John 13:2
Context13:2 The evening meal 1 was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart 2 of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray 3 Jesus. 4
John 13:27
Context13:27 And after Judas 5 took the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. 6 Jesus said to him, 7 “What you are about to do, do quickly.”
John 13:29
Context13:29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him to buy whatever they needed for the feast, 8 or to give something to the poor.) 9
John 18:2-3
Context18:2 (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times 10 with his disciples.) 11 18:3 So Judas obtained a squad of soldiers 12 and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. 13 They came to the orchard 14 with lanterns 15 and torches and weapons.
John 18:5
Context18:5 They replied, 16 “Jesus the Nazarene.” He told them, “I am he.” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing there with them.) 17
1 tn Or “Supper.” To avoid possible confusion because of different regional English usage regarding the distinction between “dinner” and “supper” as an evening meal, the translation simply refers to “the evening meal.”
2 sn At this point the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. C. K. Barrett (St. John, 365) thought this was a reference to the idea entering the devil’s own heart, but this does not seem likely. It is more probable that Judas’ heart is meant, since the use of the Greek article (rather than a possessive pronoun) is a typical idiom when a part of one’s own body is indicated. Judas’ name is withheld until the end of the sentence for dramatic effect (emphasis). This action must be read in light of 13:27, and appears to refer to a preliminary idea or plan.
3 tn Or “that he should hand over.”
4 tn Grk “betray him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
5 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Judas) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
6 tn Grk “into that one”; the pronoun “he” is more natural English style here.
sn This is the only time in the Fourth Gospel that Satan is mentioned by name. Luke 22:3 uses the same terminology of Satan “entering into” Judas but indicates it happened before the last supper at the time Judas made his deal with the authorities. This is not necessarily irreconcilable with John’s account, however, because John 13:2 makes it clear that Judas had already come under satanic influence prior to the meal itself. The statement here is probably meant to indicate that Judas at this point came under the influence of Satan even more completely and finally. It marks the end of a process which, as Luke indicates, had begun earlier.
7 tn Grk “Then Jesus said to him.”
8 tn Grk “telling him, ‘Buy whatever we need for the feast.’” The first clause is direct discourse and the second clause indirect discourse. For smoothness of English style, the first clause has been converted to indirect discourse to parallel the second (the meaning is left unchanged).
9 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.
10 tn Or “often.”
11 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.
12 tn Grk “a cohort.” The word σπεῖραν (speiran) is a technical term for a Roman cohort, normally a force of 600 men (one tenth of a legion). It was under the command of a χιλίαρχος (ciliarco", v. 12). Because of the improbability of an entire cohort being sent to arrest a single man, some have suggested that σπεῖραν here refers only to a maniple, a force of 200. But the use of the word here does not necessarily mean the entire cohort was present on this mission, but only that it was the cohort which performed the task (for example, saying the fire department put out the fire does not mean that every fireman belonging to the department was on the scene at the time). These Roman soldiers must have been ordered to accompany the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees by Pilate, since they would have been under the direct command of the Roman prefect or procurator. It is not difficult to understand why Pilate would have been willing to assist the Jewish authorities in such a way. With a huge crowd of pilgrims in Jerusalem for the Passover, the Romans would have been especially nervous about an uprising of some sort. No doubt the chief priests and Pharisees had informed Pilate that this man Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, or in the terms Pilate would understand, king of Israel.
13 tn The phrase “officers of the chief priests and Pharisees” is a comprehensive name for the groups represented in the ruling council (the Sanhedrin) as in John 7:32, 45; 18:3, 12, 18, 22; 19:6. They are different from the Levites who served as “temple police” according to K. H. Rengstorf (TDNT 8:540). In John 7:32ff. these officers had made an unsuccessful attempt to arrest Jesus, and perhaps this is part of the reason why their leaders had made sure they were accompanied by Roman soldiers this time. No more mistakes were to be tolerated.
sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.
14 tn The words “to the orchard” are not in the Greek text but are repeated from v. 1 for clarity.
15 tn These were lamps that had some sort of covering to protect them from wind and rain. In earlier usage the word meant “torch” but by NT times it apparently meant a lamp designed to be used outdoors, so “lantern” is a good contemporary English equivalent.
sn Mention of the lanterns and torches suggests a detail remembered by one who was an eyewitness, but in connection with the light/darkness motif of John’s Gospel, it is a vivid reminder that it is night; the darkness has come at last (cf. 13:30).
16 tn Grk “They answered.”
sn The author does not state precisely who from the group of soldiers and temple police replied to Jesus at this point. It may have been the commander of the Roman soldiers, although his presence is not explicitly mentioned until 18:12. It may also have been one of the officers of the chief priests. To the answer given, “Jesus the Nazarene,” Jesus replies “I am [he].”
17 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. Before he states the response to Jesus’ identification of himself, the author inserts a parenthetical note that Judas, again identified as the one who betrayed him (cf. 18:2), was standing with the group of soldiers and officers of the chief priests. Many commentators have considered this to be an awkward insertion, but in fact it heightens considerably the dramatic effect of the response to Jesus’ self-identification in the following verse, and has the added effect of informing the reader that along with the others the betrayer himself ironically falls down at Jesus’ feet (18:6).