OVERVIEW
John 18 brings us to the final series of events that mark the close of Jesus’ earthly life. The account in chs. 18 and 19 is typically called the “passion narrative”—a designation that reflects the sufferings of Jesus during the last dark hours before his death. The centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus in the gospel narrative is emphasized by the description of the fourth gospel as the passion story with an extended introduction.
It is often mentioned that John’s narrative differs to some extent from what we have in the Synoptics. For example, in his account of Gethsemane John says nothing of Jesus’ agony in the garden (Lk 22:40–46), of the kiss by Judas (Mt 26:49), or of the flight of the disciples (Mk 14:50). He adds a reference to the reaction of the soldiers sent to arrest Jesus (Jn 18:6). While all four gospel writers follow the same general sequence, each tells the story in his own way and selects those details that help to make a specific emphasis. John stresses Jesus’ command of the situation and the sovereign control of God in the events taking place.
1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.
2Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.
4Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
5“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
7Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”
And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
8“I told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
11Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
1 The NIV takes the tauta (“these things”) of the Greek text as referring to the prayer in ch. 17 and translates, “When he had finished praying.” It is possible, however, that the reference is wider and includes all the teaching from ch. 13 on. In any case, Jesus and his disciples departed and crossed the Kidron Valley. If the teaching in chs. 15–17 was given by Jesus after he had left the upper room (cf. 14:31, “Come now; let us leave”), then ch. 18 marks his departure from the city. Otherwise v.1 refers to his leaving the upper room. It was Jewish custom that Passover evening should be spent in Jerusalem. To accommodate the large crowds it was necessary to extend the boundaries of the city to include nearby villages. For Jesus and his disciples to spend the night across the Kidron Valley in a sheltered garden would have satisfied this expectation.
The Kidron Valley runs south along the eastern side of the plateau of Jerusalem and joins the Valley of Hinnom as it continues southeast to the Dead Sea. Except during the period of heavy winter rains, it is a deep, dry wadi. The Greek cheimarrou tou Kedrōn means “the winter-flowing Kidron” (Brown, 806; NASB, “ravine of the Kidron”). Beyond the Kidron to the east is the Mount of Olives, on whose lower slopes is an olive grove the Synoptics designate as Gethsemane (Mk 14:32). The owner of the grove is not known to us, though some have conjectured that it may have belonged to the parents of the young man mentioned (autobiographically?) only in Mark (14:51–52) who escaped the grasp of the soldiers and ran away naked.
2 Judas is about to show the Jewish authorities not which one in the group is Jesus but where Jesus can be found and arrested without exciting a mob reaction. At the very time when the disciples were asleep in the garden, those bent on evil were busily engaged with their clandestine plans. We pray, “Deliver us from the evil one” (Mt 6:13) but so often fail to realize how real and present is the one who is determined to do us harm. Some have compared the victorious struggle of Jesus in the garden with the failure of the first Adam in another garden (Ge 3).
3 Judas arrives with a “detachment of soldiers” (NASB, “Roman cohort). A speira (GK 5061) was the Greek equivalent of the Latin cohort, the tenth part of a legion, and therefore normally about six hundred men. The term was also used for a smaller group of approximately two hundred (the maniple). In either case, it was large enough to warrant the presence of a chiliarchos, a “commander” (cf. v.12) of a thousand (GK 5941). Along with the detachment of Roman soldiers from the fortress of Antonia came “officials from the chief priests and Pharisees” (temple police). The surprisingly large size of the group leads Barclay, 223, to comment, “What a compliment to the power of Jesus!” It would appear that Pilate placed so many soldiers at the disposal of the priestly aristocracy because he feared the danger of a popular uprising. At times of religious festivals the nationalistic spirit of a people dominated by a foreign power would be running high.
That Jewish authorities had taken the initiative in the capture of Jesus is clear from the fact that he was taken to the high priest (vv.12–13), not immediately to Pilate. Some have wondered why it would be necessary for the captors to carry torches and lanterns, since Passover always took place during full moon. It may have been cloudy or, more likely, they may have expected that Jesus would hide in some dark corner of the garden.
4 Throughout John’s presentation of the events leading up to the crucifixion is a strong emphasis on Jesus’ complete control of the situation. As the soldiers and temple police approached the garden, Jesus did not try to escape by retreating into the shadows; rather, he went out to meet them. We are probably to understand that he went out of the garden rather than out of the darkness into the light of the torches. While the first Adam hid in the garden, the Second Adam presented himself boldly to his adversaries.
After the feeding of the five thousand, the people would have by force made him king, so Jesus withdrew into the hills by himself (6:15). Now his opponents come to take him by force to the cross, and he steps forward to offer himself. Jesus is not arrested against his will. He is not taken captive, but “knowing all that was going to happen to him,” he asks, somewhat rhetorically, who it is that they want. Jesus’ foreknowledge has been seen throughout the gospel (cf. 2:25; 6:64; 13:1, 3; 16:19). That he was fully aware of all that the next few hours would hold makes his obedience all the more remarkable. He went to the cross not as a victim but as a willing sacrifice. His life and death were fully intentional, and we are the ones who receive the reward of his obedience.
John does not record the kiss of Judas (cf. Mk 14:44–45), but it may have taken place just before Jesus asked, “Who is it you want?” With Jesus stepping forward to meet the armed mob, there would be no need to identify him from among the band of disciples. The kiss was a normal greeting between teacher and student. For Judas to have carried through with such a hypocritical act in that context was beneath contempt.
5 The soldiers declare that it is “Jesus of Nazareth” whom they wish to take into custody. Jesus responds, “I am he.” The Greek (egō eimi) reflects the LXX rendering of the pivotal self-description of God in Exodus 3:14, where Moses is instructed by God to tell the Israelites that “I AM has sent me to you” (cf. the seven occurrences of egō eimi in John; “I am the bread of life” [6:35], etc.). For those familiar with the Greek Bible, Jesus’ answer would probably have been understood as a claim to deity. Standing by with those who had come to arrest Jesus was Judas the traitor, or as it may be translated, “Judas, who was in the act of betraying him.” It is difficult to overstress the poignancy of the scene. There in the garden Judas took his stand against the very one he professed to follow for the preceding three years. His betrayal of Jesus reveals how desperately wicked is the human heart. Such a shameful act violates even the most minimal standards of basic decency.
6 Jesus’ complete control of the situation is seen in John’s report (omitted in the Synoptics) that the soldiers “drew back and fell to the ground.” Representative of earlier commentators is Reith, 131, who writes, “Before the calm courage of conscious innocence, force and hostility have often been quelled.” Contemporary writings are more apt to question the historicity of the account. Lindars, 541, writes, “It can scarcely be regarded as an historically reliable detail …. It is John’s way of expressing the theological fact that Jesus is above all earthly power.” Haenchen, 2:165, questions where John got the “tradition” and decides that Christian scribalism had taken OT references from the “suffering pious” tradition and referred them to Jesus’ passion.
Discussions of this sort reflect differing hermeneutical approaches to Scripture. If “John” were an editor working with various strands of tradition, then conjecture about what actually happened would be appropriate. If, on the other hand, he was an eyewitness of the event and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we should take the text at face value. The latter alternative is followed in this commentary. It is unnecessary to explain the scene as one in which those in front recoiled and caused everyone behind to stumble and fall (cf. Morris, 743–45). Similar reactions to the divine presence are found in Daniel 10:9 and Acts 9:4.
7–8 Once again Jesus asks who it is they want, and the answer is the same—“Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus replies, “I told you that I am he.” His uniqueness is emphasized by the repetition of egō eimi (lit., “I am”) in vv.5, 6, and 8. Jesus’ concern for the well-being of the disciples is clearly discerned in his request that they be allowed to go free.
9 John records that this happened in order to fulfill the words spoken by Jesus (in 17:12), “I have not lost one of those you gave me.” That Judas is not mentioned as an exception (as in 17:12 but not in 6:39) may indicate that by this time he had identified completely with the enemy and in so doing revealed that he had never been “given” to Jesus by the Father. Another explanation is that Jesus did everything in his power to save Judas, but Judas acted deliberately as a free moral agent and chose a course of action that brought the inevitable consequences. Thus Jesus did not lose Judas; Judas was lost as a result of his own deliberate choice.
Some have questioned the difference between the spiritual protection for which Jesus prayed in 17:11–12 and the physical protection for which he now asks. Calvin, 2:155, wisely notes that in this precarious situation Jesus was not concerned merely for the bodily life of the disciples but wanted to spare them for the time being with an eye to their eternal salvation.
10 Although this event is recorded in all four gospels, only John tells us that the disciple in question was “Simon Peter” and that the servant was named “Malchus” (probably from the Semitic root m-l-k; cf. Heb. melek, “king,” GK 4889). Peter’s sword was undoubtedly a dagger or long knife rather than a full-length sword (machaira, GK 3479, rather than rhomphaia, GK 4855). It is often mentioned that it was illegal to carry a sword on Passover night, but Lindars, 543, notes that m. Šabb. 6.4 explicitly permits it on the grounds that a man’s weapons are “his adornments.” It has also been suggested that, since the slitting of a man’s ear would disqualify him from priestly office (cf. David Daube, “Three Notes Having to Do with Johanan ben Zaccai,” JTS NS 11 [1960]: 61), Peter’s act was intended as a public insult. More probably, Peter simply lashed out at the nearest person in the group that had come to take Jesus. That he severed the right ear could suggest that Peter was left-handed. There is certainly no reason to accept the conjecture that Peter was a cowardly right-hander who struck from behind. It is also better to take the diminutive ōtarion (“ear,” GK 6064) as equivalent to ous (“ear,” GK 4044; cf. Lk 22:50) and understand that the damage was done to the entire outer ear rather than the earlobe only. (For the latter, see Brown, 812.)
11 In the OT, the “cup” was often associated with the wrath of God (cf. Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 49:12). To “drink the cup” given by the Father was to accept the righteous retribution of a holy God—to experience the punishment for sin that must necessarily follow if the universe created by God is to be considered moral. God’s purposes are not achieved by thoughtless reactions. Zeal uninformed by knowledge leads a person to play the fool more often than not.
NOTES
1 L&N, 1:52, says that χείμαρρος (cheimarros, GK 5929) refers to “a ravine or narrow valley in which a stream flows during the rainy season, but which is normally dry during the dry season—‘ravine, wadi.’” BDAG, 1082, identifies it as “a stream of water that flows abundantly in the winter.” They gloss, “winter torrent, ravine.”
The word κῆπος (kēpos, GK 3057) refers to “a field used for the cultivation of herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables—‘garden, orchard’” (L&N, 1.97). The NIV calls it an “olive grove” here and in 18:26 but reverts to “garden” in the three other occurrences in the NT (Lk 13:19; 19:41 [twice]). The NASB uses “garden” in all five places.
3 The NASB’s “lanterns and torches” is to be preferred to the NIV’s “torches and lanterns.” While in earlier times φανός (phanos, GK 5749) referred to a torch, by NT times it was used of a type of outdoor lamp or lantern in which a small fire was protected in some way from the wind and rain. A λαμπάς (lampas, GK 3286) was a bundle of sticks lit and carried as a torch (cf. BDAG, 585).
12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.
15Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.
17“You are not one of his disciples, are you?” the girl at the door asked Peter.
He replied, “I am not.”
18It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.
19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
20“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”
22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.
23“If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” 24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.
25As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?”
He denied it, saying, “I am not.”
26One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” 27Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.
13 According to John’s narrative, the just-arrested Jesus is taken first to Annas, who questions him (vv.13, 19–23), and then to Caiaphas (v.24), who sends him to Pilate for sentencing (vv.28–40). When this account is compared with the Synoptics several problems arise (see Notes). The major issue is that, according to the Synoptics, Caiaphas the high priest is the one who conducts the trial (cf. Mt 26:57–68), while in John Jesus is not sent to Caiaphas till after the questioning in vv.19–23.
The crafty nature of Annas and his practice of demanding exorbitant prices for sacrificial animals sold on the temple grounds are well known. The shops in the temple were called “the Bazaars of Annas.” A passage from the Talmud reads as follows: “Woe is me because of the house of Ḥanin [family of Annas], woe is me because of their whisperings [their secret conclaves to devise oppressive measures]” (b. Pesaḥ. 57a). That Jesus should first be taken to the one who was in control of the ecclesiastical power structure is not surprising. Annas would take personal delight in seeing the one who had attacked his vested interests by cleansing the temple now bound and being brought to “justice.”
13–14 Caiaphas, who was the high priest “that year”—i.e., that “fateful” or “notorious” year—was the one who had advised the Sanhedrin that it would be better for one man to die, even though innocent, than to place the entire nation in jeopardy (cf. 11:47–52). Ironically, the Jewish leaders would shortly send Jesus to his death, and within a generation the nation would be destroyed.
15–18 It is difficult to reconstruct everything that took place in the dark hours following Jesus’ arrest. We know from Matthew 26:56 that “all the disciples deserted him and fled” (responses mentioned also by Mark but omitted by Luke and John). We can only conjecture that as Peter was running for his life, he suddenly realized how cowardly was his flight. We can picture him suddenly stopping and, after a moment’s hesitation, retracing his path back to the scene of Jesus’ arrest. Now he finds himself following Jesus, not as a disciple and faithful companion, but as a confused defector who cannot but follow along on the outskirts of the hostile crowd.
15 With Peter was another disciple, one who would shortly provide him access into the courtyard of the high priest. A good case can be made that “the other disciple” (v.16) was John the son of Zebedee. The same expression (but without the definite article) is used four times in ch. 20 of the one who ran to the tomb with Peter (20:2, 3, 4, 8)—undoubtedly John. Other suggestions for the identity of the other disciple include Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, some member of the Sanhedrin who was a secret believer (cf. 12:42), or the owner of the house where Jesus and his disciples had celebrated their final meal together. Of these possibilities, the strongest by far is that the other disciple was John, the author of the fourth gospel.
The question arises, How could a Galilean fisherman be known to the high priest? While to be “known” could imply considerable familiarity (a close friend or even a relative), it could also indicate no more than a nodding acquaintance. We know that John’s father was a fisherman with a business sufficiently large enough to employ hired men (Mk 1:20). It would not have been unusual for John to have been the one who brought Galilean salt fish to the court of the high priest during the time he worked for his father. A different though less satisfactory explanation builds on the fact that on John’s mother’s side, he was of priestly descent. (Salome, John’s mother, was the sister of the Virgin Mary, who was related to Elizabeth, “a descendant of Aaron,” Lk 1:5). Many writers think this verse in Luke is the basis for the statement by Polycrates (a second-century bishop of Ephesus) that John was by birth a priest and wore the petalon, a gold band inscribed with two Hebrew words signifying “HOLY TO THE LORD” and worn across the forehead (cf. Ex 28:36).
The “courtyard” into which the other disciple entered was an open atrium in the center of the palace building where the high priest lived. There is much to commend the suggestion that this may have been a common courtyard connecting two separate wings of the same palace in which Annas and Caiaphas lived, each in his own private quarters. This would be the courtyard through which Jesus would have passed as he was transferred from Annas to Caiaphas.
16 When the other disciple entered the courtyard, Peter was left waiting outside at the door. Some have suggested that the door was shut by divine providence and that Peter should have accepted it as such. In any case, the other disciple returned, spoke to the girl on duty, and secured entrance for Peter. That the doorkeeper was a woman (tē thyrōrō, GK 2601; NIV, “girl on duty”) would strengthen the case for the interrogation to have taken place at the private quarters of the high priest. Carson, 582, notes that “only men held such assignments in the temple precincts” (women porters are found at 2Sa 4:6 [LXX] and Ac 12:13). One can only wonder how often a well-intentioned kindness places another person in jeopardy. Had Peter not entered the courtyard, he would not have fallen into the trap that awaited him.
17 It is difficult to know the exact nuance of the question asked by the girl at the gate. Direct questions in Greek that begin with the interrogative particle mē (“not”) normally expect a negative response; however, the inclusion here of kai sy (“also you”) suggests that the expected answer may be positive. Lindars, 549, remarks that it implies “cautious assertion” and so constitutes a challenge. The question contains no necessary hostility. The maid may simply have been expressing surprise that not only the other disciple whom she knew but also a second companion of Jesus had followed the captors right to the house of the high priest. Bruce, 345, translates, “Oh no, not another!”
The question unwittingly invited a devious answer. Peter, who had boasted of his loyalty when he should have been humble (13:37) and was asleep in the garden when he should have been awake and in prayer (Mk 14:37), was not ready for the moment of testing. He quickly asserted that he was not one of Jesus’ disciples. The suggestion that Peter’s ouk eimi (“not I”) here and in v.25 is to be understood over against the egō eimi (“I am”) of Jesus in vv.5 and 8 reads too much into the text. Just a short time before, Jesus had told his sleepy disciple, “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation” (Mk 14:38). Failing to heed the warning, Peter had now stumbled into a situation in which a simple question by a servant girl led him to deny his Lord. Temple, 2:343, writes that “we all know with what fatal ease we accept a position prepared for us if it is presented suddenly and offers a refuge from many troubles.”
Note that what Peter denied was not his faith in Jesus but his relationship to him. How often today does that relationship go unexpressed and thus constitute one form of denial! The church carries out its mission when followers of Jesus do not hesitate to confess openly their allegiance to Jesus. Calvin’s comment, 2:159, is all too true of many believers in almost every age: “Our courage is such that it fails of its own accord when there is no enemy.”
18 The evening was cold, and the attendants (hypēretai, “officials,” GK 5677; cf. v.12) of the synagogue who had taken part in the capture of Jesus, along with the servants of the high priest, stood around a fire to keep warm. Once inside the gate, Peter moves into the circle around the fire and warms himself there. One falsehood leads inevitably to the next. Now he had to continue the charade and conceal his real character by pretending he was one of the group who had taken Jesus captive. Sin progressively binds the sinner, and every failure makes it increasingly difficult to reverse the trend. Peter’s denials are a stark reminder of how absolutely dependent we are on the grace and power of God to overcome the deceptive assaults of sin.
19–24 John follows his account of Peter’s first denial with the interrogation of Jesus by Annas (vv.19–24). This is then followed by Peter’s second and third denials (vv.25–27). The arrangement invites a comparison between two “trials”—that of Jesus before a powerful high priest and that of Peter before servants of the high priest. Although improperly questioned and physically abused, Jesus conducts himself with dignity and propriety. By contrast, Peter’s bravado disappears at the first relatively innocent query by a household servant. Such is the weakness of human nature.
19 The “high priest” here is Annas (see v.24). Although at that time he was not serving as the official high priest (appointed by the Romans during this period), he would continue to carry the title as a courtesy. It is best to take the questioning before Annas as an informal session for the purpose of gaining evidence that could be used before the Sanhedrin to secure a verdict. Kysar, 272–73, points out that all three essential elements of the synoptic accounts of the religious trial (the witnesses against Jesus, the question of his messianic claim, and the charge of blasphemy) are missing in John. This observation supports the view that while John records the session before Annas, he passes over the trial before Caiaphas as recorded in the Synoptics (Mt 26:57–68 par.). It does not, however, relieve Annas of the illegality of interrogating Jesus to gain incriminating evidence. According to Jewish law, the accused was not required to testify against himself.
The high priest asks first about Jesus’ disciples and then about his teaching. The order is significant. Knowing that sedition would be the charge most likely to move Pilate to action, Annas seeks to discover evidence about the size of Jesus’ following and the extent of their activities. Such evidence would lend credibility to the charge he intended to level. Jesus must be made to appear as a revolutionary threat to Pilate’s administration (cf. 19:12).
20 Rather than answering the questions raised by Annas, Jesus challenged the legitimacy of the interrogation. In order to establish a charge, Jewish law required witnesses. Jesus had conducted his ministry in public. Nothing had been done secretly or behind closed doors. If Annas needed witnesses, they would not be hard to find. He should ask those who had heard Jesus’ public discourses; they would know everything that had been said. It is contrary to established legal practices to trap a person into providing evidence against himself. That Jesus had “spoken openly” (parrēsia, GK 4244) to the world means that he had delivered his message boldly and without ambiguity (cf. 11:14, where Jesus tells his disciples “plainly” that Lazarus has died). John records only one instance in which Jesus taught in a synagogue but mentions several occasions when he taught in the temple precincts (cf. 6:59 with 7:14, 28; 8:20; 10:23).
Jesus’ statement that he said “nothing in secret” was not a denial that he taught his disciples privately. It was only to say that he did not have two kinds of teaching—a private revolutionary brand for his followers and a public presentation designed to allay any suspicion that might arise. Nor does it conflict with other sayings, such as Matthew 10:27 (“What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight”), in which the context is quite distinct.
21–22 Jesus’ demeanor before Annas reveals no trace of fear or timidity. Although he is the one being questioned, it is clear he is the one in control. To his inquisitor Jesus says, “Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” In other words, “Why are you not following legal practice? Bring in witnesses, and let them tell you what I have been teaching. I am willing to stand trial if proper procedures are followed.” Surprised by Jesus’ straightforward and candid response, one of the attendants reached out and struck him in the face. The Greek rhapisma (lit., “a blow with a club,” GK 4825) had come to mean “a slap in the face.” It was insulting as well as painful. We can only conjecture that the abusive reaction of the attendant was motivated more by a desire to curry favor with the high priest than to redress a wrong. Exodus 22:28 taught, “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people,” but of course Jesus had done neither.
23 To the pompous demand that he not address the high priest with such effrontery, Jesus responds by calling into account the rude conduct of his antagonist. If he was guilty of having said something wrong (i.e., inadmissible in court), then let someone “testify to it” (Goodspeed), or “produce some evidence of it” (Brown, 827). But if what he said was true, then why was he slapped? Jesus is insisting on fair and legal treatment. The “trial” had thus far violated acceptable Jewish practice both in its method of questioning and in its willingness to allow personal abuse.
During his public ministry Jesus had taught that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you should turn the other to him also (Mt 5:39). Why then on this occasion didn’t he follow his own teaching? The answer is that Jesus’ sayings are not intended to be taken as unlimited in application. While retaliation for personal injury is not the appropriate response of a Christian in the majority of cases, there may be times when the failure to take a stand against injustice would violate some higher principle. In Acts 23:2–5 Paul apologized for calling the high priest a “whitewashed wall,” but he hadn’t realized that it was the high priest who was ordering others to strike him on the mouth. The situations are quite distinct.
24 Having made no progress with Jesus, Annas sends him to Caiaphas the high priest. As mentioned earlier, v.24 need not be relocated to the middle or the end of v.13. Nor should the aorist apesteilen (“sent,” GK 690) be translated as a pluperfect (“had sent”). According to Bruce, 347, this tense is ruled out by the conjunction oun (“then”). It is best to take v.24 as it stands and understand it as noting that after the informal hearing before Annas, Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, who lived in another wing of the palace.
The poignant scene recorded by Luke in which Jesus turned and looked straight at Peter (22:61) may well have happened as Jesus was being taken across the courtyard for the next stage of his trial. Whether or not Jesus had been unbound during his questioning we do not know (the NIV has “still bound”). In either case, he was delivered bound to Caiaphas, as he had been to Annas (vv.12–13).
25 Peter continues to linger, warming himself by the fire. The imperfect ēn (“was”) with the two perfect participles, hestōs and thermainomenos (“standing” and “warming,” GK 2705, 2548), stresses this point. It is tragic that at the very time Jesus is standing before his accusers, Peter is found in the company of those who had taken his Master captive. Once again he was asked whether he was one of Jesus’ disciples. There is some difficulty in the fact that while Matthew says that another girl asks the question (Mt 26:71), Mark implies it was the same girl (Mk 14:69), and Luke indicates it was a man (Lk 22:58). John has “they asked” (eipon, GK 3306), which the NIV translates as “he was asked.” It would appear that the question arose among those around the fire and that, once asked, it was repeated by others as it was being directed to Peter. John’s use of the plural (“they”) may reflect rather accurately that the question was being pressed by a number of those whose interest about this stranger in their midst had now been aroused.
The conversation around the fire had to do with the one they had just seized in the garden of Gethsemane. The form of the question calls for a “No,” but once again (as in v.17) there is in the query the suspicion that Peter is one of Jesus’ disciples. The translation, “[Surely] you are not one of his disciples, are you?” reflects their surprise that one of Jesus’ followers, having fled from the garden, would be so foolish as to risk entering the court of the high priest. This time Peter denies any association and says bluntly, “I am not.” Calvin, 2:162, notes that “this is how Satan carries wretched men away when he has dislodged them.” Once a lie has been told, it is easier to add to it yet another untruth than to correct the situation by telling the truth as it should have been told in the beginning. Sin binds the human spirit with cords that can be broken only by confession and a genuine return to truthfulness. The joy of the Christian life is often restored only by returning to that moment of untruthfulness and openly acknowledging that the intervening months or years have been marred by hypocrisy. How many lives have been rendered powerless by an unwillingness to repent and humbly endure the consequences!
26 A bit later (“about an hour,” Lk 22:59) one of the high priest’s servants challenged Peter with the question, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” This time in the Greek the form of the question (which begins with the negative ouk rather than the mē of the first two questions) expects an affirmative response. A “yes” is easier to anticipate when the question is translated, “I saw you with him in the olive grove, did I not?” This particular servant was a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off and would therefore have paid close attention to which of the disciples had offended the family honor. That the light from the charcoal fire (see anthrakia in 18:18) would have been quite similar to the illumination in the garden would have helped the servant recognize Peter on this later occasion. John’s awareness that the servant’s name was Malchus (v.10) and that this last questioner was one of his relatives reveals a rather precise knowledge of the household of the high priest.
27 For the third time Peter denied any association with Jesus, and at that very moment a rooster began to crow. Thus was fulfilled the prediction of Jesus in the upper room just a few hours earlier, “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!” (13:38). In the NT era, the cock had the habit of crowing with such clocklike regularity that the four watches of the night were named Late, Midnight, Cockcrow (3:00 a.m.), and Early (cf. Mk 13:35, where the third division is named alektorophōnia, “cockcrowing,” GK 231; NIV, “when the rooster crows”).
NOTES
12–14 Sensing the difficulty (see comments at v.13), copyists rearranged the verses in several ways. The fourth-century Sinaitic Syriac version places them in the following order: 13, 24, 14–15, 19–23, 16–18, 25–27. In addition to getting Jesus to Caiaphas before Annas’s interrogation (vv.19–23), this reordering brings together into one sequence the three denials of Peter (vv.15–18, 25–27). A simpler rearrangement is followed by two twelfth-century MSS, one of which copies v.24 into the middle of v.13 (after πρῶτον, prōton), while the other places v.24 after v.13. Most scholars view the rearrangements simply as scribal attempts to improve the sequence.
One way to alleviate the problem is to take v.24 as a “deferred footnote,” as though John, reflecting on what he has just written and aware of the misunderstanding it could cause, points out that he should have mentioned earlier that Jesus had been sent on to Caiaphas. The KJV follows this line of thought in its translation of v.24: “Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” It may be better, however, to take the text as it stands and understand vv.19–23 as a preliminary questioning by Annas (the powerful former high priest), with the more formal trial conducted by Caiaphas (and recorded in the Synoptics; cf. Mt 26:57–68) being omitted by John. A comparison of the two interrogations shows them to be quite distinct—Annas asks about Jesus’ teaching, while Caiaphas conducts a trial, complete with false witnesses and an official sentence.
That Annas would be called “the high priest” (v.19) presents no particular problem. We know that Annas served in that role from AD 6–15 and was succeeded by five sons in addition to Caiaphas, his son-in-law (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.198). According to the OT, appointment to the office of high priest was for life (Nu 35:25). Thus, the deposition of Annas by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus in AD 15 would not have been recognized by orthodox Jews. (Lk 3:2 speaks of “the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas”; cf. also the plural, “chief priests,” in Jn 18:35 and the designation of Annas as “high priest” in Ac 4:6.) It is also quite possible that Annas lived in the same palace with his son-in-law and that the sending of Jesus to Caiaphas in v.24 need not have been to another house somewhere else in the city. This would provide some help in understanding why Peter’s denials are interwoven in both interrogations as recorded in John and in the Synoptics.
15 The NASB’s straightforward translation (“Simon Peter was following Jesus”) is expanded by the NET to read, “Simon Peter … followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas.” The NET’s translator’s note explains that “direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.” While this is certainly true of the Greek language, the additional words illustrate two different approaches to translation. Fidelity to the specific words of the original calls for “formal equivalence,” while commitment to clarity and understanding in the receptor language is called “dynamic equivalence.” Neither philosophy is intrinsically superior to the other; the question has to do with the purpose of the translation and the audience for whom it is intended. For the person who prizes readability and is concerned in a broader way with what the author had to say (rather than the words he used to say it), the dynamic equivalent is more suitable. For the person who is more concerned with an accurate translation of the actual words of the ancient text and accepts the challenge to determine the probable intention of the author, a formal equivalent translation is to be preferred.
16 The noun θυρωρός (thyrōros, “doorkeeper,” “gatekeeper,” GK 2601) may be used in reference to a person of either sex. In 10:3 the “doorkeeper” (NASB; NIV, “watchman”) is masculine (ὁ θυρωρός, ho thyrōros), while in 18:18 the “doorkeeper” (NASB; NIV, “girl on duty”) is feminine (τῆ θυρωρῶ, tē thyrōrō).
18 The NASB correctly identifies the “fire” (NIV) as a “charcoal fire.” The Greek word is ἀνθρακία (anthrakia, GK 471) and refers to a pile of burning charcoal. L&N, 2.6, notes that it fits the context well, since “a charcoal fire provides a maximum of heat with a minimum of smoke.” The word is found only in John (here and in 21:9), though the masculine noun ἄνθραξ (anthrax, “charcoal,” GK 472) is used by Paul in Romans 12:20 in quoting the proverbial statement of Proverbs 25:22, “you will heap burning coals on his head.”
20 The noun παρρησία (parrēsia, “outspokenness,” “frankness,” GK 4244; NIV, “openly”) here carries the idea of “openness to the public” (BDAG, 781, paragraph 2). It inevitably involves a measure of courage. L&N, 25:158, states that the noun refers to “a state of boldness and confidence, sometimes implying intimidating circumstances.”
22 Barclay (The New Testament: A Translation by William Barclay [Louisville: Westminster, 1999], 291) has the guard who slapped Jesus across the face exclaim, “How dare you answer the High Priest like that?” It is difficult to determine whether the question arose from the widespread expectation that leaders whom God had appointed be shown proper reverence (cf. Ex 22:28), or whether the reaction of the guard was simply motivated by personal considerations.
23 Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida (A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John [New York: United Bible Societies, 1980], 529) hold that Jesus’ response is directed toward the high priest, not the official who struck him. They argue that the guard would not be the one to give evidence against Jesus and that it would be unlikely he would have slapped Jesus unless prompted by the high priest. Thus Jesus’ question is understood as directed to the high priest: “Why did you cause the guard to slap me?”
27 Some hold that the ἀλεκτοροφωνία (alektorophōnia, “cockcrow”; in the NT only in Mk 13:35) was a specific reference to the Roman gallicinium, a technical term for the trumpet call that signaled the end of the third watch at 3:00 a.m.
OVERVIEW
John does not describe Jesus’ trial before the religious leader Caiaphas but moves quickly to the Roman phase of the trial (with Pilate). In 18:28–19:16a, Jesus is taken inside the official residence of the governor and then back out to his Jewish accusers at least six separate times. During this exchange, we see Pilate change from a relatively disinterested government official to a frightened functionary afraid of what the populace might do to his political future if he failed to cave in to their desires. Such is the character of those who live by expediency rather than conviction. Sadly, the nature of political life militates against judgments that are based on what is right in favor of what seems to promote the minimum social disturbance.
28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”
30“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”
31Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”
“But we have no right to execute anyone,” the Jews objected. 32This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.
33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
34“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
35“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
36Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
37“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
38“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”
40They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
19:1Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him in the face.
4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”
6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”
7The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10“Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
11Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”
13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.
15But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.
16aFinally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.
COMMENTARY
28 From the house of Caiaphas, Jesus was led to the palace of the Roman governor. The Praetorium was the official residence of the Roman administrator. Originally it was the name given to the commander’s headquarters in the center of a military camp. The Roman governor of Judea maintained his primary residence in Caesarea on the seacoast (cf. Ac 23:33–35), but in times when the national fervor of an occupied people could run high he would come with his soldiers to Jerusalem and stay in the Praetorium. His residence in Jerusalem was either in Herod’s palace on the western wall or, more probably, in the Fortress of Antonia (a Hasmonean castle rebuilt by Herod the Great), located north of the temple area. The case for the latter is strengthened by the discovery of the “Stone Pavement” (lithostrōtos, GK 3346, 19:13) under an adjacent convent, as well as the longstanding tradition that the Via Dolorosa began at the same location.
The transfer of Jesus to the Praetorium took place in the “early morning.” In a technical sense, prōi (“early”) stood for the fourth watch of the night (3:00–6:00 a.m.; cf. Mk 13:35), but here it is used in the more general sense of early in the morning. Mark 15:1 and parallels cite a morning meeting of the Sanhedrin. This would lend the appearance of legality to their decision, because Jewish law prohibited verdicts involving the death sentence from being made at night.
The Jews did not enter the Roman garrison because to do so would have rendered them ceremonially unclean and kept them from eating the Passover. The dwelling places of the Gentiles were considered unclean for various reasons, such as the presence of yeast or the possibility that aborted fetuses had been discarded down the drains (cf. Str-B, 2:839). Although some types of ceremonial uncleanness lasted only until sundown and could be removed by means of a bath, others—especially those involving contact with a dead body—lasted for seven days. In any case, the Jews did not want to be defiled by entering the court of Pilate and run the risk of missing out on the Passover. Concern for ceremonial purity took precedence over the demands of moral integrity. Calvin, 2:163, notes that hypocrisy “is careful to cultivate ceremonies, but securely neglects the most important things.” It has always been the choice of religious people to elevate their self-serving concern for ceremonial rigor over the basic and fundamental laws of justice and human rights.
If we follow the chronology of the Synoptics, which places the major Passover meal on the previous evening, the Passover referred to in v.28 would have been another of the meals eaten during the seven-day Feast of the Passover.
29–30 Since the Jews would not enter the Praetorium, Pilate went out to them to ask what accusations they were bringing against their prisoner. Pilate was the fifth Roman prefect of Judea (AD 26–36); an inscription from Caesarea designates him as praefectus. In the Roman provincial system, peaceful provinces were placed under the jurisdiction of the senate, while more unruly provinces requiring the presence of Roman troops were governed by procurators, who were responsible to the emperor. Josephus (J.W. 2.169–74; 175–77; Ant. 18.87) writes of three separate incidents in which Pilate unwisely aroused the hostility of the Jewish nation. After being recalled to Rome and convicted for his slaughter of the Samaritans, he committed suicide (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.7).
Pilate’s question as to what charges the Jewish authorities were bringing indicated that he intended to conduct a regular trial rather than simply to pronounce the death sentence on a man already condemned by these people. This must have come as a considerable surprise to the Jews. After all, had not Pilate supplied them with a detachment of Roman soldiers when they went by night to arrest Jesus? Their disdainful response (v.30) was that if he were not a criminal, they would not have handed him over. The Jews wanted no further trial because they knew full well that they had no charge against him sustainable in a court of Roman law. Houtos (“this man”) in the Greek text is spoken with contempt. That he was being delivered to Pilate was intended to imply that Jesus was in fact guilty of a serious offense against Rome.
31 Pilate’s response is that the people should try him according to their own law. But that wouldn’t do, because ever since AD 6, when Judea became a Roman province, the Jews had been denied the right to carry out the death sentence. Pilate undoubtedly enjoyed reminding them of their vassal status. That they had “no right to execute anyone” is true but creates a bit of a problem. Just a short time after the crucifixion, the Jews would put Stephen to death by stoning (Ac 7:57–60). Josephus (Ant. 20.200) reports the stoning of James the brother of Jesus, as well as the inscription on the wall separating the inner court of the temple that promised death for any Gentile who ventured past the barrier (cf. J.W. 6.126). And later Jewish law allowed execution by a number of methods—burning, stoning, strangling, and beheading. It would appear that while the Romans retained the power of the sword, the Jews were able, under certain circumstances, to take the law into their own hands without fear of reprisal.
32 According to Deuteronomy 21:23, to be hung on a tree was to bear the curse of God. Twice in Peter’s sermons as recorded in Acts, he reminded his audience that the Jews killed Jesus by hanging him on a tree (Ac 5:30; 10:39). Since Jesus had predicted his own death by crucifixion (Mt 20:19; 26:2) and specifically referred to it as being “lifted up” (Jn 12:32–33; cf. 3:14; 8:28), his transfer to the Romans was necessary so that what he had said about the kind of death he would die “would be fulfilled.” The most common charge leveled against Jesus during his earthly ministry was blasphemy, the penalty for which was death by stoning (Lev 24:16). The sovereign will of God was being carried out, even in the specific way in which Jesus would be put to death.
33 At this point, Pilate withdrew from the clamor of the Jewish officials, who were seeking an official sanction for their determination that Jesus be put to death, and reentered the Praetorium. Pilate summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Luke records the specific charge the Jews had brought to Pilate against Jesus, namely, that he forbade the paying of tribute to Caesar and had claimed that he himself was a king (Lk 23:2).
The charge of messiahship was a subtle maneuver in that Jesus’ spiritual kingship over Israel could be made to appear as rebellion against the imperial power of Rome. The Roman provincial system allowed for no “kings” among the captured peoples. Pilate’s “Are you the king of the Jews?” was probably not a routine question to determine the truthfulness of the Jewish charge, but the puzzled reaction of a Roman authority to what must have seemed to have been a preposterous claim—“Are you [the pronoun is emphatic in the Greek text] the king of the Jews?”
34 Jesus responded by asking whether Pilate had brought the question up on his own initiative or whether it had been prompted by others. The difference is crucial. Had the question originated with Pilate, the answer would be no, for Jesus was not a political king. Had the question been suggested to him by the Jewish officials, the answer would be yes, because against that background he certainly was the messianic king of Israel. It could be that Jesus was appealing to Pilate’s conscience and reminding him of his responsibility to decide the case on its merits apart from the subtle misrepresentation by the high priest and his accomplices.
35 Pilate’s reply, “Am I a Jew?” calls for a negative response, as made clear in a translation such as, “Certainly you do not take me for a Jew, do you?” The implication is that he has no involvement or special interest in whatever the Jews intended regarding Jesus. He is his own man. After all, it was Jesus’ own people who turned him over, and therefore he must have done something wrong. How simple (and at this moment helpful) it was to distance himself from any involvement in the issue.
36 The very fact that Jesus allowed himself to be handed over to Pilate is proof that his “kingdom” was not a political kingdom. If it had been, his servants would even then be fighting (note the imperfect tense of ēgōnizonto, GK 76) for his release. In contrasting his kingdom with the kingdoms of this world, Jesus asserts, “My kingdom is from another place.” Brown, 536, notes that the metaphor is “spatial rather than temporal.” Jesus’ kingdom is of a different order. Unlike the kingdoms of this world, it is not based on earthly power. It is a kingdom that is spiritual and internal, in contrast to those that are external and physical (cf. Lk 17:21). Earlier in his ministry, when the crowds intended to make him a king by force, Jesus withdrew to be alone (Jn 6:15). Temple, 2:206, writes, “Precisely because [Jesus’ kingdom] was not of this world it did not need the backing of physical force.” Since God’s kingdom is a kingdom of love, it can never defend itself by force. To do so would be to betray its essential nature.
Jesus uses the same term for his “servants” as is used elsewhere in ch. 18 for the temple police (hypēretēs, GK 5677; vv.3, 12, 18, 22). A deliberate contrast may be intended. Jesus’ “servants” could be his followers, though the reference is more likely to angelic hosts (cf. the “twelve legions of angels,” Mt 26:53).
37 Pilate’s response may be taken as a statement (“You are a king, then!”) or as a question (“So you are a king?”; NASB, NRSV). The exact nuance is difficult to determine, but Pilate seems to be saying that Jesus’ claim to a kingdom, even though this kingdom is not of this world, makes Jesus a “king” after all. Pilate is not making a formal declaration as much as he is suggesting a conclusion in which he invites Jesus to concur—So you are a king after all; is that not true? (Lindars, 559, says that when the particle oukoun is accented on the second syllable it loses its negative force and becomes inferential.)
Jesus does not give a direct answer. It was Pilate, not Jesus, who had used the term “king.” Nevertheless, he was not incorrect in doing so. Jesus neither refuses the title nor accepts it in the way Pilate meant it. For Pilate, “king” is a political term; for Jesus it means something quite distinct. Jesus is king in the sense that he entered this world “to testify to the truth.” A spiritual kingship deals with spiritual matters. If truth is to reign, the king will be the one who proclaims that truth. Note the strong contrast between “you say” and “for this reason I was born.” (The Greek pronouns sy and egō stand at the beginning of the two respective clauses.) “Born” and “came into the world” both refer to the ministry of Jesus on earth. The purpose of the incarnation is to testify to the truth. Earlier Jesus said that he came into the world “for judgment” (9:39). The revelation of truth has the effect of judging in the sense that those who refuse the truth place themselves outside the scope of God’s redemptive work, while those who accept the truth are forgiven. The reason so many resist the truth is that it carries with it the power of condemnation.
“Everyone on the side of truth,” declares Jesus, “listens to me.” To understand and accept truth is to recognize further truth when it comes (EDNT, 1:53, notes that in this verse akouō, GK 201, is to be understood “in the sense of an obedient listening”). To refuse the truth is to forfeit the moral sensitivity necessary to distinguish between truth and error. Since truth has a moral claim, the denial of truth leads to moral blindness.
38 Pilate’s “What is truth?” was not a genuine question but a brusque dismissal of the case. Pilate had learned enough to know that Jesus was no threat to the Roman state. In his essay Of Truth, Francis Bacon speaks of “jesting Pilate,” who having posed the question would not stay for an answer. It is doubtful, however, that Pilate was in a jesting mood. Nor should he be portrayed as a philosopher who was wistfully posing the unanswerable question. The interview had led him to a conclusion that Jesus was innocent of the charges that had been leveled against him. Thus Pilate went out again to the Jews and reported, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” (Note the two other declarations of Jesus’ innocence in 19:4, 6.)
39 If Pilate had simply left it at that, he would have gone down in history as a man of principle. Such was not the case. Pilate, searching for a middle ground that would satisfy the Jews’ desire for Jesus’ death while at the same time freeing himself from the responsibility of condemning an innocent man, suggests that Jesus be set free in accordance with the Jewish custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of Passover. In his overriding concern for his own problem, he failed to grasp the incongruity of regarding Jesus as both innocent and a prisoner at the same time. So he asks, hopefully, “Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”
40 The people took Pilate up on his offer but demanded a different prisoner. The Greek adverb palin (translated “back” in the NIV and NET), taken in the sense of “again” (NASB), would indicate that by this time the crowd was definitely getting out of hand. The name “Barabbas” comes either from the Aramaic bar-abba (“son of the father”) or bar-rabban (“son of the teacher”). In either case, it is a patronymic.
The choice had to be made between a revolutionary insurgent (lēstēs, GK 3334; NIV, “had taken part in a rebellion”) and the teacher of Galilee. The angry mob shouted in blind fury for the death of the teacher. Moral choices are rarely rational; they are the product of people’s passions. If those passions are evil, the resulting choices will inevitably be wrong.
19:1 Pilate’s offer of a choice between Barabbas and Jesus had not turned out as he had planned. The crowd called for the release of the notorious Barabbas rather than the innocent Jesus. What could be done to satisfy the intense antagonism of the Jewish authorities toward Jesus that would, at the same time, fall short of satisfying their desire that he be put to death? It occurred to Pilate that having Jesus flogged might cause the Jews to change their minds and, out of compassion, no longer demand an execution.
Both Matthew and Mark place the flogging and the mocking by the soldiers as the last events prior to Jesus’ taking up his cross and setting out on the road to Golgotha (Mt 27:26–31; Mk 15:15–20). Luke has no reference to flogging but notes that Jesus was mocked by the soldiers when he appeared before Herod (Lk 23:11). This has led some to conclude that John rearranged the events. Some think that there may have been two floggings. However, since apart from the clamor for Jesus’ crucifixion—which would have been a continuing part of the entire episode—the materials in John 19:4–15 are peculiar to the fourth gospel, there is no reason to understand them as anything other than John’s more complete account of the same trial. Luke alone has the appearance before Herod (23:6–16), and only Matthew includes the warning by Pilate’s wife (27:19) as well as Pilate’s washing of his hands before the crowd (27:24).
Though John uses the regular Greek verb for flogging (mastigoō, GK 3463; cf. the use by Matthew and Luke of phragelloō, GK 5849, a loanword from the Latin fragelloo, “to scourge”), it would appear from context that Pilate’s intention was to teach Jesus a lesson rather than to torture him as part of the preparation for crucifixion. (Compare in Lk 23:16, 22 the milder word paideuō, GK 4084, “to chastise”; NIV, “punish.”) This latter form of scourging was brutal in the extreme. (Roman law prescribed various grades of flogging; see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1963], 27–28.) The victim was stripped, bound to a post or stretched on a frame, and beaten with leather whips in whose thongs were embedded pieces of bone or metal. The early-fourth-century “father of church history” Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.15.4) says that scourging sometimes tore open men’s bodies so that “the hidden contents of the recesses of their bodies, their entrails and organs, were exposed to sight.” That Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry Jesus’ cross argues for the more severe scourging.
2 In addition to flogging Jesus, the soldiers amused themselves by engaging in mock worship of their captive. They made a crown of thorns and placed it on his head. This “crowning” has often appeared in Christian art, usually depicted with a crown of thorns pressed inward on Jesus’ head, thus causing both a flow of blood and great pain. In an important article by H. St. J. Hart (“The Crown of Thorns in John 19:2–5,” JTS NS 3 [1952]: 66–75), the case is made for a crown that caricatured the “radiate” crown of Oriental god-kings in which the outwardly turned spikes depicted the sun and its rays. In this case, the purpose of the crown would not be to inflict pain but to mock. The traditional crown, however, would serve both purposes. To complement the kingly attire, a “purple robe” (himation porphyroun, GK 2668, 4528; Mt 27:28 has chlamyda, GK 5948, “robe,” a short military cloak often worn by horsemen) was placed around Jesus’ shoulders. Since purple dye was rare and expensive, the color purple was associated with royalty.
3 The soldiers continually approached Jesus as though to pay him homage, only suddenly to change their demeanor and strike him in the face. As they approached the “newly crowned king,” they would say with mock solemnity, “Hail, king of the Jews!” The entire incident reflects the words of the Suffering Servant, “I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting” (Isa 50:6). Such was the humiliation of the Son of God at the hands of men whose consciences were hardened by the brutality of their trade. Even so, their ruthless handling of the gentle Jesus was infinitely less heinous than the carefully planned treachery of the religious leaders who perpetrated the capture and crucifixion of their Messiah.
4 Pilate once again came out from the Praetorium to stand before the angry mob. His plan was to appeal to the compassion of the Jewish leaders by presenting Jesus as a helpless and harmless peasant who already had been properly humiliated by the cruel flogging and mockery of Roman soldiers. “Certainly,” reasoned Pilate, “these punishments would satisfy their desire for revenge.” With a flair for the dramatic he announced that he was about to bring Jesus out. For the second time (cf. 18:38) he declared, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”
5 Jesus emerges into the bright light of the morning “wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe.” Though it is probably more conjecture than exegesis to discuss the precise nuance of Pilate’s declaration, a good case can be made from the context that what he said was something like, “Here he is, poor fellow! Isn’t it ridiculous to consider this hapless creature as holding any pretensions to kingship?” While Pilate may have spoken with feigned contempt, John and others across the centuries have understood “the man” quite differently. Morris, 793, writes that “John intends ‘the man’ to evoke memories of Jesus’ favorite self-designation.” Tasker, 208, says that as Christians reread these famous words, they see in them “humanity at its best, the suffering Servant in whom God delights.” Others discern an allusion to Zechariah 6:12 (“Here is the man whose name is the Branch”). In the Latin Bible the phrase is translated Ecce homo, which has provided the name for the famous arch that marks the starting place of the Via Dolorosa.
6 The spectacle of a humiliated Jesus fails to stir any feelings of compassion in the hearts of the chief priests and officials. Instead, they cry out, “Crucify! Crucify!” (Weymouth has, “To the cross! To the cross!”) The chief priests leave no time for the possibility of a sympathetic response from the common people; rather, they take the initiative in moving quickly to force the execution. Ryle, 4:530, notes that “it is a painful fact that in every age, none have been such hard, cruel, unfeeling, and bloody-minded persecutors of God’s saints, as the ministers of religion.” More out of exasperation than in accordance with some unknown regulation that would allow the plaintiffs to carry out a sentence, Pilate tells the Jews to take Jesus and crucify him themselves. As far as he is concerned, there is nothing with which the prisoner can be justifiably charged—a third declaration of innocence (cf. 18:38; 19:4). The Jews pay no attention to Pilate’s suggestion. It was never intended to be taken seriously. Their dogged insistence that Jesus be put to death had pushed Pilate to the limit of his endurance, and his barbed retort displayed nothing but a sense of profound frustration.
7 The first accusation had failed, so a new basis for the charge against Jesus had to be presented. Since it was Pilate’s responsibility to respect and, whenever necessary, to enforce the religious law of the Jews, the new accusation was that Jesus must be put to death because he was guilty of blasphemy—“he claimed to be the Son of God.” Leviticus 24:16 states the law of blasphemy (“anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death”) and prescribes stoning as the appropriate method of executing the offender. For Jesus to claim that God was his Father was to claim equality with God (5:18), a capital offense that should be punished without delay (cf. 11:31–39). The emphatic “we” in the Greek text (hymeis at the beginning of the clause) suggests that although Jesus may not have committed a crime worthy of death according to Roman law, we (the Jews) have a law, “and according to that law he must die.”
8 That Jesus claimed to be the Son of God filled Pilate with a new fear (“he was even more afraid”; BAGD, 489, lists mallon [“more”] in John 18:9 under the meaning, “now more than ever”). Until this point we have not been told that Pilate was afraid, but we may reasonably assume that during the interrogation he had experienced a growing awareness that the prisoner before him was making claims that set him apart from all ordinary men. The mythology of Greece and Rome contained many stories about gods or their offspring coming to earth in human disguise. Temple, 2:361, notes that “like most heathen cynics, [Pilate had] a superstitious dread of the supernatural.” Describing Pilate’s predicament, Haenchen, 2:182, writes, “If Jesus is not only politically innocent, but if he really is a divine being clothed in the form of a man, might one not get caught in indescribable guilt by making the wrong move against him?”
9 So Pilate retreats into the palace and turns to his prisoner with the anxious question, “Where do you come from?” While some have suggested that Pilate was asking a geographical question, perhaps so he could escape his predicament by referring Jesus to some other government official (cf. the account of Jesus before Herod, Lk 23:6–16), his real concern was to learn whether the claim to supernatural status was indeed true. To know where Jesus comes from is the most important thing any person can learn. If he is, as he says, “from above” (v.11), then the incarnation is a fact and his words become of ultimate importance. If he is not from above, he may be wise, but in the final analysis he shares the limitations of all other members of the human race.
“Jesus gave him no answer”—the time had passed for a discussion of Jesus’ heavenly origin. Had Pilate followed through earlier when Jesus spoke of truth (18:37–38), he may have learned what he wanted to know. But that was not the time, especially since Pilate was asking not in order to benefit from the truth but in order to escape his dilemma. The silence of Jesus demonstrates that God does not force himself on people or rush to the rescue of those who turn to him out of self-centered concern. That God gives people up is clearly taught in Romans 1:24, 26, 28. Jesus’ silence is not simply an act of personal refuge but serves as a statement of God’s unwillingness to prolong forever his offer of help.
10 It is inconceivable to Pilate that Jesus will not speak to him (the Greek emoi is emphatic), the only person who can help Jesus at this point. Irritated and upset, he reacts with a display of authority: “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” Deep in his heart, Pilate knew this was an idle boast. While theoretically he had the power, in fact he did not. An overriding concern for his own political future had removed any real possibility that he would free Jesus. He was captive to his own priorities, in bondage to his own self-centeredness. How thin is the disguise of so many of our declarations of personal freedom! Yet, the responsibility for dealing justly with Jesus did fall squarely on Pilate’s shoulders, and he was fully aware of what the outcome ought to be.
11 In his final words to Pilate, Jesus reminds him that the power that is his as provincial governor has been given to him “from above”—i.e., by God. Otherwise he would have no power over Jesus. The classic statement regarding civil government as ordained by God and acting on his behalf is found in Romans 13:1–7. Barrett, 543, points out that dedomenon (“given,” GK 1443) is neuter and does not agree with exousian (“power,” GK 2026), which is feminine. A proper paraphrase would be, “You would not have any power over me at all had not God granted that you should have authority.”
Jesus then declares, “Therefore [i.e., since you are acting in the capacity of a civil judge whose office has been ordained by God] the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” Pilate was guilty for acquiescing in the murderous designs of the Jewish ecclesiastics, but their guilt was greater because, while he had acted against his will, they had acted with deliberate and evil intent. As Calvin, 2:174, says, they were less excusable in that they forced “a divinely appointed ruler to serve their passions.”
“The one who handed me over” was Caiaphas, acting on behalf of the Jewish religious aristocracy. Though the expression is often used of Judas (cf. ho paradidous auton, lit., “the one who handed him over,” in 18:2, 5), he could not have been the one in question here, because he had handed Jesus over to the Jews, not to Pilate.
12 Pilate was genuinely frightened. He could not dispute the fact that the authority he exercised had been delegated to him. Neither would his conscience allow him to escape the guilt of condemning an innocent man, especially one who could well be a god in human form. For this reason (ek toutou—better than “from then on”), Pilate “kept on trying to set Him free” (Williams; Brown, 879, takes ezētei, “was seeking,” GK 2426 [NIV, “tried”], as a conative imperfect implying a series of attempts that were shouted down).
It was time for the Jews to set forth their most persuasive argument, namely, that a provincial governor who would release a prisoner claiming to be a king would without question be guilty of treason against the emperor: “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar.” Caesar was originally a proper name but became a title used by emperors after the time of Julius Caesar (cf. the German kaiser and the Russian czar). While amicus Caesaris (“friend of Caesar”) was not used as an official title until the time of Vespasian (AD 69–79), the point being made was more than enough to convince Pilate that not to condemn Jesus would be political suicide. The Jews had played their trump card, and the outcome was decided. Pilate had no intention of opposing Caesar! His record in office had already placed his future in jeopardy.
13 So Pilate brought Jesus out and “sat down on the judge’s seat.” The verb kathizō (GK 2767) should be understood here as intransitive (“to sit down”) rather than transitive (“to cause to sit down”). It is surprising that a number of translators have chosen the second alternative (e.g., Goodspeed, who has “had him sit in the judge’s seat”), because the setting was far too serious for Pilate to have resorted to such frivolous horseplay. Bruce, 364, calls it a “curiosity of translation and exegesis.” A Roman judge would never conduct himself in such a manner, though both the Gospel of Peter (7) and Justin’s Apologia (35) have Pilate placing Jesus on the seat of judgment. Tradition has a way of embellishing a narrative to convey an idea more forcefully.
The judge’s seat was a raised platform from which Roman magistrates rendered judgment on legal matters. In that the Greek bēma (GK 1037) without the article is found only here in the NT, some have conjectured that Pilate was using a temporary judgment seat. Julius Caesar is said to have carried with him a portable mosaic pavement that served as an official place from which to deliver judgments.
Pilate was holding court at a place known as the “Stone Pavement” (lithostrōtos, GK 3346, means “paved with blocks of stone”). A substantial area paved with large blocks of stone has been discovered beneath the Ecce Homo arch and the adjoining convent of Our Lady of Zion. Some have identified this as the place where Pilate delivered sentence, especially since Josephus reports that this part of the Fortress of Antonia was covered with a stone pavement. This identification is less than certain because both the building in question and the pavement belong to the second century. The Aramaic name for the place is Gabbatha, a word of uncertain origin. BDAG, 185–86, cites C. Torrey, who holds that it represents a stone pavement in the form of a platter (from the Latin gabata). In any case, it is another name (in Aramaic) for the same place, not a translation of the Greek lithostrōtos.
14 John notes that the sentencing of Jesus took place on “the day of Preparation of Passover Week,” or Friday of Passover Week. There is an apparent problem between the Synoptics’ portrayal of the Last Supper as a Passover meal (cf. Mk 14:12 and the narrative that follows) and John’s account, which seems to place the crucifixion at the very hour when the Passover lambs were being slain, thus placing the Last Supper before the Passover. Morris, 785, finds the most probable solution in a confusion between the calendar Jesus was following and the one used by the temple authorities (for other solutions, see Morris’s additional note, 774–86).
John adds that the sentencing of Jesus took place at “about the sixth hour.” Here we seem to run into trouble with Mark’s indication that Jesus was crucified at “the third hour” (Mk 15:25). The most probable explanations for this problem are that (1) a confusion of the Greek numerals for “3” and “6” occurred (so Barrett, 545); (2) while Mark followed the Palestinian method of counting hours from sunrise (the “third hour” thus being 9:00 a.m.), John followed the custom in use in Asia Minor by starting the counting from midnight (the “sixth hour” being 6:00 a.m.); or (3) both texts are no more than approximations intending to indicate something like “midmorning” (see Morris, 801, who says that “late morning would suit both expressions”; cf. Carson, 605).
Addressing the mob from his official dais, Pilate declares, not without a note of ridicule, “Here is your king,” or as Kysar, 284, paraphrases, “This is the closest you will ever come to having a King.” The entire affair had been a tragic masquerade in which hidden motives and concealed intentions forced otherwise rational men to act in ways unheard-of in the history of judicial proceedings.
15 In response to Pilate’s granting of their desire, the Jewish authorities shout, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” The demonstrative pronoun ekeinoi (“those people”; NIV, “they”) emphasizes the separation between Jesus and his antagonists. Pilate asks with “mock astonishment” (Reith, 144), “Shall I crucify your king?”—a question calculated more to anger the Jews than to seek instruction. Greek syntax inverts the normal sequence of words and yields the translation, “Your king, shall I crucify him [or must I crucify him]?”
The response is without precedent in Jewish history: “We have no king but Caesar.” It was a denial of their basic religious belief that God alone was their supreme ruler (cf. Jdg 8:23; 1Sa 8:7). Barrett, 546, writes, “In denying all claims to kingship save that of the Roman Emperor Israel abdicated its own unique position under the immediate sovereignty of God.” From another perspective, however, the denial marked no real turning point, because by their actions they were demonstrating that they had already separated themselves from the God of Israel.
16a So now at last, Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified. “To them” refers to the soldiers, or, if taken as a dative of advantage, it means “to satisfy [the Jews]” (so NEB).
NOTES
33 We do not know whether the interview between Pilate and Jesus was carried on in Aramaic or Greek, but it would seem quite likely that, since no interpreter is mentioned and since it would be unlikely for a Roman governor to learn Aramaic, the conversation was carried on in Greek, the language in which it was recorded (cf. Morris, 768).
34 Jesus’ answer (ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ σὺ τοῦτο λέγεις, apo seautou sy touto legeis, lit., “from yourself are you saying this”) is variously translated as, “Is that your own idea?” (NIV), “Are you saying this on your own initiative?” (NASB), and “Are you speaking for yourself about this?” (NKJV). The personal pronoun σύ (sy, “you”) is emphatic.
36 Newman and Nida (Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, 570) suggest, “My kingly authority does not have its origin in this world,” for the well-known, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
38 John is specifically the gospel of “truth.” Of the thirty-two occurrences of ἀλήθεια (alētheia, “truth,” GK 237) in the Gospels, twenty-five are in John; correspondingly, all but two of the sixteen occurrences in the Gospels of the adjective ἀληθής (alēthēs, “true,” GK 239) are in John.
40 In certain early MSS of Matthew 27:16–17, Barabbas’s first name is given as “Jesus” (“a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas …. Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”). While few translations (e.g., NEB) follow this reading, the UBS committee thought it should be included within square brackets (cf. Metzger, 67–68).
The word ληστής (lēstēs, GK 3334) often refers to no more than a common thief (as in Mk 11:17 of those who had turned the temple into a σπήλαιον ληστῶν [spēlaion lēstōn, “den of robbers”]), but in this instance the term probably indicates a revolutionary. The root meaning of the word is “to seize as prey,” so ληστής, lēstēs, could be used with reference to a soldier, who had an implicit right to plunder, but it usually carried the negative sense of the misuse of force to seize what belongs to another (cf. TDNT 4:257–58). TLNT, 2:389–90, comments that “a lēstēs is a brigand who uses violence” and “carries out armed theft and pillage.”
19:1 Horst Balz (EDNT 2:395–96) holds that the flogging of Jesus corresponds to the Roman punishment verberatio, which accompanied the penalty of death, especially by crucifixion. He does, however, acknowledge that in this passage “a separate punishment may be in view, perhaps in the sense of a torturing, in order to coerce a confession.” TDNT (abridged, 571) holds that the scourging of Jesus here was the far more severe punishment that preceded execution.
The Greek verb μαστιγόω (mastigoō, “whip,” “flog,” “scourge,” GK 3463) should be taken in a causative sense.
2 A contemporary example of the “radiate corona” is the crown on the head of the Statue of Liberty, which has stood in New York Harbor since 1886.
The color of the robe, according to Matthew 27:28, was κόκκινος (kokkinos, “scarlet,” GK 3132) rather than πορφυροῦς (porphyrous, “purple,” GK 4528). It is sometimes argued that the soldiers would have no ready access to a purple robe, because clothing of that hue was expensive and worn by the upper classes. On the other hand, the “scarlet robe” designated by Matthew was inexpensive and readily available. In any case, the ancients did not designate colors with such prescription, and a “scarlet” robe would serve quite adequately as a “purple” robe with which to mock Jesus as King of the Jews.
3 Taking the imperfect ἤρχοντο (ērchonto, GK 2262) as iterative understands the soldiers as coming up to Jesus “again and again” to taunt him. The NASB interprets the imperfect as inceptive: “they began to come up to Him.”
The customary salutation for the Roman emperor was “Ave (Hail), Caesar!” (Keener, 310). “Hail, King of the Jews!” on the lips of the soldiers was intentional mockery.
6 The word κραυγάζω (kraugazō, GK 3198) is a strong verb meaning, “to utter a loud sound, ordinarily of harsh texture,” with context indicating the nature of the sound (e.g., the grunting of hungry swine or the excited screaming of the human voice; BDAG, 565).
12 The NASB translates ἐκ τούτου (ek toutou) in a causal sense (“as a result”), which is preferable to taking it as temporal (so NIV, “from then on”).
OVERVIEW
It is difficult to comment on the crucifixion narrative because incidental remarks on the text (the stock and trade of the exegete) have a way of making the event itself seem less important. Students of the Bible should consult commentaries for historical and grammatical detail but not allow such preparatory work to become a substitute for serious theological reflection.
16bSo the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.
19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”
22Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
24“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said,
“They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.”
So this is what the soldiers did.
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
16b–17 Pilate delivered Jesus into the hands of the soldiers (the implied subject of paralambanō, “to take charge of,” GK 4161), who then carried out the sentence. Jesus was forced to carry the cross (undoubtedly the patibulum, or crossbeam) out of the city to the place of execution. According to Mosaic law, the death penalty was to be enacted outside the city (Lev 24:14; Dt 17:5; cf. Heb 13:12). John writes that Jesus went out “carrying his own cross,” while the Synoptics record that a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, was compelled to carry it (Mk 15:21 par.). The obvious explanation is that Jesus, in his weakened condition, carried his cross as far as he could, and at that point it was taken up by Simon. Catholic tradition has Simon assuming Jesus’ burden at the fifth Station of the Cross on the Via Dolorosa. Early church fathers saw the OT account of Isaac’s carrying the wood on which he himself was to be sacrificed (Ge 22:6) as a type of Jesus’ carrying his own cross.
The place of execution was called “the place of the Skull.” (The designation “Calvary” in Lk 23:33 [KJV] is based on the Vulgate’s locus calvaria.) In Aramaic it was called Golgotha. The name is held to come from the skulls of executed criminals that lay scattered around, or because the place of execution was on a skull-shaped hill. The first option is doubtful because Jewish ceremonial laws regarded corpses as unclean and dead bodies would not be left lying in the open. The second option is less than certain because nowhere in Scripture does it say that Golgotha was a hill. However, references to the women watching “from a distance” (Mt 27:55 par.) could suggest a high area.
Since the Romans used crucifixion in part for its value as a deterrent, Golgotha would be a public place near Jerusalem where everyone could see what happened to those who opposed civil authority. Tradition from the time of Constantine has located Golgotha within the existing Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Because this site lies inside the present city walls (and because Jesus was crucified outside the city [Heb 13:12–13]), it would appear that the traditional site is an incorrect identification. However, excavations in 1963 indicate that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher lay outside the line of the second north wall of Jesus’ day. An alternative possibility is “Gordon’s Calvary,” the el-zahira hill outside the Damascus gate.
18 Jesus was crucified with two others—“one on each side and Jesus in the middle.” The synoptic writers tell us that the other victims were “robbers” (Mt 27:38 par.), and Luke tells of the one who turned in faith to Jesus (Lk 23:38–43). The scene reminds us of what the prophet Isaiah wrote about the Suffering Servant: “He poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors” (Isa 53:12). The crucified Jesus hanging between two thieves, one impenitent and the other penitent, is a dramatic portrayal of the fact that Jesus divided humanity in his death as he did (and still does!) in his life. We, like Jesus’ fellow victims of crucifixion, cannot escape the cross; we can only decide on which cross we wish to die.
19 The placard placed on the cross over the head of Jesus (see Mt 27:37; Lk 23:38) was inscribed with the words “JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Comparison with the Synoptics reveals that while the wording is different in each case, the central assertion (“THE KING OF THE JEWS”) occurs in each. Titulus (the Latin word transliterated titlos, GK 5518, in Greek and rendered “title” in English; NIV, “notice”; NASB, “inscription”) was a technical term for the placard on which the crimes of the condemned person were written. It may have been hung from the neck of Jesus as he carried his cross through the streets of Jerusalem on the way to Golgotha. The NIV says that Pilate “had a notice prepared,” though a literal rendering of the Greek text would indicate that Pilate himself did the writing. Morris, 807, detects “a certain grim revenge” on the part of Pilate.
20 Of the four gospel writers, only John notes that the inscription was written in the three major languages of the day: Aramaic, the everyday language of the Jewish people; Latin, the official language of the Roman authorities; and Greek, the common language of the civilized world. By writing the charge in this way, all would be able to read it. John draws attention to the three languages to emphasize that the kingship of the crucified Jesus was universal. Jesus was crucified “near the city,” so many of the Jews would have read the sign.
21 Pilate intended the inscription as “a calculated insult” (Bruce, 368), and it accomplished its purpose. The chief priests repeatedly asked him (the imperfect elegon, “were saying,” GK 3306, suggests continued asking; NIV, “protested”) to change it to, “This man claimed to be king of the Jews.” The idea that a dying criminal should even be considered their king was a national insult and totally unacceptable. Beyond that, if they let the title stand, it could be interpreted as an admission of revolutionary intent. Brown, 902, takes the Greek of “do not write” (present imperative with mē) as forbidding the continuity of an act and translates, “Do not leave it written.” The expression “the chief priests of the Jews” occurs only here and perhaps intends a contrast with “THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
22 One would expect Pilate to yield to the request, as he had done in the past to the demands of the Jews. Not so. A streak of stubbornness surfaced, and he answered their request with an inflexible, “What I have written, I have written.” Barclay, 2:252, notes, “It is one of the paradoxical things in life that we can be stubborn about things which do not matter and weak about things of supreme importance.” It is less paradoxical, however, when we understand that stubbornness is more an indication of weakness than it is of strength. Pilate was a weak man because his life was ruled by expediency rather than principle. This final tough stance was no more than a feeble attempt to regain the moral ground he had forfeited by condemning an innocent man.
23–24 It was customary for soldiers assigned to the execution to divide up the personal belongings of the victim (cf. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, 46). Since Jesus’ clothing was divided into “four shares, one for each of them,” it appears that only four soldiers were assigned to the crucifixion. This contrasts quite markedly with the six hundred who came to the garden to arrest Jesus (18:3). However, once Jesus had been condemned and was on the way to the cross, any danger of a national uprising prompted by him would have subsided. In ancient days, men normally wore two main articles of clothing: the himation (the outer robe or cloak, GK 2668) and the chitōn (the inner garment, GK 5945). The NIV translates the plural (himatia) as “clothes” (NASB, “outer garments”).
It is sometimes suggested that the Jew wore five articles of apparel (shoes, turban, girdle, tunic, and outer robe; cf. Barclay, 2:253) and that the soldiers cast lots to determine which item went to each person. It is better to understand the soldiers as tearing the cloak into four pieces (probably along the seams) and then casting lots for the undergarment. They did not want to ruin the seamless inner garment, which was woven in one piece from top to bottom and therefore of some value. (A seamless garment would avoid having joined together two forbidden materials and could therefore be purchased by a Jew.) “Let’s not tear it” (v.24) suggests that the soldiers may have already divided the outer robe by tearing it.
The seamless robe has often been treated symbolically as a way of indicating that Jesus is a high priest, whose tunic was also described in similar language (cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.161), or as an indication of the unity of the church. Such applications are homiletically permissible but are not intended by the text itself.
John adds (v.24) that the dividing of Jesus’ garments fulfilled the scripture, which said, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing” (see Ps 22:18). Marsh, 615, notes that in the original setting “garments” and “clothing” were identical terms, which John in turn itemizes in detail so that his readers cannot escape the rightness of his application of the prophecy. But such flexibility in the interpretation of prophetic utterance is not at all unusual. NT authors, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were led to apply messianic prophecies with a great deal of freedom.
25 John identifies several of the women standing near the cross. (Luke mentions the women but doesn’t name them). By taking “his mother’s sister” to be further described as “Mary the wife of Clopas,” it is possible to count a total of three women. It is more likely, however, that the references designate two different women. By comparing the three accounts (cf. Mt 27:55–56; Mk 15:40), we are able to identify four women: (1) the mother of Jesus; (2) his mother’s sister, or Salome the mother of Zebedee’s sons; (3) Mary the wife of Clopas, who is the mother of James the younger and Joses; and (4) Mary of Magdala.
It is in keeping with what we know of John to leave unmentioned the name of his mother. Mary Magdalene is included in all four gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection, but elsewhere she appears only in Luke 8:2–3. Magdala was a village on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, not far from Tiberias. It is interesting that Mary the mother of Jesus is not mentioned in either of the synoptic accounts of this scene. Reith, 147, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, concludes that “the Mariolatry of the Church of Rome has no sanction in them at least.”
The reserve with which John describes the crucifixion scene is remarkable. The women standing near the cross are simply named. No mention is made of the obvious grief they must have suffered as they saw their Lord stripped, nailed to the cross, exposed to public humiliation, and experiencing the excruciating pain of crucifixion. Some have questioned the difference between John’s account, in which the women are standing “near the cross,” and that of the Synoptics, which have them watching “from a distance.” A reasonable answer is that they did watch the initial proceedings from a distance but moved closer once Jesus had been hoisted into the air. As some of the crowd lost interest and left as soon as the victim had been nailed in place, the women who “had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs” (Mt 27:55) would move closer to provide the comfort of their presence during his hour of greatest need.
26 It was there at the foot of the cross that Simeon’s prophecy to Mary was finding fulfillment: “A sword will pierce your own soul too” (Lk 2:35). Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved (i.e., John; cf. 13:23), Jesus says to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son.” Some have suggested that Jesus used the term “woman” rather than “mother” in order not to deepen her sorrow. But as before, when he spoke to Mary in a similar way at the wedding in Cana (2:4), the term “woman” does not connote a brusque and distant relationship but is a form of polite address.
27 To John Jesus says, “Here is your mother.” Jesus did not entrust his mother to the care of his own brothers because apparently they did not as yet believe in him (cf. 7:5). Early in his public ministry, Jesus distinguished between his natural and spiritual mother and brothers (Mk 3:31–35). Tasker, 210–11, notes that part of the high priestly work of Jesus was “to create a new fellowship of the redeemed” and that “beneath the cross Christian fellowship is born.” The bonds of Christian love surpass all natural barriers and bring into one great family all who love and follow Jesus.
Some commentators picture Jesus as instructing John to take his mother from the scene immediately so as to protect her from additional exposure to the shame and agony of the cross. It is more natural, however, to understand the expression “from that time on” in a more general sense as referring to the period of time following the crucifixion. The translation “into his home” (NASB, “into his own household”) is interpretive (the Greek eis ta idia, lit., “unto his own things,” is ambiguous). Most writers think it quite unlikely that John would have had a house in Jerusalem.
NOTES
20 The sequence “Aramaic, Latin and Greek” has strong support in the MSS; however, A Ds Θ f 1 lat sy place ῾Ελληνιστί (Hellēnisti, GK 1822) before ῾Ρωμαιστί (Rhōmaisti, GK 4872), apparently to have the languages in geographical order from east to west (cf. Metzger, 217).
REFLECTIONS
The Roman orator Cicero (Verr. 5.64) called crucifixion “the cruelest and foulest of punishments.” It is thought to have originated with the Persians and was later adopted by other peoples, such as the Carthaginians and Romans. With few exceptions it was used only for the execution of slaves, foreigners, and robbers. Crosses were of several sorts: a single stake; the Saint Andrew’s cross, shaped like the letter X; the Saint Anthony’s cross, resembling a capital T; and the more familiar crux immissa, with the crossbeam a bit lower. Both tradition and the fact that the placard was nailed “above his head” (Mt 27:37) would indicate that the cross on which Jesus died was the crux immissa.
After being sentenced and flogged, the victim was made to carry the crossbeam to the place of execution. On the ground his arms were outstretched and tied (or, less commonly, nailed) to the beam, which was then hoisted into position and fastened to the upright stake already in place. A small wooden peg (sedile) placed part way up the stake supported some of the weight of the body. The feet were then brought together and nailed to the upright.
Crucifixion was a barbaric and viciously cruel form of execution. It was also the ultimate humiliation. The naked and bloody body of the victim was hung in full view of all who passed by so they could watch the torment of a slow and painful death. First-century Roman writer Quintilian (Decl. 274) advocated erecting crosses at the busiest intersections of the city, since crucifixion was a most effective way of discouraging crime and sedition.
28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”
COMMENTARY
28 The synoptic writers, rather than John, tell us of the darkness that came over the entire land from noon until 3:00 p.m. (Mt 27:45 par.). During that terrible hour, Jesus cried out in agony of soul, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34). John simply reports that “later,” as the fearful ordeal was drawing to a close, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” This was “so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.” If we understand John’s statement in reference to the utterance itself, then Psalm 22:15 (“my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth”) would be the Scripture he had in mind. If the reference is to the actions that follow, then Psalm 69:21 (“they … gave me vinegar for my thirst”) is more likely. The thirst motif appears in each passage, though Jesus quotes neither Scripture verbatim. Tasker, 211, suggests that if Jesus’ thirst were a spiritual thirst to return to the Father, then John may have had in mind Psalm 42:2 (“my soul thirsts for God”).
29 The end has come, and Jesus has one great final statement to make. So that all could hear and understand what he had to say, it was necessary that his parched mouth be moistened. Nearby was a “jar of wine vinegar,” perhaps for the use of the soldiers who were on duty during the execution. The sponge would serve well to get wine to the mouth of the victim. The sponge soaked with wine was lifted to Jesus’ lips “on a stalk of the hyssop plant.” Hyssop was a small plant quite adequate for its ceremonial use in sprinkling (of water, Nu 19:18; of blood, Ex 12:22), but some have thought it insufficiently stiff to have supported a wine-soaked sponge. Perhaps for this reason the eleventh-century scribe responsible for cursive 476 changed hyssōpō (“hyssop,” GK 5727) to hyssō (“on a javelin,” GK 5726). A number of modern translations have adopted this variant (e.g., NEB, “so they … fixed it on a javelin”), though the hyssos (Lat. pilum) was used only by legionary troops at that time, and such troops were not deployed in Judea until AD 66 (cf. Metzger, 217–18). Since the cross raised its victim only a few feet off the ground, several short stalks of hyssop tied together would be stiff enough to raise the sponge to Jesus’ mouth. Theologically, the hyssop calls attention to Jesus as the perfect Passover sacrifice.
30 Now that his mouth had been moistened with the wine vinegar, Jesus exclaimed, “It is finished.” This English sentence translates but one word in Greek: tetelestai (GK 5464). The verb means “to bring to an end,” either in the sense of completion or accomplishment. In the first case, Jesus would be saying that his earthly life and mission was now over; in the second, that he had fully accomplished the work he had come to do. It is more likely that the words are to be taken in the second sense. That he was dying was obvious. That by his voluntary death on the cross he had brought to completion the redemptive purpose of the incarnation is a theological utterance of profound significance. Reith, 150, notes that “death is not only the termination of life, it is the completion of it.”
It is important to note that Jesus does not die as a victim of his oppressors; rather, he remains in charge of his life until the very end. John records his death with active verbs: he received, he spoke, he bowed his head, and he gave up his spirit. Some have called attention to the fact that the same phrase was used by Jesus when he said that, while foxes have holes and birds have nests, the Son of Man has no place “to lay his head” (tēn kephalēn klinē; Mt 8:20; Lk 8:58). The resting place for his head that he lacked on earth was found on a Roman cross.
Brown, 910, says that Augustine’s interpretation of Jesus’ going to sleep rather than being in the agony of death is “a rather imaginative interpretation of the evidence.” Everything about the narrative underscores the suffering and humiliation of a public execution. This does not imply, however, that the last moments of Jesus’ life were out of his control and that his life was taken from him rather than freely given up. Tasker, 211–12, is closer to the truth when he refers to the bowing of the head as Jesus’ final act of submission to the will of the Father. The “spirit” that Jesus gave up was not the issuing of the Holy Spirit in consequence of his work completed (cf. 16:5–16), but his own life.
31 John carefully notes that Jesus’ death took place on “the day of Preparation.” In the religious vocabulary of Judaism, this term had become a technical designation for Friday, the day on which preparations were made for the Sabbath, which began that evening at sundown. Since in that year Passover fell on the seventh day of the week, the following Sabbath would be a “special Sabbath.” According to Jewish law, any person guilty of a capital offense was put to death and his body hung on a tree (Dt 21:22). However, the body was not to remain overnight in public view but be buried the same day. Otherwise the land would be defiled. Barclay, 2:260, quotes the Mishnah as saying, “Everyone who allows the dead to remain overnight transgresses a positive commandment.” By contrast, the Romans normally left their victims hanging on the cross until they died and the vultures and wild animals had completed their grisly work. Such a display would serve to warn others who might be contemplating some act of rebellion against the realm.
The Jewish desire that the presence of dead bodies not defile their religious observances led them to go to Pilate and ask that the legs of the victims be broken and the bodies taken down. The crurifragium, or leg breaking, was itself a brutal form of punishment. In connection with crucifixion, its purpose was to smash the bones of the legs so they could no longer help bear the weight of the body. Not only would the resulting strain on the arms increase pain and make breathing incredibly difficult, but the additional hemorrhaging would ensure a certain and painful death. Recent excavations in Israel unearthed a first-century victim of crucifixion who had had both legs broken.
32–33 Soldiers carrying out the wishes of the Jews came first to the two criminals crucified alongside Jesus. Apparently the crurifragium was carried out with a heavy mallet. Why they went first to the two criminals is best left to conjecture. Perhaps Matthew’s observation that when Jesus died, “the centurion and those with him … were terrified” (Mt 27:54) provides the most plausible explanation. When the soldiers came to Jesus, they found that he was already dead; therefore, there was no need to break his legs. The psalmist declared that the Lord protects the bones of the righteous man and that “not one of them will be broken” (Ps 34:20).
34 One of the soldiers then pierced Jesus’ side with a spear. There is a question as to whether in this context the verb nyssō (“to pierce,” GK 3817) describes an exploratory prod (to see whether Jesus had already died) or a severe thrust (to make sure he would die). That the “piercing” left a large wound is reasonable in light of Jesus’ subsequent invitation to Thomas to reach out his hand and put it into his side (20:27). Immediately there was a sudden flow of blood and water. Since the body of a dead man does not bleed, it would appear that Jesus’ heart had ruptured and the coagulated blood had mingled with the watery serum in the pericardium (the sac surrounding the heart). The order of the words (“blood and water”) would accurately describe the flow of the heavier blood followed by the lighter serum.
A symbolic meaning is often seen in the account. For many, blood and water represent the two sacraments (though Lindars, 587, acknowledges that, since water is generally a symbol of the Spirit, “a sacramental interpretation is not absolutely required”). Others see a reference to justification and sanctification. Calvin, 2:186, writes, “By these words he means that Christ brought with Him the true atonement and true washing.” But John’s primary intention in recording this detail was to refute the docetic teaching that Jesus was not a real man and therefore did not really die (cf. 1Jn 4:1–3).
35 If v.35 is taken as an interpolation by those responsible for publishing the gospel, then “the man who saw it” (the flow of blood and water) and “has given testimony” would be the beloved disciple (cf. v.26; 21:24). He would also be the one who “knows that he tells the truth” and “testifies so that you also may believe.” If John himself is the writer, then the eyewitness would be someone else—someone whom he regarded as absolutely reliable. It is also possible (but less likely) that throughout the verse John is speaking rhetorically of himself in the third person (cf. 9:37, where Jesus, referring to himself, says, “he is the one speaking with you”). Others have thought that ekeinos (“that one”; NIV, “he”) may refer to the risen Lord, since in 1 John the demonstrative pronoun used as a personal pronoun regularly refers to Jesus. Such a reference to Jesus in this context would be quite abrupt and therefore unlikely. In any case, the event is stressed because the writer wants his readers to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a real man with a real body.
36 John again calls attention to the fact that what was happening was in fulfillment of Scripture (cf. vv.24, 28, 37). The statement that “not one of his bones will be broken” stems from Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12, where the Israelites were given instructions regarding the Passover lamb. John is saying that the crucified Jesus has given his life as the perfect Lamb of God. He is the fulfillment of the OT promise of a Lamb whose death will atone for the sins of the world (cf. 1:29; 1Jn 2:2). The reference in Psalm 34:20 to the righteous man whose bones will not be broken underscores God’s protective care. Even in death, Jesus was not separated from the loving care of his Father.
37 John adds one more reference to OT Scripture—Zechariah 12:10, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” While the piercing is symbolic in Zechariah, it is literal in the case of Jesus. As Zechariah looked ahead to the coming repentance of Jerusalem, so also does John look ahead to the hour when Jesus will hang on the cross, pierced by the spear of a Roman soldier. Zechariah’s statement is also used by John in the first chapter of the book of Revelation, where the context is the second coming of Christ (Rev 1:7). The world can never understand how a messiah whose earthly destiny was a cross could ever turn out to be the Sovereign of the universe. In God’s plan, however, the road to glory passes through the valley of humiliation. Those who walk with Jesus must share first of all his denial of personal privilege; only later do we share his glory.
NOTES
29 The Greek ὄξος (oxos, “sour wine, wine vinegar,” GK 3954) was the Roman posca, a favorite drink of the lower ranks of society. It would relieve thirst more effectively than plain water would (cf. BDAG, 715).
32 The verb κατάγνυμι (katagnymi, GK 2862) means “to break or to shatter a rigid object” (L&N, 19.35). Three of its four occurrences in the NT are in vv.31–33 of the present narrative; the other is in Matthew 12:20, where regarding Jesus Isaiah is quoted: “a bruised reed he will not break.”
34 The λόγχη (lonchē, GK 3365) was a “long weapon with sharpened end used for piercing by thrusting or as a projectile by hurling” (L&N, 6.34). Here, however, it probably referred to the iron point or “spearhead” (cf. BDAG, 601).
38Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
38 It was common practice for the family or friends of a person who had been crucified to buy the body and provide it with an honorable burial. Otherwise it would be left at the cruel mercies of birds of prey and wild beasts or thrown as refuse into a common pit with other criminals. From a human standpoint, that is what would have happened to the body of Jesus had not Joseph of Arimathea taken the initiative and secured the body with Pilate’s permission. John tells us that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57), and Mark notes that he was “a prominent member of the Council” (15:43). Luke adds that Joseph “had not consented to [the Sanhedrin’s] decision and action” (23:51).
Joseph had not previously acknowledged his allegiance to Jesus. Although a disciple, he was one secretly because he feared the Jews (cf. 7:13). In this situation, however, he could not bear the prospect of Jesus’ body being dishonored. Apparently he was a wealthy man, and because he had connections with the religious and civic authorities he was able to secure the body (perhaps at some cost!). It was with Pilate’s permission that he came and took the body of Jesus. It was necessary to secure permission because in some cases friends might want to secure the body as soon as possible in the hope of reviving it.
39 Joseph was accompanied by Nicodemus, who is identified by John as “the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night” (cf. 3:1–2). Nicodemus is mentioned three other times in the fourth gospel but not at all in the Synoptics. The third reference was in 7:50–52, where he gently rebuked the Sanhedrin by asking whether their law condemned a person without first giving him the chance to explain his actions. That he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, “about seventy-five pounds,” would indicate that he, as well as Joseph, was a man of considerable means. Lindars, 592, thinks that seventy-five pounds is “obviously an exaggeration,” but note the large quantities of spices used in the burial of King Asa (2Ch 16:14) and Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant. 17.199). Myrrh was a fragrant resin, and aloe the aromatic, quick-drying sap of a tree. In powdered form they were mixed and sprinkled in the sheets that wound the corpse. The purpose of the spices was to counteract the unpleasant odor of the decomposing body.
It is worth noting that until this point Joseph and Nicodemus had maintained secrecy regarding their relationship to Jesus. But now that the other disciples who had followed Jesus had openly deserted him, the two secret disciples came into the open and offered help. The depth of one’s commitment is clearly seen in crisis situations. Actions reveal the state of the soul. Calvin, 2:189, notes that, while there are times when it is not wrong to fear the enemies of the gospel, “when the confession of faith is withheld from fear it shows weakness of faith.”
40 The body of Jesus was wrapped with spices in “strips of linen.” John uses the word othonion (the plural meaning “thin strips of linen cloth,” GK 3856), while the Synoptics have sindōn (“linen sheet,” “shroud,” GK 4984). Brown, 191, finds a twofold problem with the use of othonion in the sense of thin strips or bandages: (1) disagreement with the Synoptics, and (2) Roman Catholic acceptance of the authenticity of the Holy Shroud of Turin. The first objection is answered if the body was first wrapped in linen strips and then covered with a shroud. The second is only as strong as the degree to which the interpreter chooses to regard tradition. The Jewish custom of burial is contrasted with that of the Egyptians, who removed the internal organs, and the Romans, who cremated the bodies of the dead.
41 Because the fall of the first Adam took place in a garden (Ge 3), it is fitting that the redemption of the human race by the second Adam (cf. Ro 5:12–19) takes place in a garden as well: “At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden.” The Gospel of Peter (24) tells us that the garden belonged to Joseph, and Matthew 27:60 says that the tomb in which Joseph placed the body of Jesus was “his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.” The emperor Constantine removed Hadrian’s temple of Venus to build his Church of the Resurrection on what he believed was the exact location of Jesus’ tomb. Since the Crusades this has been the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Bruce, 380, notes that the garden tomb gives a more general picture, though it belongs to a style two or three centuries later.
42 Since it was the “Jewish day of Preparation” and Sabbath was approaching, it was necessary to bury the body as quickly as possible. Joseph’s tomb was nearby and provided an immediate solution to the problem. We do not know whether they intended to leave it there indefinitely. In any case, the resurrection made that decision unnecessary.
NOTES
38 Though Arimathea is mentioned in all four gospels (in connection with Joseph), its location is not known for certain. It may have been a small village in the hill country some twenty miles northwest of Jerusalem (see NIVSB note at Mt 27:57; cf. ISBE 1:290). It is often associated with Ramathaim, mentioned in 1 Samuel 1:1.