2.Jesus Examined before Pilate (18:33-40)

2.Jesus Examined before Pilate (18:33-40)

JOHN 18

V. THE CRUCIFIXION (18:1-19:42)

As in the other Gospels it is the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection that form the climax of the whole book. John has his own way of handling these events, a way that stresses the divine overruling. Thus his account of the arrest emphasizes Jesus' complete mastery of the situation, and touches like the "It is finished" of the dying Savior indicate plainly that the outcome was completely in God's control. Here supremely we see the purpose of God worked out, and here supremely is the glory of Jesus displayed.

A. THE ARREST (18:1-12)

1 When 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.) 11 Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" 12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus.

a. 9 John 6:39

As in the Synoptists, Jesus is arrested in the Garden. But there are important differences. A striking omission is the agony in Gethsemane. Many conjectures have been put forward to account for this, but none is universally accepted. Perhaps the most convincing is that John was not giving a complete account of all that happened, but painting a picture. This incident did not suit his purpose, so he omitted it (though such words as those of 12:27; 18:11 show that he has the essential teaching of the incident).¹ John makes it clear, as the others do not, that the Garden was a frequent resort of Jesus and his followers (though cf. Luke 22:39). He also uses a technical term for the band of soldiers (Matthew and Mark use this term, but not in connection with the arrest, Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16). Above all, he stresses the majesty of Jesus by telling us that he spoke and acted in such a way as to strike awe into the soldiers who came to arrest him, so that they "drew back and fell to the ground" (v. 6).

1 The opening words perhaps militate against the view that some of the preceding discourse was spoken on the road. They seem to indicate that it was after it was concluded that Jesus "left" (i.e., left the house) with² the apostles. It is not impossible that the meaning is "went out of the city," but "went out of the house" seems more probable. It is John alone who tells us that they went to a garden,³ though he does not name the place (as do Matthew and Mark). He does, however, give its location, namely on the further side of the Kidron.⁴

2 Judas is characterized, as elsewhere, by the betrayal. John uses the present participle, which conveys the meaning "who was betraying him (i.e., at that moment)." The information that Jesus and the disciples often went to the Garden is found here only, though Luke tells us that Jesus lodged "on" the Mount of Olives every night during passion week (Luke 21:37). This probably means that he and the disciples used to bivouac, sleeping in the open air, and probably in this very garden. Ryle reminds us that "Excepting at the institution of the Lord's Supper, we have no mention of our Lord ever being in any house in Jerusalem." "Often" would be a curious way of referring to Jesus' custom on the present visit only. It probably indicates that he had been in the habit of using the Garden through the years.

3 "Detachment" is a technical term for"cohort."⁵ Judas apparently was guiding a knot of Roman soldiers, and if the article is significant it will have been a known, definite cohort (cf. Abbott, "A.V. ['a band'] has missed the reference to 'the band' that regularly kept guard in the fortress called Antonia"⁶). Some commentators hold that there could not have been Romans in the posse, but Newbigin finds it "not very surprising in view of the evidence of good relations between Caiaphas and Pilate . . . and in view of constant Roman anxiety about outbreaks of violence at the great festivals." It is likely that the Jewish authorities would have brought in the Romans as soon as possible in view of their ultimate aim (and, we might add, in view of the fact that on a previous occasion the Temple guards had failed to arrest Jesus, 7:44ff.). With passions running high at the festival period, the Romans would be unlikely to refuse a request for help from the high priest.⁷ They would always have to reckon with the possibility that Jesus and the eleven would resist arrest and that a host of excited Galileans might join them. With the soldiers was a group sent from the Sanhedrin (this will be the force of linking "chief priests" with "Pharisees"). Moffatt distinguishes the two components of this force as "troops" and "attendants." The band was armed⁸ and carried lights.⁹ They were thus prepared for trouble and equipped to meet it. The lights indicate that they thought Jesus might hide away in the dark recesses of the garden.¹⁰ Since it was full moon, they would not be needed otherwise (unless the night was cloudy; since, however, we are told that it was cold, v. 18, it would seem to have been clear).

4-5 Jesus' complete knowledge of the situation dictates his action (see on 2:24; 4:18). John omits any reference to the kiss Judas gave Jesus (Matt. 26:49; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:47), which would have taken place at this juncture. He is not concerned to tell us everything that happened, but rather to show Jesus' complete control of the situation. Jesus knows all the things that are coming upon him, and in the light of this knowledge goes out¹¹ to meet the soldiers. He is not "arrested" at all. He has the initiative and he gives himself up. First he asks whom they are seeking. When they say, "Jesus of Nazareth,"¹² he replies, "I am," which may well mean "I am Jesus of Nazareth." But the answer is in the style of deity (see on 8:58; John repeats the words in vv. 6 and 8 and the threefold repetition is significant; cf. also 13:18-19).¹³ This must have been a most unexpected move on his part. The soldiers had come out secretly to arrest a fleeing peasant. In the gloom they find themselves confronted by a commanding figure, who so far from running away comes out to meet them and speaks to them in the very language of deity. At this point John reiterates that Judas was there. As in verse 2, he speaks of him in terms of the betrayal. It had obviously made a deep impression on the minds of the early Christians. In the Synoptic Gospels Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss; here he is simply mentioned as standing there, though John's "with them" is probably significant. It indicates on whose side he was.

6 The effect of Jesus' bearing is now brought out. His fearlessness, the gloom with its atmosphere of mystery, his numinous words, all combined to produced a moment of terror, or perhaps awe. The soldiers retreated and fell to the ground. It is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus' unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall; C. B. Williams translates: "took a lurch backward and fell to the ground." But clearly what concerns John is the majesty of Jesus thus underlined. Some find it too difficult to think of the soldiers as recoiling, and emend the text to read "he" (i.e., Judas) instead of "they" (so, e.g., Schonfield and Torrey). This certainly makes for an easier text, but it raises the insuperable difficulty of how, if it were original, it has left no mark on the manuscript tradition. It also fails to take note of the fact that John is making it clear that Jesus' behavior was most unusual; unarmed people being arrested habitually showed fear in the presence of armed might. Jesus did not.¹⁴

7 Jesus repeats his question, and the soldiers their answer (characteristically John has a small variant; he replaces "they replied" with "they said").

8-9 Jesus repeats his declaration of identity (retaining the same mystical words), but this time he adds a request that the soldiers permit his followers to go away.¹⁵ The Good Shepherd takes thought for his sheep at the very hour in which he faces arrest, trial, and death. It may be that this is behind his request for them to repeat that it is "Jesus of Nazareth" that they are looking for. Out of their own mouth he leads them to declare twice over that their business is with him, which means that it is not with the disciples. John adds an interesting expression. It is common to find it said that something happened "in order that the scripture might be fulfilled." Here (and in v. 32) the same formula is used of words of Jesus: "so that¹⁶ the words he had spoken would be fulfilled." To John it was inconceivable that a saying of Jesus would fail of fulfillment. He puts it into the same category as Scripture. The "word" referred to is found in 17:12 (cf. 6:39), but the repetition, as usually in John, has its variations. Here Jesus speaks of the disciples as given to him, there he referred to their being kept by "your name" (the disciples were earlier said to be "given" to him, 17:6; see also on 3:35). Here there is no reference to his "keeping them safe," while "I have not lost one"¹⁷ replaces "None has been lost." These changes do not affect the sense, and there is exactness in John's affirmation that this saying of Jesus was fulfilled. It has been objected that the object of the saying as originally given was spiritual, whereas here it is physical. But an arrest of the disciples at this moment would have been a very severe test of faith and might well have caused them great spiritual harm. It is unnecessary to see an opposition. To preserve the disciples physically at this moment was to preserve them spiritually.

10 John names Peter as the man who wielded the sword,¹⁸ whereas the Synoptists leave him nameless. The reason is not apparent. It is sometimes said that Mark wishes to spare Peter, but this is difficult to maintain in view of his inclusion of the denial. It may be a further example of John's love for being exact with names and places.¹⁹ He also tells us that the man whose right ear (this detail is shared with Luke) was cut off²⁰ was Malchus. Nothing more is known of him. The use of the definite article (the servant of the high priest, not a servant) marks Malchus out, but our ignorance of the man and his position prevents us from knowing just what the significance of this is.²¹

11 Jesus immediately intervenes. "Put your sword away" is a some-what vigorous expression²² and leaves no doubt but that swordplay is forbid-den. Then Jesus speaks of the cup that the Father has given him and his question indicates the necessity of drinking it.²³ There are references to the cup in the other Gospels (Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42), though in them it occurs in the prayer in the Garden. This is the only passage which assigns the origin of the "cup" to the Father. In the Old Testament "cup" often has associations of suffering and of the wrath of God (Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15; Ezek. 23:31-33, etc.; cf. Rev. 14:10; 16:19). We cannot doubt but that in this solemn moment these are the thoughts that the term arouses. Weymouth renders, "cup of sorrow."²⁴

12 Jesus' summary rejection of resistance leads immediately to his arrest. The conjunction of the word rendered "commander" with that translated "detachment of soldiers"²⁵ seems to make it clear that a cohort of Roman soldiers and their officer are meant (cf. v. 3). Either term is used on occasion of something else, but the conjunction seems to be conclusive. The Jews are linked with them in the arrest. The reason for the binding of Jesus is not apparent. Since, however, there is no suggestion of escape, it must be simply the standard practice in arresting prisoners. There may also be something of a rebound from the soldiers' earlier fear. The Synoptists do not mention this detail. Contrariwise, John does not tell us, as they do, that the disciples all deserted Jesus and ran away (Mark 14:50).

B. THE JEWISH TRIAL AND THE DENIALS (18:13-27)

The narratives of the trial and of Peter's denials in the four Gospels are not easy to fit in with each other.²⁶ The trial seems to have had several clearly defined stages. All our Gospels speak of a trial before the Jewish authorities (which had two or three stages) and another before Pilate. John is the only one of the four to tell us that Jesus appeared before Annas. There seems little doubt but that Jesus was first given an informal examination, and that he was later brought before the Sanhedrin for the formal sentence. Since the visit to Annas is mentioned only in John, some scholars hold that it should be rejected. But if nothing of the sort took place it is hard to understand why John says it did.²⁷ It could not have been in order to secure Jesus' condemnation by Annas, for no such condemnation is recorded. Moreover, John was not ignorant of the fact that Jesus was brought before Caiaphas (v. 24), nor of the other fact that it was from Caiaphas that he was taken to Pilate (v. 28). Acceptance of John's story leads to fewer difficulties than its rejection.²⁸

Godet reminds us that according to Jewish law a prisoner could not be sentenced on the same day as his trial, and he connects the two examinations with this. The appearance before Annas did not fully meet the legal requirements, but "they must at least try to save appearances as far as possible, and to offer the semblance of a first preliminary meeting, before that at which the sentence should be pronounced." It has been suggested that the house of Annas was not far from Gethsemane,²⁹ and if this was the case it is unlikely that Annas would let the opportunity pass of having a preliminary examination of Jesus before sending him on to Caiaphas. It is also to be borne in mind that, though we naturally think of Jesus as being brought before Annas in that priest's house, his house is not mentioned in the narrative. It is possible that Annas saw Jesus in the Temple (so Barrett on v. 15). The references to the doorkeeper (vv. 16-17), however, make it more probable that a private house is meant, though not necessarily the house of Annas.

There are other difficulties that, it is suggested, may be solved by changes of order. Thus an examination took place before "the high priest" (v. 19), though Jesus was not sent to Caiaphas until verse 24.³⁰ Again, John's scheme of things might be held to give us one denial by Peter in the courtyard of Annas and the other two in that of Caiaphas, whereas in the Synoptists the three denials follow on. But this does not necessarily mean a dislocation in John's original order. It is likely that John preserves the order of events, and in any case part of his aim appears to have been to contrast Jesus' steadfastness under stress with Peter's fickleness. This is well brought out by interposing the examination between two of the denials. Some more or less plausible alterations to the order of verses have been suggested,³¹ but these break down on the difficulty of explaining how the present order got into the vast majority of the MSS. No really convincing explanation has been given as to why an original tidy order with no or very little difficulty about Annas and Caiaphas and the denials should have been all but universally corrupted into the present scheme. There is also the suspicion that harmonizing motives have been at work. The Synoptists speak of an examination before Caiaphas, but John does not. If, however, we move verse 24 so that it precedes verse 14 an "agreement" is brought about. But unfortunately this introduces another difficulty: the subject matter of the examination here is different from that in the Synoptists. It is better to accept the order of the bulk of the MSS as John's original order, and to attempt to understand the text as it stands.

1. Jesus Brought before Annas (18:13-14)

13 . . . and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law ofCaiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who hadadvised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.

13 It might have been thought that Jesus would have been brought before Caiaphas, since he was the ruling high priest. But Annas had been high priest and may well have been thought by many to be still the only legitimate high priest. The high priesthood in the Old Testament was for life, and such depositions as the Romans carried out were not lawful. But we do not know how far people were prepared to accept the authority of the Romans in this matter. In any case Annas appears to have been a very wily man and well able to assert himself. Not only was he high priest, but in time five of his sons occupied that office, as did Caiaphas, his son-in-law. There is little doubt but that through these changes the astute old man at the head of the family exercised a good deal of authority. He was in all probability the real power in the land, whatever the legal technicalities. There is nothing surprising in Jesus' being brought before him, especially if his house was near the scene of the arrest.³² We owe to John the information that Caiaphas had married Annas's daughter, and John proceeds to tell us that this man held the office of high priest. "That year" (as in 11:49, 51) should not be taken to signify that John thought of the office as an annual one. It surely means "at that time," "that fateful year," "that year of all years." John tells us that Jesus was brought "first" to Annas. This requires a "second," which is evidently the appearance before Caiaphas (v. 24).

14 In John's mind the thing that marked out Caiaphas was his un-conscious prophecy that Jesus would die for the people (11:49-50). So here he distinguishes him by referring back to this prophecy. His recall of those words may also be meant to indicate that Jesus might expect little from such a judge. Here was no idealist ready to see that justice was done, but a cynical politician who had already spoken in favor of Jesus' death.³³

2. Peter's First Denial (18:15-18)

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 "Surely you are not another of this man's disciples?" the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, "I am not." 18 It 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.

There are difficulties about the story of the denials. One of them arises from the fact that John separates the first denial (v. 17) from the second and third (w. 25-27) by interposing the story׳ of the examination of Jesus before the high priest. To some this appears to place one denial in the courtyard of Annas and the others in that of Caiaphas (unless there has been dislocation of the text). This, however, does not follow. It is quite possible that Caiaphas and Annas shared the same palace (Godet holds that John's narrative leads us to this conclusion; Hendriksen and Dods also think of one residence). But even this is not necessary. Wherever they lived, it would have been quite possible for them both to have been in the same place on this particular night. In any case it is not necessary to postulate a change of courtyard. It is true that verse 24 speaks of Annas sending Jesus to Caiaphas, but this may be John's way of rounding off this part of his narrative. Then, having finished with Annas, he returns to complete the story of the denials. He does not speak of Peter as moving from one courtyard to another, and it is not necessary to read this into his narrative. Even if Jesus was taken from one building to another, or even from one part of Jerusalem to another, it does not follow that Peter moved between his denials. John does not always narrate events in strict sequence, and we have no reason for demanding this of him here. This still leaves us with the problem that, whereas the Synoptists tell of the three denials in order, John interposes an examination of Jesus by the high priest between the first and second. The Synoptists finish off their denial stories once they start, but this means neither that there was nor that there was not an interval between the denials. The Synoptists must not be pressed as though they meant that the denials followed in quick sequence and that nothing happened in between. They simply do not address themselves to the problem (except that Luke puts the second "a little later" than the first and the third "about an hour later" than the second, Luke 22:58-59). There is nothing unlikely about John's statement. On the contrary it seems probable that an interval of time elapsed between Peter's withstanding of the challenge of the doorkeeper and the raising of the issue by the others.

15 The reason why Peter followed Jesus is not given. It is clear, though, that neither the incident with Malchus nor the subsequent flight of the disciples had completely shaken him. It is probable that he simply wished to see what the outcome of the arrest would be, and in any case it is natural in such a man to want to be near his Lord.³⁴ Another disciple is now introduced, but not named. He is simply described as "known to the high priest."³⁵ It has often been suggested that he was John, the beloved disciple.³⁶ In favor of this is the fact that, if so, it would explain some of the peculiar knowledge of this Evangelist. It would mean that he had a close connection with Jerusalem and access to sources not normally open to the Christians. But against it is urged the improb-ability that a son of Zebedee would occupy a position of such eminence.³⁷ Other names have been suggested, such as Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus. Such men would have the entree to the high priest's house and one of them may well have known Peter. But all this is conjecture. There is really no way of identifying him. But his acquaintance with the high priest was such that he was readily admitted to the courtyard, whereas Peter was not.

16 Peter stood outside at the door.³⁸ But the unknown had sufficient influence to secure his admission. He spoke to the doorkeeper (for a female doorkeeper cf. Acts 12:13 and the references in MM), and this was enough to ensure that Peter came in.³⁹

17 But the doorkeeper clearly had some reservations. She proceeded to resolve her doubts by asking Peter whether he were one of Jesus¹ disciples. All four Gospels agree that this first challenge came from a slave girl. It may be that this is part of the reason for Peter's fall. He may well have been nerving himself to face some stiff opposition. But instead he was asked a simple question by a little slave girl. Her question incidentally implies that the answer will be "No." "You aren't one of the disciples of this man, too, are you?" is the force of it,⁴⁰ And Peter went along with this. "I am not," he said. The question suggested a line of escape and Peter gratefully took it up. Almost certainly he did not reflect where it would lead him.⁴¹ Once committed, he must have found it hard to go back on his denial.

18 Now we have a little detail about the circumstances. It was evidently a cold night, and the slaves and officers⁴² of the high priests had made⁴³ a charcoal⁴⁴ fire in the courtyard. They were standing around it warming themselves and Peter joined them. There was possibly danger in this, but then there would probably have been danger in not doing it. It would have been conspicuous to stay in the courtyard, but away from the group. And in any case Peter was cold. He warmed himself with the others.

3. The Examination before Annas (18:19-24)

19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciplesand his teaching. 20"I have spoken openly to the world, "Jesus replied."I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jewscome together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask thosewho heard me. Surely they know what I said." 22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is that any way to answer the high priest?" he demanded. 23 "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify 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.

a. 24 Or (Now Annas had sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.)

As we have already noted, none of the other Evangelists mentions that Jesus was brought before Annas. Moreover, John has already told us that Caiaphas was high priest at that time (v. 13). It is accordingly possible that this exami-nation was in fact conducted by Caiaphas and not Annas (though in Annas's house). Sometimes this view is furthered by transferring verse 24 to a place between verses 13 and 14 (as one very old MS does), which would remove any doubt. But unless we resort to this tactic it is difficult to understand how the case can be made out. The natural force of the present arrangement of the text is that Jesus was brought before Annas first (v. 13), and that he remained there until that worthy sent him on to Caiaphas (v. 24). As already noted, there is evidence that men such as Annas who had once held the office of high priest were still called by that title. This would be all the more likely in the case of Annas in that he was in strictness still the legitimate high priest according to Jewish law.

19 The high priest interrogated Jesus. In a trial this was not legal, for Jewish law provided safeguards for the accused.⁴⁵ He was not to be called upon to incriminate himself. The case had to be established by witnesses. It was the responsibility of Jesus' accusers to bring forth their witnesses; it was not his responsibility to demonstrate his innocence. Perhaps Annas regarded this as an informal inquiry, where the rules of court procedure would not apply. His question about the disciples is puzzling.⁴⁶ One would have thought that they would have been known (though we must bear in mind that ap-parently those of the household did not know Peter by sight). But possibly the high priest was inquiring as to what they did, what was expected of them, rather than as to who they were. This is rendered all the more likely in that the other topic of his questioning was Jesus' teaching.

20-21 Jesus' reply does not mention the disciples. He is clearly de-termined to protect them to the end. This may be the significance of the fact that three times he uses the emphatic "I": 'I have spoken openly ... I always taught... they know what I said." He takes attention away from his followers and fixes it on himself. From our standpoint we might perhaps incline to regard his answer as uncooperative.⁴⁷ It is not. Jesus is not refraining from any attempt to help the high priest or to let him know what he stood for. He is making the point that the high priest is not proceeding in the correct legal form. It was his duty to produce his witnesses (and in Jewish law witnesses for the defense should be called first). Jesus is saying that that should not be at all difficult. He had always spoken openly⁴⁸ in places like the synagogues and the Temple.⁴⁹ The Jews had heard⁵⁰ him often. He had not taught in secret. There was no reason accordingly for addressing questions to him. The law has been set in motion. An arrest has been made. The right way to continue was to bring the witnesses and let them tell their story.⁵¹ We should not misunderstand what Jesus says about teaching in secret. He does not mean that he had nothing to say to his followers when they were away from the crowds. All four Gospels disprove this. What he means is that he did not have two kinds of teaching, a harmless one for the general public and a very different one for the secret revolutionaries. What he said to the disciples did but unfold the implications of his words to people at large. The essence of his teaching was public property.⁵²

22 One of the high priest's retainers did not like this independent tone, so he struck Jesus with his hand.⁵³ He does not appear to have been a person of any importance, being simply described as "one of the officials nearby." His action was, of course, a further illegality.⁵⁴

23 Jesus brings out the wrongness of this action by inviting the man to bear witness of any evil he has spoken. That is surely the right course of action. Incidentally it is worth noting that throughout this Gospel there is a stress on witness. It accords with this that now at the climax Jesus demands that his enemies bear witness. REB brings out the legal flavor of the term by rendering, "produce evidence to prove it." And if they cannot bear witness to any evil he has spoken, the question remains: "why did you strike me?"⁵⁵

24 This concludes the examination.⁵⁶ Annas apparently decided that he would get nothing from such a prisoner, and sent⁵⁷ him on. Caiaphas would have to be the one to take action before Pilate, so to him Jesus must go. John notes that Jesus was "bound" as he was sent. Precisely opposite conclusions have been drawn from this. Some understand it to mean "still bound" (NIV, Goodspeed), "bound as he was," and infer that he had been bound throughout the interrogation. Others maintain that it was standard practice to free a prisoner's hands while he was examined, but that Jesus was now bound once more. There is no evidence, and we must decide the point on our estimate of the probabilities. John does not say that Jesus was sent to Caiaphas's house, and as far as the language of this verse is concerned he might have been sent to another room within the same building. Or he might have been sent to a session of the Sanhedrin in its normal meeting place, with Caiaphas presiding. In view of what the other Gospels tell us this is probably the way we should take it. The appearance before Annas was a preliminary inquiry after which more formal (though still not strictly legal) proceedings were taken before the Sanhedrin. That John does not say what this meeting did may perhaps be accounted for because he has already recorded a condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin (11:47-53).

4. Peter's Second and Third Denials (18:25-27)

25As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, "Surely you are not another of his disciples?" 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.

The sequence of the denials is now resumed. As noted earlier, the scene may still be the courtyard of Annas's house, or Annas and Caiaphas may have shared the same residence, in which case there would have been one courtyard. It is not impossible, as some commentators have thought, that Jesus was taken through the courtyard on the way to the wing where Caiaphas lived, and that this was the occasion for Jesus to turn and look at Peter just after the third denial (Luke 22:61). But we have no certain knowledge on these points.

25 As Peter was warming himself (the tense is continuous) another approach was made. There is a difficulty arising from the fact that the Gospels do not agree as to the way in which the question was put. John does not particularize, but simply says "they" spoke to him. Matthew and Mark men-tion a girl (Matt. 26:71; Mark 14:69; Mark appears to have in mind the same girl as on the first occasion, Matthew another one), while Luke speaks of a man (Luke 22:58). Our difficulty probably arises from the fact that we un-consciously think that in each case one person asked the question and that was that. A moment's reflection, however, shows that this would almost certainly not have been the case. With a group of servants talking informally around a fire in the courtyard, when one asked whether Peter were a disciple it is almost certain that others would take the question up, especially if there were any hesitation about the answer. Matthew and Mark do not say that their girls addressed Peter. They said, "This fellow was. . . ." Clearly the servants, more especially the maidservants, were talking among themselves. Luke's "man" and John's "they" specifically address Peter. It is perhaps significant that Luke says Peter replied to the questioner ("Man, I don't know what you're talking about!"), whereas in the other three the denial is quite general and is not said to be addressed to the girls or to the crowd.⁵⁸ What certainly happened was that somebody posed the question and it was taken up by others. This is perfectly natural and seems implied by Mark. It is not to be understood that John's "they" means a chorus. It points rather to several people taking up the question from one another.⁵⁹ Mark says that the second denial took place in the porch (Mark 14:68; cf. Matt. 26:71), whereas John appears to mean that it took place in the courtyard. Hendriksen suggests that John omits Mark's second denial, and he breaks up Mark's third into two. It might be better to break up the second, with Peter retreating to the porch after being challenged and there repeating his denial. In this case Mark would be speaking of the end, so to speak, of the second denial and John of its beginning. Again the form of the question looks for the answer, "No." This was the last place where one might expect to find one of Jesus' followers. This may explain why no attempt was made to hold Peter for questioning, though he was asked a number of times whether he followed Jesus. The question was indeed put, but the questioners did not treat the possibility seriously. And now, as before, they received a prompt and emphatic denial.

26 The last questioner was different, and his question looks for an affirmative answer. He was related to Malchus (only John tells us this), and therefore would have had a peculiar interest in the man who had struck out with a sword. But it had been done in an uncertain light, and the relative could not be absolutely sure that it was Peter that he had seen. All the more would this be so in that he was now seeing that apostle in a very dim light indeed. A charcoal fire glows red, but it does not emit bright flames. But he was more confident than the earlier questioners, as his words show. He refers to the incident, and asks whether he did not see Peter in the garden.

27 For the third time Peter denies any connection with Jesus.⁶⁰ John does not give his exact words this time, but simply says, "Again Peter denied it." He records the fact that a rooster crowed at that moment (cf. 13:38),⁶¹ but he says nothing of its effect on Peter (Mark 14:72-73; Luke 22:62-63). Lightfoot points out that, except for Pilate's fear (19:8), no mention is made of people's emotions throughout chapters 18 and 19. John concentrates rather on the facts.

C. THE ROMAN TRIAL (18:28-19:16)

In contrast to his handling of the Jewish trial John gives considerable attention to the proceedings before the Romans. He scarcely notices the former, merely contenting himself with a sketchy account of Jesus' interview with Annas, and with the information that it was Caiaphas who sent Jesus on to Pilate. But when he comes to deal with what happened before Pilate his account is much fuller. This would probably have been of great interest to his readers, who must themselves have come in continual contact with the Romans. And it was part of John's plan to show that Pilate both bore his testimony to the innocence of Jesus (18:38; 19:4, 6) and tried very hard to deliver him. It was only at the insistence of the high-priestly party that he finally consented to the crucifixion. John has several pieces of information that he alone supplies. Indeed, it is to John's account that we owe most of our knowledge of the Roman trial. The Synoptists allude but sketchily to Pilate's examination of Jesus. One example of our debt to John is the wonderful scene in which Jesus confronts Pilate (18:33-38). Westcott conjectures that John may well have entered the Praetorium and thus have been in a position to observe what was going on. He points out that apparently the only thing that kept the Jews outside was their fear of defilement, which would scarcely have deterred a follower of Jesus at that moment. Moreover, the man who entered the high priest's house would not have hesitated at the Praetorium. This is very possible, but we must bear in mind that it is all speculation. We do not know how John got his information.

1. Jesus Delivered Up to Pilate (18:28-32)

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.

John tells us nothing of what happened in the house of Caiaphas, He has already said that Jesus was brought there (v. 24), but he adds nothing to that. Evidently his source of information was connected with the house of Annas, for he says nothing about the trial of which the Synoptists write. He simply tells us that Caiaphas sent Jesus on. This opening paragraph of the Roman trial shows us Jesus in the hands of the Romans, and the Jews unwilling either to see him freed or to enter the Romans' residence lest they be defiled. There is irony in John's concise story.

28 The Praetorium was the official residence of the Roman governor.⁶² They brought Jesus there from Caiaphas. John inserts a characteristic time note: "it was early" (for this term see on v. 27, and for John's habit of noting the time of day see on 1:39; NIV's "morning" is not in the Greek). If this word is used in the technical sense to denote the fourth watch of the night the time will have been before 6 a.m. It seems more likely that it was later than this. The day began at this hour, and there was a Jewish law that cases involving the death sentence could not be held during the night. The chief priests may well have held a session of the Sanhedrin after daybreak in order to give a semblance of legality to the proceedings (this would be the "second trial" of Mark 15:1). "Early" will then mean "in the early part of the day," perhaps between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.⁶³ We owe to this Evangelist the information that the Jewish leaders would not enter the Praetorium lest they contract defilement and render themselves unable to keep the feast. It was the rule that "The dwelling-places of gentiles are unclean."⁶⁴ Any Jew who entered such a dwelling would immediately contract defilement, a defilement that lasted seven days. This would effectively prevent him from observing the feast.⁶⁵ It is a curious commentary on human nature that they were scrupulous about contracting a defilement that would prevent them from keeping the feast on the due date, but they were not at all concerned about taking part in an act of judicial murder. And it is a characteristic example of John's irony that he simply mentions the fact without stopping to draw out its implications. For the bearing of this verse on the date of the crucifixion see Additional Note H, pp. 684-95.

29 Pilate is introduced into the narrative somewhat abruptly. John evidently regards him as quite well known. The governor⁶⁶ reveals himself as very accommodating in the matter of Jewish scruples. Because the Jews would not go in he came out⁶⁷ and asked what accusation they were making.⁶⁸ This does not necessarily mean that he did not know what was in their mind. He is simply observing due form and asking for a formal charge.

30 Jesus' enemies were in a somewhat difficult position. They had no charge that would stand up in a Roman court of law, and they knew it. So they did not answer Pilate's question directly, but took refuge in a generality. They called Jesus "a criminal"⁶⁹ and let it go at that. But this is an allegation about his character, not an accusation that he has committed a specific crime. They imply that Pilate should trust them. They would not hand over to him anyone other than a criminal. It is possible that they were taken by surprise at Pilate's indication that he would try the case himself. They had had his cooperation in making the arrest; now they apparently expected that he would take their word for it that the man the Romans had helped to arrest was dangerous and should be executed.

Not unnaturally Pilate wants none of this. If there is no offense against Roman law, then let the Jews look to it themselves.⁷⁰ They have their own procedures; they can judge him according to their own law. The Romans respected the laws and customs of conquered peoples and allowed them considerable latitude in their administration of justice. Their governor possessed the supreme power, the imperium, which meant that he did pretty much what he liked. But normally he would allow subject peoples to preserve their legal habits. All the more was this the case since the Romans did not normally set up a bureaucracy in conquered countries. The governor had enough assistants to enable him to deal with such matters as came within his purview. But of necessity he left much to the local courts.

Pilate's attitude brings out into the open the Jews' intention and their difficulty. They are out for an execution, and nothing less will suffice them. But they have difficulty in bringing this about and they look to Pilate to resolve their dilemma. The question of whether the Jews could or could not inflict the death penalty is a perplexing one,⁷¹ but the evidence as we have it appears to support John. In any case the Jews are determined to have Pilate pass sentence that will lead to crucifixion. Without ever explaining why, this Evangelist puts some emphasis on the fact that the death of Jesus was by crucifixion and not in some other way, as by stoning. Indeed, twice he records that Jesus escaped stoning (8:59; 10:31), and on another occasion he mentions that the disciples spoke strongly to prevent Jesus dying that way (11:8). By contrast he speaks of Jesus as being "lifted up" (3:14; 8:28) and says both that this signifies the manner of death that he would die (12:32-33), and that he "must" die in this way (12:34).

32 This is the fulfillment of another of Jesus' prophecies (cf. v. 9).⁷² Just as is the case with Scripture, a word of Jesus cannot lack fulfillment. The saying John has in mind is evidently "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (12:32), for he uses exactly the same expression to describe that saying as he uses here.⁷³ In view of the extreme rarity of exact repetitions in this Gospel this must be held to be significant. Jesus' prophecy was that he would be crucified, and John now records its fulfillment. Cai-aphas's determination to secure a crucifixion fulfills the divine purpose.⁷⁴ This perhaps supports the view that the question at issue was not whether the Jews could execute a man, but the way in which he should die. John sees it as necessarily (and the Jews as demanding) a death by crucifixion. I do not understand how this is to be explained other than by reference to the curse: "anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse" (Deut. 21:23). Caiaphas would see this as a way of discrediting Jesus, John as the way Jesus took away the sin of the world.⁷⁵

2. Jesus Examined before Pilate (18:33-40)

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 "Do you think I am 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.

In a scene full of dramatic power John pictures for us the lowly majesty of Jesus confronting the proud majesty of Rome's representative. At this moment all the other actors in the passion disappear from the scene — Annas, Cai-aphas, even the disciples with impetuous Peter at their head. Perhaps we should understand the Jews in the background to indicate that the power of the state is swayed by unseen forces. But what is basic is the confrontation of Caesar by Christ, with kingship as the topic for discussion.⁷⁶ ubtly, but very defi-nitely, John brings out the supreme royalty of Jesus.⁷⁷ He will be slain, but this does not detract from his majesty. He has committed no crime. As Caesar's representative inquires into what Jesus has done he soon comes to the con-clusion that the prisoner is innocent. But to come to this conclusion and to act on it are two different things. Pilate does try, even if not very resolutely. He begins by attempting simply to release Jesus in accordance with the custom that a prisoner was set free at that feast. But he is met by the demand that a robber be released instead.

33 Having talked with the Jews, Pilate went back⁷⁸ into the Prae-torium to interrogate the prisoner. It is uncertain whether Jesus was brought into the Praetorium only at this point, or whether verse 28 means that he was then brought right inside the Praetorium. It would be interesting to know whether Pilate spoke Aramaic or whether he used Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman world. If the latter, the conversation will be reported in the language in which it was originally spoken.⁷⁹ Pilate's opening question shows that more had been said by the Jews than is recorded. His "you" is emphatic: "Are you the king of the Jews?" In all four Gospels this is Pilate's first question to Jesus (Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3), and in all four his "you" is emphatic.⁸⁰ Pilate was incredulous. This man a king? From what he had been told he had clearly been expecting a revolutionary, one who set himself up as a monarch and who had styled himself "King of the Jews." One glance at his prisoner was enough for the governor to discern that it was fantastic to see Jesus in this role. Hence his incredulous question.

34-35 Jesus is interested to know whether this is Pilate's own line of questioning,⁸¹ or whether he has been coached by others. Pilcher brings out the significance of this. "If Pilate asked it of himself, the question would have meant, 'Art thou a political King, conspiring against Caesar'! It he had asked it of Caiaphas' prompting, it would have meant, 'Art Thou the Messianic King of Israel?' The answer to the first question would have been, 'No'. The answer to the second question, 'Yes.' " The question evokes a contemptuous response. "I am not a Jew, am I?" (C. B. Williams) is the force of it.⁸² Pilate cannot be expected to know about things of this kind from his own knowledge. The initiative came from "your people," and from this nation the chief priests are especially singled out for notice. So Pilate inquires what Jesus has done. That, for Pilate, is the important thing. He is not prepared to accept the accusation of the chief priests at its face value. But something lies behind all this. What is it? Jesus has done something to arouse the hostility of the chief priests. Pilate wishes to drag this out into the open in order to see whether it is something that offends against Roman law or not.

36 Jesus' reply admits that there is a sense in which he has a "king-dom." But he stresses that it is not a kingdom as the world understands kingdoms.⁸³ It does not take its origin from this world,⁸⁴ and it is not basically connected with this world. To demonstrate his point Jesus points out that his followers are not engaging in any military activity.⁸⁵ Had he been interested in what this world calls a "kingdom" a necessary first step would have been to recruit soldiers. His servants would be fighting men. But now, as things are, it is plain to all that he looks for no kingdom from this world. The words "to prevent my arrest by the Jews" are rather strange since he is being accused of being "the King of the Jews." But the setting of "the Jews" in opposition to "the King of the Jews" brings out the absurdity of the charge.

37 Pilate's words can be taken in more ways than one.⁸⁶ They might be a statement, "Then (since you speak of a kingdom) you are a king." Or they might be spoken in irony, "So then, it is a king that you are!" More probably they are a question, but if so they will not be a simple request for information. Rather they will signify, "So you are a king?" with a note of irony, an irony underlined by the use of the emphatic pronoun you. Irony or not, the words affirm Jesus’kingship, one of John's great themes. Jesus' reply is not easy to translate. His "you say"⁸⁷ does not negate Pilate's words, but it is not enthusiastic. "I didn't say that, but if you put it that way I can scarcely say 'No' " is about the force of it: "It is your word, not mine."⁸⁸ The kingship that the Jews completely rejected and Pilate affirmed ironically is a fact. John will not let us miss it, though it is a very different kind of kingship from that of which Jesus' enemies spoke. Then Jesus proceeds to the kind of statement he prefers. His "I" stands in sharp contrast with "you"; he distances himself from Pilate. There is a purpose in his life, and this purpose concerns "the truth" (for this term see Additional Note D, pp. 259-62). He came to bear witness to the truth, to point people to the real truth. This is not the abstract concept of truth over against falsehood, but the religious truth that we have seen throughout this Gospel, a truth closely related to Jesus' person (14:6) as well as to his mission. And the witness that he bears to this truth elicits a response from "everyone on the side of truth."⁸⁹ Such will indeed hear Jesus and accept what he says.

Jesus goes on to speak of himself as having been born and as having come into the world,⁹⁰ a most unusual statement. Both affirmations can be paralleled elsewhere, but the combination is unusual, and in this situation, unexpected. The governor might not have understood all the meaning that Jesus put into the expression but at least it would impress him with the fact that Jesus was an unusual person and, further, that he was speaking of an unusual entry into this world. It is difficult to see how the implication that Jesus is claiming preexistence is to be avoided. He is saying that he had a purpose in coming into the world in the first place.

38 Pilate dismisses the subject. It is difficult to be certain whether he is "jesting Pilate"⁹¹ or whether he is wistful — his words could be taken in either sense. Either way his question ends the interview. He does not wait for an answer, which indicates that he did not look to his prisoner for infor-mation on the subject. This does not mean that John feels that there is no answer. He records no answer in words, but the whole of the following narrative of the death and resurrection of Jesus is John's answer in action (see further Additional Note D, pp. 259-62). On the cross and at the empty tomb we may learn what God's truth is. But Pilate's question was not an attempt to add to his store of knowledge; it was no more than a way of dismissing the subject. Pilate has learned what he wants to know. Jesus is no revolutionary.⁹² He represents no danger to the state.⁹³ He may safely be released, and indeed he ought in common justice to be released. Pilate accordingly sets himself to do this. He goes outside and speaks to the Jews. John does not refer to "the high priests" or the like. His words seem to mean that Pilate addresses himself to the crowd. He tells them that he has found no crime in Jesus. This statement is found three times altogether (here, and at 19:4, 6), characteristically with slight variations that do not affect the main sense. On this occasion Pilate evidently had in mind an appeal to the sympathies of the crowd. If they could be induced to give support to Jesus it would be easy to release him. It is possible, as Westcott thinks, that there was some division of opinion among the crowds, but that eventually the high priests prevailed (cf. Mark 15:11).

39 Pilate proposes to release Jesus. He draws attention to a custom that he speaks of as theirs ("it is your custom"), not as his own or that of the Romans. The custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover⁹⁴ is not attested elsewhere, but there is nothing inherently unlikely about it. Prisoners were sometimes released elsewhere on special occasions. The Synoptists do not add much to what John tells us; they simply refer to the custom as known and accepted. We learn from Mark 15:6 that the choice of prisoner to be released lay with the people. We would have gathered that from John's account, but he does not say so in so many words. Pilate was evidently trying to get the best of both worlds. If his plan succeeded he would be able to release Jesus, as he plainly wished to do. But he would also technically be convicting him, and by refraining from an acquittal he doubtless hoped to please the high-priestly party. In framing his question Pilate refers to Jesus as "the king of the Jews." The use of this full title might be expected to sway the people in Jesus' favor.

40 If that was the reason, the ploy failed. John tells us that the people cried out again (this last word is puzzling, as they have not been recorded as crying out up to this point; NIV has "back")⁹⁵ emphatically refusing Jesus and asking for Barabbas.⁹⁶ It may be that some, at any rate, from among the crowd had been hoping for the release of Barabbas, even before Jesus was arrested. It is very likely that his supporters had planned to take advantage of the custom. Even if this were not so, the crowd would surely have thought that Pilate should give them someone other than Jesus. There cannot have been many among them who thought of Jesus as a guilty man, and the amnesty was for the release of a criminal, not of a man undergoing trial and as yet uncondemned. The name Barabbas is thrust into the narrative without warning, and John proceeds to explain that its bearer was a brigand.⁹⁷ Incidentally this is all he does tell us, and it is a mark of his capacity for concentrating on what matters for his story that he does not even tell us that Barabbas was released. Mark tells us that Barabbas was imprisoned with men who had taken part in an insurrection and who had committed murder during it (Mark 15:7), while Luke adds the point that Barabbas himself was a murderer (Luke 23:18-19). Matthew says that Barabbas was "a notorious prisoner" (Matt. 27:16).⁹⁸ When all this is put together, it would seem that Barabbas was a member of the resistance movement. Because of his opposition to the Romans he would be a hero to many of the Jews, and they had no hesitation in preferring him to the Galilean. There is irony in the fact that the chief priests persuaded the people to ask for and secure the release of a man who was guilty of the very crime of which, though he was innocent, they accused Jesus.⁹⁹

ADDITIONAL NOTE H:

THE LAST SUPPER AND THE PASSOVER

A problem is posed by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels appear to record the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g., Mark 14:12ff.), while John seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified at the time when the Passover victims were being slain,¹⁰⁰ so that the Last Supper preceded the Passover (John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:36).

The principal points urged in favor of the idea that the Last Supper was a Passover meal are as follows:

Additional Note Η: The Last Supper and the Passover

However, many scholars are not at all convinced and the following reasons are urged against the identification:

Finally, John tells us that a soldier plunged a spear into the side of Jesus rather than breaking his legs, "These things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken' " (19:36). This appears to be a reference to the requirement that the bones of the Passover victim should not be broken (Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12). It would seem that John means us to think that Jesus' death was the real Passover sacrifice (cf. the similar view of Paul, 1 Cor. 5:7).¹⁰⁵

Such then is the evidence. It is possible to take up any one of a number of positions with respect to it. Confining ourselves to views that allow for substantial historicity in one or more accounts, the following views are possible:

We need say little about the first two suggestions. The evidence has been summarized. If it be held that no harmonization is possible, then it is a matter of making up one's mind which is to be preferred. Most modern authorities prefer the first view.¹⁰⁶

The third suggestion has been adopted by many scholars. On this view John 13:1 is interpreted to mean, "Before the paschal feast began, Jesus already knew that the time had come ..." (Knox's translation; so also Moffatt, Goodspeed, Amplified, Twentieth Century, etc.; Bultmann in his commentary supports this view, though he thinks there is textual confusion here). Grammatically είδὠς could be taken with the preceding as required by this translation, though it must be born in mind that ARV is also possible, "Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come. . . ."¹⁰⁷ The principal difficulty in the way of this is the expression "they wanted to be able to eat the Passover" (John 18:28; the same expression for "to eat the Passover" is used in Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:15). This has to be taken to mean, "keep the feast of unleavened bread" or perhaps to refer to one or other of the sacrificial meals included in this. In support of this are great names like Zahn and others, and more recently Geldenhuys has embraced this view. The great difficulty in the way of it is the fact that there does not appear to be an example of this expression from antiquity that does not mean "eat the passover supper."¹⁰⁸ Geldenhuys cites examples of the use of τὸ πάσχα to denote the whole feast of unleavened bread (Luke 22:1; Acts 12:1), and says that "John himself frequently uses τὸ πάσχα in this sense, e.g. in John ii.13, vi.4, xi.55, xviii.39 etc."¹⁰⁹. But in none of these passages is it clear that τὸ πάσχα refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread in distinction from the Passover supper itself. This is the crucial point. Geldenhuys does not notice that his position requires that τό πάσχα should mean not the Passover plus the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but, because on his view the Passover proper had already been eaten when the words of John 18:28 were spoken, the Feast of Unleavened Bread without the Passover. Ogg points out that some students deny even the former possibility: "Passover, they maintain, never meant anything other than the Paschal Supper; and, had not the need been felt of harmonising the Synoptic and the Johannine Passion narratives, the idea of understanding it in any other way would never have occurred to anyone."¹¹⁰

I doubt whether Ogg's extreme position can be maintained. The evi-dence of the New Testament itself, and the other evidence cited by Geldenhuys and others, is clear proof that the word could be used of more than the Paschal supper. But the words of Zahn are important: "the usage of the expression 'to eat the Passover' loosely and popularly for the entire seven days' or, properly, seven and a half days' feast, beginning with the slaughter of the Passover Lamb is adequately attested."¹¹¹ That the expression could apply to the Passover plus the Feast of Unleavened Bread is, in my opinion, clear. That it could be used of the Feast of Unleavened Bread without the Passover (which is what is required if John 18:28 is to be squared with the theory) is not.

This way of understanding the evidence perhaps cannot be ruled out as impossible. It has commended itself to scholars of great eminence. But it certainly comes a long way short of final demonstration. To my mind the absence of any example of the use of "the Passover" in the sense required is decisive. Until evidence is produced that "the Passover" can mean "the Feast of Unleavened Bread without the Passover," John 18:28 will remain a stum-bling block. Carson holds that my contention "has little weight" because he is arguing, "not that 'the Passover' refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread apart from Passover, but to the entire Passover festival" (p. 590). But he fails to deal with the point that on his view the Jews had already eaten the Passover meal. At the time of which John was writing nothing would have remained but the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Neither Carson nor anyone else known to me has produced evidence that the simple expression "the Passover" was ever used for the second part of the combined feast when the main part had already been eaten. It was the Passover supper that was the high point. It was that supper which gave its name to the whole. That it was possible to extend the word Passover to include what remained after that supper had been eaten is one thing; that it could be used of that remainder by itself is quite another. The meaning here is surely as in GNB, "in order to be able to eat the Passover meal."¹¹²

If we adopt number four, that the Passover took place at the time indicated in John, then the meal described in the Synoptics was not the Passover. One suggestion is that it was a kiddush.¹¹³ This was a little ceremony observed by religious groups who met on the eve of a sabbath or festival "to say a prayer of sanctification (kiddush) of the day over a cup of wine."¹¹⁴ A difficulty that seems to most people to make the idea impossible is that if the Last Supper were a kiddush it must have been put back twenty-four hours. Jesus died on Friday afternoon, so the meal must have been held on Thursday evening. But the sabbath kiddush could not take place on Thursday evening, which would be twenty-four hours before the commencement of the day in question. The kiddush had to take place as the day was beginning, that is, on the Friday evening. It cannot have been the sabbath kiddush. Nor can it have been the Passover kiddush, for the Passover kiddush "is the opening of the Passover meal and is said over the first cup."¹¹⁵ It could not take place twenty-four hours earlier. It seems that the kiddush simply will not do.

Others feel that the situation is best met by thinking of the meal as a haburah meal, that is, a meal held by a small company of like-minded people. Dom Gregory Dix argues for this, and he makes the point that had the Eucharist been instituted at a Passover we should have expected it to be an annual observance. The weekly celebration corresponds rather to the Haburah. He also argues that Mark's account bears traces of adaptation to liturgical interest.¹¹⁶ The difficulty with this is that none of the Haburoth known to us quite fills the bill. A. J. B. Higgins cites E. Gaugler for the view that "the haburah was an association of a particular kind, concerned with the observance of the Torah and with the performance of religious duties including attendance at special ritual meals held in connection with circumcisions, engagements, weddings, and funerals. There is no evidence of any other meals being held by these haburoth."¹¹⁷ Clearly Jesus and his followers do not form a group of this kind. N. Clark thinks that Higgins is too cavalier, but he likewise finds the Haburah hypothesis untenable.¹¹⁸

Somewhat akin to this is G. D. Kilpatrick's idea. He agrees that Jeremias has disposed of the idea that the Last Supper was a kiddush, but on the basis of an examination of a Jewish romance, Joseph and Asenath, he argues that there were other possibilities. There is evidence for the existence of a Jewish religious meal quite distinct from the Passover and sufficiently similar to the Last Supper for these two to have a common origin independent of the Passover.¹¹⁹

K. G. Kuhn gives this a somewhat greater precision by arguing from Joseph and Asenath to the meals of the Qumran covenanters. He argues that the Qumran cult meal gives us the clue to the Last Supper. There are four important points at which the Supper differs from the Passover, and in each it agrees with Qumran, namely: (1) It was confined to men, whereas the Passover was essentially a family observance with women and children pres-ent. (2) It was confined to the Twelve, the chosen members of Jesus' circle. (3) Jesus, not the paterfamilias, presides. (4) Jesus pronounces the benedic-tions over both bread and cup, whereas at the Passover the guest of honor was normally called on to give the benediction over "the cup of blessing."¹²⁰ Such arguments provide food for thought, though they have not convinced all. Matthew Black, in fact, rejects any argument based on Joseph and Asenath, which he holds "is not only late ... but obviously, in its only available form, a christianized document, and cannot be admitted as evidence.¹²¹

Another view is that the Supper was a special meal preceding the Passover.¹²² This seems more readily demonstrable than that the Synoptists regarded it as such. Any view that denies that the Synoptists regarded the Last Supper as a Passover meal seems unsatisfactory.

The idea that the Last Supper was not the Passover, but a meal of some such sort as those we have noticed cannot be ruled out absolutely. But it appears to be in conflict with the statements in the Synoptic Gospels, and few find the solution satisfactory. The Synoptists do seem to be talking about a Passover meal, and not about a meal of a quite different kind. As G. Ogg says, "According to all three Synoptists it was for a Paschal Supper that Jesus ordered preparation to be made, and that the meal to which he subsequently sat down with his disciples was such a supper is what all three of them plainly intend their readers to understand."¹²³

Another suggestion is that Jesus anticipated the proper Passover date, knowing that he was about to be killed, and held his own Passover a day early.¹²⁴ Against this Ogg quotes Luthardt: "A roasted lamb and a few cups of wine do not make a supper a passover supper. There would be needed in addition a series of ritual presuppositions or preliminaries (slaying in temple, etc.), which the individual could not supply for himself, and without which the passover meal was not conceivable for the Jewish consciousness."¹²⁵

Views such as these have not commended themselves as widely as those under heading three, but they cannot be ruled out altogether. While the kiddush view seems to be untenable it is not at all impossible that the Last Supper was a fellowship meal of some sort, but not the Passover. Since it was held very close to Passover time, and it was the only Passover the disciples held that year, for them it became the Passover. But there is a good deal of supposition about all such views.

The fifth view is that put forward originally by D. Chwolson and modified by Strack-Billerbeck.¹²⁶ There is some evidence that the Pharisees and the Sadducees used slightly different calendars. For the calculation of the date of the Feast of Weeks there was the instruction "From the day after the Sabbath . . . count off seven full weeks" (Lev. 23:15). The Pharisees took "sabbath" to mean "festival," that is, the Passover, and they counted from the day following Passover whatever day of the week it was. The Sadducees took "sabbath" in its normal sense of the seventh day of the week, so they counted from the Sunday after Passover (Men. 10:3; Hag. 2:4). The Samaritans (or some of them) incidentally seem to have agreed with the Sadducees on this point,¹²⁷ as did the Karaites and possibly others.¹²⁸ J. van Goudoever says, "In the beginning of our era there were two rival countings in Israel: a priestly and a more popular counting."¹²⁹ He sees John's calendar as different from that in the Synoptics, and he regards it as a compromise between the Pharisaic and the Sadducean.¹³⁰ The Talmud gives further evidence of calen-drical confusion, as in the dispute recorded between R. Jose and the rabbis (Shab. 86b-87a), with the former holding that the New Moon was fixed on a Sunday and the latter that it came on a Monday. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Matthew may presuppose a different method of counting the beginning of the day when he says, "Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matt. 28:1).¹³¹ It is difficult to reconcile this with the view that the day began at sunset unless we translate "after the sabbath" (as NIV does).

J. Morgenstern in a series of articles in the Hebrew Union College Annual has argued that there were three different calendars in use in biblical times.¹³² This does not help us in our particular difficulty, but it reinforces the evidence for the use of differing calendars during the period under dis-cussion.¹³³

A. Jaubert argues strongly that there were two calendars, the older, priestly calendar that we see in the Book of Jubilees, and the more usual one.¹³⁴ She thinks that Jesus was arrested on the Wednesday, not Friday, of Holy Week, an arrangement that would give more time for the events between the arrest and the crucifixion, but that seems to be in conflict with statements in all four Gospels (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42). This conflict, plus the speculative nature of some of her key material,¹³⁵ makes it difficult to accept her theory in its entirety.¹³⁶ But the evidence she brings forward strengthens the case for calendrical confusion at the time.

It is sometimes said that there is no evidence of divergent practice over against divergent theory. People might argue about the correct calendar, it is said, but they followed the official one. But this is surely refuted by the practice of the Qumran sect. They had strong views on the calendar and refused to abide by the rules of the Temple authorities, Matthew Black says forthrightly, "we can be certain that the Qumran sectarians or Essenes, an important and numerous minority in the Palestinian scene of the first century, did celebrate the Passover in the year of the Crucifixion at a different time from the official time promulgated by the Jerusalem Temple authorities."¹³⁷ W. M. Christie cites a further example, which is even more relevant. He refers to an occasion when the Sadducees bribed witnesses to give false evidence as to the date of the New Moon. The Pharisaic rabbis, however, came to know what had happened and kept the feast on the correct day. The result was that "these were sitting down (reclining) to-day, and those were sitting down on the morrow."¹³⁸ Here we have divergent practice as well as different ways of understanding the correct date. A point in favor of the calendar divergence view is that the accounts of the Last Supper make no mention of the lamb nor of such characteristic Passover dishes as the bitter herbs. If the Temple authorities held to one view of the correct day for the Passover and if Jesus and his followers held with those who accepted an alternative view, then they would not have been able to obtain a lamb duly sacrificed at the temple and their celebration would necessarily differ from what might have been ex-pected.¹³⁹ This is not final, but it may be a pointer.

*    *    *    *    *

The evidence is thus confusing, and it is not in the least surprising that scholars have come to very different conclusions. I do not see how we can be dogmatic in our present state of knowledge. The most natural reading of the Synoptists shows the Last Supper there to be the Passover. The most natural reading of John shows that Jesus was crucified at the very time the Passover victims were slain in the Temple. While it is undoubtedly possible to interpret the accounts in such a way that we make them tell the same story, it seems better to see them as the result of following different calendars. According to the calendar Jesus was following the meal was the Passover. But the Temple authorities followed another, according to which the sacrificial victims were slain the next day. John appears to make use of this to bring out the truth that Christ was slain as our Passover.¹⁴⁰

There are many discussions of the problem, but the following may be cited: N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (London and Grand Rapids, 1950), pp. 649-70; T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, III (Edinburgh, 1909), pp. 273-83, 296-98; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament (London, 1952), ch. II, also NTS, I (1954-55), pp. 200-209; A. Jaubert, La Date de la Cene (Paris, 1957); J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Oxford, 1955), ch. I; N. Clark, An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments (London, 1956), ch. IV; W. M. Christie, ExT, XLIII (1931-32), pp. 515ff.; K. G. Kuhn in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (London, 1958), ch. V; G. Ogg, "The Chronology of the Last Supper," in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, SPCK Theological Collections no. 6 (London, 1965), pp. 75-96; A. R. C. Leaney, "What was the Lord's Supper?" in Theology, LXX (1967), pp. 51-62; I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Exeter, 1980), pp. 57-75.

ADDITIONAL NOTE I: THE RIGHT OF THE JEWS

TO INFLICT THE DEATH PENALTY

The statement in John 18:31 is categorical: the Jews had no legal right to inflict the death penalty. But the situation is complicated by the fact that the Romans clearly had no hand in the execution of Stephen. It is, of course, possible to regard this death as a lynching rather than an official legal execution. Against this, Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:12), presided over by the high priest (Acts 7:1). There were wild scenes at the end of his speech (Acts 7:54, 57), but on the other hand the stoning may have taken place in proper legal form, for the witnesses laid down their clothes, apparently in an orderly manner, at the feet of a young man called Saul (Acts 7:58).

Josephus mentions another stoning at a slightly later time, namely that of James the Lord's brother.¹⁴¹ But this was carried out at a time when there was no governor in the country and Josephus makes it clear that it was considered highly irregular. Indeed, the high priest was deposed on account of it. The Mishnah, in addition to giving many and detailed regulations about the methods of execution, tells us that R. Eliezer spoke of the execution of a priest's daughter for adultery.¹⁴²

It is argued that the inscription prescribing the death penalty for any Gentile who entered the inner courts of the Temple presupposes the right to carry out the death sentence. Even Romans were subject to this penalty.¹⁴³ Actually this proves the opposite. It was a special concession granted by the Romans on account of the delicate situation in Jerusalem. Had the Sanhedrin possessed this power there would have been no necessity for the special arrangement. In any case this provision applied expressly to Gentiles; it gave the Sanhedrin no rights whatever against Jews. Further, certain statements in Josephus appear to mean that only the Romans could inflict the death sen-tence.¹⁴⁴ There is also a Jewish tradition that the right of executing the death penalty was taken from the Jews forty years before the destruction of the Temple.¹⁴⁵ It is inherently likely that the Romans would forbid the Jews to execute people, for to permit such a practice would open up the way for subject peoples to engage in judicial executions of the supporters of Rome. The number of executions cited by those who hold that the Jews did have the right to carry out the death penalty is very low indeed, which seems to indicate that the procedure was rare and irregular.

The facts are best explained if we hold that the Romans retained for themselves the right to impose the death penalty, but that, in exceptional circumstances, when there was considerable popular support, the Jews might take the law into their own hands without much fear of Roman reprisals. Another view, which amounts to much the same thing, is that they could pass the death sentence, but carry it out only when the Roman authorities confirmed it. On this occasion, however, the amount of popular support on which the priests could rely was very uncertain. They themselves feared to arrest Jesus during the feast lest there be a riot (Mark 14:2). Clearly this was a time for sticking to the letter of the regulations, and getting the Romans to take action (and bear the responsibility!).

Hoskyns has the interesting view that the use of the verb ὰποκτείνω is important. He holds that it means death by crucifixion and not by stoning (the Jews would not have regarded stoning as "killing" any more than did the officers of the Inquisition the burning of a heretic). The Jews, he thinks, could stone a man but not crucify him. On this occasion they wanted the penalty to be that for sedition, not blasphemy. Hoskyns takes the words, "judge him by your own law," as permission to cany out a stoning.¹⁴⁶ This is perhaps possible, but it falls a long way short of demonstration. Michaels regards "Hoskyns' extremely subtle distinction between killing and the shedding of blood" as doubtful. He argues that 18:31 means that Jesus "has not been convicted of any crime by the Sanhedrin" (NTS, 36 [1990], pp. 474-79; the quotations are from pp. 478 and 478-79). But in this he seems to be over-looking the force of 11:53. His discussion is interesting but not convincing as to the latter point. Incidentally, Chrysostom long ago maintained that the Jews could stone Jesus but that they wanted a crucifixion.¹⁴⁷ Strachan should also be mentioned. He thinks that the Jews retained the right to stone for religious offenses, but that they had no such right in cases of sedition. For reasons of their own they wanted Jesus convicted of the latter offense, which meant crucifixion by the Romans.

The best discussion still appears to be that of A. N. Sherwin-White.¹⁴⁸ He makes it clear that "the capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted to the principal assistants of the governors,"¹⁴⁹ and that the available evidence strongly supports John's statement.

————————————————

1. Cf. Murray: John "has no wish to conceal or deny the reality of the deep waters through which the soul of Jesus had to pass. He has already recorded (12:27) an agony in the Temple Courts. But he seems to have felt, as he looked back over the whole story, that there was another side even to the human experience than that which met the eye. We have already seen that to him the Cross, so far from connoting humiliation and defeat, was the symbol of uplifting, of glory, and of victory. So here, he is content to recall the spiritual struggle by a single phrase (verse 11). He records exclusively words and deeds which shewed that Jesus remained throughout absolute master of the situation. He is so, of course, even in the Synoptic account: but there is so much else in the picture that the fact may easily be overlooked."

2.  This is one of only three places in which John uses the preposition σύν (elsewhere, 12:2; 21:3). Some make a distinction of meaning between σύν τοις μαθηταῖς here and μετά των μαθητών in the next verse, but it is better to see this as another example of Johannine variation.

3. His word is κήπος (which some render "orchard"). Matthew and Mark call it a χωρίον (Matt. 26:36; Mark 14:32), while Luke simply says that they went to the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:39). Clearly the place was situated on the lower slopes of Olivet, though we cannot be sure exactly where. A very old garden with olive trees is the traditional site,and it may be correct. But it is impossible to be certain. Indeed, there may be significance in the use of ήν, "there was (not is) a garden." It may perhaps indicate that the garden had been destroyed by the time the Gospel was written. The verbs "went into" and later "went out" (v. 4) seem to indicate a walled garden.

4. The reading τοϋ Κέδρων, though supported only by A pc lat, has much to commend it, the other two variants, τοϋ Κέδρου and τῶν Κεδρῶν, having the appearance of corrections. This will indicate that the name of the brook was Κεδρών, the word being indeclinable. Some think that the plural article should be read to give the meaning "the brook of the cedars" (τῶν Κέδρων), but this seems less probable. As far as is known, no cedars grew there, and this looks like an attempt at providing an etymology for a previously existent name. Κεδρών is the transliteration of the Hebrew, which appears to have the meaning "dark." The connection with "cedar" is purely fortuitous. The Kedron is described as a χείμαρρος, that is a wadi for the most part dry in summer, but with a flowing stream in winter. John is the only New Testament writer to speak of it.

5.  The word is σπεῖρα, "the Gk. word used to transl. the Lat. 'cohors'. ... In our lit. prob. always cohort" (BAGD). A cohort was the tenth part of a legion and thus normally compromised 600 men (though in practice the number varied a good deal). It was com-manded by a χιλίαρχος (cf. v. 12). John will not, of course, mean that 600 or so soldiers took part in the arrest but that the "cohort" performed the task; in other words, a detachment was sent. Some point out that σπεῖρα was used on occasion of a maniple, which was one third of a cohort, that is, 200 men. But even this is rather large. John is surely not saying that the whole σπεῖρα was present, but rather using a form of speech like our "the police came to arrest the man." Yet we must bear in mind that the Romans could use surprisingly large numbers of soldiers where one prisoner was in question (Acts 23:23), and that here they may well have feared a riot.

6. 1994b.

7.  Robinson points out that all the Synoptists say that Jesus asked "Do you take me for a bandit (ληστής) . . . ?" and proceeds, "Now if we ask whom we should expect to arrest such a terrorist or freedom fighter, there can only be one answer," and he proceeds to ask who arrested Barabbas whom John calls a ληστής (Priority, p. 241). It is no marvel that the Jews were able to enlist the aid of the Romans in arresting Jesus.

8. The Temple guard was unarmed on occasion (cf. Josephus, Bell. 4.293), but now they, as well as the soldiers, carried weapons.

9. John mentions φανοί as well as λαμπάδες. Commentators cite a statement from Phrynichus that shows that in earlier days the two terms were synonymous. By New Testament times, however, φανός had come to mean a lantern, λαμπάς denoted a torch, made of resinous strips of wood fastened together. It is sometimes rendered "lamp" in the New Testament, but Plummer suggests that this translation is best left for λύχνος. There is a good discussion of "The Household Lamps of Palestine in New Testament Times" by Robert Houston Smith in ΒΑ, XXIX (Feb. 1966), pp. 2-27. He agrees that λαμπάς here denotes a torch, though it will be a lamp in the story of the Ten Virgins (J. Jeremias, however, argues for torches as the meaning here also; "Lampades in Mt 25.1-13," in Soli Deo Gloria, ed. J. McD. Richards [Richmond, Va., 1968], pp. 83ff.). He thinks of φανοί as "roughly cylindrical terracotta vessels with an opening on one side large enough for a household lamp to be inserted, its wick facing outward; a ceramic ring — or strap — handle on the top permitted easy carrying. Occasionally lanterns may have had built-in lamps" (p. 7; no lanterns of precisely this period are known, but Smith describes what are found both before and after).

10. quot;The objection that lanterns would not have been needed for this was the time of the nearly full paschal moon is weak: common sense indicates that an olive grove would have had dark corners in which a man might hide" (Brown).

11. έξήλθεν, corresponding to εἰσηλθεν (v. 1), probably means that he went out from the Garden. Others suggest that it means out of the gloom into the light of the torches, or out of the recesses of the garden into the open places where the soldiers were.

12. Ίησοϋν τον Ναζωραΐον. Jesus is characteristically designated by this term (Ναζωραΐος is found 13 times and Ναζαρηνός 6 times). Its meaning is not certain, and many have pointed out that linguistically the transition from Ναζαρέτ to Ναζωραΐος is not easy. However, it appears to have been made, for there can be no doubt but that in the New Testament Ναζωραῖος = ό ὰπὸ Ναζαρέτ. See the note by G. F. Moore in The Beginnings of Christianity, I (London, 1920), pp. 426-32, and the literature cited in BAGD.

13. Dodd reminds us that the repetition of the saying in the two following verses is not unlike that of ό υιός σου ζη in 4:50, 51, 53. He adds, "In each place an expression entirely natural in the circumstances is given a special importance by a repetition which is sufficiently unnatural to draw the reader's attention" (HTFG, p. 75, n, 2).

14. "Normally such a person would attempt to escape or to defend himself. But a man who in such a situation showed himself fully aware, dignified and active, could not but provoke a moment of uncertainty among a band of ruffians" (de la Potterie, p. 57).

15. The construction εἰ. .. ζητεῖτε conveys the sense "If (as is the case) you seek me." Jesus accepts the concentration of their attention on himself in order to ensure the freedom of his followers.

16. For ἵνα without a preceding principal verb see on 1:8.

17. For the redundant pronoun see on 1:27.

18. μάχαιρα denotes a long knife or a short sword φομφαία being the large sword). It is frequently said that it was illegal to carry such a weapon at Passover. J. Jeremias disposes of this contention by drawing attention to Mishnah Shab. 6:4, wherein R. Eliezer declares that a man's weapons, including his sword, are his "adornments" and therefore legal. Jeremias contends that R. Eliezer is "the constant champion of the earlier tradition" (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [Oxford, 1955], p. 50). This may be so, but in the passage in question Eliezer is cited for a dissenting opinion, the one put forward being that the weapons are not legal. Jeremias's argument can scarcely be called impressive. This does not, however, mean that it cannot have been the feast. Desperate men do not normally respect ecclesiastical niceties.

19. This is more probable than the view of A. J. Droge that "the author intended to draw attention again to his (i.e. Peter's) obtuseness and inability to comprehend who Jesus was and what he was about to do"; "It is to reveal Peter as one who is not a ΰπηρετής of Jesus" (JBL, 109 [1990], pp. 310, 311). Droge overlooks the fact that in the crisis not only Peter but all the Twelve were found wanting.

20. D. Daube draws attention to Jewish passages referring to the slitting of men's ears as a means of disqualifying them for priestly office and he thinks that the high priest was being insulted through his servant: "he would be seriously and suggestively disgraced by having his servant mutilated in this particular manner" (JThS, n.s., XI [1960], p. 61). There may be something in this, but I am inclined to think that the striking of the ear was probably not deliberate. After all it is a small target, and Peter was not an expert swordsman. It is more likely that he struck out wildly in the general direction of the head and in the uncertain light hit only the ear.

21. Calvin comments: "it was exceedingly thoughtless in Peter to try to prove his faith by the sword, while he could not do so by his tongue. When he is called to make confession, he denies; but now unbidden by his Master he raises a riot. Warned by such a striking example, let us learn to moderate our zeal. And as the wantonness of our flesh ever itches to dare more than God commands, let us learn that our zeal will turn out badly whenever we dare to undertake anything beyond God's Word."

22. The verb is βάλε.

23. The emphatic ού μή leaves no room for doubt.

24. John does not mention Jesus' agony in the Garden but de la Potterie points out that these words show that he was aware of it (p. 46).

25. ό χιλίαρχος and ή σπείρα. The former term may, of course, be used of officers other than the tribune, the commander of a cohort; see, for example, Mark 6:21; Rev. 6:15; 19:18. But it is generally used in the technical sense, and the conjunction here with σπείρα seems to put the matter beyond doubt.

26. ee J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus (Westminster, Maryland, 1969); P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Basel, 1961). There is a very valuable chapter in W. Barclay's Crucified and Crowned (London, 1961), pp. 56-78, and see also J. Moffatt's article in HDCG; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I'Empire Romain, II (Paris, 1914), pp. 127-52; S. S. Smalley in ISBE, II, pp. 1049-55. A. N. Sherwin-White has a very useful discussion and makes some cogent criticisms of the positions taken up by Winter and Juster (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Oxford, 1963], pp. 24-47). He shows that all four Gospels have impressive agreements with Roman law and custom. His discussion is more valuable than most of the others because of his intimate acquaintance with Roman legal practice.

27. Cf. Moffatt, "the insuperable difficulty about eliminating the Annas trial is the impossibility of detecting any adequate motive for its invention and introduction" (HDCG. II. p. 751).

28. Lord Chamwood comments that in this scene "there is no doctrinal purpose served, but it is a scene full of character and life, which really enriches the history which we obtain as a whole when we take the Gospels together" (According to John [London, n.d.], p. 99).

29. MacGregor thinks that Annas may have resided at the "bazaars of the sons of Hanan," and that these were on the Mount of Olives. If this were so Annas would have lived close to the place of arrest and it would be very natural to take Jesus there. Calvin also suggests that Annas's house may have been convenient to the place of arrest. But there does not appear to be a great deal of evidence to support the conjecture.

30. ut it is to be borne in mind that all who had held the office of high priest were designated by the term. Josephus affords a number of examples (e.g., Bell. 4.151, 160). Thus Annas may well be meant (though the reference to Caiaphas in v. 13 makes this less likely. Annas is specifically referred to as high priest (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6). It is also to be borne in mind that John uses the plural "high priests" in verse 35. It is difficult to envisage what this means unless Annas was included. It is best to retain the order and take the term here to refer to Annas.

31. Some interpreters lay stress on the fact that the Sinaitic Syriac has the order 13,24, 14-15,19-23,16-18, 25. Such an order makes sense, but it is more likely that some scribe altered the accepted order to this one because of the difficulties he saw in the text than that this MS alone preserves the correct order. The simplest alternative is to read verse 24 immediately after v. 13. Torrey suggests that this was the original order. He thinks that a scribe when writing verse 13 had in his mind 11:51, so that his eye naturally alighted on verse 14. Having written it, he realized that he had omitted a verse and, to repair the damage, inserted the omitted words at the first opportunity, in this case after verse 23. But it is too much to say, with Torrey, "the explanation is both simple and certain." In fact it is neither. And it gives no account of the fact that the MSS almost unanimously have the present order. This is the big stumbling block. Why should the overwhelming majority of scribes transform their intelligible order of verses to conform to this one scribe's error (which Torrey thinks "presents a most astonishing contradiction")? Had scribes no capacity for astonishment?

32. Cf. Barclay, "If the stalls in the Temple which Jesus had overturned really were the property of Annas and his family, no doubt Annas used his position to arrange that Jesus should be brought to him first, that he might gloat over the downfall of the presumptuous Galilean" (Crucified and Crowned, p. 61).

33. For John's use of άνθρωπος of Jesus see on 4:29.

34. Cf. Chrysostom, "no one should wonder that he followed, or cry him up for his manliness. But the wonder was that matter of Peter, that being in such fear, he came even as far as the hall, when the others had retreated. His coming thither was caused by love, his not entering within by distress and fear" (83.2; p. 308).

35. On this point cf. Dodd, "It is now generally recognized that γνωστός implies something more than mere acquaintance. It means that the person so described was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth, or atany rate one who stood in intimate relations with the governing high priestly family" (HTFG, pp. 86-87). Horsley provides documentary evidence for the use of the term in the papyri in the sense "close friend" (New Docs. 4, p. 143).

36. Murray takes this for granted. Westcott thinks that "The reader cannot fail to identify the disciple with St. John" (the expression used here, άλλος μαθητής, is used of the beloved disciple in 20:2, 3, 4, 8). Calvin, however, calls this "a weak conjecture."

37. It is possible to account for it, however. One line of argument is that John seems to have come from a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), who is called one of "the daughters of Aaron" (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John came from a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. a.d. 190) which says that John "was a priest wearing τὸ πέταλο ν" (Eusebius, HE 3.31.3). The passage is obscure. It is not known for certain what the πέταλον was, nor whether others than the high priest might wear it. But Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest. There is nothing improbable about all this, but the reasoning comes short of proof. Others point out that there was a large trade in salt fish between Galilee and Jerusalem and that Zebedee was a sufficiently well-established citizen to employ workmen (Mark 1:20). They suggest that there is nothing unlikely in holding that merchants in a big way may have had contacts with the high priest, possibly even to the extent of supplying his household with fish. This, again, is possible, but it cannot be demonstrated. The most that we can say is that quite reasonable ways in which the son of Zebedee might have become known to the high priest have been suggested.

38. The expression προς τῇ θύρα is to be noted, for πρός with the dative is found in this Gospel four times only, here, 20:11, 12 (bis) (by contrast John uses this preposition with the accusative 97 times). In each of the four cases close proximity is signified.

39. The subject of είσήγαγεν is uncertain. The meaning might be "he brought Peter in" or "she admitted Peter."

40. The question is introduced by μή, as is that in verse 25. But in verse 26 there is a change to ού. Moffatt misses this by rendering all three questions as though the answer expected was "Yes." Rieu translates here, "Surely you are not another of that man's disciples?" (as NIV). He has a similar rendering in verse 25, but in verse 26: "Didn't I see you with him in the garden?" This is surely the way the Greek should be understood.

41. Temple (on vv. 25-27) remarks that "To accept the suggestion" of this first question "is scarcely more than a refusal to look for trouble. The suggestion is that he is not likely to be a disciple, and no one will suppose he is unless he says so; he had little more to do than to let well alone. But that little more is fatal."

42. oί δούλοι will be the high priest's slaves and οί ύπηρέται members of the temple guard (cf. v. 3).

43. The perfect πεποιηκότες seems a little strange. But John is fond of the perfect and there may be no more significance in it than that.

44. John alone speaks of a charcoal fire. He uses άνθρακία again in 21:9, the only places where the word occurs in the New Testament. In both it is a mark of his fondness for exact detail.

45. According to Barrett this is not attested explicitly before Maimonides. But he agrees with Abrahams that the earlier texts that we have imply the principle. Barclay says: "One curious feature of legal procedure in the Sanhedrin was that the man involved was held to be absolutely innocent, and, indeed, not even on trial, until the evidence of the witnesses had been stated and confirmed. The argument about the case could only begin when the testimony of the witnesses was given and confirmed. That is the point of the conversation between Jesus and Annas in John 18.19-21. Jesus in that incident was reminding Annas that he had no right to ask him anything until the evidence of witnesses had been taken and found to agree" (Crucified and Crowned, p. 58).

46. Hendriksen thinks the order of the questions, first the disciples and then the teaching, is significant: "That is exactly what one can expect from Annas! He was far more interested in the 'success' of Jesus — how large was his following? — than in the truthfulness or untruthfulness of that which he had been teaching. That is ever the way of the world."

47. Josephus records that a certain Samaias, "an upright man," said that everyone who came before the Sanhedrin "has shown himself humble and has assumed the manner of one who is fearful and seeks mercy" (Ant. 14.172; Brown draws attention to this passage). Jesus' demeanor must have been very unusual.

48. παρρησία, "openly," is a word that is often rendered "boldly" so that here there will be the thought of outspokenness as well as of publicity.

49. There is no article with ἐν συναγωγῇ, "in synagogue," that is, in the syn-agogues generally. But there was only one temple, so that the next phrase is ἐν τω ίερώ.

50. The perfect άκηκοότας may mean "heard and retained."

51. ούτοι and έγώ are set in balance at opposite ends of the clause. This puts a certain emphasis on both words and sets them in contrast to one another.

52. Lagrange makes the interesting point that the interrogation was necessarily self-defeating. Annas was looking for something Jesus had not disclosed in his public teaching; that is, the high priest thought Jesus had dissembled. But "What would be the use of his own testimony if one suspected him of having concealed his teaching?"

53. ράπισμα originally meant a blow with a rod or the like, but it came to mean a blow struck with the open hand, a slap, and especially a slap in the face. This seems to be its New Testament meaning. In the New Testament it is found only in the passion narratives (Mark 14:65; John 19:3), and Dodd thinks it may have been suggested from its use in Isa. 50:6 (HTFG, p. 39, n. 3).

54. Commentators sometimes cite this incident as evidence that the examination must have been informal. They reason that before the Sanhedrin an official would not behave in this fashion. It is, however, recorded in the Talmud that in a case before R. Papa an attendant "nudged" (or "kicked"; the verb is ) one of the parties to make him stand (Sheb. 30b). The inquiry before Annas may well have been informal, but this incident from the Talmud shows that the blow in the face does not prove it.

55. Those who complain that Jesus is not obeying his own injunction to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39) were answered long ago by Augustine: "those great precepts of His are to be fulfilled not by bodily ostentation, but by the preparation of the heart. For it is possible that even an angry man may visibly hold out his other cheek. How much better, then, is it for one who is inwardly pacified to make a truthful answer, and with tranquil mind hold himself ready for the endurance of heavier sufferings to come" (61.4; p. 420).

56. Cf. Hamilton: "the examination is inadequate, illegal, and, in verse 22, brutal."

57. KJV translates the aorist άπέστειλεν "had sent." This is a way of getting around the difficulty of the examination before Annas and not Caiaphas. It indicates that, though it is only now mentioned that Jesus has been sent to Caiaphas, this in fact took place earlier. The examination will then have taken place before Caiaphas. But it is more than doubtful whether the translation is legitimate (though it is adopted by Knox). The aorist can, of course, on occasion be rendered by the English pluperfect. But there is nothing in the present context to indicate it and the οδν makes it very unlikely. Burton, indeed, sees the "valid objection" to the pluperfect "in the presence of οΰν, which is, in John especially, so constantly continuative, and in the absence of any intimation in the context that the events are related out of their chronological order" (Moods, 48).

58. Mark uses the imperfect ἠρνεΐτο of the second denial (Mark 14:70), whereas he prefers the aorist in the other two cases. This may point to a continuing action. The question kept getting put and Peter kept denying.

59. Milligan and Moulton see in this sort of thing the explanation of all the apparent discrepancies in the stories of the denials. "Not one only but many of the eager and excited spectators would ask the question, and of that number Luke and John might easily single out the person peculiarly prominent" (the last words apply to the third denial).

60. Barclay has a helpful comment: "it was the real Peter who protested his loyalty in the upper room; it was the real Peter who drew his lonely sword in the moonlight of the garden; it was the real Peter who followed Jesus, because he could not leave his Lord alone; it was not the real Peter who cracked beneath the tension and who denied his Lord. And that is just what Jesus could see. . . . The forgiving love of Jesus is so great that He sees our real personality, not in our faithlessness, but in our loyalty, not in our defeat by sin, but in our reaching after goodness, even when we are defeated."

61. A number of scholars think that not an actual rooster's crow is meant, but the bugle call that ended the third watch of the night, the gallicinium, or in Greek, ὰλεκ- τοροφωνία. This would give a precise time by which Jesus prophesied the denials. Bernard points out that the four watches of the night were called όψέ, μεσονύκτιον, άλεκτοροφωνία, and πρωί, so that if the trumpet sound were meant there would be singular appropriateness in the use of πρωΐ in verse 28. The events of that verse would then take place during the period technically known as πρωί. As noted there, however, this is not likely. In any case it is not certain that the Jews (as opposed to the Romans) divided the night into four watches. The Talmud describes a dispute as to whether there were three or four watches, and seems to favor the view that there were three.

62. The traditional view is that Pilate's residence was in the tower of Antonia. This may be right, but it is difficult to find evidence to support it. Philo tells us that on one occasion Pilate hung up some shields in Herod's palace (Leg. ad Gai. 299). Some years later Florus when governor lodged in the same palace (Josephus, Bell. 2.301, 328). This evidence is not enough to prove that Pilate must have lodged there and the whole matter must be regarded as uncertain (though many scholars accept the view that Herod's palace was the Praetorium in Jerusalem). In any case it would have been a temporary residence, for the Roman governor lived in the Praetorium at Caesarea (Acts 23:35).

63. Roman courts seem to have begun the day quite early, so that there would have been no great impropriety in seeking Pilate around dawn. Seneca speaks of "thousands hurrying to the forum at break of day — how base their cases, and how much baser are their advocates!" (De Ira 2.7.3; Loeb translation). Martial, it is true, mentions the third hour: "The first and the second hour wearies clients at the levee, the third hour sets hoarse advocates to work" (Epigrams 4.8.1-2; Loeb translation). But this can scarcely be taken to mean that the courts did not begin until the third hour.

64. Mishnah Ohol. 18:7. This does not apply to colonnades (Ohol. 18:9), to the open space in a courtyard, and to certain other appurtenances to the dwelling (Ohol. 18:10). Thus the Jews would be able to appear before the Praetorium, but not to enter it.

65. Barrett in his first edition accuses John of error here, saying, "The uncleanness the Jews would have incurred by entering the Praetorium would last only till the end of the day when it could be removed by a bath; in the immediately ensuing evening (the beginning of the next day) the Passover could be eaten." But in his second edition he recognizes that the situation is not so simple. He now says that "the controlling biblical passage" is Num. 9:7-10, which means uncleanness for seven days (those made unclean in this way were to keep the Passover a month later). But he holds that a division of opinion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai complicates the situation and he argues that "John's statement therefore that the Jews acted as they did in order that they might be able to eat the Passover is questionable." But the dispute between Hillel and Shammai concerned the admission to the feast or exclusion from it of someone made a proselyte on the day before Passover. It is irrelevant to the present discussion. It is not a response to the fact that if the priests had become defiled at that time they would have been prevented from eating the Passover that evening and would have had to keep the Second Passover a month later. There is more to be said for John's position than Barrett will allow. It is true that some forms of uncleanness lasted only until evening, but in other cases, specifically that due to contact with a dead body, it lasted for seven days (Num. 19:11). This was so even without physical contact. Anyone who entered a tent in which a man had died was expressly said to be unclean for seven days (Num. 19:14). Now the reason that the houses of Gentiles were regarded as conveying uncleanness was that the Gentiles were thought to throw abortions down the drains (SBk, II, p. 839; Danby, p. 675, n. 10) Thus it was the defilement connected with the dead, and hence a seven-day defilement, that the houses of the Gentiles conveyed. Richardson holds that the Jews simply "wished to avoid having to undergo the necessary rites of purification." But this is assumption; it is not what John says. MiM holds that the priests had had their Passover slain, but that the events of the night had prevented them from eating it. They must eat it almost immediately in order to do so before daybreak, hence they could not afford a defilement that would last until evening. There is a good deal that is conjectural in this. But in any case the hypothesis is unnecessary once we have seen that the uncleanness in question lasted seven days. Jesus' enemies were being careful to avoid a ceremonial defilement that would have compelled them to postpone their eating of the Passover for a month. See further SFG, pp. 192ff.

66. Pilate is usually called a "procurator," but it now seems that the correct designation in pre-Claudian times was praefectus or "prefect." Pilate is given this title in an inscription found in Caesarea and cited in Sherwin-White, p. 12.

67. ούν must be held to have its full meaning here. Strictly έξω is redundant, but its insertion makes it quite plain that Pilate went outside.

68. For John's use of άνθρωπος with reference to Jesus see on 4:29.

69. Their expression is ἦν . . . κακόν ποιών, "habitually doing wrong"; they emphasize the continuity of his actions, ούτος is probably contemptuous, "this fellow."

70. His ύμεῖς is emphatic: "You take him. . . ."

71. The difficulty arises from the fact that on occasion the Jews did put people to death, for example, Stephen. See Additional Note I, pp. 695-96.

72. ίνα introducing the clause is sometimes regarded as imperatival ("let the word be fulfilled"). But this seems unlikely. See on 1:8.

73. σημαίνων ποίφ θανάτφ ήμελλεν άποθνήσκειν.

74. Strachan thinks that "the Evangelist sees divine significance in the shrewd and far-seeing determination of Caiaphas and his confederates to have Jesus crucified, not stoned."

75. Cf. A. G. Hebert and Ν. H. Snaith: "When Caiaphas decided that Jesus must be crucified, there can be no doubt that his intention was to attach to him the curse of Deut. 21.22-23: 'he that is hanged (on a tree) is accursed of God', so that every Jew would regard it as demonstrated that this was not God's Blessed One but a blasphemous imposter on whom God had broken out, and would say 'Jesus is anathema' (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3)" (BT, 3 [1952], p. 112).

76. Cf. Barrett: "It must be repeated that John has with keen insight picked out the key of the passion narrative in the kingship of Jesus, and has made its meaning clearer, perhaps, than any other New Testament writer."

77. Günter Reim agrees with B. A. Mastin that John sees Jesus as God and contributes the thought that in this passage "What the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel utters before Pilate and what he effects on the people who want to arrest him is messianic fulfilment of Ps. 45!" (NTS, 30 [1984], p. 159: Reim's italics).

78. πάλιν here can scarcely be used in the sense of "again," since there is no previous mention of Pilate's entering the Praetorium. The meaning must be "back" as in 6:15; 10:40 (where see notes).

79. There is no mention of Pilate as calling for an interpreter. Since it seems unlikely that the governor would have taken the trouble to learn Aramaic the inference is that Jesus spoke Greek and talked to Pilate in that language. But, of course, it may have been assumed that an interpreter was present.

80. "The trial of Christ was peculiar in that the accused made no attempt to defend himself. This was rare in Roman courts, but to prevent any miscarriage of justice there was a usage by which the direct question was put three times to the defendant before his case was allowed to go by default. Hence it was a correct technicality in Mark and Matthew, and also in John, when Pilate repeated his question to the silent Christ (Mark 15:2-4; Matt. 27:11-14; John 18.33-37)" (A. N. Sherwin-White, in History and Chronology in the New Testament, S.P.C.K. Theological Collections, no. 6 [London, 1865], p. 105).

81. Recent editors tend to read άφ' έαυτοϋ with W θ 33 etc. against ὰπὸ σεαυτοϋ with Β C etc. Moulton points out that in the plural the reflexive pronouns all tend to take the same form in Hellenistic Greek, namely έαυτούς. In the singular, however, the variant forms remain except with uncultured scribes. He says: "The presence or absence of this confusion in the singular is a nice test of the degree of culture in a writer of Common Greek. In the papyri there are a few examples of it in very illiterate documents . . . " (M, I, p. 87). He thinks that "late scribes, reflecting the developments of their own time, have introduced it" into the text here, at Rom. 13:9 and perhaps Gal. 5:14 (ibid.). BDF sees only "doubtful authority" for the form anywhere in the New Testament (64 [1]).

82. Μήτι έγὠ Ίουδαῖός είμι; In the New Testament μήτι seems always to imply a strong negative. There is force also in the use of έγώ (see on 1:20).

83. βασιλεία here probably has the sense "reign," "rule," perhaps "kingship" (RSV), rather than "realm" (Moffatt).

84. This will be the force of the preposition έx, as also έντεϋθεν later in the verse. Cf. Jesus' rejection of a worldly kingdom in the Synoptic temptation narrative.

85. The continuous tense ήγωνίζοντο may be significant: "they would be fighting," that is fighting now, not simply "they would have fought" at the time of the arrest. The same word ύπηρέται is used of the disciples in this character as was used of the high priest's retainers (18:3, 18, etc.).

86. The problem concerns the significance of οΰκουν. This might be accented οΰκουν, "not therefore," or ούκούν, "with the negative element lost" (AS), "therefore," "so then." The former, according to LS, is used in impassioned questions and is almost equivalent to ού. This would mean that Pilate looked for an affirmative answer, but this is most unlikely. The second way of taking the word would introduce a question expecting an affirmative answer, "So you are a king?" or for that matter a statement, "Well then, you are a king" (Weymouth, "So then you are a king!"). The word should be taken as ούκοϋν, and probably most modern versions are right in seeing the words as a question (so NRSV, REB, GNB, etc.). Moule accepts Westcott's suggestion, "So you are a king, are you?" (IBNTG, p, 165).

87. Σύ λέγεις δτι βασιλεύς είμι. Turner points out that the personal pronouns do not always convey emphasis in the New Testament, but he singles out this one as significant, "you have said it, not me" (Μ, III, p. 37; for personal pronouns in John see on 1:20). Moffatt, C. B. Williams, and others are too strong with "Certainly I am a king." Jesus is not receiving the suggestion warmly, but refraining from denying it outright.

88. REB tenders, " 'King' is your word," and Cassirer, "It is you who are saying that I am a king." It is, of course, possible to take the words as a question, "Do you say that I am a king?" but this is hardly likely. A further ambiguity arises from the use of δτι: "You say that I am a king" or "You say (this) because I am a king." With the question this would be, "Do you say so? For I am a king." BDF is definite on the point, saying, "not 'that', 'because, for' " is the translation of δτι (441 [3]). Westcott, however, regards this as "both unnatural as a rendering of the original phrase, and alien from the context." In my opinion the word should be translated "that."

89. For the force of the construction άκούω with the genitive see on 5:25. There is a parallel to ό ων έx της αληθείας in 8:47, namely ό ων έx τοϋ θεοϋ. For είναι έx see on 3:31. The men of Qumran linked themselves with the truth; see on 5:33.

90. γεγέννημαι strictly refers to the action of the male parent, but here it is used (as often) loosely of the whole process of birth. To "come into the world" is a typically Johannine expression (6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28), though not confined to John (1 Tim. 1:15). Cf. also references to Jesus as being "sent" into the world (3:17; 10:36, etc.).

91. Cf. Francis Bacon's well-known words from his essay Of Truth: "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."

92. The emphatic position of ούδεμίαν should not be overlooked. Pilate sees nothing at all amiss in Jesus. The pronoun έγώ may be meant to convey the sense "Whatever be the case with you, I . . . . " Turner, however, sees no stress in it and takes it to be an example of "superfluous ἐγώ" (Μ, III, p. 37). See further on 1:20.

93. Indeed, it is possible that his question is to be taken as meaning this. Cf. McClymont, "It was the question of a practical politician, who attached no importance to the speculations of philosophers or the dreams of enthusiasts. If truth was all that Jesus was concerned about, there was no need (Pilate thought) to take him seriously."

94. Mark does not mention the Passover but refers to the release of a prisoner κατά έορτήν, "at festival time" (Mark 15:6). Some interpreters have felt that Mark wishes this phrase to be taken to mean "at a feast," but this is unjustified (see Vincent Taylor, in 10c.). There is no reason for doubting John's more definite statement.

95. Lightfoot notes that a similar problem arises concerning the same word and the same incident in Mark 15:13. His solution is that πάλιν "not only is often used as a very light and unemphatic particle, but can also have a negative sense, 'on the other hand', e.g. Lk. 64 3 2 Cor. 107 1 Jn 28." Probably a better solution is that of Black, who sees a translation of the Aramaic inferential conjunction tubh, "thereupon" (AA, p. 82; he is referring to the Marcan passage).

96. Βαραββᾶς = "son of Abba" (or "son of the father"), or less probably "son of the master." The "son of Abba" is likely to have had a personal name of his own, and it is this that gives point to the reading "Jesus Barabbas" in Matt. 27:16-17. If his name were really Jesus there is obvious reason why the Christians should not have used it, preferring to call him simply "Barabbas." But the evidence is slight and falls a long way short of carrying conviction. Many have drawn attention to the fact that Barabbas, "Son of the father," was released, while Another, who was indeed "the Son of the Father," was condemned.

97. ληστής is used in 10:1, 8 of those set in opposition to the Good Shepherd. The Jews at this critical moment chose a robber in preference to the Shepherd.

98. The use of the article by John may signify much the same thing: "the wellknown Barabbas."

99. Plummer quotes from Ecce Homo: "Pilate executed Him on the ground that His kingdom was of this world; the Jews procured His execution precisely because it was not."

100. This is approximate only. The only time note in John is that it was "about the sixth hour," shortly before Pilate delivered Jesus up for crucifixion (19:14). The evening burnt offering was offered at half past the eighth hour unless the eve of the Passover coincided with the eve of a Sabbath when it was half after the seventh hour. The Passover was slaughtered after this (Mishnah Pes. 5:1).

101. It seems that the outer limit of Jerusalem was regarded as reaching to Bethphage (Men. 11:2 and several passages in the Talmud, as Pes. 63b, 91a; Men. 78b, etc.).

102. See A. J. B. Higgins in NTS, I (1954-55), p. 202 and n. 3.

103. This point will not stand since Jerusalem was regarded as extending to Bethphage (see n. 101). I mention it because it is urged by some, but their point seems quite invalid.

104. There is a discussion of the term παρασκευή in A. J. B. Higgins, NTS, I, pp. 206ff. He shows that the term had come to mean "Friday" so that in John 19 it will refer to the day of the week rather than to "Passover-eve." The critical point appears to be the absence of evidence that the term was used for the "eve" of any festal day other than the Sabbath. Barrett says categorically that the term does not mean Friday in Passover week (on 19:14; but he cites no example for its use for the eve of any day other than the Sabbath). C. D. Buck says equally categorically, "The day before the Sabbath was called παρασκευή" (A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages [Chicago, 1949], p. 1008). Bernard points out that had the meaning been "the Preparation day of the Passover" we would expect the definite article (on 19:14). Mark almost gives us a definition when he speaks of Παρασκευή, ό έστιν προσάββατον (Mark 15:42). This does not, of course, contain the expression τοϋ πάσχα, but it does give a strong presumption that παρασκευή by itself, as in John 19:31, 42, means Friday. And in any case Mark is speaking of the same day as John. MiM draws attention to a weakness in the "day before the Passover" idea; "It has never been shown that the day before the Passover was called 'The preparation of the Passover.' It has been conjectured that it was, because it is believed that the day before the Sabbath was called 'The preparation of the Sabbath.' No such name as this last has been pointed out" (on 19:14). The fact must be faced that no example of the use of παρασκευή is cited for any day other than Friday. The use for Friday is cited, both by linking the term with the Sabbath (Josephus, Ant. 16.163), and, from the second century, absolutely (Didache 8.1; Martyrdom of Polycarp 7.1). The evidence that the term was used for Friday must be accepted.

105. The Johannine date is supported by an argument from astronomy. The Synoptic date requires that 14th Nisan in the year of the crucifixion fall on a Thursday. G. Ogg cites evidence, mainly from K. Schoch and J. K. Fotheringham, to show that the only year from A.D. 26 to 36 when this happened (unless we assume abnormal circumstances) was A.D. 27, a year most scholars regard as impossible. But 14th Nisan was on a Friday, as required by John, in A.D. 30 and 33, both of which are real possibilities (Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, S.P.C.K. Theological Collections, no. 6 [London, 1965], pp. 92-96).

106. N. Geldenhuys has a very important Excursus on "The Day and Date of the Crucifixion" in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke in this series (pp. 649-70). He lists the principal authorities who hold these views (those who hold to the Synoptists, pp. 649-50; those who prefer the Johannine chronology, p. 650).

107. G. Ogg finds this the most natural understanding of the Greek: "Standing at the head of the sentence, this time-note is most naturally referred to its direct affirmation, 'he was to show them the full extent of his love'. Since according to what follows he did so on the occasion of the Last Supper, John here indicates clearly that that supper with all that Jesus did and said during and immediately after it took place before Passover" (Historicity and Chronology, p. 76).

108. B. D. Smith has argued for this position (WThJ, 53, no. 1 [1991], pp. 29-45) but, like the others who hold it, he does not produce any example of "eat the passover" with the meaning "eat the Feast of Unleavened Bread." He does indeed cite Mishnah Hag. 1:3 (p. 41), but this passage does not apply "Passover" to the feast of unleavened bread in distinction from the Passover and that is the critical point.

109. Commentary on Luke, p. 662.

110. The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge, 1940), p. 209.

111. Introduction to the New Testament, III (Edinburgh, 1909), pp. 282-83 (my italics).

112. Cf. Schnackenburg, "τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν means 'to eat the Passover lamb' " (III, p. 447, n. 11; Schnackenburg's italics). Another view is expressed in NEB mg at John 18:28, namely "Or could share in the offerings of the Passover season." But it is difficult to understand how this could be got out of the Greek and it is rightly abandoned in REB.

113. See, for example, J. Stephen Hart, A Companion to St. John's Gospel (Melbourne, 1952), pp. 152ff.

114. A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament (London, 1952), p. 14.

115. Higgins, p. 15. This is indicated by Mishnah, Pes. 10:2.

116. Jew and Greek (London, 1955), pp. 100-101.

117. Higgins, pp. 15-16.

118. An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments (London, 1956), pp. 45-48.

119. ExT, LXIV (1952-53), pp. 4-8; see the reply of Jeremias, pp. 91-92.

120. See SNT, ch. V, especially pp. 83-84.

121. The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961), pp. 105-6.

122. Vincent Taylor cites Chr. N. Ghiaouroff for such a way of reconciling the Synoptists and John (Theology, LVII [1954], pp. 60-61).

123. The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus, p. 215.

124. R. H. Fuller, for example, argues for an anticipated Passover, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London, 1954), pp. 70-71.

125. Ogg, p. 217.

126. SBk, II, pp. 812-53.

127. J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars (Leiden, 1961), pp. 20ff.

128. van Goudoever, pp. 22ff.

129. van Goudoever, p. 29.

130. van Goudoever, p. 226.

131. Cf. the discussion by G. R. Driver, JThS, n.s. XVI (1965), pp. 327-31. He thinks that certain groups, "probably Galilean in origin, long clung to the ancient custom of reckoning it from sunrise to sunrise" (p. 327), and he thinks that the men of Qumran did likewise.

132. I (1924), pp. 13-78; III (1926), pp. 77-108; X (1935), pp. 1-148. See also Η. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic (London, 1963), pp. 101ff.

133. E. Stauffer says forthrightly: "in Palestinian Judaism in the time of Jesus it is usual for the calendar of feasts to be calculated differently in different groups and regions — particularly in the calculation of the Passover" (Jesus and His Story [London, 1960], p. 95). A. Finkel makes it clear that different calendars were in use in New Testament times (The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth [Leiden, 1964], pp. 70ff.).

134. La Date de la Cène (Paris, 1957). N. Walker summarizes her argument, ExT, LXXII (1959-60), pp. 93-94.

135. See the review by J. Jeremias, JThS, n.s. X (1959), pp. 131ff. J. T. Milik also draws attention to some weighty objections (Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea [London, 1959], pp. 112-13).

136. She is, however, supported by J. Daniélou, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity (New York, 1962), pp. 27-8, and, more cautiously, by A. Gilmore, SJT, 14 (1961), pp. 256-69..

137. The Scrolls and Christian Origins, pp. 200-201. Black argues for the view that there was calendrical confusion behind the Last Supper. Similarly F. F. Bruce thinks that "a study of the calendar used by the Qumran community has strengthened the reasons for thinking that the discrepancies between the Synoptists and John regarding the chronology of Holy Week are due to the following of two distinct calendars" (Faith and Thought, 90 [1958], p. 99).

138. ExT, XLIII (1931-32), p. 518; the citation is from Jer. Rosh. 10b.

139. Bertil Gartner argues that Jesus observed a "lambless Passover" such as might have been held anywhere outside Jerusalem (John 6 and the Jewish Passover [Lund, 1959], pp. 44ff.). This could be a further way of reconciling the evidence, with the lambless Passover celebrated in this case a night before the orthodox Passover.

140. Cf. Bruce, "while John times his passion narrative with reference to the official temple date of the Passover, our Lord and his disciples, following (it may be) another calendar, observed the festival earlier" (p. 279). So also I. H. Marshall, "Our conclusion, then, is that Jesus held a Passover meal earlier than the official Jewish date, and that he was able to do so as the result of calendar differences among the Jews" (Last Supper and Lord's Supper [Exeter, 1980], p. 75).

141. Ant. 20.200.

142. Sank 7:2.

143. Josephus, Bell. 6.126.

144. He says that Coponius "was sent out as procurator, entrusted by Augustus with full powers, including the infliction of capital punishment" (Bell. 2.117); that is, from the beginning the procurators had these full powers. Cf. also Ant. 20.200-203.

145. SBk, I, p. 1027.

146. P. 518.

147. 83.4; p. 310.

148. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 36-43.

149. Roman Society, p. 36.

↑ Back to top