CHAPTER 18
When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it. John 18:1
The Kidron Valley was a deep ravine immediately east of the Temple Mount. A small stream (wadi), that was active in winter and dry in summer, ran through the valley. John mentions a garden but it is named as Gethsemane only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 26:36; Mk. 14:32). The name Gethsemane seems to have been taken from the Hebrew words for oil press.1 There were many olive trees in the area just as there are today. We know from Luke 21:37 and 22:39, that Jesus and his disciples often frequented this spot.
It is interesting that John omits Jesus’ agonizing prayers in Gethsemane. No doubt he felt that they were sufficiently covered in the other gospels. Perhaps Jesus would have longed for the warm hospitality of his friends, Lazarus and family at Bethany in this stressful time. However, during Passover, Jewish pilgrims were required to stay within a certain perimeter of the city.2
The Garden of Gethsemane, with its very ancient olive trees and the Church of all Nations, is a very popular tourist spot today. It seems that during Bible times many wealthy people had their private gardens in this area. It was forbidden to raise gardens and fertilize them with manure in the Holy City. No doubt, Jesus or his disciples had some wealthy friend who allowed them to use his private garden.3 On some of our tours to Israel our eldest son, who is an Israeli tour guide, would get permission for our group to spend some quiet time in one of these private gardens.
It is important for us to realize that the Gospel of John has much information that is not found in the other gospels. It includes Roman soldiers (who fall to the ground when confronted by the majesty of Jesus). It includes the meeting before Annas; the private conversation with Pilate; the giving of mother Mary to his Beloved Disciple; his body threatened with the breaking of legs; a full description of Jesus’ garments; his piercing by a soldier’s lance; and the activity of Nicodemus at his burial.4
Some things are absent in John’s account. These are Judas’ betrayal with a kiss; the agonizing prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane; the sleepiness of the disciples; the healing of the servant’s ear; the account of Simon of Cyrene; the account of the mocking crowds and Jesus’ cry from the cross.5 Tenney remarks that it is still this section which bears closest resemblance to the Synoptic Gospels.6
Commentators have noted the parallels of King David and his flight from Absalom as he crossed the Kidron on foot (2 Sam. 15:23). He too was fleeing from one of his very own who had betrayed him.7 It seems that Kidron was a place of sorrow. Today much of the eastern slope of Kidron is covered by a massive Jewish graveyard. We know at the end of the ages this valley, which is also known as the Valley of Jehoshaphat, will be the setting of the awful end-day conflict when God judges the nations (Joel 3:2, 12).
“Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples” (18:2). As we have mentioned, and as is noted here, Jesus and his disciples often resorted to this garden. Judas was well aware of its location. It was, in fact, a very short distance from the temple area. It is likely for this reason that Jesus and his disciples often lodged in the garden. Many of Jesus’ activities took place around the temple area and it was convenient for him to lodge nearby, but outside the city walls.
“So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. (18:3). It is only in John’s gospel that we read of Roman soldiers being involved. We know that a cohort (Gk. speira) was regularly headquartered at the Antonia Fortress on the northern side of the temple complex. This unit comprised a paper strength of a thousand men (760 infantry and 240 cavalry). The unit was commanded by a military tribune (Gk. chilarchos). 8 We need not think that the whole force was assigned to arrest Jesus. No doubt what we have represented here was a detachment to assist the temple police.9 We have noted earlier how the temple police were very inept at arresting Jesus (7:32, 45-47). This whole show of force seems absurd since they were sent out merely to arrest a Galilean peasant and his few followers.
Several commentators have ridiculed this motley crew with their clubs, torches and lanterns in pursuit of an unarmed peasant. Since it was Passover it was probably a bright night lit with the full moon. They were apparently prepared to search in every cave and dark grove to find the fleeing Jesus.10
Burge comments: “At the beginning, then, we have a signal of Roman interest in Jesus and a hint that Pilate may already be participating…The entire world – both Jew and Gentile – has come against Jesus.” 11 It was their hour and the power of darkness was with them (Lk. 22:53).
JESUS ARRESTED
Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” John 18:4
John omits the betrayal kiss of Judas and presents Jesus as in complete charge from the very first moment of this encounter. Barker and Kohlenberger say, “…his calm demeanor and commanding presence temporarily unnerved his captors.” 12
Burge comments: “…there are distinct theological emphases in John which must be understood. Throughout John’s Passion Jesus is sovereign; he will not be the victim. The cross is a fate that he has chosen voluntarily and which he controls…Jesus is protecting his followers (18:8) so that none will be lost (17:12)…” 13
“‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am he,’ Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)” (18:5). Jesus’ reply in the Greek is Egō eimi (I am). This can be understood in two ways, as “I am he,” or as an affirmation of the God of Israel, the Great I Am.14 We have seen similar expressions before in this gospel (e.g. 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58 and 13:19). Something about Jesus’ statement completely unnerved his opponents. No doubt the Jews remembered past instances when fire fell from heaven on those who were attempting to arrest the prophet of God (2 Ki. 1:9, 12).15
John notes that Judas was standing there with the arresting party. Pfeiffer and Harrison say of the poor wretch, “Judas…stood with them. At last he was in his own element, mingling with the enemies of Jesus.” 16
“When Jesus said, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground” (18:6). Perhaps it was an almost comical domino effect of one falling backwards and knocking the one behind him down and so forth. Clearly, there was something about Jesus that caused a near panic among these troops. Burge says, “…This is a theophany in which God has been revealed before mortals and the only response is to fall prostrate…Ez. 1:28.” 17 None of the other evangelists mention this important and strange encounter.
“Again he asked them, ‘Who is it you want?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they said. Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.’” (18:7-8). We cannot help but be amazed at how completely Jesus is in control of his own arrest. He was not taken, but he gave himself up for us. He continued to exercise his great authority in demanding that his disciples be let go. The mob seemed to agree with this request. To the very end of his earthly life the Good Shepherd cared for his sheep. Had they been delivered to this mob, some could have been killed. In a sense, “he sacrificed himself for their safety.” 18 It is only John who tells of Jesus sparing his disciples.
“This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: ‘I have not lost one of those you gave me’” (18:9). This verse no doubt refers back to Jesus’ sayings in John 6:39 and in 17:12. What a comfort is this verse to the sheep of God in this difficult and even dangerous 21st century. Jesus will not lose a single one who has come to him for salvation. Paul will later say, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39).
“Then 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.) Jesus commanded Peter, ‘Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?’” (18:10-11). Barker and Kohlenberger say, “The action of Peter illustrates the curious combination of loyalty and obtuseness that characterized him.” 19 Peter’s effort was rather amateurish. No doubt he was aiming for the head and missed, hitting only the servant’s ear. It is likely that Peter’s act was based upon the Lord’s counsel in Luke 22:35-38. Peter probably interpreted the Lord’s words literally when they were meant only in a symbolic sense.20 John alone names Peter as the swordsman and Malchus as the servant. Only Luke the Physician notes that Jesus healed the wounded ear (Lk. 22:51). It is Matthew alone who mentions Jesus’ words that those who take the sword shall perish by it (Matt. 26:52).
JESUS BEFORE ANNAS THE PRIEST
Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people. John 18:12-14
Jesus was bound like a dangerous criminal. It is only in John’s gospel where we learn that Jesus first went before Annas. History tells us that Annas was the high priest of Israel from the years AD 6 – 15. He was then deposed by the Romans and his son-in-law Caiaphas eventually took his place. However, the Jewish people felt that the priesthood was for life (Num. 35:25), so they continued to look up to Annas as a high priest. Caiaphas reigned as high priest from the years 18 – 36. He was in that position longer than any other high priest in the first century. However, Annas continued to be the power behind the throne. Luke even speaks of the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (Lk. 3:2). It is possibly for this reason that Jesus was taken first to Annas.
As we should know, the Romans kept a tight control on Israel’s priesthood. Even the high priest’s robes were kept in custody by the Romans in the Fortress of Antonia.21 The priesthood had become a cheap political office that was auctioned off by the Romans. The priests had become political pawns, out to make as much money as they could and to hold on to their political power whatever the cost. The priesthood was a far cry from the holiness and devotion seen of Aaron in the early days of that office.
The priesthood had total control of the temple and of all its sacrifices. The sacrificial animals were now often part of a fraudulent scheme, where legitimate sacrifices would be rejected and where the people would be forced to purchase animals at exorbitant prices from the priesthood. When Jesus cleansed the temple he probably did considerable financial damage to Annas and his cronies.22 They were the “den of robbers” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17and Luke 19:46.
We can understand how Caiaphas, although he unknowingly prophesied about Jesus’ death, certainly did not do so on purpose or for any true religious reasons. It was a prophecy purely made by accident (cf. 11:50).
PETER’S FIRST DENIAL
Simon 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, but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in. John 18:15-16
This is a sad and discouraging section, as Peter denies his Lord. However, we need to applaud him for wanting to follow Jesus all the way to his trial and death. The other disciples, except John, were long gone from the scene.
It would be good for us to try and locate this setting. For many years the Church of Saint Peter in Gallicantu in the upper city of Jerusalem has been considered the house of the high priest where Jesus was held and questioned. This house is quite a distance from the temple area with hundreds of steps up hill to its location. We can hardly imagine the priesthood living in a place so inaccessible to the temple. In recent years much new excavation has taken place under the auspices of the Wohl Archaeological Museum (Herodian Estates Museum) underneath the Jewish Quarter. Here archaeologists have found a very large and opulent building equipped with mikve pools and other accessories that would have been necessary for the priesthood. This large structure has immediate access to the temple compound. It is now thought by some that this is the real house of the high priest.
Perhaps the weightiest evidence for the high priestly compound comes from the nearby Burnt House Museum where they found an inscription on stone: “Dvar Kathros” and Kathros (Greek for purity) is a high priestly name we find in the Talmud – and that reference is to a priest in Jerusalem before 70 AD.23 We can assume from all this that there was a large priestly compound very near to the temple area. Many of the priests may have lived together in this area. Morris says, “ It is quite possible that Caiaphas and Annas shared the same palace…In any case it is not necessary to postulate a change of courtyard…” 24 Coffman says, “The sending of Jesus bound to Caiaphas involved nothing more than leading him across the courtyard.” 25
Through church history there has been much commentary about the identity of Peter’s companion. Early writers like Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, felt sure it was John himself, as John did often speak of himself in third person.26 This seems a very natural interpretation of the text. However, others have felt that it would have been impossible for a common fisherman like John to have had access to such elite company. These have conjectured that the other person may have been a disciple like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. These would surely have had access to the high priest. Some have mentioned that salt-fish from Galilee were exported all over the country and that John may have served the priestly families. We are not likely to arrive at a definitive answer to this question.
“‘You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?’ she asked Peter. He replied, ‘I am not’” (18:17). It is amazing that the first words out of Peter’s mouth were a denial of Jesus. His denial came immediately and apparently even in the presence of John. Wiersbe notes that in the Greek text she expected a negative answer and Peter quickly obliged her.27 Guzik quips, “He was bold with a sword in his hand, but a coward before a servant girl.” 28 Stedman also chimes in saying, “He believed like the little boy who said about a lie, ‘A lie is an abomination to the Lord, but a very present help in time of trouble!’” 29
“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” (18:18). Many Christians seem to think that Israel is a hot desert land. Some of it is, but Jerusalem has an elevation of around 2,500 feet (762 m.) and in the springtime it can get cold at night. Many times even in the summer a jacket is needed for Jerusalem at night. A small fire was built and the people out in the courtyard gathered around it to warm themselves. Peter joined in with them. We might say that whoever warms himself at the devil’s fire is certain to get singed.
JESUS BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST
Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. John 18:19
As we have mentioned, it is only John who tells us that Jesus was first questioned by Annas, the father-in-law of the reigning priest Caiaphas. Perhaps his residence was closest to them, but since Annas was in a sense the power behind the priestly throne, it was quite natural for him to be involved.
It is clear from the outset that the trial before Annas was a sham. Burge comments, “This is like a ‘police interrogation’…Jesus’ sharp answer – pointing out that Annas should be talking to witnesses – unmasks the priest’s attempt to make Jesus incriminate himself.” 30 Keener adds: “…it is doubtful that Annas is attempting to follow any law.” 31 The most obvious fallacy of this hearing was that it is being held at night. Clarke notes how the later Talmud spells out that criminal processes were required to commence and terminate during the day.32 Other illegalities were that no witnesses were present and these were required. Jesus makes note of their absence. Another illegality was Jesus being struck in the face.33
“‘I have spoken openly to the world,’ Jesus replied. ‘I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said’” (18:20-21). Here Jesus is making known the absence of witnesses. They should have been present for such a hearing. Actually, the defense witnesses should have been called first of all for such a proceeding and a person was not required to incriminate himself. Barclay comments:
It was an essential regulation of the Jewish law that a prisoner must be asked no question which would incriminate him. Maimonides, the great Jewish medieval scholar, lays it down: “Our true law does not inflict the penalty of death upon a sinner by his own confession.” …He [Jesus] was, in effect, saying: “Take your evidence about me in the proper and legal way. Examine your witnesses, which you have every right to do; stop examining me, which you have no right to do.” …The self-interest of Annas and his colleagues had been touched; and Jesus was condemned before he was tried.34
“When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. ‘Is this the way you answer the high priest?’ he demanded ‘If I said something wrong,’ Jesus replied, ‘testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?’” (18:22-23). The slap in the face was an illegal act since no sentence had been passed.35 It reflected a presumption of guilt when this was not the case at all. Jesus called their hand on this illegality. Barnes says, “While an accused person is on trial he is under the protection of the court, and has a right to demand that all legal measures shall be taken to secure his rights.” 36
“Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (18:24). The Synoptic Gospels do not mention Jesus’ going before Annas but they begin with Caiaphas (cf. Matt. 26:57). Annas may have realized that his questioning of Jesus was a bumbling disaster. Likely, he was anxious to get rid of Jesus so he sent him on to Caiaphas.
PETER’S OTHER DENIALS
Meanwhile, Simon Peter was still standing there warming himself. So they asked him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” John 18:25
We note that Peter is still warming himself by the charcoal fire. Bruce says, “The charcoal fire…it seems to have burned itself into someone’s memory, for Mark (14:54) and Luke (22:55) both mention it in their account…” 37
Once again Peter is questioned about his relationship to Jesus. Luke goes into considerable detail regarding this encounter. He says, “A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, ‘This man was with him.’ But he denied it. ‘Woman, I don’t know him,’ he said” (Lk. 22:56-57). From the different accounts it is a little confusing as to exactly who all these accusers were. It is possible that others added their agreement to these accusations.
“One 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 garden?’ Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow” (18:26-27). Jesus had predicted that Peter would deny him three times and sure enough it came to pass (Matt. 26:34; Jn. 13:38). Peter had attacked Malchus, a servant of the high priest, in the garden and guess who should show up to accuse him now? It was none other than the relative of Malchus. Once again we witness John’s first-hand knowledge of this event. Peter was obviously bewildered, frustrated and scared to be so accused. Once again he denied it. The other gospels give us a little more color for his last denials. Matthew 26:69-74 deals with these and we learn that Peter gave an oath with his second denial. In his third and last denial, “…he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, ‘I don’t know the man!’” (v. 74).
It was at that point that the cock crowed. The Lord had predicted that Peter would deny him three times before the cock could crow twice (Mk. 14:30). Luke mentions how at this very moment Jesus looked at Peter (Lk. 22:61). We know from Luke that Peter was suddenly smitten with remorse and wept bitterly. Previously Jesus had prayed for him that his faith would not fail (Lk. 22:32-32). It was a close call, but somehow Peter hung on through that terrible time.
Perhaps just a note on the cock crowing would be in order here. This might have been a Roman rooster, since keeping chickens was not allowed in the city of Jerusalem. However, we do not know how well this rule was enforced.38 The night was divided into four watches: 6 to 9 PM, 9 to 12 midnight, 12 midnight to 3 AM., and 3 to 6 AM.39 Burge reminds us that the cock crowing can take place anywhere between 3 to 5 AM.40
JESUS APPEARS BEFORE PILATE
Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. John 18:28
John obviously does not deal with Jesus’ lengthy trial before Caiaphas. Instead, he has Jesus going directly to Pilate. We know the night trial before Caiaphas went on for many hours while the meeting with Pilate was at daybreak, as was the Roman custom.41
The palace of the Roman governor was most likely the palace that Herod had built at the present Jaffa Gate on Old Jerusalem’s western boundary. Normally Pilate resided at Caesarea but for major holidays he came to Jerusalem.
For several centuries pilgrims have been told that the Roman governor lodged at the Antonia Fortress with all the other Roman troops. The famous Via Delorosa led out from that place. However, these traditions date only from Byzantine times. The location at Herod’s palace provided much comfort and seclusion. An added benefit was that it was located on a high point. From the top of the towers which Herod built one was provided with an excellent view of the Old City and the temple area. That grand vista was surely important to Pilate and his staff, allowing them to keep a close check on the temple.
We note that the Jewish officials refused to enter the palace lest they would become ritually defiled and not be able to celebrate the Passover. This brings us once more to the whole discussion of when the Passover was celebrated and at what point Jesus died. John relates very clearly that the Passover meal was to be celebrated on that coming evening. Therefore, Jesus would have died at exactly the time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered, around mid-afternoon of that very day.42
Guzik remarks concerning the matter of ceremonial defilement. He says, “John exposes the hypocrisy of the priests. They will murder an innocent Jesus, yet they were afraid of ceremonial defilement...” 43“So Pilate came out to them and asked, ‘What charges are you bringing against this man?’” (18:29). Unfortunately for them, the Sanhedrin had prepared no formal charges against Jesus.44 Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor (perfectus) who ruled Judea from AD 26-36. History tells us that he was very distrustful of the Jewish people. No doubt, Pilate was able immediately to see through the Jewish charade against Jesus. Bruce says, “…a Roman governor had complete discretion in deciding how to exercise his imperium, and if Pilate decided to investigate the case de novo, they had to accept his decision.” 45 From the proceedings we gather that Pilate did investigate the case himself. The account of the Lord’s trial before Pilate is the longest account found in the four gospels.46
“‘If he were not a criminal,’ they replied, ‘we would not have handed him over to you.’” (18:30). Morris says, “They had no charge that would stand up in a Roman court of law, and they knew it.” 47 They were determined to get the death sentence by one means or another, and only Pilate could give that sentence.
“Pilate said, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.’ ‘But we have no right to execute anyone,’ they objected.” This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die (18:31-32). It was recorded in the Talmud that the Romans had taken the judgment in matters of life and death away from Israel some forty years before the destruction of the temple.48 A small concession was made that allowed them to pass the death sentence on those who violated the sanctity of the temple. It was by this right that they were able to stone Stephen some years later (Acts 6:9 ff.).49
While the Jews felt that hanging a person alive was an abomination they still desired that Jesus be crucified. This was important to them because their rabbis felt that anyone so hanged was cursed by God (Deut. 21:23).50 Jesus knew that he would be killed in this way and that his body would be lifted up from the earth (8:28; 12:32-33).
HIS PRIVATE CONFERENCE WITH PILATE
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” John 18:33
Pilate had much experience with criminals and revolutionaries and he knew that Jesus was neither. Morris comments: “John pictures for us the lowly majesty of Jesus confronting the proud majesty of Rome’s representative…the power of the state is swayed by unseen forces…Subtly, but very definitely, John brings out the supreme royalty of Jesus.” 51 Pilate asks Jesus if he is really the king of the Jews.
Barclay says, “There is a kind of superstitious curiosity about Pilate. He wished to know whence Jesus came— and it was more than Jesus’ native place that he was thinking of. When he heard that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, he was still more disturbed.” 52 We get the clear impression that it is not Jesus who is on trial but it is Pilate.53 To make matters worse for Pilate, Matthew records how the man’s wife had experienced a dream about Jesus, warning them to have nothing to do with him (Matt. 27:19). We sense that Pilate was becoming quite nervous about his dealing with Jesus.
“‘Is that your own idea,’ Jesus asked, ‘or did others talk to you about me?’” (18:34). Here the Lord seems to be trying to help Pilate clarify his own thinking. Once again, it is Jesus who is in control of this hearing while Pilate seems to be floundering.
“‘Am I a Jew?’ Pilate replied. ‘Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?’” (18:35). This whole private interview is missing from the other gospels and it is very interesting. Pilate still had hopes that he could draw out of Jesus the information of how he had so offended the Jewish leadership. He then needed to determine whether or not that offence violated Roman law.54
“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (18:36). We can imagine that with this information the superstitious Pilate may have shuddered a bit. We sense that he somehow suspected that he was dealing with someone supernatural, perhaps the incarnation of some pagan god. Such accounts were common at that time.
“‘You are a king, then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me’” (18:37). Guthrey says, “The royalty of the world was not generally linked to the idea of truth.” 55 The same is a correct assessment today. Political leaders seem to have little concern for truth but rather for political correctness and political advantage.
“‘What is truth?’ retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, ‘I find no basis for a charge against him’” (18:38). With the question regarding truth Pilate did not expect an answer. His was almost a statement of frustration. No doubt, Pilate had heard many philosophical arguments concerning truth and was disgusted with all of them. He did perceive one thing from his talk with Jesus. This man might be a philosopher or a dreamer but he certainly was not a dangerous subversive.56 With this, Pilate terminated the interview. All this reminds us of the famous lines from the American romantic poet, James Russell Lowell (1819-1891):
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,—
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.57
“But 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’’?” (18:39). History provides us with no account of such a custom as this, but it was obviously a practice in Jesus’ time. Pilate could not refrain from poking his fingers in Jewish eyes by calling Jesus “the king of the Jews.” He would continue to do so by finally placing a sign with this title upon Jesus’ cross.
“They shouted back,’ “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!’ Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising” (18:40). Strong nationalist feelings often erupted around the holiday of Passover. Thus, a vote for Barabbas, a revolutionary, was a vote against Rome.58 Simply, Barabbas was a brigand (Gk. lēistēs) but to the Jews he was likely a revolutionary hero. While Jesus was no threat to Rome, Barabbas was a serious threat, the very kind of person Rome would want to execute.59 There is a bit of irony in his name. Barabbas meant “son of the father.” 60 He was set free while the real Son of the Father was crucified. There is even more irony in the story. It is reflected “…in the fact that the chief priests persuaded the people to ask for and secure the release for a man who was guilty of the very crime of which, though he was innocent, they accused Jesus.” 61