John 18

David Lipscomb Commentary On John 18 THE ARREST AND OF JESUSJoh_18:1-40 and John 19:1-16 AND TAKEN BEFORE ANNASJoh_18:1-14 1 When Jesus had spoken these words,—The preceding speech, embracing chapters 14 to 16, with prayer and conclu¬sion in chapter 17, occurred after the eating of the passover supper before the crossing over of the brook Kidron in going out toward Bethany, the place where Jesus spent the nights during his last week before his crucifixion. he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron,— This brook is a rivulet, dry in the later centuries except dur¬ing the rainy season. It is noted on account of its relations to the city of Jerusalem, the capital city of the Jewish people, and the transactions associated with it. It had to be crossed in going to Mount Olivet, Bethany, and Bethphage. where was a garden, into which he entered, himself and his disciples.—The garden was Gethsemane, a garden of olive trees. Matthew (Matthew 26:36-46) gives the account of his entrance into this garden, his leaving his disciples, save Peter, James, and John, near the entrance; he went with these three further into the garden and went through the agonies and the three prayers that the cup might pass from him, if in accordance with the Father’ s will. John passes over this without men¬tion, probably because of the fullness with which the record is made by the other biographies of Jesus. 2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples.—This garden of Gethsemane was a retired, quiet spot which Jesus and his disciples in passing from the city to Mount Olivet seem often to have entered and enjoyed a season of instruction and prayer. So Judas knew his custom and seems to have selected his visit to this place as the time in which he would betray Jesus into the hands of the priests and scribes away from the multitude as they had stipulated should be done. 3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees,—Judas had gone from the passover supper, the washing of the feet, before the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, at the suggestion of Jesus to do “ What thou doest, do quickly” (13: 27), when he disclosed to Judas that he knew of the contracted treason to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who had agreed to furnish him a band of soldiers to arrest Jesus and bring him to them. The number constituting the band has been a matter of much and diverse conjecture. Some think there was an army of Roman soldiers. Others, that it was an irregular mob of loose men gathered and paid by the Jews to make the arrest. They wished to make the arrest, bring him before the Jewish rulers, and get the trial and condemnation well under way before the masses generally should know of it. So as few as could be en¬trusted to accomplish the work without tumult or confusion among the people was desired.

So the band was an irregular mob gathered to do this work. [“ Band” in Greek is cohort, which was the garrison of the fort, Antonia, distinguished from the officers of justice appointed by the Sanhedrin. It does not follow that the whole cohort (600 men) was present, but a number representative of them.

The “ officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” were a part of the temple guard (Luke 22:52), “ Jewish policemen.” ] cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.— It was after night, probably after nine o’ clock. It was the fourteenth of the month. The moon was at its full. But the garden was on the west side of the Mount of Olives that cut off the light of the moon, and especially the deep shades of the garden of olive trees would make it so dark that without lights it would be impossible to identify Jesus. So they brought the lanterns and torches and the swords and clubs to enforce their authority. [These elaborate preparations are a clear indica¬tion of the estimate of the power and popularity which his en¬emies held.] 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him,—Jesus had gone through the fearful struggle of the agonies as the hour approached, the angel had appeared strengthening him, and a composure of mind and determination to drink the cup followed. So as the band approached, he went forth to meet them. [Jesus had just aroused the sleeping disciples for the last time. (Mark 14:42.) Note the full¬ness and freeness of his sacrifice.] went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye?—With this determination, too, he knew the sufferings through which he would pass and went forth composedly to meet the coming sufferings. [Probably he stepped in front of the mob to protect the disciples. His face may have been still shining from the spiritual victory which ended the passion and therefore may have been inexpressibly majestic.] 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them.—The other writers tell us that he kissed Jesus as the sign by which he would designate him. John does not mention this. It must have occurred at this time. Jesus made no effort to conceal himself, but stepped forward to let them know that he was the person whom they sought. [This is the only mention of Judas’ presence during the scene made by John.] 6 When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.—This going backward and falling to the ground, though singular, is not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Its cause and meaning are difficult to see. Commentators usually attribute it to the exercise of divine power by Jesus, executed to show them his power to protect himself and destroy them, that all might understand that he surrendered his life himself and none could take it from him. While this was true of Jesus, this reads as though the act was voluntary on the part of those doing it. If it had been done through the exercise of the power of Jesus, it must have created a feeling of consternation and terror among the soldiers that would have been manifested and it would have been difficult to have induced them to proceed in arresting him. There was already a degree of apprehension on the part of the leaders in this work.

But if it was voluntary, I know nothing to indicate what prompted it or what it signified. [I take it that being overwhelmed by the sudden appearance and boldness in identifying himself, coupled with the majesty of his presence, was such a shock to their cowardly spirits that they could not, for the moment, do otherwise than fall to the earth. Jesus could easily, while they were prostrate, have walked from their midst unharmed, as he had done more than once before (8: 59; footnote; Luke 4:30 Luke 7:44-46 Luke 10:39), but he had purposed to make a complete self-sacrifice.] 7 Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.—Whatever may have been the cause and meaning of the performance, it seems to have created a hesitation on their part that caused Jesus to repeat his question to them. 8 Jesus answered, I told you that I am he;—He seems to be impatient at delay, and as the time had come, and he had been strengthened by the appearance of the angel to drink the cup, all signs of dread or trepidation had vanished, and, as he had told Judas while at the passover supper, “ What thou doest, do quickly,” he now urges them forward in their work. if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:—The words and manner of Jesus were not those of a person in dread; but while respectful and courteous, he spoke as though conscious of*his authority and power. [If they had not made motions looking to the seizure of the disciples, Jesus had probably, by his divine insight, perceived their purpose, and designed by his repeated question to remind them of the limits of their commission, and by this, secure the escape of the disciples.] 9 that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one.—This refers to what is said in chapter 17: 12. [We have here an illustration of the freeness of scriptural methods of quotation, a very striking one as being a quotation by the writer from his own work but a paragraph before.] 10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’ s servant, and cut off his right ear.—The presence of the sword and Peter’ s use of it has been sin¬gular in the life of Jesus. The whole teaching and practice of Christ is against violence, offensive or defensive. Luke (Luke 22:36) says that Jesus told his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword. Two were bought and he said they were enough. Peter on this occasion used one of them in cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest. This was done in the defense of Jesus, but was an act of rashness. [During the evening Peter had boasted that he would die for his Master, but now remembering his boast and the reply of Jesus he proceeds to show that his words were not mere boasts. Probably he intended to cleave his head from his body.] Now the servant’s name was Malchus.—[From verse 15 we learn that John (who doubtless speaks of himself) knew the high priest, and would therefore probably know the name of the servant.] 11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath:— Jesus reproves him and asks: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?—Matthew (Matthew 26:52) says: “ Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” His condemnation of its use in his defense is strong and clear. Some have thought that Jesus desired the presence of the sword that he might have the occasion to strongly condemn its use among his fol¬lowers, or in defense of himself and his teachings. [At this point Luke mentions the complete healing of Malchus’ ear, not recorded by any other writer, the last miracle of Jesus, and wrought upon an enemy. We can imagine, however, a motive additional to compassion in removing every trace that carnal weapons had been used, both for Peter’s sake, and to leave him free to say to Pilate, “ If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” How utterly have pro¬fessed Christians, in numberless instances, departed from this implied principle of Christ, that his cause is not to be sus-tained, defended or advanced by physical force nor at the mouth of the cannon.] 12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus—The captain here was the chiliarch or cap¬tain of a thousand men, corresponding to colonel in the army order in this country. It is not probable that all his command were present. How many is a matter of conjecture. Jesus desired to complete his work on earth and submitted to them. and bound him,—How they bound him, we are not told. An ordinary method among the Romans was to bind the pris¬oner with a chain on one arm and to pass the other end of the chain around the body of a soldier. While they were binding him, the disciples “ all left him, and fled.” (Mark 14:50.) [They all had a hand in it, as though some mighty desperado were being captured, instead of a meek, unresisting sufferer.] 13 and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.—Annas had been high priest and still acted sometimes in that capacity, although Caiaphas, his son-in-law at the time, was acting high priest. It is said that Annas had five sons, who in succession filled the high priest’ s place in addition to his son-in-law. He was of great influence. It is likely that Jesus was first brought before him to inquire into the matter as a court of inquiry to see what charges should be formulated against him. [Annas was about sixty years old. While the synoptics all speak of the leading away of Jesus, only John mentions Annas, and he alone gives an account of the examination before Annas (verses 19-23), which preceded his appearance before Caiaphas. Annas was a smooth, cunning intriguer, and ruled at this time through his son-in-law; and such was his overpowering influence as head of the Sadducean party that it was deemed an act of policy to take Jesus first to him before presenting him to Caiaphas.] 14 Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.—Caiaphas had first suggested to the Jews the death of Jesus as the end of the contention concerning him. (11: 48-50.) There seems to have been something of prophecy connected with the office of the high priest. Now Jesus is sent to him to be put on trial for his life. The Jewish Sanhedrin had the power to sit in judgment on Jesus and to sentence him to death. This sentence could not be executed without the ap¬proval of the Roman governor. Caiaphas sits to judge him. PETER’ S FIRST DENIAL John 18:15-1815 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.—“ Another disciple” here is generally understood to be John. It seems that Peter and John recovering from their fright at his first arrest, now returned, and followed the band having him in charge to the courtroom of the high priest. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;—John was known to the high priest and went in with Jesus as his friend to be present at his trial. The rashness of Peter in striking off the ear of the servant likely made him the more fearful now. 16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.—“ The other disciple” obtained permission likely from the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who seemed to guard the door, and brought Peter in. It seems that women were frequently employed in such positions as janitress to a building. Others speak of Peter following afar off. (Matthew 26:58.) [The damsel who guarded the door suffered John, who was an acquaintance, to pass in; but probably seeing Peter was a stranger refused to admit him. John went in, evidently expecting Peter to follow, but when he did not he returned and requested the maid to allow him to enter and she did so.] 17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’ s disciples? He saith, I am not.—This woman, damsel, had doubtless seen Peter at some time and now as he came in she asked him if he was not one of the company that followed Jesus. Peter, completely demoralized and disheartened in the presence of John, said, “ I am not.” [He is not so keen now to use his sword since his Master is arrested and now before the court. Many, like Peter now, weaken and fail to declare the truth when it is not popular to do so.] 18 Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.—It was now about midnight, growing cold, and the servants of the priests and those who waited in the court had built a fire to warm and Peter stood with them warming himself. JESUS IS AND SMITTENJoh_18:19-2419 The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.—It is not customary in our courts to re¬quire a man to testify concerning himself or to convict himself of any wrong. This custom did not obtain in the courts gen¬erally of that day. So they question him. 20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.—[Jesus replies to their question as relating to himself, but ignores that pertaining to the disciples, doubtless for the reason that he, not they, is on trial. He had taught publicly in the synagogue and temple. He had entered into no conspiracies as Annas himself had done.] Jesus recognized that the fair and just way was to prove by others if he were guilty of wrong. So he answered that the Jews have had ample and frequent opportunity to know all that he taught, so he said: 21 Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.—[All his life and teaching could be learned by inquiring of those who had heard him, so let those who seek information ask them. He had no secret clique, but “ taught the world.” His reply seems to be a rebuke to those trying him. Jesus claims that the examination may proceed in the regular order by calling witnesses. “ Ask them” ; “ Why asketh thou me?” He wanted all the facts brought out.] 22 And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?—The answer was construed as impertinent and one of the officers struck him on the mouth, and reproved him for so answering the high priest. [To hear a prisoner stand upon his rights and boldly defend them was new to the officer so he struck Jesus.] 23 Jesus answered hirn, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?—Jesus plead, if there is evil in what he said, point it out, if no evil why should he be smitten. Moderation, self-control, and courage marked all that Jesus said or did. He was never excited or thrown into a temper. [Paul under similar circumstances (Acts 23:3) answers like a man, but Jesus like the Prince of Peace. Usually those who are in the wrong resort to violence.] 24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.—This verse tells what had before been implied. PETER’ S SECOND AND THIRD DENIALSJoh_18:25-27 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself.—Peter, chilled by standing without, now crowded himself up to the fire, kindled by the servants of the high priest and the officers of the court. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples?—Either from his appearance or the fact that he was an acquaintance of John, those standing around the fire asked him the second time if he was not one of them. More than one seem to have joined in asking this question. It is probable that a number had spoken of his being one of the disciples of Jesus and together approached him on the subject. Luke (Luke 22:58) says, “ After a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not.” John says “ they,” implying more than one. He denied, and said, I am not.—[He simply lied, which shows that poor weak human beings do not know in advance what course they will take under extreme test of their faith and loyalty. But the Lord knew, and told Peter in advance just what he would do and the time of doing it.] 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?—He saw and recognized him [and knew that he had lied. Matthew reports that Peter made his denial with an oath, even cursing and swearing. He grew desperate.] 27 Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.—There have been questions raised about the cockcrow ing and contradictions charged. There certainly was no effort made by the different writers to show exact agreement. Each told what occurred in his own way and in his own style and from his own standpoint. There are two periods of cockcrow ing. The crowing at the latter hour is much more profuse than that at twelve o’ clock. Hence that at three o’ clock is the cockcrowing when only one is mentioned. When two are mentioned that at twelve o’ clock is the first cockcrowing; that at three, the second. Some of the writers speak of only one, that at three o’ clock; others of the two.

The last denial of Peter occurred just before three o’ clock. Peter was a man of courage even to rashness, as his smiting off the ear of the servant of the high priest proved. When he cut off his ear he doubtless expected a resistance on the part of Jesus and his disciples. The healing of the servant, his enemy, and the reproof of Peter for using the sword discouraged and disheartened him, took from him his courage and left him despondent. He knew not what to do. He in common with the other disciples then fled. His courage was renewed sufficiently to return with John; but “ followed him afar off.” (Matthew 26:58.) This is a dangerous position. John entered as a friend of Jesus.

Peter in his fear after what had passed sought to pass as a stranger. The temptation came upon him much stronger than if he had at once declared himself the friend of Jesus. The man who declares himself as the friend of Jesus and walks closest to him finds fewer temptations to deny him and greater help to stand with him. Luke says that when the last denial was made, “ The Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.” The reproving look was more than he could bear; he broke down and “ went out, wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:61-62.) [Following this, at dawn of day, Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, as recorded in Luke (Luke 22:66-71) ; and all attempts to prove him guilty of some crime or violation of the law had failed. In spite of false witnesses Jesus was called upon to answer, and upon his affirmation of divine majesty they condemned him to die as guilty of blasphemy. To carry the sen¬tence into effect the sanction of the Roman governor was necessary. Therefore he is next sent to Pilate.] BEFORE PILATE John 18:28-40 John 19:1-16 28 They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praeto rium:—The Jewish council determined that Jesus should be put to death. The Jews were permitted to try and inflict any punishment save that of death on their subjects. When the sentence was death, they were compelled to have the sanction of the Roman governor. This sentence then necessitated the trial of Jesus before the Roman governor. The praetorium was what we would call the courtroom. Courts were frequently in session at night in that country to avoid the heat of day. Then, too, the Jews were pressing this to the end that there might be no reaction in the public mind or opportunity of the common people to interfere in behalf of Jesus. and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.—The Gentile houses, courts, and everything they touched were defiled to the Jews. This was the passover week and these priests and scribes were especially anxious to avoid defilement that they might eat the passover, so they did not go in to make their accusations, 29 Pilate therefore went out unto them,—It was an act of condescension on the part of Pilate that, to accommodate them, he went out of his courtroom to hear their accusation and proof against Jesus. and saith, What accusation bring ye against this man?—The accusation had not been sent up with the prisoner, so he asks them for their charge. 30 They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee.—It is clear that they had no thought of a regular legal trial. They had not given him this in their own council. Nicodemus very pointedly asked the Sanhedrin: “ Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?” (7: 51.) There must be a specific charge and clear proof of guilt in the thing charged. They give to Pilate an indefinite and evasive answer, which shows that they expected him to give his judgment to please them regardless of facts. The results show that they did not misjudge him. 31 Pilate therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.—Since he was an evil¬doer according to their law and they desired Pilate to act on their judgment of their law, he naturally suggested that they take him and judge him according to their law. The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:—They had determined to put him to death so plead that they were not permitted to execute the death sentence. [They had judged and condemned Jesus according to their own law, and Pilate, on their refusal to state their charges, requested them to proceed with the case according to their own laws. The power of life and death had been taken away from them and placed in the hands of the Roman au-thorities. Had this not been in their way, doubtless they would have already killed him.] 32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should die.—Jesus had foretold that he would be crucified. This meant that he would be executed under the Roman law. That was the Roman method of executing the lowest criminals. The Jews stoned them. [Stephen was stoned to death in Jerusalem by a mob (Acts 7:58-59), and had the Jews been permitted to put Jesus to death, he would have been stoned to death also. But he had foretold what death he should die and that he would be crucified. (12:32; Matt. 30: 18, 19.) ] 33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?—Luke (Luke 23:2) says: “ And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbid give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.” So Pilate asks him of his claims to be king of the Jews. This was another effort to make him condemn himself. [Before Pilate returned to the courtroom, where Jesus had been taken, the Jews had made a formal charge that Jesus was seeking to overthrow the Roman government. (Luke 23:2.) This, of course, demanded the attention of the Roman governor. Jesus did claim that he would establish a kingdom and that he would be a king. He had been hailed as king of the Jews on entering Jerusalem. It was not expected that Pilate would understand that his kingdom was spiritual but political, especially when a band of dishonest priests were perverting every fact to give color to their accusation. They had charged against him a triple accusation: (1) seditious agitation ; (2) prohibition of the payment of the tribute money (taxes); and (3) the assumption of the suspicious title of “ King of the Jews.” (Luke 23:3.) The last accusation amounted to a charge of treason— the greatest crime known to Roman law. Of the three points of accusation, the second was utterly false; the first and third, though in a sense true, were not true in the sense intended by his enemies.] 34 Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me?—Jesus asked him whether this charge was originated with himself, or was it made by others. [Jesus did not ask the question for information, but it strikes the heart of the charge. Who made it? Did you or any Roman citizen ever see me breaking the Roman law? If a Roman preferred the charge, it might be examined, but when did the Jews ever find fault with a man seeking to free them? Pilate knew how restive the Jews were under the Roman yoke, and how ready they were to rebel, and the very hate shown Christ by them was proof that Jesus was not aiming to be such a king as they desired. Pilate comprehends the point.] 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me:—The Jews, not he, were accusing him. [The Romans had nothing to do with bringing the accusation. This disproved their charge.] what hast thou done?—To stir up his people against him. 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:—While Jesus, in the thirty-fourth verse, had not said he was King of the Jews, he had no purpose of denying that he was their lawful king by descent from the kingly race; but ex¬plains to Pilate that his kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.—In earthly kingdoms their subjects fight to deliver their king from their enemies. He did not do this as he had shown in forbidding Peter to use the sword. He said this to satisfy Pilate that he in no sense laid claim to earthly power or was a rival to Caesar. [His kingdom was not of this world, for the reason it did not spring from it, was heavenly in its origin, and hence his servants would not fight that he should not be delivered to the Jews. The fact that no resistance was made to his arrest was a proof that his servants did not propose resistance to worldly governments. His kingdom is supernatural, not of human origin. It is in the world, but not of the world.

It is established and maintained, not by carnal weapons, but by spiritual and moral means. All attempts to propagate Christianity by the carnal sword are prohibited by the Prince of Peace. The only sword the Christian is authorized to use is “ the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” If servants of Christ cannot fight for their Master, it stands true that they cannot fight for one not their Master; yet they have duties to perform. It is their duty, by example and teaching, to restrain the evil and angry passions, to teach moderation and self-restraint, to inculcate forbearance and mercy, and to pray earnestly and faithfully for kings and rulers and all that are in authority, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. When war does come, it is their duty to act the part of the good Samaritan and do good to all that suffer and that are in need.] 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?—With the explanation given that it was not an earthly kingdom, he answered Pilate directly: Jesus answered, Thou [rightly] sayest that I am a king.— In confessing this truth concerning his being a king which sealed his death warrant, he added: To this end have I been bom, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.— And he had done it in confession that he was a king even though it brought suffering to himself. And those who ac¬cepted this truth would listen to Jesus. He not only told the truth in this, but his mission in the world was to proclaim truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.—[They “ hear” in the sense of heeding to what he says. They follow his instructions.] 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?—This he asked as though skeptical as to the claims or existence of truth. He was a timeserver. Such have little faith in truth, or any being faithful to truth. And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.—He testi¬fied unto the Jews that he found no fault in him worthy of condemnation.] 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?—To conciliate the favor of the Jews, the Romans had adopted the rule of releasing to them some one guilty of some act of rebellion against the Roman authorities as friends of the Jews. Pilate proposed to release the King of the Jews to them. This was said in ridicule of them and the claims of Jesus to be the King of the Jews. [By a comparison of other records of this incident, we find that in the interval, before Pilate’ s effort to release Jesus according to the custom of the passover feast, he sent Jesus to Herod in order to shuffle off the responsibility, but Herod had sent him back to Pilate. Then he asks whether I shall not release him according to the custom. He was placed in a very trying position. Jesus was accused of treason against the Roman emperor; he declared that he was not guilty; the priests then accused Pilate of not being Caesar’ s friend, intimating that they would accuse him to Caesar.

Had he been accused of letting a man go free who claimed to be King of the Jews, it would have gone hard with him— probably would have been the cause of being put out of his office. This had much weight in his final cowardly decision.] 40 They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.—Barabbas had ex¬cited an insurrection against the Roman authorities and had in the insurrection been guilty of both murder and robbery. They demand him in preference to Jesus. The difficulty of the Jews in formulating charges against Jesus, and the utter disregard of the Jews of justice arose from this: the crimes against the Roman law were not crimes under their law. What the Romans regarded as high crimes the Jews at heart approved. The crime against the Jewish law was that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

The Jews at heart would gladly have accepted a king that would deliver them from Roman rule. In his trial, the singular thing was: sins of a man tried in the lower court for blasphemy in making himself the Son of God and in the appeal to the higher court the charge of claiming to be a king as treason against Caesar is substituted. It is not strange that a specific charge was not made against him, although it is once stated that he made himself obnoxious to their law by making “ himself the Son of God.” (19:7.) John 19:1-16 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.—The scourging was a severe beating upon the naked flesh. It was a degrading punishment, one to which the Roman citizen could not be subjected. (Acts 22:25.) Paul claimed exemption from it because he was a Roman citizen. The citizen differed from the subject who belonged to some of the provinces subjected to the Roman government. It was customary to scourge those who were crucified. It is thought that Pilate scourged him, thinking that this would excite the sympathy of the Jews and that they would be satisfied without his crucifixion. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment;—This was done in ridicule of his claims to be a king. The crown of thorns was not an instrument of torture, but of ridicule. The thorns were brambles, not thorns that would pierce. 3 and they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.—They hailed him as King of the Jews, yet smite him with their hands, as much as to say, a poor king that may thus be smitten with impunity. A reed was placed in his hands to ridicule his claims to kingly power. (Matthew 27:29.) [The Jews had already demanded his death by crucifixion. (Luke 23:20-21.) If condemned to this death, scourging must necessarily precede it. The scourge was made of rods or thongs with pieces of bone or lead fas-tened to one end. The condemned person received the blows while fastened to a post so as to have the back bent and the skin stretched. With the blows the back became raw and the blood spurted out. The punishment was so cruel that the condemned person very often succumbed to it immediately.] 4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you,—Seeing Jesus thus mocked and ridiculed, when he knew he was innocent of crime, seemed to arouse his sense of justice, and the sympathy of Pilate for Jesus, and he brought him forth and showed him to the Jews and said: that ye may know that I find no crime in him.—In this Pilate shows that he had some sense of justice and right, and that he preferred to let him go free. He had an apprehension too that Jesus was more than human. The trouble with Pilate was that he was not willing to suffer for the truth. He saw justice, acknowledged it, but was lacking in the devotion and manhood that made him willing to suffer for the truth and do justice at all hazards. There was nothing of the true hero in Pilate. 5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.—Jesus was serious, solemn, earnest; bore the buffetings and the ridicule of the soldiers; and with the crown of thorns and the mock robe Pilate brought him out and showed him to the Jews. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man!—He no doubt said this, thinking to appease their wrath, excite their sympathy, and induce them to be satisfied to let Jesus go free. Look at him in this pitiful condition! Does he look to be dangerous to you or to me, to your ecclesiastical or my secular power, thus to be treated, and no friends to speak for him?] 6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!—Instead of appeasing or satisfying them, it seemed the more to infuriate them and with increased wrath. Pilate knew they had no right to crucify him, neither did Pilate, when he was innocent. So they demanded that he should be crucified without cause. Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.—His crucifixion on these testimonies is unlawful, you demand it, you do the deed. [ Pilate’ s patience was evidently giving out. As they were disregarding all law and justice in demanding that he should crucify him, they might just as well disregard law and crucify him themselves. Perhaps he meant to intimate that as governor he would not hold them responsible; but they were too wily to take such a risk.] 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die,—As justification for their course, they now bring forth their law that makes blasphemy against God ground for inflicting death on him. Pilate could not condemn them for respecting their own law, and the Roman government gave them the right to enforce their law on their sub¬jects, modified by the requirement that death could not be inflicted without the sanction of the Roman government. because he made himself the Son of God.—The statement that he claimed to be the Son of God and according to their law he should die possibly palliated their course in demanding his death, but it involved Pilate in a greater difficulty. He had been impressed by the hearing of Jesus that he was a superior being, and now if he claims to be the Son of God, it increases the importance of the case and greatly increases Pilate’ s responsibility. He may be dealing with God and not man. [They repudiate Pilate’ s intimation of illegality in their demand, and undertake to demonstrate that it is legal and just. Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, if a mere man, which by Jewish law (Leviticus 24:16) incurred the penalty of death. As Pilate had taken away from them the legal power of death, he was bound by general Roman policy to recognize their decision, and give the sentence that he only could give. This is the argument implied.

Here is the Jewish testimony to the fact that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and thus far it is true. Pilate was in close quarters.] 8 When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid;—The idea that he might be God made Pilate afraid. At this time came the message from Pilate’ s wife, “ saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” (Matthew 27:19.) By this Pilate’ s fears were more aroused. [Pilate had not heard this before. Up to this time the whole accusation before him was that claiming to be Messiah, he claimed to be a king, and was therefore a rival of Caesar, and, as such, ought to die by Roman law. They realize now that this plea has failed, and so enter another, that of verse 7. He realized that Jesus was something out of the common order of men, and these words aroused in his mind a weird questioning as to who or what he might be. The fear he had felt in con¬nection with him was now intensified.] 9 and he entered into the Praetorium again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.— [All the interviews with the Jews had taken place outside, because these eminently religious ( ?) gentlemen feared to be defiled on this sacred day by entering a Gentile room. Pilate took Jesus with him for a private audience, but Jesus made no reply to his question, and why should he? His silence was answer enough— that, if he did not make this claim, he would certainly have denied it.] 10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?—This was said half as a threat and half as a promise to him. Neither the fear nor the hope moved Jesus. The peace of God was his that no fear or prom¬ise could disturb. 11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above:—Jesus was perfectly composed, realizing that he was guarded and guided by God. Judas was chosen of God to betray Jesus into the hands of his enemies. He was chosen because he was suited in character to do the work. [In reply to Pilate’ s arrogant boast, Jesus asserts the supremacy of God, perhaps with a significant gesture pointing up. God allows him to exert this power.] therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.—Judas and the Jews who accused and delivered him were greater sinners than Pilate. [Some think it no greater sin than Pilate, but greater sin on his own part on account of delivering him to Pilate.] 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him:—Pilate showed a disposition to release him. He shows none of the marks of a bloodthirsty, vicious, or cruel man. He presents the character of a placable man, approving right and truth, but no strength of character to maintain right and enforce justice. Of the characters who dealt with Jesus in his personal ministry only Judas surpasses in turpitude and shame that of Pilate. Christendom has reechoed this judgment of God. To get the benefit of this judgment of God and man, we must recognize the sins for which they were condemned.

Judas for the love of money betrayed Jesus, the embodiment of truth, justice, and mercy of God into the hands of his enemies. Pilate, with the power to rescue and save Jesus in his hands, for fear of losing his place, incurring the ill will of the Jews, bearing testimony to his innocence, yet turned him over to his enemies to be crucified. The same truths and interests then embodied in the fleshly body of Christ are now embodied in his spiritual body. Why is it not as great sin to betray the spiritual body as it was the fleshly? Why is the man who knows the truth and for the sake of popularity refuses to maintain it as guilty as was Pilate for so treating the fleshly body? but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’ s friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.—Pilate made a show still of de¬siring to release Jesus. The Jews seeing his hesitating, tem¬porizing spirit directly threatened him with Caesar’ s displea¬sure since Jesus claimed to be a king and the rival of Caesar. 13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.—Under this threat of the Jews, Pilate cowardly brought Jesus out and took his seat in the hall where he was accustomed to deliver his judg¬ments and decisions. 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour.—There is disagreement between this statement and that of Mark (Mark 15:25), who says he delivered him to them the third hour of the day. Most critics think it should be the third hour or nine o’ clock. Some think it was six o’ clock in the morning, counting six hours from twelve o’ clock. Mark uses the Hebrew count and makes the crucifixion begin at nine o’ clock. Pilate yielded to them, released Barabbas, scourged Jesus, and delivered him to the Jews to be crucified. He did this against his judgment of what was right and just to appease the Jews.

He had made cowardly surrender to their demands for fear that he might be accused to Caesar as encouraging treason against him. [There is no contradiction between the statement of John and that of Mark regarding the time that Pilate gave sentence against Christ. The Jews divided the day into four quarters, which they called hours. The first was called the third hour, which answers to our ninth; the second, called the sixth hour, answering to our twelfth; the third, called the ninth hour, answering to our three in the afternoon; the fourth, called the twelfth hour, which was the time of their retirement from labor, and the beginning of the first watch. The whole time from the third hour to the sixth, that is, from nine to twelve, was called the third hour; and the whole intervening time from the sixth to the ninth, that is, from twelve to three, is called the sixth hour. John does not say it was the sixth hour, but about or near the sixth hour. So when he says about the sixth hour, and Mark the third hour, we are to understand that Mark takes in the whole time of the third hour, from nine to twelve, and that John puts it near twelve.

So in either case our Lord was sentenced between the hours of nine and twelve.] And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!—Like cow¬ardly spirits after yielding in the important matters, they show spite and tyranny in small ones, so he tantalizes them by calling Jesus their King. 15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him!—Aroused and excited by their success, with more bitterness they cry out thus. Pilate still taunts them with demanding the crucifixion of their King. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.—The Jews were anxious to be free from the dominion of the Ro¬mans, but to meet Pilate on grounds that condemn him, they claim Caesar as their only king. Men maddened with wicked fury profess anything to carry their ends. 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.—Pilate yielded and gave Jesus to be crucified by the Roman soldiers at the behest of the priests and Pharisees and they took him away from the court of Pilate. [We should note how careful the Holy Spirit is to record the time when Pilate gave sentence against Christ. In general, it was on the day of the preparation for the Passover; that is, the day immediately before it, when they prepared everything needed for the solemnization; and, in particular, it was about the sixth hour of that day. We should also observe the great love and condescension of Christ in stooping so low to expiate our guilt, which deserveth eternal sufferings.]

Verse 1 This chapter records the betrayal and seizure of Jesus (John 18:1-11), the arraignment before Annas (John 18:12-14), Peter’s first denial (John 18:15-18), questioning by Annas (John 18:19-24), Peter’s second and third denials (John 18:25-27), Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas and before Pilate (John 18:28-32), Pilate’s questioning of Jesus (John 18:33-38) and vain efforts of Pilate to release Jesus (John 18:38-40). John emphasized the regal bearing and demeanor of the Lord even in the hours of his humiliation; and from this some have alleged that he omitted the agony in the garden as unbecoming the impression of Jesus he wished to portray, but that view is illogical in the light of his record of the Lord’s being slapped by an officer in the presence of Annas. The logical and obvious reason for the many omissions of details like the agony is found in the widespread knowledge of such details already recorded in the synoptics. Another alleged difficulty derives from Peter’s denial having occurred before Annas in John, and in the palace of Caiaphas in the synoptics. This is fully resolved by the fact that Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same palace, and the courtyard where Peter denied the Lord was in front of both apartments, that of Annas and that of his son-in-law, Caiaphas. (See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57.) That Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same palace, or different portions of the same edifice, solves the chief difficulty. Annas held his preliminary unofficial inquiry in his department of the building.[1]The other difficulty, not the “chief” difficulty mentioned by Reynolds, regards the use of the title “high priest” for Annas (John 18:19); but this is not a difficulty at all in view of the prevailing prejudice of the Jews who still regarded Annas as the real high priest. John’s acquaintance with the high priest (Annas) which surfaces in this chapter would certainly have inclined him to use this title in speaking of him; and this also explains the somewhat derogatory designation of Caiaphas as “high priest that year” (John 18:13). The officer who struck Jesus (John 18:22), being one of Annas’ retainers, would certainly not have referred to his boss otherwise than as “high priest.” Thus, like all so-called difficulties in the Bible, these alleged problems disappear in the light of a little study. ENDNOTE: [1] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 17, II, p. 385. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron, where was a garden which he entered, himself and his disciples. (John 18:1) These words … refer to the entire farewell discourse just concluded. The brook Kidron … This was a “winter torrent” (English Revised Version margin), meaning that it was dry most of the year. It flowed by the southeast wall of the city, and between it and the Mount of Olives.[2] It was down this little valley that David fled from the rebellion of his son Absalom (2 Samuel 15:23); here Asa burned the abominable image (1 Kings 15:3); and near here, Josiah caused the idolatrous vessels to be burned (2 Kings 23:4). In the reign of Hezekiah, the Levites carried the unclean things to this valley (2 Chronicles 29:16); and Jeremiah called it “the valley of the dead bones and of the ashes” (Jeremiah 31:40), adding that this valley should be “holy unto the Lord.” There was a garden … It was in the garden of Eden that Paradise was lost, and now it would be recovered in another garden where Jesus was strengthened through tears and blood to pay the price of human redemption. There an angel helped him to prepare for the ordeal of Calvary (Luke 22:43). Contrasting with the garden in Eden, this one was situated in the valley of Kidron with its overtones of shame and uncleanness; but this one was “holy unto the Lord,” for here he found supernatural help through the angelic messenger who aided him to overcome through tears and blood. ENDNOTE: [2] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 375.

Verse 2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples.There were doubtless several places to which Jesus might have gone that night if he had wished to hide; but this choice of a place Judas knew well showed his willingness to suffer.

Verse 3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.Band of soldiers … The word means “cohort,” indicating a contingent of several hundred men. The soldiers were a part of the garrison of the tower of Antonio, headquarters of the Roman military presence in the city. Officers from the chief priests and Pharisees … The soldiers were accompanied by a detachment of the temple guard. This marshaling of a military expedition against Jesus for the purpose of arresting him was as ridiculous as it was unnecessary. Lanterns and torches … Matthew and Mark mentioned the weapons but not the lanterns and torches. Despite the moon’s being full (it was the Passover), the arresting party came prepared to search the dark recesses of the garden with its olive trees.

Verse 4 Jesus therefore, knowing the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye?Large as that company of his apprehenders was, Jesus, and not they, had complete control of the sequence of events; and Jesus at once moved effectively to prevent the arrest of any of his disciples. If he had not done so, it seems certain that the apostles also would have been arrested.

Verse 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them.John did not bring himself to mention the dastardly kiss, but his placement of Judas on the side of the Lord’s enemies corroborates the synoptics. Was standing with them … suggests that John could still remember, over the gulf of years, the traitor, standing there in the flickering torchlight, his very presence with the Lord’s enemies stabbing the hearts of them who had been his friends. Jesus of Nazareth … was the designation promoted by the Pharisees who ignorantly thought that no prophet came out of Galilee. What his enemies intended as a slander, however, the Lord accepted as a crown of glory, identifying himself from heaven as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 22:8). I am (he) … It will be noted that “he” is not in the Greek. Therefore, what Jesus said here was “I AM,” thus making it another assertion of his Godhead (see Exodus 3:14 and under John 8:58).

Verse 6 When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.This remarkable outflashing of Jesus’ power explains why the arresting party so readily consented to permit the apostles to leave without being arrested. It was perfectly clear to that entire company that Jesus could do anything, and therefore they allowed his arrest upon his own terms, not theirs. Can there be any other possible explanation of why the whole group was not arrested? It will be further noted that Jesus referred to his prevention of their arrest as a fulfillment of his prophetic words in the great prayer (John 17:12); and from this the deduction stands that if the apostles had been arrested they might have been killed also. See the next verse.

Verse 7 Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one.If the arrest had not been prevented, some, perhaps all of them would have been lost. Whom seek ye … ? The shock of what had just happened was still upon them all; and, under the circumstances, they readily agreed to Jesus’ request of exemption from arrest for his apostles. John 18:9 strongly suggests that this miracle, like all the others, was not for Jesus’ personal benefit, but for the benefit of others.

Verse 10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus.This rash action by Peter required another miracle to prevent his arrest and possible execution. Peter never knew until long afterward how thin the ice was upon which he skated that night. Peter was intent on making good his boast of being willing to follow the Lord to prison and to death. This was the only blow struck in Jesus’ defense, and one cannot help but admire Peter; wrong as he was, for striking it. For fuller exegesis of this incident and Peter’s denials, see my Commentary on Matthew, under Matthew 26:51 ff. His right ear … is another inadvertent touch of the eyewitness writer. The servant’s name was Malchus … Both Peter and Malchus are named by John, but not in the synoptics. Fear of reprisal by the authorities probably led to the omission of Peter’s name in early Gospels. The miracle of healing Malchus’ ear is not recorded here, but the necessity for such a thing is revealed. Can the fact of Peter’s not being arrested even after his assault with a sword upon the arresting officers be explained in any way, except in the light of the miracles wrought during the progress of the seizure?

Verse 11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?Put up the sword into the sheath … There are two swords in this narrative: Peter’s, and that of the authority. Jesus submitted to the latter, even when that authority was being abused by lawless and sinful men. The sword of authority is God-ordained. See my Commentary on Romans, Romans 13:1 ff. For discussion of the related problem of a Christian’s service in the police or military establishment, see my book on the Ten Commandments, chapter 8. The cup which the Father giveth me … is a clear reference to the cup of agony (Matthew 26:39). The synoptics dwell upon the agony; and, from this, some critics allege that Jesus approached the arrest as a whimpering, cowering individual, completely crushed by the onset of events. Such a view is totally wrong. To be sure, there was agony; but Luke explained that an angel from heaven came and strengthened Jesus (Luke 22:43); and in John, the God-Man appears in his true strength, far more than able to cope with every situation. It is not a “different Jesus” which John presents, but the same Jesus, after the heavenly strengthening. The same “cup” appears both here and in the synoptics.

Verse 12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him.The chief captain … The Greek word here is [chiliarch] meaning the commander of a thousand men; but this does not necessarily mean that a full cohort of one thousand men was present, but that an officer of that rank was present. The importance the Pharisees attached to this arrest is seen in the employment of such a ranking military figure in the achievement of it. The mention of the chiliarch shows that the Gentiles were represented in the sufferings of Jesus, a fact he had prophesied (Matthew 20:19). And bound him … This was part of the unmerited sufferings of Jesus, there having been no need at all to bind him, as if he should have tried to escape! He had voluntarily identified himself, commanded his apostles not to resist, and had willingly accompanied the cohort; but satanic instigation in wicked hearts made sure that every possible humiliation would be executed upon the Saviour.

Verse 13 And led him to Annas first: for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.Annas had been deposed from the office of high priest by the Romans for putting a young sabbath-breaker to death, contrary to Roman law; but the Jews continued to recognize Annas as the true high priest. That accounts for the arraignment here before Annas. Who was high priest that year … is alleged by some as an “error” on John’s part, supposing that John thought they changed high priests every year! The over-eagerness of critics to find something wrong is apparent in such a view. Certain]y, John neither said nor implied that any such annual change occurred in the high priesthood. That year … - that awful year of our Lord’s crucifixion, was the thought in John’s mind as he named the man who was legal high priest THAT YEAR. Caiaphas was only one of six sons and sons-in-law of Annas who held the office throughout Annas’ long life after his deposition by Tiberius.[3] See under John 19:11. ENDNOTE: [3] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 35.

Verse 14 Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.For discussion of this unintentional prophecy of Caiaphas, see under John 11:49-50. John’s mention of this was to show what a biased and unprincipled judge would preside over the Lord’s trial in the Sanhedrin.

Verse 15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Note that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.Simon Peter followed … The synoptic version is that he did so “afar off” (Mark 14:54), still smarting, perhaps, from Jesus’ command to put up his sword. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58, for an outline of the seven contributing causes of Peter’s denial. And so did another disciple … This refers to John, the author of this Gospel. As Barnes said: John mentions this circumstance of his being known to them, to show why he was not questioned as Peter was. … The questions asked Peter were not asked by those in authority, and his apprehensions which led to his denial were groundless.[4]The court of the high priest … was an imposing structure with apartments, a courtyard, stalls for guards, and the usual accouterments of a palace. It is likely that both Annas and Caiaphas lived there. The sending of Jesus bound to Caiaphas involved nothing more than leading him across the courtyard. ENDNOTE: [4] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 362.

Verse 16 But Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.The circumstance of John’s being favorably known to the high priest was that which provided this eyewitness account and also resulted in Peter’s admittance to the theater of his triple denial. Thus the question left dangling in the synoptics as to how Peter happened to be at the trial, or near it, is cleared up by this circumstance, as is also the status of the “damsel” who questioned Peter.

Verse 17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.Art thou also … indicates that John was openly known as a disciple of Jesus, and there is no evidence that Peter would have suffered any inconvenience by an open admission of his discipleship. However, it should be remembered that Peter had cut off Malchus’ ear a little earlier; and, if his identity as the perpetrator of that act had been known, there would have been solid grounds for his arrest. If this entered into Peter’s thinking, it would show how one wrong act inevitably leads to another wrong act. For full discussion of Peter’s denials, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58. Warming himself … at the devil’s fire was another circumstance in the chain of events leading to the denial.

Verse 19 The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.The high priest … It is a moot question if this was Annas or Caiaphas, for it might have been either. There is hardly any doubt that Caiaphas was in his father-in-law’s house, or apartment in the palace, when Jesus was arraigned there; but the view maintained in this commentary is that Annas is referred to here. Annas was deposed in 14 A.D. by Tiberius, but the Jews still honored him as the rightful high priest; and, if Annas was the one who knew John, it would have been perfectly natural for the apostle to have called him “high priest.” Annas, in this verse, is represented as engaging in what lawyers call a “fishing expedition.” Jesus did not cooperate with him.

Verse 20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret I spake nothing.Jesus well knew that the wily old hypocrite, Annas, was merely on a fishing expedition and quite properly refused to tell him anything. Besides that, Annas was not the legal high priest; and Jesus had already decided to make his formal testimony concerning his Messiahship before the Sanhedrin in formal assembly. In addition, the Pharisees’ spies had been following Jesus diligently for months; and everything that Jesus had publicly stated was, in all probability, already known to Annas, as was also Caiaphas’ determination to put Jesus to death.

Verse 21 Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them; behold these know the things which I said.In the circumstance, Jesus’ reply was the equivalent of “Look if you wish a report on my disciples and teaching, just read the report of your own spies!” Jesus was rightful lord of the temple and head of the theocracy, being none other than the divine Son of God; and, in view of the unmitigated evil that was resident in the soul of Annas, the Lord’s words here were remarkably mild. Yet even this mild rejection of Annas’ demand was resented by his retainers, one of whom lifted his hand against the Prince of Life and struck the Lord in the face.

Verse 22 And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?With his hand … The Greek word from which this is translated can mean either one of two things: (1) a stroke with a rod, or (2) a blow by the hand to the ear, or face, the latter “being the current punishment for a word supposed to be insolent."[5] This was the beginning of that vulgar and brutal mockery which was the lot of the holy Saviour on that dreadful night. The high priest … This proves that Annas enjoyed the title, even though he was no longer in possession of the office of high priest. His retainers and servants of course knew this; and Jesus might have pointed it out but refrained from doing so. ENDNOTE: [5] H. R. Reynolds, op. cit., II, p. 387.

Verse 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?The plain truth Jesus had spoken to Annas was the only defense such words needed; but the hour of darkness had arrived, and the Son of God was delivered into the hands of lawless men.

Verse 24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.As noted above, this does not imply any certain distance and was probably nothing more than moving Jesus from one side of the palace to the other, from the apartment of Annas to the more commodious chambers of the legal high priest. In the meanwhile, the events were moving to their climax in the matter of Peter’s denials.

Verse 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew. The additional element provided by John in this episode is that of the introduction of an eyewitness of Peter’s association with the Lord in the garden. The synoptics mention the Galilean accent; but, in the circumstance of one of Malchus’ kinsmen having actually seen him with Jesus, there was hardly any way Peter could deny it. Therefore, he did so with an oath, which has ever been the support of lame propositions. John softened the account of Peter’s denial by leaving out any mention of the oath. This account sheds light on the identity of Peter’s questioners, whether “a damsel,” another “maid,” or “they,” as here - all such questions resolve in the fact of a number of questioners, especially the last and unanswerable one in the person of a kinsman of Malchus.

Verse 28 They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.This and John 18:24 are John’s only reference to the formal trial in the Sanhedrin. He also omitted the all-night examination before Caiaphas, and the trial before Herod. Of the six trials before: (1) Annas, (2) Caiaphas, (3) the Sanhedrin, (4) Pilate, (5) Herod, and (6) Pilate; John mentioned (1), (4) and (6). That they might not be defiled … What a perverse inconsistency marks the behavior of men! They were willing to suborn testimony to effect the judicial murder of the Son of God, but were unwilling to put foot in a Gentile’s house on the day of the Preparation. This is the classical demonstration of the manner in which the strictest observance of religious ceremonies can exist in the behavior of wicked men at the very time when they are engaged in the blackest criminal activity. Pilate, who was certainly inconvenienced by having to go down at such an early hour and outside his palace to keep from defiling THEM (!), must surely have resented the necessity of participating in such an affair. That they might eat the passover … In the light of this, there is no way to make the last supper of the previous evening to have been the Passover.

Verse 29 Pilate therefore went out unto them, and saith, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evil doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee.The Sanhedrinists were strongly opposed to giving out the real charge on which they wished to execute Jesus, that he had testified under oath to being the divine Messiah. Their first ploy, therefore, was to avoid if possible naming any charge at all. Pilate understood the character of his petitioners far too well, however, to allow them any such presumption of fair-dealing, with the charges kept secret. No. They would have to spit it all out in open court before Pilate would yield; and even then, he would yield reluctantly.

Verse 31 Pilate therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.Take him yourselves … This was the first effort of Pilate to avoid sentencing Jesus. It was the equivalent of his saying, “This case is not under my jurisdiction; handle it yourselves.” Not lawful for us to put any man to death … According to Clarke, the Jews had the right of putting to death in matters of a wholly ecclesiastical nature. He wrote: The power of life and death was taken from the Jews, as far as it concerned matters of state … They only applied to Pilate to persuade him that they were proceeding against Christ as an enemy of the state, and not as a transgressor of their own laws.[6]Clarke was surely wrong in this opinion. See John 19:7. ENDNOTE: [6] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (London: Mason and Lane, 1837), Vol. 5, p. 645.

Verse 32 That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should die.In Matthew’s third prophecy of the Passion (Matthew 20:17-19), Jesus had foretold that he would be crucified at the hands of Gentiles. The apostle here called attention to the movement of events toward the accomplishment of that prophecy, The duplicity of Jesus’ accusers is seen in the contrast of their real reason for condemning Jesus and the far different reason they alleged before Pilate. God so ordered the events of the day that their hypocrisy and deceit were fully inscribed upon the pages of sacred history. The next six verses (John 18:33-38) give the conversation between Jesus and Pilate, which is an invaluable supplement to the synoptic records, clearing up several things which could never have been known without this paragraph.

Verse 33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?From this, it is clear that the chief priests had charged Jesus with wanting to be a secular king over Israel, a charge they knew to be false, their motives being inspired by no other consideration than political expediency; for they fancied that Pilate would believe their false charge. Pilate did have the grace to ask Jesus plainly about it.

Verse 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.This persuasive answer concerning the spiritual and other-worldly nature of Jesus’ kingdom convinced Pilate of the falsity of the Pharisees’ charges; and, in the light of that knowledge, he made at least seven efforts to procure Jesus’ release - only with the final reservation that he would not incur any political risk to release him. Then would my servants fight … The word of Jesus’ non-resistance against the sword was already known to Pilate, and the disclaimer in Jesus’ words was proof enough that Jesus was not any kind of threat to the secular throne of the Caesars. However, Jesus’ mention of a “kingdom” aroused Pilate’s curiosity. Such a kingdom as Jesus meant had never been heard of by such a man as Pilate. Manson said of it: He meant that it is not, as all the other world Empires are, the product of human skill, or courage, or ingenuity, or wickedness. It is not a human institution at all, but a divine gift.[7]ENDNOTE: [7] T. W. Manson, On Paul and John (London: SCM Press. 1963), p. 153.

Verse 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.Pilate did not understand what Jesus meant, but one thing was crystal clear: here was no seditionist. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice … This had its personal application to Pilate, who was not of the truth. His life-style, habits, political posture as Caesar’s representative in that city, his willingness to sacrifice even the innocent to avoid any political damage to himself - all such things in Pilate prevented his acceptance of the Saviour’s words in their higher context or meaning. Despite this, his inherent cunning and political astuteness enabled him to see at a glance how crooked and groundless were the false charges of the Pharisees.

Verse 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.Thus, Pilate terminated the interview, not waiting for a reply. He needed no reply, because the truth was of no particular concern to him. He was far more interested in what was politically expedient. This, of course, was exactly the attitude of Caiaphas (John 11:50); and both Pilate and Jesus’ foes stood on that principle together, political expediency being the common ground upon which they agreed at last to crucify the Lord. This was a verdict of innocence. At that moment, Pilate should have dismissed the hearing and ordered the legions in the tower of Antonio to disperse the mob; but he wilted before the venomous hatred of the mob demanding Jesus’ death. The announcement of a verdict of innocence was another effort to release Jesus.

Verse 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover; will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? They cried out therefore again, saying, not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.This was Pilate’s third attempt to release Jesus, as more fully detailed in the synoptics; but it was thwarted by leaders who stirred up the people to demand Barabbas instead of Jesus. The unmitigated duplicity of the priests was glaringly evident in this. Their choice of a known revolutionary instead of Jesus was impossible of reconciliation with their avowed loyalty to Caesar (Mark 15:7). For more on Barabbas. see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:17.

The numbering of these efforts to release Jesus refers to their order of appearance in John, and not to their chronological sequence. For a discussion of seven efforts of Pilate to avoid sentencing Christ, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:14-25.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 181. To what place did Jesus go with his disciples? 2. Why did Judas know this place ? 3. With whom did he come here now? 4. With what did he come? 5. From wliat authorities did these men come? 6. What did Jesus know ? 7. Repeat his question to the band. 8. And their answer. 9. Also the remark of Jesus. 10. Who was standing with the mob ? 11. What caused them to fall to the ground? 12. State the question that was repeated. 13. Tell his words upon their reply. 14. This was to fulfill what? 15. Who resorted to violence now? 16. By whom was he rebuked? 17. State his reasoning on the matter. 18. What was done then? 19. To whom did they lead Jesus? 20. Why to this man? 21. What had the high priest done before this? 22. Who followed Jesus ? 23. Why did the second one go into the palace? 24. State where Peter stood. 25. How was he admitted? 26. Who spoke to him ? 27. What was the subject of the conversation? 28. Tell what Peter said. 29. What were the conditions in nature at this time? 30. Of what did the high priest inquire? 31. Was this a secret subject? 32. How did Jesus criticize the high priest ? 33. Tell what was done to Jesus then. 34. On what ground was it done? 35. Repeat the demand of Jesus. 36. Before what personage is Jesus now ? 37. In what condition was he sent here? 38. What was again said to Peter? 39. And what answer? 40. Who spoke to him next? 41. Where had he seen him? 42. Tell what Peter did again. 43. What happened then? 44. To where did they lead Jesus then? 45. It was at what time? 46. Why did the Jews not enter this place ? 47. Who presided here ? 48. What question did he ask ? 49. Did they answer direct? 50. What did Pilate tell them to do? 51. Upon what pretense did they refuse? 52. This fulfilled what? 53. To whom did Pilate next speak? 54. Repeat his question. 55. And the question of Jesus to him. 56. Was Pilate a Jew? 57. What people had delivered Jesus? 58. Tell on what subject Jesus then spoke. 59. What citizens have right to fight? 60. And is this for offense or defense? 61. State the next question of Pilate. 62. And the answer. 63. Of what did Pilate then ask? 64. What answer did he receive ? 65. Tell what he then said to the Jews. 66. To what custom did he then refer? 67. What was his proposition? 68. This brought what protest from them?

John 18:1

1 After Jesus finished his prayer, he left the room where they had eaten the passover supper, in company with his apostles. He took them out of the city and crossed the brook Cedron, which is otherwise called Kid-ron. Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary describes this place as follows: “Kidron: The name of the valley east of Jerusalem, the stream of which is dry during the greater part of the year. Originally the spring Gihon emptied its waters into this part of the valley.” Thayer defines the original word for brook, “Flowing in winter, a torrent,” which agrees with the note from the dictionary just quoted. It shows why it was no barrier against their walking on out to the desired destination. Where was a garden means the garden was over or beyond this Cedron. This garden is named Gethsemane in Matthew 26:36 and Mark 14:32, and a description is given of it at the first-named passage.

John 18:2

2 This garden had often been the resting place of Jesus with his disciples. A quiet retreat, he would retire to its shade amid the olive and other fruit trees, and there talk to his beloved disciples about the great work of the future. Had Jesus wanted to evade the mob that he knew would be hunting for him, he would never have come into this place on the present occasion. He knew that Judas knew the place, and would bring his officers to it. But after his time had come, he made no effort to escape or to resist his capture, but submitted like a lamb being led to the slaughter.

John 18:3

3 John omits the events between the arrival of Jesus at the garden, and the coming of Judas with the mob. Those events are recorded in Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:26-42, and Luke 22:39-46. Band is from SPEIRA, and Thayer defines it at this place, “Any band, company, or detachment of soldiers.” This force had been delivered to Judas by authority of the chief priests and Pharisees. It was altogether unnecessary to form this posse, for Jesus had frequently predicted his own fate, and there never was any intimation on his part that he would give them any trouble. They were equipped with torches and weapons, which means clubs, as if Jesus would be hiding among the trees, and would have to be found with the aid of a torch, and then perhaps have to be taken by force.

John 18:4

4 The crowd was due a surprise, for instead of having to search for Jesus, he anticipated them and came forward saying, whom seek yet The crowd as a whole was unaware of the person who asked them the question. It was night and they had not been around him enough even to recognize his voice.

John 18:5

5 When the band announced the name of the person they were wanting, Jesus identified himself as the man they were after. All that John records about Judas’ part is that he stood with them. But the accounts of the other writers show us that sometime in the course of this conversation, he approached Jesus and gave him the betrayal kiss. It might seem that the kiss was unnecessary since Jesus was making himself known and showing no inclination to evade the crowd. But he had made his contract at a time when he did not know what the circumstances would be, and it was “according to form” for him to go through with his agreement for which he was to receive the money.

John 18:6

6 Had Jesus said nothing, and let them pursue their man hunt unopposed, they doubtless would have been surprised. But when he took a leading part in the search, even to the extent of boldly announcing himself as their wanted victim, they were amazed and stunned, and fell prostrate to the ground.

John 18:7

7 We do not know what they would have done or said next, if Jesus had not aroused them from their daze by repeating his question. They had recovered sufficiently to answer the question as they did the first time.

John 18:8

8 Let these go their way refers to the apostles. Since Jesus plainly identified himself as the man they wanted, it was not necessary to hold the apostles as if the investigation had to be continued.

John 18:9

9 Have I lost none refers to the saying of Jesus in chapter 17:12. It is true that the Saviour was to be deprived of the company of his apostles for the time being, but they would be free from the clutches of the officers, so they could take up His work when the proper time came, and hence would not be lost to Him.

John 18:10

0 Peter was always impulsive and rash, and seemed ready to defend his Lord as long as he could do so with material force. But he was a coward later when called upon to show moral courage in behalf of Christ.

John 18:11

1 This is not the same cup that is mentioned in Matthew 26:39. In that instance Jesus meant the mental suffering he was Just beginning to feel, which is more fully described in Luke 22:42-44. Jesus asked to be spared that present suffering if God willed it so. The cup in the present verse means the ordeal of the crucifixion, against which Peter thought to defend his Lord. Put up thy sword is commented upon at length in the notes at Matthew 26:52.

John 18:12

2 It was at this point that the apostles fled from Jesus, which is shown in Mark 14:50. Binding Jesus was another unnecessary performance as far as actual security of the prisoner was concerned, for the conversation that had taken place immediately preceding it, showed that Jesus was not even protesting his arrest. But that was another routine act in connection with the services of an armed force of officers.

John 18:13

3 Led him away to Annas first. There was no provision made in the law of Moses for more than one high priest to be in office at the same time, but in the days of Christ the secular government was taking much part in the affairs of the Jews. In that arrangement Annas was president of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas was high priest. Verse 24 shows that Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas in the bonds put there by the mob.

John 18:14

4 This speech of Caiaphas with comments is given at John 11:49-52. John regarded him as an official of some note, hence made the second mention of him.

John 18:15

5 The other disciple evidently was John, judging from the indirect way he is mentioned in other connections. (See chapter 13:23; 21:20, 24.) Was known denotes that he had some personal acquaintance with the high priest that gave him more freedom in approaching his presence. By reason of this special intimacy, when they led Jesus into the palace of the high priest, John went in also.

John 18:16

6 Peter lingered at the door while John went on into the palace, doubtless for the purpose of obtaining permission to bring in also his brother apostle Peter. With such authority, he went to the damsel who was guarding the door, and from her he obtained the privilege of bringing Peter on in.

John 18:17

7 The foregoing conversation evidently called the attention of the damsel to Peter, and she asked him about his relationship with this man, meaning Jesus. Peter denied being his disciple, fearing that it might involve him in some trouble.

John 18:18

8 The reader should refer to the comments on Matthew 26:69 for information concerning the palace. That will throw some light on how there could be a fire at the place. Being within hearing distance of the immediate presence of the high priest, it gave Peter an opportunity to “see the end” (Matthew 26:58).

John 18:19

9 Jesus was never ashamed of his doctrine (teaching), and really wished it to be known. But the question of the high priest included the disciples as well as the doctrine, which opened the way for the next statement of Jesus.

John 18:20

0 In secret have I said nothing. All statements should be considered in the light of all circumstances and the context generally. We know the facts would not admit the conclusion that Jesus never said anything to his disciples away from the public, hence we should look for the explanation in the meaning of the language. Secret is from KRUPTOS, which Thayer defines, “hidden, concealed secret.” The idea is that Jesus neve’ tried to keep his doctrine from the public. We know that is what hE meant here, for in Matthew 10:27 hE told his disciples to preach upon the housetops what they heard in the ear, which means what they heard from Jesus in their private hours.

John 18:21

1 An officer does not take a man into court and then ask him to make out a case against himself. If one has spoken things against the government, then certainly someone knows about it, and he would be the proper person from whom to obtain testimony. That is why Jesus told the high priest to ask them which heard me. Jesus had stated in the preceding verse that he had done his teaching in the synagogue and temple, which were public buildings in which great crowds generally assembled. It surely should not be difficult to obtain legal witnesses if Jesus had been guilty of criminal activities in his teaching.

John 18:22

2 Palm is from , which seems to have a rather indefinite meaning. It is rendered “a rod” in the margin, but the lexicons do not require that translation, though they admit that the word sometimes may have that meaning. Both Thayer and Robinson prefer the definition, “A blow with the flat of the hand, a slap in the face.” It was intended as an insult and indignity. Answerest thou the high priest sof They pretended that Jesus had shown disrespect to the dignity of the court.

John 18:23

3 Jesus had only exercised his “constitutional right” in demanding that if any charge was to be lodged against him, it should be upon the statements of eye or ear witnesses. In the absence of even any attempt to secure such testimony, he protested that they had no right to smite him.

John 18:24

4 This is commented upon at verse 13.

John 18:25

5 This was Peter’s second denial of Jesus.

John 18:26

6 It had not been long since Peter had attacked this servant and cut off his ear, and die surely would recognize him. However, he leaves out mentioning the matter of being a disciple, directly, and treats the same subject by asking if he had not seen him with him. This conversation is significant, for it means that in the estimation of this servant, being with Jesus was evidence of his being a disciple. His idea was correct as the scripture elsewhere teaches. (See Obadiah 1:11; 1 Corinthians 15:33.) Many professed disciples of Christ today will deny any sympathy with the enemies of the church just because they have not taken any formal stand with them. At the same time, they may be seen often associating with them and thus giving them encouragement.

John 18:27

7 This was the third time Peter denied his Lord. According to Luke 22:60-61, Jesus looked upon Peter at this time which reminded him of their conversation, and in remorse the apostle went out of the crowd and wept bitterly.

John 18:28

8 Hall of judgment is from , which Thayer defines as follows: “The palace in which the governor or procurator [administrator] of a province resided.” Smith’s Bible Dictionary says of this place, “It is the residence which Pilate occupied when he visited Jerusalem.” (See notes on Matthew 27:2 as to the position of Pilate.) Pilate represented the secular government, and it was necessary to bring Jesus before him to obtain a legal sentence of death (verse 31). The pronoun they occurs four times in this verse; the first means the Roman soldiers, the others are the “chief priests and elders of the people” (Matthew 27:1). The soldiers had the charge of personally handling Jesus when he was turned over into the jurisdiction of the secular court; that is why they led him into this judgment hail. But they, the Jews, would not enter into that place, lest they should be defiled. It being a Gentile spot, they imagined it would defile them (ceremonially) to come in contact with such a place, and that would render them unfit to partake of the passover feast that was about due. The law of Moses required the Jews to be ceremonially (as well as physically) clean before they could participate in this feast. (See chapter 11:55).

John 18:29

9 The Jewish leaders were waiting outside for the reason stated in the preceding verse. What accusation bring ye? Pilate was an officer in the secular government, representing that part of the Roman Empire known as Palestine. It was supposed that when a man was brought bound into a hearing of the penal courts, there was some specific and serious charge to be tried against him.

John 18:30

0 This verse states a cowardly reply to the question asked by the governor. The word malefactor is indefinite, meaning an evildoer of any rank or degree. The statement of these Jewish leaders implied that Pilate should take for granted that Jesus was guilty of lawlessness from the mere fact of their bringing him into court. This was contrary to the usages of all courts in any civilized land.

John 18:31

1 Their failure to name any specific charge, left Pilate to conclude that Jesus had not violated any ordinance of the Roman government, hence he should have no jurisdiction in the case. That is why he told them to judge him according to your law. The Jews stated the truth when they said it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, but that was not the true reason they did not want to act in the case. They did not let that truth keep them from killing Stephen, although they did not have even a judicial sentence of death against him.

John 18:32

2 The whole transaction was being directed by the Lord, who decreed that Jesus was to die on the cross, and the secular government only would put a man to death in that manner. That is why John says that it would be according to the kind of death Jesus had signified would be imposed upon him. (See Matthew 20:19).

John 18:33

3 Luke gives us a fuller statement, which includes some false accusations against Jesus (Luke 23:2). Pilate concluded that the complaint the Jews had was based on some claims of the prisoner that were opposed to the government of Rome. He therefore thought he could bring the issue to the foreground by asking him directly, art thou the king of the Jews? The whole situation was based on the idea that no two governments of whatever kinds, could lawfully exist in the same territory at the same time. That idea would be correct if the two were necessarily opposed to each other. But Pilate did not know anything about the character of the kingdom Jesus was heading, hence he asked the question quoted here.

John 18:34

4 Jesus never asked questions for his own information, for he knew all about men (chapter 2:24, 25). He took this method of introducing the important conversation to follow concerning the nature of his kingdom.

John 18:35

5 Pilate represented the matter correctly by referring to his nationality. He stated the truth when he told Jesus that it was his own people who had brought him into this court to be tried before him as a representative of the government of Caesar.

John 18:36

6 The reply of Jesus was not evasive, but it was not direct, as yet. He wished to set forth the principle on which he could claim to be a king, and still not be any rival of the government represented by Pilate. That was what Jesus had in mind when he said my kingdom is not of this world. Jesus never intended to establish a kingdom of a secular nature, while the government of Rome was that kind. That was the reason why Jesus was making the claim of being a king, yet not admitting any charge of rebellion that was being made by the Jews. This verse has been perverted by extremists among professed disciples of Christ.

They make Jesus teach that his disciples have no right to take part in the activities of secular governments, particularly those of doing military services, even in defense of their country. They not only err in their position, but make this statement of Jesus teach the very opposite of what he intended. Jesus plainly shows that citizens of secular governments have the right to fight in a defensive war for their country. But that does not make it right for Christians to resort to carnal warfare in defense of the kingdom of Christ_ And that also does not touch the question of whether they may be citizens of an earthly government (which we know they may since Paul the apostle was one, Acts 22:25-28), but that subject was not under consideration at all in the present case of Jesus and Pilate.

John 18:37

7 The speech of Jesus in the preceding verse was taken by Pilate as an affirmative answer to his question, yet he wished a more direct one. He therefore repeated his inquiry, except he said nothing about what people Jesus was to rule. And the answer of Jesus was also without any reference to the people who were to compose the citizenship of his kingdom. To this end was I born is in direct agreement with the question of the wise men, when they asked for him who was “born king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2). Very logically, if Jesus was to be born as a king, it would be necessary that he come into the world. Also, the principles that were to rule in his kingdom would be so different from any the world had even known, that the king himself would have to bring the -truth about them into the world.

The citizens of the new kingdom would be those who showed a disposition to accept this truth. This is why Jesus exhorted men to take his “yoke” (government) upon them and “learn of me” (Matthew 11:29).

John 18:38

8 What is truth? I do not believe that Pilate asked this question with any evil motive. The entire situation was new and somewhat bewildering to him. Here was a man brought bound into his court with a clamor for the death sentence from his complainants, yet against whom no specific charge was made. The nearest he could get to their grievance was the fact that the prisoner claimed to be a king. Furthermore, he seemed to claim kingship only over those who accepted the truth that he delivered to them.

No wonder, then, that he asked what is truth. But he did not have time for further details into the mysterious subject, for the plaintiffs were outside waiting for some kind of answer from him. Going out to them, he said I find in him no fault at all. In a court where justice is carried out, such a verdict would have been followed by the dismissal of the prisoner.

John 18:39

9 Although Jesus was found “not guilty” by the court into which he was brought, yet he was not released from custody. Pilate was afraid of public sentiment and wanted to shift the responsibility of terminating the case from his own shoulders to others. He thought of a custom that had been followed, whereby the time of the passover was celebrated by releasing a prisoner. The guilt or innocence of a prisoner did not seem to have any bearing on the selection of the man, except as it might affect the sentiments of the people whose right it was to name the fortunate person. If Pilate could persuade the people to select Jesus for the occasion, it would effect a compromise whereby an innocent man (as Pilate believed Jesus to be) would be let go, without directly denying the clamorous demand of the crowd.

John 18:40

0 The plan of Pilate did not work. The people did not wish to abandon their custom either, so they gave their unanimous voice that the release was to be given to Barabbas who was a robber and murderer (Luke 23:18-19).