John 18: The Jewish People v. Jesus Christ

As always, let’s start with the setting of John 18. Jesus and his disciples crossed the Kidron Valley to go to the Mount of Olives, and on the Mount of Olives, Jesus prayed in a garden on the mountain, the Garden of Gethsemane. It will be on the Mount of Olives, possibly in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus will meet up with Judas Iscariot to be betrayed. The setting is important because of the irony. If you remember my discussion about Judas Iscariot in John 13, I mentioned that the original context of the Psalm 41 passage foretelling of the Messiah’s betrayer, in its original context, was most likely talking about Ahithophel, David’s trustworthy and honorable companion, who also betrayed David. I did much comparison between Ahithophel and Judas. The setting here is another one. Ahithophel also betrayed David somewhere between the Kidron Valley and the Mount of Olives, most likely the Mount of Olives (see 2 Samuel 15:30-31). Judas would fulfill the role of betrayer perfectly again by choosing to betray Jesus on the Mount of Olives. The text tells the Judas Iscariot was well aware that Jesus and the disciples would be there because Jesus had often gone to the Mount of Olives with his disciples when he was in Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot came well prepared to take on Jesus. First, he made sure he had the right crowd of people, consisting of both Jews and Romans. For the Jews, John records Judas Iscariot bringing chief priests and Pharisee officials. Mark adds that there were teachers of the law and elders there, too. As for the Romans, John tells us Judas Iscariot had a large amount of Roman soldiers. The NIV uses the term “detachment of soldiers,” but a better translation would be “a cohort of soldiers,” like the NASB uses, because a cohort is a legitimate measure of soldiers in the Roman army. In the Roman army, a cohort was a subdivision of a legion. A legion would be divided into ten parts, and a tenth of a legion is a cohort. Since a legion is about 6,000 soldiers, a cohort would be about 600 soldiers. You might be thinking this is kind of large for arresting one man, even overkill, but this was nothing new for the Romans. If the Romans thought arresting one man might be dangerous, they would take along several soldiers to make sure nothing went wrong. Even Paul was accompanied by 200 soldiers when he was transferred (see Acts 23:23). If the Jews had made it sound like Jesus was declaring himself to be the new king and starting an insurrection with his disciples, the Romans might have thought that arresting such a man might start and insurrection, so they had to be prepared. Not only were they prepared in numbers of people, but also in equipment. John says everyone was carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Matthew and Mark are more specific on the weapons: swords and clubs.

Now it may seem Judas Iscariot laid the perfect trap, know where Jesus was, but that’s far from the truth. Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew what was going to happen to him, as stated in John 18:4. It is almost like Jesus allowed himself to be trapped. Jesus asks the mob “Who is it you want?” The mob replies, “Jesus of Nazareth,” to which Jesus answered. “I am he.” Truthfully, the NIV added the “he” part. In the original Greek, Jesus simply says, “ego eimi” which simply translated is “I am.” Yes, “ego eimi” is the exact wording Jesus says for all the “I AM” statements. We already agreed Jesus used the “I AM” statements to reveal himself to be the Great I AM himself, Yahweh. Perhaps Jesus was presenting himself as God himself one last time. When the Jew asked for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus answered “Yahweh.” Maybe that’s why the Jews fell back – the reaction of the true name of God, which was sacred to them. But then why did the Romans fall back? For that I will remind you of a story in chapter 7 of John. In John chapter 7, the chief priests and Pharisees have asked temple guards to arrest Jesus. These temple guards were most likely Roman. Yet they come back empty handed. Why didn’t they come back with Jesus? Their answer is simply, “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” There was something about Jesus. Simply the way he spoke blew people away.

Now, before we go on, I want to make a note about the irony that the Bible Knowledge Commentary pointed out for me. On one side, you have Judas Iscariot, chief priests, Pharisees, teachers of the law, elders, and 600 Roman soldiers, all armed with lanterns, torches, clubs and swords. On the other side, you have Jesus, completely unarmed, with all his disciples asleep (see Luke 22:45-46). Yet who is the one in charge? Jesus is. The crowd cowers when Jesus speaks. The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus making everyone aware that he could have called 12 legions (about 72,000!) angels down to rescue Him. When you see the Jews and the Romans alike, you almost think like they were aware of it, or they were almost even expecting Jesus to use his miraculous powers against them. Yet Jesus doesn’t, and that adds to the irony. The one with the authority in this seen submits to his arrest. He willingly gave Himself up, and He does it with class. Jesus pretty much tells the mob, “I’m the one you want, so let my disciples go.” This has been foreshadowed all throughout John. In John 6, while preaching to the Jews, Jesus says that the will of His Father is not lose any of the disciples. In John 10, when preaching about the Good Shepherd, Jesus declares that like the Good Shepherd, he would not lose a sheep, even it meant laying his life down for the sheep. And one last time in John 17, while Jesus is praying to the Father, he prays that he will not lose a disciple to the end. Prayer request answered.

Well, Simon Peter isn’t going without a fight. He remembers that he promised Jesus that He will fight for Jesus, even if it meant giving up his own life. Peter doesn’t want to become the denier that Jesus predicted him to be, so he takes his sword and chops off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. Notice the use of detail in the story. John gives the high priest’s servant a name. He also states it was the right ear cut off, aligning perfectly with Luke’s account. It really makes the story come alive.

Now I’ve seen movies, TV shows, even church plays, acting out the actions happening here, and neither of them really makes this scene action packed. You see Peter lunging at the servant, cutting off the ear, and nobody makes a move. They all watch. I kind of get a feeling that maybe a small scuffle or a small brawl broke out, for Jesus has to rebuke both sides. In John, Jesus disciplines Peter for not accepting God’s will for Jesus, but in Matthew, Jesus disciplines Peter for using a sword because (1) all who live by the sword die by the sword, (2) Jesus could have called down angels to help him if He needed help and (3) the Scriptures needed to be fulfilled. When the disciples see how Jesus reacted, they feel like Jesus has taken away their “fight,” and so they are left with “flight” and they flee the scene. (Note: For Jesus rebuking the mob, you’ll have to go to your Synoptic Gospels.) Jesus then turns to the mob and questions their method of arresting Jesus. Every day, Jesus was publicly and peacefully in Jerusalem. Why didn’t they quietly arrest him there? Why did they have to come in a large mob privately at night?

Now that Jesus is arrested, we begin with the trials of Jesus. For right now (this paragraph), I am going to speak in light of all 4 Gospels. From all 4 Gospels, Jesus undergoes 6 trials. 3 trials are with the Romans, and 3 trials are with the Jews. The first trial is before high priest Annas. The second trial is before high priest Caiaphas. The third trial is before the whole Sanhedrin, all 70 members. The fourth trial is before Pontius Pilate. The fifth trial is before Herod. The sixth trial is a re-trial before Pontius Pilate. In his Gospel, John does not tell about the third trial in front of the Sanhedrin or the fifth trial before Herod. John only mentions that Jesus had a trial with Caiaphas, but John does not go into detail about what happened there. This is a Bible study on John, so instead of bouncing back and forth between Gospels, we’re going just to read on the trials that John reported. But we can get a lot of what John has told us. It is widely believed that John did follow Jesus at a distance, from the Mount of Olives to Golgotha, maybe even watching in on all of the trials (John 18:15,16). And John is the only one to report on the trial before Annas the high priest. So let’s take a look at that trial.

But before we even get to that, we have to discuss the high priest in the 1st century AD. In all 4 Gospels, it will seem like there are 2 high priests. Luke seems to say it explicitly in Luke 3:2a, “during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas…” If you remember in the Old Testament, there was only 1 person who was the high priest. This 1 person was the 1 and only person who could enter Holy of Holies 1 time a year. As the title hints, he is the highest of all priests. So how is there 2 by the time of Jesus? Well, there are a few theories. The first one is probably the simplest. The one high priest got stepped down and retired, and the next high priest stepped up. The stepping down high priest would be Annas, and the stepping up high priest would be Caiaphas. There are 2 problems with this first theory. The first probably is the question: “When?” When did Annas step down and Caiaphas step up? Well, obviously, it has be sometime during the earthly life of Jesus. Some of the proponents of the first theory say it happened between the birth and infancy of Jesus and the start of the ministry of Jesus, when Jesus was an adult. Other proponents of the first theory will say it happened during the 3-4 year span of Christ’s ministry. Still, both sides can not pin down a certain day or week, or even a month. Why they can’t, well, that leads us to our second problem. The second problem of the first theory is: “Why?” Why would a high priest step down? In the Old Testament, the high priest served for his whole life, until the day he died. They did not retire. There was no such thing as being “too old” to be a high preist. So why would Annas retire or step down? After all, as we will see in John 18, Annas still has a pretty serious role among the priests. (The best way to explain this, is that it wouldn’t make sense for Pop Benedict XVI to step down or retire, but continue to work with the new pope.) The other theories try to explain the why.

Our second theory does explain both the “when” and the “why.” The “why” has to deal with the political situation with the Romans. When the Romans were in charge, they didn’t mind the local regions or the local people groups having their own leader. They would even let them have their own king! But when all was said and done, that “king” reported to the local governor, who reported to Caesar. The best example would be Herod. Herod was the “king of the Jews,” but he ultimately had to report the governor, Pontius Pilate. I put “king of the Jews” in quotes because not every Jew received Herod as their king, including the religious leaders. First of all, it didn’t help that Herod wasn’t full-blood Jew, but rather half-Jew and half-Roman. The Jews expected their king to be fully Jewish. Second, and probably most important, it wasn’t the Jews that picked Herod as king, but rather the Romans. The Romans didn’t mind the local people groups having a king…as long as that king met their expectations and their approval. Between these two reasons, most Jews saw Herod as puppet to the Romans, so many Jews did not accept him. But what does this have to do with the high priests? Well, the Romans knew that the high priest had a strong leadership role. But the Jews refused to allow the Romans to touch it. They pretty much said to the Romans, “Oh no. We’ll let you pick and choose our king, but you will not touch our high priest. Our high priest has always been a descendant of Aaron, and he always will be.” Well, the Romans weren’t too pleased with that. They didn’t want a person being high priest for too long, in fear that the high priest will gain too much power over time and try something risky, like trying to overthrow the Roman government. So around 15 A.D., the Romans said to Annas, “Alright you’ve been high priest for 9 years. Your time is up. Select another high priest or we will.” Annas, not wanting to cause any problems, reluctantly submitted to the Romans. He chose Caiaphas to be his replacement. While this second theory answers the “when” and “why,” it still has holes. First of all, not everyone agrees with exactly what I wrote above. Some will say that it was the Romans who chose Caiaphas, not Annas. Others will claim that while Caiaphas stepped up, it doesn’t necessarily mean Annas stepped. These people will suggest that Annas and Caiaphas alternated as the high priest every year. The Romans were okay with this because they believed no high priest could amass a lot of power in one year, and then get it back after a year of not being high priest. So there are disagreements within the theory. Also, the second theory doesn’t fully answer the question, “Why Caiaphas?” Annas has 5 sons. So why didn’t he choose a son but rather his son-in-law Caiaphas?

The third theory attempts to answer that. This theory focuses in on the religious parties of the Jewish religion: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees and Sadducees did sharply disagree on things, in both the political realm and the religious realm. According to the this theory, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed so sharply in the first century that they did not trust a high priest of the opposite party. So the Pharisees would not trust a Sadducee high priest and the Sadducees would not trust a Pharisee high priest. So the Pharisees chose a Pharisee high priest and the Sadducees would choose a Sadducee high priest. This would result in 2 high priests and this is why you have 2 high priests in the time of Jesus. Caiaphas is believed to be the Sadducee high priest and the Pharisee high priest is Annas. There are a couple problems with this theory. If on the Day of Atonement, only one man was to enter the Holy of Holies, which one would it be? Wouldn’t it be wrong for both of them to enter? Also, Annas and Caiaphas seem to be agreeing to well to be of opposite parties. Even over Jesus, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed about Jesus (see Luke 20:27-40).

If you made me pick between the 3 theories, I guess I would have to choose the second theory because it has the most scholars behind it, and it has the fewest objections. But I do believe all 3 theories show us something about Annas and Caiaphas. The biggest observation is Annas and Caiaphas are working together, almost as equals. If there is a hierarchy, it would be Annas over Caiaphas, as Annas sometimes seems to whisper into the ear of Caiaphas what decisions to make. The trial of Jesus would be a good example. Jesus has to first go in front of Annas. According to all 3 theories (or at least the first and second), Annas is not the high priest at the time, but rather Caiaphas is. But Jesus has to go to Annas so Annas can decide what Caiaphas should do. After all, Caiaphas does seem to follow suit with Annas.

Back to the text. When brought before Annas, Annas asks Jesus questions about His disciples and His teachings. These would be normal questions on the accusations of starting an insurrection. From the broader Gospel view of Christ’s trials, we know the trials Jesus faced were unfair and illegal (not up to legal standards), but there is a small proof of that in this text. In John 18:19, John records Annas asking question. According to Jewish tradition, the high priest was to act more like a judge, and less like a prosecuting attorney. Just as the judge is not allowed to ask the defendant questions, so the high priest was not allowed to ask defendant Jesus questions. Yet Jesus does not shy away from these questions. Jesus says to Annas that all His teaching has been public. So everything Annas heard is true, and there is nothing more to say. But defendant Jesus goes on to call witnesses for himself. He tells Annas that anyone who heard him will be able to testify everything that he has said. Perhaps Jesus was calling out Annas for setting up an improper trial. A proper trial would have real and honest witnesses, and they could attest that Jesus was innocent.

Well, one of the officials took that as Jesus sassing the high priest and that official struck Jesus in the face. Here we see another error in the trial. It was illegal to bring any kind of physical pain or harassment to a defendant who was still considered innocent. At this point (and throughout all of the trials), Jesus remains innocent. Jesus proceeds to call this official out, too. Jesus knows that the slap would only be necessary if He did something wrong. So he asks the official what he did wrong to deserve it. I can almost picture the official dumfounded because he knew Jesus did nothing wrong. Then Jesus continues to pressure for his witnesses to be brought for, even asking the official to be his witness.

From here, Annas has gotten all he needed. Annas probably was hoping for more out of his end of the trial, in order to give Caiaphas the decision he needs to make. All that happens, however, is Annas’s trial is put under question by Jesus. He’s not really getting anything, so Annas just moves him on to his “real-er” trial with Caiaphas. But I think at this point Annas has also declared Jesus guilty in his mind, even without proof or witnesses.

John doesn’t record either of the other Jewish trials. He doesn’t record the trial with Caiaphas, and he doesn’t record the trial in front of the Sanhedrin (most likely led by Caiaphas). Yet John is the only Gospel writer to write about the trial with Annas. Why would John mention the trial with Annas, and not the other trials? Although John may not necessarily be painting a picture of Jesus as God or the Christ, I do believe John is trying to look at the Jewish trials from another point of view, and it kind of goes back to what we see at Christ’s arrests. Remember how I pointed out the irony of Jesus, the one who seems to be in power and have control, ends up being the lowly, submissive one? Well, the trial at Annas portrays the same Jesus. Annas tries to question the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus ends up questioning Annas’s motives and his trial. Annas tries to make Jesus look guilty, but Jesus ends up proving His innocence. Annas attempts to win the trial, but Jesus ends up being the winner. John keeps on adding onto the irony that while Jesus is bound, he is the one in control. If in any way this shows Jesus is God, this is the proof. On the earth as a man, Jesus might be submissive and humbled, but in heavenly realm as God, Jesus is the king, judge and ruler over Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

I’m going to stop right there. Once again, I will remind you that while the text of the Scriptures are the inerrant, inspired revelation from God, the numbering of the chapters and verses are not. I believe it would have been better to end chapter 18 at verse 27 and began chapter 19 where John 18:28. Why? John 18:28 begins a new phase of the trials for Jesus. Jesus has gone through 3 Jewish trials, and all trials have found him guilty, even though they are unjust and illegal. Even though the Jews want to pass the death penalty, they cannot, for they need Roman permission to do so. So it’s up to the Romans to decide whether or not Jesus deserves death. Will they pass the same judgment? We’ll have to see in chapter 19, but I will pick up again in chapter 18.