Melodies bring a smile to your face, and others bring a tear to your eye. Some remind you of the best days of your life, and some bring back heartbreaks.

   This is something we know and expect from songs, but we should also expect it from passages in the Bible. They, too, have their own particular moods.

   Our text  for this study is one of the most distressing and painful passages in the Scriptures.

   For seventeen chapters, we have read the story of Jesus’ life and ministry. John reported what Jesus said and did, arranging his story so that it would produce faith in hearts of the readers. At the beginning of chapter 18, Jesus was moving decisively toward the cross, the stated goal and purpose of His life.

   This emotionally difficult section tells of three trials which took place in the hours before Jesus’ crucifixion: the trials of Jesus, Peter, and Pilate. These trials are woven together like a three-strand rope, together containing God’s message about His Son and the importance of belief in Him.

   These final chapters of John have generally been called “The Period Of Consummation” which covers the close of Jesus’ life.

    It is so named because its content revealed the consummation of the tension of belief and unbelief:

   – unbelief reached its deepest infamy in the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus

   – belief reached its highest achievement in the action of the disciples at the time of the resurrection and afterward.

   – man will do his worst, and God will respond with His very best!

   The earthly work of Jesus was completed by these events. His statement in  17:4: “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do” shows that He regarded His death as the apex of His career and the fulfillment of His commission.

   Simeon the aged prophet told Mary, the mother of Jesus, some 33 years before of this night: Luke 2:34-35: “Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, {35} so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.  And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

   In other words, Jesus was born to be a “sign spoken against” or a spectacle, which was about to begin. He will be betrayed by one of His closest friends. He will be arrested, mocked, ridiculed, falsely and illegally tried and condemned.

   And He will also be denied by the one closest to Him and the same one who swore that he would never let Him down.

   Then, declared innocent at first, Jesus will, because of political expediency, be given over to His murderers. But through it all it was not the Son of God on trial — it was mankind on trial that black night.

   A comparison of the accusation of the priests… “He made himself the Son of God” (19:7) with Thomas’ confession, “My Lord and my God” (20:28) illustrates well the respective climaxes of unbelief and belief. In this period the plot of Judas reached its conclusion.

   John added to the final days of Jesus’ life the following accounts not given in the synoptics:

   – the trial before Annas (18:12-24)

   – some detail about the hearing before Pilate

   – the committal of Mary to the beloved disciple (19:25-27)

   – the four last words from the cross

   – the visit of Peter and the other disciples to the tomb (20:3-10)

   – the interview with Mary Magdalene (20:11-18)

   – the remarks of Thomas (20:24-29)             

    – the appearance to the seven disciples at Galilee (21:1-24)

John omitted:

   – the agony in Gethsemane          

   – the rending of the veil

   – the group of women at the tomb

   – the walk to Emmaus

   – the great commission

   – the ascension

   Definite reason cannot be given for the inclusion or omission of each of these items, but the principle of selectivity which the author gave in his key to the gospel was doubtless applied.

   The choice may have been governed by the desire to use fresh material, or it was connected with the principle of relevancy to the central theme of “belief and unbelief.”

Throughout the Gospel of John, our Lord claims to have “come down” from heaven, sent by the Father to reveal Him to men. He further claims that He will return to the Father in heaven. The Son of God does not have His beginnings in Bethlehem. Indeed, He has no beginning. And so when He took on human flesh at His incarnation, He was Lord at His birth. Is this not what Matthew and Luke tell us in their description of our Lord’s birth? And so it is at Christmas time that we must remind ourselves that the Lord Jesus was, even in the cradle, the sovereign Son of God. He was Lord at His birth, no matter how certain appearances may seem to contradict this reality.

That phrase from “Silent Night” came to my mind as I was preparing this message. Jesus was, is, and will always be Lord. The more I have studied the events leading up to the crucifixion of our Lord, the more convinced I have become that Jesus was in control of all that took place in the final hours of His life. And so I have chosen to title this lesson, “Jesus, Lord at Thy Death.” How easy this is to forget. In truth, it could be the epitaph for chapters 18-20.

In chapter 18, John’s Gospel describes the betrayal, arrest, and initial appearances of our Lord before Annas and Pilate. Never before have I appreciated how much earlier events paved the way for this crucial moment in history. We should recall that Jesus not only foretold His death, but also indicated that He would die by crucifixion (3:14; 8:28; 12:34), after having been betrayed by one of His own disciples (13:18, 21). The Jewish religious leaders were committed to our Lord’s death as well, but they were determined that He would die at a different time (not during the feast) and in a different way (stoning). Earlier events set the stage for our Lord’s death in precisely the way He had indicated. Let me briefly review some of the ways our Lord had prepared for this moment.

Early in John (not to mention the other Gospels—see Luke 4:28-29), the Jews had determined to put Jesus to death:

16 Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish authorities began persecuting him. 17 So Jesus told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason the Jewish authorities were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God (John 5:16-18).

Several things serve as the catalyst to solidify the Jewish leaders’ resolve to kill Jesus. These events set the scene for what we will read in chapters 18 and 19. Most of these watershed events happen in (or near) Jerusalem. First, there is the failed attempt of the Jewish leaders to arrest Jesus in John 7.[1] It was a humiliating defeat when the temple police came back empty-handed, not because Jesus was nowhere to be found, but because the officers who were sent to arrest Jesus were so impressed by what they heard Him say (7:45-46). In chapter 8, our Lord’s words were more than the Jews could bear:

58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” 59 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area (John 8:58-59).

In John 9, we read of our Lord’s healing of the man born blind. Once healed, this fellow made the adversaries of Jesus look so foolish that they put him out of the synagogue. Yet they were not able to score any points against Jesus. Once again, their opposition to Jesus was thwarted. In chapter 10, Jesus again claims to be one with the Father, so that another unsuccessful attempt is made to stone Him (10:30-31). When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, that was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” The Jews not only resolved to put Jesus to death, they determined to kill Lazarus as well:

47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” 51 (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered.) 53 So from that day they planned together to kill him. … 57 (Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who knew where Jesus was should report it, so that they could arrest him.) (John 11:47-53, 57).

10 So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too, 11 for on account of him many of the Jewish people from Jerusalem were going away and believing in Jesus (John 12:10-11).

The triumphal entry of Jesus must have thrown the Jewish leaders into a panic. It looked as though their fears that everyone would follow Jesus (11:48) had come to pass. What a welcome event it must have been to have Judas come to them, offering to hand Jesus over to them (John 12:1-8; Mark 14:10-11). These Jewish leaders had looked bad the last time they attempted to arrest Jesus (John 7), and so they were determined to do it right the next time. They knew that they dare not attempt to arrest Jesus during the feast of the Passover:

3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people met together in the palace of the high priest, who was named Caiaphas. 4 They planned to arrest Jesus by treachery and kill him. 5 But they said, “Not during the feast, so that there will not be a riot among the people” (Matthew 26:3-5).

1 Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were looking for a way to arrest him by treachery and kill him. 2 For they said, “Not during the feast, so there will not be a riot among the people” (Mark 14:1-2).

They did not want to try to take Jesus into custody in public, nor during the feast, lest the crowds riot. The population of Jerusalem had swollen considerably during the feast, due to all the pilgrims who came to celebrate Passover. Since messianic hopes ran very high at this time, Rome was very much on alert during this religious holiday. Pilate, who normally lived in Caesarea, would remain in Jerusalem, along with a sizeable army, lest a riot break out. To attempt to arrest Jesus during the feast would be foolish, and the religious leaders were determined not to make fools of themselves one more time.

But Jesus was in control, forcing His adversaries to act in a way that was contrary to their plan. He carefully arranged for the place where He and His disciples would eat the Passover. No one but Peter and John knew the location in advance (Luke 22:8ff.). Once they gathered in the Upper Room for the Passover celebration, Jesus took Judas by surprise. First, He indicated that one of the twelve would betray Him (John 13:21). When pressed by John to tell him who this disciple was, Jesus designated Judas by passing him the bread (John 13:26). In Matthew 26:25, Judas asked Jesus if it was he, hoping no doubt that Jesus would indicate otherwise. Jesus informed Judas that it was, indeed, he who was His betrayer.

Can you imagine the panic Judas must have experienced at this moment? Judas had hoped to find an occasion to betray Jesus secretly, and not during the feast. He intended to keep his dealings with the Jewish religious leaders a secret. That way he could arrange for our Lord’s arrest in a way that caught Jesus and the eleven off guard. But when Jesus identified Judas as the betrayer, this traitor was certain that all of the disciples would soon know this as well, and when this happened, his opportunity to hand Jesus over was gone.

When Jesus gave Judas a reason to leave, I can almost see him bolting for the door. He could hardly have gotten out of there fast enough. He’s been discovered. His window of opportunity is now exceedingly small. Whether the Jewish religious leaders liked it or not, the only time Judas would be able to hand Jesus over to them was during the next few hours of that night.

Judas would be reasonably confident of knowing where Jesus could be found in the next few hours because the Master has followed a consistent pattern while in Jerusalem (Luke 21:37; 22:39). While Jesus and His disciples finished the meal and talked together, Judas was frantically setting in motion the sequence of events leading to his betrayal of Jesus. I doubt very much that the Jewish leaders were happy with the timing, but they must have realized it was their only chance, so they had to hastily arrange for enough armed men to see to it that Jesus did not get away from them this time. Given the holiday season and the shortness of time, they found it necessary to request the assistance of Rome; a sizeable force of soldiers was dispatched to accompany the religious authorities, the temple police, and the crowd that had gathered.

Judas may have first led this arresting force to the Upper Room, where he had left Jesus. Unknown to Judas, Jesus would have already left with His disciples (14:31). Perhaps they went next to another place or two until they reached the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus and His disciples seemed to camp out each night. All of this frantic search for Jesus took place as Jesus was teaching His disciples, praying for them (John 17), and then agonizing in prayer in the Garden. As Jesus was concluding His prayer, Judas and the mob that accompanied him were arriving. It is here that our story takes up. My point in this lengthy introduction is to demonstrate that Jesus had perfectly prepared everything for this moment. Jesus was in charge, as is evident in the events that led up to this confrontation, and it will shortly be evident that He was still in charge even as they placed Him under arrest, bound Him, and led Him away.

* THE BETRAYAL (18:1-11)

   The Kidron Valley is located east of Jerusalem, between the city wall and the Mount of Olives; and the garden is on the western slope of Olivet.

   Jesus often went to this garden with His disciples, no doubt to rest, meditate, and pray (Luke 22:39). Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims attending the Passover, and Jesus would want to get away from the crowded city to a private place. He knew that Judas would come for Him and He was ready.

   While these words related directly to His going to meet the party that had come to capture Him, it was indicative of His entire attitude.

   He went to the garden with full knowledge that Judas had gone to bargain with the priests for His betrayal and would look for him in this familiar rendezvous.

   The warning of Jesus to Judas at the Passover supper, (John 13:27: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. “What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus told him”) forced Judas to do immediately what he had not planned to do until after the feast was over.

   Matthew 26:5 (“But not during the Feast,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people”) shows us that the priests had no intention of arresting Jesus during the feast, lest there be a popular tumult … but the opportunity that he could be in their hands couldn’t be passed off.

   Judas had lived with Jesus for three years … yet he knew very little about Him. He actually brought a company of temple guards, armed with swords and clubs (Matt. 26:55).

   A Roman cohort (band) was 600 men!

From the Synoptic Gospels, we know what the plan was. Judas had prearranged a signal by which he would positively identify Jesus. When Judas kissed Jesus, the arresting officers would know that He was their man, and they would then seize Him. We know from the other Gospels that Judas did indeed kiss Jesus. John, however, leaves the kiss of Judas out of his account, and I think I know why. It was both unnecessary and irrelevant. The only purpose it serves is to reveal the character of Judas. How fitting that our Lord’s betrayer should do so with a kiss. He used the token of love and affection as the means to hand Jesus over to His adversaries.

John leaves the kiss of Judas out because things do not go according to the prearranged plan of Judas and the Jews. Jesus would not attempt to elude them or to conceal His identity. Jesus would not attempt to avoid His arrest, illegal though it might be. Instead of our Lord’s identity being revealed deceitfully by the kiss of Judas, our Lord identified Himself. Judas had nothing to contribute other than to indicate the place where Jesus could be found. As Judas, the Jews, and the Roman soldiers arrived, it was Jesus who took change, bringing to pass the events that followed.[2]

Do the Jewish authorities or the Roman soldiers think they are in control? They are not! Is Jesus a helpless victim? Far from it! John tells us in verse 4 that Jesus “knew everything that was going to happen to Him,” and this is why He stepped forward and asked them, “Who are you looking for?” Did the Jews think that Jesus would run and seek to hide from them? Did they expect to conduct a manhunt that night? Did they wonder how they would identify Jesus for sure? Jesus stepped forward and asked who it was they were seeking, and then when they gave His name, He identified Himself as the One they were looking for.

When Jesus identified Himself there was a spontaneous and seemingly involuntary reaction on the part of those standing in front of Him. If you look at the New American Standard Bible, you will see that in both verse 5 and verse 6 the statement, “I am He” has the He italicized. This is the translators’ way of indicating that this word is not actually found in the Greek manuscripts. It is a word the translators have supplied for clarity. Literally, then, Jesus responded, “I Am.” There are some who would understand what happened next in this manner. The chief priests, their servants, the temple police, and the Roman soldiers all surrounded Jesus. When Jesus asked who they were seeking, and He responded, “I Am,” the people suddenly realized the significance of this statement and fell involuntarily before Jesus, out of fear.

I am inclined to understand these words just a little differently. The Jewish religious leaders expected trouble when they set out to arrest Jesus. This is why they brought a large crowd with them, equipped with weapons ranging from clubs to swords. They also carried torches along so they could hunt Jesus down if He sought to escape them and avoid arrest. They had a pre-arranged signal, so that Judas could indicate who Jesus was, and to make sure there would be no mistake when they seized Him. But instead of the scenario they had pictured in their minds, it was completely different. Jesus did not flee from them; He boldly walked right up to them. Then He asked who they were seeking. When they indicated they were seeking “Jesus of Nazareth,” Jesus identified Himself as the One they were seeking. Jesus responded, “I Am (He),” but I do not believe that they grasp the full significance of these words.[3] They were disarmed (so to speak) by our Lord’s boldness, and those nearest Jesus stepped backward. I think it was a comic scene, where their feet got all tangled up, and they all fell down together. If the Jewish officials and the temple police were trying to maintain an aura of authority, it was no longer possible. I’m sure that they jumped to their feet and recovered as quickly as possible, but the damage was already done. The authorities were rattled, as we shall soon see.

This was all for a purpose. By throwing the authorities off balance (pardon the pun), Jesus was now able to make a request that they might not have otherwise granted—the release of His disciples. Think about this for a moment. If one of the charges against Jesus was that He was a revolutionary, then His disciples would have been, in present day terms, terrorists. Do you think that under normal circumstances the authorities would have intended to let Jesus’ disciples just walk away? I don’t think so. But Jesus had them so rattled they didn’t attempt to arrest anyone else. Jesus had twice asked them who they were seeking, and twice they answered, “Jesus the Nazarene.” It was as if Jesus had asked them if they had an arrest warrant, and if so, whose name was on the warrant. Only His name was on the arrest warrant, as it were. So Jesus reasons that if the warrant is only for His arrest, surely His disciples must be free to leave.[4] And so they did.

John points out that in securing the release of His disciples, Jesus was once again fulfilling the prophecy He Himself had spoken earlier. This “prophecy” appears to be the words our Lord had spoken only moments earlier:

“When I was with them I kept them safe and watched over them in your name that you have given me. Not one of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, so that the scripture could be fulfilled” (John 17:12).

The point of this remark is that Jesus is doing exactly what He promised He would do. Jesus is bringing about future events, just as He foretold them. At every step of the way, Jesus was fulfilling prophecy, some of which was His own words. If Jesus’ disciples were not doing very well at taking care of Him, Jesus was doing an excellent job of taking care of them.

– The Surrender Was Conscious

   “So 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. {4} Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?””

   Between the dismissal of Judas from the upper room and the actual arrest in the garden, at least two hours must have elapsed. In that time Jesus could have left Jerusalem and have been well on His way across the river to Perea, or to some hiding place where the Jewish leaders could not have found Him.

   Judas’ betrayal would have recoiled on himself, since he would have failed to produce Jesus, and undoubtedly, the priest would have wreaked the vengeance of their disappointment on him. At one stroke Jesus could have saved Himself and could have dispensed of the traitor.

   Why should He have gone deliberately to the place where Judas would surely look for Him, and wait until the traitor came to capture Him? Furthermore, when the mob with Judas at its head finally arrived, Jesus walked boldly out to meet it.

   His complete calm, determined resolution, sublime majesty, and commanding manner and courage frightened the would-be captors so that they shrank back from Him and fell on the ground!

   This was foretold in Psalms 27:2: “When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall.”

   One writer said, correctly: “They were caught, instead of catching Him.”

   The kiss was the basest act of treachery recorded anywhere! It was a sign of affection and devotion. When people today pretend to know and love the Lord, they are committing the sin of Judas.

– The Surrender was Vicarious.

    “”I told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” {9} This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.””

   Verse 9 seems to be John’s own parenthetical insertion into the narrative here as John is writing the account years later to show that what Jesus had prophesied in 6:39, 10:28, and 17:12 was in part fulfilled in this very incident.

   He gave Himself in the place of the disciples all of whom made good their escape. The essence of the atonement was illustrated by this act of Jesus, who purchased their security by His sacrifice.

– The Surrender was Loving.

   “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.) {11} Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?””

Here is another scene that for all its apparent intensity is really quite comical. You will recall these words from the Gospel of Luke: “So they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ Then he told them, ‘It is enough.’ … 49 When those who were around him saw what was about to happen, they said, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’” (Luke 22:38, 49).

Jesus was here informing His disciples that things had now changed from the time that He had sent them out two-by-two. Then Jesus was popular and those who taught in His name were welcomed and shown hospitality. Now, Jesus indicates, His disciples will be hated by those who have rejected Him as the promised Messiah. Thinking that they have gotten the point, the disciples inform Jesus that they have two swords in their possession. When the authorities drew near to arrest Jesus, someone had that second sword, and the question was asked, “Shall we strike with the sword?” (Luke 22:49).

Before Jesus could answer—perhaps even before the question was raised—Peter had already drawn his sword and lopped off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. I think we would all agree that Peter would have admitted that he “missed.” Surely he was attempting to remove the head of Malchus. Only John tells us that it was Peter who wielded the sword, removing at least a portion of the servant’s ear. It is also John alone who tells us the name of the man whose ear was severed by Peter’s sword.

John does not inform us that Jesus restored the servant’s ear; only Luke does this (22:51). To John, this detail is not important. It does cause me to chuckle a bit, as I ponder how this “ear incident” may have played itself out. The Jews felt it was absolutely essential for them to have “backup,” so they arranged for Roman soldiers to accompany them. The Roman soldiers were probably standing by (I think at a distance, but close enough to act quickly and decisively), ready to intervene if necessary, but not unless it was called for. Can you imagine what the normal reaction would have been, once Peter had his sword out and was lopping off the ear of the man nearest to him? This was like striking a match in a room filled with gasoline fumes. How quickly and easily both Jewish and Roman arms could have been employed, so that the situation would have gotten completely out of control.

But before anything like this happened, Jesus intervened. It looks like Peter got in only one stroke of his sword before Jesus rebuked him. Our Lord’s words stopped Peter in his tracks: “But Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?’” (John 18:11).

Jesus is in the middle of securing the release of His disciples when Peter draws his sword. One wonders if any of the Jewish authorities sought to protest the disciples’ release. Someone might have said, “Wait a minute. We can’t let these men go; just a moment ago, one of these Galileans assaulted one of us with his sword. He even cut off this man’s ear.” I can almost hear the Roman commander respond, “Which ear? So far as I can see this man has two ears.” The commander then goes over to Malchus and inspects both of his ears more closely. “I don’t see any missing ear, nor any blood; not even a scar. Let’s turn these men loose and take Jesus into custody. He’s the one we were told to arrest.” I know it was an intense moment, but there must have been some humor in what took place. Few, if any, were laughing at the time, however.

What John communicates to us is that Jesus is still in complete control. Even at the moment when our Lord was being taken into custody and His hands were being bound, His “hands were not tied” in the sense that He was powerless to act. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 27 make this abundantly clear:

52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now? 54 How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?” (Matthew 26:52-54)

The only reason this crowd could lead Jesus away was because it was the will of the Father, and of the Son. Jesus acted in such a way as to stop a massacre and to secure the release of His disciples. Jesus was in complete control.

I am reminded of the joke that is sometimes told of the airplane full of passengers headed for some destination when the first engine catches fire and is shut down. The pilot’s voice booms over the intercom: “This is your pilot speaking. We have lost one engine, but there is no reason to be concerned. We have three more engines, and everything is under control.” A few moments later, the pilot announces that a second engine has failed, but there is still no reason for concern. They still have two engines left. Then, after the third and the fourth engines fail, the pilot’s voice is again broadcast throughout the passenger compartment: “Ladies and Gentlemen, if you look out your windows to the left, you will see four parachutes. This is your pilot and crew. We do not wish you to be alarmed, however, because this plane is flying on auto pilot, and everything is under control … control … control …” It was not like that with Jesus. Even though they were leading Him away with His hands bound, He was in control.

It seems as though Peter can do nothing right. Here he is, trying so hard to prove to Jesus that he will follow Him to the very end, even unto death. And he is right in one sense. He is willing to die. It is he alone who draws the sword and seeks to prevent the arrest of his Master. But in so doing, he is wrong; in fact, he is resisting the plans and purposes of God. His use of his sword would appear to endanger the lives of the Lord and all the disciples. It implied the opposite of what our Lord would later claim before Pilate, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would fight to prevent me being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But now my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). Peter endeavors to save the Lord’s life when He is committed to voluntarily giving up His life in order to provide “the way” to the Father. Jesus is about to “drink the cup” which His Father has given Him, and Peter would (so to speak) thrust it out of His hands.

   Peter, in a fit of loyal zeal, drew a sword and cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. the probability is that in nervous haste he struck three inches wide of his original aim! Certainly, it was not Peter’s intention to damage only an ear!

   Peter’s sword symbolizes rebellion against the will of God. He made every mistake possible:

– fought the wrong people         

– had the wrong motive

– used the wrong weapon

– accomplished the wrong result

   Besides: Jesus didn’t need Peter’s protection! He could have summoned legions of angels had He wanted to Be delivered (Matthew 26:52-54: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. {53} Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? {54} But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”)

The reason for His command and the refusal of this courageous act is varied:

   – The cup which the Father had given Him, He must drink, and Peter’s deed is at variance with this determination of His to do so

   – Jesus must be able to say to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world…” (18:36) and if He allows them to fight with carnal weapons He cannot so answer

   – It is worthy of note in passing that this record, which not only gives the name of the servant but tells it was his right ear, certainly is the record of one who was an eyewitness!

   Luke records a rebuke of Peter and also the healing of the ear by Jesus, which was motivated by love.

In this lesson which deals with the arrest of our Lord, I have sought to help you view the cross of our Lord through John’s “eyes,” as conveyed by the entire Gospel of John.

In these two chapters (18 and 19), John is setting out to present “The Cross of Jesus Christ, from the Divine Point of View.” Many are those who would like to paint a picture of Jesus as a helpless victim, a man whose plans went astray, and who was put to death because He lost control of the situation. Such people fail to grasp the sovereignty of God, and some would go so far as to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus was very much in control. This is the message which John has been giving us from the very beginning. He does not begin his Gospel with the birth of our Lord (as do Matthew and Luke), but with the birth of this world. And there, at the beginning of creation, is our Lord. He is not “created” there; He is the Creator. He does not come into being then; He calls the whole creation into being. To this, the Apostle Paul would say a hearty “Amen!”:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, 16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him (Colossians 1:15-17).

This theme of the deity of Jesus Christ, and of His control over all things, is constantly reiterated and reinforced in John’s Gospel. In chapter 2, Jesus creates wine out of water, something that we could reasonably expect from the Creator. He likewise goes up to Jerusalem, where He cleanses the temple, His “Father’s house.” In chapter 3, Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about the necessity of His death on a cross. In chapter 5, Jesus heals the paralytic, claiming that in so doing, He is doing the work of His Father in Heaven. The Jews do not miss the point. Much to their dismay, they grasp His claim to be equal with God. In chapter 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000 and claims to be the “bread from heaven,” bread which gives men eternal life. In chapter 7, the Jewish religious leaders send the temple police to arrest Jesus, but these men return empty-handed, explaining that they have never heard anyone speak like Jesus. In chapter 8, Jesus claims to have existed before Abraham, speaking of Himself as “I Am.” In chapter 9, Jesus restores sight to a blind man, something unheard of in Judaism. In chapter 10, Jesus claims that He has the authority to lay down His own life, and that He likewise has the authority to take it up again. He makes it very clear that His life will not be taken from Him, but that He will give it up voluntarily:

14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This is the commandment I received from my Father” (John 10:14-18).

Jesus also claims the power and authority to keep every one of His sheep:

27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. 29 My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one” (John 10:27-30).

We should not be surprised, then, that when we come to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of our Lord, John makes it very clear that Jesus is the One who is in control—not the Roman soldiers, not the Jewish religious leaders, not the mob, not Judas, and certainly not the disciples. Jesus is in control. And so it is that He confronts those who seek to arrest Him. So it is that they fall down before Him. So it is also that Jesus prevents a massacre and secures the release of His disciples. Jesus is able to bring about His death at just the right time, and in just the right manner, even though the Jews wanted to stone Him at some time other than during Passover. Jesus is Lord at His death, just as He was Lord at His birth.

Jesus is always Lord, as He is Lord at this very moment. I think many of us who profess to be Christians need to be reminded of this fact daily. Does our world seem chaotic and out of control? When governments topple, when leaders die or are removed from office, when Y2K fears send some into a state of panic, we need to be reminded that our Lord is employing “all things” to bring about His perfect plan.

If this is so, then the words of our Lord to Peter most certainly apply to us also: “Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (verse 11). Peter mistakenly supposed he was furthering the cause of Christ by taking up the sword. Jesus told him to put it away. The kingdom of God is not furthered, nor the kingdom of Satan defeated, by our taking up arms. There is a militant branch of professing Christianity today which does not seem to understand or accept what our Lord is saying to us here. If He is in control, we need not seek to further His work with the sword, or with any other fleshly weapons. The warfare we are to wage is spiritual, not fleshly. I am not calling for every Christian to rid his home of every firearm. I am saying that we dare not put our trust in our guns, or in our gold, but only in our God. I am saying that God’s purposes are not dependent upon fleshly weapons or defenses. Indeed, without knowing it, Peter was seeking to prevent what God had purposed for the Son—His innocent suffering, so that guilty sinners might be saved.

It is an amazing thing to read the first verses of John 18 and to realize that Jesus made no effort to save Himself, while at the same time He was saving His disciples. He saved their physical lives by His deeds and words in the Garden where He was arrested; He saved their spiritual lives (and ours) by His death at Calvary. Peter momentarily put his trust in his sword, rather than in his Shepherd. Only Jesus can save anyone from their sins, and from divine condemnation. Have you trusted in Him for the forgiveness of your sins? He is the Good Shepherd, who laid down His life for His sheep. May God grant that you are one of His sheep, and that you will rejoice in His salvation, and in His sovereignty. What peace there is in knowing that the Good Shepherd is the Sovereign Son of God, whose promises and purposes always come to pass.

In a day when there is much chaos and danger around us, how good it is to know Him Who is in control.

Did Jesus Take the Fifth Amendment?  (John 18:12-27)

Let’s be honest. When someone exercises his Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself, aren’t you inclined to think he is guilty? We ask ourselves, “Why would someone who is innocent be unwilling to tell the truth?” You may even wonder why there should be a Fifth Amendment. In our text, Jesus exercises what today would be known as His Fifth Amendment right not to testify against Himself. His interrogation helps us to understand why the Fifth Amendment is so important to every American. Once we understand why Jesus refused to respond to the questions put to Him, we will better understand what took place on the cross of Calvary.

In our text, both Jesus and Peter are questioned. Jesus is questioned by Annas, the most powerful religious leader in the land; Peter is questioned by servants and bystanders. Jesus keeps silent, but Peter speaks out. Jesus stands fast; Peter folds. In order to understand what is taking place at this time, I have summarized the contribution of each of the Gospels in the chart attached at the end of this lesson.[5]

The story of Peter’s failure begins sometime before his actual denials. Several contributing factors play a part in Peter’s failure which we should keep in mind as we read our text. First, there are our Lord’s predictions of Peter’s failure. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus tells His disciples that they will all fall away. Peter protests, seeking to assure Jesus that even though all the rest may fall away, he most certainly will not (Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:26-31). In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus informs Peter of Satan’s opposition, and of his failure, but assures Peter that He has prayed for him. He then instructs Peter to minister to his brethren after his restoration (Luke 22:31-34). In John’s Gospel (13:31-38), Jesus tells His disciples that He is going away, and that they cannot follow Him there. Peter asks Jesus why he cannot follow, assuring Jesus that he is willing to lay down his life for Him. Jesus then predicts Peter’s three denials.

Until now, I have always assumed that Jesus predicted Peter’s denials only once. When I consider all four of the Gospels, however, it appears that more than one prediction of Peter’s failure is made, and that not all of these predictions are made on the same occasion. I must confess I am tempted to say there may be as many as three separate predictions of Peter’s failure. How ironic, if this is true.

We then come to the prayer of our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Matthew (26:40-41), Mark (14:32-43), and Luke (22:39-46), Jesus exhorts His three disciples (especially Peter) to pray that they (he) not enter into temptation. You will recall that Jesus returns to His disciples, only to find them sleeping. When He awakens them, He once again urges them to pray. Three times Jesus went off to pray, after urging His disciples to pray with and for Him. At least twice, Jesus asked them to pray that they not enter into temptation (see Luke 22:40, 46). Could it be that Jesus warned Peter three times that he would fall, and then urged him to pray (three times) that he would not fall? If not three times, at least it was more than once.

We should not be shocked that Peter denied his Lord three times. Indeed, when all of the Gospels are taken into account, it would appear that Peter denied Jesus to more than three people, on three different occasions. Mark’s Gospel includes a very significant addition to the other accounts. Here, Jesus predicts that the rooster will crow twice before Peter denies Him thrice (14:30). Mark then informs us that the rooster did crow a first (14:68), and a second (14:72) time. This means that before Peter denied his Lord the last time, he was actually warned, though it would appear he completely missed this warning. Peter’s denials fulfilled our Lord’s prophecies of his fall, a warning which Jesus may have repeated three times. We all know that in John 21 Jesus will restore Peter to fellowship by means of a three-step process.

 

The Unique Contribution of Each Gospel

As we compare the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we see that each Gospel makes a unique contribution. In Matthew, Peter is given two reasons why he should put down the sword: (1) Jesus does not need to be defended by Peter; He could summon more than twelve legions of angels to rescue Him if He chose to do so; and, (2) Jesus must fulfill the Scriptures by His arrest and crucifixion. Mark tells us that the rooster crowed twice, not just once. Luke reports the presence of an angel, who ministered to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Luke, we find our Lord’s disclosure of Satan’s role in Peter’s failure, along with the assurance of our Lord’s intercession on his behalf, resulting in Peter’s restoration and future ministry. We are told that there are two swords in the disciples’ possession, one of which we know to be Peter’s. We also find the disciple’s question to Jesus, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” In Luke’s Gospel, we are told that Jesus restores the ear which Peter cut off. We also are informed of our Lord’s soul-stirring look at Peter, who had just denied Him.

John’s Gospel omits the prayer of our Lord in Gethsemane, recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. John also makes no mention of Peter’s tears of remorse, after having denied his Lord. John’s Gospel is unique in recording our Lord’s “hearing” before Annas, former high priest, and the real power behind Caiaphas. John’s account of Peter’s denials incorporates a break between his first denial (18:15-18) and the last two (verses 25-27). John alternates between the interrogation of our Lord by Annas and the interrogation of Peter by those in the courtyard. It would seem that his purpose is to contrast these two questionings. John’s Gospel also mentions “the other disciple,” who many (including me) believe to be John himself. Only John’s Gospel records the restoration of Peter (John 21), though Paul mentions a private appearance of the risen Lord to Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5.

Since I have pointed out the distinctive contributions of each Gospel based upon a comparison of all four accounts, let me go on to say a word about some apparent discrepancies in these accounts. Both Matthew and Mark tell us of Peter’s denials before: (1) a slave girl; (2) a slave girl;[6] and (3) bystanders. John’s record of Peter’s denials involves: (1) a slave girl; (2) those warming themselves by the fire; and, (3) the slave who was a relative of Malchus. Critics and skeptics leap on this apparent discrepancy, claiming that the Bible is in error here because it contradicts itself. Such reasoning is not only foolish, it fails to grasp the dynamic nature of this event and the way each writer chooses to focus upon it.

Take, for example, the different accounts of the anointing of the feet of our Lord in the Gospels.[7] There are discrepancies in the three parallel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John, but none of these are without a reasonable explanation. In Matthew and Mark, a number of the disciples are unhappy with the “waste” of the perfume that is poured out on the feet of Jesus, and so they grumble among themselves. In John’s Gospel, we are told that Judas is the one who objects. There is no real conflict here. As our Lord’s feet were being anointed, Judas realized that he could have pilfered some or all of the proceeds had this perfume been sold instead of “wasted on Jesus” (as Judas would have reasoned). He was upset, and verbalized this to his fellow-disciples. Agreeing with Judas, they also began to grumble among themselves. John tells us how the grumbling started; Matthew and Mark describe how it spread.

In our text, John is seeking to show how the Lord’s prediction of Peter’s three-fold denial was fulfilled. There were three separate incidents, each of which included a denial of our Lord by Peter. But at least one denial was made to more than just one person (see Matthew 26:70) and may have been reiterated several times. In Peter’s second denial, one can see how the identification of Peter as a disciple of Jesus may have started with the slave girl, and then was taken up by those who stood nearby. Peter made his denial to the slave girl first, and then to the others who took up the question she initially raised. Matthew and Mark seem to have focused on the woman who initiated this confrontation, while John calls our attention to all those who joined in. While Matthew and Mark have the bystanders in the second denial, John has bystanders in the last denial. The order of the denials is not necessarily chronological. Precise chronological sequencing does not seem to be important to the Gospel writers, which was also true of other writings in those days. The fact is that Peter denied his Lord three times, just as Jesus said he would.

* THE TRIAL BEFORE ANNAS (18:12-27)

   “Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him {13} and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. {14} Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.”

Jesus has just agonized in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, and He is now making His way to meet the mob Judas is guiding in His direction. John does not even mention Judas’ kiss of betrayal. It was not this kiss that gave away Jesus’ identity; our Lord identified Himself to those who had come to arrest Him. Jesus acted with full authority, and it “disarmed” those surrounding Him, psychologically, if not literally. Twice Jesus asked who it was they sought (to arrest), and twice they named Him alone. Jesus then responded that if they had come only for Him, then His disciples should be released. It was at this crucial moment that Peter drew his sword and severed the ear of the high priest’s servant. Jesus immediately brought the situation under control by rebuking Peter and instructing him to holster his sword. Jesus was fully committed to “drink the cup that His Father had given Him” (18:11). Jesus was determined to be “lifted up” on a cross, thus providing the way of salvation that He and the Old Testament prophets had promised.

The Roman soldiers (mentioned only by John) may have kept their distance, unwilling to involve themselves in this arrest unless trouble broke out. Now, officers (the Jewish temple police?) place Jesus under arrest and tie His hands (as though this could restrain the Son of God!). Jesus is now led away to stand before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas (verse 14). Only John mentions this “hearing” before Annas. The Synoptic Gospels focus on the subsequent hearings before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. John’s only reference to Caiaphas is a passing one, reminding the reader that this fellow is the same man whose words were recorded earlier in John 11:  

46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and reported to them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” 51 (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered.) 53 So from that day they planned together to kill him (John 11:46-53).

John wants us to know that Caiaphas, before whom our Lord will stand trial, is a judge who has already made up his mind about Jesus. Caiaphas, by whom Jesus would be condemned to die, was a man who had already determined that Jesus must die. This is not going to be a just trial. That much is clear already. And so John tells us the only thing about Caiaphas that really matters – that his mind is already made up.

In recent weeks, a young man was preparing to stand trial for his role in the death of a mentally challenged young woman. Before the trial commenced, the judge made a statement to the effect that this young man was “not the brightest apple that had ever fallen off the tree.” Immediately, this defendant’s lawyers seized on this statement and had the judge disqualified, claiming that he was biased against their client. A new judge was quickly appointed. Surely we can see that Caiaphas was biased, having concluded that Jesus must not only be found guilty, but must be put to death—for being too popular with the people.

Why does John virtually ignore Caiaphas and focus instead on Annas? First of all, I believe that John dwells on Annas because he is the real power, the driving force, behind the condemnation of Jesus. Annas was not the high priest at this time; Caiaphas was, as John informs us in 11:49. Annas had been the high priest from A.D. 6 to A.D. 15. He was then deposed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratius, according to Josephus. This did not mean that he was stripped of all his authority, however. In the years that followed, he succeeded in arranging for the appointment of each of his five sons as the high priest, followed by his son-in-law, Caiaphas.[8] Annas was the real power so far as the office of high priest was concerned, and those who officially held the title of high priest were mere figureheads.

It is very likely that Annas and his family were the owners of the Temple Bazaar, which would explain a great deal:

It is probable that it was Annas who had established, for reasons of personal gain, the traffic of the bazaar within the Temple courts which Jesus had so sternly denounced.[9]

‘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 Galilaean’[10]

   The trial before Annas took place at his private lodgings. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who had been high priest between the years 7 to 14, and following him at intervals, five of his sons and his son-in-law held the office.

   Ever since the Romans had occupied Palestine the high priests no longer held office for life as the Old Testament law legislated. They were not appointed by the Romans as they saw fit.

   He wielded a powerful influence, and was regarded as high priest emeritus. In this case he was consulted that he might render a preliminary opinion to establish the nature of the accusations which should be ratified by the Sanhedrin in a formal meeting on the following morning.

   Hendriksen said of Annas: “He was very proud, exceedingly ambitious, and fabulously wealthy. His family was notoriouis for its greed. The main source of his wealth seems to have been a goodly share of the proceeds from the price of sacrificial animals, which were sold in the Court of the Gentiles. By him the house of prayer had been turned into a den of robbers.

   Even the Talmud declares: “Woe to the family of Annas! Woe to the serpent-like hisses! (probably the whisperings of Annas and the members of his family, seeking to bribe and influence the judges).”

   The reason that John makes the parenthetical notice of verse 14 is because of the significance of his statement that it was expedient for one man to die for the whole nation (John 11:49-52). He’d been planning for the death of Christ for a long time and he and his father-in-law were two of a kind.

   “Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. {20} “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. {21} Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” {22} When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. {23} “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” {24} Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.”

All but two of our Lord’s disciples fled for their lives (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50). Peter and “another disciple” have followed Jesus to the palace of Annas. We will probably not go wrong if we assume that the “other disciple” is John, although we cannot be certain. The “other disciple” is said to have been acquainted with the high priest.[11] We are not told how this came to pass, but we have no reason to doubt it. It would appear that John’s father had a fairly successful fishing business, and this may be the way John’s life intersected that of the high priest.[12]

John’s acquaintance with the high priest got him into the courtyard of Annas, while Peter remained at the entrance. John came back to where Peter was waiting and spoke to the slave girl, who was the doorkeeper. He no doubt indicated to this girl that Peter was with him, and that it was okay to let him into the courtyard also. The doorkeeper allows Peter to enter, but perhaps with some hesitation. She seems to have recognized John (the “other disciple”) as an acquaintance of the high priest. She also must have known that John was a disciple of Jesus (note the “too” in verse 17). It was a risky thing for any disciple of Jesus to be seen in public at this time, and even more dangerous to be seen in close proximity to Jesus and to the officers who arrested Him. A disciple of Jesus who was recognized as such could be arrested, simply for being one of His disciples. A disciple who lingered in the area where Jesus was being held might trigger suspicions that there was a plot to bring about our Lord’s escape.

And so when John came back to the doorway of the courtyard and instructed the slave girl to let Peter enter, this young woman may have had some reservations. Something causes her to phrase the question she asks in a way that supposes Peter will deny being one of our Lord’s disciples. Thus, this slave girl asks Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” (verse 17). Perhaps without even thinking, Peter gave her the answer she seemed to expect: “I am not!”[13] It happened so quickly that Peter may hardly have realized how much trouble two words[14] could cause. The slave girl seems to accept Peter’s denial, at least for the moment. John goes on in verse 18 to describe the setting more fully. It was obviously cold that night, and there was a charcoal fire burning in the courtyard. Warming themselves around this fire were some of the slaves and some officers. Peter was there by the fire with them, warming himself.

The term “officers” is the same one used in 18:3 for the “officers” who came out with the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus. It is these “officers” who bound Jesus and took Him into custody (18:12). The term “slaves” is the same term found in 18:10, in referring to the high priest’s “slave.” Peter now finds himself in a very awkward (not to mention dangerous) situation. He is right back where he was a few hours before – surrounded by those who arrested Jesus, and who could just as easily arrest him now.

I have heard some of the sermons that Peter’s presence at this charcoal fire has inspired, and I’m not altogether convinced by some of the “lessons” that are extracted from this text. Peter, we are told, was warming himself by the enemy’s fire. This is supposed to warn us about getting too friendly with the world. Is Peter so wrong to be where he is? I’m not so sure. First, let’s give Peter credit for putting himself in harm’s way by being there in the courtyard of Annas’ palace. Peter’s use of his sword a little earlier that night had drawn attention to himself. Some of those standing around the fire may have been involved in the arrest of our Lord. If so, they would have been much more likely to recognize Peter as the fellow who severed the ear of Malchus. (Malchus himself may have been close by, for he was a servant of the high priest.) This courtyard was a dangerous place for Peter to be. Let us not think of Peter as a coward for being there.[15] And so far as the enemy’s fire is concerned, let us not require that Peter stand somewhere else on that bone-chilling evening, shivering in the cold. I believe that John is simply setting the scene for Peter’s next denial, which is taken up in verses 25-27. These same people who are standing around the charcoal fire in verse 18 are those who will begin to question Peter about his relationship to Jesus in verses 25-27.

It is interesting to observe the providential hand of God in all of this. What were the chances that any of our Lord’s disciples would avoid arrest, and later be allowed to stand in the courtyard of the high priest as Jesus is being questioned? God had orchestrated matters so that John (or one of the disciples) was personally acquainted with the high priest and, on the basis of this relationship, was allowed to enter the high priest’s courtyard and to bring Peter along with him. It is here, in this courtyard, that our Lord’s prophecies about Peter’s denials are fulfilled. Once again, God’s providential hand is evident in the life of our Lord, so that every prophecy pertaining to Him is fulfilled exactly.

* THREE JEWISH (Religious) and THREE ROMAN (Civil) TRIALS

  Because John does not include all the trials of Jesus, I will list them here for your knowledge, though time will likely not allow you to discuss them in any detail:

– Jewish trials: religious in nature.

a. First trial (John 12:12-24). 

He stood before Annas.

b. Second trial (Matt. 26:57-66). 

Before Caiaphas, the high priest, and the Sanhedrin quickly condemned Him, with the help of false witnesses and much false evidence … he was mocked and beaten.

c. Third trial (Matt. 27:102).

The Sanhedrin pronounced its verdict: guilty of blasphemy! But the Sanhedrin did not have the  legal right to put anyone to death … the Roman government had to decide that issue.

– Roman trials (civil in nature):

d. Fourth trial (Matt. 27:11-14).

Pilate, Judea’s governor, presided. Jesus offered no defense, not even to a single charge, and Pilate was amazed by it.

   Most people do not take note of Pilate’s wife and her message to him: Matt. 27:19: “While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent  man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”

e. Fifth trial (Luke 23:8-12).

Herod Antipas, the governor of Galilee, presided. Since Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate used this opportunity to send him out of his sight.

   Luke tells us that the governor had wanted to meet Jesus for a long time, since he’d heard about him … and he hoped to see him perform some miracles.

   It’s interesting here, also, to note that Jesus brought Herod and Pilate together as friends, though before these events they had been enemies!

f. Sixth trial (John 18:39—19:16).

   Pilate, again in charge, pronounced the verdict: guilty of treason, but he washed his hands of the whole affair (in his mind) and gave Jesus to His enemies. He granted them the go-ahead to crucify the One they hated.

REGULATIONS IN FORCE WHEN A QUORUM (23) OF THE SANHEDRIN WENT TO TRIAL

   The Jews took their legal instruction from the Mosaic Law as interpreted for them in the Talmud. Judged according to this scale, the trials were weighed and found wanting.

1.  All arrests for a capital cime must be made in broad daylight and all criminal cases must be tried during the daytime and completed during the daytime (this one was conducted at night).

2. Criminal cases could not be transacted during the Passover season (Luke 22:1-5)

3. Arrest for a criminal crime may not be made based on information by the offender’s follower — for if the accused were a criminal, so were his followers.

4. Only if a verdict of not guuilty could a case be finished on the day it was begun. If someone was accused of a capital offense, those who were to render verdicts were to return to their homes for 2 days and nights, eating only light food, drinking only light wines, and sleeping well. Then they were to return and hear again the testimony against the accusedand cast their vote.

5 . In regard to witnesses, all evidence had to be guaranteed by two witnesses, seperately examined, and having no contact with each other. False witnessing was punishable by death.

6. All were considered innocent and that evidence was to be given first, before the evidence for is guilt was given.

7. The Sanhedrin must vote one at a time, the younger men first, so as not to be influenced by the older men on the council.  In the third trial, they all voted simultaneously.

The words, “While this was happening,” are significant. They inform us that the interrogation of Peter (by the slave girl) and the interrogation of our Lord are taking place simultaneously. John chooses to alternate between one interrogation and the other in order to place our Lord’s responses in juxtaposition to those of Peter. Peter fails, while our Lord stands fast.

The nature of the questions asked by Annas is revealing: “The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching” (John 18:19). It was obvious, even to Pilate, that the real issue behind the trial of Jesus is that of jealousy. The Jewish religious leaders are jealous of our Lord’s prestige, popularity, and power (Matthew 27:18). The religious leaders have become greatly distressed by the tremendous influence of this Galilean. Annas therefore questions Jesus about His disciples. He seems to care more about the number of those following Jesus than about the content of His teaching. If George Gallup had lived in those days, Annas would have employed him full-time as a pollster. Here was a man who cared a great deal about public opinion, not because he cared about what the people thought, but because he cared about his power and position (see 11:48).

Jesus carefully avoided any reference to His disciples,[16] probably in order to protect them. There was no need to question Jesus concerning His teaching. He had spoken publicly, for all to hear and judge His words (verse 20). He did not have two teachings – one for His disciples and another for public consumption.[17]

There is an important legal issue here, however, because this hearing is illegal:

“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’ (op. cit., p. 58).”[18]

It was because His interrogation was illegal that Jesus responded to Annas, “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold these know what I said” (John 18:21). In Jewish justice, as in our own system, no one can be compelled to testify against himself. Annas was seeking to compel Jesus to testify against Himself. Jesus rightly refused to respond to this kind of questioning. One of the officers who stood by considered the response of Jesus to be insolent, and so he struck Him (verse 22).

This slap explains why the Fifth Amendment (or some counterpart) is important. The officer who struck Jesus is probably acting out of habit. If there is no such thing as a Fifth Amendment right, then a person can be compelled to testify against himself. If the person refuses to cooperate by giving the kind of “testimony” the “examiners” are seeking, then force is applied, until the testimony conforms to what the interrogators want. When Fifth Amendment rights do not exist, or are violated, “interrogation” becomes synonymous with physical abuse and torture. This is precisely what we see in the New Testament (see Acts 22:24, 29), and today.

Some have accused Jesus of not following His own instruction to “turn the other cheek” here. May I suggest that the actions of Jesus here are an excellent commentary on His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. There Jesus taught that one should never lash back or seek to retaliate for personal insults. But here, it was not a matter of insult so much as a question of obeying the law. Jesus would not allow this injustice to go unnoticed. He is putting this matter on record. It was not a matter of personal feelings in this situation, but one of principle. We see Paul conducting himself in a similar fashion in Acts 16.

I believe there is another reason John records our Lord’s response to Annas. Annas is the most powerful religious leader in Jerusalem at the time. Annas supposes that he is in charge, and that by using (or abusing) his authority, he can force Jesus to testify against Himself, thereby making a case for Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. In this whole exchange, Annas gets absolutely nothing from Jesus. Jesus rightly refuses to answer Annas’ questions and thereby assist this corrupt religious leader in making a case against Him. Even beyond this, as this interview comes to a conclusion, we find that while Annas has not been able to indict Jesus for any wrongdoing, Jesus has instead indicted the high priest, for wrongfully conducting this trial and for allowing the guard to strike Him. Once again, Jesus has turned the tables (pardon the pun)[19] on the high priest.

John’s account of the Jewish segment of Jesus’ trials is selective and condensed. Jesus was brought before Annas, no doubt the leader of the Jewish opposition to our Lord. This was no trial at all, but a mere ‘fishing expedition’ by which the “high priest” had hoped to gather evidence for the trial to come. As Jesus was led away to stand before Caiaphas—the official high priest—Annas must have felt extremely frustrated. All he got out of Jesus was a rebuke for his abuse of power and for breaking Jewish law in his handling of this case.

* THE THREE DENIALS OF PETER (18:15-18, 25-27)

   “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, {16} but 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} “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” 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. {19} Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. {20} “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. {21} Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” {22} When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. {23} “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” {24} Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest. {25} As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” {26} 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 olive grove?” {27} Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.”

Peter’s three denials (harmonized through the four gospels)

FIRST DENIAL       SECOND      THIRD

Matthew 26:69-70        26:71-71        26:73-74

Mark 14:66-68            14:69-70a        4:70b-72

Luke 22:56-57               22:58            22:59-60

John 18:15-18               18:25            18:26-27

The spotlight shifts back to Peter. Annas has been grilling Jesus, hoping to compel Him to incriminate Himself. Jesus has not only refused to do this, He has indicted Annas for violating the law. (How humiliating for an expert in the law to be indicted for law-breaking, and particularly by one you are seeking to indict!) Peter, on the other hand, is not doing so well. His first denial in verse 17 does not seem to have alarmed Peter, nor to have laid to rest questions concerning his allegiance. And so John takes us back to where he left us in verse 18 —to the charcoal fire, where a number of slaves and officers are warming themselves.

The words of the slave girl now seem to be taken up by those standing nearby, who may have heard her begin to question Peter: “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” (verse 25). They, too, indicate by the form of their question that they expect a negative answer. Peter has already committed himself, and now he finds it necessary to reiterate his denial. Were he to change his answer, this would raise other questions, questions like, “Why did you lie to the doorkeeper earlier? What are you trying to hide? What are you doing here?”

One of the high priest’s slaves—and a relative of Malchus—knows better. He must have been standing very close to Malchus (and thus to Peter) when Peter drew his sword and severed the slave’s ear. He was there in the Garden of Gethsemane when the arrest was made. He knew that Peter was there, too, with Jesus. Peter was a disciple of Jesus! This man was sure of it. The form of the question now changes. Unlike the first two questions, which expected Peter to answer in the negative, this fellow asks in a way that informs Peter he expects a response in the affirmative.[20] It would therefore be correct to read this man’s question in this way: “I did see you there in the orchard with him, didn’t I?” Peter decides to stick to his story, and so he denies his relationship to Jesus for the third time. Immediately thereafter, the rooster crows.

How gracious John is here in dealing with Peter’s failure. You will remember that these men are both fishermen; they have already worked together (Luke 22:8), and they will work together very closely in the Book of Acts (3:1, 3, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14). John does not tell us that Peter found it necessary to underscore his lie with cursing (see Matthew 26:73), that Jesus looked at Peter from a distance (Luke 22:61), or that after the rooster crowed Peter went out and wept bitterly (Matthew 26:74-75). The Synoptic Gospels supply all of these details. I believe John’s purpose in recording the denials of Peter is not to make Peter look bad, but rather to contrast Peter’s testimony with that of Jesus and show how Jesus’ words of prophecy are, once again, fulfilled exactly.

   Matthew tells us that Peter began to swear (26:74). One writer said: “He was on trial, so he put himself under an oath to convince his accusers that he was telling the truth.” At that point, the cock began to crow.

   Luke (22:32) tells us that Jesus immediately looked Peter squarely between his eyes — and into his soul!

   The following ideas have been placed with the “look of the Master:”

– His look was a talisman dissolving the spell in which Peter was held.  Peter was so engrossed in his scheming to rescue Jesus that he needed to be brought to himself again.

– The look of Christ was a mirror in which Peter saw himself. He saw what Christ thought of him. His past confessions and professions of courage and “I will fight to death with you” came rushing back upon his mind.

– It was a rescuing look. Had it been an angry look he saw on Jesus’ face when their eyes met, Peter’s fate might have been the same as Judas’. In that look of an instant Peter saw forgiveness and unutterable love.

   We’re not sure that Peter saw this in one look … but what he did see was enough to cause him to go out and weep bitterly.

Conclusion

There are many lessons to be learned from our text. Let me highlight a few.

First, Peter’s failure here is Elijah-like. I have heard a number of sermons on Elijah, and especially about his “failure” as described in 1 Kings 19. Many of the attempts to explain the reasons for Elijah’s failure in this text are based upon physical factors. We are told that Elijah had not eaten properly and had not gotten enough rest. (What a great text to make a pitch for a paid vacation to Hawaii!) I believe that Elijah’s hunger and fatigue are the result of his failure, not its cause. I believe Elijah was angry with God because he made a gallant effort to save the nation, and God did not bless this effort with success. Let me explain.

God did not instruct Elijah to confront Ahab and Jezebel and the false prophets by arranging for a contest on Mount Carmel. God told Elijah to announce to Ahab that the rains would stop (1 Kings 17:1-2), and then in the third year of the famine, God ordered Elijah to announce to Ahab that it would rain (1 Kings 18:1). The contest on Mount Carmel seems to have been Elijah’s inspiration. God graciously answered Elijah’s request that fire come down from heaven and consume his offering, but this dramatic display of God’s power did not bring about the repentance of Ahab and Jezebel, or the nation Israel. When Jezebel threatened to kill him, Elijah knew that he had not succeeded in turning the nation to God. He was angry and disappointed. He had made a valiant effort to turn the nation around, and God had not blessed it with success. As a result, Elijah attempted to turn in his badge and quit. He wanted to resign as a prophet, and even to resign from life.

God does graciously provide Elijah with a good meal and some much-needed sleep, but this is not the solution to his problem. In chapter 19, God instructs Elijah through what He does and says to him on Mount Horeb (19:8ff.). He teaches Elijah that He does not restrict Himself to speaking and acting only through spectacular means—the great wind, the earthquake, or the fire. He also speaks through the gentle breeze and the still small voice. God did not need Elijah to do something spectacular, like challenging the false prophets to a contest on Mount Carmel. God simply asked Elijah to speak to the king, and then to pray for rain. God would later bring about great changes in the nation, but this would not be through Elijah; this would come about through others such as Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha (19:15-18).

I see Peter’s failure in our text as being very similar to that of Elijah. Peter had made some bold claims about his loyalty to Jesus. By his use of his sword and his presence in the courtyard of Annas, Peter acted with bravery and heroism. It is my opinion that just as Elijah expected God to bless his contest on Mount Carmel with success, Peter expected our Lord to bless his bravery when he drew his sword, taking on not only the temple police and a Jewish mob, but the Roman army as well. As he sat there in that courtyard and saw how things were going, it must have suddenly dawned on Peter that Jesus was not going to rescue Himself. Jesus was letting all of this happen without making any effort to defend Himself. Peter courageously attempted to save Jesus from arrest, and yet all he got in return from Jesus was a rebuke. I believe Peter’s failure is his reaction to our Lord’s refusal to applaud or to grant success to his acts of heroism.

Have you ever attempted to do something “for God” that you thought was really commendable, only to have your efforts miserably fail? How often Christians look at a situation and think that God is in trouble, and that He desperately needs our help. And when we are in such crisis situations, we are tempted to act in a way that is inconsistent with God’s will and His word. And so we act impulsively, presuming that God will bless, that He must bless. And when He allows us to fall flat on our faces, we are angry and hurt, and this is the time when we are tempted to give it all up and to deny Him. Let us beware of assuming that we know better than God how He should work in a given situation. Let us beware of assuming that God is obliged to bless our efforts, no matter how heroic they appear, when our efforts are contrary to His plan.

Second, let us bear in mind that Peter’s failure is little different from that of the other disciples. It is very easy to cast stones at Peter for his denials, but let us keep in mind that all of the disciples forsook our Lord. In one sense, we may have to concede that Peter and John are the “best of a bad bunch.” These two men chose to risk following Jesus and being near Him during His trials before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Lest we feel a little smug when we read of Peter’s denials, let me ask how many opportunities you and I have had to “stand up and testify of our faith in Jesus Christ,” and yet we have chosen to remain silent? We are not that different from Peter.

Third, in spite of how wrong Peter was to deny his Lord, it appears as though God providentially used his denials for good. We know that “God causes all things to work together for good …” (Romans 8:28). We know that what men intend for evil, God can use for good (see Genesis 50:20). I believe that God used Peter’s denial for good, in spite of the fact that it was sin. The normal course of events would have been for the disciples of our Lord to have been arrested, and perhaps crucified, along with Jesus. John portrays the release of the eleven disciples not only as the fulfillment of our Lord’s own words, but also as a miracle, proof of the Savior’s sovereignty. Peter’s denials may have been instrumental in putting the Jewish religious leaders’ minds to rest regarding any ongoing threat that the disciples of Jesus may have posed. After all, if only a few hours after Jesus’ arrest His most loyal follower denies Him, then they may very well feel justified in assuming that the “Jesus movement” is as good as dead. From Peter’s actions and words, they may have felt it was better to let the disciples live than to attempt to arrest and execute them. If the leading disciple has already given up, then surely the others are soon to follow, or so it seems.

Fourth, Peter’s failure here is typical of the way men usually fail. Peter had been repeatedly warned about his denial. Even when told by the Lord Jesus that he would fail, Peter confidently affirmed his loyalty, even to death. I believe Peter meant what he said. But in spite of Peter’s resolve, he did fail. How did this happen? How did Peter fail to see this coming? I think we must say that, at the time, Peter did not see his actions for what they were. He did not realize what he was doing until after the rooster crowed and the Lord looked him in the eye.

Peter’s failure was progressive. He failed by degrees over a period of time. Each step in his failure led to the next. And yet each step, in and of itself, did not seem so terrible. As I look through the Bible, and at the failures of men today, it seems quite evident that those sins which appear to have happened “suddenly” and “unexpectedly” usually have come about much more gradually. Take David’s sin with Bathsheba, for example. It may appear that David acted on impulse, and indeed he did. But David was not supposed to be sleeping late in his palace. David was supposed to be out in the field with his men, at war. David should have been with Uriah, in the battlefield, and not with Uriah’s wife, in his bedroom. Peter’s fall took place a step at a time, and each step, in and of itself, did not seem so terrible—until it was too late.

I am reminded of the warnings to the naïve in the Book of Proverbs. Time and time again, we are exhorted to consider the path we are on. There are only two paths: the path which leads to life, and the path which leads to death. Satan (portrayed by the seductress in Proverbs) has a way of camouflaging the path of sin, which leads to death, so that it appears to offer us what we really want. Those who are wise will heed the warnings of Scripture and consider the destination of the path they are on. Peter was on the wrong path, and he went his way—step by step—until he found himself denying the One he loved, the One he said he would never deny, and never intended to deny. Let us beware of those small steps we take in the wrong direction, and let us give heed to where they will lead us. In the Scriptures, the false path is clearly labeled, as is the path of life.

Fifth, this text gives us insight into the unique contribution of the Gospel of John. When studying a book of the Bible, it is always profitable to ask and to answer the question, “What is the unique contribution of this book to the overall message of the Bible?” In the case of one of the Gospels, this is a more obvious question because there are four different accounts of the same subject matter, covering the same period of time. Why did the Spirit of God find it important for us to have the Gospel of John, in addition to the Synoptic Gospels? Our text has helped me to identify some of the unique contributions of the Book of John to the teachings of Scripture.

The entire Gospel of John is about “witnesses” and “testimony.” In chapter 1, Jesus is introduced, not as a babe in the manger (as with Matthew and Luke), but as the Logos, the word made flesh. Jesus is the supreme witness, the full and final testimony of God to men:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it. … 14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 15 John testified about him and cried out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” 16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only One, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made God known (John 1:1-5, 14-18).

Repeatedly in this Gospel, Jesus claims to have spoken the words the Father has given Him to reveal to men:

11 “I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. … 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he does not give the Spirit sparingly” (John 3:11, 34).

“If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority” (John 7:17).

28 Then Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak just what the Father taught me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do those things that please him” (John 8:28-29).

“I am telling you the things I have seen while with my Father, but you are practicing the things you have heard from your father” (John 8:38).

49 “For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me” (John 12:49-50).

“The person who does not love me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me” (John 14:24).

8 “Because I have given them the words you have given me. They accepted them and really understand that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. … 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, because they do not belong to the world just as I do not belong to the world” (John 17:8, 14).

If John’s Gospel is about the witness of Jesus, then I must take note of the fact that in John’s Gospel, there is no account of our Lord’s baptism. There is no account of our Lord’s transfiguration. There is no “Great Confession” from the lips of Peter. And the one time that the Father audibly bears witness to the Son it is regarding His death:

27 “Now my soul is greatly distressed. And what should I say? ‘Father, deliver me from this hour’? No, but for this very reason I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that stood there and heard the voice said that it had thundered. Others said that an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice has not come for my benefit but for yours. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 (Now he said this to indicate clearly what kind of death he was going to die.) (John 12:27-33)

The great confession in John is not that of Peter, nor that of any man, though there are many confessions that Jesus is the Son of God. The “great confession” in John is the confession of our Lord Himself:

13 I charge you before God who gives life to all things and Christ Jesus who made his good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 to keep this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 that the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. 16 He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen (1 Timothy 6:13-16, emphasis mine).

In the Gospel of John, the great witness is our Lord Jesus Himself. And the “great confession” is made by our Lord, not Peter. Indeed, one could say that John has structured his argument in such as way as to place the “great confession” of our Lord alongside the “great denial” of Peter. The question put to Peter is, “Are you His disciple?” to which Peter responds, “I am not.” The question put to Jesus is, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And our Lord’s answer is, “Yes, I am.”[21]

I was troubled by the fact that in the Gospels Jesus says very little in response to the questions which He is asked. In effect, Jesus takes the Fifth Amendment. How can Jesus bear testimony to Himself as the Messiah by keeping silent? And then I remembered the prophecy of Isaiah: “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth” (Isaiah 53:7, NKJV).

Legally, Jesus was not required to defend Himself, just as He was not required to offer testimony against Himself. Biblically, Jesus had to remain silent in order to fulfill prophecy. Our Lord’s purpose was not to defend Himself and avoid the cross; it was to give His life as a ransom for many. Jesus kept quiet because it was the Father’s will for Him to die on that cross, bearing the guilt and punishment for sinners like you and me.

Looking at it another way, Jesus made His “great confession,” not by speaking words in His defense, but by His deeds. From the very beginning, Jesus came to this earth to die in the sinner’s place. In John, Jesus repeatedly speaks of His death on the cross (see John 3:14-16; 8:28; 12:34). His death on the cross of Calvary was our Lord’s “great confession.” This was, as it were, God’s final word (see Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:1-4). After His resurrection and ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the apostles was about the cross of Christ.

The question John’s Gospel poses to its readers is this: “How do you stand in relation to Jesus as the promised Messiah, the King of the Jews?” There is no more important question in all the world. Your eternal destiny is determined by your answer to this question. As we read this text about the trial of our Lord, it is no longer Jesus who is on trial, nor the Jewish religious leaders, nor Annas, nor Pilate, nor Peter—it is you who are on trial. When Jesus Christ comes again, and you stand before the judgment bar of God, He will want to know only one thing from you: “What have you done with My Son?” This is the question you must answer. John tells you what your answer should be:

32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately. 35 And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe. 36 For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.” 37 And again another scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced” (John 19:32-37, emphasis mine).

30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31, emphasis mine).

EVENT	MATTHEW	MARK	LUKE	JOHN
Prediction of Peter’s Denial	26:30-35 Sang hymn, going out to Mount of Olives (30). Jesus: “All will fall away.” Peter: “Even if all fall away, not me.” Jesus: “Peter, you will deny me three times.” Peter: “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.”	14:26-31 Sang hymn, going out to Mount of Olives (26). Jesus: “You will all fall away …” (27). Peter: “Even if they all fall away, I will not.” (29) Jesus: “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times” (30). Peter (emphatically): “Even if I must die, I will not deny you” (31).	22:31-34 Dispute over who is greatest (24). Peter informed of Satan’s opposition and Lord’s intercession. He will fail, but will be restored—strengthen brethren (31-32). Peter is ready to go to prison with Jesus and die (33). Jesus foretells Peter’s denial (34). Jesus’ statement about buying a sword (36).	13:31-38 In the upper room. Jesus has told of His departure; they can’t follow (33). Peter asks why he can’t follow. He will lay down his life for Jesus (37). Jesus predicts Peter’s denial 3 times, before rooster crows (38).
Peter in Gethsemane	26:40-41 Jesus took three with Him, told of His anguish, asked them to watch with Him. “Pray that you will not come to time of testing.”	14:32-42 Jesus to the three: “I am deeply grieved, even to point of death. Remain here and stay alert with me” (34). “Peter, why are you sleeping?” (37). Pray not to come into temptation (38).	22:39-46 To all: “Pray that you may not fall into temptation” (40). Angel appears to Jesus (43). Jesus rebukes, “pray not to enter temptation” (46).	No Gethsemane scene
Cutting off of man’s ear	26:51-54 An unnamed disciple cuts off ear of the slave of the high priest. Jesus orders him to put back his sword, for two reasons: (1) He could call more than 12 legions of angels, and (2) The Scriptures must be fulfilled.	14:43-52 Bystander cut off ear of high priest’s slave (47). Jesus rebukes those arresting Him for coming with arms, as if after a robber (48-49). Disciples flee, including one young man who they tried to arrest, but ran off naked (50-52).	“Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” (49). One of them struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear (50). Jesus: “Stop this!” Jesus heals the ear (51).	18:8-11 Jesus is securing the release of disciples (8-9). Peter pulls his sword, cuts off right ear of Malchus, the high priest’s slave (10). Jesus orders Peter to put up sword. He must fulfill the Father’s purpose (11).
Peter’s denials	26:57-75 Jesus taken to Caiaphas (26:57). Peter was following Jesus at a distance (58). He sat with officers while Jesus was questioned (59-67). Slave girl: “You were with Jesus the Galilean, too” (69). Peter: “I don’t know what you’re talking about!” (70). Another slave girl: “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth” (71). Peter (with an oath): “I do not know the man!” (72). Those standing there: “You really are one of them too, because your accent shows it clearly” (73). Peter: Began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” (74). Rooster crowed, Peter remembered, wept bitterly (74-75).	14:43-65 Jesus led “to the high priest” (14:53). Peter followed from a distance (66-72). Peter in the courtyard. One of high priest’s slave girls: “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus” (67). Peter: “I don’t know or understand what you are talking about” (68). ROOSTER CROWS FIRST TIME (68). Slave girl: “This man is one of them” (69). Peter denied it again (70). Bystanders: “Truly you are one of them, for you are also a Galilean” (70). Peter cursed and swore: “I do not know this man you are talking about!” (71). Rooster crows second time, Peter remembers, weeps.	22:54-62 Jesus taken to “the high priest’s house.” Peter follows at a distance, sits among them (54-55). Slave girl: “This man was with him, too!” (56). Peter: “Woman, I don’t know him!” (57). Later, someone else: “You are one of them too!” Peter: “Mister, I am not!” (58). Still another insisted, “Certainly this man was with him too; for he too is a Galilean!” (59). Peter: “Mister, I do not know what you are talking about!” Rooster crowed while he was still speaking (60). The Lord turned and looked at Peter, he re-membered, and went out, weeping bitterly (61-62).	18:13-27 Jesus brought to Annas (13), then sent to Caiaphas (24). Peter and another disciple follow Jesus and are in the inner courtyard (15-16). Slave girl/doorkeeper (to whom other disciple had spoken): “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” Peter: “I am not!” (17). Jesus interrogated by Annas, sent to Caiaphas (18-24). Those warming themselves by the fire: “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” (18, 25). Peter: “I am not!” (25). High priest’s slave (relative of the former earless one): “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” (26). Peter denied it, rooster crowed (27). No mention of weeping.

This is not the first time I have preached on the death of our Lord, although this is the first time I have preached through the Gospel of John. I must admit that in doing so, I have come to realize that I have been mistaken in some of my assumptions. John’s Gospel has forced me to take a second look at the way I view our Lord’s death. It was my assumption that the Jews really wanted to crucify Jesus, and that they wished to enlist the assistance of the Roman government to do so. It was my opinion that God allowed the Jews to gain the upper hand for a short period of time, so that Jesus would die on a Roman cross. John’s Gospel calls some of these assumptions into question.

I also assumed that the Jews got exactly what they wanted, and when Jesus died on that Roman cross, they were jubilant. There was a measure of rejoicing on the part of those who appeared to prevail over Jesus at the cross (see John 16:20), but we must also take Luke’s words into account when he informs us that, seeing what had happened at the cross, the multitudes went away “beating their breasts” (Luke 23:48). Those who crucified Jesus did not get everything they wanted. They wanted to stone Jesus, but they had to settle for crucifixion. They wanted to kill Jesus themselves, and yet they had to involve Rome. Annas wanted to compel Jesus to incriminate Himself, and instead, Jesus indicted the high priest for wrong-doing. Pilate wanted to find a way to make the “Jesus crisis” go away, but he did not succeed. Strange as it may seem, at the cross of Calvary, it was only our Lord who got His way.

My goal in this lesson is to focus on the “big picture” of our Lord’s trial before Pilate. Once this picture is clear in our minds, the details will be more easily grasped. I shall attempt to set the scene by concentrating on four statements found in our text. The first is a statement by the Jews in verse 31: “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” The second is the question raised by Pilate in verse 38: “What is truth?” The third is the declaration of our Lord in verse 37: “You [rightly or correctly] say that I am a King.” The final statement is made by John in verse 32: “This happened to fulfill the word Jesus spoke, indicating what kind of death he was going to die.”

Before we turn to these four statements, I want to call your attention to a summary[22] of the sequence of events which occurred from the time the Jews decided that Jesus must be put to death, to the time when Jesus rose from the dead. This summary not only reminds us of the final events of our Lord’s life, it also points out the unique contributions of each of the Gospels. Allow me to call your attention to some of the unique contributions of each of the four Gospels.

MATTHEW. Matthew’s Gospel has several unique contributions. It is Matthew’s account that includes an account of the suicide of Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus and handed Him over to the Jewish religious leaders. This story is inserted into Matthew’s report of our Lord’s arrest. Matthew 27 begins with Jesus being brought to Pilate by the chief priests and elders of Israel (verses 1-2). Verses 3-10 then contain an account of Judas’ suicide. Then, at verse 11, the account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate continues. It seems to me that Matthew wants his readers to know that in the midst of our Lord’s trials, the one who turned Jesus over to the authorities has already come to regret his treachery. The testimony of Judas is added to that of others, including Pilate: “Jesus is innocent!”

Matthew also records the intervention of Pilate’s wife, who had a sleepless night and therefore warned her husband not to be a part of the execution of Jesus, since He was an innocent man. Actually, she did not refer to Jesus merely as innocent, but as righteous (27:19, NAB). Matthew is the one who includes an account of Pilate washing his hands (27:24), a symbolic gesture intended to indicate that he did not approve of the crucifixion of Jesus. This does not release him from his guilt for taking part in the death of Jesus. He gave Jesus over to the Jews to put to death, and he facilitated their plans by having Roman soldiers conduct the crucifixion. And this Pilate did, knowing that Jesus was innocent. Finally, Matthew records that incredible statement of the Jews: “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” (27:25).

MARK.Mark has the distinction of being the shortest account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate, a mere 20 verses long. Mark makes no unique contribution here, although he does join Matthew in telling us that Pilate had figured out that the Jews had turned Jesus over to him out of envy (Mark 15:10; see also Matthew 27:18).

LUKE. Luke’s account is only 25 verses long. Luke alone informs us that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, who declared Jesus innocent as well, and then returned Him to Pilate (23:6-12). We also learn that these two men were at odds with each other, and that they were somehow reconciled in the midst of their mutual dealings with Jesus.

JOHN. John has the longest and most detailed account of our Lord’s hearing before Pilate. In John, we see an increasing sense of awe and dread on the part of Pilate. We are also told of his cynical remark, “What is truth?” (verse 38). But perhaps the most interesting contribution John makes is his record of the conversation which occurred between Pilate and Jesus. In the other Gospels, Jesus says almost nothing, either to the Jews, to Pilate, or to Herod. In John’s account, Jesus and Pilate do have a conversation of sorts. There is no contradiction here, however. When Jesus refuses to speak, it is (1) because the law does not require Him to testify against Himself, and (2) because He refuses to defend Himself. Jesus would not interact with Herod because he was merely hoping to see some miracle. If Jesus had defended Himself by speaking or performing miracles, it could have prevented His death. When Jesus refused to speak, it was when He was in the presence of the Jews. When Jesus did speak with Pilate, it was inside his residence, where the Jews would not enter. The conversation was not of His guilt or innocence, but about His identity and His mission. We might say that it was evangelistic.

* THE INTERVIEW WITH PILATE (18:28-19:16).

   The trial before Pilate is given more space in John than in any one of the other gospels, in spite of certain omissions from his narative.

   John’s portrayal of this incident was designed to bring the personalities of the two into sharp relief.

   As we read this, we’ll see quickly that Pilate was on trial here, not Jesus! Pilate was seeking any loophole possible that would please all sides. He was afraid of the crowd, at least three times announcing that Jesus was not guilty of any crime (Luke 23:14; 23:22; John 19:4, 6). Yet, he refused to release Him!

   The first impression given of Pilate was his reluctance to take part in the action. He likely had been forewarned, since he was surprisingly available at this unseasonably hour.

   The trial with Pilate revolved around four key questions:

1. “What is the accusation?” (18:28-32).

    “Then 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. {29} So 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.” {31} Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” the Jews objected. {32} This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.”

   Action in criminal cases was subject to Pilate as the ruling Roman governor, since Rome had divested the Jewish Sanhedrin of the authority to inflict capital punishment. His initial question was a part of the usual legal routine.

   Formal complaint had to be lodged before he could proceed with the case. It was also plain to Pilate that these Jewish rulers were trying to embroil him in their religious wranglings…his question in verse 29 tells us he did not intend to become a mere tool in their hands.

Luke 23:2 lists three ‘official charges:’

– He led the nation astray.

   Of course, He had not subverted the nation, either politically or religiously. He had publicly denounced the Pharisees and their hypocritical religious system. He had blessed the nation and brought them new hope. The fact that some of the militant Jews saw in Him a potential king (John 6:15) was not our Lord’s fault, and He fled from all such political demonstrations.

– He opposed paying tribute to Caesar.

He taught just the opposite in Matthew 22:21.

– He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and King.

He did claim to be King but not in a political sense. Even His own disciples did not fully understand these truths until after His resurrection (Acts 1:1-8)

   Had the Sanhedrin possessed the right to execute Jesus, they undoubtedly would have stoned Him to death, for stoning was prescribed by the law (Lev. 20:27). Crucifixion was the Roman method which Jesus had foretold.

The Jews: “We Cannot Legally Put Anyone to Death.” (18:31)

The Jewish religious leaders appear to have incorrectly assessed the situation. They may have assumed that since Pilate had provided Roman soldiers to assist in the arrest of Jesus, he was giving them a “blank check” to deal with Jesus as they saw fit. Their appearance before Pilate early on this morning does not look like a humble petition being made by the religious leaders of a subject nation. The Jewish leaders boldly arrive at Pilate’s home in the early hours of the morning, with Jesus in their custody (verse 28). It may have been at the very first signs of light. Their arrival at this early hour could almost be characterized as “cruel and unusual.” They further insult Pilate by refusing to enter his residence. In their minds, to do so would be to defile themselves by entering the house of a Gentile. Consequently, they virtually force Pilate to come outside to speak with them. Such actions would not be unusual, if it were Pilate demanding such things of the Jews, but for the Jews to act this way toward Pilate is nothing less than insulting.

Pilate’s response to their demands caught the religious leaders off guard. They seem to have expected Pilate to “rubber stamp” their indictment of Jesus and to quickly authorize His execution. Instead, Pilate required them to declare formal charges against Jesus, charges that they had not been able to establish, even though they worked at this all night long (see Matthew 26:59-60; Mark 14:57-59). Before the Jews, Jesus had confessed that He was “guilty” of being the Son of God. They reasoned that this “confession” made Him guilty of blasphemy, and that because of this, Jesus must be put to death (Matthew 26:62-65, Mark 14:64). However, they were not able to substantiate any charges that would make Jesus worthy of death under Roman law. As they stand before Pilate, they find themselves in a real bind. They believe Jesus is guilty of blasphemy, and deserving of death, but they do not have any solid evidence that Jesus is guilty of any capital offense under Roman law; thus, they are hard pressed to convince Pilate that Jesus really should be put to death.

It wasn’t that the Jews never put anyone to death without Rome’s consent. We know from the account of the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 that the Jews were more than willing to put someone to death, without permission from Rome. Stephen’s death was different, however. It did not occur during the feast, and it would seem that Rome was not even aware of what took place. It was very different with Jesus and with Pilate. The words of the Jews in our text mean something like this: “We really want to kill Jesus ourselves, by stoning, but we can’t get away with that at the moment—not now anyway, during the feast, while all of your Roman soldiers are ‘on alert’ and watching us like a hawk.” If they could kill Jesus without Rome’s help, and even without Rome’s permission, they would gladly do so. But they are powerless to do so now, and they know it. Their words convey a feigned submission to Roman authority, but this is all hypocrisy, as Acts 7 underscores, and as Pilate surely knows.

This is not just a matter of obtaining Rome’s permission. The Jewish religious leaders are unwittingly revealing their inability to accomplish what they have attempted on many occasions. They do not seem to realize that they are (to use God’s words to Saul), “kicking against the goads” (Acts 9:5, KJV). I have not attempted to count all of the times that attempts to kill Jesus are recorded in the Gospels, but they are numerous. One of the first attempts came in our Lord’s hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:28-29). When we come to the fifth chapter of John, we read of the Jews’ desire to put Jesus to death, and John makes it very clear that this is not the first time the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Here, John is telling us that they strengthened their (already existing) resolve to put Jesus to death (John 5:18). And so we often find references to the Jews’ intent to put Jesus (and even Lazarus—12:10) to death (7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40, 59; 10:31; 11:8, 16, 47-53, 57). Yet all of these efforts were thwarted, because it was not yet “His time” (see 7:30). It never seems to have occurred to them that they were seeking to accomplish that which God’s purposes and prophecies made impossible.[23]

It must have been their fumbled attempt to arrest Jesus in John 7 that convinced the Jewish religious leaders they needed all the help they could get if they were to arrest and execute Jesus. Officers were dispatched to apprehend Jesus. It was not that He was hard to find, because He was teaching openly in the Temple. The officers dispatched to arrest Jesus did not take Him into custody and bring Him to the chief priests and Pharisees because they had never heard anyone speak as He did (7:46). It is my opinion that from that time on, the religious leaders vowed they would not make the same mistake again. Did they seek to employ Roman soldiers in this final attempt to arrest Jesus because they felt confident these soldiers would not be favorably impressed with the words of a Jew (as the temple police had been)? Many failed attempts to stone Jesus may have led them to conclude that they must go about this legally, so that the power of Rome could be enlisted in their efforts to be rid of Jesus. It never seems to occur to these Jews that their words to Pilate were a confession of failure on their part and also an admission that our Lord was really in control.

John’s Explanation (18:32)

This happened to fulfill the word Jesus spoke indicating what kind of death he was going to die (verse 32).

These words from the author of this Gospel are John’s explanation of what he has just described. The Jews had brought Jesus to Pilate, hoping that he would grant His execution. If they got what they really wanted, it would have been for Pilate to have handed Jesus over to them, so that they could stone Him. This would have been much quicker than crucifying Jesus, and it is something the Jews could have done for themselves. I think it is what they would have most enjoyed. And, to cap matters off, it would have looked more “legal,” so far as Old Testament law was concerned. Those guilty of blasphemy were to be stoned:

“‘And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death’” (Leviticus 24:16, NKJV).

The Jews did not get exactly what they wanted, but they did finally have Jesus in custody, and they are well on their way to getting rid of Jesus—or so they think.

Pilate certainly does not get what he wants. He wants this whole thing to just “go away.” Jesus makes him uneasy—which is an understatement. There is something going on here which Pilate does not fully grasp, but what he does grasp, he does not like. He wants to avoid angering the Jewish leaders one more time, and yet he really does not wish to give in to their demands. He does not like the idea of crucifying an innocent man, either. But Pilate does not get what he wants. He tries to avoid taking responsibility for his actions, but he nevertheless hands Jesus over to be crucified, knowing that He is innocent, indeed, that He is a righteous man.

At this moment in time—when one might wrongly conclude that things have “gotten out of hand”—John reminds us that everything he has been describing is taking place in accordance with the divine plan. It is not just that the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah’s death are being fulfilled; our Lord’s own words, by which He indicated how He would die, are being fulfilled. It was not enough that Jesus should die. It was not enough that He should die during Passover, as the Passover Lamb. It was also necessary that Jesus should die as He had indicated—by being lifted up on a Roman cross:

17 As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve aside privately and said to them on the way, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the experts in the law; they will condemn him to death, 19 and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged severely and crucified. And on the third day, he will be raised!” (Matthew 20:17-19)

14 “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15).

32 “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 (Now he said this to indicate clearly what kind of death he was going to die.) 34 Then the crowd responded, “We have heard from the law that the Christ will remain forever. How can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?” (John 12:32-34)

Although I have said it before, I must say it again—Jesus was Lord at His death. As we view the arrest, the trial and crucifixion of our Lord through John’s eyes, we should be overwhelmed with this truth. Jesus was not a helpless victim, who was overcome by His adversaries. Jesus was not only the sinless Son of God, He was the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe (see John 1). He was and is the Sovereign God, who does what He has purposed and promised to do. Every event which John describes is something which God purposed to accomplish. Many of these things were prophesied, not merely by the Old Testament prophets, but by our Lord Himself. Jesus was in complete control as the officers bound Him and led Him away from the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus was in control when He stood before Annas, before Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate and Herod.

The irony is that the Jews and Pilate appear to be sitting in the judge’s seat, and that it is Jesus who is on trial. In one sense, of course, this is true. But in the ultimate sense, it is not Jesus who is on trial but the Jews and Pilate. And both of them fail the test. Both rejected Jesus as the Son of God, as the King of the Jews. It is possible that as you hear this message and the claims of Christ, you may somehow take the same posture as Pilate. You may think that you are giving Jesus a “hearing,” but that you haven’t yet decided in His favor. I can say to you with absolute certainty that there will be a day when you will stand before Him as your judge. The only means God has provided for your salvation is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Those who trust in His death, burial, and resurrection for their salvation will enter into His kingdom. Those who do not receive His gift of salvation, brought about by His death, burial, and resurrection, will suffer eternal judgment. Trust Him today.

14 “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” 16 For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God (John 3:14-21).

His shed blood will either cleanse you from all sin, or it will be on your hands for all eternity.

2. “Are you the king of the Jews?” (18:33-38).

    “Pilate 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} “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?” {36} Jesus 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.”

   The question asking Jesus if he was king of the Jews is recorded by each of the Gospel writers. Messianic expectations always ran high at Passover season, and it would be easy for a Jewish pretender to incite the people into a riot or a rebellion against Rome.  Pilate no doubt felt himself on safe ground when he asked about Christ’s kingship.

   However, he was not prepared for the answer! Jesus was not evading the issue; He was forcing Pilate to clarify the matter for his own sake. Pilate explodes with indignation when Jesus answers him the way he does (vs. 34).  His contempt for the Jews and his impatience with Jesus come to the surface.

   Jesus proceeds to explain that His kingdom was not of this world. Pilate’s anger subsided into baffled curisoity (vs. 37). He was well acquainted with royalty, but could not classify Jesus with any king he knew.

   Pilate pronounced the prisoner innocent of any crime, but notice two things:

– Jesus tells Pilate why He was upon the earth

Pilate asked the most important question in the world, “What is truth?” yet never went further to seek to identify it

Jesus: “You Are Right in Saying I Am a King” (18:37)

The Jewish religious leaders took issue with Jesus in slightly different terms:[24]

66 When day came, the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law. Then they led Jesus away to their council 67 and said, “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” He answered them, “You say that I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need further testimony? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!” (Luke 22:66-71)

They were interested in His claim to be the Son of God, or as John expresses it in his Gospel, His claim to be equal with God (5:18; 10:33, 36). I don’t think Pilate really cared about such matters. His concern was much more pragmatic: Was Jesus claiming to be Israel’s king? Our Lord’s answer to the Jews and to Pilate was a very clear, “Yes, I am!”

And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am” (Luke 22:70, NAB).

They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am” (NIV).

Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am” (NKJV).

Literally, Jesus responded, “You say that I am,” but that was the equivalent to His saying, “Yes, I am.” And so we see the translations cited above indicate this affirmation on the part of our Lord.

It was not the safest thing for Jesus to say. To tell Pilate that He was the King of the Jews was to risk being condemned for high treason (which, of course, He was). To admit to the Jews that He was the Son of God was to convince them that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy (for which they excused their initiative in putting Jesus to death). In both cases, the penalty for such offenses (if proven guilty) was death. The fact is that Jesus is not only “the way” and “the life,” He is also “the truth.” Jesus cannot lie about anything, and especially not about His identity. This is why I view our Lord’s statement to Pilate as the “great confession” in the Gospel of John. Peter’s “great confession,” recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20), is not found in John. It is Jesus Himself who is the true witness in John. “You say that I am a King. I have been born and have come into the world for this reason—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice” (John 18:37).

There are those who seek to convince us that Jesus never claimed to be God, that He never said He was the promised Messiah. Such people seem not to have read the Gospels, or at least to have read them very carefully. At the time when such a confession would likely lead to His death, Jesus testified that He was the Son of God and the King of the Jews. Jesus claims to be God and acknowledges that He is the One whom God has appointed to rule over the whole earth. Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and the King of the Jews. There may be those who reject Jesus as the Son of God and King of the Jews, but none should deny that this is who Jesus claimed to be. This is our Lord’s “great confession.” Thus, to reject Jesus as the Son of God is to reject His testimony as well.

 

Pilate: “What Is Truth?” (18:38)

It might be helpful to remind ourselves of the political situation at this point in time. Rome had succeeded in gaining dominance as a world power, and had divided its subject territories into provinces for administration. Syria was one of these Roman provinces, of which Palestine was a part. Herod the Great once ruled over all five areas of Palestine, but when he died, his territory was divided among his three sons. Due to misrule, Archelaus (who governed Judea and Samaria) was removed and replaced by one known as “the Governor of Judea.” Pontius Pilate was the “Governor of Judea” at the time of our Lord’s crucifixion. At the same time, Herod Antipas[25] ruled over Galilee and Perea. We know from Luke 23:12 that Herod and Pilate had been adversaries until the trials of our Lord.

Rome chose to give its subject provinces a fair degree of freedom, so long as they were submissive and cooperative. This meant that the Jews were allowed to govern themselves by making and enforcing laws, and by trying and punishing law-breakers. Rome could intervene at any time, at its discretion, but under normal conditions, they would not do so. The one exception came in the area of capital punishment. There was too much risk of abuse here, and so (in theory, at least) any execution required Roman permission and was normally carried out by crucifixion, at the hands of Roman soldiers.

Normally, Pilate would reside at his palace in Caesarea. During the Passover season, the population of Jerusalem would swell considerably. Pilgrims came from afar to celebrate this feast, and there was a very high level of messianic expectation and enthusiasm. Consequently, the chance of some kind of uprising was considered much greater at this time. Therefore, a sizeable force of Roman soldiers would be stationed in Jerusalem or nearby, and Pilate himself would temporarily reside in Jerusalem. Because of the season, Pilate must bear the burden of responsibility for dealing with the Jews and for determining the fate (humanly speaking, of course) of Jesus.

Until 1961, there was no archaeological proof of the existence of Pontius Pilate.[26] In the summer of 1961, Italian archaeologists were excavating an ancient theater at Caesarea, the Mediterranean port which served as the Roman capital of Palestine.[27] They unearthed a stone that bore a partial inscription, bearing the name of Pontius Pilate. It refers to the presentation of “the Tiberieum” to the Caesareans. The “Tiberieum” was apparently some kind of public structure named after the Roman emperor Tiberius.

Nevertheless, the name of Pontius Pilate has been well known to many over the centuries. His name has been repeated by countless Catholics and others reciting the Apostles’ Creed. It begins,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Readers of the New Testament are familiar with Pilate, who is not portrayed in a very favorable light. Luke’s Gospel informs us that Pilate was governor when John the Baptist commenced his ministry (Luke 3:1-2). Later in Luke, we read of his abusive and blasphemous treatment of the Galileans: “Now there were some present on that occasion who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1).[28]

What we know of Pilate from history is not very flattering either. He made several major mistakes,[29] which set the scene for what takes place in our text. Normally, when Roman governors arrived in Jerusalem, they removed their standards (a pole with a Roman eagle or an image of the emperor mounted on the top) because of the Jews’ disdain for such images.[30] In spite of his awareness of these Jewish scruples and past Roman practice, Pilate’s troops marched into Jerusalem carrying medallions with the emperor’s image or bust among their standards. This precipitated a protest demonstration by the Jews lasting five days, and eventually, Pilate was forced to give in to public pressure by removing the standards.

A second incident occurred when Pilate later constructed an aqueduct to convey water from cisterns near Bethlehem to Jerusalem. This provoked a riot, not because of the aqueduct itself, but because Pilate funded the project with funds he took from the temple. Roman troops had to be used to put down the riot, and Pilate warned them not to use their swords. His instructions were not carried out properly, and there was bloodshed. Paul Maier enumerates some good reasons why Pilate’s actions may not have been as evil or as foolish as they seemed,[31] but this did not prevent the riot or the resulting bloodshed. It was yet another black eye for Pilate’s administration.

The straw which broke the proverbial “camel’s back” seems to have occurred when Pilate set up several golden shields at his headquarters in Jerusalem. These shields had no images, but only an inscription of dedication to Tiberius. Nevertheless, the people protested strongly, backed up by Herod Antipas and his brothers. This time, Pilate refused to back down. In other places like Alexandria, shields were tolerated by the Jews. This was Jerusalem, however, and this was a “golden” opportunity for Herod to make Pilate look bad to Tiberias. Herod wrote a letter of official protest to the emperor, who ordered Pilate to have the shields sent to Caesarea, warning him about offending the Jews by violating their customs.

All of this is to say that Pilate was none too popular with the Jews at this point in time. I doubt very much that he cared either, because his actions toward the Jews seem to indicate that he held a great disdain for them. You can imagine, then, how Pilate must have responded to the knock on his palace door early that fateful morning. “He who blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, It will be counted a curse to him” (Proverbs 27:14).

The Jews are in a hurry, and they need to dispense with the legal formalities as quickly as possible if they are to have this whole horrible thing finished by sunset (so that they can “worship God” at this Passover). They have been up all night with Jesus, preparing for this moment. Now, they demand to see Pilate, but they also refuse to “defile themselves” by entering into the dwelling of this Gentile pagan (18:28). And then, when Pilate asks them to indicate what formal charges they wish to press against Jesus, they are unable to articulate any charges which would make Him worthy of the death penalty. Instead, they come up with a pious sounding version of “trust me”: “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you” (verse 30).

Pilate is already impatient with them. If this is the way they want to go about this matter, then let them deal with Jesus according to their own law. Pilate does not yet seem to grasp that they will be content with nothing less than the death penalty. They now reveal this to him: “We cannot legally put anyone to death” (verse 31). Pilate is (as we would say in Texas) “caught between a rock and a hard place.” He is undoubtedly angry with these Jews for disturbing and insulting him, as they have done, and yet he does not wish to get into trouble with the Jews again, since he appears to be on “thin ice” with Rome at the moment. He hopes to be able to resolve this crisis in a way that does not anger the Jews, and yet does not give them what they demand.

Pilate takes Jesus aside privately—into his quarters—where the Jews will not enter, lest they defile themselves. He asks Jesus this question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” (verse 33). We know from Luke’s Gospel that this charge was made against Jesus (Luke 23:3). Pilate is virtually forced to explore this charge further, and so he asks Jesus directly whether or not He is the “King of the Jews.” Jesus does not keep quiet, as He does before the Jews and Herod. Neither does Jesus deny the charge. Jesus is not seeking to defend Himself, but rather to probe the heart of Pilate. Does Pilate ask this for his own benefit, or is he simply doing so because he is forced to follow up on the charge of the Jews that He is a revolutionary, claiming to be the “King of the Jews”?

Pilate’s response to Jesus’ question is negative: “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” (verse 35). Pilate assumes that the real issues are Jewish, and thus that they do not really involve him. Jesus is a Jew. If He claims to be the “King of the Jews” that has nothing to do with Pilate, unless, of course, Jesus is actively seeking to overthrow Roman rule—otherwise, this a really a matter between Jesus and His Jewish countrymen. You will recall that this same approach was later employed by Gallio:

12 Now while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews attacked Paul together and brought him before the judgment seat, 13 saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God in a way contrary to the law.” 14 But just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of some crime or serious piece of villainy, I would have been justified in accepting the complaint of you Jews; 15 but since it concerns points of disagreement about words and names and your own law, settle it yourselves. I will not be a judge of these things.” 16 Then he had them forced away from the judgment seat (Acts 18:12-16).

This approach just does not work for Pilate. He seems to suspect that whatever Jesus did, it was not as serious as the Jews represented it to be. On the other hand, the intensity of their accusations would incline one to suppose that Jesus had done something pretty awful to get these folks so worked up. And so Pilate asks Jesus, in effect, “What have you done wrong to make these folks so angry?” In Pilate’s mind, there had to be some wrong-doing on Jesus’ part. How else could one explain the hostility of the Jews? As the case drags on, Pilate begins to see things for what they are. Those who so vehemently oppose Jesus are jealous of Him (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10).

Jesus does not deny that He is the “King of the Jews,” but He does explain to Pilate that this is no threat whatsoever to him, or to Roman rule. Jesus’ kingdom is “not from this world.” If it were, then His servants would fight to resist His arrest (as Peter had attempted to do, momentarily, before being stopped short by Jesus). His kingdom is not from earth. Pilate had nothing to worry about.

Pilate was listening carefully to what Jesus said. He drew the correct inference: “So then, you really are a King!” Jesus replies in a way that clearly indicates this is true: “You say that I am a King …” In more contemporary terminology, we would say, “You said it!” The Lord’s meaning is therefore something like this: “You are absolutely right that I am a King!” His “kingdom” is centered around revelation, not revolution; around truth, not treason. Jesus was a teacher, not a traitor. This was the purpose for His incarnation; this was His mission in life—to testify to the truth. And everyone who embraces Him as the promised Messiah (who “belongs to the truth”) listens to His voice.

Here is the challenge to Pilate—to accept Jesus’ teaching as the truth. Pilate’s response is tragic. It is phrased as a question, but it is really an admission of complete cynicism. He does not ask, “What is the truth?” Such a question would indicate that Pilate believes in truth but does not know what the truth is. The question, “What is truth?”, is a completely different matter. It is as though Pilate had said, “Truth? You don’t mean to tell me that you believe there is such a thing as truth, do you? Truth is whatever you want it to be.” I am sure Pilate had heard many who claimed to know the truth, and who were willing to reveal it to him (for a price of some kind). But here, it is as though Pilate has finally come to the point of giving up so far as ever knowing anything to be absolutely true.

I heard Josh McDowell speaking on the radio the other day, and he was describing the same attitude on the part of many college students today. He said that he has spoken on hundreds of college campuses over the years. In the past, students would argue with him as to whether or not the teachings of the Bible were true. They believed there was such a thing as truth; they just weren’t sure what the truth was. Today, McDowell said, when he goes onto a college campus, there is cynicism as to whether anyone can ever know anything to be absolutely true.

There is a very important principle to be learned from our text, one that is just as relevant for today as it was for Pilate 2,000 years ago: “WHENEVER ONE LOSES FAITH IN THE FACT THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, THERE IS ONLY ONE STANDARD BY WHICH THAT PERSON’S ACTIONS CAN BE MEASURED: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.” Jesus claims to be the source of truth. Pilate has come to doubt that there is such a thing as absolute truth. And so Pilate’s actions are guided by the principle of political correctness. He does not do what is right. He has already come to the realization that Jesus is innocent. And if this is not enough, Pilate’s wife will send him the message that Jesus is much more than innocent, He is righteous: “While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him’” (Matthew 27:19, NAB).[32]

And so it is that Pilate opts to do what is “politically correct,” even though it is morally wrong. Pilate decides to act out of expedience, handing Jesus over to those who are crying for His blood. Today, we are watching the very same thing happen before our very eyes. No longer are our leaders acting out of principle; all too many are acting out of pure pragmatism.

Sequence of Events

Jews’ decision to kill Jesus, but not before the feast—Matthew 26:1-5; Mark 14:1-2; Luke 22:1-2; John 11:45-53 (a different occasion and time—the resurrection of Lazarus).

Judas’ decision to betray Jesus after anointing—Matthew 26:6-16; Mark 14:3-11; Luke 22:3-6 (Satan enters Judas, who makes deal to betray, but no account of anointing here); John 12:1-8 (no account of Judas’ decision to betray here).

Passover Meal

Preparations—Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-12 (Peter and John are the two sent); not in John.

Prediction of Judas’ betrayal (Matthew 26:21-25, where Jesus lets Judas know that it is he—Mark 14:17-21; Luke 22:21-23 (followed by dispute about who was to be regarded as greatest, vv. 24-30); John 13:11, 18-30.

Bread and cup—Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20; not in John.

Prediction of Peter’s denial—Matthew 26:31-25; Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:31-34 (different from Matthew and Mark, then followed by need to take money and sword, 35-38); John 13:34-38.

Upper Room Discourse—(only in John 13-16), and High Priestly prayer (only in John 17).

Gethsemane—Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 29:39-46; John (virtually not there, see 18:1-2).

Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested—Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52 (including naked escapee); Luke 22:47-53 (Jesus heals ear); John 18:2-11 (Peter named as the swordsman, also Malchus).

Jesus brought before Annas—John 18:12-27.

Jesus brought before Caiaphas and Sanhedrin—Matthew 26:57-68 (great confession of Jesus obtained; blasphemy claimed and verdict pronounced); Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:54-63 (intertwined account of Jesus before the high priest, and Peter’s denial; then, when day comes, Jesus is brought before the council and condemned—verses 66-71; great confession, condemned); John 18:24, 28 (not really dealt with in John).

Peter’s denials—Matthew 26:69-75 (all in one paragraph); Mark 14:66-72; Luke (see above); in John (Peter’s denials are split between first denial, in verses 15-18, and the second and third in verses 25-27).

Jesus brought before Pilate, handed over for crucifixion—Matthew 27:1-2, 11-31; Mark 15:1-20; Luke 23:1-5 (sent to Herod, verses 6-12, and then back to Pilate, who caves in and turns an innocent man over to this mob to crucify Him, verses 13-25); John 18:28–19:16 (certainly the most detailed account).

Judas’ suicide—(Only in Matthew 27:3-10).

Jesus’ crucifixion—Matthew 27:32-44; Mark 15:21-32; Luke 23:26-43; John 19:27.

Jesus’ death—Matthew 27:45-56; Mark 15:33-41; Luke 23:44-46; John 19:28-37.

Jesus’ burial—Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:47-56; John 19:38-42.

Guard posted at tomb—Matthew 27:62-66.

Resurrection—Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 19:1-9.

Guards’ story concocted—Matthew 28:11-15.

I read a very different interpretation of John’s account of the trial of our Lord before Pilate. This account was written by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. His book is entitled, Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History.[33] As I cite his words below, I would remind you that I do not agree with his conclusions. I include them so that you will see how some in Judaism view the words of the Gospel writers, like John. Again I would caution you that these are not the words of a Christian, committed to the inerrancy of the Word of God:

Concerning Jesus’ executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kind-hearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his ‘heart of hearts’ really did not want to harm Jesus—is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity’s founder—indeed the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity’s only hope for gaining legitimacy was to ‘prove’ to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, ‘Crucify him.’ The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate’s power in Judea was absolute.[34] Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.[35]

While I strongly differ with Rabbi Telushkin in most of his conclusions, I did find a couple of his other statements most interesting and informative:

Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus’ crucifixion (see Christ-killer).[36]

My understanding of Jesus has been largely shaped by Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea.[37]

Most statements attributed to Jesus in the New Testament conform to Jewish teachings. This is, of course, not surprising, since Jesus generally practiced *Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism. However, at least three innovative teachings ascribed to Jesus diametrically oppose Jewish teachings.

1. Jesus forgives all sins …

2. Jesus’ attitude toward evil people: …

3. Jesus’ claim that people can come to God only through him: …[38]

I could not help but see a relationship between Pilate according to John, Pilate according to Rabbi Telushkin, and Burl Cain at the Angola State Prison. Rabbi Telushkin wants us to view Pilate as a cruel and heartless Roman governor, who due to his own hatred and political ambitions, put Jesus to death. By his version, the Jewish religious leaders hardly played a role in the death of Christ. To Telushkin, John’s Gospel is a myth, fabricated to make the Jews look bad, and the Roman governor look good, with the hope of shaming Rome into protecting Christianity. Telushkin views John’s description of Pilate as making this cruel and vindictive governor appear to be as kind and merciful toward Jesus as Burl Cain was toward Antonio James. The fact is that John does no such thing. John’s account of the trial and crucifixion of our Lord depicts the sin and guilt of Pilate, the Roman soldiers, the Jews, and even (to some degree) the disciples—especially Peter. The purpose of this lesson is to consider the condemnation of Jesus as John portrays it, so that we see the guilt of Jews and Gentiles alike. No one but our Lord comes out of this looking good.[39]

3. “Shall I release the King of the Jews?” (18:39-19:7).

   “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’?” {40} They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.”

   (John 19:1-7)  “Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. {2} The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe {3} and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him in the face. {4} Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” {5} When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!” {6} As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.” {7} The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.””

The Jewish religious leaders brought Jesus to Pilate’s residence, rudely summoned the governor at a most uncivilized hour, and then refused to enter his residence, lest they defile themselves! This forced Pilate to come out to them. This is hardly the way for a subject people to treat their Roman governor. Pilate asks the Jews to state their formal charges against Jesus, and they have no direct answer, only the evasion, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” This is the equivalent to, “Don’t ask questions, just trust us.”

I find it very difficult to believe that Pilate is as ignorant and uninformed about Jesus as he lets on to these Jews. I believe there must have been the equivalent of what I would call “the Jesus file” in Pilate’s possession. Think about it for a minute. Today, the CIA, the FBI, and who knows how many other federal agencies make it their business to keep track of any person or group that seeks the overthrow of our government. The identity and activities of every known enemy, as well as all those even suspected, are closely monitored, and all of this information is kept on file. So each possible enemy of the state would have his or her own file, containing all kinds of information concerning their statements and their activities.

Do you think it reasonable that Rome would not have kept a “file” on Jesus in that day? It may not have been a file, as such, but I am virtually certain that Pilate kept track of anyone who was popular and had a following among the Jews. Such people had the potential of leading the Jews in rebellion against Rome. Every time Jesus made an appearance in Jerusalem, there was some kind of commotion or disturbance. Surely Pilate was aware of this and kept track of Jesus’ activities. When the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate, it is difficult to believe that He was unknown to the governor, at least by reputation. Pilate no doubt knew what Jesus had claimed, and how the Jewish leaders reacted to Him and His teaching.[40] But Pilate is initially playing out this trial “by the book,” and so he insists that they declare formal charges against Jesus.

When they fail to come up with a suitable charge against Jesus, Pilate instructs them to handle this matter themselves, according to their law. Why are they troubling him with such matters?  They could handle the problem, except for the fact that they have already decided upon the penalty. Those who could not articulate the crime had already determined the punishment.  They were forced to admit it—the reason they brought Jesus to Pilate was because they wanted Him put to death, and according to Roman law, the Jews could not execute anyone. Only Rome could do this, and that is what they are asking Pilate to do, even without a formal charge.

Unwittingly, the Jews were fulfilling prophecy: “This happened to fulfill the word Jesus spoke indicating what kind of death he was going to die” (verse 32). Old Testament prophecies (such as Psalm 22, for example) had hinted that the Messiah would die by crucifixion. Stoning was the penalty the Old Testament law prescribed for blasphemy, but Jesus Himself had indicated that He would die by being “lifted up” (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). From eternity past, it had been determined that Jesus would die by crucifixion. Though the Jews often tried to stone Jesus, this was not the way He must die. And so the words of the Jews to Pilate, indicating that Jesus must die, and that they could not execute Him, meant that Jesus must die the “Roman way,” by crucifixion, and not by the “Jewish way” of stoning.

John does not record all the accusations that the Jews had made against Jesus, but Luke’s Gospel indicates that Jesus was accused of several offenses:

1 Then the whole group of them rose up and brought Jesus before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:1-2).

Only one of these charges seems to interest Pilate—the charge that Jesus claimed to be Christ, a king. Was Jesus a threat to his throne? Would He attempt to overthrow Roman rule? If this were the case, Pilate could not ignore it, not just for Caesar’s sake, but for his own.

And so Pilate goes back inside, into his own residence, away from the clamoring crowd outside. He summoned Jesus to him and asked, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus does answer Pilate’s question, as we see in verse 37, but first He probes Pilate concerning his interest in such matters: “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others said it to you about me?” (verse 34). In other words, is Pilate asking for himself, personally, or is he merely interrogating Him? Does Pilate really have an interest in Jesus’ identity? Does he care about such things? It would surely appear that Jesus was gently probing Pilate, testing for any spiritual interest on his part. Our Lord knew who His sheep were (John 10:14, 26-27; 13:18), but even so He sought to encourage Pilate to seek Him.

Pilate’s answer effectively shuts off this line of conversation: “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” (verse 35). First of all, his answer informs Jesus that he is not really interested in pursuing the spiritual issues that are involved here. Second, Pilate’s response reveals that he does not think that he, as a Gentile, has any part in what this Jew is doing. All he wishes to know is why Jesus has managed to get the Jews so worked up. What kind of trouble was Jesus stirring up? The people who had gathered outside were certainly agitated about something Jesus had said or done, so just what was it He did to provoke them? He must have done something very wrong.

Jesus would not deny that He was the King of the Jews, for this was the truth. Instead, He assured Pilate that His “kingdom” was of no immediate political threat to him. “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would fight to prevent me being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But now my kingdom is not from here” (verses 36-37). This is why Jesus would not allow Peter to continue fighting against those who were seeking to arrest Jesus.

Pilate did not miss the meaning of our Lord’s words, which were clear enough for him: “You are a king, then?” (verse 37). Jesus answers, “You say that I am a king” (verse 38). I believe the NIV rightly captures the sense of our Lord’s words with the rendering, “You are right in saying I am a king.” This closely resembles the translations of the NKJV and the NASB, which have the reputation of being more literal.[41] Our Lord’s response informs Pilate that he is right to understand Him to mean that He is the King of the Jews. But Jesus wants it to be clear that His purpose in coming is revelation, not revolution. He has come to testify to the truth. Those who belong to the truth pay attention to His words.

Pilate’s answer, which we looked at more closely in our last lesson, reveals his cynical attitude: “What is truth?” He had sat in judgment on countless occasions. In Pilate’s mind, he had heard every explanation, every excuse, every justification known to man. He had come to doubt that anyone really spoke the truth. Worse yet, it would seem, he seems to have come to the conclusion that there was no such thing as truth.

Several years ago, I received a traffic ticket for making what was alleged to be an illegal turn. I did it in front of a police officer, as he was giving a ticket to another driver. I knew he saw what I was doing, and yet it never occurred to me that I was doing anything wrong. In fact, I wasn’t. I pled my case, and the judge threw it out, along with several other tickets for the same “offense.” But while I was waiting for my chance to play Perry Mason, I had to listen to some other drivers as they attempted to justify their actions to the judge. The person who was just before me was a young fellow, who owned a high performance automobile and was cited for speeding. He tried to convince the judge that his car would not idle slow enough to allow him to drive it 35 miles per hour. The judge was unimpressed. Pilate must have heard many such explanations.

 

Pilate Confronts the Crowd (18:38b-40)

When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish religious leaders and said, “I find no reason for an accusation against him. 39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

Inside his private quarters, and apart from the clamor of the Jews, Pilate interrogates Jesus. Jesus’ claim to be the King of the Jews explains, at least in part, the animosity of the Jewish religious leaders. They have no intention of relinquishing their authority. But whatever threat Jesus poses to them, Pilate seems confident that Jesus is not a threat to him. He returns, intending to announce his “not guilty” verdict to the Jews who are waiting outside. He declares that the charges against Jesus are ill-founded, and thus he has concluded that Jesus does not deserve to die.

At this point, Pilate seems to have an inspiration. Perhaps they would settle for a victory in principle. Pilate could appease them by declaring Jesus guilty, and then graciously releasing Him to them, as was his custom at Passover. In this way, Jesus would not be put to death, but He would have been declared guilty. It was a sort of compromise, which gave both sides (the Jews and Pilate) a token victory. The Jews could boast that Pilate had declared Jesus guilty; Pilate could be at ease that he had not crucified an innocent man. And so he put the matter before the Jews. Should he release Jesus to them on this Passover?

If Pilate expected this ploy to work, he had greatly underestimated how determined the Jews were to kill Jesus. They shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (verse 40). In John’s Gospel, the name “Barabbas” seems to appear out of nowhere, mentioned first by the Jews. One senses that some orchestration has already occurred behind the scenes. John tells us, parenthetically, that Barabbas was a revolutionary. The Synoptic Gospels provide us with some very helpful additional details at this point. Luke’s account seems to confirm our suspicions that the Jews were the first ones to think of Barabbas.

18 But they all shouted out together, “Take this man away! Release Barabbas for us!” 19 (He was a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder). 20 Pilate addressed them once again because he wanted to release Jesus. 21 But they kept on shouting out, “Crucify, crucify him!” (Luke 23:18-20)

Even Mark’s account leaves room for the view that the idea of releasing Barabbas originated with the Jews, rather than Pilate.

6 During the feast it was customary to release a prisoner to them, whom they requested. 7 A man named Barabbas was imprisoned with rebels who had committed murder in a riot. 8 Then the crowd came up and asked Pilate to carry out the custom for them. 9 So Pilate asked them, “Do you want the king of the Jews released to you?” 10 (For he knew that the chief priests had handed him over because of envy.) 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 So Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you want me to do with the one you call king of the Jews?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14 Pilate asked them, “Why, what has he done wrong?” But they shouted more insistently, “Crucify him!” 15 Because he wanted to satisfy the crowd Pilate released Barabbas for them. Then he had Jesus flogged and handed over to be crucified (Mark 15:6-15).

Mark first informs us that Pilate would, at Passover, release one prisoner to the Jews, whomever they requested. In other words, this was a matter requiring Jewish initiative. (Surely Pilate was not eager to release anyone whom he had imprisoned.) Mark then goes on to tell us about Barabbas, and what a menace he was to society. When the Jews approached Pilate, to request the release of a prisoner, he leaped at the chance to release Jesus in this way, but they immediately rejected this proposal, insisting rather that Barabbas be released to them. I do not think that all of this happened spontaneously, but rather that it was planned by the Jewish leaders, and then the crowds were persuaded by their leaders to carry out this plan. It may have appeared spontaneous to Pilate. It was probably designed to look this way. But from the beginning, the Jews sought to gain the release of Barabbas, knowing that Pilate’s desire was to release Jesus. In my opinion, they were skillfully removing this option.

I realize that one could interpret these texts differently, so that releasing Barabbas is initially Pilate’s idea, but I am inclined to see it the other way. To me, Mark and Luke imply that the people first brought up the name of Barabbas. The Jews could see that Pilate did not want to put Jesus to death. They knew from his own lips that he wanted to release Him. The Jews made one last, desperate, move. It was the custom for Pilate to release one man before the Passover, as a gesture of goodwill. The Jews could see that Pilate was about to release Jesus. What if they beat him to the punch, asking for the release of Barabbas, instead? Regardless of who first raised the name of Barabbas,[42] the Gospels agree as to how wicked and violent Barabbas was. He really did deserve to die! He was a robber (John 18:40), and a revolutionary who was guilty of murder (Mark 15:7-8; Luke 23:18-19). Matthew sums it up by calling Barabbas “notorious” (Matthew 27:16).

Pilate is obliged to release someone to the Jews. The Jews have made it clear that it must not be Jesus. They have asked, instead, for Pilate to release Barabbas. As dangerous as Barabbas is, they do not consider him as great a threat as Jesus to the well-being of their nation. In their minds, Jesus is worse than a robber, a revolutionary, and a murderer. They want Jesus executed, and Barabbas released.

Isn’t it interesting that Barabbas is substituted for Jesus, and Jesus for Barabbas? Jesus, the Prince of Peace, dies in the place of a revolutionary, intent on overthrowing Roman rule. Jesus, who restores the dead to life, is put to death in the place of a murderer. Jesus, who instructed Peter to put away his sword, and who restored the ear of Malchus, is portrayed as a greater threat to Roman rule than Barabbas. When man rebels against God, he always seems to substitute something for God. The heathen worship the creature, rather than the Creator (Romans 1:18-23).

   The fact that Herod had found nothing worthy of death encourged Pilate to confront the Jewish leaders and seek to release the prisoner.

   Pilate sought to release Jesus in accordance with the annual custom of pardoning a prisoner at the Passover, then tried to placate the priests with a halfway punishment and a sentimental presentation (19:5).

   Barabbas was a robber (18:40), a notorious prisoner (Matt. 27:16), an insurrectionist and a murderer (Luke 23:19). Who could possibly want that kind of a prisoner turned loose!

Pilate Under Pressure
(19:1-7)

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. 2 The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him again and again and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly in the face. 4 Again Pilate went out and said to the Jewish religious leaders, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no reason for an accusation against him.” 5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Look, here is the man!” 6 When the chief priests and their officers saw him, they shouted out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said, “You take him and crucify him! For I find no reason for an accusation against him!” 7 The Jewish religious leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!”

Have you ever heard a child say something like this: “When I grow up, I’m going to be the President of the United States, and then I can do whatever I want!” What a tempting thought—to be a person so powerful you can have your way. The fact is, it isn’t true. Pilate is proof of this. In the introduction to this lesson, I quoted from the words of Rabbi Telushkin, who contends that John deliberately distorted the facts about Pilate. According to Telushkin, John painted a picture of Pilate as a kind and compassionate man, who really cared about Jesus, and who wanted to keep Him out of harm’s way, but was forced by the Jews to crucify Him.

That is not the picture we find in any of the Gospels, including John! We know that Pilate was a cruel and harsh governor. He did not care for the Jews; indeed, he seems to have despised them. It was not out of the kindness of his heart that he sought to spare the life of Jesus. It was out of self-interest, pure and simple, that he sought to release Jesus. It is not a tender-hearted man that we see here, which makes the point even more dramatic. Pilate is a cruel despot, who seems to take pleasure in offending the Jews. He has no concern for Jesus. He does not wish to make yet another politically incorrect blunder, for which he must give account to Caesar. And he does not wish to be pushed around by these troublesome Jews. He believes that he has no other choice but to give in to their demands, try as he had to persuade them otherwise.

I’ve watched men run their businesses like tyrants, only to go home and cower before their wives, and even their children. It does not make them any less tyrannical; it only accentuates the “power” of those who are able to push them around. Telushkin tries very hard to get the Jews off the hook, and to make Rome and Pilate the real villains in the story of Jesus’ condemnation and execution. It just isn’t true. These Jews (especially the leaders) have taken a very hard-line stance with Pilate. Even though they are a subject people, they would rather risk the wrath of Pilate and of Rome than to allow Jesus to remain alive and free. For them, it is “all or nothing.” They brought Jesus to Pilate to be condemned and to be put to death, and they will settle for nothing less. They “pull all the stops” in their effort to force Pilate to act as they wish. They do not intend to allow Pilate to release Jesus, and they virtually demand the release of the notorious Barabbas.

Pilate has Jesus severely beaten, and orders Him to be brought out for the crowd to look upon Him, wearing the clothing of a king. Is Pilate trying to inspire pity for Jesus on the part of the Jews?[43] Or is he attempting to convince them that their fears of such a “king” are groundless? Does this beaten and bloody fellow really look like a king? Can such a fellow really pose a threat to these Jewish leaders? Pilate has Jesus brought out before them with the words, “Behold the man” (verse 5). Unwittingly, perhaps, Pilate has said more than he knows. The study notes on verse 5 in the NET Bible inform us,

Pilate may have meant no more than something like ‘Here is the accused!’ or in a contemptuous way, ‘Here is your king!’ Others have taken Pilate’s statement as intended to evoke pity from Jesus’ accusers: ‘Look at this poor fellow!’ (Jesus would certainly not have looked very impressive after the scourging). For the evangelist, however, Pilate’s words constituted an unconscious allusion to Zech 6:12, ‘Look here is the man whose name is the Branch.’ In this case Pilate (unknowingly and ironically) presented Jesus to the nation under a messianic title!

Like a teacher trying to gain control of an unruly class, Pilate is attempting to gain control over this situation, which has by now gotten quite out of hand (see Matthew 27:24). As he brought Jesus out for the Jews to behold this bloody and beaten king, Pilate informed them once again that he found no basis for condemning Him. The Jews cried out, demanding that Pilate crucify Jesus: “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate saw that there was no way he could change their minds. And at this point, when his position and power were on thin ice with Rome, he sensed that he did not dare to anger these Jews once again. And so he responded, “You take him and crucify him! For I find no reason for an accusation against him!” (verse 6). The Jews quickly responded, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!”

4. “Where did you come from?” (19:8-16).

   The Romans and Greeks had numerous myths about the gods coming to earth as men (note Acts 14:8-13), so it is likely that Pilate responded to the phrase “Son of God” with these stories in mind.

   “When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, {9} and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. {10} “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” {11} Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” {12} From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” {13} When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). {14} It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. {15} But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered. {16} Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus.”

   Why did Jesus not answer Pilate’s question? Because He had already answered it (John 18:36-37). It is a basic spiritual principle that God does not reveal new truth to us if we fail to act upon the truth we already know. Furthermore, Pilate had already made it clear that he was not personally interested in spiritual truth.

   Of course, our Lord’s silence before both Herod and Pilate was a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7. Peter later used this as an example of suffering Christians to follow (1 Peter 2:18-23).

   Jesus then spoke His last words to Pilate, words that reveal His faith in the Father and His surrender to His will:

    “Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” {12} From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” {13} When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). {14} It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. {15} But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered. {16} Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus.”

   The “preparation” refers to the preparation for the Sabbath which would begin at sundown that day (Friday). Being the Passover Sabbath, it was an especially holy day. The religious leaders were more concerned about their traditions than they were knowing the truth and obeying the will of God.

   Pilate was uneasy throughout this entire proceeding.  He made at  least four trips between the outer court where he met the Jews (18:28) and the inner chamber or hall where he took Jesus for questioning:

– 18:29: Pilate went out to meet the delegation and prisoner

– 18:33: Pilate went in and called Jesus for consultation

– 18:38: Pilate went out again to report his verdict

– 19:1: (inference) Pilate went in again to order the scourging

– 19:4: Pilate went out again to present Jesus

– 19:9: Pilate went back again to question Jesus further

– 19:13: Pilate brought Jesus out again for the final verdict

   From the human standpoint, the trial of Jesus was the greatest crime and tragedy in history. From the divine viewpoint, it was the fulfillment of prophecy and the accomplishment of the will of God.

   The fact that God had planned all of this did not absolve the participants of their responsibility. In fact, at Pentecost, Peter put both ideas together in one statement:  (Acts 2:23)  “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”

Now, the real reason for the animosity of the Jews toward Jesus is out in the open. Jesus is not merely claiming to be the “King of the Jews,” He is claiming to be the Son of God.[44] Pilate was uneasy before, but now he is truly afraid. It was one thing for him to condemn an innocent man. It was even worse to condemn the Jewish Messiah. But to crucify the Son of God—that was an entirely different matter. The stakes in this very risky competition could hardly get any higher than this! I don’t think that Pilate believed these claims were true; it was just that he was not certain that they were false. Pilate was caught in the middle, between a highly agitated and committed group of Jews, and a man whom he now understood was claiming to be more than a king, but that He was the Son of God.

It was time for yet another conference behind closed doors, back in Pilate’s residence, away from the chaotic scene outside. Pilate asked Jesus, “Where do you come from?” Throughout His ministry (and throughout the Book of John), the answer to this question was given: Jesus came down to earth from the Father in heaven (John 3:13, 31; 6:38, 41-42, 50-51, 58). But this was not the time to be speaking of such things. Regardless of where Jesus came from, the issue was about His guilt or innocence under the law. The issue was whether or not Pilate would give in to the pressure being applied by the Jews. Although Jesus had spoken to Pilate earlier, He now keeps silent. (Can you imagine what Pilate might have thought or done had Jesus told him He had come down from heaven?)

Pilate is amazed, and baffled. He resorted to the only thing that seemed to work for him—his authority. Did Jesus not understand what he, as governor, could do? Pilate let Jesus know that His life was in his hands. He had the power to release Jesus, or to crucify Him. Now this ought to strike terror into His heart, or so Pilate must have thought. But it didn’t. The reason it didn’t is because Pilate’s power and authority were both limited and delegated. It was Jesus who was “Lord” here, as elsewhere. Pilate may have been a powerful man, but he was not sovereign. Jesus has one last thing to say to Pilate, something which seems to have caused Pilate’s knees to begin to meet each other. How amazing it is that Pilate’s most calculated words seem to have no impact on Jesus, but our Lord’s words strike terror into the heart of a man who loved to terrorize others: “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.”

Verse 11 has always been a difficult verse for me to understand. Why does Jesus speak to Pilate about his authority over Him? What do these words about Pilate’s authority over Him mean? Who is “the one who handed Jesus over to Pilate”? Why would Jesus bother to mention this individual’s sin to Pilate? And why is Pilate so distressed by our Lord’s words? Let’s seek to answer these questions by looking once more at our Lord’s statements.

“You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above.”  As indicated previously in footnote 14, I am inclined to favor the rendering of the New King James Version which reads, “Jesus answered, ‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.’” When Jesus added perfect humanity to His undiminished deity at the incarnation, He submitted Himself to human authority—to His parents, as well as to religious and political leaders. He therefore did not challenge Pilate’s authority to try Him, and to release or crucify Him. He would fully agree with the truth that is stated later by the Apostle Paul:

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear; for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-4).

I think Jesus goes beyond stating a general principle here. It was true that Pilate’s authority to rule was God-given, and that he would have to give account for his stewardship in this matter. I believe the words Jesus spoke to Pilate were more pointed. Pilate is trying to frighten Jesus into speaking. “Don’t you know who I am, and the power I possess? Don’t you know what I can do to you if you don’t cooperate? Your fate is in my hands.” Our Lord’s answer might be paraphrased this way: “I understand that you have certain power and authority, but you should understand that yours is a God-given authority. If you are trying to instill fear in Me, it won’t work, because you do not have the power to harm Me unless it is the will of God for Me, as indeed it is.” Pilate is issuing a threat, and Jesus’ response informs Pilate that his threat is an empty one. Pilate cannot do anything to Jesus that he wants; he can only do to Jesus what God wants. Pilate is not free to harm our Lord unless this is God’s will. And since it is God’s will, Pilate is surely not sovereign, as he wishes to imply. He cannot do whatever he chooses to Jesus.

Who is “the one who handed Jesus over to Pilate”? After qualifying Pilate’s power in relation to Himself, Jesus adds, “Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.” Who is this person who has “handed Jesus over” to Pilate? Notice in the first place that Jesus uses the singular, not the plural. He speaks of one person “handing Him over,” and not a group of people. He can hardly be speaking of the Jews, or even of the Jewish religious leaders here. He cannot mean the Sanhedrin, who tried Jesus and condemned Him. He can hardly be referring to Annas alone, or to Caiaphas alone, since there are many Jewish leaders who have played a part in Jesus’ arrest, trial, and condemnation, leading up to this moment before Pilate.

John’s expression, “handed over,” is used 11 times previously in this Gospel (6:64, 71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21; 18:2, 5, 30, 35, 36). In its first 8 occurrences (6:64–18:5), this verb is consistently rendered “betray” by the NASB, and in each case, it clearly is used in reference to Judas. The next 3 instances of this verb (18:30, 35, 36) are found in the context of Jesus’ trials, after His betrayal and arrest, and thus they are rendered “handed over” by the NASB. I would have to conclude that when this verb is used here, it must be referring to Judas.

My conclusion is hardly new or novel. But why would Jesus mention Judas to Pilate? And why would Jesus’ reference to Judas strike such fear into the heart of Pilate? From Matthew’s Gospel, it would seem that Judas may already have died by his own hand (Matthew 27:3-10). Is it possible that Pilate knew about Judas’ role in all this, and also that Judas had already killed himself? That might give Pilate pause for thought!

Look once more at what Jesus said to Pilate: “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.” Jesus has pointed out that Judas was guilty of a great sin. Judas is now dead, by suicide. While Judas may be guilty of greater sin, Jesus implies that Pilate will also be guilty, of a somewhat lesser sin. Now we begin to see why Pilate is getting more and more uneasy about condemning Jesus, and why he wants so much to release Him. Pilate seeks to instill fear in Jesus, by trying to impress Him with his authority. Instead, Jesus instills fear in Pilate, by reminding this governor where his power comes from, and by indicating that any harm done to Him is God’s will. Even though the death of Christ is God’s will, it will also be the result of Pilate’s sin, for which he must some day give account. No wonder Pilate is getting nervous!

This may be a very important point. Pilate seems to have been involved in the arrest of Jesus from the early stages. Judas’ role in this matter must have been known to Pilate. How else would Roman soldiers have been dispatched, along with Judas and the arresting party (see John 18:3, 12)? This may also help to explain why the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, expecting him to pronounce Jesus guilty, without formal charges.[45] Pilate may well have sought to rationalize his role in this whole affair by trying to convince himself that he was not to blame for the outcome of this matter. After all, wasn’t this the doing of Judas? Hadn’t he made the deal with the Jewish leaders and set up the arrest of Jesus? Wasn’t it really Judas who had handed Jesus over for trial? Our Lord’s words send Pilate a very disturbing message: “Judas bears the guilt for his great sin, Pilate, but you will bear the guilt of your sin, too, even if it is a lesser sin.” The guilt of one man in the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus does not absolve the other guilty parties of their guilt.

Pilate must now go back out to the hostile Jewish mob, which is demanding the release of Barabbas and the death of Jesus. Pilate earlier was convinced that Jesus must have done something terribly wrong to provoke the wrath of these Jews. Then he realized that Jesus was innocent. Now, he is aware that Jesus could be far more than an innocent man; He may be the Son of God. And so he goes out to face the crowd, intent on convincing them that Jesus must be released. The crowd will have none of this talk! In desperation, they finally play their trump card: If Pilate releases Jesus, he proves that he is no friend of Caesar.[46] And, the inference is that they will see to it that Caesar hears about this. Jesus has claimed to be a king; let Caesar hear about Pilate turning such a fellow loose in Jerusalem.

Pilate has been out-maneuvered, and he knows it. And so he has Jesus brought outside, and then he sits down on the judgment seat called Gabbatha, to render his verdict. Time is marching on, and time is of the essence, not so much for Pilate as for the Jews. It is the day of preparation for the Passover. The crucifixion must be over by nightfall, and it was already almost noon. Was it out of malice that he said to the Jews, “Look, here is your king!”? Their response was predictable. They shouted out, “Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate then asked them, “Shall I crucify your king?” This was a foregone conclusion, wasn’t it? Why does Pilate go through all these seemingly needless motions? I think this is his attempt to endear himself to these folks (who had just threatened to destroy his career by registering their complaint with Caesar) by seemingly bowing to their will. They know they have this governor by the throat (or, “over a barrel,” as we would say), and that they have won. And so Pilate gives Jesus over to them to be crucified.

The words of the Jews are chilling. In response to Pilate’s question, “Shall I crucify your king?” the high priests reply, “We have no king except Caesar!” This statement is matched by the equally sobering words recorded in Matthew: “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25). In one final act of rebellion against God, the Jewish religious leaders have seemingly renounced all Messianic hope, placing their faith and hope in Caesar, rather than in Jesus, the Christ (the Messiah). They have exchanged Jesus Barabbas for Jesus of Nazareth, and Caesar for Christ. What a horrible bargain they have made!

Conclusion

The great question which is still hotly debated today is, “Who was guilty for the death of Jesus Christ?” We can see from our text that Judas was certainly guilty. We know as well that Pilate was guilty. He was not a kind-hearted man, eager to release Jesus. He was a cruel and calculating tyrant, who sought to release Jesus for his own self-serving reasons, and not out of justice or compassion. He wanted to release Jesus because the Jews wanted to kill Him. This governor, though one of the meanest, most powerful men in history, was powerless to save Jesus from death, even though he sought to do so.

Pilate was guilty for condemning Jesus to death, but he does not bear the guilt alone. The Jews were guilty as well. They were the ones who sought to execute Jesus, even though they could not even legally condemn Him for wrong-doing. They were the ones who pressured and threatened Pilate, so that he finally gave in to their demands and handed Jesus over for crucifixion. As hard as some may work to excuse the Jews for what they did, they too were guilty for the death of our Lord.

The point is that both Jews and Gentiles are responsible for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, and for nailing Him to the cross. All men are guilty before God. If we had been there that day, we also would have cried out, “Away with Him! Crucify Him!” John’s account makes the guilt of all those present evident, both Jews and Gentiles. At the same time, as our Lord had indicated to Pilate, His death was the plan and purpose of God—His means for providing salvation for lost men:

23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather, ‘Why do the nations rage, And the peoples plot foolish things? 26 The kings of the earth stood together, And the rulers assembled together, Against the Lord and against his Christ,’ 27 For both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen (Acts 4:23-28).

For the last 2,000 years, the question has not changed; only those who must decide have changed. John’s Gospel puts before us the assertion that Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be—the Son of God, who came to this earth as the God-man, by adding perfect humanity to His undiminished deity. He came to reveal God to men, and to be rejected by His own people, the Jews, and also by the Gentiles. He was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. He shed His blood for the salvation of all who trust in Him. And so as you read the words of our text, the decision you must make is virtually the same as that which faced Pilate: Who do you believe Jesus to be, and what will you do with Him? The answer of the Bible is this: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).

THE TRIAL OF PETER

   The second trial that night was the personal spiritual trial of Peter. We pick up his story as Jesus was washing the disciples’ feet. Peter, true to his nature, reacted impetuously, at first forbidding Jesus to wash his feet and then asking Jesus to wash his entire body (13:6-9).

   Later, when Jesus told the disciples that He was going where they could not follow, Peter insisted that nothing could keep him from following his Master. “Lord,” he asked, “why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You” (13:37).

   Jesus then prophesied, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny Me three times” (13:38). Peter could not imagine what he would say and do within the next few hours.

   Later that night, in the garden, Peter was ready to fight the soldiers who came to arrest Jesus (18:10). Taking a sword, he struck a man named Malchus, a slave of the high priest. Although Peter probably intended to cut off the slave’s head, he only struck a glancing blow and cut off the man’s right ear.

   As quickly as the fight started, it stopped; Jesus told Peter to put up his sword. At this point in the story, Peter appeared to be the boldest and bravest of the disciples.

   Peter’s personal trial intensified when Jesus was taken to the house of the high priest. John explained that Peter was actually inside the courtyard when the following events occurred (18:15, 16). A slave girl who attended the door asked Peter as he entered, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” (18:17). He answered, “I am not.” The man who, only a short time earlier, had been ready to fight the band of soldiers sent to arrest Jesus, was now intimidated by a single slave girl!

   The night was cold, so the slaves and soldiers built a charcoal fire by which to warm themselves. Peter was standing with these people around the fire, warming himself, when one of them said, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” (18:25). For the second time, Peter denied any connection with Jesus, saying, “I am not.”

   While Peter was still swallowing the bitterness of his second denial, another slave spoke up, this one an eyewitness to the events in the garden and a relative of the man Peter had cut with his sword. “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” (18:26) the man asked. John recorded that “Peter therefore denied it again; and immediately a cock crowed” (18:27). While Jesus was tried and found innocent, Peter was tried and found to be a coward.

   The Gospels should always be read on three different levels. At the first level is the question of what happened in Jesus’ life. At the second level is the issue of what the Gospel writer intended for the early church to learn from his retelling of the story. On the third level, we should ask what this Gospelmeans for our lives today.

   A “first level” reading of Peter’s trial tells us that Peter denied Jesus three times.

   A “second level” reading brings us to a message which has been presented several times already’ in this Gospel, namely that Christians must be willing to demonstrate their faith publicly, even when doing so may bring severe persecution.

   Our “third level” reading calls us to be bold in our faith and to confess our commitment to Jesus, even though the world may ridicule or hurt us.

   A good friend of mine went to Africa as a missionary in 1995. He loves the Lord and has a tremendous commitment to share the gospel with others. By virtue of being a foreign missionary, he stands out as a zealous Christian. In one of his early work reports, he wrote about his plane flight to Africa:

  “… one man who sat next to me on the airplane to Uganda last Spring said something which

has stuck with me like a shadow. After I explained that we were coming to Uganda to preach about Jesus Christ,

the European man said to me, “Excuse me,but don’t they already have gods in Africa.” I didn’t know

how to respond, so I said nothing.

    What bothered my friend about that experience, I think, was that he felt like Peter on the night of Jesus’ arrest. I, too, know what it is like to be intimidated into silence. John’s Gospel tells the story of Peter’s trial as a warning to us about the conspiring forces in our world that cause us to do the unthinkable: to deny our Lord!

CONCLUSION

   The three trials we have considered describe the gospel and our response to it. Jesus was tried and found innocent. You and I, like Peter and Pilate, are now on trial ourselves. The question for us is “Will we stand up for the One who died for us?” When the pressure is on, will we be strong enough to say, “I am a disciple of Jesus the Nazarene”? We cannot avoid making a decision about Him. What will you do with Jesus?

JOHN 18 in review

Jesus left the place of prayer for His meeting with His enemies. “The brook Kidron” reminds us of King David, who was exiled from his throne by the rebellion of his own friends and family and passed through that same body of water (see 2 Sam. 15).

I. The Arrest (18:1-14)

Jesus deliberately met Judas and his band, for He knew what was about to happen. (See 13:1-3 and 6:6. Jesus always knew what He would do, for He always knew the will of the Father.) It is interesting to note that the arrest took place in a garden. Christ, the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), met the enemy in a garden and triumphed, while the first Adam met the enemy in a garden and failed. Adam hid himself, but Christ openly revealed Himself. As you meditate on these two garden scenes, see what other contrasts you can find.

Judas stood with the enemy. “And being let go, they went to their own company” (Acts 4:23). People will always go where their hearts are; Judas had Satan in his heart and so stood with Satan’s crowd. Sad to say, Peter mixed with this same crowd! Note how Jesus stunned them when He used the divine name, “I AM!” (The word “he” in v. 6 is not in the original Gk. manuscripts.) The same name that saves believers (17:6) condemns the lost.

In v. 8, Jesus warned His disciples to go away, lest they fall into trouble. He had already told them they would scatter (16:32), but Peter preferred to remain and fight—and got into danger because of it. Some have suggested that Peter’s sin was not that he “followed afar off,” but that he followed at all! He should have obeyed the Word and departed.

Verse 9 refers back to 17:12, where Christ spoke of the disciples’ salvation. Here He is talking about their physical protection. Thus, Christ keeps us in two ways: He preserves our souls in salvation and keeps our bodies, sealing them by His Spirit, until the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13-14).

In using the sword, Peter was definitely disobeying Christ. Christ does not need our protection; the weapons we are to use to fight Satan are spiritual ones (2 Cor. 10:4-6; Eph. 6). Peter used the wrong weapon, had the wrong motive, acted under the wrong orders, and accomplished the wrong result!

How gracious of Jesus to heal Malchus (Luke 22:51) and thus protect Peter from harm. Otherwise there might have been another cross on Calvary, and Peter would have been crucified before God’s time had come (John 21:18-19).

II. The Denial (18:15-27)

The narrative focuses on Peter now, and we see his sad decline. In the Upper Room, Peter had boasted three times that he would remain true to Christ (Matt. 26:33, 35; John 13:37). In the Garden, he had gone to sleep three times (Mark 14:32-41) when he should have been praying. Then he denied the Lord three times, and in John 21 had to confess his love for Christ three times! In the Upper Room Peter fell into the snare of the devil (Luke 22:31-34); in the Garden he yielded to the weakness of the flesh; and now in the priest’s courtyard, he would surrender to the pressures of the world. How important it is to watch and pray!

We do not know who the unnamed disciple was in v. 15. It may have been Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea; it is not likely that John (often called “that other disciple”—20:3) would have been on friendly terms with the high priest. See Acts 4:1-3. Whoever he was, this disciple led Peter into a sin by opening the door for him!

Verse 18 says “it was cold,” so Peter sat by the fire, but Luke 22:44 states that Christ had been sweating as He prayed that night! Peter was cold both physically and spiritually and had to warm himself at the enemy’s fire. He had “walked in the counsel of the ungodly” and was now “standing in the way of sinners.” He would soon “sit in the seat of the scornful” (see Ps. 1:1). While Christ was suffering, Peter was warming himself, not sharing Christ’s sufferings at all.

---

[1] Verses 30-32, 45-53.

[2] This is not to suggest that Jesus did not orchestrate the events prior to their arrival. I have already dealt with this in the introduction to this lesson.

[3] Compare our Lord’s words which He cried out on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), the people standing by who heard it had no idea that Jesus was citing the words of Psalm 22:1. They thought Jesus was crying out for Elijah (verse 47).

[4] Rome may have required the equivalent of an arrest warrant from the Jewish authorities. Only our Lord seems to have been named. While the Jews would have been tempted to arrest everyone there (especially after Peter’s use of his sword), they felt powerless to do so in the light of their interchange with Jesus, which underscored the fact that they had been authorized to arrest only Jesus.

[5] In this chart, important topics are highlighted in bold type; contributions unique to that one Gospel are in bold type and underscored.      

[6] In Matthew, it appears to be a different slave girl (26:71); in Mark (14:69), the wording would allow for the same slave girl, or a different one.

[7] As you may recall from Lesson 27 (John 12:1-8), I understand that Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8 all refer to the same incident, while Luke 7:36-48 describes another anointing. 

[8] Originally, the high priest held the office for his lifetime, but under Roman rule the high priest was appointed whenever the Roman ruler saw fit. The Jews may have refused to accept anyone but Annas as the true high priest, which would explain his powerful role in the nation, and in the death of Jesus.

[9] James S. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ (Nashville: Abington, 1978), p. 196.

[10] William Barclay, Crucified and Crowned (London, 1961), p. 61, as cited by Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 749, fn. 27.

[11] “The other disciple had the advantage of being known to the high priest, and it seems agreed that the word known means more than casual acquaintance. It seems to indicate that the man belonged to the high priest’s circle.” Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), IV, p. 613.

[12] Some have conjectured that John came to Jerusalem, where he sold fish to the high priest’s family. That would explain John’s words here, perhaps. It could also be as simple as the high priest owning a vacation cottage on the Sea of Galilee, where John met and befriended one his sons, and thereby became known to the family. John does not wish to elaborate on such matters. He only tells us that the “other disciple” and the high priest were somehow acquainted.

[13] I may be making too much of too little, but there is not a great deal of difference between our Lord’s “I am’s” (see for example, John 14:6; 15:1, 5; 18:5-6, 8) and Peter’s “I am not’s.”

[14] In the Greek text, the expression translated, “I am not” is only two words.

[15] “‘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’ (LXXXIII. 2; p. 308).” Chrysostom, cited in Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 751, fn. 29.

[16] Note our Lord’s repeated use of the personal pronoun “I,” focusing on His own actions, and thereby diverting attention from His disciples.

[17] This is not to deny the fact that Jesus veiled His teaching due to the rejection of His words (cf. Mark 4:1‑25, 33‑34). The point here is that there was no duplicity in His teaching. He taught His disciples in much more depth and detail than the masses, but His teaching was consistent. He had no hidden agenda.

[18] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, p. 755, fn. 40.

[19] Remember the temple cleansing and the overturned tables of the money changers.

[20] This staggering and sudden thrust expects an affirmative answer by the use of ouk, not mh as in verses 17 and 25, but Peter’s previous denials with the knowledge that he was observed by a kinsman of Malchus, whom he had tried to kill (verse 10), drove him to the third flat denial that he knew Jesus, this time with cursing and swearing (Mark 14:71; Matthew 26:74). Peter was in dire peril now of arrest himself for attempt to kill. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), vol. V, p. 290.

[21] Luke 22:70; see also 23:3; Matthew 26:64; 27:11.

[22] See “Sequence of Events” summary at the end of this lesson.

[23] The thought seems to have occurred to Gamaliel later on, as we can infer from his words of warning in Acts 5:33-39.

[24] Although the terms differ, the issue is really the same for both Pilate and the religious leaders. Both are concerned about their power and positions. Both are concerned that Jesus might cause their downfall (see John 11:47-48).

[25] J. Sidlow Baxter writes, “He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean and half Samaritan, there was not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins; and ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ seemed a fitting domain for such a prince.” J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, [six volumes in one] 1960), vol. 5. p. 65.

[26] Reference to Pontius Pilatus by Tacitus in The Annals of Imperial Rome, Book XV, chapter 47: “… neither human resources, nor imperial generosity, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated the sinister suspicion that the fire had been deliberately started. To stop the rumor, NERO, made scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved CHRISTIANS (as they were popularly called). Their originator, CHRIST, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the Procurator of Judaea, PONTIUS PILATUS (governor from 26 to 36 A.D.) But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out again, not just in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital. First, NERO had the self-admitted Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned—not so much for starting fires as because of their hatred for the human race. Their deaths were made amusing. Dressed in wild animals’ skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be set on fire after dark as illumination. … Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man’s brutality rather than to the national interest.”

[27] This information comes from Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1991), pp. 145ff.

[28] A study note in the NET Bible reads, “This is an event that otherwise is unattested, though several events similar to it are noted in Josephus (Jewish War 2.169-74; 2.175-77; Antiquities 13.372; 18.55-59; 18.60-62; 18.85-87). It would have caused a major furor.” The NET Bible (Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Press), 1998.

[29] These are outlined by Maier on pages 148-153.

[30] This disdain was based upon their understanding of Exodus 20:4-5, which prohibited the use of engraved images.

[31] Maier, pp. 148-149.

[32] I am aware that the NET Bible renders it differently (“innocent”). Technically, the term can be rendered either “righteous” or “innocent,” but here it seems to me that “innocent” does not go quite far enough. Perhaps there is a two-fold meaning (not uncommon for John). She may have referred to Jesus as “innocent” when we know that He was really “righteous.”

³ Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991).

[34] Is this not precisely the point Pilate tries to make with Jesus, and which Jesus challenged so forcefully that it instilled even greater fear in Pilate? This we shall discuss shortly, when we come to John 19:10-11.

[35] Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, p. 127. Rabbi Telushkin’s conclusions fall short of the facts in a number of areas. He tries very hard to pin the death of our Lord on Rome, rather than upon the Jews. Throughout the Gospel of John, the term “the Jews” is employed to show that it was, in fact, the Jews to whom Jesus came and presented Himself as their Messiah, and it was these same Jews who rejected Him, and who orchestrated His death. The Romans share in the guilt of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, but the guilt of the Jews is emphasized in John’s Gospel. Further, Telushkin states that Christianity was banned by Roman law. This was not the case. Christianity was viewed as a faction of Judaism. The Jews sought to isolate Christianity from Judaism in Acts chapter 18, but this effort failed miserably. The decision of Gallio (Acts 18:12-17) that Christianity was, in fact, Jewish assured the protection of the church for some time to come, and Paul’s protection under Roman law demonstrates this, as we see in later chapters of the Book of Acts. One would be hard pressed to conclude from the New Testament that the Gospels portray Pilate in a favorable and sympathetic light. In our previous chapter, we have already shown the cruelty of Pilate. It is true that the more information Pilate obtained from and about Jesus, the more uneasy he was about putting Him to death, but this in no way suggests that he felt kindly towards Jesus. Pilate was concerned with only one thing—protecting his interests and promoting his own agenda.

[36] Telushkin, pp. 127-128.

[37] Telushkin, p. 129.

[38] Telushkin, pp. 128-129.

[39] If anyone looks “good” at all, it would be the women who faithfully stood by their Lord at the cross.

[40] For example, we read in Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10 that Pilate knew the religious leaders had delivered Jesus to him “out of envy.” This would seem to be information he had discerned or obtained before this trial.

[41] “You say correctly that I am a king” (NASB); “You say rightly that I am a king” (NJKV).

[42] It is interesting that some manuscripts refer to Barabbas as “Jesus Barabbas,” and thus the question of Pilate, as rendered by the NET Bible: “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” (Matthew 27:17).

[43] The parallel accounts have a slightly different emphasis. There, it does not seem as though Pilate beats Jesus in order to appease the Jews, and to turn them from their plans to have Him crucified. There it would seem that Jesus is beaten by the Romans soldiers, out of sight of the Jews, for the amusement of the soldiers, and in preparation for His crucifixion. If they can beat the life out of Jesus, so that He is already half-dead before He is placed on the cross, the whole process will go more quickly. When we read that our Lord’s cross was taken up by Simon of Cyrene, it does seem as though our Lord has little strength left. The beatings (He was beaten several times) would surely account for much of this.

[44] See Matthew 26:63-64; 27:40, 43; Luke 22:69-70.

[45] As suggested earlier, the “trial” of our Lord before the Jewish Sanhedrin may have been a formality, to salve their consciences, and to silence the objections of members like Nicodemus (see John 7:50-51).

[46] The NET Bible has a very helpful study note here, which I quote in part: “… Pilate was of the equestrian order, that is, of lower nobility as opposed to senatorial rank. As such he would have been eligible to receive such an honor. It also appears that the powerful Sejanus was his patron in Rome, and Sejanus held considerable influence with Tiberius. Tacitus (Annals 6.8) quotes Marcus Terentius in his defense before the Senate as saying that close friendship with Sejanus “was in every case a powerful recommendation to the Emperor’s friendship.” Thus it is possible that Pilate held this honor. Therefore it appears that the Jewish authorities were putting a good deal of psychological pressure on Pilate to convict Jesus. They had, in effect, finally specified the charge against Jesus as treason: “Everyone who makes himself to be king opposes Caesar.” If Pilate now failed to convict Jesus the Jewish authorities could complain to Rome that Pilate had released a traitor. This possibility carried more weight with Pilate than might at first be evident: (1) Pilate’s record as governor was not entirely above reproach; (2) Tiberius, who lived away from Rome as a virtual recluse on the island of Capri, was known for his suspicious nature, especially toward rivals or those who posed a political threat; and (3) worst of all, Pilate’s patron in Rome, Sejanus, had recently come under suspicion of plotting to seize the imperial succession for himself. Sejanus was deposed in October of AD 31. It may have been to Sejanus that Pilate owed his appointment in Judea. Pilate was now in a very delicate position. The Jewish authorities may have known something of this and deliberately used it as leverage against him. Whether or not they knew just how potent their veiled threat was, it had the desired effect. Pilate went directly to the judgment seat to pronounce his judgment.”