John 12-19

12:1 Jesus therefore six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead

9The common people therefore of the Jews learned that he was there: and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. 10But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to death; 11because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

Lazarus became a focus for the plots of the chief priests. His very life provided a ground for faith in Jesus, so he too had to be destroyed

12On the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13took the branches of the palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.

12:12. This is presumably Sunday of passion week. The great crowd is made up of pilgrims who have come to Jerusalem for the Feast, Passover.

The cry Hosanna!, originally a transliteration of Hebrew ‘give salvation now’, had come to be a term of acclamation or praise. Every Jew knew of its occurrence in Psalm 118:25,

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey. Zec 9:9.

19The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Behold how ye prevail nothing: lo, the world is gone after him.

12:20. The Greeks who request to see Jesus not only represent ‘the whole world’

12:31–33. The arrival of the Greeks has triggered in Jesus’ mind the recognition that his appointed ‘hour’ has arrived.

12:36b. Jesus then left and hid himself from them, his next public act of self-disclosure is the death/exaltation itself), but by his withdrawal, his self-conscious hiding from the people, he is acting out the judicial warning he has just pronounced.

37But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: 38that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, from Isaiah, they were blind.

13:5 Then he poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. 6So he

Doubtless when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet he included the feet of Judas Iscariot.

13:26 So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27And after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. 28Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

There could have been several things he was to do,to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases. Then, eventually lead them to Jesus in the Garden.

Jesus shared many things with the disciples, Chap 17

17;1 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: 2even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life.

His prayer for them and us.

18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron, where was a garden, into which he entered, himself and his disciples

‘When he had finished praying’, but probably it refers to all of 14–17. Jesus sets in motion the departure of which he has been speaking

18:3. Only John specifies in addition to bringing the Jewish officials, Judas Iscariot also guided a detachment of soldiers.

18;4 Jesus saith unto them, Whom seek ye? 5They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8Jesus answered, I told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

Jesus before Annas (18:12–14)

18;12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, 13and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Probably Annas home, his court yard, and the servant girl, in the early morning hours.

The Jewish officials were the primary arresting officers is clear from the fact that Jesus is brought to Annas, and then to Caiaphas;

Annas held the office from AD 6 until AD 15, when Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor, deposed him. Annas continued to hold enormous influence. Annas was thus the patriarch of a high priestly family, and doubtless many still considered him the ‘real’ high priest even though Caiaphas was the high priest by Roman lights

Peter and the other disciple.

The detail of the fire confirms that the courtyard is private. fires were not normally lit at night, when people were sleeping, unless there were extraordinary reasons for staying up. Night proceedings in normal cases were doubtless viewed as illegal.

The interrogation of Jesus before Annas (18:19–24)

In a formal Jewish hearing in the first century, it may have been illegal to question the defendant. A case had to rest on the weight of the testimony of witnesses. This was certainly the way Maimonides (in the Middle Ages) understood Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:2).

18:19The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.
Jesus said, Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.

18:22–23. Some minor official, quick to take offense at Jesus’ challenge to the high priest, slapped him on the face In short, Jesus is asking for a fair trial, while his opponents are already unmasked as those who, unable to win their case by fair means, are perfectly happy to resort to foul play.

18:24. Annas recognizes that he will get nowhere with this man, and sends him to Caiaphas.

If Jesus is to be brought before Pilate, the legal accusation must be brought by the reigning high priest, Caiaphas

Peter’s second and third denials of Jesus (18:25–27)

The trial of Jesus before Pilate (18:28–19:16)

John reports far more details of this trial before Pilate than do the three Synoptists combined.

Pilate questions the prosecution (18:28–32)

18:28 They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.

It was the headquarters of the commanding officer of a Roman military camp, or the headquarters of a Roman military governor (as Pilate was).

Pilate’s normal headquarters was in Caesarea,

The word rendered ‘early morning’ ambiguous. The formal session of the Sanhedrin, which passed judgment on Jesus before sending him on to Pilate, would have been happier to meet ‘very early in the morning’ (Mk. 15:1 par.) but after sunrise, than in the fourth watch of the night, since Jewish law forbade trying capital cases at night.

The Jews take elaborate precautions to avoid ritual contamination in order to eat the Passover, at the very time they are busy manipulating the judicial system to secure the death of him who alone is the true Passover.

There is ample evidence that ‘the Passover’ could refer to the combined feast of the paschal meal itself plus the ensuing Feast of Unleavened bread (e.g. Lk. 22:1: ‘Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching’). If then the Jewish authorities wanted to continue full participation in the entire feast, they would have to avoid all ritual contamination.
Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, is introduced to the narrative. He received his appointment from the Emperor Tiberius in AD 26,

Because the Jewish authorities refused to enter the praetorium (v. 28), the Governor came out to them.

His question What charges are you bringing against this man? formally opened the judicial proceedings.

The fact that Roman troops were used at the arrest proves that the Jewish authorities had communicated something of this case to Pilate in advance; the sparring that follows in the wake of his question confirms the point. They had expected Pilate to confirm their judgment and order the death sentence by crucifixion; instead, he orders a fresh hearing in his presence.

18:30. This explains the truculence of their reply; otherwise their words appear impossibly insolent. The fact that Pilate had sufficiently agreed with their legal briefs to sanction sending a detachment of troops had doubtless encouraged them to think that he would ratify the proceedings of the Sanhedrin and get on to other business.

18:31. Resentful of their truculence, their disrespectful assumption that the Roman governor would fit into their plans, Pilate humiliated them yet further: Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.

Pilate questions Jesus (18:33–38a)

18:33. Back inside the praetorium, Pilate begins his interrogation of Jesus. The question Are you the king of the Jews? 34Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me?

Jesus cannot possibly answer with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ unless he knows what is meant by the question.

Jesus defines his reign negatively: it is not of this world (kosmos;). It means that Jesus’ reign does not have its source or origin in this world and locked in persistent rebellion against its creator

It is important to see ‘that Jesus’ statement should not be misconstrued as meaning that his kingdom is not active in this world, or has nothing to do with this world’.

18:37. Pilate has understood little. He knows that Jesus has spoken of his ‘kingdom’, and therefore that Jesus’ pretensions as a king must be probed a little harder: You are a king, then! Jesus’ answer, translated literally, reads, ‘You say that I am a king’, “King” is your word, not mine’

18:38a. If Jesus’ kingship is indistinguishable from his testimony to the truth, and if his followers are characterized by allegiance to his testimony rather than by violent upheaval, Pilate is forced to recognize that Jesus is the victim of a Sanhedrin plot.

Either way, Pilate abruptly terminates the interrogation with a curt and cynical question: What is truth?

Barabbas (18:38b–40)

38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.

39But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 40They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Thus, at the instigation of the chief priests, who normally had nothing to do with Zealots and others interested in armed rebellion, the crowds call for the release of a man who has committed murder in his struggle against Rome, while condemning a man falsely accused of being a danger to Rome. Pilate cannot fail to see the irony.

Jesus sentenced (19:1–16a)

19:1. Since Pilate has already declared Jesus to be innocent at first sight it is surprising to read, Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.

Flogging administered by the Romans could take one of three forms: the fustigatio, a less severe beating meted out for relatively light offences such as hooliganism, and often accompanied by a severe warning; the flagellatio, a brutal flogging administered to criminals whose offences were more serious; and the verberatio, the most terrible scourging of all, and one that was always associated with other punishments, including crucifixion. In this last form, the victim was
stripped and tied to a post, and then beaten by several torturers (in the Roman provinces they were soldiers) until they were exhausted, or their commanding officer called them off. For victims who, like Jesus, were neither Roman citizens nor soldiers, the favoured instrument was a whip whose leather thongs were fitted with pieces of bone or lead or other metal. The beatings were so savage that the victims sometimes died. Eyewitness records report that such brutal scourgings could leave victims with their bones and entrails exposed.

here in John is the fustigatio, the least severe form, and was intended partly to appease the Jews and partly to teach Jesus a lesson (cf. Luke’s paideusas; John’s emastigōsen, ‘had [him] flogged’, is a more generic description) for being something of a trouble-maker. The chronology of Luke and John is correct. But this means that Jesus received a second scourging, the wretched verberatio, after the sentence of crucifixion was passed. This would hasten death, and the nearness of the special Sabbath of that week provided the officials with some pressure to ensure that the agony of crucifixion, which could go on for days, would not be permitted to run on too long (Jn. 19:31–33). This also explains why he was too weak to carry his own cross very far (cf. notes on v. 17).

19:4–5. Once more Pilate steps out of the praetorium to address the Jews. He delivers his verdict, and then dramatically presents Jesus—a sorry sight, swollen, bruised, bleeding from those cruel and ridiculous thorns.

Aware as he is that it is the people who must choose the man who will receive the governor’s amnesty, he presents Jesus as a beaten, harmless and rather pathetic figure to make their choice of him as easy as possible. In his dramatic utterance Here is the man! (in Latin, Ecce homo!), Pilate is speaking with dripping irony: here is the man you find so dangerous and threatening: can you not see he is harmless and somewhat ridiculous? If the governor is thereby mocking Jesus, he is ridiculing the Jewish authorities with no less venom

19;4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. 5Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man!

Pilate responds with dismissive indignation and disgust: You take him and crucify him. You bring him to me for trial but you will not accept my judgment.

19:8. When Pilate heard this slight revision of the charge the Sanhedrin was preferring against Jesus, he was even more afraid. Pilate heard the revised charge ‘he become afraid rather than’.

As cynical as many senior Roman officials were, many of them were also deeply superstitious. To a Jewish ear, the charge that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God would be taken as a messianic pretension, and perhaps also, in the light of the continuing debate between Jesus and Jewish officials, as a blasphemous excuse to claim prerogatives that belong to God alone; but to a Graeco-Roman ear, the charge sounded quite different. It had nothing to do with blasphemy, and presented no threat to the Roman Empire; rather, it placed Jesus in an ill-defined category
of ‘divine men’, gifted individuals who were believed to enjoy certain ‘divine’ powers. If Jesus was a ‘son of God’ in this sense, Pilate might well feel a twinge of fear; he had just had Jesus whipped. Moreover, the Greek word mallon may simply have elative rather than comparative force: i.e. Pilate ‘was very much afraid’.

19:9. Back inside the praetorium, Pilate seeks to alleviate his own fear by questioning Jesus about his origins: Where do you come from? Jesus gave him no answer, why should Jesus think the governor is any more prepared for truth now? What answer, long or brief, could Jesus have provided for the Roman prefect who is more interested in political manoeuvering than in justice, who displays superstitious fear but no remorse,

19: 10Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? 11Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.

(1) The text does not exonerate Pilate; his sin is only relatively less than that of the person who handed Jesus over to him. The fact that he would not have had any authority over Jesus apart from heaven’s sanction therefore does not absolve him of all responsibility.

(2) The identity of the person guilty of a greater sin is uncertain. Because he is described as the one who handed [Jesus] over to Pilate, and that verb, often rendered in some form of the verb ‘to betray’, is regularly attached to Judas, it is natural to think of Iscariot. On the other hand, Judas plays no part in the plot after 18:13, and, technically speaking, he was not responsible for handing Jesus over to Pilate. The verb is twice used with reference to Jesus’ accusers handing him over to Pilate (18:30, 35), but the singular form of the expression in this verse encourages us to think of one person. On the whole, it seems best to fasten on Caiaphas, since he not only took an active if not determinative part in the plot against Jesus (11:49–53) and, as high priest presiding over the Sanhedrin, he took a leading part in formulating the charges against Jesus (cf. Mk. 14:61–64), charges of which John demonstrates his thorough awareness. The critical point, however, is this: whether the person guilty of a greater sin refers to Judas or to Caiaphas, the distinguishing feature in that sin is its initiative, the active role of handing Jesus over.

Most important, what God (‘from above’) gives to Pilate is not ‘authority’ or ‘power’. In other words, although it is true that all civil authority is mediated authority from God himself ( Pr. 8:15; Rom. 13), that is not the point here. The neuter verbal form suggests that what is given to Pilate is the entire turn of events, or, more precisely, the event of the betrayal itself.

It is not God’s sovereign hand behind Pilate’s authority that mitigates his guilt:

That would imply that God is less than sovereign over the person with the greater guilt. Rather, Pilate’s guilt is mitigated because he takes a relatively passive role. True, Pilate remains responsible for his spineless, politically-motivated judicial decision; but he did not initiate the trial or engineer the betrayal that brought Jesus into court. Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate all acted
under God’s sovereignty. But Pilate would not have had judicial authority over Jesus unless the event of the betrayal itself had been given to him from above (and thus God was in some mysterious sense behind the action of the one who handed Jesus over to Pilate). Therefore the one who handed Jesus over to Pilate, the one who from the human vantage point took the initiative to bring Jesus down, is guilty of the greater sin.

19:12. Pilate tried to set Jesus free Pilate was convinced that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death.

The Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’s friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar

19:13. Confronted with such pressure, Pilate capitulates. Judgment must be declared, and on the original charge of sedition. the one who alone is the promised Messiah, the one to whom the Father himself entrusted all (eschatological) judgment (5:22).

19:14b. Pilate knows he cannot escape the political trap that has been set for him, but he taunts his hated opponents once more. He mockingly acclaims Jesus, as if at a coronation: Here is your king.

19:15. Pilate’s tactics simply infuriate the crowd: Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him! With mock concern and more taunting, Pilate asks, ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ He thereby drives the chief priests to their own blasphemy: We have no king but Caesar.

19:16Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.

By his decisive control of the ‘notice’ on the cross (vv. 19–22). It is not entirely clear what is meant by ‘Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified’. It seems to mean, Pilate hands Jesus over to the soldiers to satisfy the demands

Carrying his own cross confirms what we know of Roman practice: ‘Each criminal as part of his punishment carries his cross on his back’ (Plutarch, The Divine Vengeance, 554 A/B). This refers to the cross-member, the horizontal bar (Lat. patibulum). The condemned criminal bore it on his shoulders to the place of execution, where the upright beam of the gibbet was already fastened in the ground. The victim was then made to lie on his back on the ground, where his arms were stretched out and either tied or nailed to the patibulum. The cross-member was then hoisted up, along with the victim, and fastened to the vertical beam. The victim’s feet were tied or nailed to the upright, to which was also sometimes attached a piece of wood that served as a kind of seat (Lat. sedecula) that partially supported the body’s weight. This was designed to increase the agony, not relieve it.

Jesus crucified (19:16b–30)

Golgotha is an English transliteration of the Greek, itself a transliteration of the Aramaic gulgoltâ, which means ‘skull’. Our more common ‘Calvary’ derives from Latin calvaria, which also means ‘skull’

19:18. Here, in this public place where all could see him, the soldiers crucified him. In the ancient world, this most terrible of punishments is always associated with shame and horror. It was so brutal that no Roman citizen could be crucified without the sanction of the Emperor. Stripped naked and beaten to pulpy weakness , the victim could hang in the hot sun for hours, even days. To breathe, it was necessary to push with the legs and pull with the arms to keep the chest cavity open and functioning. Terrible muscle spasm wracked the entire body; but since collapse meant asphyxiation, the strain went on and on. This is also why the sedecula prolonged life and agony: it partially supported the body’s weight, and therefore encouraged the victim to fight on.

With that, Jesus bowed his head and gave up (he ‘handed over’) his spirit (Lk. 23:46). No-one took his life from him; he had the authority to lay it down of his own accord (10:17, 18), the culminating act of filial obedience (8:29; 14:31).

Pilate’s malice serves God’s ends. The Lord Jesus is indeed the King of the Jews; the cross is the means of his exaltation and the very manner of his glorification. Even the trilingual notice may serve as a symbol for the proclamation of the kingship of Jesus to the whole world: ‘Thus did Pilate Tell it out among the heathen that the Lord is King’ adopting the language of Ps. 96:10. Thus the two men most actively and immediately responsible for Jesus’ death, Caiaphas (11:49–52) and Pilate, are unwittingly furthering God’s redemptive purposes, unwittingly serving as prophets of the King they execute.

‘The Crucified One is the true king, the kingliest king of all; because it is he who is stretched on the cross, he turns an obscene instrument of torture into a throne of glory and “reigns from the tree”.