Exegetical Report / The Gospel of John, Chapters 18 & 19

by Chris A. Foreman on May 8, 2003

for GGBTS  S2324-01, The Gospel of John (Online), Dr. Jay Y. Noh, Spring 2003

 

Chapter 18:  The Arrest and Trial of Jesus (18:1-40)

 

I.         Background:  Summarize the nature of the “detachment” of soldiers (v. 3) that came to arrest Jesus (cf. R, 574-75).  The nature of this detachment appears to be problematic.  There are two related questions: how big was the arresting force? And what kinds of people composed it?  Technically the word detachment (speira) indicates about 600 armed men. But this number is clearly overkill.  Also this same word is a Roman military term.  Perhaps the arresting detail was composed of a few dozen Roman soldiers from a speira. The verses indicate that Jewish officers placed themselves in the forefront (obvious by the fact that it was a Jewish ear that was severed).   Some scholars contend that Romans and Jews would never mount a “joint task force” since the two police forces detested one another.  However, it seems likely to me that in this one special case Roman and Jewish leaders sent out a joint operation to arrest Jesus.  In the SG, there is word that Hared and Pilot had just reconciled.  If these two individuals could reconcile, then perhaps two hostile groups could put aside their differences for an evening to capture somebody they both feared.  

II.       Interpretation:  What is the significance of Jesus’ reply, “I am he”?  Why do you think the would-be arrestors of Jesus “fell to the ground” at Jesus’ answer?  This is interesting.  In the Greek, Jesus uses the same words that he used in the closing of Chapter 8: “before Abraham was, I am” (egw eimi).  In chapter eight, the Pharisees took up stones because they recognized that “I am” was a not-so-veiled reference to personal deity.   In chapter 18, the arrestors ask for someone named “Jesus” and the response is egw eimi: “here is deity”.  Warning, it is possible to read more into these words than is intended, because the same words are the natural response to such a question as put to this disciple group.  Yet, at the words of Jesus, the arresting group fell back (including Judas).  I believe this was a final step in Jesus’ emptying himself -- His kenosis.   Jesus had a divine hedge around him throughout his ministry, preventing his arrest and an assault on his person.  After his second “I am” the hedge vanishes and Jesus begins to empty Himself to his last drop of blood.   At this pronouncement of the divine name by the divine person, the arrestors fall back (See Philippians 2:10 “That at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow.) Also, please note how delicious it is that Jesus says “I am” two times with a third oblique reference.  Then note the parallel words of Simon Peter.  Two times he says “I am not” (ouk eimi), then there is the third oblique reference to his denial.  Neat!

III.      OT background:  The word “cup” has a rich OT background (see M and R).  How is John’s use of the term unique compared to the Synoptic writers (cf. M, 660)?  Unlike the SG, John does not refer to the last supper or to the agonized prayer in Gethsemane.  This word “cup” is the only hint that there is a parallel understanding of these passion narratives.  In Mark, the words of Jesus are: “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt (Mk 14:36)”.  The cup refers to that which God has prepared personally for you and for me.  David said that his cup is running over.  The Father has prepared this cup for His only Son and this is the only cup that the only son chooses to drink.

IV.    What are the historical issues relating to Jesus’ encounter with the high priest Annas?  Its’ significance?  The fourth gospel is the only one that mentions a trial before Annas.  For some scholars this causes a problem.  Perhaps the author is mistaken, they say.  Maybe he has the identities of the two high priests mixed up?  Yet, John certainly knows about Caiaphas, because he mentions him several times.  Another possibility is that Annas and Caiaphas were together throughout this timeframe and John mentions the one while the SG mention the other.  It seems likely to me that Annas was still the BPOC (big priest on campus), even though his son-in-law was the official high priest.  Their offices were likely in the same vicinity.  This courtesy visit was unofficial and brief.  Perhaps Annas just wanted the opportunity to look over this prize catch and to mock him.

V.      What might be the significance, if any, of Peter’s first denial being separated from the second and the third denials in John (but not in the other Gospels)?  Note also the progression in Matthew’s account 26:70, 72, 74.  How does each denial intensify in his account?  Each of the four gospel accounts agree that Jesus predicted a three-fold denial from Peter.  Each gospel includes Peter’s three-fold denial.  There are differences in detail between the four accounts, especially between the three SG and the fourth gospel.  John separates in time the first denial from the second and third denial.  It appears that maybe an hour or two has passed.  This is not inconsistent with the other accounts.  All three hint that the 3 denials were not in rapid succession, or else they may have been interpreted as a single 3-part denial (No-NO-NO!).  John just happens to mention an incident occurring between the denials and the SG don’t do that.  Each successive denial does get more emphatic. The four gospel accounts also have that in common.  In the case of the fourth gospel, the first questioner is a girl (lying to her? so what’s the big deal?), the second questioner is a group of nameless people (they), and the third questioner is a person of power that could perhaps detain Peter.  Having denied to the least powerful, Peter had to stick to his lie.  Is that how it is with all of us when we begin to lie?

VI.    The Jewish trial:  At the questioning of Annas about his teaching and his disciples, how does Jesus try to protect the disciples in vv.20-21?  (cf. M, 669)  Morris notes that Jesus moves the language from them (disciples) to I (Jesus).  The narrative is vague in John.  It just says that Annas asked about his disciples.  Perhaps Annas questioned Jesus about their location:  “Do you know were your gang is hiding out?”  Jesus continues to protect his disciples by returning the questioning to himself. 

VII.    The Roman trial:  How does John give prominence to the trial of Jesus by Pilate, the Roman governor (see R, 585ff and summarize)?  The SG do mention Pontius Pilot, but they focus on the Jewish trials before Hared and especially the Sanhedrin.  John pays most attention to the Roman trial.  Of course, critical scholars question the purpose of this.  First of all, maybe John got his facts wrong.  I can’t see this as a possibility.  Maybe John was pandering to the Romans, thinking that his gospel might be more palatable to Roman readers and the Roman authorities, if he painted Pilot in a good light.  But of course, Pilot comes across as a weak leader, outmaneuvered by the Jews.  I doubt the Roman authorities would find this portrait of their governor flattering.  I think that a few things are going on here.  First, I believe that John was perfectly aware of the SG tradition.  He did not need to revisit the Sanhedrin since they were adequately covered.  Next, the text of John is clearly sculpted by the author.  This is not merely a biography of life events, but a theological treatise with specific aims.  As Morris points out, it appears that one of the aims of the gospel writer was to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed “King of the Jews”.  This goal was best met by focusing of the role of Pilot.  Jesus’ status as King is alluded to 9 times!  (18:33, 37, 39 … 19:12,14,15,19,21,22).  It must be important. 

VIII. Historical setting:  There is a debate as to the nature of the last supper in John.  Was it a Passover meal (as seems to be the case in the Synoptics) or another meal before the Passover (as seems to be the case in John)?  Skim through the long discussion in Morris and summarize.   I think that this ground was well covered in the discussion of chapters 14-17.

IX.    Historical setting:  Did the Jews have the right to hand down capital punishment? (see M, 695ff).  There is some question about this.  After reviewing the text material it appears that for certain crimes, Jews could stone a criminal to death.  This is specifically mentioned as the punishment for a Gentile who enters the temple.  This single exception that the Romans gave was likely to placate Jewish high priests (and maybe that’s why they destroyed the temple about 30 years after these events. No more religious exceptions for Jews!)  In Acts we read that Jewish leaders administered capitol punishment to Stephen (stones) and that Hared killed James (sword).   I have two suggestions.  The punishment given to Jesus had to be Roman to fulfill the prophecy of Jesus (theological reason).   Also, Jesus was such a high profile offender – a really big fish -- that Rome could not be seen in this case as the power that did not dish out ultimate punishment.

X.      Discuss any other question(s) you want to address.  Was the “other disciple” who entered into the temple compound really the Apostle John?  If so, how was he known to the family of the high priest?   Does the fact that he was known to the high priest indicate that maybe the “other disciple” was not John?

Chapter 19:  The Death of Jesus (19:1-42)

XI.    Trace the many attempts by Pilate in chaps. 18-19 to rescue himself from the case and escape from having to make a decision.  I can count 6 attempts by Pilot to avoid making a decision about Jesus.

1.  18:31 – Pilot says “take Him and judge him according to your law”.

2.  18:35 – Pilot wants to release Jesus rather than Barabbas.

3.  19:4 – Pilot displays Jesus and repeats that he finds no fault in him

4.  19:6 – Pilot repeats that He finds no fault in him.

5.  19:12 – the narrator notes that Pilot seeks to release him

6.  19:15 – Pilot asks one last time “Shall I crucify your king?”

 

XII.   Explain what made Pilate “afraid” (cf. Mt 27:19; Jn 19:7) by comparing Morris’ and Ridderbos’ views.  Both of these authors seem to believe that Pilot is afraid because he is superstitious about divine beings.  That doesn’t quite seem right to me.  This fear might be connected to the dream of Pilot’s wife (Mt 27:19).  Morris says that Pilot could not have been afraid of the Jews, but I think that he mis-reads the text.  Pilot is “the more afraid” which seems to indicate that was already afraid of the Jews and that the statement “he made himself the Son of God” caused him to be more afraid.   Just maybe Pilot had an inkling that he was about to commit a crime that would lead to his name being repeated a thousand times a day for the next two thousand years: “he suffered under Pontius Pilot … ”.    Wherever Pilot’s soul is now, I wonder if it burns his ears to hear those words repeated so often.

XIII. Discuss the significance of Jesus sayings from the cross to Mary and “the disciple whom he loved” (vv. 25-27; cf. M, 611ff.)  Maybe the question should be “does this action of Jesus carry personal, moral, and theological consequences?”   Jesus is handing over the care of his beloved mother to the beloved disciple.  This is the personal.  A dutiful son is looking after his mother. By doing this, the text implies that Joseph is no longer alive and that his brothers are not believers.  Does this suggest that a brother in faith is closer than a non-believing brother in flesh?  Is this a moral lesson?  Finally, our Roman Catholic brethren attach theological significance to the giving of Mary to the beloved disciple.   They believe that this action was a symbolic way of Jesus promoting Mary to be the head of His Church.  That is, of course, stretching the text beyond any original meaning and imbuing it with a dogma that came into existence hundreds of years after the fact. 

XIV.            Discuss the significance of the sayings of Jesus from the cross (vv. 28, 30).  Besides his words directed to his mother and to the beloved disciple, Jesus says two other things according the fourth gospel.  Jesus says “I thirst”.  The narrator notes that these words were spoken to fulfill prophecy.   They also demonstrate the humanity of Christ.  A ghost or a pure spirit would not be thirsty.  Jesus is suffering just as you or I would in a similar situation.  He is one of us!  Jesus then says “it is finished” which is one word in the Greek: “tetelestai”.   The question is “what is finished?”  The obvious answer is that His life is finished.  But maybe the meaning is deeper that this.  In chapter 17 Jesus prays “I have glorified you on the earth. I have finished the work that you gave me to do”.  His work is finished!  He beat the devil!  We are redeemed! It is finished!  Maybe Paul had this in mind when he said: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith”. 

 

XV. OT quotations:  How do the OT verses quoted play an important role in the crucifixion and death account?  Note the significance of the allusions and direct quotations.  As the end of Jesus’ life draws near, the narrator begins to identify prophecy that is fulfilled.  I believe that this prophecy is pointed out to explain the unusual manner of His death.  There is a burst of prophecy surrounding his most unusual birth (in the SG), then another burst fulfilled prophecy surrounding his death.  I think that it is a natural question to ask: “why did the Son of God have to die in such a horrible way?”  Like John, the best answer might be “in order to fulfill prophecy”.

XVI.            How should the conduct of Joseph (and Nicodemus) be seen?  As secret and reluctant believers? (see R, 625ff)  Yes, I would call them “secret” believers, but “reluctant” is too strong a word.   These two were powerful men in Jerusalem society.  Unlike tax collectors and fishermen, these two leaders placed their wealth and reputation at risk.  They did remain as stealth believers until the end.  HOWEVER please note who was NOT there for Jesus.  Where is Peter, or James, or even John?  It appears that the twelve are behind locked doors trembling with fright over the Jewish leaders.  How ironic that these two secret believers are only ones that come to Jesus at this time.  Maybe rich men can play a role in the Kingdom of God. As I am now reading about the aftermath of war in Iraq, I read about how tremendously important it is for a person in that culture to receive a “proper burial”.  The Shiite Muslims are digging up mass graves and giving their long-dead loved ones the dignity of a proper burial.  How awful would it have been for the Son if His Father had not provided for him Joseph and Nicodemus.  We in the West do not grasp how necessary and commendable it was for these to honor Jesus in his death.  We don’t understand how degrading it would have been for the corpse of Jesus to have been dumped in a waste pit.  Joseph and Nicodemus are heroes. Mary gave birth to Jesus, but beyond that I cannot identify a greater service that human beings paid to Jesus. 

XVII.           Reflection:  From the Johannine account of Jesus trials, execution and burial, what items stand out as most surprising, meaningful, and thought-provoking?  Why?  One can sense the clock beginning to tick as Chapter 13 begins.  Did all this really happen in just 24 hours?  From sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday?    There is a movie called “the Longest Day” (about the Normandy invasion), but this 24 hours is truly the longest day.  The first 6 hours, Jesus is in conference with his disciples.  The next three hours he is in the garden praying.  The next three, He is before Jews.  Peter denies him at dawn.  Jesus is before Pilot for six hours, then at noon He is crucified.  He dies before dark and his corpse must be rushed into the grave before the sun sets 24 hours after he entered the upper room.  It is surprising, meaningful and thought-provoking to map out the times of Chapters 13 to 19. 

XVIII.         Discuss any other question(s) you want to address.  Who was really responsible for the death of Jesus?  Would you apportion blame like this?:

 

The Jewish leaders who schemed and plotted                            50%

Roman authorities / Pilot who caved into the Jews                      20%

The four soldiers who actually drove the nails                             10%

All humanity because Jesus died “for the sin of the world”          20%

Overall Reflection:  How would you summarize the main teachings of each of the main sections?  I concur with the authors that these two chapters are indeed artificial divisions and they are bad fit for the narrative.  Chapters 18 & 19 break down naturally into 3 parts: (1) Jesus arrested and tried by Jews. (2) Jesus before Pilot, and (3) Jesus crucified and buried.  Why aren’t these 3 chapters?

 

The Arrest and Trial of Jesus by Jews (18:1-28)  Jesus confesses that He is the great  “I am”.  Peter confesses that he is the great “I am not”. 

 

Jesus before Pilot (18:29 – 19:16)  Pilot insists that Jesus is “the King of the Jews” and the Jews immediately commit regicide. 

 

The Death of Jesus (19:1-42) “Greater love has no man than this: that a man lays down his life for his friends”.  He talked the talk, now he walked the walk.