Entering Pilate’s Unholy of Holies: How Jesus’s Cross in John’s Gospel Fulfills the Day of Atonement

In John’s Gospel the temple, the Passover, and all the Jewish festivals are prominent features. As many have noted, the temple is a theme that begins with the identity of Jesus in John 1:14 (“the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us”) and continues throughout the book (see e.g., John 1:51; 4:23–24; 7:37–39; 14:1–3).^[1] Most explicitly, Jesus declares that he would tear down this temple and raise it up in three days (John 2:18–22). In his introduction to Jesus’s mission, John alerts his readers to Jesus’s resurrected body, which will effectively replace the temple in Jerusalem. Add to this the likely reason for John writing his Gospel—the past destruction of the temple—and you have an entire Gospel dedicated to showing how Christ fulfills and replaces the temple in Jerusalem.^[2]

1. Bill Salier, “The Temple in the Gospel According to John,” in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2004), 121–34. For a thorough discussion of John’s use of temple typology, see Paul Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 2007.

2. John is most likely written in response to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. See Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, and the Son of God, Biblical Theology the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 60–72.

At the same time, John also organizes his Gospel around three Passovers.^[3] The first is in John 2:13, 23; the second is referenced in John 6:4, and the third and final Passover is identified in John 11:15; 12:1; 13:1. Importantly, that final Passover is the one where Jesus becomes the true Passover Lamb, i.e., the lamb that would take the sins of the world (John 1:29). In fact, John goes out of his way in John 19:36 to make the connection between Jesus and the first Passover in Egypt. Citing Exodus 12:46 (or Numbers 9:12), he indicates that Jesus’s unbroken body fulfills Scripture, namely the instructions for Passover. Thus, Jesus is presented as the lamb who will die in order to redeem the firstborn sons of Israel—or, as John 1:12–13 reframes it, all those whom the Father grants the power to receive his Son.

So, Jesus is the true temple and true Passover Lamb. Yet, there is more. As New Testament scholar Andreas Köstenberger summarizes it, Jesus fulfills the Feast of Booths (John 7–8), the Feast of Dedication (John 10), and some unnamed festival, which occurs on the Sabbath (John 5:5).^[4]

3. Paul M. Hoskins, That Scripture Might Be Fulfilled: Typology and the Death of Christ (Xulon Press, 2009), 97–101.

4. This chart comes from Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 413.

References to Jewish Festivals in John’s Gospel

In this outline of John (further developed in his book The Theology of John), Köstenberger shows how John’s Gospel is structured around the festivals of Israel. Yet, one festival is conspicuously absent, namely, Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement.

When I preached through John, I observed this lacuna. From its regular dependence on the Old Testament and John’s use of the temple to explain who Jesus was, it seemed odd that the centerpiece of Leviticus—the Day of Atonement—was missing. In a book that did everything to show Christ’s fulfillment of the temple, where was the Day of Atonement?^[5] Intrigued by that question, I concluded that the Day of Atonement shows up in a very prominent, but unexpected way.

5. On the central role of Yom Kippur in the temple and its placement in the Pentateuch, see L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015), 23–34.

In what follows, I will argue that the Day of Atonement is not missing but is hidden in plain sight. That is to say, for those with eyes to see, John 18–19 is organized like the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement plays an important role in explaining the “finished” work of Christ in those two chapters, albeit subtly and typologically (two features that permeate John’s Gospel).

To make my case, let me offer a few reflections. First, I will outline the passage, tracing the movement of Jesus in John 18–19.^[6] Second, I will show how the governor’s house approximates the holy of holies, only as the title of this essay suggests, I will argue that Pilate’s inner chamber is an unholy of holies. As far as I know, this is a unique interpretation, but it is one that fits with the whole Gospel, and I offer it here for interested readers to engage. And third, I will attempt to show how this Day of Atonement reading helps us understand the message of John, as well as Jesus’s death on the cross.^[7] All together, this essay will offer a reading of John 18–19 that reflects the Day of Atonement and shows how Jesus fulfills this yearly house cleansing ceremony.

6. As I preached through John, I found multiple chiastic structures, as well as priestly elements. While I don’t have space to prove those points here, the reader may find these articles on John 1:1–18, John 2–4, John 7, and John 9 illustrative of John’s repeated use of chiasms. Likewise, the Day of Atonement theme of John 18–19 is in keeping with multiple priestly themes in John. See David Schrock, “The Clothes Make the Man: Seeing the Priesthood of Christ in John’s Gospel.” Further, Andre Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 49–79, presents John 17—the high priestly prayer of Jesus—as being structured on the basis of Leviticus 16. If that is true, it makes the reading offered here even more plausible.

7. It should be noted, that John 20, the scene where Peter and John enter Jesus’s tomb and see two angels sitting where Jesus lay, also depends upon a knowledge of the holy of holies. As I have argued elsewhere, John 20:12 pictures the two angels as a fulfillment of the mercy seat (Exod. 25:17–22).

John 18–19: A Day of Atonement Reading

The place to begin is in the text itself. In John 18–19 we have a discrete section, one that is separate from the Farewell Address before it (John 13–17) and the resurrection of Christ after it (John 20). Thematically, the two chapters hold together by the fact that they recount the historical events of Christ’s arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and burial. In this way, John 18–19 recount the “hour” of Christ’s death.

Throughout John’s Gospel, everything has been pointing to this reality. In John 17:1, Jesus says “Father, the hour has come.” Indeed, from John 2:4 on, the hour of Christ’s death has been in view, but it had not come until now (cf. John 7:30; 8:20; 12:27; 13:1). Beginning in John 17:1, the hour of Christ’s death was imminent, and after praying in John 17, chapters 18–19 recall every minute of the hour.

Furthermore, the unity of these chapters is held together by the inclusio of two Gardens. Like two bookends, John 18:1–12 begins with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (cf. Matt. 26:36; Mark 14:32), and John 19:38–42 ends similarly, with Jesus’s body laid to rest in another Garden. That “Gethsemane” is not named in John 18 further evidences the intentional connection. What does John want the reader to see? That this section begins and ends in a Garden. Again, if he named Gethsemane, the connection would be less apparent. But by simply identifying two unnamed gardens, albeit different gardens, he unifies the message and gives us a literary inclusio.

At the same time, I believe he gives more than an inclusio. As we read through the chapter, we find a progression from the first garden (John 18:1–2), to the courtyard of the high priest (John 18:15),^[8] to the house of Caiaphas (John 18:28), and then to the Governor’s headquarters (John 18:28). This royal sanctuary is the end of the line so that everything goes back in the other direction starting in John 19:5. As Jesus was taken through the courts to Pilate’s house, now he will be taken back through the courtyard to the people and then to the cross (John 19:12–42).

8. There are multiple cultic words in this section. For instance, “Courtyard [aulē] of the high priest” in John 18:15 is analogous to the courtyard of the tabernacle. In the OT, the word aulē is the word for courtyard. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), that same word is used 33x in the Pentatuech—and always for the courtyard of the tabernacle. And again, “door” (thura) is also used to speak of the doors of the tabernacle (see Exod. 29:4, 10, 11, 32, 42 LXX).

In John 19:5, Jesus is presented to the chief priests and officers as “the man.”^[9] They issue a decree for his death sentence in John 19:6 (“Crucify him! Crucify him!”), and Jesus speaks in John 19:11, questioning who really has the authority. Significantly, all of this occurs outside the governor’s quarters (John 19:5), in the midst of the priests (John 19:5–12), and before Jesus is brought to the public (John 19:13). In short, it occurs in the place where the priests work—not the holy of holies, nor the courtyard, but the holy place. (See Figure 2 below).

Finally, Jesus leaves this space and re-enters the public eye in John 19:13. John records how “Pilate . . . brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha.” In this public setting, the “royal ruler,” to whom the priests bring their dispute (see the comparison to Deuteronomy below), is Pilate. And now Pilate, serving as the official to whom the chief priests appeal, pronounces the crucifixion of Christ (John 19:13–16a).

9. Does this reference relate to the garden imagery, and identification of a new Adam? That’s a promising connection—and one worth pursuing—but not here.

From this pronouncement, Jesus is taken away from Pilate and to the hill of the cross. In so doing, he leaves the courtyard, and like the “scapegoat,” he is exiled from the city of the Lord (cf. Heb. 13:10–13). John 19:16–42 tells the rest of the story as Jesus is lifted up to death in crucifixion (John 19:18–37) before he is taken down and buried in the garden tomb (John 19:38–42).^[10]

10. As Figure 1 depicts, Christ’s ascension on the cross may comport with the lifting up of sacrifice onto the altar. Likewise, taking Jesus off the cross would return the body to earth while Jesus’s burial would comport with Christ’s descent to sheol, the realm of the dead.

This escalation and de-escalation follows the Day of Atonement, and particularly one that mirrors the three parts of the tabernacle—(1) the courtyard, (2) the holy place, and (3) the holy of holies (see Figure 2). While the figures in the story do not match the priestly personnel of the Pentateuch, there are enough touchpoints to see the connections, especially for those to whom the temple was the source of life, blessing, and salvation. In the next section, I will attempt to show those touchpoints more completely. But first, here is an overview of the section, a chiastic structure based upon the movement of Jesus from Garden to Garden.

Space does not permit consideration of chiastic structures in the subsections of this narrative arc. Those literary structures depend upon a close reading of the dialogues between Jesus and his accusers (see e.g., John 18:4–9), but the main point for the whole section depends on physical location more than grammatical syntax.

As this outline of John 18–19 indicates, there is a movement from East to West, as Jesus moves from the Garden on the Mount of Olives to the structures of the city, followed by a reversal from West to East, as he is exiled from the city and taken to his death. In this way, the directions of the Day of Atonement are followed. Moreover, as the tabernacle/temple structure moves from earth (courtyard) through the heavens (holy place) to heaven’s footstool (the holy of holies), so also this outline follows the vertical orientation of the tabernacle and temple.^[11]

11. See G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 31–40.

Indeed, we need to press deeper into how and why John writes in this way. But for now, this structure resolves the problem of having a book focused on the temple that does not have the central house-cleansing festival in view.^[12] Moreover, if my reading is correct, it connects John’s Gospel with the book of Hebrews, which unmistakably connects Jesus’s death on the cross to the Day of Atonement (see Hebrews 9). From a canonical perspective, seeing the cross as the Day of Atonement is wholly in keeping with the New Testament. Equally, for readers who have seen the way John has used signs and symbols to identify Christ with types from the Old Testament, the same is happening here with the cross and the Day of Atonement.

12. Leviticus 16 records how the Day of Atonement is the only sacrifice that the high priest brings into the holy of holies to purify God’s house, so that God can continue to dwell with his people.

On the cross, Jesus offers the sacrifice that will ultimately purify God’s house and make preparation for God’s people to approach the throne of God—a result that far exceeds the Day of Atonement sacrifice of Aaron and his sons. Even more, this temple-cleansing sacrifice is something Jesus anticipates in John 14:2–3 when he says that he is going to prepare a place in his Father’s house. “And,” Jesus says, “if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” While many commentators understand John 14:2–3 as a reference to the Parousia, it is better to read this promise within the Gospel itself.

Jesus is going to die, and when he returns from death, he will lead his disciples into his Father’s presence, because he has purified the house made without hands, to use the language of Hebrews 9. Again, the temple themes in John are unmistakable, and if John 18–19 is a fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, then John 14:1–3 is likely a reference to Jesus’s forthcoming house-cleansing ceremony that supersedes the work of the high priest in Leviticus 16.

Whereas the rest of John’s Gospel uses signs and symbols to point to Christ, now the substance of Christ and his crucifixion is actually providing the substance to which all symbols (priesthood, temple, and sacrifice) point. Or to say it differently, the wicked actions of the priests are in view, and these priests, who are types of Christ, are actually sacrificing Christ as the final offering, even as they are inviting God to judge their actions. This is one of the theological results that comes from this reading, but before landing on this conclusion, we need to press the structure further.

The Governor’s House: A Defiled Holy of Holies

If there is one part of this reading that is most susceptible to counterargument, it is the fact that Pilate, not the high priest, stands at the center of the action.^[13] In the Old Testament, the temple structures and the temple personnel matched.^[14] As you can see from this chart below, there exists a correlation between the place and the people. And though this chart is only a static picture of a dynamic relationship—where priests, Levites, and Israelites moved between various sections of the camp, courtyard, and house of the Lord—they play an important role in understanding John 18–19.

13. For further reflections on this point, see the excursus that comes at the end of this longform.

14. See Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

As I am arguing, Pilate functions as the high priest in the story. While he is not a high priest, nor even a Jew (John 18:35), he is presented as the one to whom the priests appeal. In this way, John 18–19 follows the instructions of Deuteronomy 16:18–17:13. In that passage, Moses instructs the people of Israel to bring disputable matters before the priests. And when priests, serving as judges, found cases too difficult to decide, they were to bring those cases to a higher authority. In particular, Deuteronomy 17:8–9 reads,

If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. ⁹ And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.

Critically, these rules for priests trade on matters related to capital punishment (Deut. 17:5–6), and more specifically, these cases are related to matters of establishing justice in the land (Deut. 16:18–20), as well as preventing idolatry (Deut. 16:21–17:7). In Deuteronomy, the instruction to priests about legal decisions also comes after instructions related to the Passover (Deut. 16:1–8) and the Feast of Booths (Deut. 16:13–17)—two festivals that play a prominent role in John. Long story short, John would be very familiar with these instructions, as he has shown deft skill throughout his Gospel to apply these inspired types and shadows to Christ. It is fitting, not to mention ironic, to see John demonstrating priests breaking the Law of Moses as they bring Jesus to Pilate, but this is exactly what they do.

Here is the violation. Whereas priests were given authority to exercise judgment and commission capital punishment (Deut. 17:5–6), the priests in Jesus’s case deny this authority. As John 18:31 records, the priests—in response to Pilate telling them to “judge him [Jesus] by your own law”—fail to do so. The Jews [i.e., the priests who bring Jesus to Pilate] declare instead, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death” (John 18:31). This is likely an effect of Israel’s captivity to Rome. Either way, by the high priests bringing Jesus to Pilate, they effectively make Pilate the high-er priest or judicial king who will render the verdict.

Doubling the irony, Pilate makes a decision that stands against the priests. While the priests hold Jesus guilty, Pilate repeatedly professes Jesus’s innocence. In John 18:38, we find Pilate finished with his interrogation of Jesus telling the Jews, “I find no guilt in him.” This assessment repeats in John 19:4. Next, when Jesus is brought out to the priests again, they demand his crucifixion (John 19:6a). To which Pilate responds in verse 6b, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” Finally, after questioning once more, and Jesus announcing the greater guilt of the priests (John 19:11), Pilate seeks to release Jesus (John 19:12). Ultimately, Pilate’s own unrighteousness leads him to capitulate and have Jesus crucified. But it is clear; Jesus is innocent.

Such innocence proves the unblemished nature of Jesus, the Passover Lamb, but in the context of John 18–19, it also suggests he is the Day of Atonement sacrifice. For consider how this works.

First, by entering into the governor’s headquarters, a place that the priests refused to enter, Jesus was being taken by a single “high priest” behind closed doors into the “unholy of holies.” While John records the hypocrisy of the priests handing Jesus over to Pilate while stationing themselves outside the headquarters lest they defile themselves for Passover (John 18:28), the actions of the narrative reinforce the Levitical backdrop.

In Leviticus 16, when the Day of Atonement arrived, only one priest, the chief priest, could enter the Holy of Holies. All the other priests had to remain outside the veil. Only the chief priest could apply the blood to the altar, for he alone was authorized to enter. So here, with great irony, the priests stay outside “the altar” and one “priest,” namely Pilate, goes inside the house. Again, Pilate is not called a priest, nor officially sanctioned as a priest, but in the narrative, when the priests of Israel appeal to him for a legal decision (cf. Deut. 17:8–9), they make him a high priest.

Second, the shedding of blood in Pilate’s headquarters reinforces the point that the inner chambers are ironically the (un)holy of holies. Here is what I mean. If we take seriously the narrative structure, we discover that Jesus’s flogging and wearing of the crown of thorns—two actions that would bring bloodshed—took place inside the headquarters. While Pilate went in and out of his headquarters, Jesus remained inside until John 19:5. There, Jesus is presented as “the man”: a man clothed in purple, wearing a crown of thorns, and bleeding.

Like the Day of Atonement, blood would be brought into the inner sanctuary and applied to the mercy seat. So in this case, Jesus was brought into the unholy of holies, and his blood was applied to his body, which we should not forget was the temple of God—a fact established all throughout John’s Gospel. Once again, this reading is subtle and requires a deep understanding of the Levitical sacrifices, which might be missed by many readers of John’s Gospel. But for those who are reading John’s Gospel with the grain of the Old Testament, this interpretation fits with the literary and theological structures presented throughout.

Third, the expulsion of Jesus from Pilate’s headquarters to be crucified outside the city walls reinforces this Day of Atonement reading. In Hebrews, the author makes explicit what John presents implicitly, namely, that the site of Jesus’s crucifixion should be seen as the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. Here is how Hebrews 13:11–12 puts it,

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

In this place, the author of Hebrews interprets Jesus’s crucifixion as a fulfillment of the sin offering, which was taken and burned outside the city. But importantly, it is not just any sin offering, it is the sin offering—the Day of Atonement. As George Guthrie explains,

Leviticus 16:27 directs that the bodies of the Day of Atonement sacrifices, including the hides, the flesh, and their waste, be taken outside the camp and burned. This practice was associated with other sacrifices (4:12, 21; 9:11; Exod. 29:14). The author of Hebrews draws an analogy between the Day of Atonement sacrifices of the old covenant and Jesus’ new-covenant sacrifice for sins, which he accomplished “outside the gate” of Jerusalem (13:12).^[15]

15. George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 992–993.

Letting Hebrews help us read John, we discover that the idea of connecting Jesus’s death to the Day of Atonement is directly in keeping with New Testament theology. And more, in John itself, the temple typology invites this sort of reading. Thus, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see, there is good reason in the text of John to understand John 18–19 as presenting the death of Christ as a fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, and this reading is supported by multiple canonical connections.

The Fruit of This Reading Strategy

Let me bring this argument to a close. If this reading of John 18–19 holds up, it does at least four things.

First, this reading completes John’s temple project.

John writes his Gospel in order to show how Jesus fulfills every part of the temple complex. And throughout his Gospel, he is presented as the temple, the Passover lamb, the true high priest, as well as the light of the world (which corresponds to the lampstand), the bread of life (which corresponds to the bread of the presence), and the altar of incense (found in his priestly prayer).

In short, everything that the Jews looked to in the Law of Moses is found in John’s Gospel, except for the Day of Atonement—if the Day of Atonement is missing in John’s Gospel. But on the reading I have put forward above, the Day of Atonement is present and decisive for Jews, Samaritans (John 4:42), and all the world (John 3:16), to trust in Christ for their forgiveness of sins. And that is good news, which we can and should believe (John 20:31).

Second, this reading reinforces the theology of Hebrews.

The priestly theology of Hebrews is not just the theology of Hebrews. The Gospels also present Christ in priestly ways, and this reading of John 18–19 not only fits the growing number of scholars demonstrating Christ’s priesthood from the Gospels, but it shows John’s vision of the cross matches that of Hebrews.^[16] In Hebrews 9, the blood of Christ is defined by the Day of Atonement, and so it is in John.

16. The most articulate defense of Jesus’s priesthood in the Gospels is by Nicholas Perrin, Jesus the Priest (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019).

Third, this reading teaches us how to read the New Testament in light of the Old.

In so many ways, this reading depends upon knowing Leviticus 16 inside and out. Yet, this is exactly the position of first-century Jews. If John is writing his Gospel to console Jews who have lost the temple, then he is writing to those who would have little trouble picking up his subtleties.

Indeed, for a Jew schooled in the ways of the temple (i.e., holy priests, holy precincts, holy practices), the typological nature of John 18–19 would not be foreign. Rather, like an amputee who feels phantom pain, the Jewish audience who suffered the loss of the temple would be looking to find a replacement. Only in this case, what John is offering is not a prosthesis, but the real thing. To put it differently, John is actually showing why the temple was lost, and how that loss would result in their gain—if they trusted in Jesus, the true temple.

Fourth, this reading calls us to repent and believe.

Truly, the whole book of John aims at producing faith in the life of God’s children (see John 1:12–13; 20:31). And this reading does the same. In fact, in a Gospel that aims to separate sheep and goats (believers from unbelievers), the salvation offered by Christ is paired with judgment upon the priests who execute Christ. Wonderfully, many of those priests who at first rejected Christ would come to faith in Christ (Acts 6:7), even as others who continued in unbelief would be judged because they judged Christ wrongly.

In this way, the cross of Christ, as the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, becomes the dividing line between those who would dwell with God in his temple and those who would be cast out. In John, this is the whole point. He is seeking to produce faith in the children of God, while exposing the sin of those who are children of the devil. As Jesus says in John 14, he is going to prepare a place in his Father’s house, and the only way he can do that is if he cleanses the house of God. But what cleansed the house of God?

The Day of Atonement.

And thus, from a close reading of John’s Gospel, in comparison with the Old Testament and the New, we can confidently say that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Day of Atonement. And we who need his cleansing and forgiveness to dwell with God must look to him as our atoning sacrifice and house-cleansing priest. To that end, let us read John’s Gospel with eyes enlightened by the Spirit and minds shaped by the Old Testament, especially Leviticus 16. For reading Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, with the light of Leviticus bolsters our faith and leads us to see more of who Christ is and what his finished work accomplished.

Excursus: On Pilate’s Headquarters Being the (Un)Holy of Holies

In Jesus’s day, there was no king in Israel, no one like Solomon to render wise decisions (see 1 Kgs. 3:16–28). Yet, the priests served as the spiritual rulers in Israel. Nicodemus himself was called a “ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1). Additionally, the Sanhedrin served as the ruling body in Jerusalem for Jews. Yet, as John tells the account of Jesus’s arrest, trial, and resurrection, there is no mention of the Sanhedrin. Instead, the priests bring Jesus to Pilate, who will render the final verdict.

Importantly, Pilate will declare Jesus “not guilty” (see 18:38; 19:4), proving that the priests were wrong, and that his death is unmistakably unjust. Yet, such a verdict on Pilate’s verdict is premature. For now, I am trying to show how John presents Pilate as the high priest and his headquarters are the Holy of Holies. To that end, let me offer five lines of evidence.

First, in the flow of the story, Pilate’s praitōrion is at the end of the line.

Like the high priest in Israel, he is the highest court of appeal, and after Jesus is brought to him, the narrative moves in the other direction—back to the priests (John 19:5–12), then the people (John 19:13–16), then outside the city (John 19:17–42). Going back to the chiastic structure, the event begins outside the city, moves through the courtyard of the priest, to the governor’s house, and then back again. This outside-inside-outside movement matches the Day of Atonement.

Second, the royal nature of the high priest makes Pilate’s kingly role.

In the narrative of John 18–19, one debate centers on who is the true king. In the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, Pilate asks if Jesus is king (John 18:37); Jesus replies that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36); and then Pilate again identifies Christ as king (John 18:39). Next, when Pilate goes back out, he says to the priests, “Behold the man” (John 19:5), only to tell the people, “Behold your King” (John 19:14). And finally, when he identifies Jesus on the cross, he writes “The King of the Jews” (John 19:21), something John stresses as the word graphō (to write) is used five times in John 19:19–22. In all these ways, John presents Jesus as the true king.

Yet, it should be asked, who in Israel was able to discern the true king? Was it the people? Or was it someone else? In 1 Samuel 8, the people show themselves unreliable for choosing a true king, and by contrast, when God gives Israel a true king, he comes by way of Samuel (1 Samuel 16), a son of Levi (1 Chron. 6:28, 33). Equally, in the Law, the Levitical priests were the ones who were called upon to identify a true king.

As noted above, Deuteronomy 16:18–17:13 invites priests to bring disputed matters to a higher authority. Then, immediately following, Deuteronomy 17:14–20 explains how true kings would be recognized. Among matters related to their provenance and their character (Deut. 17:14–17), they must write out the Law, under the authorization of the priests. As Deuteronomy 17:18–20 reader,

¹⁸ “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. ¹⁹ And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, ²⁰ that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Though this act of copying the law is nowhere described in the Old Testament, it still applies. And it suggests that the true king is the one who is approved by the priests.

In John, Pilate’s repeated, written (!) testimony is that Jesus was the true king. While not a priest himself, Pilate’s testimony is another instance of John’s use of irony. Whereas the priests of Israel should recognize their true king but don’t, Pilate ironically bears witness to Israel’s king. And this provides another way Pilate takes up the role of the high priest. Admittedly, this reading would be fanciful on its own, but in the context of John and surrounded by a host of other priestly themes, it becomes increasingly plausible, even probable.

Third, in the actions of the narrative, we discover that the priests are unwilling to enter Pilate’s quarters.

In John 18:28, John says the priests refused to enter Pilate’s quarters to protect themselves from being defiled. Fair enough. But it also makes the final step in the judgment scene to be one that Pilate makes by himself. But functionally this means Pilate is alone with Jesus during the final step in the judgment scene.

On the Day of Atonement, only the high priest entered the holy of holies with the sacrifice. Everyone else stayed out. And so, here, the rhetorical effect of the priests’ feigned righteousness leads to Pilate, acting by himself, as he brings the lamb of God into the inner chambers.

Fourth, the bloodshed in his palace suggests a connection between the holy of holies and the cross.

Finally, just as the blood of one goat was offered on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement, and the removal of the sin was provided by driving the other goat from the camp, so in John 18–19, Jesus’s blood is shed in the presence of Pilate in his headquarters and then he is crucified outside the city.

Of course, all of this is historically accurate. I do not believe that John’s Gospel is merely a work of literature, but a work of literature that reads the history of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection through the types and shadows of the Old Testament. And so here, when Pilate has Jesus flogged and crowned with thorns (John 19:1-2), he is drawing blood from the lamb in the unholy of holies. And then, like the other sacrifice driven outside the camp, Jesus is crucified outside of Jerusalem.

In sum, these four observations lend credence to the reading presented in the body of this essay. And it stands on seeing in John a way of writing that pays careful attention to the temple typology of Israel. Indeed, if the theme of the temple was not so prominent in John’s Gospel, it would be difficult to draw the conclusions made here. However, with John’s clear and repeated emphasis on Jesus being the true temple, as well as the lamb of God, and the true and better priest, it stands to reason to read John 18–19 as the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. In short, Jesus is the true and better sacrifice who cleanses the house of God so that all who trust in him might have eternal life as they are brought into God’s heavenly temple—the temple that cannot be destroyed on earth because it is inhabited by the God of heaven.

Glory! Hallelujah!