). As with other details, John chooses to leave details of Jesus’ last-minute prayers to the other Gospels (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42). He does the same with most of Judas’ interaction with Christ’s enemies (Mark 14:10).

Judas’ participation is needed for two reasons. First, the priests and scribes want to apprehend Jesus when He’s away from a supportive crowd (John 11:57). They need Judas to lead them directly to that spot. Second, in an era before photography, arresting soldiers would need someone to point out exactly which person was to be taken in. To avoid any possible confusion, Judas has arranged a sign to make it clear who Jesus is (Luke 22:47–48).

To this point, Jesus has been active in His role as Messiah, including His teaching and healing. When Judas arrives with priests and soldiers, Jesus will give one last demonstration of His power (John 18:4–6), proving that what happens is not outside His control. From that point forward, His path as Savior will involve allowing others to act on Him, instead.

Verse 3. So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Christ and His disciples have come from the Last Supper (John 13—17) and crossed over a small brook called Kidron (John 18:1). This was the same place where David learned he had been betrayed by a former ally (2 Samuel 15:23–31). Jesus is about to have a parallel experience: one of His twelve closest followers has conspired with local religious leaders (John 13:2–3; Matthew 26:14–16). Their intent is to capture Jesus away from supportive crowds, so they can put Him through a series of sham trials, and eventually put Him to death (John 18:12–14).

Judas arrives with heavily armed men, which has more to do with the other disciples than it does with Jesus. The Greek term here is speria, which could mean as many as 600 soldiers. It’s not likely anywhere near that many arrived in Gethsemane, but the Roman government had made at least that number available. Luke records Jesus’ remark that He’s done nothing suggesting violence (Luke 22:52–53). The men He is with, however, may have it in their mind to fight back (Luke 22:38; John 13:36–38). Peter, in fact, will do just that (John 18:10), despite Jesus negotiating for their freedom (John 18:8).

Since beginning His public ministry, Jesus has been active: He has directly controlled the pace and timing. Nothing that has happened has been outside of His control. What is about to happen won’t be beyond His power, either. However, once Jesus is arrested by His enemies, He will assume a passive role, allowing others to condemn and murder Him. Before that, Christ will put a final exclamation point on His power—making it clear that He goes willingly to His own death (John 18:4–6).

Verse 4. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?”

Throughout His ministry, Jesus has made it clear He knows exactly what will happen at the end of His earthly ministry (Matthew 20:18; John 12:32–33; 13:26–27). That Judas is arriving with a heavily armed squadron (John 18:1–3) is no surprise. Neither is it something Jesus attempts to avoid. Since this is “the hour” for these events (John 2:4; 7:6), He actively approaches the men who have come to arrest Him.

The question Christ asks serves several purposes. First, it clarifies these men are there for Jesus, and not the men who follow Him (John 18:8). Second, it provides a final opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate His power. When the men state their target (John 18:5), Christ will respond with an answer echoing God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14. With merely a word, He will flatten the aggressors (John 18:6), only to submit to their arrest and to His sacrificial death (Philippians 2:8).

Verse 5. They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.

Jesus’ enemies needed to conspire with Judas (John 13:2–3; Matthew 26:14–16) for two reasons. First was inside information: knowing where to find Jesus away from a supportive Jerusalem crowd (John 11:57). Second was identification: clearly pointing out the right person to the arresting soldiers, for which Judas has arranged a sign (Luke 22:47–48). Contrary to what they expected, however, Christ has voluntarily approached the group and asked who they have come for (John 18:1–4).

The response Christ gives here parallels His earlier “I am” statements (John 6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1). All of these invoke the way God identified Himself to Moses (Exodus 3:14). The claim is a declaration of God’s necessary, absolute existence. Used here, it also becomes a final proof that Jesus is submitting to this experience (Philippians 2:8), not being overpowered. The divine force of His words will knock the arresting men to the ground (John 18:6), only for Christ to agree to be taken into custody (John 18:8, 12).

Verse 6. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

When God revealed Himself to Moses, He identified Himself as “I Am” (Exodus 3:14). This summarizes God’s nature as the only uncreated, eternal, always-existing being: He just is, because He must be. Seven times in the Gospel of John, Jesus pointedly used that same phrasing while claiming certain attributes of God (John 6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1).

Here, the claim is made as a blatant show of divine power. When a band of heavily-armed men arrived to arrest Him, Jesus actively engaged by asking who they had come for (John 18:4–5). His self-identification, recorded in the prior verse, literally knocks these men to the ground. Christ has always been clear that He knows what will happen, and is choosing to cooperate with God’s plan (Matthew 20:18; John 12:32–33; 13:26–27). This moment highlights His sovereignty, reminding everyone that nothing happens to Him which is beyond His own control (John 10:17–18; Matthew 26:53).

Until now, Jesus has controlled both how and when He interacts with others. This overt demonstration of power is the last fully active deed in His earthly ministry. From this point forward, Jesus will submit to His own fallible creations as they condemn and murder Him (John 19:15–16).

Verse 7. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

When Judas arrives with heavily-armed men to arrest Jesus, Jesus responded with an overt display of His divine power (John 18:1–6). By tumbling the arresting soldiers onto the ground, He made it clear this arrest happens only if He chooses to allow it (John 10:17–18; Matthew 26:53). It was also the exclamation point on Jesus’ active earthly ministry—from this point forward, His path will involve submission to others (John 19:15–16).

The prior show of power, and the repeated question, are also probably intended as a negotiation tactic. In the next verse, Jesus will imply that He’s willing to be arrested, but wants His followers to be left alone (John 18:8). By clarifying that the soldiers are there for Him, and showing how much power He can command, Jesus makes it more likely that the disciples will be allowed to go free.

Famously, however, Peter will ignore this and try to make good on His promise to fight—even die—for Christ (John 13:37; John 18:10–11).

Verse 8. Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”

This statement is not merely a suggestion. When Judas arrived with heavily-armed men (John 18:2–3), Jesus took initiative and asked who they had come for (John 18:4). He then identified Himself as their target, but in a display of power so overwhelming that it literally knocked the arresting men off their feet (John 18:5–6). Repeating the question (John 18:7) after such a spectacle makes it clear that Jesus intends these men to deal with Him, not the disciples.

Jesus is implying He will cooperate with the soldiers’ arrest (Philippians 2:8) but will not allow them to arrest His followers. This fulfills part of the High Priestly Prayer, where Jesus mentioned His commitment not to lose any of His people (John 17:12) In a way, it also parallels the concept of the Gospel. Despite His absolute power, God chooses to place Himself between His followers and danger, taking a punishment they deserve (John 3:16).

Verse 9. This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.”

While praying before coming to the garden (John 17:1), Jesus mentioned that He had not lost any of those given to Him by God the Father (John 17:12). To maintain that protection, He has made it clear to His enemies that He is to suffer what needs to happen, not the disciples (Matthew 20:18; John 12:32–33; 13:26–27). Judas and his group of armed men (John 18:1–5) were thrown to the ground by Jesus’ power (John 18:6–7), followed by a demand that they leave the others alone (John 18:8).

Christ’s actions here create a snapshot of the gospel, itself. With complete awareness and knowledge, God Himself stands between His followers and harm, taking on Himself the consequences of hatred and evil (John 3:16; Philippians 2:8).

Presumably, Jesus’ desire is clear to the arresting soldiers: to allow the disciples to leave. Peter, however, will once again act stubbornly, trying to make good on his earlier bragging (John 13:37). Other Gospels include more details (Luke 22:49–51), but John simply notes Peter’s fumbling attempt at holy war, and Jesus’ immediate rebuke (John 18:10–11).

Verse 10. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest ‘s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant ‘s name was Malchus.)

When Jesus made reference to how He would be facing these events alone (John 13:36), Peter responded with a brave claim (John 13:37). Since the disciples are armed (Luke 22:38), Peter apparently thinks this is the moment to prove his sincerity. As Paul will point out later (Romans 10:2), passion is not the same as perspective. Literally everything about Peter’s approach here is wrong: his method, his goals, his target, and even the results are the opposite of Christ’s intent.

It’s important to remember that Peter is a fisherman, not a soldier. The weapon he’s holding is described as a machairan in Greek, a term referring to a short sword. This is the same term used in Hebrews 4:12 referring to Scripture’s ability to “separate” things. Most likely, this is an oversized fisherman’s blade.

The effect of Peter’s swing brings up interesting possibilities. In that era, being right-handed was more than a preference, it was practically mandatory. For Peter to swing a blade right-handed and hit another man on the right ear is awkward. Perhaps he swung overhand, nearly missing on the way down. He might have tried to draw and slash outward in a single motion. Less likely is that the man as facing away from Peter, possibly having turned to run. However, Peter would have had no reason to target a servant. A more intriguing possibility is that Peter was clumsily swinging at someone else, and missed. Given that Judas is standing close by (Luke 22:47–48), it’s not unreasonable to wonder if Peter was trying to kill the traitor (John 18:2–3). Scripture gives no such explanation, however, so all we can do is wonder.

Here, again, it’s clear John is leaving known details to the other Gospels. This verse, and the next, are matter-of-fact and brief. John’s intent here seems only to add the name of the servant who was struck, making no mention of Malchus being healed by Christ (Luke 22:50–51). John’s inside knowledge of the high priest (John 18:15) meant he may have known Malchus, personally.

Verse 11. So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

“Drinking from a cup” is imagery often used in Scripture to depict intense emotions or experiences. That includes anguish (Isaiah 51:17; Matthew 20:22–23). Earlier, while praying in the garden, Jesus had referred to His upcoming suffering using the same analogy (Matthew 26:39). The rhetorical question reminds Peter that this is God’s plan. In fact, these events are precisely what Jesus told Peter was going to happen (Matthew 16:21–23). Further, Jesus had just demonstrated His power by flooring the entire squadron of soldiers with a word (John 18:6).

Matthew adds further detail to Jesus’ criticism of Peter. Christ points out that He could summon “twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:53) to His own defense. This implies a force of more than 72,000. Given the immense power of a single angel (2 Kings 19:35), this is another instance of Christ confirming that He goes willingly to this fate (Philippians 2:8).

It’s noteworthy that Christ does not tell Peter to abandon his sword. Rather, the command is to put it away (Matthew 26:52). That nuance, as well, highlights that Jesus’ sacrifice is voluntary. Had His intent been earthly power, Peter’s action might have been reasonable (John 18:36). Jesus is not denouncing self-defense here, He is reminding Peter that this moment is not the right time.

Verse 12. So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.

The “band of soldiers” mentioned here is part of the Roman military, authorized for this purpose. They’ve been led to a private place by Judas (John 18:1–3), who has turned traitor against His former Master (John 11:57; 13:2–3; Matthew 26:14–16; Luke 22:47–48). When confronted, Jesus did not run or struggle. Despite showing divine power (John 18:4–9) and Peter’s demonstrated willingness to fight (John 18:10–11), Christ is not interested in battle. On the contrary, this is the purpose for which He was born (John 18:37). This is part of the plan God has sent Him to complete (Matthew 16:21).

As in other portions of this Gospel, John uses the term “the Jews” in reference to Jewish religious leadership. This is primarily composed of the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees (Matthew 21:15; 23:1–3). Jerusalem’s ruling class considered Jesus a threat, to their status (John 11:48), their national security (John 11:50), and their reputation (John 12:42–43).

This passage further shows the effects of John writing long after the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were in circulation. The encounter with Annas (John 18:13) and certain details about Pilate are found here, the other details are left to be covered by the other writings.

Context Summary
John 18:12–14 prefaces Jesus’ interrogation in front of Jewish religious leaders. Rome artificially installed high priests, despite the Old Testament calling for a lifetime appointment. Annas was a former high priest who’d been replaced by a new Roman governor. This initial interview, before Jesus is taken to Caiaphas, suggests Annas was a major figure in Jewish leadership, despite not holding an official office.

Verse 13. First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

A common scholarly assumption is that whatever business was conducted in the temple was supervised by the family of the high priest. Jesus, on at least one occasion, had greatly disrupted that commerce (Matthew 21:12–17). It’s possible Annas and Caiaphas had a personal bitterness towards Jesus, beyond questions of status and reputation (John 11:48–50; 12:42–43).

According to the Old Testament, high priests were supposed to serve for life (Numbers 35:25). Roman politics preferred to avoid giving locals that much influence, and so they “appointed” their own choice to that title. Annas was the approved high priest until about AD 18, replaced by his son-in-law, Caiaphas. As noted in the following verse (John 18:14), this is the same Caiaphas who accidentally summarized Jesus’ role as Savior (John 11:50).

John typically refers to himself in third person (John 1:35; 13:23–25). In the passage which follows, it’s likely that John is the unnamed person who goes with Peter (John 18:15–16). Since that person is said to be “known to the high priest,” it would suggest John had some interaction with the family of Annas and Caiaphas.

Verse 14. It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.

Earlier in this Gospel, Jesus’ enemies plotted to have Him killed (John 11:53). This group is sometimes referred to by John as “the Jews,” but his meaning is the religious ruling class of Jerusalem. These men justified their hostility by fear that Jesus would trigger an uprising against Rome, resulting in catastrophic backlash (John 11:47–48). Eventually, they found a traitor among the disciples and were able to capture Jesus away from a supportive crowd (John 18:1–11).

John points out that the current high priest, Caiaphas, had described Jesus’ fate through an accidental prophecy (John 11:51–52). In a display of cold-blooded arrogance, he sneered at his peers’ indecision and suggested a death plot. His precise comment was “that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:49–50). In his mind, murdering one person was a small price to pay for maintaining the status quo.

Jesus’ role as Messiah, however, was meant to accomplish something very similar. Rather than allow all of mankind to suffer eternally, God arranged for just One to experience death (Romans 5:6). While Caiaphas was indifferent to Jesus’ innocence, that lack of sin (Hebrews 4:15) was key to His role as Savior (Hebrews 9:11–14). That single death allowed the salvation of the entire world (John 3:16), accomplished in those who turn to Christ in faith (John 3:36).

Verse 15. Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest,

When Jesus was under threat from an arresting crowd, Peter demonstrated bravery—or at least rage—by lashing out with a sword (John 18:10). Fortunately for him, Jesus had given the soldiers plenty of reasons to ignore the disciples (John 18:6–9). When Jesus submitted to His arrest, the disciples ran away (Matthew 26:56). Peter circles around to follow at a distance (Matthew 26:58), along with another of the disciples. Especially since Jesus had made it clear He wanted the disciples to stay out of harm’s way, this is not a smart choice.

This disciple is almost certainly John himself. Referring to himself in the third person is John’s pattern (John 1:35; 13:23–25). His relationship to the high priest’s family is not clear. Scholars suggest that John’s mother (Matthew 20:20) was Salome (Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25) who may have been the sister of Jesus’ mother, Mary. Luke indicates that Mary was related to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, who was a son of the priest Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 36). This creates a line of family relations which might have connected John to the family of the priests. John is the only one to mention the name of the servant injured by Peter (John 18:10–11), adding weight to the idea that he was familiar with the high priest’s household.

Scripture does not tell us exactly what that relationship was. However, John is known well enough that he’s able to enter the courtyard in the middle of the night, and convince the doorkeeper to let Peter in (John 18:16).

Context Summary
John 18:15–18 includes the first of Peter’s predicted denials of Christ (John 13:36–38). Peter has followed the party who arrested Jesus, obviously at some distance, attempting to secretly see what will happen. Though Peter was brave in attempting to defend Jesus earlier, he shrinks in the face of danger here. Asked to admit his relationship with Christ, he lies. The unnamed disciple here is probably John, who may have been a relative of the priestly family.

Verse 16. but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

John commonly refers to himself in the third person (John 1:35; 13:23–25; 18:15). It’s possible that his mother (Matthew 20:20) was Salome (Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25) and the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Mary was related to the family of priests (Luke 1:13, 36). It’s possible that John is an extended relative of the high priest, and known well enough that the gatekeeper let him come into the courtyard.

The phrasing of this verse suggests Peter hesitated while John walked right through. Since they were both there to see what would happen to Jesus, it would make sense for John to go out and bring Peter into the outdoor courtyard.

What happens next is interesting, in that the servant girl questions Peter about his relationship to Jesus, but does not seem to do so with John (John 18:17). Scholars suggest Peter might have had a distinctive accent which suggested he was from Galilee (Matthew 26:73), making the gatekeeper suspicious. She was at least curious enough to ask. Peter’s response will be heartbreaking and infamous.

Verse 17. The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of this man ‘s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”

Prior verses indicated that John was known to the family of the high priest (John 18:15–16), so when Peter hesitated to come into the courtyard, John was able to get him access. The doorkeeper, however, either recognized Peter’s face, or possibly noticed his Galilean accent (Matthew 26:73). Either way, out of suspicion or curiosity, she brings up the possibility of Peter being a follower of Jesus.

The phrasing used here is rhetorical. The servant girl expects a “no” answer. In her mind, it would be foolish for someone whose master was under arrest to put himself in harm’s way. This was not Jesus’ intention, either (John 18:8).

At this point, Peter’s posturing takes a dramatic turn. Earlier this same evening, he had claimed willingness to die for Christ (John 13:37). To the credit of his bravery, at least, he attempted to fight back when Jesus was under arrest (John 18:10). And he’s secretly followed along to at least see what happens to his Master (Matthew 26:58). Now, under a different kind of threat, and without Christ by his side, Peter gives in to fear. He lies and claims he’s not a follower of Christ.

This is what Jesus predicted would happen (John 13:38), and Peter will make this same denial two more times (John 18:25–27).

Verse 18. Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Peter and John have followed the band of men who arrested Jesus (John 18:15–17). They gained access to the courtyard through John’s connections with the high priest’s family. They’re attempting to keep a low profile, however, so they are not themselves arrested (Matthew 26:58). At least one person has already been suspicious of Peter, either recognizing his face or being suspicious of his Galilean accent (Matthew 26:73).

This statement sets up a return to Peter’s story later in this passage (John 18:25). If this scene were part of a modern movie, the scene would jump to Jesus’ conversation with the priests inside (John 18:19–24) before jumping back to Peter here at the fire (John 18:25).

Verse 19. The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

That the former high priest, Annas, even asks these questions is dishonest. The religious leaders of Jerusalem already knew what Jesus was teaching (John 18:20–21). They already knew their opinion of His ministry, and their fears over what it might bring (John 11:47–487). And they already knew what the conclusion of their so-called trial would be (John 11:53). The entire purpose of arresting Jesus secretly, at night, away from supportive crowds (John 11:57) was to ensure no interference in their plan to have Him killed.

Extensive knowledge of first-century Judaism is not needed to see the unfairness of these proceedings. Jesus is taken in the middle of the night, in secret, abused by His captors (John 18:22), and accused by obviously false witnesses (Mark 14:55–59). And yet, contrary to their own claims, Israel’s religious leaders will condemn Jesus to death and pressure the Roman governor to carry out an execution (John 18:29–30).

Context Summary
John 18:19–24 begins a series of dishonest hearings led by Jewish religious leaders. The person leading the interrogation is Annas, the “true” high priest, though his son-in-law Caiaphas is Rome’s current appointee. Much as a courtroom prosecutor might ask an accused to explain their actions, the high priest gives Jesus an opportunity to confess what He has taught. Yet, as Jesus points out, everyone there already knows what He has been teaching. Additional details of this sham trial are found in Matthew 26:59–68, Mark 14:55–65 and Luke 22:63–71.

Verse 20. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.

Jesus enemies are putting on a show, going through the motions of a trial, when they’ve already condemned and sentenced Him in their own minds (John 11:57; Mark 14:1–2). Jerusalem’s religious leaders intend to paint Jesus as a blasphemer in the eyes of Israel, and a rebel in the eyes of the Roman Empire. Part of that sham will involve false witnesses (Mark 14:55–59). It also includes asking Jesus to explain His teachings (John 18:19).

Christ’s response is matter-of-fact. He also appeals to the idea of a fair trial (John 18:21). In short, Jesus’ response is to say, “everyone knows what I teach, so where is your evidence I’ve done wrong?” In truth, it has been Jesus’ public teaching and conflict with these very religious leaders that has earned their hatred (John 7:26; Matthew 22:46). Even though Jesus will submit to their abuse (John 18:22) and condemnation, He will leave them no room to plead ignorance.

Verse 21. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.”

Jerusalem’s religious leaders have already made up their mind to kill Jesus (John 11:53). They are so committed to this conclusion that they arranged to have Jesus arrested in secret (Mark 14:1–2). They’ve convinced false witnesses to lie about Him (Mark 14:55–59). While going through the motions of a trial, they even asked Jesus to explain Himself (John 18:19). Jesus has already responded that His teaching has always been public—none of these Jewish leaders are confused about what He has taught (John 18:20).

The remark Christ makes here is an appeal to fairness. While He has chosen to submit to arrest (John 18:7), abuse (John 18:22), and execution (John 19:15–16). However, He will continue to make it clear that every part of their condemnation is false. Jesus is challenging the religious leaders to present evidence against Him. “Prove it,” in short, is His reply in this verse.

Verse 22. When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”

What modern people think of as “civil rights” did not meaningfully exist in most ancient cultures. However, the basic concepts of law and order usually applied. Beating a person suspected of committing a crime has been frowned upon by most law-minded societies. While the man striking Jesus is not necessarily trying to beat a confession out of Him, his actions are not part of protocol. Either under Jewish tradition (Deuteronomy 25:1–2; John 7:51), or Roman law, what’s happening here was probably illegal.

The real motivation for this assault is the pointed comment Jesus has just made. In essence, He called out the high priest for hypocrisy. He challenged His accusers to provide evidence for their allegations (John 18:20–21). Few things inspire as much rage as having one’s wrongdoing exposed (John 3:19–20). Authority figures have a habit of mistaking defense for defiance, punishing underlings simply because they don’t bow and scrape with enough reverence. Likewise, criticizing someone’s tone is a common way to avoid responding to the substance of their argument.

Jesus will respond by emphasizing this last idea: if His words are false, His accusers should prove it, and if they are true, there is no cause for them to react with violence.

Verse 23. Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?”

Nobody likes to have their sin exposed (John 3:19–20). Responses usually include rage against the person who points out the wrongdoing (Proverbs 9:8; 29:9). Power tends to make people arrogant; this leads some authority figures to expect a worshipful attitude from others. That Jesus did not shrink in the face of the high priest, but dared to challenge his actions, was enough to inspire a hateful response.

Jesus has been improperly accused, without evidence, and ordered to explain Himself (John 18:19). His initial response was to declare the hypocrisy of His accusers, who already knew exactly what He was teaching (John 18:20). He also challenged them to provide evidence of wrongdoing (John 18:21). Someone nearby lost their temper and slapped Him (John 18:22).

The remark made here reiterates that Jesus’ accusers have no evidence against Him. If they did, they would have been able to “bear witness about the wrong.” Simply defending Himself by pointing out that there is no evidence is not worthy of assault. If there was reason to say He was guilty, it would have been given—lashing out in violence is simply more proof that the accusers have no rational case against Jesus.

Verse 24. Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Earlier in this same passage, the person questioning Jesus was referred to as “the high priest” (John 18:19). That man is Annas (John 18:13). Secular history tells us Annas was the high priest until around AD 18, when the Romans replaced him with his son-in-law, Caiaphas. Old Testament law made the high priesthood a lifetime appointment (Numbers 35:25), but the Roman Empire preferred to be more in control of their conquered territories. It’s possible Annas was considered the “real” high priest by the Jewish people, yet Caiaphas held that title according to the Romans. So, what happens here is Jesus being taken from the [legitimate] high priest to the [government-approved] high priest.

As noted earlier (John 18:14), it was Caiaphas who advocated that Jesus be killed, innocent or not, to prevent His ministry from creating further harm (John 11:47–50). This sequence of sham trials is only for show: the religious leaders of Israel have already made up their minds to put Jesus to death (Mark 14:1–2).

Verse 25. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.”

Once again, John employs a “scene change” that almost mirrors techniques used in modern films. Previous verses explained how John and Peter followed the squadron arresting Jesus, entering the outer courtyard of the high priest (John 18:12–16). During that passage, Peter’s earlier bragging (John 13:37) and reckless bravery (John 18:10) gave way to a self-preserving lie (John 18:17–18). The focus then shifted to Jesus, being interrogated by Jewish religious leaders (John 18:19–24).

Here, again, John “cuts” back to the outdoor courtyard, where Peter is standing with John and several strangers. Once again, he is questioned about his relationship with Jesus. Matthew explains that Peter’s Galilean accent makes him stand out (Matthew 26:73). The question here is being asked in a way which expects a negative answer. To sneak into the high priest’s courtyard while their master is being tried would be foolish, after all.

Just like he did with the doorkeeper, Peter lies and claims he is not a follower of Christ. This is as Christ predicted earlier in the evening (John 13:38).

Even worse for Peter, one of the men standing at the fire was an eyewitness to Jesus’ arrest. In fact, the man is a relative of the person Peter maimed in his effort to defend the master he now denies knowing (Luke 22:50–51; Matthew 26:51; John 18:10).

Context Summary
John 18:25–27 returns to Peter, who has attempted to secretly follow Jesus during His arrest and trial (John 18:15). Two men recognize him, one from the recent incident where Peter maimed a servant (Luke 22:50–51). After lying about his relationship to Christ earlier (John 18:15–18), Peter repeats the denial two more times. This is consistent with Jesus’ prediction (John 13:36–38), including the sound of a rooster crowing.

Verse 26. One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?”

When Jesus was arrested, Peter attempted to make good on his earlier boast (John 13:37). Despite Jesus negotiating to have the disciples left unharmed (John 18:8), Peter struck back. Using a small sword, he lashed out and somehow struck a servant, cutting off the man’s ear (John 18:10–11). Now, having followed Jesus at some distance, Peter is in a different kind of danger. He has already been asked, twice, about his relationship to the man being interrogated inside (John 18:17, 25). Both times, he’s lied in order to avoid being caught.

John is the only one of the Gospel writers to mention the name of the servant Peter wounded in Gethsemane. That’s likely because John—the unnamed disciple of this passage—had familiarity with the high priest’s household (John 18:15–16). The man now speaking to Peter, it seems, wasn’t merely present when violence occurred, it was one of his own relatives who was maimed. His memory of the event is both vivid and personal.

Unlike the previous two questions, which assumed the answer would be “no,” this challenge about Peter’s identity is more self-assured. The servant speaking is confident that the Galilean (Matthew 26:73) standing there is the same one who recently assaulted his relative and fellow servant. Peter is in deep trouble.

Verse 27.

Verse 28. Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor ‘s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor ‘s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.

At this time, Caiaphas was the man currently recognized by the Roman government as Israel’s high priest. John skims over the details of Jesus’ sham trials with the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:55–65), which is why Jesus was secretly arrested and brought the Caiaphas’ home (John 18:12–14). Long before Jesus was taken into custody, these religious leaders had already decided to have Him killed (John 11:49–53). As the high priest, Caiaphas has some authority from Rome to punish criminals and those who violate Jewish law.

That authority does not include the death penalty, however, and Jesus’ enemies want to ensure He’s executed. That means taking Him to the Roman governor, Pilate, and attempting to paint Jesus as a seditionist. They will lean heavily on mob tactics and the threat of civil unrest to coerce him into executing an innocent person (John 19:12–15).

The scribes and Pharisees avoid Pilate’s residence due to their interpretation of Old Testament law. Their belief was that close contact with Gentiles, including entering their homes, would make a person ceremonially unclean. Since this is immediately before Passover, they don’t want to make that mistake.

Context Summary
John 18:28–40 describes Jerusalem’s religious leaders taking Jesus to the local Roman governor. While Jewish authorities are allowed punish blasphemers, Roman law will not let them administer the death penalty. Jesus is too well-liked to be assassinated, so His enemies will attempt to paint Him as a rebel against Rome. In a private interview with Pilate, Jesus claims His role as King, but also notes that His purpose is not yet to rule an earthly kingdom. Pilate attempts to appease the crowd, trying to spare a clearly innocent man, but a mob has formed to demand Jesus’ death. John continues his habit of skipping details offered in other Gospels. He does not repeat the account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:55–65), nor the part of Pilate’s investigation where Jesus is sent briefly to Herod (Luke 23:6–12).

Verse 29. So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?”

So far as the Roman Empire is concerned, their appointed governor, Pontius Pilate, is the man in charge of Jerusalem and the surrounding regions. For Jesus’ enemies to complete their plans to have Him killed (John 11:49–53), they need the governor to issue a death sentence. He won’t do that for merely breaking Jewish religious traditions (John 18:31), so the scribes and Pharisees need to cast Jesus as an insurgent against Rome.

In the most literal sense, Jerusalem’s religious leaders will fail to convince Pilate that Jesus is guilty of rebellion (Matthew 27:18). However, they will use a crowd, threatening to riot (John 19:12–15; Matthew 27:24), to coerce him into executing Jesus (John 19:16).

Pilate comes outside to speak with the Jewish leaders because they refuse to enter a Gentile’s home—fearing ceremonial contamination (John 18:28). The mutual contempt between the governor and Jewish leaders is on full display in this exchange. History indicates Pilate was not popular—either with Jews or with Roman politicians—thanks to his heavy-handed and violent style. Some scholars think Pilate had been threatened with discipline if he was involved in another ugly incident in Jerusalem, which contributed to his cowardly choice to execute Jesus.

Verse 30. They answered him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.”

The statement here seems obvious, but does nothing to answer the question Pilate has asked (John 18:29). This reflects the mutual disrespect between Jewish leaders and the Roman governor. Not only did Pilate rule on behalf of a conquering Roman Empire, but he was also known for being cruelly violent. This remark is a not-so-subtle way for the scribes and Pharisees to imply that they, not Pilate, are the legitimate judges of guilt or innocence. They would not have stooped to consulting with a Gentile unless there was no other choice. Pilate’s dismissive response (John 18:31) corresponds with what he already knows: that Jesus is being targeted out of jealousy, not an actual crime (Matthew 27:18).

As he often does, John omits details clearly given in other Gospels, focusing instead on his unique message. Using an artificial mob, the scribes and Pharisees will insist that Jesus’ claims are rebellion against the Roman Empire (Matthew 27:24), and imply that there will be civil unrest if Jesus is not executed (John 19:12–15). In this passage, John moves quickly to explain that Jesus’ enemies are seeking the death penalty (John 11:49–53; 18:31), setting up Pilate’s fascinating private conversation with Christ (John 18:33).

Verse 31. Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem a few days prior (Matthew 21:1–11; John 12:12–19) was extravagant and unusual. Had there been any reason for the Roman Empire to think He was a true threat, no other evidence would have been needed for them to act. It’s certain, then, that Pilate was already vaguely aware of who Jesus was, and that Jewish religious leaders hated Him (Matthew 27:18). When he asked why Jesus had been brought for judgment, the scribes and Pharisees gave a derisive answer (John 18:30).

Pilate’s retort is equally snide. He’s not interested in their religious bickering (Mark 15:10). Since Rome allows local religious leaders to police certain offenses, including religious ones, squabbles between rabbis should not require a governor’s intervention. The mention of the death penalty, however, implies their accusations are more serious. Other passages make the strategy of Jesus’ enemies clear: to paint Him as an insurrectionist (Luke 23:2) actively rebelling against Roman rule (John 19:12–15). This would allow them to not only eliminate Jesus, but to deflect any resulting anger towards the Roman occupiers, instead of themselves.

Verse 32. This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

“This,” as referenced here, is the fact that Roman soldiers, not Jerusalem’s priests, will be the ones to put Jesus to death. This is something Christ has already predicted in detail (Matthew 20:18–19; Luke 18:32). Further, crucifixion would fulfill Jesus’ reference to being “lifted up” (John 3:14; 12:32). Later, John will point out by being crucified, not stoned, Christ’s death did not involve breaking any of His bones, also fulfilling prophecy (Psalm 34:20) and echoing His role as the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:46; 1 Corinthians 5:7).

Legal or not, it’s all but certain that Jews under Roman rule sometimes executed those deemed guilty of blasphemy (Acts 7:54–60). While technically illegal, it’s unlikely Rome cared much about a few Jews killing each other over religion. This is why Jerusalem’s leaders attempt to frame Jesus as a revolutionary (John 19:12–15; Luke 23:2). If the Romans kill Jesus, his enemies can direct the people’s anger (John 12:17–19) towards their occupiers.

It’s the suggestion that Jesus is claiming to be “king,” in such a way as to defy Rome, that gives Pilate a reason to try Him in the first place (John 18:33).

Verse 33. So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

Pilate has already indicated a lack of interest in Jesus (John 18:29–31). He’s well aware of the jealous tension between Christ and the religious leaders of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). He has only two reasons for interviewing Jesus. First, the scribes and Pharisees are accusing Jesus of rebelling against Roman rule by declaring Himself a “king” (Luke 23:2). Second, Jesus’ unusual popularity (Matthew 21:1–11; John 12:12–19) makes that something worth looking in to.

Most likely, John’s record condenses the conversation between Pilate and Jesus (John 18:34–38). John includes the crucial points: Jesus is not claiming an earthly kingdom, Pilate has no interest in Jewish spirituality, and Pilate’s preference is to let Jesus go.

Jesus was brought inside Pilate’s Roman offices, as most accused prisoners would be. His accusers have remained outside to avoid contact with a Gentile’s “unclean” home prior to Passover (John 18:28). The fact that Pilate has to come back outside to speak with religious leaders also lets Jesus’ enemies apply mob pressure, threatening to riot (John 19:12–15; Matthew 27:24).

Verse 34. Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”

Jesus has already decided to submit to the will of God (Matthew 26:42), which will include His unfair abuse and execution (Matthew 20:18–19; Luke 18:32). However, He will continue to make the situation clear, leaving His enemies no room for excuses. In this case, Christ subtly points out that Pilate has no reason to be speaking with Him. Had the Roman governor felt Jesus was a political threat, he would have arrested Jesus himself. This encounter is only happening because the religious leaders of Jerusalem are pressing to have Jesus killed (John 11:49–53). Pilate is not “saying” these things—discussing Jesus as the “king” of the Jews—as a result of his own concerns. He’s responding to what others are claiming.

Pilate’s answer (John 18:35) continues his pattern of dismissive arrogance towards Israel (John 18:30–31). He admits that the matter clearly looks like a squabble between Jewish religious figures (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). John’s account here is likely a summary, but the key points are clear. Pilate will press Jesus to see if His “kingship” is an immediate threat to Roman rule, realize it is not, and seek to have Him released (John 18:38).

Verse 35. Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”

The question Pilate asks here is not meant to be subtle, or polite. He’s already indicated that he’s not interested in Jewish religious debates (John 18:30–31). History tells us Pilate had a reputation for cruel, overly violent governance. His remark, then, can be read with a sneer—even sarcasm. Coming from his lips, the term “Jew” is practically a slur.

At the same time, Pilate is not stupid. He clearly knows about Jesus’ popularity (Matthew 21:1–11; John 12:12–19) but hasn’t seen a reason to think of Him as a threat (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). He also knows just how much the Jewish people, including the scribes and Pharisees, despise being ruled by the Roman Empire. For them to voluntarily bring Jesus here, for judgment, is extraordinary.

This makes Pilate’s second question one of genuine curiosity. What would inspire people who hate Roman rule to bring one of their own, with demands for Roman judgment? John’s account here is probably a shortened summary, but the accusation being made by Jesus’ enemies involves sedition (John 19:12–15). Jesus’ response (John 18:36) strikes directly at that lie.

Verse 36. Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Critics of faith often claim that religion creates violence, war, and death. Historically, this is false: few wars in history were instigated by religious differences. With the notable exception of Islam, few religions have a history of engaging in active warfare. Further, Christ’s reply to Pilate’s investigation (John 18:33–35), given here, makes it clear that violence is not part of the Christ-follower’s mandate for growing or defending faith. The goal of Jesus’ ministry was not to establish a government, an empire, or a political group. His role as Messiah involves a spiritual kingdom, rooted in the hearts of those who believe (Hebrews 8:8–12), spread by example and evangelism (Matthew 5:13–16; 28:19).

At some point in history, however, Jesus will establish an earthly kingdom. It’s noteworthy that when John—the same apostle who records this conversation with Pilate—describes Jesus’ triumph at His second coming (Revelation 19:11–15). In that account, John speaks of the armies of heaven accompanying Jesus, but even then only describes Christ as “[striking] down the nations.” At no point in the New Testament are Christians called on to take up arms as a means to establish an earthly kingdom in the name of Jesus.

Jesus’ enemies have brought Him to the Roman governor, Pilate, with accusations of rebellion (Luke 23:2). Their claim is that Jesus seeks to rebel against Rome and establish His own state (John 19:12–15). That’s a serious charge, and one Pilate needs to carefully consider (John 18:37), but it is crystal clear that Jesus is not seeking to overthrow the earthly rule of the Roman Empire (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). It will be mob rule, and the threat of civil unrest (Matthew 27:24) which leads Pilate to hand over an innocent man for death (John 19:16).

Verse 37. Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

The Roman Empire was relatively tolerant of those they conquered. So long as taxes were paid, trade was uninterrupted, and armies could pass through, the general approach was to let local customs and traditions continue. Jesus’ enemies are accusing Him of one of the few things Rome would instantly react to: sedition (John 19:12–15). Their claim is that Jesus has made Himself into the “King of the Jews,” supposedly meaning He plans to oppose Roman rule (Luke 23:2).

Pilate already knows something about Jesus, thanks to His extremely public reception a few days earlier (Matthew 21:1–11; John 12:12–19). He’s dismissive of Jewish culture, in general (John 18:29–31, 35). And it’s clear, even now, that all this is a personal vendetta against Jesus (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). Unless there is clear evidence, he’s not going to do the scribes’ and Pharisees’ dirty work for them. Jesus did refer to a “kingdom,” however (John 18:36), so Pilate asks a clarifying question. “King” is a dangerous term, but if Jesus does not mean to take political power, Pilate is not going to be concerned.

The response Jesus gives here dovetails with the remark made in the prior verse (John 18:36). The purpose of His first coming to earth is not to establish a government, or a political group, or an army. It’s to pass along a message from God the Father (John 8:28), and call people to faith and repentance (Luke 5:32). That includes trusting in Christ, Himself (John 6:28–29), who claimed to be “the Truth” in an earlier passage (John 14:6). In the future, Jesus will establish an earthly kingdom, and He will do so through conquest (Revelation 19:11–15). That will happen entirely by His own work, not through fighting from His followers. But in the most material, immediate sense, Jesus’ message is no threat, whatsoever, to Pilate’s authority in this part of the world.

Unfortunately, Pilate’s dismissive attitude will continue as He responds to the concept of “truth” by literally walking away from the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Verse 38. Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.

Pilate is only speaking with Jesus because of accusations of sedition (John 18:28–32). As part of explaining His status as a “king,” Jesus has made it clear He is not attempting to overthrow Rome or establish an immediate earthly kingdom (John 18:33–36). When pressed on the idea, Jesus referred to truth (John 18:37) and His role in proclaiming it. In earlier passages, Jesus explicitly claimed to be teaching truths from God (John 8:28; Luke 5:32). Even further, Jesus claimed to be “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

There’s room to interpret the nuances of Pilate’s comment in different ways. However, he’s likely being rhetorical, and dismissive. He is certainly not seeking further information from Jesus. Instead, Pilate is brushing off the concept of “truth” as relative, unsure, and ultimately unimportant. One can imagine him shrugging his shoulders and holding up his hands in a gesture of uncertainty. Or, shaking his head and waving as if to say, “who cares?”

Rather than engaging, he’s ignoring. Jesus is not speaking of politics or war, so the subject is of no interest to the Roman governor. The irony of the moment is painful: this might be the most important question a human being can ask, and Pilate is standing in front of the ultimate answer, yet he walks away without really considering his own words.

Pilate knows Jesus’ enemies are trying to manipulate Roman law (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). He’s heard enough to be sure that Jesus is not guilty according to any secular or civic law. It will be the presence of a mob, and the threat of civil unrest (John 19:12–15; Matthew 27:24), which eventually coerces Pilate into executing someone he knows is innocent (John 19:16).

John’s gospel skips many details given in the other accounts, to focus on his own perspective. Among the incidents he omits is Pilate’s attempt to have Herod weigh in on the situation (Luke 23:6–12).

Verse 39. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”

History offers little detail about the custom Pilate mentions here. What’s more relevant is the fact that Pilate is actually trying to have Jesus released. After a private interview (John 18:33–38), it’s clear Jesus is innocent of any crime against the Roman Empire. Accusations of sedition are false (Luke 23:2), and the real problem is a personal vendetta (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). Luke notes that Pilate even sent Jesus to Herod, hoping someone else would be responsible (Luke 23:6–12). He will go so far as to have Jesus brutally whipped and humiliated (John 19:1–4), hoping to appease the situation, but it won’t work.

As the governor, Pilate could simply refuse to judge Jesus. History suggests reasons why Pilate is being weak-willed. The Roman Empire was mostly concerned with keeping the peace in conquered territory. Pilate was known for his harsh, overly violent approach to the Jews, resulting in a mutual disrespect (John 18:30–31, 35). His remark about Jesus being “King of the Jews” is a deliberate attempt to rub Israel’s face in Roman rule, and to tease the scribes and Pharisees about their views of Jesus. History records a few incidents where Pilate’s aggressiveness and antagonism towards Jews threatened to create even more unrest. Scholars suggest Pilate had been told by his superiors that another ugly incident would result in being removed from his position.

Now, Jesus’ enemies have assembled a mob (John 19:12–15), which will threaten to riot (Matthew 27:24). This is occurring near one of the holiest days in the Jewish year (John 18:28), and Jerusalem is swarming with passionate, observant Jews. The combined accusations of blasphemy (John 19:7) and rebellion make the crowd’s demands volatile.

Ultimately, Pilate will cave to pressure, setting aside his moral principles (Matthew 27:24) to appease an angry mob. In a display of blatant hypocrisy, he will also release someone known to be guilty of the very crimes Jesus’ enemies claim (John 18:40; Luke 23:18–19).

Verse 40. They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.

The Roman governor, Pilate, has interrogated Jesus after accusations of rebellion (John 18:30–32). During that interview, it became clear that Jesus was not a political threat (John 18:33–38). The person in question, Barabbas, is identified as a murderer and rebel (Luke 23:18–19). In one sense, Pilate seems to be pushing back against the claims of Jesus’ enemies. He knows, with certainty, that Jesus is innocent and that this is a personal vendetta (Matthew 27:18, Mark 15:10). By offering someone who is clearly guilty of crimes against Rome, he may be trying to outmaneuver the scribes and Pharisees.

However, Christ’s enemies have assembled a mob, who will eventually threaten to riot (Matthew 27:24). They will continue to insist that Jesus should be executed for defying Roman rule (John 19:12–15). While it’s clear that Pilate has little respect for the Jewish people (John 18:35), he’s also in a bad political situation. History suggests his brutal, violent approach put him at risk of losing his position as governor. If civil unrest breaks out during a major religious holiday (John 18:28), and includes accusations of both blasphemy (John 19:7) and sedition (Luke 23:1–5), it will not end well for the Roman governor.

Pilate’s next step will be to see if merely humiliating and abusing Jesus will be enough to satisfy the mob (John 19:1–5). It will not (John 19:6).

End of Chapter 18.

Please Note:

The material use in this post, video is from BibleRef.com which is from Got Questions Ministries and is posted here to be read by Immersive reader in the Edge Browser. If you copy this material please follow these rules:

•Content from BibleRef.com may not be used for any commercial purposes, or as part of any commercial work, without explicit prior written consent from Got Questions ministries.

•Any use of our material should be properly credited; please make it clear the content is from BibleRef.com.

•BibleRef.com content may not be altered, modified, or otherwise changed unless such changes are specifically noted.