Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:28

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:28” utilice nuestra app.

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

28. Then led they ] Better, They led therefore ( Joh 18:3). S. John assumes that his readers know the result of Jesus being taken to Caiaphas ( Joh 18:24): He had been condemned to death; and now His enemies (there is no need to name them) take Him to the Roman governor to get the sentence executed.

the hall of judgment ] The margin is better, Pilate’s house, i.e. the palace. In the original it is praitorion, the Greek form of praetorium. Our translators have varied their rendering of it capriciously: Mat 27:27, ‘common hall,’ with ‘governor’s house’ in the margin; Mar 15:16, ‘Praetorium;’ Joh 18:33; Joh 19:9, ‘judgment-hall.’ Yet the meaning must be the same in all these passages. Comp. Act 23:35, ‘judgment-hall;’ Php 1:13, ‘the palace.’ The meaning of praetorium varies according to the context. The word is of military origin; (1) ‘the general’s tent’ or ‘head quarters.’ Hence, in the provinces, (2) ‘the governor’s residence,’ the meaning in Act 23:35: in a sort of metaphorical sense, (3) a ‘mansion’ or ‘palace’ (Juvenal I. 75): at Rome. (4) ‘the praetorian guard,’ the probable meaning in Php 1:13. Of these leading significations the second is probably right here and throughout the Gospels; the official residence of the Procurator. Where Pilate resided in Jerusalem is not quite certain. We know that ‘Herod’s Praetorium,’ a magnificent building on the western hill of Jerusalem, was used by Roman governors somewhat later (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, p. 1034). But it is perhaps more likely that Pilate occupied part of the fortress Antonia, on the supposed site of which a chamber with a column in it has recently been discovered, which it is thought may possibly be the scene of the scourging.

S. John’s narrative alternates between the outside and inside of the Praetorium. Outside; 28 32; 38 40; Joh 19:4-7; John 12-16. Inside; 33 37; Joh 19:1-3; John 8-11.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

28 32. Outside the Praetorium; the Jews claim the execution of the Sanhedrin’s sentence of death, and Pilate refuses it.

early ] The same word, pro, is rendered ‘morning’ Mat 16:3; Mar 1:35; Mar 11:20; Mar 13:35; Mar 15:1; the last passage being partly parallel to this. In Mar 13:35 the word stands for the fourth watch (see on Mar 6:48), which lasted from 3.0 to 6.0 a.m. A Roman court might be held directly after sunrise; and as Pilate had probably been informed that an important case was to be brought before him, delay in which might cause serious disturbance, there is nothing improbable in his being ready to open his court between 4.0 and 5.0 a.m. The hierarchy were in a difficulty. Jesus could not safely be arrested by daylight, and the Sanhedrin could not legally pronounce sentence of death by night: hence they had had to wait till dawn to condemn Him. Now another regulation hampers them: a day must intervene between sentence and execution. This they shuffled out of by going at once to Pilate. Of course if he undertook the execution, he must fix the time; and their representations would secure his ordering immediate execution. Thus they shifted the breach of the law from themselves to him.

As in the life of our Lord as a whole, so also in this last week and last day of it, the exact sequence and time of the events cannot be ascertained with certainty. Chronology is not what the Evangelists aim at giving us. For a tentative arrangement of the chief events of the Passion see Appendix C.

they themselves ] In contrast with their Victim, whom they sent in under a Roman guard.

lest they should ] Better, that they might not, omitting ‘that they’ in the next clause.

be defiled ] by entering a house not properly cleansed of leaven (Exo 12:15).

eat the passover ] It is quite evident that S. John does not regard the Last Supper as a Paschal meal. Comp. Joh 13:1; Joh 13:29. It is equally evident that the synoptic narratives convey the impression that the Last Supper was the ordinary Jewish Passover (Mat 26:17-19; Mar 14:14; Mar 14:16; Luk 22:7-8; Luk 22:11; Luk 22:13; Luk 22:15). Whatever be the right solution of the difficulty, the independence of the author of the Fourth Gospel is manifest. Would anyone counterfeiting an Apostle venture thus to contradict what seemed to have such strong Apostolic authority? Would he not expect that a glaring discrepancy on so important a point would prove fatal to his pretensions? Assume that S. John is simply recording his own vivid recollections, whether or no we suppose him to be correcting the impression produced by the Synoptists, and this difficulty at any rate is avoided. S. John’s narrative is too precise and consistent to be explained away. On the difficulty as regards the Synoptists see Appendix A; also Excursus V at the end of Dr Farrar’s S. Luke.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

28 19:16. The Roman or Civil Trial

As already stated, S. John omits both toe examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin at an irregular time and place, at midnight and at ‘the Booths’ (Mat 26:57-68: Mar 14:53-65), and also the formal meeting of the Sanhedrin after daybreak in the proper place (Mat 27:1; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66-71), at which Jesus was sentenced to death. He proceeds to narrate what the Synoptists omit, the conference between Pilate and the Jews ( Joh 18:28-32) and two private examinations of Jesus by Pilate ( Joh 18:33-38 and Joh 19:8-11). Here also we seem to have the evidence of an eyewitness. We know that S. John followed his Lord into the high priest’s palace ( Joh 18:15), and stood by the Cross (Joh 19:26); it is therefore probable enough that he followed Him into the Procurator’s court.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See Mat 27:1-2.

Hall of judgment – The praetorium – the same word that in Mat 27:27, is translated common hall. See the notes on that place. It was the place where the Roman proctor, or governor, heard and decided cases brought before him. Jesus had been condemned by the Sanhedrin, and pronounced guilty of death Mat 26:66; but they had not power to carry their sentence into execution Joh 18:31, and they therefore sought that he might be condemned and executed by Pilate.

Lest they should be defiled – They considered the touch of a Gentile to be a defilement, and on this occasion, at least, seemed to regard it as a pollution to enter the house of a Gentile. They took care, therefore, to guard themselves against what they considered ceremonial pollution, while they were wholly unconcerned at the enormous crime of putting the innocent Saviour to death, and imbruing their hands in their Messiahs blood. Probably there is not anywhere to be found among men another such instance of petty regard to the mere ceremonies of the law and attempting to keep from pollution, at the same time that their hearts were filled with malice, and they were meditating the most enormous of all crimes. But it shows us how much more concerned men will be at the violation of the mere forms and ceremonies of religion than at real crime, and how they endeavor to keep their consciences at ease amid their deeds of wickedness by the observance of some of the outward ceremonies of religion by mere sanctimoniousness.

That they might eat the passover – See the notes at Mat 26:2, Mat 26:17. This defilement, produced by contact with a Gentile, they considered as equivalent to that of the contact of a dead body Lev 22:4-6; Num 5:2, and as disqualifying them to partake of the passover in a proper manner. The word translated passover means properly the paschal lamb which was slain and eaten on the observance of this feast. This rite Jesus had observed with his disciples the day before this. It has been supposed by many that he anticipated the usual time of observing it one day, and was crucified on the day on which the Jews observed it; but this opinion is improbable. The very day of keeping the ordinance was specified in the law of Moses, and it is not probable that the Saviour departed from the commandment. All the circumstances, also, lead us to suppose that he observed it at the usual time and manner, Mat 26:17, Mat 26:19. The only passage which has led to a contrary opinion is this in John; but here the word passover does not, of necessity, mean the paschal lamb. It probably refers to the Feast which followed the sacrifice of the lamb, and which continued seven days. Compare Num 28:16-17. The whole feast was called the Passover, and they were unwilling to defile themselves, even though the paschal lamb had been killed, because it would disqualify them for participating in the remainder of the ceremonies (Lightfoot).

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 28. The hall of judgment] , To the praetorium. This was the house where Pilate lodged; hence called in our margin, Pilate’s house. The praetorium is so called from being the dwelling-place of the praetor, or chief of the province. It was also the place where he held his court, and tried causes.

St. John has omitted all that passed in the house of Caiaphas – the accusations brought against Christ-the false witnesses – the insults which he received in the house of the high priest-and the assembling of the grand council, or Sanhedrin. These he found amply detailed by the other three evangelists; and for this reason it appears that he omitted them. John’s is properly a supplementary Gospel.

Lest they should be defiled] The Jews considered even the touch of a Gentile as a legal defilement; and therefore would not venture into the praetorium, for fear of contracting some impurity, which would have obliged them to separate themselves from all religious ordinances till the evening, Le 15:10-11; Le 15:19-20.

That they might eat the passover.] Some maintain that here does not mean the paschal lamb, but the other sacrifices which were offered during the paschal solemnity-for this had been eaten the evening before; and that our Lord was crucified the day after the passover. Others have maintained that the paschal lamb is here meant; that this was the proper day for sacrificing it; that it was on the very hour in which it was offered that Christ expired on the cross; and that therefore our Lord did not eat the Paschal lamb this year, or that he ate it some hours before the common time. Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb any time between the evening of Thursday and that of Friday. He conjectures too that this permission was necessary on account of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose. When Cestius desired to know the number of the Jews, he asked the priests how he might accomplish his wish? They informed him that this might be known by the number of the lambs slain at the passover, as never less than ten partook of one lamb, though twenty might feast on it. On this mode of computation he found the lambs to be 256,500; , . See Josephus, War, b. vi. c. 9. s. 3.

That Jesus ate a passover this last year of his life is sufficiently evident from Mt 26:17-19; Mr 14:12-18; Lu 22:8-15; and that he ate this passover some hours before the ordinary time, and was himself slain at that hour in which the paschal lamb was ordered by the law to be sacrificed, is highly probable, if not absolutely certain. See Clarke on Mt 26:20, and at the conclusion of the chapter, where the subject, and the different opinions on it, are largely considered. See Clarke on Mt 26:26

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The chief priests having in their sanhedrim done with our Saviours case, and judged him worthy of death, as we read, Mat 26:66; Mar 14:64; which two evangelists, with Luke, relate this history of Christs trial before the sanhedrim, with many more circumstances than John doth; they now lead him from the ecclesiastical court to the court of the civil magistrate; either kept in Pilates house, who was them present civil governor under the Romans, or some where at least where he sat as judge, which was therefore called

the hall of judgment. And it was early; how early it was we cannot tell, but probably about five or six of the clock. The Jews would not go into the judgment hall, that they might not be defiled, for they accounted it a legal pollution and uncleanness to come into a heathens house, or to touch any thing which a heathen had touched: now the reason is assigned why they were afraid of contracting any legal pollution, viz. that they might the passover.

Object. But had they not eaten the passover the night before? That was the time prescribed by the law, to the letter of which there is no doubt but that our Saviour strictly kept himself.

Answer. Some say that they had not, because the day wherein they should have eaten it this year falling the day before their sabbath, the passover was put off to be kept on the sabbath, that two great festivals might not be kept two days successively; so as, though our Saviour kept it at the time appointed by the law, yet the Jews did not. But this is denied by other very learned then, who tell us the Jews never altered their day for keeping their passover, neither for the succeeding sabbath, nor any other reason. They say therefore, that by the passover which is mentioned in this verse is to be understood the feast, mentioned Num 28:17, which was to be kept the fifteenth day, which day was a day of great solemnity with them from the morning to the evening; all the seven days they also offered various sacrifices, which all went under the name of the passover, because they followed in the days of the paschal feast. Thus the term passover is taken, Deu 16:2, Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd. According to this notion, the meaning of those words, that they might eat the passover, is, that they might proceed in their paschal solemnity, keeping the feast according to the law. Be it as it will, these hypocrites in it notoriously discovered their hypocrisy, scrupling what caused a legal uncleanness, and not at all scrupling either immediately before their eating the passover, or presently after it, in their great festival to defile themselves with the guilt of innocent blood; nay, had Christ been such a malefactor as they pretended, yet the bringing him into judgment, their prosecuting, and accusing, and condemning him, and assisting in his crucifying, were not works fit for the day before such a solemnity, or the day after it, which was so great a festival: but there is nothing more ordinary, than for persons over zealous as to rituals, to be as remiss with reference to moral duties.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

28. Then led they Jesus fromCaiaphas to the hall of judgmentbut not till “in themorning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders andscribes and the whole council against Him to put Him to death, andbound Him” (Mt 27:1; andsee on Mr 15:1). The word hererendered “hall of judgment” is from the Latin, anddenotes “the palace of the governor of a Roman province.”

they themselves went not intothe judgment hall lest they should be defiledby contact withceremonially unclean Gentiles.

but that they might eat thepassoverIf this refer to the principal part of the festival,the eating of the lamb, the question is, how our Lord and Hisdisciples came to eat it the night before; and, as it was an eveningmeal, how ceremonial defilement contracted in the morningwould unfit them for partaking of it, as after six o’clock it wasreckoned a new day. These are questions which have occasioned immenseresearch and learned treatises. But as the usages of the Jews appearto have somewhat varied at different times, and our present knowledgeof them is not sufficient to clear up all difficulties, they areamong the not very important questions which probably will never beentirely solved.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas,…. When Peter had denied him, one of the officers had smote him, the high priest had examined him, and they thought they had enough, out of his own mouth, to condemn him; they, the chief priests, elders, Scribes, and the whole multitude, led him bound as he was, from Caiaphas’s house,

unto the hall of judgment; or the “praetorium”; the place where the Roman governor, who was now Pontius Pilate, used to hear and try causes in; the Romans now having matters and causes relating to life and death, in their hands:

and it was early; the morning indeed was come; but it was as soon as it was day; they had been all night in taking and examining Jesus, and consulting what to do with him; and as soon as they could expect the governor to be up, they hurry him away to him, eagerly thirsting after his blood, and fearing lest he should be rescued out of their hands:

and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; that is, the Jews, only the band of Roman soldiers went in; the reason of this was, because it was the house of a Gentile, and with them, ‘ , “the dwelling houses of Gentiles”, or idolaters, “are unclean” t; yea, if they were the houses of Israelites, and Gentiles were admitted to dwell in them, they were defiled, and all that were in them; for so they say u,

“if the collectors for the government enter into a house to dwell in, all in the house are defiled.”

They did not think it lawful to rent out a house in Judea to an Heathen w, or to assist in building a Basilica for them; which they explain to be a palace, in which judges sit to judge men x: hence the reason of their caution, and which they were the more observant of,

that they might eat the passover; pure and undefiled; not the passover lamb, for that they had eaten the night before; but the “Chagigah”, or feast on the fifteenth day of the month. Many Christian writers, both ancient and modern, have concluded from hence, that Christ did not keep his last passover, at the same time the Jews did; and many things are said to illustrate this matter, and justify our Lord in it: some observe the distinction of a sacrificial, and commemorative passover; the sacrificial passover is that, in which the lamb was slain, and was fixed to a certain time and place, and there was no altering it; the commemorative passover is that, in which no lamb is slain and eaten, only a commemoration made of the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt; such as is now kept by the Jews, being out of their own land, where sacrifice with them is not lawful; and this it is supposed our Lord kept, and not the former: but it does not appear that there was such a commemorative passover kept by the Jews, in our Lord’s time, and whilst the temple stood: and supposing there was such an one allowed, and appointed for those that were at a distance from Jerusalem, and could not come up thither, (which was not the case of Christ and his disciples,) it is reasonable to conclude, that it was to be kept, and was kept at the time the sacrificial passover was, in the room of which it was substituted, as it is by the Jews to this day; so that this will by no means clear the matter, nor solve the difficulty; besides it is very manifest, that the passover our Lord kept was sacrificial; and such an one the disciples proposed to get ready for him, and did, of which he and they are said to eat: “and the first day of unleavened bread, when they KILLED the passover, his disciples said to him, where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayest EAT the passover?” Mr 14:12 and again, “then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover MUST be KILLED”, Lu 22:7. “They made ready the passover”, Lu 22:13 “and he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him”, Lu 22:14 “and he said unto them, with desire I have desired to eat this passover”, Lu 22:15. Others suggest, that this difference of observing the passover by Christ and the Jews arose from fixing the beginning of the month, and so accordingly the feasts in it, by the , or appearance of the moon; and that our Lord went according to the true appearance of it, and the Jews according to a false account: but of this, as a fact, there is no proof; besides, though the feasts were regulated and fixed according to the appearance of the moon, yet this was not left to the arbitrary will, pleasure, and judgment of particular persons, to determine as they should think proper; but the sanhedrim, or chief council of the nation sat, at a proper time, to hear and examine witnesses about the appearance of the moon; and accordingly determined, and none might fix but them y; and as this was doubtless the case at this time, it is not very reasonable to think, that Christ would differ from them: besides, it was either a clear case, or a doubtful one; if the former, then there would be no room nor reason to keep another day; and if it was the latter, then two days were observed, that they might be sure they were right z; but then both were kept by all the Jews: and that the time of this passover was well known, is clear from various circumstances; such and such facts were done, so many days before it; six days before it, Jesus came to Bethany, Joh 12:1 and two days before it, he was in the same place, Mt 26:2 and says to his disciples, “ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover”, c. Others taking it for granted, that Christ kept the passover a day before the usual and precise time, defend it, by observing the despotic and legislative power of Christ, who had a right to dispense with the time of this feast, and could at his pleasure anticipate it, because the betraying of him and his death were so near at hand: that he had such a power will not be disputed but that he should use it in this way, does not seem necessary, on account of his death, seeing none but the living were obliged to it; nor so consistent with his wisdom, since hereby the mouths of his enemies would be opened against him, for acting not agreeably to the law of God: moreover, when it is considered that the passover, according to the Jews, was always kept , “in its set time” a, and was not put off on the account of the sabbath, or anything else, to another day; and that though when it was put off for particular persons, on account of uncleanness, to another month, yet still it was to be kept on the fourteenth day at even, in that month, Nu 9:10 it will not easily be received that Christ observed it a day before the time: besides, the passover lamb was not killed in a private house, but in the temple, in the court of it, and that always on the fourteenth of Nisan, after noon: so says Maimonides b,

“it is an affirmative command to slay the passover on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, after the middle of the day. The passover is not slain but in the court, as the rest of the holy things; even in the time that altars were lawful, they did not offer the passover on a private altar; and whoever offers the passover on a private altar, is to be beaten; as it is said, “thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee”, De 16:5.”

And seeing therefore a passover lamb was not to be killed at home, but in the court of the priests, in the temple, it does not seem probable, that a single lamb should be suffered to be killed there, for Christ and his disciples, on a day not observed by the Jews, contrary to the sense of the sanhedrim, and of the whole nation: add to this, that the sacred text is express for it, that it was at the exact time of this feast, when it was come according to general computation, that the disciples moved to Christ to prepare the passover for him, and did, and they with him kept it: the account Matthew gives is very full; “now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread”; that is, when that was come in its proper time and course, “the disciples came to Jesus”; saying unto him, where wilt “thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” He bids them go to the city to such a man, and say, “I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples, and the disciples did as Jesus had appointed, and they made ready the passover; now when the even was come”, the time of eating the passover, according to the law of God, “he sat down with the twelve, and as they did eat”, c.

Mt 26:17 and Mark is still more particular, who says, “and the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover” that is, when the Jews killed the passover, on the very day the lamb was slain, and eaten by them; and then follows much the same account as before,

Mr 14:12 and Luke yet more clearly expresses it, “then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed”; according to the law of God, and the common usage of the people of the Jews; yea, he not only observes, that Christ kept the usual day, but the very hour, the precise time of eating it; for he says, “and when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him”, Lu 22:7. Nor is there anything in this text, that is an objection to Christ and the Jews keeping the passover at the same time; since by the passover here is meant, the “Chagigah”, or feast kept on the fifteenth day of the month, as it is sometimes called: in De 16:2 it is said, “thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd”: now the passover of the herd, can never mean the passover lamb, but the passover “Chagigah”; and so the Jewish commentators explain it; “of the herd”, says Jarchi, thou shalt sacrifice for the “Chagigah”; and says Aben Ezra, for the peace offerings; so Josiah the king is said to give for the passovers three thousand bullocks, and the priests three hundred oxen, and the Levites five hundred oxen, 2Ch 35:7 which Jarchi interprets of the peace offerings of the “Chagigah”, there called passovers; and so in 1 Esdres 1:7-9 mention is made of three thousand calves, besides lambs, that Josias gave for the passover; and three hundred by some other persons, and seven hundred by others: the passage in Deuteronomy, is explained of the “Chagigah”, in both Talmuds c, and in other writings d; so besides the passover lamb, we read of sacrifices slain, , “in the name of” the passover, or on account of it e; and particularly of the calf and the young bullock, slain for the sake of the passover f: and now this is the passover which these men were to eat that day, and therefore were careful not to defile themselves, that so they might not be unfit for it; otherwise had it been the passover lamb in the evening, they might have washed themselves in the evening, according to the rules of , or “the daily washing”, and been clean enough to have eat it: besides, it may be observed, that all the seven days were called the passover; and he that ate the unleavened bread, is said by eating that, to eat the passover; and thus they invite their guests daily to eat the bread, saying g,

“everyone that is hungry, let him come and eat all that he needs, , “and keep the passover”.”

It is easy to observe the consciences of these men, who were always wont to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel; they scruple going into the judgment hall, which belonged to an Heathen governor, and where was a large number of Heathen soldiers; but they could go along with these into the garden to apprehend Christ, and spend a whole night in consulting to shed innocent blood: no wonder that God should be weary of their sacrifices and ceremonious performances, when, trusting to these, they had no regard to moral precepts: however, this may be teaching to us, in what manner we should keep the feast, and eat of the true passover, Christ; not with malice and wickedness, as these Jews ate theirs, but with sincerity and truth: besides, a sanhedrim, when they had condemned anyone to death, were forbidden to eat anything all that day h; and so whilst scrupling one thing, they broke through another.

t Misn. Oholot, c. 18. sect. 7. u Maimon. Mishcab & Mosheb, c. 12. sect. 12. w Misn. Avoda Zara, c. 1. sect. 8. x Jarchi & Bartenora in ib. sect. 7. y Maimon. Kiddush Hachodesh, c. 2. sect. 7, 8. z Ib. c. 5. sect. 6, 7, 8. a Maimon. in Misn. Pesachim, c. 7. sect. 4. & Bartenora in ib. c. 5. sect. 4. b Hilchot Korban Pesacb. c. 1. sect. 1, 3. c T. Hieros. Pesacb. fol. 33. 1. T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 70. 2. d Maimon. Korban Pesach. c. 10. sect. 12. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 349. e Misn. Pesachim, c. 6. sect. 5. f T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 3. 1. g Haggadah Shel Pesach. p. 4. Ed. Rittangel. h T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 63. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrin, c. 13. sect. 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ in the Judgment-Hall; Christ Arraigned before Pilate.

28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. 29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? 30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. 31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: 32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. 33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 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. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 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 in him no fault at all. 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? 40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

We have here an account of Christ’s arraignment before Pilate, the Roman governor, in the prtorium (a Latin word made Greek), the prtor’s house, or hall of judgment; thither they hurried him, to get him condemned in the Roman court, and executed by the Roman power. Being resolved on his death, they took this course, 1. That he might be put to death the more legally and regularly, according to the present constitution of their government, since they became a province of the empire; not stoned in a popular tumult, as Stephen, but put to death with the present formalities of justice. Thus he was treated as a malefactor, being made sin for us. 2. That he might be put to death the more safely. If they could engage the Roman government in the matter, which the people stood in awe of, there would be little danger of an uproar. 3. That he might be put to death with more reproach to himself. The death of the cross, which the Romans commonly used, being of all deaths the most ignominious, they were desirous by it to put an indelible mark of infamy upon him, and so to sink his reputation for ever. This therefore they harped upon, Crucify him. 4. That he might be put to death with less reproach to them. It was an invidious thing to put one to death that had done so much good in the world, and therefore they were willing to throw the odium upon the Roman government, to make that the less acceptable to the people, and save themselves from the reproach. Thus many are more afraid of the scandal of a bad action than of the sin of it. See Acts v. 28. Two things are here observed concerning the prosecution:– (1.) Their policy and industry in the prosecution: It was early; some think about two or three in the morning, others about five or six, when most people were in their beds; and so there would be the less danger of opposition from the people that were for Christ; while, at the same time, they had their agents about, to call those together whom they could influence to cry out against him. See how much their heart was upon it, and how violent they were in the prosecution. Now that they had him in their hands, they would lose no time till they had him upon the cross, but denied themselves their natural rest, to push on this matter. See Mic. ii. 1. (2.) Their superstition and vile hypocrisy: The chief priests and elders, though they came along with the prisoner, that the thing might be done effectually, went not into the judgment-hall, because it was the house of an uncircumcised Gentile, lest they should be defiled, but kept out of doors, that they might eat the passover, not the paschal lamb (that was eaten the night before) but the passover-feast, upon the sacrifices which were offered on the fifteenth day, the Chagigah, as they called it, the passover-bullocks spoken of Deu 16:2; 2Ch 30:24; 2Ch 30:9. These they were to eat of, and therefore would not go into the court, for fear of touching a Gentile, and thereby contracting, not a legal, but only a traditional pollution. This they scrupled, but made no scruple of breaking through all the laws of equity to persecute Christ to the death. They strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel. Let us now see what passed at the judgment-hall. Here is,

I. Pilate’s conference with the prosecutors. They were called first, and stated what they had to say against the prisoner, as was very fit, v. 29-32.

1. The judge calls for the indictment. Because they would not come into the hall, he went out to them into the court before the house, to talk with them. Looking upon Pilate as a magistrate, that we may give every one his due, here are three things commendable in him:– (1.) His diligent and close application to business. If it had been upon a good occasion, it had been very well that he was willing to be called up early to the judgment-seat. Men in public trusts must not love their ease. (2.) His condescending to the humour of the people, and receding from the honour of his place to gratify their scruples. He might have said, “If they be so nice as not to come in to me, let them go home as they came;” by the same rule as we might say, “If the complainant scruple to take off his hat to the magistrate, let not his complaint be heard;” but Pilate insists not upon it, bears with them, and goes out to them; for, when it is for good, we should become all things to all men. (3.) His adherence to the rule of justice, in demanding the accusation, suspecting the prosecution to be malicious: “What accusation bring you against this man?” What is the crime you charge him with, and what proof have you of it? It was a law of nature, before Valerius Publicola made it a Roman law, Ne quis indicta causa condemnetur–No man should be condemned unheard. See Act 25:16; Act 25:17. It is unreasonable to commit a man, without alleging some cause in the warrant, and much more to arraign a man when there is no bill of indictment found against him.

2. The prosecutors demand judgment against him upon a general surmise that he was a criminal, not alleging, much less proving, any thing in particular worthy of death or of bonds (v. 30): If he were not a malefactor, or evildoer, we would not have delivered him to thee to be condemned. This bespeaks them, (1.) Very rude and uncivil to Pilate, a company of ill-natured men, that affected to despise dominion. When Pilate was so complaisant to them as to come out to treat with them, yet they were to the highest degree out of humour with him. He put the most reasonable question to them that could be; but, if it had been the most absurd, they could not have answered him with more disdain. (2.) Very spiteful and malicious towards our Lord Jesus: right or wrong, they will have him to be a malefactor, and treated as one. We are to presume a man innocent till he is proved guilty, but they will presume him guilty who could prove himself innocent. They cannot say, “He is a traitor, a murderer, a felon, a breaker of the peace,” but they say, “He is an evil-doer.” He an evil-doer who went about doing good! Let those be called whom he had cured, and fed, and taught; whom he has rescued from devils, and raised from death; and let them be asked whether he be an evil-doer or no. Note, It is no new thing for the best of benefactors to be branded and run down as the worst of malefactors. (3.) Very proud and conceited of themselves, and their own judgment and justice, as if their delivering a man up, under the general character of a malefactor, were sufficient for the civil magistrate to ground a judicial sentence upon, than which what could be more haughty?

3. The judge remands him to their own court (v. 31): “Take you him, and judge him according to your own law, and do not trouble me with him.” Now, (1.) Some think Pilate herein complimented them, acknowledging the remains of their power, and allowing them to exert it. Corporal punishment they might inflict, as scourging in their synagogues; whether capital or no is uncertain. “But,” saith Pilate, “go as far as your law will allow you, and, if you go further, it shall be connived at.” This he said, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, but unwilling to do them the service they required. (2.) Others think he bantered them, and upbraided them with their present state of weakness and subjection. They would be the sole judges of the guilt. “Pray,” saith Pilate, “if you will be so, go on as you have begun; you have found him guilty by your own law, condemn him, if you dare, by your own law, to carry on the humour.” Nothing is more absurd, nor more deserves to be exposed, than for those to pretend to dictate, and boast of their wisdom, who are weak and in subordinate stations, and whose lot it is to be dictated to. Some think Pilate here reflects upon the law of Moses, as if it allowed them what the Roman law would by no means allow–the judging of a man unheard. “It may be your law will suffer such a thing, but ours will not.” Thus, through their corruptions, the law of God was blasphemed; and so is his gospel too.

4. They disown any authority as judges, and (since it must be so) are content to be prosecutors. They now grow less insolent and more submissive, and own, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, whatever less punishment we may inflict, and this is a malefactor whom we would have the blood of.”

(1.) Some think they had lost their power to give judgment in matters of life and death only by their own carelessness, and cowardly yielding to the darling iniquities of the age; so Dr. Lightfoot ouk exesti—It is not in our power to pass sentence of death upon any, if we do, we shall have the mob about us immediately.

(2.) Others think their power was taken from them by the Romans, because they had not used it well, or because it was thought too great a trust to be lodged in the hands of a conquered and yet an unsubdued people. Their acknowledgement of this they designed for a compliment to Pilate, and to atone for their rudeness (v. 30), but it amounts to a full evidence that the sceptre was departed from Judah, and therefore that now the Messiah was come, Gen. xlix. 10. If the Jews have no power to put any man to death, where is the sceptre? Yet they ask not, Where is the Shiloh?

(3.) However, there was a providence in it, that either they should have not power to put any man to death, or should decline the exercise of it upon this occasion, That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying what death he should die, v. 32. Observe, [1.] In general, that even those who designed the defeating of Christ’s sayings were, beyond their intention, made serviceable to the fulfilling of them by an overruling hand of God. No word of Christ shall fall to the ground; he can never either deceive or be deceived. Even the chief priests, while they persecuted him as a deceiver, had their spirit so directed as to help to prove him true, when we should think that by taking other measures they might have defeated his predictions. Howbeit, they meant not so, Isa. x. 7. [2.] Those sayings of Christ in particular were fulfilled which he had spoken concerning his own death. Two sayings of Christ concerning his death were fulfilled, by the Jews declining to judge him according to their law. First, He had said that he should be delivered to the Gentiles, and that they should put him to death (Mat 20:19; Mar 10:33; Luk 18:32; Luk 18:33), and hereby that saying was fulfilled. Secondly, He had said that he should be crucified (Mat 20:19; Mat 26:2), lifted up,Joh 3:14; Joh 12:32. Now, if they had judged him by their law, he had been stoned; burning, strangling, and beheading, were in some cases used among the Jews, but never crucifying. It was therefore necessary that Christ should be put to death by the Romans, that, being hanged upon a tree, he might be made a curse for us (Gal. iii. 13), and his hands and feet might be pierced. As the Roman power had brought him to be born at Bethlehem, so now to die upon a cross, and both according to the scriptures. It is likewise determined concerning us, though not discovered to us, what death we shall die, which should free us from all disquieting cares about that matter. “Lord, what, and when, and how thou hast appointed.”

II. Here is Pilate’s conference with the prisoner, v. 33, c., where we have,

1. The prisoner set to the bar. Pilate, after he had conferred with the chief priests at his door, entered into the hall, and called for Jesus to be brought in. He would not examine him in the crowd, where he might be disturbed by the noise, but ordered him to be brought into the hall for he made no difficulty of going in among the Gentiles. We by sin were become liable to the judgment of God, and were to be brought before his bar; therefore Christ, being made sin and a curse for us, was arraigned as a criminal. Pilate entered into judgment with him, that God might not enter into judgment with us.

2. His examination. The other evangelists tell us that his accusers had laid it to his charge that he perverted the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Csar, and upon this he is examined.

(1.) Here is a question put to him, with a design to ensnare him and to find out something upon which to ground an accusation: “Art thou the king of the Jews? ho basileus —that king of the Jews who has been so much talked of and so long expected–Messiah the prince, art thou he? Dost thou pretend to be he? Dost thou call thyself, and wouldest thou be thought so?” For he was far from imagining that really he was so, or making a question of that. Some think Pilate asked this with an air of scorn and contempt: “What! art thou a king, who makest so mean a figure? Art thou the king of the Jews, by whom thou art thus hated and persecuted? Art thou king de jure–of right, while the emperor is only king de facto–in fact?” Since it could not be proved he ever said it, he would constrain him to say it now, that he might proceed upon his own confession.

(2.) Christ answers this question with another; not for evasion, but as an intimation to Pilate to consider what he did, and upon what grounds he went (v. 34): “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, from a suspicion arising in thy own breast, or did others tell it thee of me, and dost thou ask it only to oblige them?” [1.] “It is plain that thou hast no reason to say this of thyself.” Pilate was bound by his office to take care of the interests of the Roman government, but he could not say that this was in any danger, or suffered any damage, from any thing our Lord Jesus had ever said or done. He never appeared in worldly pomp, never assumed any secular power, never acted as a judge or divider; never were any traitorous principles or practices objected to him, nor any thing that might give the least shadow of suspicion. [2.] “If others tell it thee of me, to incense thee against me, thou oughtest to consider who they are, and upon what principles they go, and whether those who represent me as an enemy to Csar are not really such themselves, and therefore use this only as a pretence to cover their malice, for, if so, the matter ought to be well weighed by a judge that would do justice.” Nay, if Pilate had been as inquisitive as he ought to have been in this matter, he would have found that the true reason why the chief priests were outrageous against Jesus was because he did not set up a temporal kingdom in opposition to the Roman power; if he would have done this, and would have wrought miracles to bring the Jews out of the Roman bondage, as Moses did to bring them out of the Egyptian, they would have been so far from siding with the Romans against him that they would have made him their king, and have fought under him against the Romans; but, not answering this expectation of theirs, they charged that upon him of which they were themselves most notoriously guilty-disaffection to and design against the present government; and was such an information as this fit to be countenanced?

(3.) Pilate resents Christ’s answer, and takes it very ill, v. 35. This is a direct answer to Christ’s question, v. 34. [1.] Christ had asked him whether he spoke of himself. “No,” says he; “am I a Jew, that thou suspectest me to be in the plot against thee? I know nothing of the Messiah, nor desire to know, and therefore interest not myself in the dispute who is the Messiah and who not; the dispute who is the Messiah and who not; it is all alike to me.” Observe with what disdain Pilate asks, Am I a Jew? The Jews were, upon many accounts, an honourable people; but, having corrupted the covenant of their God, he made them contemptible and base before all the people (Mal 2:8; Mal 2:9), so that a man of sense and honour reckoned it a scandal to be counted a Jew. Thus good names often suffer for the sake of the bad men that wear them. It is sad that when a Turk is suspected of dishonesty he should ask, “What! do you take me for a Christian?” [2.] Christ had asked him whether others told him. “Yes,” says he, “and those thine own people, who, one would think would be biased in favour of thee, and the priests, whose testimony, in verbum sacerdotis–on the word of a priest, ought to be regarded; and therefore I have nothing to do but to proceed upon their information.” Thus Christ, in his religion, still suffers by those that are of his own nation, even the priests, that profess relation to him, but do not live up to their profession. [3.] Christ had declined answering that question, Art thou the king of the Jews? And therefore Pilate puts another question to him more general, “What hast thou done? What provocation hast thou given to thy own nation, and particularly the priests, to be so violent against thee? Surely there cannot be all this smoke without some fire, what is it?”

(4.) Christ, in his next reply, gives a more full and direct answer to Pilate’s former question, Art thou a king? explaining in what sense he was a king, but not such a king as was any ways dangerous to the Roman government, not a secular king, for his interest was not supported by secular methods, v. 36. Observe,

[1.] An account of the nature and constitution of Christ’s kingdom: It is not of this world. It is expressed negatively to rectify the present mistakes concerning it; but the positive is implied, it is the kingdom of heaven, and belongs to another world. Christ is a king, and has a kingdom, but not of this world. First Its rise is not from this world; the kingdoms of men arise out of the sea and the earth (Dan 7:3; Rev 13:1; Rev 13:11); but the holy city comes from God out of heaven, Rev. xxii. 2. His kingdom is not by succession, election, or conquest, but by the immediate and special designation of the divine will and counsel. Secondly, Its nature is not worldly; it is a kingdom within men (Luke xvi. 21), set up in their hearts and consciences (Rom. xiv. 17), its riches spiritual, its powers spiritual, and all its glory within. The ministers of state in Christ’s kingdom have not the spirit of the world, 1 Cor. ii. 12. Thirdly, Its guards and supports are not worldly; its weapons are spiritual. It neither needed nor used secular force to maintain and advance it, nor was it carried on in a way hurtful to kings or provinces; it did not in the least interfere with the prerogatives of princes nor the property of their subjects; it tended not to alter any national establishment in secular things, nor opposed any kingdom but that of sin and Satan. Fourthly, Its tendency and design are not worldly. Christ neither aimed nor would allow his disciples to aim at the pomp and power of the great men of the earth. Fifthly, Its subjects, though they are in the world, yet are not of the world; they are called and chosen out of the world, are born from, and bound for, another world; they are neither the world’s pupils nor its darlings, neither governed by its wisdom nor enriched with its wealth.

[2.] An evidence of the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom produced. If he had designed an opposition to the government, he would have fought them at their own weapons, and would have repelled force with force of the same nature; but he did not take this course: If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, and my kingdom be ruined by them. But, First, His followers did not offer to fight; there was no uproar, no attempt to rescue him, though the town was now full of Galileans, his friends and countrymen, and they were generally armed; but the peaceable behaviour of his disciples on this occasion was enough to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Secondly, He did not order them to fight; nay, he forbade them, which was an evidence both that he did not depend upon worldly aids (for he could have summoned legions of angels into his service, which showed that his kingdom was from above), and also that he did not dread worldly opposition, for he was very willing to be delivered to the Jews, as knowing that what would have been the destruction of any worldly kingdom would be the advancement and establishment of his; justly therefore does he conclude, Now you may see my kingdom is not from hence; in the world but not of it.

(5.) In answer to Pilate’s further query, he replies yet more directly, v. 37, where we have, [1.] Pilate’s plain question: “Art thou a king then? Thou speakest of a kingdom thou hast; art thou then, in any sense, a king? And what colour hast thou for such a claim? Explain thyself.” [2.] The good confession which our Lord Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate, in answer to this (1 Tim. vi. 13): Thou sayest that I am a king, that is, It is as thou sayest, I am a king; for I came to bear witness of the truth. First, He grants himself to be a king, though not in the sense that Pilate meant. The Messiah was expected under the character of a king, Messiah the prince; and therefore, having owned to Caiaphas that he was the Christ, he would not disown to Pilate that he was king, lest he should seem inconsistent with himself. Note, Though Christ took upon him the form of a servant, yet even then he justly claimed the honour and authority of a king. Secondly, He explains himself, and shows how he is a king, as he came to bear witness of the truth; he rules in the minds of men by the power of truth. If he had meant to declare himself a temporal prince, he would have said, For this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, to rule the nations, to conquer kings, and to take possession of kingdoms; no, he came to be a witness, a witness for the God that made the world, and against sin that ruins the world, and by this word of his testimony he sets up, and keeps up, his kingdom. It was foretold that he should be a witness to the people, and, as such, a leader and commander to the people, Isa. lv. 4. Christ’s kingdom was not of this world, in which truth faileth (Isa. lix. 15, Qui nescit dissimulare, nescit regnare–He that cannot dissemble knows not how to reign), but of that world in which truth reigns eternally. Christ’s errand into the world, and his business in the world, were to bear witness to the truth. 1. To reveal it, to discover to the world that which otherwise could not have been known concerning God and his will and good-will to men,Joh 1:18; Joh 17:26. 2. To confirm it, Rom. xv. 8. By his miracles he bore witness to the truth of religion, the truth of divine revelation, and of God’s perfections and providence, and the truth of his promise and covenant, that all men through him might believe. Now by doing this he is a king, and sets up a kingdom. (1.) The foundation and power, the spirit and genius, of Christ’s kingdom, is truth, divine truth. When he said, I am the truth, he said, in effect, I am a king. He conquers by the convincing evidence of truth; he rules by the commanding power of truth, and in his majesty rides prosperously, because of truth, Ps. xlv. 4. It is with his truth that he shall judge the people, Ps. xcvi. 13. It is the sceptre of his kingdom; he draws with the cords of a man, with truth revealed to us, and received by us in the love of it; and thus he brings thoughts into obedience. He came a light into the world, and rules as the sun by day. (2.) The subjects of this kingdom are those that are of the truth. All that by the grace of God are rescued from under the power of the father of lies, and are disposed to receive the truth and submit to the power and influence of it, will hear Christ’s voice, will become his subjects, and will bear faith and true allegiance to him. Every one that has any real sense of true religion will entertain the Christian religion, and they belong to his kingdom; by the power of truth he makes them willing, Ps. xc. 3. All that are in love with truth will hear the voice of Christ, for greater, better, surer, sweeter truths can nowhere be found than are found in Christ, by whom grace and truth came; so that, by hearing Christ’s voice, we know that we are of the truth, 1 John iii. 19.

(6.) Pilate, hereupon, puts a good question to him, but does not stay for an answer, v. 38. He said, What is truth? and immediately went out again.

[1.] It is certain that this was a good question, and could not be put to one that was better able to answer it. Truth is that pearl of great price which the human understanding has a desire for and is in quest of; for it cannot rest but in that which is, or at least is apprehended to be, truth. When we search the scriptures, and attend the ministry of the word, it must be with this enquiry, What is truth? and with this prayer, Lead me in thy truth, into all truth. But many put this question that have not patience and constancy enough to persevere in their search after truth, or not humility and sincerity enough to receive it when they have found it, 2 Tim. iii. 7. Thus many deal with their own consciences; they ask them those needful questions, “What am I?” “What have I done?” but will not take time for an answer.

[2.] It is uncertain with what design Pilate asked this question. First, Perhaps he spoke it as a learner, as one that began to think well of Christ, and to look upon him with some respect, and desired to be informed what new notions he advanced and what improvements he pretended to in religion and learning. But while he desired to hear some new truth from him, as Herod to see some miracle, the clamour and outrage of the priests’ mob at his gate obliged him abruptly to let fall the discourse. Secondly, Some think he spoke it as a judge, enquiring further into the cause now brought before him: “Let me into this mystery, and tell me what the truth of it is, the true state of this matter.” Thirdly, Others think he spoke it as a scoffer, in a jeering way: “Thou talkest of truth; canst thou tell what truth is, or give me a definition of it?” Thus he makes a jest of the everlasting gospel, that great truth which the chief priests hated and persecuted, and which Christ was now witnessing to and suffering for; and like men of no religion, who take a pleasure in bantering all religions, he ridicules both sides; and therefore Christ made him no reply. Answer not a fool according to his folly; cast not pearls before swine. But, though Christ would not tell Pilate what is truth, he has told his disciples, and by them has told us, ch. xiv. 6.

III. The result of both these conferences with the prosecutors and the prisoner (v. 38-40), in two things:–

1. The judge appeared his friend, and favourable to him, for,

(1.) He publicly declared him innocent, v. 38. Upon the whole matter, I find in him no fault at all. He supposes there might be some controversy in religion between him and them, wherein he was as likely to be in the right as they; but nothing criminal appears against him. This solemn declaration of Christ’s innocency was, [1.] For the justification and honour of the Lord Jesus. By this it appears that though he was treated as the worst of malefactors he had never merited such treatment. [2.] For explaining the design and intention of his death, that he did not die for any sin of his own, even in the judgement of the judge himself, and therefore he died as a sacrifice for our sins, and that, even in the judgment of the prosecutors themselves, one man should die for the people, ch. xi. 50. This is he that did no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth (Isa. liii. 9), who was to be cut off, but not for himself, Dan. ix. 26. [3.] For aggravating the sin of the Jews that prosecuted him with so much violence. If a prisoner has had a fair trial, and has been acquitted by those that are proper judges of the crime, especially if there be no cause to suspect them partial in his favour, he must be believed innocent, and his accusers are bound to acquiesce. But our Lord Jesus, though brought in not guilty, is still run down as a malefactor, and his blood thirsted for.

(2.) He proposed an expedient for his discharge (v. 39): You have a custom, that I should release to you a prisoner at the passover; shall it be this king of the Jews? He proposed this, not to the chief priests (he knew they would never agree to it), but to the multitude; it was an appeal to the people, as appears, Matt. xxvii. 15. Probably he had heard how this Jesus had been attended but the other day with the hosannas of the common people; he therefore looked upon him to be the darling of the multitude, and the envy only of the rulers, and therefore he made no doubt but they would demand the release of Jesus, and this would stop the mouth of the prosecutors, and all would be well. [1.] He allows their custom, for which, perhaps, they had had a long prescription, in honour of the passover, which was a memorial of their release. But it was adding to God’s words, as if he had not instituted enough for the due commemoration of that deliverance, and, though an act of mercy, might be injustice to the public, Prov. xvii. 15. [2.] He offers to release Jesus to them, according to the custom. If Pilate had had the honesty and courage that became a judge, he would not have named an innocent person to be competitor with a notorious criminal for this favour; if he found no fault in him, he was bound in conscience to discharge him. But he was willing to trim the matter, and please all sides, being governed more by worldly wisdom than by the rules of equity.

2. The people appeared his enemies, and implacable against him (v. 40): They cried all again and again, Not this man, let not him be released, but Barabbas. Observe, (1.) How fierce and outrageous they were. Pilate proposed the thing to them calmly, as worthy their mature consideration, but they resolved it in a heat, and gave in their resolution with clamour and noise, and in the utmost confusion. Note, The enemies of Christ’s holy religion cry it down, and so hope to run it down; witness the outcry at Ephesus, Acts xix. 34. But those who think the worse of things or persons merely for their being thus exclaimed against have a very small share of constancy and consideration. Nay, there is cause to suspect a deficiency of reason and justice on that side which calls in the assistance of popular tumult. (2.) How foolish and absurd they were, as is intimated in the short account here given of the other candidate: Now Barabbas was a robber, and therefore, [1.] A breaker of the law of God; and yet he shall be spared, rather than one who reproved the pride, avarice, and tyranny of the priests and elders. Though Barabbas be a robber, he will not rob them of Moses’s seat, nor of their traditions, and then no matter. [2.] He was an enemy to the public safety and personal property. The clamour of the town is wont to be against robbers (Job xxx. 5, Men cried after them as after a thief), yet here it is for one. Thus those do who prefer their sins before Christ. Sin is a robber, every base lust is a robber, and yet foolishly chosen rather than Christ, who would truly enrich us.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

They lead (). Dramatic historical present of , plural “they” for the Sanhedrists (Lu 23:1). John gives no details of the trial before the Sanhedrin (only the fact, John 18:24; John 18:28) when Caiaphas presided, either the informal meeting at night (Mark 14:53; Mark 14:55-65; Matt 26:57; Matt 26:59-68; Luke 22:54; Luke 22:63-65) or the formal ratification meeting after dawn (Mark 15:1; Matt 27:1; Luke 22:66-71), but he gives much new material of the trial before Pilate (18:28-38).

Into the palace ( ). For the history and meaning of this interesting Latin word, praetorium, see on Matt 27:27; Acts 23:35; Phil 1:13. Here it is probably the magnificent palace in Jerusalem built by Herod the Great for himself and occupied by the Roman Procurator (governor) when in the city. There was also one in Caesarea (Ac 23:35). Herod’s palace in Jerusalem was on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. There is something to be said for the Castle of Antonia, north of the temple area, as the location of Pilate’s residence in Jerusalem.

Early (). Technically the fourth watch (3 A.M. to 6 A.M.). There were two violations of Jewish legal procedure (holding the trial for a capital case at night, passing condemnation on the same day of the trial). Besides, the Sanhedrin no longer had the power of death. A Roman court could meet any time after sunrise. John (19:14) says it was “about the sixth hour” when Pilate condemned Jesus.

That they might not be defiled ( ). Purpose clause with and first aorist passive subjunctive of , to stain, to defile. For Jewish scruples about entering the house of a Gentile see Acts 10:28; Acts 11:3.

But might eat the passover ( ). Second aorist active subjunctive of the defective verb , to eat. This phrase may mean to eat the passover meal as in Mt 27:17 (Mark 14:12; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11; Luke 22:15), but it does not have to mean that. In 2Ch 30:22 we read: “And they did eat the festival seven days” when the paschal festival is meant, not the paschal lamb or the paschal supper. There are eight other examples of in John’s Gospel and in all of them the feast is meant, not the supper. If we follow John’s use of the word, it is the feast here, not the meal of Joh 13:2 which was the regular passover meal. This interpretation keeps John in harmony with the Synoptics.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Led [] . Present tense, lead.

Hall of judgment [] . A Latin word, proetorium, transcribed. Originally, the general’s tent. In the Roman provinces it was the name for the official residence of the Roman governor, as here. Compare Act 23:35. It came to be applied to any spacious villa or palace. So Juvenal : “To their crimes they are indebted for their gardens, palaces [] , etc.” (” Sat., ” 1 75). In Rome the term was applied to the proetorian guard, or imperial bodyguard. See on Phi 1:13. Rev., palace.

Early [] . Used technically of the fourth watch, 3 – 6 A. M. See Mr 13:35. The Sanhedrim could not hold a legal meeting, especially in capital cases, before sunrise; and in such cases judicial proceedings must be conducted and terminated by day. A condemnation to death, at night, was technically illegal. In capital cases, sentence of condemnation could not be legally pronounced on the day of trial. If the night proceedings were merely preliminary to a formal trial, they would have no validity; if formal, they were, inso facto, illegal. In either case was the law observed in reference to the second council. According to the Hebrew computation of time, it was held on the same day.

Be defiled (mianqwsin). Originally, to stain, as with color. So Homer : “Tinges [] the white ivory with purple.” Not necessarily, therefore, in a bad sense, like moluvw, to besmear or besmirch with filth (1Co 8:7; Rev 3:4). In classical Greek, miainw, the verb here used, is the standing word for profaning or unhallowing. So Sophocles :

“Not even fearing this pollution [] dire, Will I consent to burial. Well I know That man is powerless to pollute [] the gods.”

“Antigone,” 1042 – 1044.

And Plato : “And if a homicide… without purification pollutes the agora, or the games, or the temples,” etc. (” Laws, ” 868). See on 1Pe 1:4. The defilement in the present case was apprehended from entering a house from which all leaven had not been removed.

Eat the Passover. The purpose of this work forbids our entering upon the much – vexed question of the apparent inconsistency between John and the Synoptists as to the time of celebrating the Passover.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas,” (agousiri oun ton lesoun apo tou Kaiapha) ”Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas;” the “they” is the Sanhedrin of Luk 23:1, from the night-time arraignment which is believed to have lasted until after midnight, at which point He was apparently detained in prison, till early the next morning, Isa 53:8.

2) “Unto the hall of judgment: and it was early;” (eis to praitorion he de proi) “into the praetorium when it was yet early,” the fourth watch, from 3 to 6 a.m. Mar 13:35, into the palace before Pilate, Mat 27:1-2; Mar 15:1; The “they” who led Jesus before Pilate were a mad-mob of religious Jewish leaders, selfishly fearful of losing their jobs if the law of Moses was fulfilled or abolished by His coming; They were made up of chief priests, elders, scribes, and the whole council, called the Sanhedrin, which Luke calls the whole multitude, a motley milling mob.

3) “And they themselves went not into the judgment hall,” (kai autoi ouk eiselthon eis to praitorion) “And they did not enter the praetorium,” because you see they were self-supposed holy people, too pious to break the law of Moses, but not to kill the Lord, 1Th 2:14-15; Act 2:23; Act 2:36-37. They neither entered a Gentile residence or place of business, nor an house with leavened bread, lest they be polluted, straining at a gnat, but gulping down a camel, Mat 23:24.

4) “Lest they should be defiled;” (hina me mianthosin) “in order that they should not become defiled;” They were so ceremonial in their religious philosophy that they counted forms and ceremonies and traditions of the elders more important than the Divine laws of God that regarded moral principals and ethical practices. Their actions toward Jesus showed no more moral convictions or ethical behavior than a barnyard animal, as far as compassion is concerned.

5) “But that they might eat the passover.” (alla phagosin to pascha) “But that they might be able to eat the passover,” for, you see, to go into Pilate’s court where the Gentile Roman soldiers would be, to guard and testify against Jesus, would defile them, they imagined; Though they had been with them, consorted with, rubbed shoulders with them almost all the Passover night before, while going into and from the Garden of Gethsemane and to the nite-time arraignment, where they mingled for hours; Little wonder Jesus so often addressed them, “ye hypocrites,” Mar 7:6-9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

28. Then they lead Jesus. That trial, which the Evangelist mentions, took place before daybreak; and yet there can be no doubt, that they had their bellows at work throughout the whole of the city to inflame the people. Thus the rage of the people was suddenly kindled, as if all, with one consent, demanded that Christ should be put to death, Now, the trial was conducted by the priests, not that they had it in their power to pronounce a sentence, but that, after having excited a prejudice against him by their previous decislon, they might deliver him to the governor, as if he had already been fully tried. (146) The Romans gave the name Praetorium both to the governor’s house or palace, (147) and to the judgment-seat, where he was wont to decide causes.

That they might not be defiled. In abstaining from all defilement, that, being purified according to the injunction of the Law, they may eat the Lord’s Passover, their religion, in this respect, deserves commendation. But there are two faults, and both of them are very heinous. The first is, (148) they do not consider that they carry more pollution within their hearts, than they can contract by entering any place however profane; and the second is, they carry to excess their care about smaller matters, and neglect what is of the highest importance.

To the defiled and to unbelievers, says Paul, nothing is pure; because their minds are polluted, (Tit 1:15.)

But these hypocrites, though they are so full of malice, ambition, fraud, cruelty, and avarice, that they ahnost infect heaven and earth with their abominable smell, are only afraid of external pollutions. So then it is an intolerable mockery, that they expect to please God, provided that they do not contract defilement by touching some unclean thing, though they have disregarded true purity.

Another fault connected with hypocrisy is, that, while it is careful in performing ceremonies, it makes no scruple of neglecting matters of the highest importance; for God enjoined on the Jews those ceremonies which are contained in the Law, for no other reason, than that they might be habituated to the love and practice of true holiness. Besides, no part of the Law forbade them to enter into the house of a Gentile, but it was a precaution derived from the traditions of the fathers, that no person might, through oversight, contract any pollution from an unclean house. But those venerable expounders of the Law, while they carefully strain at a gnat, swallow the camel (149) without any hesitation, (Mat 23:24😉 and it is usual with hypocrites to reckon it a greater crime to kill a flea than to kill a man. This fault is closely allied to the other, of greatly preferring the traditions of men to the holy commandments of God. In order that they may eat the passover in a proper manner, they wish to keep themselves pure; but they suppose uncleanness to be confined within the wails of the governor’s house, and yet they do not hesitate, while heaven and earth are witnesses, to pursue an innocent person to death. In short, they observe the shadow of the passover with a false and pretended reverence, and yet not only do they violate the true passover by sacrilegious hands, but endeavor, as far as lies in their power, to bury it in eternal oblivion, (150)

(146) “ Mals a fin de livrer au juge, etant desja charge, et comme suffisamentconveincu par leur premiere cognoissance et les interrogatoires qu’ils luy avoient faites;” — “but to deliver him to the judge as a person already accused, and as having been sufficiently convicted by their previous trial, and by the questions which they had put to him.”

(147) “ La maison ou palais du gouverneur .”

(148) “ La premiere fkute est.”

(149) See Harmony of the Evangelists, vol. 3 page 93.

(150) “ De la ruiner et en abolir la memoire a jamais.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh. 18:28. Then led they Jesus, etc.The Evangelist presupposes the trial before the Sanhedrin, and its issue. Jesus had been condemned to death. But the Jews had no power to carry out a death sentence. They must prevail on the Roman governor, by fair means or foul, to do this for them. Hall of judgment.Palace (, prtorium), i.e. the Roman governors house, supposed to have been a palace built by Herod. They themselves, etc.See Homiletic Note to Joh. 13:1. How true this is to our Lords description of these men as whited sepulchres (Mat. 23:27). They made clean the outside of cup and platter. Here they were afraid of an outward defilement which might pervent them participating in the passover feast. They recked nothing of the inward defilement of heart and conscience, which was evident in all these scenes. Justice, truth, righteousness, mercifulness, the weightier matters of the law, were to them as nothing.

Joh. 18:29. Pilate then went out, etc.In all this narrative of St. John the Synoptic account is presupposed. Pilate went out of his own palace to some convenient place where he might hold a colloquy with the Jews. He condescended so far to their prejudices. He demanded what accusation they brought against this man which would bring Him under the penalty of Roman law. For Pilate, like Gallio, would care nothing for merely religious questions (Act. 18:12-17).

Joh. 18:30. They answered malefactor.And this after His deeds of beneficence and His holy life! How far had these men yielded themselves to the power of evil!

Joh. 18:31. Then said Pilate, etc.I.e. they wished to judge, and merely permit Pilate to carry their judgment into effect. Not so, is Pilates answer. If this Man is judged by your tribunal, you can sentence Him according to your law and carry out the sentence. Very galling must it have been to those proud rulers thus to be reminded of the limitations of their power. But Pilates reply brought out their malice and envy in all its hatefulness. They had to shift their accusation from a religious to a political ground, and hypocritically to pretend that they were concerned for the majesty of the conquering Roman power (Luk. 23:2).

Joh. 18:32. That the saying of Jesus, etc.He had prophesied this before it came to pass (Mar. 10:33; Mat. 26:2). Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. These wicked rulers thought that Jesus would thus be made a reproach both to Jews and Gentiles.

Joh. 18:33. Art Thou the King of the Jews?Pilate saw that there was something strange in this accusation. These rulers of the Jews would never have delivered up a popular leader who sought to free them from the Roman yoke; and the governor was to learn more of this King and His kingdom ere the trial was over. He saw that this charge of the Jewish Sanhedrin was a trumped-up one.

Joh. 18:38. Pilate went out again to the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in Him no fault.This is a striking, testimony. It shows us Pilate at his best, as the Roman judge and governor, set to rule and administer justice impartially. It shows also the character of our Lords enemies. They knew well that there was no actual fault in Christ (Mat. 26:60). It was their hatred of the truth, and the fear of losing position and influence, that made them cast aside all thought of righteousness, etc., in their treatment of Jesus. Jesus was innocent; His foes and judges admitted this. His death was not an expiation of any wrong in His lifeit was an expiation for the sins of the world.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPHJoh. 18:28-40

Chap. Joh. 18:28 to Joh. 19:22. Pilate.Of all the strange and moving incidents in the scenes immediately preceding our Lords crucifixion, there is none perhaps more striking than that during which Pontius Pilate uttered these memorable words: Behold the man!

I. Pilates sincerity.

1. They were not words of mockery or scorn; rather they were spoken with a sincere desire to influence mens pity, and thus bring about the release of Jesus.
2. We must recognise the fact that all through those scenes of patient suffering of our Lord, Pilate was endeavouring to appease the blood-thirsty crowds, while at the same time keeping Jesus out of their grasp.
3. It is not because he was the guiltiest in this terrible transaction that his name has been handed down to execration in the creeds of Christendom. This was done merely as a record of the time of our Lords crucifixion.

II. His unrighteous, vacillating action.

1. Yet with all allowance for human frailty, and remembering our Lords words to Pilate, He that hath delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin (the Sanhedrin judged Christ on religious grounds, and they should have known better), still Pilate cannot be exonerated from complicity in this great crime. He acted the part of an unjust judge; for he declared Jesus to be innocent of any crime, and yet ordered His soldiers, at the cry of a furious mob, to lead the innocent to the basest malefactors death.

2. Pilate was an opportunist, a time-server; he was chained by the bonds of his own evil life and wicked deeds; so that when the hour of tria1 came he was not free to act on the side of right and truth. He had been an unjust and a cruel governor of Juda, had made many enemies, and had already been accused of maladministration at the Imperial Court. There were continued revolts against his authority, especially as he had seriously offended the religious prejudices of the people. He knew many enemies were watching for some slip in his administration, so that they might procure his recall and punishment. Hence his vacillating conduct all through this trial.

3. He saw through the motives of Christs enemies, and rightly treated their quibbling accusation against Christ, about His claiming to be a king, with scorn. He eagerly seized the chance which the mention of Galilee in the Jews accusation gave him of getting rid of the whole matter (Luk. 23:7). But when Herod in mockery sent back Jesus to him clothed in the white robe of a candidate for office, he was compelled to make up his mind one way or another.

4. His conscience was up in arms; the meek and patient bearing of Jesus, of whom he had no doubt heard, together with his hatred of the Jews, and distaste of being compelled to carry out their wishes, made him determined to release Christ. He promised to accede to the people so far; he would scourge Jesus, so as to disgrace Him and discredit any claims He might make. When this proposal was rejected, another was madethat Jesus should be delivered, or freed from custody, according to a custom prevailing then at the time of the passover. But the Jews, as if to show plainly to all men their malice, cried out for the release of one Barabbas, who had been condemned for that very crime of sedition of which they falsely accused Jesus.

5. The Jews saw their power; they knew that Pilate feared them, and his vacillating conduct at the beginning made them confident that they would prevail.

III. His great crime.

1. Pilate therefore took his place on the judgment seat, on the tesselated pavement raised above the rest of the courtyard of the palace, or prtorium, and gave orders to the soldiers to scourge Jesus, as this was also a preliminary to crucifixion.

2. After the cruel mocking and scourging, Jesus was led forth to an elevated spot where all might see Him, and Pilate said, Behold the man! The governor hoped to save Jesus from crucifixion even yet. As he sat on the judgment seat, his wife, moved by a dream, sent to him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man (Mat. 27:19). Still more did he fear when the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be the Son of God, and when Jesus Himself admitted the claim.

3. But the Jews had one more argument that proved too powerful for time-serving Pilate: If thou let this man go, thou art not Csars friend. The Roman sense of justice, hatred of the Jews, the clamourings of conscience, were swept away by the rising tide of self-interest. Pilate did what he called on others to do; he beheld the man. Pity, justice, the voice of God, all were in vain to keep the sin-shackled time-server from this great crime. Self in the other scale made the balance kick the beam.

IV. His miserable end.

1. But even this great crime did not save him from the fate he dreaded. He was shortly after this accused of a cruel and unprovoked attack on the peaceful Samaritans, summoned to Rome, tried and exiled, and, like Judas, was finally laid in a suicides grave.
2. Want of true principle and a time-serving spirit will lead men to the commission of the greatest crimes, in the name and for the sake of policy. What is truth? said Pilate, meaning perhaps, What has that to do with acts of government or policy? Much every way, O unhappy Pilate! For righteousness and truth are eternal; and though the time-server may seem for the moment to prevail, yet it shall only serve to discover more fully in the end his utter confusion. Thou didst imagine that it was better, in order to prevent a riot, to offer up as a victim to popular hatred, uncondemned, nay, pronounced by thyself innocent, that poor, bleeding, thorn-crowned form. But thou wert in reality the victimvictim of thine own evil deeds and of abject fear of the people.
3. The seeming victim became the conquerorthe unjust judge became a despised exile; and the people who invoked on their heads the awful curse, His blood be on us and on our children, still wander homeless on earth, until they behold Christ as the Lamb of God who beareth away the sin of the world.

Joh. 18:36. The true nature of Christs kingdom.As the King of the kingdom of truth is from above, so is His kingdom. Although it extends to this world, and men here on earth may become members of it, yet it is not of the earth, earthy. Christ did not come to set up an empire which would extend itself by conquest, and usurp the government of secular kingdoms, although He sought to influence these indirectly by the establishment of His kingdom. His dominion is first inward, in order that it may at last be outward, and that finally the kingdoms of the world may become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. That Christs kingdom is not of this world is seen

I. In the means used for its extension.

1. As the Redeemer said to the vacillating Roman judge, If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight. Earthly kingdoms are extended mostly by conquest. The means used for their advancement are material. Armies and navies, secular and social laws, courts of justice, officers of justice, penalties and prisons, are among the many means employed for the external and internal order and safety of the kingdoms of earth.

2. And these in their place are not to be contemned or set aside. Righteous political and social government is to be hailed with joy. But none of these means in themselves can raise men nearer God. Rome had a wonderful code of laws, a noble political system, a far-reaching and powerful dominion. But these things made her corruption only more conspicuous and her fall more terrible.
3. Christs kingdom rests on principles of eternal truth. The aim and end of His dominion is not earthly glory, conquest, power; but the advance of spiritual and moral ends. And it must have been surprising to those among whom Jesus moved, and whose idea of kingdom and dominion did not rise above the empires and governments of time, to hear Christs claim, and then to look around for the means by which He sought to support it. It was this that alienated the Jews, who longed for conquest and earthly glory. It was this that staggered Pilate when the Saviour acknowledged that He was a king. Christs kingdom also is not of this world

II. In the scope of its government.

1. It is not restricted to earth and time, like the kingdoms of this world. Its laws do not fluctuate or change with changing times. They are ever the sameunalterableas the expressions of truth and righteousness. It can and does exist alongside of various forms of earthly government; its spirit and principles may, indeed, enter into, inspire, and purify them all.
2. And that is so because it is the kingdom of the truth. It is set up in the hearts of men, putting an end to the reign of the spirit of lies, triumphing over the evil, evoking humility, faith, love, hope, purity, and every spiritual grace; in short, making men new creatures, in spirit and mind like to the King.
3. And thus the subjects of this kingdom are not bound to it by any merely external tie, which might at any time be broken, as in the case of subjects of an earthly kingdom. They are not forced against their will to serve this King, as are enslaved subjects of an earthly tyrant and of the prince of the power of the air. No; for in this kingdom truth prevails, and he who rebels against truth knows that he rebels against his higher nature. And the true subjects of this unworldly kingdom are willingly and joyfully submissive to its laws and rules, because its King rules in their hearts and lives. His love is their constraint, His service their joy. That Christs kingdom is not of this world is seen in the fact of

III. Its universality and perpetuity.

1. Less and less as the years pass is any earthly monarch likely to achieve universal dominion. And even when great empires have been builded up by mighty conquerors they have speedily been broken in pieces and have perished. The race of to-day treads on the ruins of the past. Beneath our feet are the ruined homes, shrines, palaces, of great peoples and kingdoms. It seemed in their day as if they were founded for ever, and now only their sculptured stones remain to show their glory and power. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and many another rise up in memory to tell us that their power and glory are in the dust.

2. And why could they not remain? They were not founded on truth, on eternal reality. The nation and government founded on righteousness alone can stand. And when nations and governments forget God, when peoples make their laws and conduct their negotiations without Him, when they decree that nations and governments have nothing to do with the maintenance and advancement of the kingdom of truth, then their end is near (Isa. 60:12).

3. For Christs kingdom alone and those who subject themselves to Him are enduring. His kingdom alone will advance through all generations, and shall endure throughout eternity. And the Churches and kingdoms who submit to and honour its King shall also endure. Individual governments and ecclesiastical communities may rise and pass away. But amid all turmoil and change this all-embracing kingdom shall advance, gathering to itself faithful peoples and communities in its progress, until the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.

Joh. 18:37. The King of the spiritual kingdom.When Jesus stood before Pilate, the governor, seeking to elicit the facts as to the charge laid against our Lord by the Jews, sought especially to arrive at the truth regarding His alleged claim to be a king. This especially touched the honour of the Roman, and the peace of his government. Was this one of those numerous pretenders to religious and temporal leadership of the Jewish people who were ever and anon rising up and leading men after them? Had our Lord replied directly by yes or no to the Roman governors question, He would have left a false impression. Had He said simply, Yes, I am a king, Pilate would have considered the charge of the Jews justified. Had he said No, He would have left Pilate with a false idea as to His true nature and position. Therefore He replied that He was truly a king, but that His kingdom was not of this world.

I. Christ is truly a king by nature and descent.

1. Unto this end have I been born, etc.; I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world (Joh. 16:28; also Joh. 10:36). His birth in time was a coming forth to fulfil an eternal divine purpose, and the fulfilment of this purpose rested on His essential nature as the Son of God. He was on earth in lowly guise as the Son of man; but He came into the world, because He existed before all worlds with the Father.

2. Nor did He come to the world to assume this dominion on His own authority. It was in complete accordance with the Fathers will that He came, so that it is also said that the Father sent Him. The sending and the coming are indeed, viewed from the heavenly standpoint, one divine act. But for this end, that the kingdom of heaven might be established, Christ became obedient to the Father. By this very obedience He put Himself into the true position from which He could conquer and reign over men, bringing them back to loyalty and obedience to the Father.

3. And because of this He hath been highly exalted (Php. 2:9-10; Heb. 5:8-9; Psa. 2:6-8); and to Him has been given an everlasting dominion, a kingdom that shall know no end.

II. Christ is King of the spiritual kingdom because by His knowledge, wisdom, and power He is fitted to govern.

1. Not even the wisest and best of men have been able to save the human race from evil and bring them back to allegiance to eternal Truth. We have only to look back on the history of our race to see how true this is. The race has wandered ever further from the truth. Wise kings have reigned, wise leaders have risen, even divinely inspired leaders. The divinely given law of Moses itself was but a preparatory and imperfect system, which was to pass away. How much more imperfect then the systems of a Zarathushtra, a Kong-fu-tze, a Plato! None had the knowledge, the wisdom, the power, to bring men under the dominion of Truth.

2. But Christ had all these. The eternal manifestation of eternal Truth, He knew what men needed. He alone could fully declare the mind of God, and reveal to men heavenly realities; testify to truth already revealed in law and prophecy; and, above all, manifest the reality of the Fathers love in His own person and work.
3. And He is King not only because He bore witness to the truth. His authority consisted not alone in the teaching of certain truths concerning man and God and eternal things, but because of His power to attract men to Himself, to transform them into His likeness, and thus make them true subjects of His eternal kingdom.

III. Christs kingship is a fact of history and experience.

1. To Him is given universal dominion over all who are of the truth. We see before our eyes the ancient prophecies being daily fulfilled. From every land and nation, all peoples and tongues, they come to subject themselves to His kingly sway. All whose hearts are moved by the Spirit, who are attracted toward the truth, who seek truly to know and love Godall such hear Christs voice, and submit themselves to His mild and gracious authority.
2. And how rapid, comparatively speaking, has been the spread of His kingship when we remember that He is the King of truth, and that men by nature are opposed to Him. So all along the course there has been opposition from without and error from within to hinder His government. And He has conquered first, not the dreamy and superstitious races of the East, but the highest type of humanity in the West. And now His authority as the King of truth is not confined to a little band of disciples, but is more or less faithfully submitted to by more than one quarter of the population of the globe. And every day more and more men are bowing the knee in His name and confessing that He is Lord.
3. And individual experience confesses the blessed power of His reign. When He comes the darkness passes with the works of darkness; and love, peace, joy abound. The love of truth leads to freedom from error and sin. He draws all men unto Him. An invisible bond of fellowship unites to Him men of every clime and time, as joyful fellow-subjects of that King whose kingdom ruleth over all.

Joh. 18:37. The King.How does Jesus forward His kingdom?

I. Not by material force.

1. Look at the history of those who have ruled in this way: the Csars, a Scylla, a Marius, a Tiberius, whose tenure of power was distinguished by the frightful turmoil of human passion, the flowing of rivers of blood, etc. There was nothing new or strange in all this. It is an epitome of the history of mankind.
2. It was not thus that God wished to forward His kingdom among men. He gave in a strange and unexpected manner His method in the form of a criminal nailed to a cross, conquering thus for Himself an empire of which no Csar ever dreamed.

3. At the foot of that cross men learned that there is in the world something more powerful than material forceit is mind; and something even more powerful than intellectit is love. I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me (Joh. 12:32).

II. Not by force of cleverness.

1. The kings of material force must be put on one side. Christ is not among them. We look higher. Above force there is skill. You have seen the genius of cleverness contriving its fabrications in the shade, and preparing for a successful issue. With what patience it creates its resources. With what assurance it bids audacity supply what is lacking, diverting the imaginations of men until the hour when it feels itself strong enough to unveil its pretensions.

2. People admire this success. But on a nearer view some disquieting circumstances are brought to light. How many calculations, how many ruses and deceits are involved! Ask a clever man of the world what he thinks of one who would endeavour to succeed, whilst attending to the dictates of morality, in following the line of duty to the end without deviating, and you will see with what scorn he will dismiss this nave innocence into the region of chimeras,
3. And yet Christ has founded a greater empire than all those who have used only their cleverness and skill; and when we examine His life no trace of this cleverness is found in it. This word is indeed incompatible with Christs character. When a critic, attempting to explain the marvellous dominion which Jesus exercised over His own, attributed to Him calculation, dissimulation, etc., the public conscience arose in dissent and gave an immense protest.

4. If any one wanted to proclaim a new doctrine, and gain the adherence of the intelligent people to it, he would not shut himself up in an obscure province like Galilee, or come with the most sublime teaching to the most ignorant, who did not comprehend the full beauty of it. At the beginning of His ministry a chief ruler of the sect of the Pharisees came to Jesus. Had He been desirous of gaining adherents, He would have endeavoured to treat him with caution, so that He might gain the Pharisees to His side. But we know how Jesus received Nicodemus. And to the people who came to Him with their Messianic dreams (Joh. 6:15), and sought to make Him a king, He spoke in such fashion that they went back from Him, leaving only the twelve (Joh. 6:66). Was this cleverness? But those disciplesdid He not promise them speedy victory, thrones and kingdoms, etc.? Nay, He rather announced persecutions and trials awaiting them, etc. Was this cleverness? He spoke the truth to the people and to the Pharisees, denouncing the latter for their sins, etc. Was this cleverness? No; from the point of view of policy, all this was folly. It was not, then, by skill and cleverness that Christ attained to His dominion.

III. Not by intellectual force.

1. This realm also has its kings, kings in poetry, philosophy, art, sciencea Homer or Plato, a Raphael or Newton. Shall we place Christ in their ranks?
2. There are three classes of rulers in this domain, corresponding to the beautiful, the good, the true. To the desire of the beautiful the domain of art corresponds; to the desire of the true the domain of science; to the desire of the good the domain of morality. Each domain has its kings. In which shall we seek for Jesus?

3. Is it on the heights of Art? No, although Jesus has brought a new ideal to the imagination, and has revealed new beauty which had till then been unnoticed; and certainly art owes to Christianity some of its grandest inspirations. When the repentant sinner beats on his breast, when the Saviour of the world dies on the cross, is it the imagination only that is moved, or are you taken into another regionthe region of holiness and love? Yes.

4. Is it in the field of science and its brilliant discoveries and researches, etc., that we shall place the Redeemer? Again, no. His teaching, it is true, is in accordance with the highest laws of the mind. And it is in Christian lands that science has advanced most. But here Christ did not seek to reign (Mat. 11:25-26). His Gospel was not addressed especially to the wise men of this world. The force by which He draws men is not connected with human logic. He did not speak in syllogisms, or like a master of the schools. This has been made a reproach against Christianity by such philosophers as Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry. And supposing Christ had reigned in the realm of intelligence alone, would the wise have come around Him? And then what of the poor and unlearned? To the poor the Gospel was preached (Luk. 4:18).

5. Above the intellectual is the moral. There is nothing higher. The moral order is the will of God. It is in this supreme order that Jesus is KingKing by holiness, King by love, for these are the two poles of that world. Thus He said to Pilate, I am a king; for this end was I born. And He is not King here simply because He revealed to men a new ideal. Certainly He did this: all will accord that He gave new ideas concerning love to God and man. But this is not all. Nor did He merely enunciate some great moral verities. He was not merely the prophet of truth, but He was the Truth Himselfthe incarnation of moral truth.

6. What Jesus desires is the dominion in mens soulsa spiritual dominion, the most real and absolute. And it is He who lives and reigns from age to age. By His words and actions, His miracles, He showed His right to this authority which He claimed, and the love which He desired should be accorded to Him universally by His followers. And the beauty of His character, the power of His love displayed in His saving work, has drawn men to Him in the bonds of an affection which is more and more becoming worldwide.Abridged from Eug. Bersier.

Joh. 18:37-38. The scepticism of Pilate.The lesson which we are to draw from this verse must depend upon the view we take of the spirit in which the words were spoken. Some of the best commentators conceive them to have been words of mockery, and such is the great Lord Bacons view. What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. In all deference to such authority, we cannot believe that this sentence was spoken in jest. In Pilates whole conduct there is no trace of such a tone. It betrays throughout much of uncertainty, nothing of lightness. He was cruelly tormented with the perplexity of efforts to save his prisoner. He risked his own reputation. He pronounced Him, almost with vehemence, to be innocent. He even felt awe, and was afraid of Him. In such a frame of mind mockery was impossible. Let us try to comprehend the character of the man who asked this question. His character will help us to judge the tone in which he asked. And his character, the character of his mind and life, are clear enough from the few things recorded of him. He first hears what the people have to say; then asks the opinion of the prieststhen comes back to Jesusgoes again to the priests and peoplelends his earlistens to the ferocity on the one hand, and feels the beauty on the other, balancing between them; and then he becomes bewildered, as a man of the world is apt to do who has had no groundwork of religious education, and hears superficial discussions on religious matters, and superficial charges, and superficial slanders, till he knows not what to think. What could come out of such procedure? Nothing but that cheerlessness of soul to which certainty respecting anything and everything here on earth seems unattainable. This is the exact mental state which we call scepticism. Out of that mood, when he heard the enthusiast before him speak of a kingdom of the truth, there broke a sad, bitter, sarcastic, What is truth? Who knows anything about it? Another discoverer of the undiscoverable? Jesting Pilate! With Pilate the matter was beyond a jest.

1. The causes of Pilates scepticism.

1. Indecision of character.Here is a man knowing the right and doing the wrong, not willing to do an act of manifest injustice if he can avoid it, but hesitating to prevent it, for fear of a charge against himselfpitiably vacillating because his hands were tied by the consciousness of past guilt and personal danger. How could such a man be certain about anything?

2. Falseness to his own convictions.Pilate had a conviction that Jesus was innocent. Instead of acting at once on that, he went and parleyed. He argued and debated till the practical force of the conviction was unsettled. Pilate was false to his conscience.

3. The taint of the worldly temper of his day.Pilate had been a public man. He knew life, had mixed much with the worlds business and the worlds politics, had come across a multiplicity of opinions, and gained a smattering of them all. He knew how many philosophies and religions pretended to an exclusive possession of truth, and how the pretensions of each were overthrown by another. And his incredulity was but a specimen of the scepticism fashionable in his day. To such a character Jesus would not explain His truth. He gave no reply; He held His peace. Gods truth is too sacred to be expounded to superficial worldliness in its transient fit of earnestness.

4. That priestly bigotry which forbids inquiry and makes doubt a crime.The priests of that day had much to answer for. The results of their priestcraft were twofold. The first result was seen in the fanaticism of the people who cried for blood; the second in the scepticism of Pilate.

II. The way appointed for discovering what is truth.

1. I am not about to be guilty of the presumption of answering the question which Jesus did not answer. Some persons hearing the text might think it to be the duty of any man who took it as a text to preach upon to lay down what truth is.
2. The truth cannot be compressed into a sermon. The reply to Pilates question cannot be contained in any verbal form.
3. The truth is infinite as the firmament above you. In childhood both seem near and measurable; but with years they grow and grow, and seem further off, and further and grander, and deeper and vaster, as God Himself, till you smile to remember how you thought you could touch the sky, and blush to recollect the proud and self-sufficient way in which you used to talk of knowing or preaching the truth.
4. The truth is made up of principles: an inward life, not any mere formula of words. Gods character: spiritual worship; the divine life in the soul. How shall I put that into sentences ten or ten thousand? The words which I speak unto you, they are truth, and they are life.
5. The appointed ways to teach this truth. They are three:
(1) Independence. Let no man start as if independence savoured of presumption. No man cares for your health as you do; therefore you rely blindly upon none. No man has the keeping of your own soul, or cares for it as you do. For yourself, therefore, you inquire and think, and you refuse to delegate that work to bishop, priest, or Church. Call they that presumption?

(2) Humbleness. There are two kinds of temper contrary to this spirit. The first is a disputing, captious temper. The next is a hopeless spirit.

(3) Action. This was Christs rule: If any man will do His will, etc. A blessed rule; a plain and simple rule. Here we are in a world of mystery, where all is difficult and very much darkwhere a hundred jarring creeds declare themselves to be the truth, and all are plausible. How shall a man decide? Let him do the right that lies before him: much is uncertainsome things at least are clear. Whatever else may be wrong, it must be right to be pureto be just and tender, and merciful and honest. It must be right to love, and to deny oneself. Let him do the will of God, and he shall know.F. W. Robertson.

Joh. 18:39-40. Jesus rejected for Barabbas.The sad scenes of this history follow each other with great rapidity. The apostle summarises the various incidents in these scenes with masterly force in his bold sermon to those Jews, after he and John in the name of Jesus had healed the lame man in the temple. It was the same, yet not the same Peter who had acted such an ignoble part in those very scenes. They delivered up Jesus, whom God had glorified; they denied the holy and just One before Pilate, who was more just than they (Joh. 19:11), for he declared that Jesus was innocent and should be freed. But worse than all, they desired that a murderer should be granted unto them in place of the Holy One and the Just (Acts 3.). Here we consider their awful choice.

I. Pilates plan for the release of Jesus.

1. The Roman governor was sore perplexed. Conscience, superstition, hatred of the Jews, a strange drawing toward this silent, dignified prisoner, made him long to wash his hands of the whole matter.
2. He had sent Jesus to Herod, thus thinking to get rid of the trouble; but now Jesus is returned for his judgment, and he must decide. He had almost made up his mind to brave those men who desired the death of Jesus for no fault, but to gratify their own envy and malignity.

3. But the governor bethought him of an expedient which should succeed. At this passover feast it was the custom to deliver up to the multitude one of the offenders against law whom they desired to see liberated. It was a symbolic reminder to the people of their own deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Pilate grasped at this expedient. He would offer the mob the choice between this meek, innocent, spotless man, and the greatest criminal who deservedly lay in a dungeon, one Jesus Barabbas (Mar. 15:7). Surely, although the leaders might do otherwise, the body of the crowd would choose Jesus.

II. The Jews choice of Barabbas.

1. Pilate was to learn that opportunism is neither the pleasantest nor safest policy. It is a two-edged weapon, and often wounds the hand that wields it.
2. He had made sure of the issue of his expedient, which would save him the trouble and unpopularity of having to refuse the request of those turbulent leaders of the people. But he was to learn how far they would descend in their hatred to this innocent sufferer, who had spoken the truth which so enraged those rulers. Thus his expedient failed, and the case was still laid on his conscience for decision.

3. But his attempt brought out the true feelings of those godless men. The chief priests moved the people that they should rather ask Barabbas (Mar. 15:11). It may thus be gathered that had the people been left to themselves they would never have made this awful choice. But they were more subservient to their leaders than anxious for justice and truth. The worst kind of slavery this.

4. Well had Jesus told those leaders and their too subservient followers their origin and descent (Joh. 8:44). And now they openly proved it before all the world by choosing one who had hitherto been one of the most conspicuous children of their evil father.

Lesson.Let us not, however, too harshly condemn those men thus hurried away by passion. Peter did not when he said, And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, etc. (Act. 3:17). Do not men sometimes choose the evil? Before knowing Christ, did not even Christians perhaps company with those who were His enemies and children of the wicked one? Did they not delight more in them than in His service and the company of His people? And do not such who have now chosen Christ look back, with feelings of mingled sorrow and shame, to think that they so long rejected the Holy One and the Just, and companied so long with those who were children and servants of the prince of this world?

ILLUSTRATIONS

Joh. 18:36. The true use of this life determined by its connexion with that to come.You will never make a proper use of the life that now is until you regard it in connexion with that which is to come. Standing at the Saviours cross you will be able to take a right view of both worlds. You will see earth in all its littleness and tumult, and heaven in all its magnitude and peacefulness; and while rendering to the one the attention which its transient importance demands, you will reserve the fulness of your energy for the momentous claims of the other. I make no apology for asking whether you are making a kingdom of your politics, and whether you have begun at the true source of all genuine and permanent reformation. My firm conviction being that Christianity will adjust the relationships of individuals and consolidate the liberty of empires, my life is consecrated to its explanation and enforcement. When the heart is right with God, there will be little difficulty in arranging political details; but while the heart is swollen with passion, while selfishness holds out her greedy hand and party spirit rends the air with the clamorous cry, while pride looks disdainfully on the poor and rank draws its invidious boundaries, while capital is regardless of the true interests of labour and merit must give place to patronage, there can be no lasting reformation. We must strike the upas at its roots. If you, as political reformers, can amputate any of the deadly branches, you will indeed earn the gratitude of your race. Far be it from me to question the utility of your labour; but again I tell you, we must strike the upas at its root! Church of the living God, this is your business! It is for you to lift the axe and smite the deadly tree! You have a tremendous power which you can bring to bear, not only on the spiritual, but on the civil interests of man: every prayer you breathe may exert influence on the political destiny of the nation! I call upon you, therefore, to do your utmost in the propagation of the Christian faith; in the name of God, I forbid you to relax any spiritual effort. Toil on, and in due time there shall be but one kingdom and one King; He shall come, whose right is to reignon His head shall the crown flourish. Freedom and peace shall unfurl their banners; brotherhood and charity shall wake their sweetest music; then shall a cry be heard, loud as the roar of the thunder, the rush of the whirlwind, and the anthem of the sea, Alleluia! The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.Dr. Joseph Parker.

Joh. 18:36. The majesty and sanctity of living for the invisible.Oh that I could pour in upon the young the majesty and sanctity of living for the invisiblethat is to say, for honour, and truth, and fidelity! Oh that I could make you feel how essentially brittle, how friable, how perishable, are all material sources of strength! God is the centre of life, and spiritual realities are the only things that will endure. Stone and iron, and silver and gold, and timber, and cities, and nations, and outward things are but pictures, painted soon to fade away; while truth and love, and fidelity, and purity shall last for ever and for ever.H. W. Beecher.

Joh. 18:37. Christ the promised spiritual king.In the sublime vision of the prophet Daniel (chap. 7) a grand and striking prophetic picture is given of the conquering might and the glorious establishment of Christs kingdom. And it was because of their misunderstanding the spiritual drift and meaning of such prophecies, because they translated with gross literality those grand prophetic promises, that the Jewish people as a whole failed to realise the true greatness of the Saviour and rejected Him as their king. But with kingly dignity our Lord referred all those majestic prophetic visions to Himself and His kingdom. He claimed to be the king of a great spiritual dominiona gathering-place for all the nations, to which they should come from north, south, east, and west. It was to be unlike the kingdoms of the world, represented as those are in the vision of the prophet by fierce beasts, which war with and destroy each other, which are therefore passing and temporary. His great and universal dominion has its origin in another sphere than that of earth. When the need of earth was greatest, when the groaning of enslaved humanity rose loud and woeful, then God came to judgment on the kingdoms of the world. And then, behold, one like the Son of man came on the clouds of heaven; and to Him from the Ancient of Days was given dominion and glory, and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him, etc. (Dan. 7:14.) Such is the dominion Christ claims as His. It is not of this world. It is advanced by no material force. And its king come to men not in the guise of a conqueror, in regal, warlike splendour, but meek and lowly as the Son of man.

Joh. 18:37. For to me to live is Christ the motto of Christs subjects.You have seen a young man whose spirit yearns for the salvation of his race; he is educated and mentally strong; his home is a scene of happiness, parents and relatives hold him in highest regard; were he to employ his talents in his fatherland, they might ensure him competence, and perhaps renown; but he is determined to realise his convictions of duty; he is ready to sever the strong attachments which bind him to the land of his birth, and brave the innumerable perils which may beset his enterpriseforasmuch as his kingdom is not of this world. You find in such a youth an illustration of a principle already enunciated; he is not destitute of interest in the political progress of his nation, far less is he wanting in affection to those who gave him lifebut he cannot make a kingdom of such considerations; he renders to them the attention due to their respective merits, but in his estimation there are claims whose importance is infinitely greater. His life-cry is, For to me to live is Christ; everything must subordinate itself to Christ. Christ is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely; he redeemed me with His blood, and shall be served with undivided energy, for in serving Him I am most effectually promoting the well-being of all the objects of my love.Dr. Joseph Parker.

Joh. 18:37. The future is Christs.Think, then. Who in the past has been loved more than Jesus Christ? His disciples left all for Himthey had to choose; on the one side His love and the most terrible sacrifices, on the other earthly happiness and the most legitimate affections. Jesus has won them! Explain by what miracle this love has been enkindled after them among millions of men who have never seen Jesus Christ; for, do not deceive yourselves, this is the feeling which inspired in the Church of the first centuries that heroic devotion, that love, which was not extinguished by the most savage and atrocious persecution. And if you pass over those eighteen centuries, who to-day is loved more than Jesus Christ? who occupies in the affections of men so great a place? And for us who love Him, is Jesus simply an individual of the past, a beautiful and touching figure, of which history has preserved the remembrance for us? Is He not, on the contrary, the Being whom we consider the most living and present? Is the love of which He is the object an abstraction? and has it not, like the most loving affections, its sorrows and trials, its anguish in our falls, its joys in our rising again? Are we the objects of a fantastic hallucination when we feel His invisible presence, when the view of His holiness fills us with trouble in the midst of our wicked pleasures, when repentant and ashamed we go to weep upon His breast, when repulsed by the world we experience His consolations filling our souls? And if we were alone in the experience of this love! But have you thought on the matter? This love has shined to all parts of the world. We see ourselves in the presence of an inexplicable problem if He is not divine. We see, as I have said, men who have received from their likes an idolatrous attachment. Every people has its heroes. But He whom we have not seen is a man who in every country, at all times, and among races the most diverse, has been able to awaken in the depths of mens hearts the same emotions and the same love. Is it not certain that the heroes of one race have often no renown among other races, because each of them possesses the exclusive type of his nationality? and gains his influence just from that cause that limits it at the same time? Endeavour to get men among our European races to admire the heroes, the demigods which the East adores, and even were it a possibility that their religion could be established, endeavour to make men love them. But Christ alone has had this marvellous power of making Himself beloved everywhere across time and space even. Every tongue raises to Him a song of love and adoration. Those divine emotions that fill my soul in listening to Him were felt by Origen and Augustine fifteen hundred years ago under an African sky; and to-day in his distant hut an Esquimaux of the polar regions, or a poor negro, shall experience them as I do. At this moment, on this Sabbath day, wherever the Church is gathered together, millions of hearts are moved at the name of Christ by the same feelings as you have; and if all those voices could make themselves heard, you would know in a measure the extent of His kingdom. Gather together in thought all those whom this love has saved, ignorant and wise, great and small, of the world; children in whose innocent souls has been felt a mysterious attraction toward Jesus, and who in dying have gone to His armssinners who have fallen to the depth of the abyss, souls sorrowful and groaning. Behold athwart the centuries this cortege of worshippers who are increasing day by day, and, before this universal testimony of hearts who love Him, recognise Him for whom all hearts have been made. He said, I am a King; and see a redeemed humanity who reply to Him by proclaiming His kingdom. What royalty, what a domination, what an empire! To be loved in all the centuries, loved everywhere, loved even to the death, loved ever more deeply: behold the kingdom of Christ. And people ask us yet why we believe in His divinity! Oh, wise men of this world, who believe that His reign is ended, and who see in Him nothing but a master of the past who has been supersededyou who think that the criticism of the schools will do that which eighteen centuries of attack have not been able to do, and reduce the Gospel to powder! you know not how much Christ is loved, you know not what place He occupies in the heart of the world. Yes; in the Church of to-day, so feeble, so faithless and worldly, however, you do not know all that is seen to shine forth of devotion and heroism on the day when for confessing Jesus Christ all must be left behind, even life itself. I do not know what the future has in store for us. I do not know what those doctrines which this generation tolerates with a soft complaisance will bring forth, this materialism which denies freedom in God and responsibility in man, this insulting disdain of the unseen world, this proud confidence in the forces of humanity, this fanatic atheism which regards as hypocrisy or imbecility faith, prayer, the supernatural. I know not if the Church will be called to go through a new baptism of suffering and persecution. At all events, it is not on the simple progress of toleration, nor on the native goodness of man, that I count to make such excesses impossible. I remember that no epoch, more so than the last century, preached the goodness of man and toleration; and I recall the fact also as to the way in which the century ended. But if the storm must come, let it come, let it come. For if it will remove from the Church all the unreal homage, all the false regard, which a generation who laughs in secret at the faith lavishes upon it, what will it matter? In this inevitable defection the world will learn at least how much Christ is loved; it will see all this that draws to Him faith, devotion, and hope; it will see that He is yet the King of souls, and that, to snatch Him from the love of the Church, it would be necessary to snatch away the heart of humanity. Lord, the future is Thine. The kingdom has been given to Thee, and Thy kingdom will come. But how shall it serve us to proclaim Thy kingdom if Thou hast not first triumphed in our hearts? Ah! let us submit themthese hearts worldly and rebelliousbreak down our resistance, our pride, our egoism; and reign at least over those whom Thou hast gained, who are waiting for those days in which we believe Thou wilt reign over a world at peace, and when all men shall bow the knee before Thee.Translated from Eug. Bersier.

Joh. 18:38. None are by nature of the truth.The expression every one that is of the truth betokens an inward preparation for conversion which no one, however, experiences without the operation of preventing grace. No one is by nature of the truth; but all men, as the Scriptures say, are liars, since they love darkness rather than light, because the light reproves them for their sins and disturbs their repose; and because they press error to their bosoms and shut themselves up against the entrance of truth, which menaces their sensual pleasures with danger and urges them to a life of self-denial. Thus, as St. Paul once expressed it, they hold the truth in unrighteousness. But as soon as the Spirit, which, like the wind, bloweth where it listeth, gains room, the love of delusion gives way to the ardent desire to be freed from it, and studious self-deception to the willingness to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good. Before the honest, serious inquiry after truth and peace the visionary forms of these false ideas vanish to which the poor soul had been previously attached. But when, by the operation of the Spirit of God, we have attained to this simplicity of heart, we become joined to those who are of the truth. Then, if the divine Teacher utters His voice, how does our inmost soul echo to the sound of His light and life-giving words! If He then says, Come unto Me, ye that are weary and heavy laden, how gladly do we accept the gracious invitation! If He then unveils His glory and beauty, how do our longing souls rush into His arms rejoicing! If He then displays the standard of His cross, how do we not hasten to it, to build tabernacles under its peaceful shadow!F. W. Krummacher, Suffering Saviour.

Joh. 18:39-40. Satans children.Whence sprang the weeds in the history of our Lords passion? Whence the thistles even among the weeping willows and olive trees of Gethsemane? Whence the thorns on Golgotha? That the enemy had done. When the members of the Sanhedrin set up false witnesses, and made them assert that Jesus had arrogantly said He would destroy and build up the temple again; when on the declaration of Jesus that He was the Son of God and the judge of the world, they answered in hypocritical anger, Now we have heard His blasphemy, etc. (Mat. 26:65); when they, the guardians of the law and the protectors of religion, were given a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, and when asked, Which of these two will ye have? urged the people to demand the release of the murderer and to slay the Lamb; when out of the poisoned spring of envy they drew the resolve to storm the vacillating governor with the cry, Crucify, crucify! and determined on the murder of the Righteous, invoking a mad curse upon their own heads. His blood be on us and on our children, were those who did this of the vipers brood, Satans children, descendants of Cain?their lips were lying, their hands were murderous.Translated from Dr. R. Kgel.

The old saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God receives an instructive commentary in the vote for Barabbas and against Jesus. That was what a plebiscite for the discovery of the peoples favourite came to. What a reliable method of finding the best man universal suffrage, manipulated by wire-pullers like these priests, is! and how wise the people are who let it guide their judgments, or, still wiser, who fret their lives out in angling for its approval! Better be condemned with Jesus than adopted with Barabbas.Dr. A. Maclaren.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

TRIED BY PILATE, THE ROMAN AUTHORITY

Text: Joh. 18:28-40

They lead 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.

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 evildoer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee.

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:

that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should die.

Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of 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 has thou done?

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.

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 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.

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.

Queries

Why could the Jews not put Jesus to death?

By what manner of death should Jesus die?

What did Pilate mean when he said, What is truth?

Paraphrase (Harmony)

And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.
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. 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 evildoer, we should not have delivered him up to thee. And they began to accuse him, saying, We would this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king. 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; that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should die.

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? 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. 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 saith unto him, What is truth?

And when he had said this, he went out again unto the chief priests and the multitudes, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him. And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? Behold how many things they accuse thee of. But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled greatly.
But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place. But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean.
And when he knew that he was of Herods jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.
Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was of a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning him; and he hoped to see some miracle done by him. And he questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and the scribes stood vehemently accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
And Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said unto them, Ye brought unto me this man, as one that perverteth the people: and behold, I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: no, nor yet Herod: for he sent him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
Now at the feast he used to release unto them one prisoner, whom they asked of him. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas, lying bound with them, that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder.
When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up. And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas.

Summary

Jesus, having been tortured and subjected to questioning all night, is condemned to death early in the morning by the Sanhedrin, but they cannot execute their sentence, They must have permission from the Roman governor. So Jesus is taken before Pilate. Pilate finds nothing in Jesus worthy of death and wants to release Him.

Comment

Just where the Praetorium was located is not certain. Andrews thinks the procurators pavement or judgment stones were carried with him to different places. Andrews further believes that Pilate judged Jesus in the open paved space before the palace of Herod the Great which was situated on the north side of Mount Zion. Others think the judgment hall of Pilate was in the Tower of Antonia which may have been connected to Herods palace.

Joh. 18:28 has been abused by destructive critics to prove that the Fourth Gospel contradicts the Synoptics. The Synoptics all say that Jesus ate the passover on Thursday and was crucified on Friday. Joh. 18:28, at first glance, would make one think that the Passover had not yet been celebrated. But there are two possible answers. First, however, it must be seen that John and the Synoptics do not disagree in the light of so much evidence to their perfect harmony. On the one hand these Jews who feared to enter the Praetorium may have feared defilement for the remainder of the passover feast. The actual festivities of the passover lasted a full week. There were other feasts besides the passover lamb on the 14th of Nisan such as the Chagigah which followed the day after the Passover Supper. On the other hand these Jews may have been so busy with arresting and trying Jesus that they postponed their Passover Supper and planned to eat it after the matter of Jesus death was taken care of. These men were not above violating the law of Moses to serve their own ends.

If they should enter any place where the Roman eagle was on its standard they would have been, according to their tradition, ceremonially unclean.

They would not come in so Pilate went out to meet them. We believe Pilate must have known some of the rumblings that were going on there in the city during that passover, After all, that is what he was there forto keep down rioting and insurrection. He had no doubt heard of the great triumphal entry of Jesus into the city on the first day of the week. He no doubt had informers keeping him informed of the arrest and trial of this Jesus by His own Sanhedrin. He was probably not too worried about this Jesus since he had no doubt heard of His meekness and His philosophical teachings. We believe Pilate was persuaded that Jesus was just another Jewish philosopher or rabbi. Jesus followers were not organized and were unarmed. But it seems it was also plain to Pilate that these Jewish rulers were trying to embroil him in their religious wranglings. It is plain by his question in Joh. 18:29 that he was not intending to become a mere tool in the hands of the priests and elders to execute their revengeful plans.

Pilate was a politician, first last and always. He seems to have been superstitious as most Romans were. His sense of justice went only to the point where it might cost him his official position. He later was accused of mismanagement of his procuratorship and called to Rome to answer the charges. Before he could defend himself the emperor died and tradition has it that he committed the honorable Roman suicide.
Pilate and the Jews had no love for one another. Once he caused soldiers who were under his command to bring with them ensigns with their images of the emperor. To the Jew this was sacrilege. When he threatened with death those who had come to petition him for the removal of these idolatrous standards, they called his bluff, and he yielded. At another time he used the temple-treasure to pay for an aqueduct. When a crowd complained and rioted, he ordered his soldiers to club them into submission. He felt the Jews were always causing him trouble and every opportunity he had to trouble them he enjoyed.
Here they had come to cause him some more trouble. If he became involved in a local religious dispute things might get out of hand and he would lose his position. Furthermore, he might use this opportunity to vex his enemies.

That they were vexed by his refusal to go along with their murderous scheme is evident from their impudent, sarcastic answer, If this man were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee. There may even have been the hint of a threat in their answer. In fact, later they do threaten Pilate (Joh. 19:12).

Pilate is at a loss to know why these Jewish rulers would bring one of their rabbis who had fallen into disrepute because of something the rulers felt was heresy. Let these Jews take care of their own religious squabblings. But then, the Jews (Luk. 23:2) came up with the accusation that Jesus was perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king. Such treasonable acts were worthy of death and the Jews were forbidden by their Roman conquerors to execute the sentence of death upon any one.

Now the lawful method of execution for the Jew was death by stoning. Any other death was accursed by the law (Deu. 21:23). At this time, however, the Jews were not allowed to put anyone to death. Jesus had predicted that he would be crucified (Joh. 3:14; Mat. 20:19). His death to atone for mans sin and remove the curse of the law was predicted as one which would come by hanging Him on a tree, (cf. Gal. 3:13). And so when the Romans were forced to crucify Him on a tree, it fulfilled prophecy.

Upon hearing the accusation of the Jews Pilate thought it wise to make a thorough examination in case this religious teacher might be planning an insurrection. So, leaving the Jews outside, Pilate entered into the Praetorium and called for Jesus to be brought before him for questioning. The accusations of the Jews were utterly false. Jesus was not perverting the nation but trying to raise its moral standards; He actually taught that tribute was to be paid to Caesar; He refused to be crowned the temporal king of Israel. But Pilate had no knowledge of this.

Hendriksen thinks the emphasis in Pilates question (Joh. 18:33) should be upon thou. In other words, Are you the King of the Jews? It was inconceivable to Pilate that such an unassuming individual as this could be a king! The Roman concept of king and ruler was one of power, dignity and pride.

Jesus answers Pilates question with a question of His own, Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others said it to you about me? In other words, Why are you asking concerning my kingshipis it because you also have the concept of it which these Jews have given you or is it because you really want to know for yourself?
With a note of contempt in his voice for the Jews Pilate answers, No, I do not see in you any such king as the Jews see or any such danger of insurrection as they seeNo, I am not a Jew, am I? But your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me for some reason which they evidently believe is a crime. What have you done? We think Pilate knew that the envy of the Jewish rulers over the following this Jesus had gained was part of the reason for His arrest, but he was not sure this was all the prisoner was guilty of.
In His answer, Jesus not only answers all the charges but He witnesses to this Gentile ruler. First He allays Pilates concern over the political situation when He says, My kingship is not of this world. If my kingship were of this world my attendants would have been fighting in order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews, but now my kingship does not spring from that source. Jesus makes it plain that He does not seek a kingdom or kingship of the world at all. He seeks no overthrow of the political structure, either Roman or Jewish. In fact, He infers that the Jewish rulers are His enemies as much as any other political group so He is not the king of the Jews as they would think of it. Furthermore, His followers were not allowed to use force to rescue Him. He had no temporal throne, no temporal army and no temporal province. The implication is evident to Pilate that Jesus claims to be some kind of a king. So Pilates question, So you are a king?

Now Jesus has opportunity to witness to Pilate. Yes, Jesus replies, you are saying correctly that I am a king, for this royal purpose was I born. But His kingship is His rule in the hearts of men by truth. He, Himself, is the embodiment of the truth which He came to witness. He brought divine truthsupernatural truthfrom realms beyond this world. He had brought to this world that which every man needs and most men long forsupernatural truth and supernatural wisdom. And men may live in this truth by listening to His doctrine . . . His doctrine as He taught it and as the apostles taught it later (cf. 1Jn. 4:1-6).

Pilate had nothing but contempt and skepticism for such high idealism. What is truth? he scoffs. To a Roman politician of his day truth was relative. Their view of what was good and truthful was cynical pragmatism. In other words, whatever worked for their personal benefit or promotion was perfectly justifiable. One has but to study the case histories of some of the Roman Caesars to see this (Nero, Caligula, etc.).

Pilate could plainly see that this Jewish rabbi was just another religious fanatic and He was simply stirring up His own religious leaders to jealousy, but as far as committing any crime worthy of death, He was not guilty. So Pilate went out on the porch to where the Jews were waiting and pronounced Jesus innocent. But the Jews would not hear of it! They began a clamor for His death. The rulers incited the crowd to clamoring also. Meanwhile, Pilates wife came to him with her superstitions connected to a dream she had had concerning this Jesus (cf. Mat. 27:19-21). Pilate must be careful! Every move must be weighed! He does not want to become involved in the nasty trial and condemnation of an innocent man. But neither does he want to incur the political disfavor of the Jewish rulers. So he offers to release the prisoner Jesus according to the Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at passover time. Now there was another Jewish prisoner held by the Romans, one Barabbas, a robber and one who had in fact incited a seditious riot. But the Jews would not hear of it! They cried out, Not this man but Barabbas . . . this man stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.

Aha! Pilate ponders the thought! This Jesus was a Galilean. Herod was ruler of that province. Pilate and Herod had been at odds with one another over some political squabble for quite a while. Here was an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. He would be rid of the responsibility of condemning an innocent man while placating Herod at the same time. Herod was placated but the innocent Jesus was returned to Pilate for final responsibility. John leaves all this out of his account. It may be studied in the Synoptics.

Quiz

Where was Pilates judgment hall and the Praetorium?

What is meant when it is said that the Jews were afraid of defilement should they enter Pilates judgment hall?

What type of a man was Pilate and what did he probably know about Jesus?

Why must the Romans put Jesus to death?

How did Jesus answer the charges against Him and witness to Pilate at the same time?

What did Pilate mean when he said, What is truth?

How did Pilate think he had solved his dilemma of not wanting to sentence an innocent man and yet not wanting to displease the Jews?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(28) On the accusation before Pilate (Joh. 18:28-38), comp. Notes on the parallels in Mat. 27:11-14; Mar. 15:2-5; Luk. 23:2-5.

The hall of judgment.Literally, the Prtorium. Comp. Note on Mat. 27:27. It is interesting to observe the various renderings which our translators have given for this one word. Here, hall of judgment, or Pilates house, and judgment-hall; Joh. 18:33, hall of judgment without the marginal alternative; Joh. 19:9, judgment-hall; in Mat. 27:27, common-hall, or governors house; in Mar. 15:16, prtorium (the original word Anglicised); in Act. 23:35, judgment-hall; in Php. 1:13, palace, this being perhaps the only passage where palace does not give the right meaning. (Comp. Note there.)

And it was early.The Greek word occurs in the division of the night in Mar. 13:35 (even, midnight, cock-crowing, morning) for the time between cock-crowing and sunrise, as we should say roughly, from three to six oclock; but comp. Mat. 27:1, and Luk. 22:66. We must remember that Pilate must have sent the band (Joh. 18:3), and was therefore expecting its return.

And they themselves went not into the judgment hall.They sent Jesus in under guard of the Roman band, while they remained outside.

But that they might eat the passover.Comp. Excursus F: The Day of the Crucifixion of our Lord.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

28. From Caiaphas For the examination before Caiaphas, compare our notes upon Mat 26:57-68.

The hall of judgment The praetorium of Pilate, the procurator. For our account of Pilate, and the arraignment of Jesus before him, see our notes on Mat 27:1-30.

That they might eat the Passover But, according to all the first three Evangelists, Jesus had eaten the paschal lamb the night before, namely, the evening closing Thursday. Were, then, these Jews yet to eat the paschal lamb upon the evening of the present day, namely, Friday? This has been a memorable difficulty among commentators for centuries. Sceptics have maintained that there is a contradiction between the first three Evangelists and John, inasmuch as the former represent the lamb as eaten on Thursday evening and he on Friday evening. To solve this difficulty, various theories have been proposed. Some have maintained that Jesus ate the lamb the evening before the Jews did generally; others have maintained that there were two Passover evenings allowed by the Jews themselves. The simplest and most satisfactory solution, however, is found in the different meanings of the word Passover. It no doubt did often signify simply the paschal lamb. But it also had a more extensive meaning, so as to include the entire festival of the Passover week. Such is the obvious meaning in Joh 2:13; Joh 2:23; Joh 6:4; Joh 11:55; Joh 12:1; Joh 13:1. So also in 2Ch 30:22: “They did eat the feast seven days, offering peace-offerings.” Now during the Passover week there was to be upon each day a burnt-offering, two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs; also a meat-offering, and one goat for a sin-offering. Unleavened bread was to be eaten through the week. There was also the chigagah, which was a festive thank-offering made by private individuals and families. To partake of these during any day of the festival was to keep or eat the Passover. That John did not disagree with the other Evangelists in holding the supper on the night of his betrayal to be the Passover, we have good historical proof. For his disciple Polycarp, in a discussion of the question occurring in his day, expressly declared that John himself celebrated the Easter Supper on the fourteenth of Nisan, the time of the Jewish Passover.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘They then lead Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium (the official residence in Jerusalem of the Roman governor).’

The whole of what happened before Caiaphas is ignored by John. He is not concerned to show up the Judaisers. Their actions are sufficient to condemn them. What he is concerned to do is to establish Jesus’ innocence of the charges laid against Him. Indeed in John not a single charge is levelled against Jesus prior to His going before Pilate. What is said simply appeals to the facts to establish His innocence. He is represented as the Lamb without blemish.

There were in fact three meetings. The preliminary private hearing before Annas, which only John may have known about. The second before dawn where Caiaphas was in charge, when they tried to build up a case against Him and had to their own satisfaction proved Him guilty of blasphemy by an unfair use of the High Priest’s power to adjure (officially charge) men before God to speak the truth (Mar 14:53-64; Mat 26:57-68). The third a quick daytime meeting of all the Sanhedrin in order to make everything official (Mar 15:1; Mat 27:1; Luk 22:66-71), and to gain the consent of neutrals, although some were probably ‘accidentally’ not given sufficient notice. As long as they had sufficient numbers they would know who was best kept out of the way. It was necessary politically that everyone should be agreed. There Jesus under questioning confirmed that He was indeed the Son of God, and would shortly be seated at God’s right hand (Luk 22:69-70), and He was consequently convicted of blasphemy.

However, the leaders in the Sanhedrin wanted the final verdict to be that of Rome. The Sanhedrin had wide powers in religious matters but they did not want the people to blame them for the death of Jesus, for too many recognised Him as a prophet. And they recognised that the crowds may not have been willing to accept that He was a blasphemer. Thus it was necessary that the odium fall on Rome. But this would involve a civil charge. Pilate was not interested in blasphemy. What he was concerned about was law and order.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘And it was early. And they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium in order that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.’

They knew that to enter a Gentile residence might bring them in contact with something that defiled them. It was therefore necessary for them not to do so for they had clearly not eaten the Passover, and if they were defiled they would not be able to do so. This comment by John is intended to bring out how ludicrous the situation was. These men were planning legal murder and yet were fussy about religious niceties. As Jesus says in another place, they ‘pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and ignore the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy and faith’ (Mat 23:23; compare Luk 11:42).

Among other things a Gentile residence would not have been cleared of leavened bread and there was always the possibility of the remains of dead matter being in the drains. Gentiles were not particular.

There are a number of possible explanations as to why these men may not have eaten the Passover when Jesus clearly had. We will mention but three. 1). That they had been disturbed during the Passover meal before actual participation in the Passover lamb with news of the possibility of Jesus’ arrest and the need for dealing with the matter urgently. They had thus left prematurely and needed to remain ceremonially clean so as to complete the eating of the Passover. 2). That some of them celebrated the Passover on a different day. Passover was determined by the new moon and attempts were sometimes made to ‘fix’ the first observance of the new moon so that the Passover fell on the day that the Sadducees wanted. But this sometimes led to disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and a dual observance of the Passover. 3). That ‘eating the Passover’ referred here to the participation in the joyous feast of the Chagigah (sacrificial meal) on the day (which was treated as a Sabbath) following the actual sacrifice of the Passover. The whole eight day feast was often called ‘The Passover’. Each of these positions has been strongly defended.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Before Pilate ( Joh 18:28-40 ).

Jesus’ examination before Caiaphas is summed up in two sentences, ‘Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas’ and ‘they lead Jesus from Caiaphas’. To John that examination had nothing important to add. He had already established Jesus’ innocence. Unmentioned also is the brief meeting of the Sanhedrin in the early morning once it was light (Luk 22:66).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Trial before Pilate.

The arraignment before Pilate:

v. 28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment; and it was early. And they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

v. 29. Pilate then went out unto them and said, What accusation bring ye against this Man?

v. 30. They answered and said unto him, If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.

v. 31. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your Law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death;

v. 32. that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spake, signifying what death He should die.

The remaining hours of the night, after cock-crowing, brought some rest to the members of the Sanhedrin, after their mock trial in the palace of Caiaphas, Mat 26:57-68, but not to Jesus, with whom the servants had their sport. And hardly did the dawn break over the eastern hills when the Sanhedrin, having confirmed their resolution of the night in a session in the Hall of Polished Stones, led Jesus away to the Praetorium, the governor’s palace in Antonia, near the Temple. It was still very early in the morning. The Jews took Jesus to the door of Pilate’s palace, thus delivering Him into the power of the Roman governor for the confirmation and execution of their verdict, since they had adjudged Him guilty of death, but no longer possessed the authority to inflict capital punishment. The members of the Sanhedrin were incidentally very careful about their behavior. They did not wish to become defiled in any way by touching anything unclean or by coming into personal contact with Gentiles. They wanted to be Levitically clean for the eating of the second chagigah, or sacrifice, of the double festival. For the word Passover is applied not only to the meal of the 14 th

of Nisan, but to all the sacrificial meals that were prescribed for the seven days of the festival, Deu 16:2-3; 2Ch 30:22. But the command of God did not go so far as to prohibit the entering into the house of a Gentile at this time. That was one of the traditions of the elders which the Jews observed with such strictness. The entire proceeding gave evidence of the hypocrisy of the Jewish rulers. They did not shrink from committing wanton murder, but transgressing a foolish commandment of their elders was considered a deadly sin. Since the Jews would not enter into the judgment-hall for a formal and customary trial, Pilate came out on the platform before the Praetorium and inquired for the charges against the prisoner. This was a concession on the part of Pilate which the Jews may have construed as a weakness. At any rate, their answer upon his reasonable inquiry was an insolent challenge: If this Man were not a doer of evil, we should not have delivered Him to thee. Their attitude was almost threatening. They had found the prisoner guilty of death, and therefore Pilate should ask no questions, ask neither for evidence nor for testimony, but simply confirm their decision and have the punishment executed. Pilate therefore replied to them according to their impudent answer. If it was a matter regarding which they had such definite information, if it was a mere matter of the transgression of a ceremonial law and not an affair for the criminal court of the Roman government, then they should act accordingly. They should take the accused and carry out the punishment which their church laws imposed in such cases. The leaders of the Jews answered that their verdict called for capital punishment, for an execution which it was not in their power to carry out. Their own consciences they were quieting with the pretext that they had found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and before Pilate they were determined to urge the accusation that He was a political criminal, a rebel dangerous to the Roman government. Pilate, on the other hand, had the conviction that the whole affair was a matter of religious controversy, which in no way concerned the Roman government. Thus it happened in the end that Jesus, being handed over into the power of the Roman governor, was crucified, according to the Roman manner of executing. Arid thereby the prophecy of the Lord was fulfilled, not only that He would be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, but also that He would die by crucifixion, Joh 12:32-33; Mat 20:19. “Note: The Lord knew every step of the way, was conscious at all times of the things that would happen to Him; His suffering and death were voluntary and therefore of such wonderful value.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 18:28. Then led they Jesusunto the hall of judgment: When the evangelist says it was early, he points out to us the great hurry and eagerness of the Jews to have this mystery of iniquity accomplished; for it was not customary with them to judge any man before the ninth hour. See on Luk 22:66. By the law, Num 19:22. Whosoever touched any unclean person, was unclean; for this reason the chief priests and elders, when they came to the praetorium, would not go in, lest the pollutions that they might have contracted in the house of a heathen, should render them unfit for eating the passover, for which they had now purified themselves. See Act 10:28. Thesame reason likewise hindered them from going into the praetorium, at the other festivals, which the governor attended for the sake of administering justice. But to make the matter easy, a kind of structure was erected, adjoining to the palace, which served instead of a tribunal, or judgment-seat. This structure, from its Hebrew name Gabbatha, seems to have been pretty high, and was called in the Greek , being paved with little pieces of marble of divers colours, because it was generally exposed to the weather. Perhaps it was something like a stage, but larger, open on all sides, but covered above, at least when the governor was to hear causes, having a throne placed on it for him to sit on; and as it was joined to the palace wall, there was a door in the wall, by which he came out upon it from within. The people therefore standing around, in the open air, could hear and see the governor when he spake to them from the pavement, without danger of being defiled, either by him, or any of his retinue.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 18:28 . ] into the praetorium , where the procurator dwelt, whether it was the palace of Herod (so usually), or, more probably, a building in the tower of Antonia (so Ewald). Comp. on Mat 27:27 : Mar 15:16 .

] i.e . in the fourth watch of the night (see on Mat 14:25 ), therefore toward daybreak. Pilate might expect them so early, since he had in fact ordered the , Joh 18:3 , on duty.

] They themselves did not go in, but caused Jesus only to be brought in by the soldiers, Joh 18:3 .

, . ] On the emphatic repetition of the , comp. Rev 9:5 ; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 48. The entrance into the pagan house, not purified from the corrupt leaven, would have made them levitically impure ( , the solemn word of profanation, Plat. Legg . ix. p. 868 A; Tim . p. 69 D; Soph. Ant . 1031, LXX. in Schleusner, III. p. 559), and have thereby prevented them from eating the Passover on the legal day (they would have been bound, according to the analogy of Num 9:6 ff., to defer it till the 14th of the following month). Since throughout the N. T. (Mat 26:17 ; Mar 14:12 ; Mar 14:14 ; Luk 22:11 ; Luk 22:15 ; comp. , Mat 26:19 ; Mar 14:16 ; Luk 22:8 ; , 1Co 5:7 ; Luk 22:7 ; Mar 14:12 ; see also Exo 12:21 ; 2Ch 35:13 ) denotes nothing else than to eat the paschal meal , as , 2Ch 30:18 , comp. 3 Esr. Joh 1:6 ; Joh 1:12 , Joh 7:12 , it is thus clear that on the day, in the early part of which Jesus was brought to the procurator, the paschal lamb had not yet been eaten, but was to be eaten, and that consequently Jesus was crucified on the day before the feast. This result of the Johannean account is undoubtedly confirmed by Joh 13:1 , according to which gives the authoritative standard for the whole history of the passion, and that in such wise that the Jewish Passover feast was necessarily still future, when Jesus held His last meal with the disciples, with which latter, then, the seizure, condemnation, and execution stood in unbroken connection; further, by Joh 13:29 , according to which the Johannean last supper cannot have been the paschal meal; finally, by Joh 19:14 ; Joh 19:31 (see on those passages), as, moreover, the view that the murdered Jesus was the antitype of the slaughtered paschal lamb (Joh 19:36 ), is appropriate only to that day as the day of His death, on which the paschal lamb was slaughtered, i.e. on the 14th Nisan. [218] Since, however, as according to the Synoptics, so also according to John (Joh 19:31 ), Jesus died on the Friday , after He had, on the evening preceding, held His last meal, Joh 13 , there results the variation that, according to the Synoptics , the feast begins on Thursday evening , and Jesus holds the actual Jewish paschal meal , but is crucified on the first feast-day (Friday); in opposition to which, according to John, the feast begins on Friday evening, the last supper of Jesus (Thursday evening) is an ordinary meal (see Winer, Progr .: , de quo Joh. xiii., etc., Leips. 1847), and His death follows on the day before the feast (Friday). According to the Synoptics , the Friday of the death of Jesus was thus the 15th Nisan; but according to John, the 14th Nisan. We can scarcely conceive a more indubitable result of exegesis, recognised also by Lcke, Exo 2 and 3, Neander, Krabbe, Theile, Sieffert, Usteri, Ideler, Bleek, De Wette, Brckner, Ebrard, Krit. d. Evang. Gesch ., Exo 2 (not in Olshausen, Leidensgesch ., p. 43 f.), Ewald, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Hase, Weisse, Rckert, Abendm . p. 28 ff., Steitz, J. Mller, Koessing (Catholic), de suprema Chr. coena , 1858, p. 57 ff., Kahnis, Dogm . I. p. 417, Pressens, Keim, and several others. Nevertheless, harmonistic attempts have been made as far as possible to prove the agreement, either of the Synoptics with John (so mostly the older harmonists, see Weitzel, Passahfeier , p. 305 f.; recently, especially Movers in the Zeitschrift f. Phil. u. Kathol. Theol ., 1833, vii. p. 58 ff., viii. p. 62 ff., Maier, Aechth. d. Ev. Joh ., 1854, p. 429 ff., Weitzel, Isenberg, d. Todestag des Herrn , 1868, p. 31 ff., and several others), or of John with the Synoptics (so most later harmonists). [219] Attempts of the first kind break down at once before this consideration, that in the Synoptics the last meal is the regular [220] and legal one of the 14 th Nisan, with the Passover lamb, slaughtered of necessity on the selfsame day between the two evenings in the forecourt (comp. Lightfoot, p. 470 f., 651), but not a paschal meal anticipated by Jesus contrary to the law (abrogating, in fact, the legal appointment, see Weitzel), as Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, and several others thought, also Kahnis, Abendm . p. 14, Krafft, p. 130, Godet, p. 629 ff., who appeals specially again to Mat 26:17-18 , Mrcker, Uebereinst. d. Matth. und Joh . p. 20 ff., who thinks the non-legal character of the meal is passed over in silence by the Synoptics. Those attempts, however, according to which John’s account is made to be the same as that of the Synoptics (Bynaeus, de morte J. Ch . III. p. 13 ff., Lightfoot, p. 1121 ff., Reland, Bengel, and several others; latterly, especially Tholuck, Guericke, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg in loc. , and in the Evang. K.-Zeit . 1838, Nr. 98 ff., Wieseler, Synopse , p. 333 ff., and in Herzog’s Encyklop . XXI. p. 550 ff., Luthardt, Wichelhaus, Hofmann in the Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche , 1853, p. 260 ff., Lichtenstein and Friedlieb, Gesch. d. Lebens J. Chr . p. 140 ff., Lange, Riggenbach, von Gumpach, Rpe, d. Mahl. d. Fusswaschens , Hamb. 1856, Ebrard on Olshausen, Baeumlein, Langen, Letzte Lebenstage Jesu , 1864, p. 136), are rendered void by the correct explanation of Joh 13:1 ; Joh 13:29 , Joh 19:14 ; Joh 19:31 , and, in respect of the present passage, by the following observations: ( a ) cannot be understood of the sacrificial food of the feast to the exclusion of the lamb, particularly not of the Chagiga ( the freewill passover offerings, consisting of small cattle and oxen, according to Deu 16:2 , on which sacrificial meals were held; see Lightfoot), as is here assumed by the current harmonists, [221] since rather by is the Passover lamb constantly designated (comp. generally Gesenius, Thes . II. p. 1115), also in Josephus and in the Talmud ( ), and consequently no reader could attach any other meaning to it; [222] in Deu 16:2-3 , however, does not mean “as a passover” (Hengstenberg, comp. Schultz on Deut. p. 471), but likewise nothing else than agnus paschalis , from which, then, are distinguished as other sacrifices and sacrificial animals (comp. Joh 18:6-7 ), whereby with , Joh 18:3 , we are referred back to the whole of the eating at the feast. 2Ch 35:7-9 also (comp. rather Joh 18:11 ; Joh 18:13 ) contributes as little to prove the assumed reference of to the Passover sacrifices generally, as Exo 12:48 for the view that to eat the Passover signifies the celebration of the feast in general; since, certainly, in the passage in question, the general . ( prepare ) is by no means equivalent to the special . [223] ( b ) The objection, that entering the Gentile house would only have produced pollution for the same day ( ), [224] which might have been removed by washing before evening, and therefore before the beginning of the new day, and that consequently the Jews would have still been able to eat the Passover lamb, which was to be first partaken of in the evening (see especially Hengstenberg, Wieseler, and Wichelhaus, following Bynaeus and Lightfoot), cannot be proved from Maimonides ( Pesach . iii. 1, vi. 1), must rather, in view of the great sacredness of the Passover feast (comp. Joh 11:55 ), be regarded as quite unsupported by the present passage (at all events in reference to the time of Jesus ), irrespective also of this, that such a pollution would have been a hindrance to the personal slaughtering of the lamb, and certainly was, most of all, avoided precisely by the hierarchs, 2Ch 30:17-18 . ( c ) On the whole of the inadmissible plea, which has been raised from the history of the Easter controversies against this, that John places the death of Jesus on the 14th Nisan, see Introd . 2. ( d ) It has even been asserted, in order to make the account of John apply to the synoptic determination of time, that the time of the Passover meal was not the evening of the 14th Nisan at all, but the evening of the 13th Nisan (consequently the beginning of the 14th); so, after Frisch, recently Rauch in the Stud. u. Krit . 1832, p. 537 ff., according to which our . was understood of the eating of the . But the evening of the 14th (consequently the beginning of the 15th) stands so unassailably firm on the foundation of the law, according to Jewish tradition, and according to Josephus (see De Wette in the Stud. u. Krit . 1834, 4; Lcke, II. p. 727 ff.), that the above attempt is simply to be noted as a piece of history, as also that of Schneckenburger ( Beitr . p. 4 ff.), which is based on the error that Joh 19:14 is the for the Feast of Sheaves . ( e ) Had John conceived the last Supper to be the Passover meal, there would certainly not have been wanting in the farewell discourses significant references to the Passover; [225] they are, however, entirely wanting, and, moreover, the general designation of the Supper itself, , Joh 12:2 (comp. Joh 12:2 ), agrees therewith, to remove from the mind of the unprejudiced reader the thought of the festival meal.

Is, however, the difference between John and the Synoptics incapable of being adjusted, the question then arises, On which side historical accuracy lies? Those who dispute the authenticity of the Gospel could not be in doubt on this point But it is otherwise from the standpoint of this authenticity, and that not of mediate authenticity at second hand (assuming which, Weizscker gives the preference to the synoptic account), but of that which is immediate and apostolical. If, that is to say, in the case of irreconcilable departures from the synoptic tradition, the first rank is in general, priori , to be conceded to John, as the sole direct witness, whose writing has been preserved unaltered; if, further, the representation also by the Apostle Paul of Christ as the Passover Lamb applies only to the Johannean determination of the day of His death (see on 1Co 5:7 ); and if, along with this, Paul’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper does not run counter (in answer to Keim) to this Johannean determination; if, further, even the statement of the Judaism, which was outside the church, that Jesus was executed vespera paschatis ( ), i.e . on the 14th Nisan, supports the account of John (see Sanhedr . 6. 2 f., 43. 1, in Lightfoot, ad Act. i. 3), where the fabulous element in the Talmudic quotation of the circumstances attending the execution does not affect the simple date of time ; if the conducting of a criminal trial [226] and execution on the first feast-day, even after the most recent attempts to show their admissibility (see especially Wieseler, p. 361 ff.), is at least highly improbable (see Bleek, p. 139 ff.; Ewald, Alterth . p. 415), and is opposed by Act 12:25 ff., and in the case before us would be regarded as an exception from the rule, [227] in fact, imprudent and irreconcilable with the great danger which was well known to the Sanhedrin (Mat 26:5 ); if, generally, the 15th Nisan, with its Sabbatic character, and as the legal day of the festive gathering in the temple, is altogether unsuitable to all the undertakings, processions, and parades which were set on foot by the hierarchs and by the people on the day of Jesus’ death, as well as to the taking down from the cross and the burial; if, on the other hand, the custom of setting at liberty a prisoner (Joh 18:39 ) most naturally corresponds to the idea, and therewith to the day of the paschal lamb, to the idea and to the day of forgiveness ; if, finally, even in the Synoptics themselves, traces still exist of the true historical relation, according to which the day of Jesus’ death must have been no first day of the feast, but a day of traffic and labour (Mat 26:59-60 ; Mar 15:21 ; Mar 15:42 ; Mar 15:46 ; Luk 23:26 ; Luk 23:54 ; Luk 23:56 ), as, moreover, the opinion of the Sanhedrin, Mat 26:5 , Mar 14:1 : ! corresponds to the Johannean account, and to the haste with which, according to the latter, the affair was despatched, actually still before the feast, then all these moments are just so many reasons, the collective weight of which is decisive in favour of John , [228] without the further necessity of making an uncertain appeal to the present calendar of the feast, according to which the 15th Nisan may not fall on a Friday (see against his application to that period, Wieseler, p. 437 f.), and to the prohibition, Exo 12:22 , against quitting house and town after the Passover meal (see on Mat 26:30 , and Wetstein on Mar 14:26 ).

The question how the correct relation of time in the synoptic tradition could be altered by a day , withdraws itself from any solution that is demonstrable from history . Most naturally, however, the institution of the Lord’s Supper suggests the point of connection, both by the references, which Jesus Himself in His discourses connected therewith gave to the Supper in its bearing on the Passover meal, by the idea of which He was moved (Luk 22:15 ), as also by the view of the Supper as the antitypical Passover meal, which view must necessarily have been developed from the apostolic apprehension of Christ as the Paschal Lamb (Joh 19:36 ; 1Co 5:7 ), so far as He in the Supper had given Himself to be partaken of, Himself the perfected Passover Lamb, which He, simply by His death, was on the point of becoming. Thus the day of institution of the Supper became, in the anti-typical mode of regarding it, an ideal 14th Nisan, and in the tradition, in virtue of the reflective operation of the idea upon it, gradually became an actual one, and consequently the , which was firmly established as the day of death, became, instead of the preparation of the Passover (14th Nisan), as John has again fixed it, the preparation of the Sabbath, [229] this Sabbath, however, regarded, not as the first day of the feast, as in John, consequently not as the 15th Nisan, but as the second day of the feast (16th Nisan).

Further, the deviation of John from the Synoptics is the less to be employed as a reason for doubting the genuineness of the former, the more improbable it is in itself that a later inventor, who nevertheless sought apostolic authority, would have run the risk of entering into conflict with the prevailing tradition in so extremely important a determination, and, in subservience to the idea of Christ as the perfected Passover Lamb (see especially Baur, p. 272 ff., and in the Theol. Jahrb . 1854, p. 267 f.; Hilgenfeld, Pascha streit d. alten K . p. 221 ff.; Schenkel, p. 362 f.; Keim, Gesch. J. I . p. 132; Scholten, p. 282 ff.), to date back by a day the execution of Christ. Were the Johannean history, in so far substantially unhistorical, a production resulting from the idea of the Passover lamb, then certainly this idea would itself stand forth with far more of purpose and expression than it does (especially, for instance, in the farewell discourses), and would have been indicated, not merely on the occasion of the wound in the side, Joh 19:36 , in the light of a single token; in that case one might believe oneself justified, with Weisse, Evangelienfrage , p. 130, in laying to the charge of the writer of the Gospel that he had, in conformity with certain presuppositions, put together the sequence of events for himself partly in an accidental and partly in an arbitrary manner.

[218] Tertullian, adv. Jud 1:8 : “Passio perfecta est die azymorum, quo agnum occiderent ad vesperam a Mose fuerat praeceptum.”

[219] Chrysostom gives a choice between the two attempts at reconciliation. Either John means by : ; or , Christ anticipated the celebration on the day before the Passover of the Jews, , on which the O. T. paschal meal was solemnized. In this way Chrysostom already writes the programme for the whole of the later investigations on this point down to the present day. For the history of the controversy, see in Wichelhaus, Kommentar ber d. Leidensgesch . p. 191 ff.

[220] The view which became current at the time of the Reformation and afterwards among the older theologians, especially through Casaubon’s and Scaliger’s influence, that the Jews had postponed the Passover for a day , was entirely baseless, but found all the more ready acceptance because there remained thereby time in full accordance with the law for the observance of the paschal meal on the part of Jesus. According to this view, which has again been recently supported by Philippi ( Glaubensl . I. p. 266 f., Exo 2 ), the Jews, in order not to be bound for two days running to the strictness of the Sabbath observance, transferred the first feast-day, which at that time fell on the Friday, to the Sabbath; whereas Christ abode faithfully by the legal term; the synoptical account goes by this legal determination, but the Johannean by the former arbitrary one. From , Luk 22:7 , no inference whatever can be drawn in favour of this harmonistic expedient, which is without any historical support. Serno ( d. Tag. d. letzten Passahmahls , Berl. 1859) has sought, in a peculiar way, to confirm the correctness of both accounts by the doubling of the feast-days during the diaspora . According to this, it may have come about that for the Galileans in Jerusalem that was already the first day of the Passover, which for the Jerusalemites was but the day before the feast. In this way the twofold representation was stamped on the page of history. Against this it is at once decisive that the Galileans did not belong to the diaspora . See, moreover, Weiss, in the Lit. Bl. d. altg. K. Z . 1860, Nr. 42; Wieseler and Reuter’s Repert . 1860, p. 132 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb . XI. p. 253 f. On the above doubling of the feast-days, see Ideler, Handbuch d. Chronol . I. p. 513 ff. According to Isenberg, l.c. , “many thousand strangers,” in order not to break in upon the Sabbath with the preparation for the Passover meal, held this meal already on the 13th Nisan. So also did Jesus, in order to institute the Lord’s Supper as the fulfilment of the Passover feast, and to die as the Antitype of the Passover lamb. The above presupposition, however, is unhistorical. A paschal lamb on the 13th Nisan is to the Jewish consciousness an impossibility.

[221] Although the eating of the Chagigah was not necessarily restricted to the 15th Nisan, but might take place well enough on any of the following Passover feast-days; hence a religious obligation as regards the 15th Nisan by no means lay in the way of their entering the Gentile house, so that they might be able to eat the Chagigah . But the partaking of the paschal lamb was restricted to its definite day, the 14th Nisan.

[222] Paul also, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 367 ff., and 1867, p. 535 ff., explains it of the eating of the Passover lamb, but thinks that they had not been able to accomplish the eating on the evening that preceded the , and now “at the first grey of morning” desired to make up for that which was omitted in the urgency of their haste. What an irregularity against the law (Lev 23:5 , Deu 16:7 ; Saalschtz, M. R. p. 407 f.) and usage is thus imagined, without the slightest indication in the text! And the thought of such a completely exceptional early eating could not be entertained by the Jews, moreover, for this reason, that they must indeed stand by, and did stand by their delinquent, could not leave him as he was, and go thence, in order to eat the neglected Passover. Aberle, in the Tb. QuartalsChr. 1863, p. 537 ff., admits indeed the difference of John’s representation from that of the Synoptics, but thinks the Johannean day of death of Jesus appears through their account (in itself correct), and that they intentionally expressed themselves in an ambiguous manner (incorrect). See against Aberle, Hilgenfeld in his ZeitsChr. 1865, p. 94 ff.

[223] 2Ch 30:22 , where the eating of the feast sacrifices generally ( ) is spoken of, proves nothing whatever for the special expression: “eat the Passover,” rather is distinguished from it.

[224] Jdt 12:7-9 proves nothing in this respect for our passage (against Hengstenberg), where the evening bath of Judith falls at most (comp. Grotius) under the point of view of Mar 7:4 , where there is no question of any eating of a holy, festal character.

[225] This circumstance is also decisive against the invention of an anticipated Passover. For precisely at a Passover feast of so exceptional a character the Passover ideas which furnished its motive would not have been kept at a distance by John, but would have been brought by him into the foreground.

[226] This difficulty drives Hilgenfeld ( Paschastr. d. alten Kirche , p. 154, also in his ZeitsChr. 1863, p. 338 ff.), after the precedent of Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth . I. p. 407 ff., to the desperate assumption that do actual criminal proceedings took place at all. Neither in Mat 26:3 , nor Mat 26:57 , and Mat 27:1 , is an actual Synedrium intended, but only councils summoned by the high priest.

[227] Among the Greeks also, an execution on a feast day was regarded as a profanation and pollution, and was, if it exceptionally took place, as in the case of Phocion (Plutarch, Phoc. 37), a great scandal; see Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth . 43.12.

[228] Here the appeal urged by Movers to Tr. Sanhedr . f. 63. 1, is by no means required, according to which the members of the Sanhedrin might not eat anything on the day on which they had pronounced a sentence of death. On this showing, they absolutely could not have had the design of eating the Chagigah .

[229] Moreover, the Passover meal, on the Friday evening, could by no means have been deranged by the dawning of the Sabbath. For the slaying and roasting of the lamb took place before the dawn of the Sabbath, and the pilgrims were wont to arrive early enough in Jerusalem (comp. Joh 11:55 ). The burning of the remains of the lamb was not, however, prevented by the Sabbath (Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 121), and generally the rule held good: “Si quis unum praeceptum observat, ille ab observatione alterius praecepti liber est,” Sohar, Deut. princ. f. 107, c. 427. This also in answer to Isenberg, l.c. Besides, the paschal lamb was a sacrifice , the arrangements connected with which the Sabbath consequently did not prevent, even if the 14th Nisan itself was a Sabbath.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early, and they themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. (29) Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? (30) They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. (31) Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: (32) That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. (33) Then Pilate entered into the judgement hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? (34) Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? (35) Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? (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. (37) Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice. (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 in him no fault at all. (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? (40) Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

It appears from the earliness which is here spoken of in hurrying away Jesus to the hall of Pilate, that the Sanhedrim must have sat up all night. Oh! with what blood-thirstiness did those men hunt after the death of Jesus? Reader! do not fail to observe, amidst the misgivings, fears, and alarms of those wretched characters, both Jews and Gentiles, how sweet the testimony Jesus gave to his person and character. Art thou a King? saith Pilate to him. Thou sayest that; (said Christ,) I am a King. But not of this world, though in this world; here in grace, hereafter in glory. Oh? sweet and blessed assurance from the lips of truth. And, as the Lord here said, he bears witness to the truth, for he himself is truth. Joh 11:6 .

And, Reader, do not overlook the spiritual instruction which ariseth out of the Jews’ preference of a robber to Jesus. You and I have robbed God of his glory, and our souls of happiness: and yet how are we released at the Passover, when Christ, our Passover, hath been sacrificed for us, while Christ is by wicked hands crucified and slain? Oh! thou Lamb of God! truly thou hast borne our sins, and carried our sorrows! And how often have thy people preferred sin and vanity, as those Jews did Barabbas of old, before thee, the Lord of life and glory.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

XXVII

CHRIST BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD

Harmony, pages 196-206 and Mat 27:3-30 ; Act 1:18-19 ; Mar 15:1-19 ; Luk 23:2-25 ; Joh 18:28-19:16 .

You will understand that our Lord was tried before the Sanhedrin, as we saw in the last chapter, on the charge of blasphemy, penalty for which was stoning. We will find in this discussion that Jesus is first tried before the court of Pilate on the charge of treason, and then differently charged with sedition, the penalty of these two charges being crucifixion, and on the same two charges he was tried before the Galilean court of Herod. We have yet to consider his trial before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical and spiritual death, and finally, we will consider his trial before the court of hell on the charge of sin, with the penalty of passing under the power of the devil.

So that this discussion commences at the last verse on page 196 of the Harmony, Mat 27:2 , “And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate, the governor”; or, as Mark puts it, Mar 15:1-2 , “They bound Jesus and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate”; or, as Luke expresses it, Luk 23:1 , “And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate”; or, as John has it, Joh 18:28 , “They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace; and it was early.”

We have seen in the preceding discussion that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, on the charge of blasphemy, and condemned. We have seen that in every step of the proceedings they violated their own criminal law. Just now the important thing to note is that they also violate the Roman law. In this particular they had no right to even try a capital offense. Of course, we know that a capital offense is one of which the penalty is death. That is, capital offense comes from the word caput (root, “cap,” connected with kephala) , meaning “the head.” And capital offense is one in which one loses his head. The right to-try-such an-offense Rome never granted to the conquered provinces. The position is untenable that any conquered province might try and condemn, but the Roman representative had to execute.

On this point Mr. Greenleaf says, “If they (the Sanhedrin) had condemned him, they had not the power to pass sentence, this being a right which passed from the Jews by conquest of their country, and really belonged to’ the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of the Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercises of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and municipal regulations.” They had not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty which the Romans took care to reserve to themselves always, whatever else might be neglected. Tacitus says that the imperial right among the Romans was incapable of being transmitted or delegated, and that right was the jurisdiction of capital cases, belonging ordinarily to the Roman governor or general. The word is praeses , answering to our word president, or governor of the province, the procurator, having for his principal duties charge of the annual revenue and the cognizance of capital cases. Some procurators, like Pontius Pilate, had the jurisdiction of life and death, but it could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance of any matter not pertaining to the Roman law, which consists of an alleged offense against the God of the Jews, and was neither acknowledged nor even respected by the Romans. Of this the chief priests and elders were well aware.

To show that Mr. Greenleaf is right in that contention, I will give three instances from the New Testament upon that point. The first is Act 18 , in the city of Corinth, and under the Roman governor Gallic. When Paul was accused under him, and brought before the judgment seat, Gallic says: “If indeed, it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these matters.” So a little later, when the mob treated the chief of the synagogue with indignities, it is said, “But Gallic cared for none of these things,” i.e., as a Roman officer he had nothing to do with them. So it was impossible for Pilate to take cognizance of anything brought against any matter of the Jewish religion, such as the accusation of blasphemy.

The next case that I cite is in Act 23 , where the chiliarch, or military tribune, called Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to Felix, who at that time was governor (Act 23:27 ) : “This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down into their council; whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.”

The next case that I cite is from Act 25 ) when Festus was governor in place of Felix. So we see we have Pilate, Felix, Festus, and Gallic, all testifying upon the point to which I am now speaking. Festus cited Paul’s case to King Agrippa (Act 25:14 ): “There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him. To whom I answered, that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him. When, therefore, they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought. Con-erning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own religion.” And he declined to take any jurisdiction of such a question.

Further upon this point, I now give what the great French lawyer, Dupin, says: Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him (p. 88), “the Jews had reserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of the procurator alone that the executive power was invested; every culprit must be put to death by his consent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.” No; the Jews had not reserved the right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of the conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should become impatient of the yoke. It was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, which would have left the judiciary and legislative power in the hands of the conquered people he was not simply an officer appointed to give an exequatur or mere approval (visa) to sentences passed by another authority, the authority of the Jews. When the matter in question was a capital case, the Roman authorities not only ordered the execution of a sentence, but also took cognizance ( coynito ) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdiction a pnon, and that of passing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation, vice praesdis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred; but in any event we hold it to be clear that the Jews had lost the right of condemning to death any person whatsoever, not only so far as respects the execution, but the passing of the sentence. M. DUPIN, Testimony of the Evangelists, pages 601-602.

We must not forget that Judea was a conquered country, and to the Roman governor belonged the right of taking cognizance of capital cases. What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? The Jews had not the right reserved of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the Roman senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries, but that Rome might have charge of all cases of life and death. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, he having left the judiciary in the hands of the Jews; not simply an officer appointed to execute a Jewish sentence passed by any authority, but when the matter in question was a capital case the Roman authorities could not only order the execution of the sentences, but they also claimed the right of passing upon the crime itself, with the right of jurisdiction over the question, and of passing judgment in the last resort. The Jews had lost the right to try a man for a capital offense, or to condemn to death any person whatever. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.

If the Jews had the right of trial in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate the proceedings would have been after this fashion: “Jesus has violated the Jewish law of blasphemy, and we have condemned him to death, and do bring him to you that you may approve and execute the sentence.” But what are the facts? When they bring Jesus before Pilate they say not one word about the offense of blasphemy, but bring a new charge. Pilate puts the question, “What accusation bring you against this man?” And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King.”

That is the charge they prefer against him before the Roman Court. That is the new case. And Pilate examines whether Jesus Christ was guilty of treason against the Roman governor in claiming to be a king. So he examines the case by asking questions of Jesus himself: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” And after Pilate had finished his investigation he brought in his verdict of the case before him. He has heard the people and he has heard Jesus, and now here is his sentence: “And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man.” (Top of page 200 in the Harmony.) That is the decision.

The decision having been rendered upon that charge of treason, they bring another charge (Luk 23:5 , Harmony page 200) : “But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.” This is what we call sedition, that is, stirring up a tumult; so they changed the accusation. When they bring that charge against him before Pilate he merely notes the fact that they have spoken of Galilee, and as Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, happened to be in Jerusalem at this time, and as the offense, according to this charge, commenced in Herod’s territory, Pilate wishing to avoid the responsibility of deciding the case, refers it to Herod.

We will see how it goes before Herod. On page 201 of the Harmony we find that Herod, after maltreating him, sends him back to Pilate. Page 203 shows that Pilate announces Herod’s verdict: “I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accused Him; no, nor yet Herod: for he sent Him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by Him.” So there we have a double verdict, that under the second charge Herod finds no offense against the Roman law, and Pilate says the same thing that he hath done nothing worthy of death. No fault in him under either of the accusations. So that is the third verdict of equivalence that has been pronounced twice by Pilate and once by Herod.

Pilate now wishes to smooth things, for he knew that the Jews were very turbulent, and that the position of the Roman officer in Judea was always a hazardous one, since accusations could be made against him to Rome. Pilate had been moved by a message from his wife. She had had a dream. So she sends to Pilate while on his judgment throne, and says, “Have thou nothing to do with this man.” Now, the Jews were urging Pilate on from one side, and his wife restraining him on the other. Burns, in “Tam O’Shanter,” says, about the attitude of men toward the good counsel of their wives: Ah, gentle dames! it gars me greet To think how many counsels sweet, How many lengthened, sage advices, The husband frae the wife despises!

Therefore, Pilate proposes an expedient. He says, “There is a custom among you that at feast time some guilty man shall be pardoned. Now, you have a man here, a murderer and a robber, whose name is Barabbas, and it is within my province to pardon a man. Suppose you let me pardon Jesus, or, would you prefer that I pardon Barabbas?” It is a strange thing to the lover of justice that after Pilate had twice acquitted this Man he now proposes to pardon him. He could not pardon a man that had been acquitted. The Jews make their choice; they say: “Not this man, but Barabbas; release that robber to us; don’t you release this man.” Pilate then has Jesus crowned with thorns to show his contempt for their accusation that he would be a king, and invests him with purple, and brings him before the Jews, and exclaims (in words, that, put together, make a great text for a sermon: “Ecce homo”; “Behold the man!” “Ecce Rex!” “Behold the King!” When the Jews persisted that they preferred that Barabbas should be released to them, then Pilate put this question, which has been the theme of many sermons, “What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?”

Very many years ago at a meeting of the old General Association, Dr. A. E. Clemmons, pastor at Marshall, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, preached a sermon from that text, and made this stirring application: This question comes to every man. Every man is under obligation to accept Jesus Christ as King, and if he rejects Christ then the question arises, “What shall I do with Jesus? He is in the world; he is preached in ten thousand pulpits; I cannot ignore him; I must make some disposition of him; what shall I do with him? Shall I count him as an impostor, or shall I accept him as my Saviour?”

Having made that point clear, Dr. Clemmons then passed to his last question: “In not trying to dispose of Jesus Christ you reject him. Then later the question will come to you in this form, ‘What will Jesus, who is called the Christ, do with me?’ ” Showing that there would come a time when the despised Nazarene would occupy the throne of eternal judgment, and according to the manner in which you disposed of him when the question was up to you, so will he dispose of you when the question is up to him.

Their answer to the question was, “Crucify him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate says, “Why don*t you take him and crucify him yourselves?” Then they said, “We have no jurisdiction; we have not this power of life and death; you have. We bring the case to you, and we tell you now that we charge him with being an enemy of Caesar, claiming himself to be a King; and if you let this man go, you are not Caesar’s friend.” It was a favorite custom of the Jews to prefer charges against the governors of Judea before the Roman court at Rome itself, and many a governor of Judea was recalled on charges preferred against him at Rome. When Pilate heard that, he was terrified. He knew that it was an easy thing to shake the confidence of Caesar in any of his subordinates, and he was afraid. He therefore fell upon another expedient. He washed his hands, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this man; I wanted to let him go; you forced me to put him to death; you are responsible.” Then they said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

When you see Pilate go through that form of washing his hands, as if by washing his hands he could divest himself of the responsibility to render just judgment, you are reminded of the incident in the play of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in which Lady Macbeth, having instigated the death of the king, Duncan, and stirred up her husband to usurp that king’s throne, her conscience and her imagination were always washing off the blood spots on her hands. The great author relates how she became insane; and she was all the time going to the basin and washing her hands, then looking at them and saying, “This blood on my hands would make the sea red; all of the ocean cannot wash it the stain of blood on this lily-white hand.”

Pilate never recovered from his cowardly betrayal of his trust. History and tradition both tell us that he was pursued by undying remorse, and there is a tradition that when he was banished to the foot of the Alps, every time a storm was about to come a dark mist would gather over a mountain named after Pilate. There is a very thrilling reference to that in one of Scott’s novels. Whenever the people looked up and saw Mount Pilatus wrapped in mist they would cross themselves and say, “Avoid thee, Satan.” So tradition and history have tied the name of Pilate to that cloud-covered mountain.

And Pilate finally signs the death warrant of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had twice acquitted, and concerning whom he had said, “I find no fault in him; he is guilty of no crime.” On page 206 of the Harmony we have an account of the indignities Christ suffered at the hands of the soldiers. Let the reader study that for himself.

QUESTIONS 1. Who brought the case of Jesus before Pilate and what great illconsistency in the Jews manifested at the palace?

2. In what particular did they violate the Roman law in the trial of Jesus?

3. What was the testimony of Tacitus on this point?

4. Was it the province of Pilate under Roman law to merely execute a sentence of the Sanhedrin concerning an offense against Jewish law or must he assume original and complete jurisdiction and try the case brought before him solely in view of an offense against Roman law?

5. What three special cases in the Acts illustrate this fact and what the point in each case?

6. What was the testimony of Dupin?

7. If the Jews had the right in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate, what would have been the proceedings?

8. But what are the facts in the case?

9. What, therefore, was Pilate’s first demand and what was their answer?

10. What was Pilate’s second demand and their reply?

11. Would he have counted within his jurisdiction a charge of blasphemy against the Jewish God?

12. What threefold accusation against Roman law, therefore, did the Sanhedrin substitute for the charge of blasphemy and wherein consisted the atrocious malice of their accusation?

13. What one word covers all these accusations?

14. Was this threefold charge within Pilate’s jurisdiction?

15. What question, therefore, did Pilate ask Jesus, what was his answer, then what question did he ask Pilate and why?

16. What explanation did Christ here make to Pilate as to the nature of his kingdom and what was Pilate’s first verdict in the case?

17. What new charge did his accusers now prefer against him?

18. What was the legal term of this offense, was it a punishable offense against Roman law and was it within Pilate’s jurisdiction?

19. What circumstance in the new charge enabled Pilate to evade trying the case by referring it to another tribunal?

20. In referring a case from one Roman court to another, was it customary and necessary to make a formal statement of the case? (See Act 23:26-30 ; Act 25:25-27 .)

21. Would such a statement in this case include the charge of treason, of which Pilate himself had acquitted Jesus, as well as the new charge of sedition and why?

22. How did Herod receive Christ, what interest did he manifest in our Lord, what was the procedure of the trial before Herod and how did this incident affect the relation of Herod and Pilate?

23. Under Roman law in this case would Herod announce his verdict directly to the Sanhedrin or would he send it through Pilate, and why?

24. What was Herod’s verdict on both counts as announced through Pilate?

25. What was Pilate’s verdict on the new charge?

26. What is now the legal status of the case?

27. What was, therefore, Pilate’s plain duty?

28. What Latin proverb of law would now be violated if the defendant’s life is again placed in jeopardy on either of these adjudicated cases?

29. Why, then, does Pilate hesitate and parley with the accusers?

30. What admonition came to Pilate on the judgment seat?

31. Cite the reference in Burns’ “Tarn O’Shanter” to a husband’s disregard of wifely admonitions.

32. What expedient does Pilate now suggest in order to save the life of Jesus and vet placate his proud accusers?

33. What was the infamy of this proposal?

34. Under Pilate’s proposal what deliberate choice did the Sanhedrin make?

35. How do the apostles subsequently bring home to them with terrific effect this unholy and malicious choice? (See Act 3:14-15 .)

36. How did Pilate again seek to appease their wrath?

37. What text for a sermon cited, what is the application and what was their answer to Pilate’s question?

38. How does the Sanhedrin now confess their mere pretense in making charges against Roman law and terrify Pilate by stating the case under Jewish law?

39. What were the circumstances of Pilate’s reopening of the case, what examination followed, what effort did Pilate again make and what was the result?

40. Why could not Pilate render a formal verdict on this count?

41. To what old charge do the Jews recur and thereby bully the cowardly Pilate into once more occupying the judgment seat, thereby reopening the case under Roman law?

42. What time in the day was it now, reconciling John’s sixth hour with the time in the other Gospels?

43. Why does Pilate now say, “Shall I crucify your king”?

44. By what dramatic form does Pilate now seek to divest himself of responsibility and guilt in the judicial murder of one whom he still declares innocent, but condemns, what incident in the classics referred to, and what the tradition concerning Pilate?

45. In what awful words do the bolder Jews assume the responsibility for Christ’s death?

46. To what indignities was Jesus then subjected?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Ver. 28. Lest they should be defiled ] Putrid hypocrisy! they stand upon legal defilements, and care not to defile their consciences with innocent blood. What is this, but to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? . So Saul seemed to make a heinous matter of eating the flesh with the blood,1Sa 14:331Sa 14:33 , when it was nothing with him to spill the blood of innocent Jonathan. Nay, he was so scrupulous, that he would not so much as name a guilty man or sinner, but, in casting of lots, instead of saying, Show the innocent or guilty, he said, Show the innocent or upright person, as Tremellius reads it; yet at the same time (as is well observed) he made no conscience of bloody oaths. So Doeg was detained before the Lord, either because it was the sabbath, or his vow was not finished, &c. But when he went thence, he became death’s man to the Lord’s priests.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

28 40. ] Pilate’s first attempt to deliver Him .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

28. . . ] I have already discussed the difficulties attending the subject of our Lord’s last Passover, in the note on Mat 26:17-19 . I will add here some remarks of Friedlieb’s, Arch. der Leid. 30. “The Jews would not enter the Prtorium that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. For the entrance of a Jew into the house of a Gentile made him unclean till the evening. It is surprising, that according to this declaration of the Holy Evangelist, the Jews had yet to eat the Passover , whereas Jesus and His disciples had already eaten it in the previous night. And it is no less surprising, that the Jews in the early morning should have been afraid of rendering themselves unclean for the Passover, since the Passover could not be kept till evening , i.e. on the next day , and the uncleanness which they dreaded did not, by the law, last till the next day. For this reason, the passage in John labours under no small exegetic difficulties, which we cannot altogether solve, from want of accurate knowledge of the customs of the time. Possibly the law concerning Levitical defilements and purifications had in that age been made more stringent or otherwise modified; possibly, they called some other meal, besides the actual Passover, by its name. This last we certainly, with our present knowledge of Hebrew antiquities, must assume; for the law respecting uncleanness will not allow us to interpret this passage of the proper Passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, nor indeed of any evening meal at all.”

The whole depends on this: can mean any thing else besides eating the paschal lamb in the strict sense? This is a question which in our day we have no power of answering; and, as De Wette has shewn (in loc.), none of the instances cited on the affirmative side are applicable. See note on ch. Joh 19:14 .

Mr. Wratislaw, in his little volume of Sermons and Dissertations (Lond. J. W. Parker, 1859), has proposed a solution of the difficulties which is at least very ingenious. Its chief point is, that the Jews, reckoning their days from evening to evening, and also holding two evenings, the former beginning at 3 P.M., the other at sunset, the space between the evenings, during which the passover was to be sacrificed ( Exo 12:6 ), might be reckoned indifferently, sometimes as part of the preceding, sometimes as part of the following day. Then he thinks that in order to avoid any mistake, they considered the 14th Nisan to begin at 3 P.M. on Thursday, and to end at sunset on Good Friday, thus extending the day to its utmost possible limit. He instances similar confusion between the 14th and 15th Nisan, or rather Abib, in Exo 12:18 and Lev 23:6 , arising from the space between the evenings being reckoned in the one case as belonging to the former, and in the other as belonging to the latter day; and suggests that the same ambiguity will account for Josephus’s statement that the Jews kept the feast of unleavened bread for eight days.

Thus, he says, any time after 3 P.M. on Thursday might be called by St. Mark “the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover,” and by St. Luke, “the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed,” it being killed after the first and before the second evening on Friday, and thus, loosely speaking, within the day, which commenced at 3 o’clock, and, strictly speaking, within that which commenced at sunset on Thursday. Similarly any time after 3 or sunset on the Thursday might be called the or preparation of the passover, which was to be eaten at some time after sunset on the Friday.

Then he understands, that the disciples made all preparations on Thursday afternoon for the passover, which was to be killed the next afternoon, and eaten the following night: and that the passover of which our Lord so earnestly desired to partake, was that which was thus prepared, but of which He knew He was not Himself destined to partake. This he supports by the true reading (omitting the ) in Luk 22:16 .

“If this view,” he adds, “be accepted, there is no longer any question, as far as the passover is concerned , about reconciling St. John with the synoptical Gospels. The eucharist will thus have been instituted at an ordinary meal, eaten the evening before the paschal feast in the same room in which it was intended afterwards to celebrate the passover.” See this more fully illustrated in the vol. above alluded to, pp. 168 175.

The main objections to it seem to me to be, 1) the total absence of any trace of such an usage, of eating a preliminary solemn meal in the passover-chamber; 2) the plain and undeniable impression on the mind of every unbiassed reader of the synoptic Gospels, that the meal of our Lord and the Twelve was a passover, and that His describes, not that which He desired to do, owing however to His predetermined course would not do, but that which He was then doing in the fulfilment of that His earnest desire.

So that I am afraid Mr. Wratislaw’s ingenious solution leaves us, for all essentials of the question, where we were before: merely, by suggesting the introduction of possible new elements of confusion, giving us an additional warning not to be rash in assuming a discrepancy between the Evangelists, where computations of time may have been so vague and various.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

28 19:16. ] Jesus before the Gentile governor . Mat 27:2 ; Mat 27:11-30 . Mar 15:1-19 . Luk 23:1-25 . Before this comes in the section of Luk 22:66-71 , containing the close of the examination before the Sanhedrim, which did not happen till the morning. This undesigned agreement between Luke and John further confirms the justice of the view respecting the two hearings maintained above: see note on Luke, as above.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 18:28 . , “They lead,” i.e. , the Sanhedrists who had assembled lead: in Luk 23:1 , . . Field prefers translating “from the house of Caiaphas,” cf. Mar 5:35 ; Act 16:40 . , praetorium , lit. “the general’s tent”; here probably the governor’s quarters in Antonia, but possibly the magnificent palace of Herod used by the Roman governor while in Jerusalem; see especially Keim, Jesus of Nazareth , vi. 79 E. Tr. “It was early morning (the fourth watch, from 3 to 6 A.M., see Mar 13:35 ; see on Joh 13:38 ) and they themselves entered not into the palace that they might not be defiled but might eat the passover.” The dawning of the day seems to have reminded them of its sacred character. To enter a house from which all leaven had not been removed was pollution. Probably too the mere entrance into the house of a Gentile was the gnat these men strained at. The plain inference from the word is that the Paschal Supper was yet to be eaten. But see Edersheim’s Life of Jesus , ii. 566.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Joh 18:28 to Joh 19:16 . Jesus before Pilate .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

John

ART THOU A KING?

Joh 18:28 – Joh 18:40 .

John evidently intends to supplement the synoptic Gospels’ account. He tells of Christ’s appearance before Annas, but passes by that before Caiaphas, though he shows his knowledge of it. Similarly he touches lightly on the public hearing before Pilate, but gives us in detail the private conversation in this section, which he alone records. We may suppose that he was present at both the hearing before Annas and the interview within the palace between Jesus and Herod, for he would not be deterred from entering, as the Jews were, and there seems to have been no other impediment in the way. The passage has three stages-the fencing between the Sanhedrists and Pilate, the ‘good confession before Pontius Pilate,’ and the preference of Barabbas to Jesus.

I. The passage of arms between the priests and the governor.

‘It was early,’ probably before 6 A.M. A hurried meeting of the Sanhedrim had condemned Jesus to death, and the next thing was to get the Roman authority to carry out the sentence. The necessity of appeal to it was a bitter pill, but it had to be swallowed, for the right of capital punishment had been withdrawn. A ‘religious’ scruple, too, stood in the way-very characteristic of such formalists. Killing an innocent man would not in the least defile them, or unfit for eating the passover, but to go into a house that had not been purged of ‘leaven,’ and was further unclean as the residence of a Gentile, though he was the governor, that would stain their consciences-a singular scale of magnitude, which saw no sin in condemning Jesus, and great sin in going into Pilate’s palace! Perhaps some of our conventional sins are of a like sort.

Pilate was, probably, not over-pleased at being roused so early, nor at having to defer to a scruple which would to him look like insolence; and through all his bearing to the Sanhedrim a certain irritation shows itself, which sometimes flashes out in sarcasm, but is for the most part kept down. His first question is, perhaps, not so simple as it looks, for he must have had some previous knowledge of the case, since Roman soldiers had been used for the arrest. But, clearly, those who brought him a prisoner were bound to be the prosecutors.

Whether or not Pilate knew that his question was embarrassing, the rulers felt it so. Why did they not wish to formulate a charge? Partly from pride. They hugged the delusion that their court was competent to condemn, and wanted, as we all often do, to shut their eyes to a plain fact, as if ignoring it annihilated it. Partly because the charge on which they had condemned Jesus-that of blasphemy in calling Himself ‘the Son of God’-was not a crime known to Roman law, and to allege it would probably have ended in the whole matter being scornfully dismissed. So they stood on their dignity and tried to bluster. ‘We have condemned Him; that is enough. We look to you to carry out the sentence at our bidding.’ So the ‘ecclesiastical authority’ has often said to the ‘secular arm’ since then, and unfortunately the civil authority has not always been as wise as Pilate was.

He saw an opening to get rid of the whole matter, and with just a faint flavour of irony suggests that, as they have ‘a law’-which he, no doubt, thought of as a very barbarous code-they had better go by it, and punish as well as condemn. That sarcastic proposal compelled them to acknowledge their subjection. Pilate had given the reins the least touch, but enough to make them feel the bit; and though it went sore against the grain, they will own their master rather than lose their victim. So their reluctant lips say, ‘It is not lawful for us.’ Pilate has brought them on their knees at last, and they forget their dignity, and own the truth. Malicious hatred will eat any amount of dirt and humiliation to gain its ends, especially if it calls itself religious zeal.

John sees in the issue of this first round in the duel between Pilate and the rulers the sequence of events which brought about the fulfilment of our Lord’s prediction of His crucifixion, since that was not a Jewish mode of execution. This encounter of keen wits becomes tragical and awful when we remember Who it was that these men were wrangling about.

II. We have Jesus and Pilate; the ‘good confession,’ and the indifferent answer.

We must suppose that, unwillingly, the rulers had brought the accusation that Jesus had attempted rebellion against Rome. John omits that, because he takes it for granted that it is known. It is implied in the conversation which now ensued. We must note as remarkable that Pilate does not conduct his first examination in the presence of the rulers, but has Jesus brought to him in the palace. Perhaps he simply wished to annoy the accusers, but more probably his Roman sense of justice combined with his wish to assert his authority, and perhaps with a suspicion that there was something strange about the whole matter-and not least strange that the Sanhedrim, who were not enthusiastic supporters of Rome, should all at once display such loyalty-to make him wish to have the prisoner by himself, and try to fathom the business. With Roman directness he went straight to the point: ‘Art Thou the King of the Jews, as they have been saying?’ There is emphasis on ‘Thou’-the emphasis which a practical Roman official would be likely to put as he looked at the weak, wearied, evidently poor and helpless man bound before him. There is almost a touch of pity in the question, and certainly the beginning of the conviction that this was not a very formidable rival to Caesar.

The answer to be given depended on the sense in which Pilate asked the question, to bring out which is the object of Christ’s question in reply. If Pilate was asking of himself, then what he meant by ‘a king’ was one of earth’s monarchs after the emperor’s pattern, and the answer would be ‘No.’ If he was repeating a Jewish charge, then, ‘a king’ might mean the prophetic King of Israel, who was no rival of earthly monarchs, and the answer would be ‘Yes,’ but that ‘Yes’ would give Pilate no more reason to crucify Him than the ‘No’ would have given.

Pilate is getting tired of fencing, and impatiently answers, with true Roman contempt for subject-people’s thoughts as well as their weapons. ‘I . . . a Jew?’ is said with a curl of the firm lips. He points to his informants, ‘Thine own nation and the chief priests,’ and does not say that their surrender of a would-be leader in a war of independence struck him as suspicious. But he brushes aside the cobwebs which he felt were being spun round him, and comes to the point, ‘What hast Thou done?’ He is supremely indifferent to ideas and vagaries of enthusiasts. This poor man before him may call Himself anything He chooses, but his only concern is with overt acts. Strange to ask the Prisoner what He had done! It had been well for Pilate if he had held fast by that question, and based his judgment resolutely on its answer! He kept asking it all through the case, he never succeeded in getting an answer; he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death, and yet fear, and a wish to curry favour with the rulers, drove him to stain the judge’s robe with innocent blood, from which he vainly sought to cleanse his hands.

Our Lord’s double answer claims a kingdom, but first shows what it is not, and then what it is. It is ‘not of this world,’ though it is in this world, being established and developed here, but having nothing in common with earthly dominions, nor being advanced by their weapons or methods. Pilate could convince himself that this ‘kingdom’ bore no menace to Rome, from the fact that no resistance had been offered to Christ’s capture. But the principle involved in these great words goes far beyond their immediate application. It forbids Christ’s ‘servants’ to assimilate His kingdom to the world, or to use worldly powers as the means for the kingdom’s advancement. The history of the Church has sadly proved how hard it is for Christian men to learn the lesson, and how fatal to the energy and purity of the Church the forgetfulness of it has been. The temptation to such assimilation besets all organised Christianity, and is as strong to-day as when Constantine gave the Church the paralysing gift of ‘establishing’ it as a kingdom ‘of this world.’

Pilate did pick out of this saying an increased certainty that he had nothing to fear from this strange ‘King’; and half-amused contempt for a dreamer, and half-pitying wonder at such lofty claims from such a helpless enthusiast, prompted his question, ‘Art Thou a king then?’ One can fancy the scornful emphasis on that ‘Thou.’ and can understand how grotesquely absurd the notion of his prisoner’s being a king must have seemed.

Having made clear part of the sense in which the avowal was to be taken, our Lord answered plainly ‘Yes.’ Thus before the high-priest, He declared Himself to be the Son of God, and before Pilate He claimed to be King, at each tribunal putting forward the claim which each was competent to examine-and, alas! at each meeting similar levity and refusal to inquire seriously into the validity of the claim. The solemn revelation to Pilate of the true nature of His kingdom and of Himself the King fell on careless ears. A deeper mystery than Pilate dreamed of lay beneath the double designation of His origin; for He not only had been ‘born’ like other men, but had ‘come into the world,’ having ‘come forth from the Father,’ and having been before He was born. It was scarcely possible that Pilate should apprehend the meaning of that duplication, but some vague impression of a mysterious personality might reach him, and Jesus would not have fully expressed His own consciousness if He had simply said, ‘I was born.’ Let us see that we keep firm hold of all which that utterance implies and declares.

The end of the Incarnation is to ‘bear witness to the truth.’ That witness is the one weapon by which Christ’s kingdom is established. That witness is not given by words only, precious as these are, but by deeds which are more than words. These witnessing deeds are not complete till Calvary and the empty grave and Olivet have witnessed at once to the perfect incarnation of divine love, to the perfect Sacrifice for the world’s sin, to the Victor over death, and to the opening of heaven to all believers. Jesus is ‘the faithful and true Witness,’ as John calls Him, not without reminiscences of this passage, just because He is ‘the First-begotten of the dead.’ As here He told Pilate that He was a ‘king,’ because a ‘witness,’ so John, in the passage referred to, bases His being ‘Prince of the kings of the earth’ on the same fact.

How little Pilate knew that he was standing at the very crisis of his fate! A yielding to the impression that was slightly touching his heart and conscience, and he, too, might have ‘heard’ Christ’s voice. But he was not ‘of the truth,’ though he might have been if he had willed, and so the words were wind to him, and he brushed aside all the mist, as he thought it, with the light question, which summed up a Roman man of the world’s indifference to ideas, and belief in solid facts like legions and swords. ‘What is truth?’ may be the cry of a seeking soul, or the sneer of a confirmed sceptic, or the shrug of indifference of the ‘practical man.’

It was the last in Pilate’s case, as is shown by his not waiting for an answer, but ending the conversation with it as a last shot. It meant, too, that he felt quite certain that this man, with his high-strained, unpractical talk about a kingdom resting on such a filmy nothing, was absolutely harmless. Therefore the only just thing for him to have done was to have gone out to the impatient crowd and said so, and flatly refused to do the dirty work of the priests for them, by killing an innocent man. But he was too cowardly for that, and, no doubt, thought that the murder of one poor Jew was a small price to pay for popularity with his troublesome subjects. Still, like all weak men, he was not easy in his conscience, and made a futile attempt to get the right thing done, and yet not to suffer for doing it. The rejection of Barabbas is touched very lightly by John, and must be left unnoticed here. The great contribution to our knowledge which John makes is this private interview between the King who reigns by the truth, and the representative of earthly rule, based on arms and worldly forces.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 18:28-32

28Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. 29Therefore Pilate went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” 30They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” 31So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” 32to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.

Joh 18:28

NASB, NKJV,

JB”to the Praetorium”

NRSV”to Pilate’s headquarters”

TEV”to the governor’s palace”

This is a Latin term referring to the Roman governor’s official residence when they were in Jerusalem. This may have been the fortress Antonio, which was next to the Temple or Herod the Great’s palace.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PRTORIAN GUARD

“it was early” We know from Roman records that Roman officials in Palestine met for court at daybreak. Apparently, it was right at dawn when the Sanhedrin met to give some semblance of credibility and legality to the illegal night trials. They immediately took Jesus to Pilate.

“they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled” By entering a Gentile’s residence they would have been defiled for the Passover meal. It is ironical that they were so squeamish about ceremonial items, but had no qualms about illegally putting a man to death.

This verse is the center of a controversy over an apparent historical discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels, which assert that Jesus ate the Passover meal with His disciples (cf. Mat 26:17; Mar 14:12; Luk 22:1), and John, which asserts that this took place the day before (Thursday), the preparation day of the traditional Passover feast. The renowned Roman Catholic Johannine scholar, Raymond Brown, makes these comments in the Jerome Biblical Commentary:

“If the chronicle of events as reported in the Syn tradition is to be preferred invariably to that of Jn from the standpoint of ‘historicity,’ the following passage-the report of a witness who certainly knew the Syn tradition-presents some insoluble difficulties. If, on the other hand, we recognize that the eyewitness testimony from which Jn has been formed is often closer to the factual events than the schematic Syn outline, the passage becomes more understandable” (p. 458).

There is also some possibility of two different dates to observe the Passover, on Thursday and on Friday. There is also the added problem that the term “Passover” can be used of the one-day feast and the eight-day festival (Passover combined with Unleavened Bread, cf. Exodus 12).

“might eat the Passover” There are still problems over the exact date of the Last Supper. The Synoptic Gospels seem to imply it was the Passover meal, but John states it was the day before the official Passover meal (cf. Joh 19:14 and this verse). The answer may be in

1. the fact that the term “passover” can refer to the week, the meal, or the special Sabbath

2. the fact that some Jewish separatist groups (i.e., Essenes) follow a lunar calendar from the intertestamental book of Jubilees

3. the fact that John’s “double meanings” present Jesus as the Passover lamb (Joh 1:29), which was slain the day before the Passover

Joh 18:29 God used Pilate’s personality much like He used Pharaoh’s in Exodus. He was appointed procurator of Judea in A.D. 26 by the Emperor Tiberius. He replaced Valerius Gratus (who removed Annas as High Priest). Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman procurator. He administered the kingdom of Archelaus (son of Herod the Great), which included Samaria and Judea, Gaza, and the Dead Sea. Most of the information about Pilate comes from Flavius Josephus’ writings.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PONTIUS PILATE

Joh 18:30 “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you” This is a second class conditional sentence often called “contrary to fact.” Jesus was not an evil doer. This was a sarcastic remark of Pilate who refused to indulge in the “nit-picking” religious charges of Jews.

This verb “delivered” is the same one usually translated “betrayed” when used of Judas (cf. Joh 6:64; Joh 6:71; Joh 12:4; Joh 13:2; Joh 13:11; Joh 13:21; Joh 18:2; Joh 18:5). The term literally means “to hand one over to an authority” or “to pass on a tradition.” In connection with Judas, the term has intensified in meaning among English translators.

Joh 18:31 “We are not permitted to put anyone to death” The Jewish leadership had condemned Jesus for blasphemy, but they used the charge of insurrection to have Him executed by the Romans. It was very important to the Jewish leaders that Jesus be crucified because of Deu 21:23 (i.e., being crucified was understood by 1st century Rabbis as being cursed by God). Jesus had predicted this in Joh 18:32; Joh 3:14; Joh 8:28; Joh 12:32-33; and Gal 3:13.

Joh 18:32 “signifying by what kind of death He was about to die” Why did the Jewish leaders want Jesus crucified? It is obvious from Acts 7 that they executed people for blasphemy by immediate stoning. Possibly it relates to the OT divine curse of Deu 21:22-23. Originally this referred to public impalement after death, but the contemporary rabbis interpreted this verse in light of Roman crucifixion. They wanted Jesus, this Messianic pretender, cursed by God. This was God’s plan for the redemption of fallen humanity. Jesus, the Lamb of God (i.e., Joh 1:29), offered Himself as a substitute (cf. Isaiah 53; 2Co 5:21). Jesus became “the curse” for us (cf. Gal 3:13).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Then = Therefore. This follows the decision of the Sanhedrin recorded in Mat 26:58; Mat 27:2 and parallel passages. See above, Joh 18:24.

from = away from. Greek. ape. App-104.

unto. Greek. eis. App-104.

hall of judgment. Greek praitorion. Latin. praetorium, the house of the Praetor. See Mar 15:16. Probably connected with the castle of Antonia, built by Herod the Great and named after Mark Antony. It was not Herod’s palace, as is clear from Luk 23:7. Compare same word in Act 23:35. Php 1:1, Php 1:13.

it was early: i.e. in the early hours of the Preparation between 11pm and midnight.

lest, &c. = in order that they might not. Greek. hina me.

defiled. Greek. miaino. Only here, Tit 1:15, Tit 1:15. Heb 12:15. Jud 1:8. eat the passover. At the close of this Preparation Day, the 14th Nisan, “at even”. See App-156.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

28-40.] Pilates first attempt to deliver Him.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 18:28-38. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then. Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom there 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. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 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 in him no fault at all.

Thus did all who came into contact with Jesus bear witness that the Lamb of God was indeed holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 27:15-54; and Joh 18:28-38.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Joh 18:28. ) they themselves.- , lest they should be defiled) as Pilates house was not cleared out of leaven: Deu 16:4, There shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coasts seven days.- , that they might eat the Passover) So 2Ch 30:22, , They ate the feast seven days.[385] [This observation of John is not opposed to that view whereby we have shown that the Jews ate the Passover on the evening which formed the commencement of the Friday; i.e. at the close or evening of Thursday. (See note of the Gnom. on Mat 26:17.) In fact, the word , in the strict sense, means only the Passover lamb, not a bull, etc.[386] But when the Passover in general is mentioned, by the Passover lamb, as being the principal part (Deu 16:1, Keep the Passover, with which comp. Joh 18:2, sacrifice the Passover of the flock and the herd), the whole feast is meant by Synecdoche (a part for the whole); namely, on the same principle as , the Sabbath, means both the seventh day of the week in the strict sense, and by consequence the whole week. To these considerations Lightfoot (Hor. on this passage) adds, that the defilement by entering the Pretorium or judgment-hall would last only up to evening, and that therefore would not prevent them, after being cleansed, from eating the Paschal lamb. Since, then, in this passage, the Evangelist is speaking of such an eating of the Passover as the Jews would have been excluded from before the evening by any defilement, no doubt a different part of the feast from the actual feast of the Passover lamb is indicated.-Harm., p. 544, et seqq.] cannot be the Accusative of time, during the Feast. For though defiled, they might eat common food. [Therefore it could not be ordinary eating, but eating the Passover, which this passage implies that defilement would have excluded them from.]

[385] But Engl. Vers. They did eat throughout the feast.-E. and T.

[386] No other animal but a lamb would be expressed by , even though two young bullocks were sacrificed on the first day: Num 28:19.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 18:28

They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium:-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.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Joh 18:28-40

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 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. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 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 in him no fault at all. 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? Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

And so, we have read the first half of the greatest trial, or mock trial, that ever took place in human history, when before Pontius Pilate our Lord witnessed a good confession.

Some very striking things are brought to our attention in this passage, and first of all we observe how very punctilious men may be in regard to the outward observance of what they call religion, while utterly bereft of any true spirituality and definite knowledge of relationship to God. We read here that the accusers of our blessed Lord led Him from the judgment hall of Caiaphas, the high priest, unto the Roman hall of judgment. While they had their own court to deal with cases that had to do with their own religion and their own customs and traditions, yet they were denied the right to deal with cases that involved crimes against the government or to carry out the death penalty. The Jewish way of executing capital punishment was by stoning to death, but they were not permitted to deal thus with their criminals. The Roman method was by crucifixion.

So, having decided on perjured evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ was guilty of blasphemy, the chief priests took Him before Pilate that He might be condemned to death. They led Him there early in the morning but they, themselves, went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled, that they might eat the feast of the Passover. If they went two steps over the threshold of a Gentile hall on the Passover day, they were unclean ceremonially and could not participate in that annual service of the Jewish congregation. And these men who were bent upon the murder of the Son of God were so punctilious about the little things of the law that they did not dare pass over the threshold of Pilates hall lest they should be defiled. And yet, there before them stood the One of whom every Passover lamb that had ever been sacrificed, from that first Passover in Egypt right down to their own day, was a type. We read, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1Co 5:7-8).

For fifteen hundred years, except for occasional times when they were out of the will of God or away from their land, the Jewish people had been faithful in the observance of the Passover. As those lambs were slain year by year, they pictured the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (Joh 1:29). As their blood was shed, it pictured the precious blood of Christ that cleanses from all sin those who put their trust in Him. God declared in Egypt on the night of the first Passover, When I see the blood, I will pass over you (Exo 12:13). This was a gospel type. The blood over the lintel that night secured Israels safety. The destroying angel could not enter in.

And so today, those, whether Jew or Gentile, who put their trust in this true Passover Lamb, our Lord Jesus, will find shelter beneath His precious blood and be absolutely secure from judgment. The Lord Jesus, Himself, has said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life (Joh 5:24). Notice that expression condemnation. I like the Catholic rendition of that verse. Listen to it, Amen, amen, I say to you, He who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life and comes not into judgment, but is passed out of death into life. That is from the Douay Version. What a wonderful statement that is! That is the declaration of the Son of God that all who trust in Him are forever shielded from judgment. And those who thus trust Him know that the destroyer shall never touch them.

But here, you see, were people who were very conscientious about the outward things of the law and yet failed to recognize the One of whom the type of the law spoke, the Lord Jesus Christ.

And so they did not pass over the threshold of this court room lest they should become ceremonially defiled, and yet, in a little while we hear them demanding the death of the Son of God. Of course, we hasten to say what Scripture affirms, they did not know He was the Son of God. Peter said after Pentecost, Brethren, I [know] that through ignorance ye did it (Act 3:17). And because of that, a city of refuge had been opened to them. God will deal with them not as murderers but as unwitting manslayers, if they will flee to the refuge He has provided- but that refuge is found in the same Savior whom they crucified.

But let not us who are Gentiles think we are any less guilty in the crucifixion of the Son of God. The Gentiles, too, were linked with that solemn event, but even there God shows mercy. The apostle Paul says, Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1Co 2:8). So here, you see, Jews and Gentiles united in their ignorance and misunderstanding to reject the One who came to save.

Well, here is the crowd waiting, and Pilate graciously concedes to their demand. Recognizing their conscientious scruples, he went out to them and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? (Joh 18:29). Instead of presenting any very definite accusation, they said, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee (v. 30). They meant, The fact that we brought Him declares that He is deserving of judgment. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law (v. 31a). But they said, No, we cannot do that. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death (v. 31b). He deserves to die, but the Roman government has taken the power of life and death away from us. But all this was done that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die (v. 32). For on many occasions our blessed Lord had foretold His death. He had forewarned His disciples of what was coming. He said, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day (Mar 9:31).

Nothing was unforeseen. He knew exactly what was before Him when He came from heaven as the Son of God and in divine grace was born as a Child here on earth. He came, saying, I delight to do thy will, O my God (Psa 40:8), and He knew that the doing of that will meant going to the cross of Calvary. All through His life that was before Him. He was the only Israelite growing up in that land who knew the exact meaning of the Passover. He was the only Israelite who knew to what all those sacrifices of the temple referred. He knew that He was the One who was to fulfill them all and offer Himself, without spot, to God. But He never hesitated, and when at last this ministry of grace was coming to an end, we read, He set His face like a flint to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51, authors paraphrase). He was steadfast in that which He came to do. Even in Gethsemanes Garden, when His holy humanity shrank from the awfulness of becoming the great Sin-bearer, yet He said, My Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done (Mat 26:42).

So here He stands in Pilates judgment hall, led as a lamb to the slaughter. He made no effort to clear Himself. He was ready to die, ready to go to the cross in order that we might live.

Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus to him and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? (Joh 18:33). They had brought this charge against Him, that He had declared Himself to be the King of the Jews. Pilate was used to different ones rising up with claims to be the Messiah. They had been dealt with very severely by the Roman Government.

Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? (vv. 33-34). As much as to say, Are you asking this question because of a sincere desire to know the truth, or is it simply a rumor that has come to you and you want to trace it down? You see, whenever men honestly wanted to know the truth, the Lord Jesus was ready to clarify it but never to satisfy some indifferent questioner. So, I say to you, if you really wish to know if Jesus is the Son of God, if you are saying to yourself, I wish I knew if He is really the Messiah of Israel. I wish I knew if He is really the promised King who is to bring in blessing for this poor world, let me tell you how you may know. If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself (7:17). If you honestly desire to know, if you will go to God, take your place before Him as a sinner, confess your sin and guilt and cry to Him for the way of deliverance and look to Him to give you light, He has pledged Himself to do so.

Oh, if Pilate had only been in earnest that day! But we see him convicted as a trifler with eternal verities. He is not really interested to know if Jesus is King. In Pilates eyes He is just some queer, fanatical Jew who has done nothing particularly worthy of death but is some sort of a public nuisance and must be dealt with in a way that will quiet the people.

So Pilate asks contemptuously, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? (18:35). In other words, Tell me now, what is your error? What is your misdemeanor? What have you done? One can readily imagine the scornful curl of his lip as he asked these questions.

Jesus looked up quietly and said, My kingdom is not of this world (v. 36a). that is, It is not of this order, or, I do not pretend to be a King in the sense that those who fill the thrones of earth are kings. My kingdom is not of this universe, but of another order altogether. My kingdom is of heaven. That is really what He meant. He left Pilate to inquire, if he were earnest enough to do so. 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 (v. 36b).

He is not denying that some day His kingdom is going to be set up in this world. Some day all the prophecies regarding Him will be fulfilled. But when that day comes, His kingdom will not be of this earthly order. It will be a heavenly kingdom set up here on earth.

So He disclaims all suggestions of expecting to overthrow Roman power. Pilate looks at Him contemplatively and says, more to himself than to Jesus, Art thou a king then? (v. 37a). Oh, there was something so striking about this lowly Carpenter from Nazareth as He stood there unafraid and looked into the face of the representative of the greatest power on earth, and talked about a kingdom that is not of this world. Pilate wonders who this strange mysterious Man could be. Art thou a king then?

Then Jesus answered and said, Thou sayest that I am a king (37b). He was indeed a King-a King without a kingdom here, a King without a host of subjects to acknowledge His authority, but the One of whom God, the Father, had said, Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Psa 2:6). To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth (v. 37c), or, that I might be a martyr to the truth. And some have said that that is all that Jesus was, simply dying as a martyr to the truth. He did so die, but that was not all. He died as the great sin offering, yielding Himself without spot unto God for our redemption.

But there He stands in Pilates judgment hall, a witness to the truth. He was, Himself, truth incarnate. He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). So now He says, Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice (18:37d). Do you see the challenge in that sentence? He is practically saying, Every honest man and woman will listen to Me when they hear Me. Dont say, I wish I knew whether Jesus was the Son of God, and then turn away and refuse the test that He gives in the Word, for everyone who is absolutely honest in seeking to know will know. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (v. 38b). And there you have the question of the cynic. His restless mind and heart had not found satisfaction in anything. He had come to the place where he feels that no one knows where we came from or where we are going. Who can tell? What is truth?

Oh, if Pilate had but been in earnest in asking that question! There stood One who could have told him, One who could have opened up all the things that were perplexing him. Lord Bacon wrote: What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and waited not for an answer. Oh, that is the pity of it! He might have had the answer. But this man was a trifler. This man was not in earnest. This man did not really want to know the truth. O God, give us to be honest and in earnest, and if we are, we shall soon find ourselves at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews (v. 38a-b). He does not wait for an answer to his question, and so he is left in doubt and in darkness. He said to the Jews, I find in him no fault at all (v. 38c). In other words, I see no reason to put this Man to death.

Then it occurred to him that there was a way by which he could placate the people and yet save Jesus from death. It had been arranged some years before that some prisoner of state should be set free at each Passover season in order that the people might feel that Rome was considerate of their national prejudices. It came to his mind that he might put up the name of Jesus, and they would let Him go free. So he said, 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? (v. 39). (Listen to the irony in this question.) But at this they cried out, Not this man, but Barabbas (v. 40). Barabbas was a robber in the eyes of the law, it is true, but he was a Jewish patriot. The very thing they charged against Jesus was true of Barabbas. He was an insurrectionist. They would let Barabbas go free and let Jesus be crucified. Not this man, but Barabbas. And that has been the voice, not only of the Jews, but of the world down through the centuries. They have chosen the robber and the murderer. The world has been dominated by the robber and the murderer, and Jesus is still rejected.

Have you made your choice? Are you saying in your heart, Not this man, but Barabbas? Not this man, but- What are you putting in the place of Jesus in your heart? Oh, that you might reverse your decision.

Some years ago in an eastern city, a well-known Jewish merchant had a warmhearted Christian friend. These two businessmen used to meet together at lunch-time and talk things over together, and the Christian frankly put forward the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. His Jewish friend would listen politely but never make any comment. By and by, this Jewish merchant was taken very ill, and word came that he was dying. The Christian friend wanted to go to see him but was told he could not do so. Word came that he could not live much longer, and his friend made another effort to see him. The doctor said, Let him in. He cannot do him any harm now. He promised not to talk to him, and went into the room, slipped to the bedside, and knelt there, taking his friends poor, thin hand in his own. Silently he lifted his heart to God on behalf of the dying Jewish merchant. Then as the sick man lay there with closed eyes, breathing heavily, there was a change. His eyes opened, turned to his friend, and looked kindly upon him. Then the lips parted, and he said just before he slipped into eternity, Not Barabbas, but this Man.

See what that meant. He had reversed the sentence of his people in Pilates judgment hall. What would you say? Not this Man, but Barabbas? What would you say? Not any other but this Man, Christ?

Have you any room for Jesus,

He who bore your load of sin;

As He knocks and asks admission,

Sinner, will you let Him in?

Room for pleasure, room for business,

But for Christ the crucified,

Not a place that He can enter,

In the heart for which He died?

Have you any room for Jesus,

As in grace He calls again?

Oh, today is time accepted,

Tomorrow you may call in vain.

Room and time now give to Jesus,

Soon will pass Gods day of grace;

Soon thy heart left cold and silent,

And Thy Saviours pleading cease.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

led: Mat 27:1, Mat 27:2-10, Mar 15:1-5, Luk 23:1-5, Act 3:13

unto: Joh 18:33, Joh 19:9, Mat 27:27, Mar 15:16,*Gr.

hall of judgment: or, Pilate’s house

early: Pro 1:16, Pro 4:16, Mic 2:1, Luk 22:66

and they: Psa 35:16, Isa 1:10-15, Jer 7:8-11, Amo 5:21-23, Mic 3:10-12, Mat 23:23-28, Mat 27:6, Act 10:28, Act 11:3

eat: Joh 18:39, Joh 19:14, Deu 16:2, 2Ch 30:21-24, 2Ch 35:8-14, 2Ch 35:17, 2Ch 35:18, Eze 45:21

Reciprocal: Num 9:6 – defiled Deu 16:1 – the passover 1Sa 20:24 – the king 1Ki 21:9 – Proclaim a fast Job 24:5 – rising Psa 55:10 – Day Psa 94:20 – fellowship Pro 7:14 – this Isa 58:4 – ye fast Jer 7:10 – come Eze 23:39 – they came Mat 20:19 – shall deliver Mat 23:24 – General Mat 26:5 – Not Mar 10:33 – deliver Luk 18:32 – delivered Luk 20:20 – they might deliver Joh 18:35 – Thine Act 4:27 – the people Act 23:35 – judgment 1Co 5:8 – neither

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Hall of judgment is from PRAITORION, 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 Mat 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” (Mat 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).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

[But that they might eat the Passover.] I. We have already shewn, in our notes upon Mar 14:12; that the eating of the Paschal lamb was never, upon any occasion whatever, transferred from the evening of the fourteenth day, drawing to the close of it; no, not by reason of the sabbath, or any uncleanness that had happened to the congregation; so that there needs little argument to assure us that the Jews ate the lamb at the same time wherein Christ did…

II. The Passover; therefore here doth not signify the Paschal lamb, but the Paschal Chagigah; of which we will remark these two or three things:

1. Deu 16:2; “Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd.” Where R. Solomon; “The flocks are meant of the lambs and the kids; the herd of the Chagigah.” And R. Bechai in locum; “The flocks are for the due of the Passover; the herd, for the sacrifices of the Chagigah.” So also R. Nachmanid: “The herd, for the celebration of the ‘Chagigah.’ ” Pesachin: The flock for the Passover, the oxen for the Chagigah.

Where the Gloss, p. 1: “Doth not the Passover consist wholly of lambs and kids? Exo 12:5. If so, why is it said oxen? To equal every thing that is used in the Passover. As the Passover [i.e. The Paschal lamb] is of due; and is not taken but out of the common flocks;” neither from the first-born nor from the tenths]; “so this also [i.e. Of the oxen] is of due, and not taken but out of the common herd.” See 2Ch 30:24; etc., and 2Ch 35:8-9.

2. The Chagigah was for joy and mirth, according to that in Deu 16:14; “And thou shalt rejoice in the feast,” etc. Hence the sacrifices that were prepared for that use are called sacrifices of peace or eucharistic offerings, sacrifices of joy and mirth.

3. The proper time of bringing the Chagigah was the fifteenth day of the month. Aruch; “They ate, and drank, and rejoiced, and were bound to bring their sacrifice of Chagigah on the fifteenth day”; i.e. The first day of the feast, etc.

There might be a time, indeed, when they brought their Chagigah on the fourteenth day; but this was not so usual; and then it was under certain conditions. “When is it that they bring the Chagigah at the same time with the lamb? When it comes on another day in the week, and not on the sabbath; when it is clean, and when it is small.” Let the Gloss explain the last clause; and for the two former, we shall do that ourselves.

“If the lamb be less than what will satisfy the whole company, then they make ready their Chagigah; eating that first, and then the lamb,” etc. And the reason is given by another Glosser; viz. That the appetites of those that eat might be pretty well satisfied before they begin the lamb: for if they should fall upon the lamb first, it being so very small, and the company numerous and hungry, they would be in danger of breaking the bones, whiles they gnaw it so greedily.

For this and other reasons the Rabbins account the Chagigah of the fourteenth day to be many degrees less perfect than that of the fifteenth; but it would be very tedious to quote their ventilations about it. Take only these few instances:

“R. Issai saith, ‘The Chagigah on the fourteenth day is not our duty.’ ” And a little after: “R. Eliezer saith, ‘By the peace offerings which they slay on the evening of the feast, a man doth not his duty, either as to rejoicing, or as to Chagigah.’ ”

And now let us return to the words of our evangelist.

III. It was the fifteenth day of the month when the fathers of the council refused to enter into the praetorium, lest they should be defiled; for they would eat the Passover, that is, the Chagigah.

1. The evangelist expresseth it after the common way of speaking, when he calls it the Passover. “It is written, Observe the month of Abib: and keep the Passover: that all that you do may go under the denomination of the Passover.” The calf and the young bullock which they kill in the name of the Passover; or for the Passover. Whence we may observe, the calf is the Passover as well as the lamb.

2. The elders of the Sanhedrim prepare and oblige themselves to eat the Chagigah [the Passover] on that day, because the next day was the sabbath; and the Chagigah must not make void the sabbath.

The Chagigah doth not set aside the sabbath. Hence that we quoted before, that the Chagigah was not to be brought upon the sabbath day, as also not in case of uncleanness: because however the Chagigah and defilement might set aside the Passover, yet it might not the sabbath.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

The verses we have now read contain four striking points, which are only found in John’s narrative of Christ’s passion. We need not doubt that there were good reasons why Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not inspired to record them. But they are points of such deep interest, that we should feel thankful that they have been brought forward by John.

The first point that we should notice is the false conscientiousness of our Lord’s wicked enemies. We are told that the Jews who brought Christ before Pilate would not go into “the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.” That was scrupulosity indeed! These hardened men were actually engaged in doing the wickedest act that mortal man ever did. They wanted to kill their own Messiah. And yet at this very time they talked of being “defiled,” and were very particular about the passover!

The conscience of unconverted men is a very curious part of their moral nature. While in some cases it becomes hardened, seared, and dead, until it feels nothing; in others it becomes morbidly scrupulous about the lesser matters of religion. It is no uncommon thing to find people excessively meticulous about the observance of trifling forms and outward ceremonies, while they are the slaves of degrading sins and detestable immoralities. Robbers and murderers in some countries are extremely strict about confession, and absolution, and prayers to saints. Fastings and self-imposed austerities in Lent, are often followed by excess of worldliness when Lent is over. There is but a step from Lent to Carnival. The attendants at daily services in the morning are not infrequently the patrons of balls and theaters at night. All these are symptoms of spiritual disease, and a heart secretly dissatisfied. Men who know they are wrong in one direction, often struggle to make things right by excess of zeal in another direction. That very zeal is their condemnation.

Let us pray that our consciences may always be enlightened by the Holy Ghost, and that we may be kept from a one-sided and deformed Christianity. A religion that makes a man neglect the weightier matters of daily holiness and separation from the world, and concentrate his whole attention on forms, sacraments, ceremonies, and public services, is to say the least, very suspicious. It may be accompanied by immense zeal and show of earnestness, but it is not sound in the sight of God. The Pharisees paid tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and compassed sea and land to make proselytes, while they neglected “judgment, mercy, and faith.” (Mat 23:23.) The very Jews who thirsted for Christ’s blood were the Jews who feared the defilement of a Roman judgment hall, and made much ado about keeping the passover! Let their conduct be a beacon to Christians, as long as the world stands. That religion is worth little which does not make us say, “I esteem all Thy commandments concerning all things to be right, and I hate every false way.” (Psa 119:128.) That Christianity is worthless which makes us compound for the neglect of heart religion and practical holiness, by an extravagant zeal for man-made ceremonies or outward forms.

The second point that we should notice in these verses, is the account that our Lord Jesus Christ gives of His kingdom. He says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” These famous words have been so often perverted and wrested out of their real sense, that their true meaning has been almost buried under a heap of false interpretations. Let us make sure that we know what they mean.

Our Lord’s main object in saying “My kingdom is not of this world,” was to inform Pilate’s mind concerning the true nature of His kingdom, and to correct any false impression he might have received from the Jews. He tells him that He did not come to set up a kingdom which would interfere with the Roman Government. He did not aim at establishing a temporal power, to be supported by armies and maintained by taxes. The only dominion He exercised was over men’s hearts, and the only weapons that His subjects employed were spiritual weapons. A kingdom which required neither money nor servants for its support, was one of which the Roman Emperors need not be afraid. In the highest sense it was a kingdom “not of this world.”

But our Lord did not intend to teach that the kings of this world have nothing to do with religion, and ought to ignore God altogether in the government of their subjects. No such idea, we may be sure, was in His mind. He knew perfectly well that it was written, “By Me kings reign” (Pro 8:15), and that kings are as much required to use their influence for God, as the meanest of their subjects. He knew that the prosperity of kingdoms is wholly dependent on the blessing of God, and that kings are as much bound to encourage righteousness and godliness, as to punish unrighteousness and immorality. To suppose that He meant to teach Pilate that, in His judgment, an infidel might be as good a king as a Christian, and a man like Gallio as good a ruler as David or Solomon, is simply absurd.

Let us carefully hold fast the true meaning of our Lord’s words in these latter days. Let us never be ashamed to maintain that no Government can expect to prosper which refuses to recognize religion, which deals with its subjects as if they had no souls, and cares not whether they serve God, or Baal, or no God at all. Such a Government will find, sooner or later, that its line of policy is suicidal, and damaging to its best interests. No doubt the kings of this world cannot make men Christians by laws and statutes. But they can encourage and support Christianity, and they will do so if they are wise. The kingdom where there is the most industry, temperance, truthfulness, and honesty, will always be the most prosperous of kingdoms. The king who wants to see these things abound among his subjects, should do all that lies in his power to help Christianity and to discourage irreligion.

The third point that we should notice in these verses is the account that our Lord gives of His own mission. He says, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.”

Of course we are not to suppose our Lord meant that this was the only end of His mission. No doubt He spoke with special reference to what He knew was passing through Pilate’s mind. He did not come to win a kingdom with the sword, and to gather adherents and followers by force. He came armed with no other weapon but “truth.” To testify to fallen man the truth about God, about sin, about the need of a Redeemer, about the nature of holiness,-to declare and lift up before man’s eyes this long lost and buried “truth,”-was one great purpose of His ministry. He came to be God’s witness to a lost and corrupt world. That the world needed such a testimony, He does not shrink from telling the proud Roman Governor. And this is what Paul had in view, when he tells Timothy, that “before Pontius Pilate Christ witnessed a good confession.” (1Ti 6:13.)

The servants of Christ in every age must remember that our Lord’s conduct in this place is meant to be their example. Like Him we are to be witnesses to God’s truth, salt in the midst of corruption, light in the midst of darkness, men and women not afraid to stand alone, and to testify for God against the ways of sin and the world. To do so may entail on us much trouble, and even persecution. But the duty is clear and plain. If we love life, if we would keep a good conscience, and be owned by Christ at the last day, we must be “witnesses.” It is written, “Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mar 8:38.)

The last point that we should notice in these verses is the question that Pontius Pilate addressed to our Lord. We are told that when our Lord spoke of the truth, the Roman Governor replied, “What is truth?” We are not told with what motive this question was asked, nor does it appear on the face of the narrative that he who asked it waited for an answer. It seems far more likely that the saying was the sarcastic, sneering exclamation of one who did not believe that there was any such thing as “truth.” It sounds like the language of one who had heard, from his earliest youth, so many barren speculations about “truth” among Roman and Greek philosophers, that he doubted its very existence. “Truth indeed! What is truth?”

Melancholy as it may appear, there are multitudes in every Christian land whose state of mind is just like that of Pilate. Hundreds, it may be feared, among the upper classes, are continually excusing their own irreligion by the specious plea that, like the Roman Governor, they cannot find out “what is truth.” They point to the endless controversies of Romanists and Protestants, of High Churchmen and Low Churchmen, of Churchmen and Dissenters, and pretend to say that they do not understand who is right and who is wrong. Sheltered under this favorite excuse, they pass through life without any decided religion, and in this wretched, comfortless state, too often die.

But is it really true that truth cannot be discovered? Nothing of the kind! God never left any honest, diligent inquirer without light and guidance. Pride is one reason why many cannot discover truth. They do not humbly go down on their knees and earnestly ask God to teach them.-Laziness is another reason. They do not honestly take pains, and search the Scriptures. The followers of unhappy Pilate, as a rule, do not deal fairly and honestly with their consciences. Their favorite question,-What is truth?-is nothing better than a pretense and an excuse. The words of Solomon will be found true as long as the world stands: “If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.” (Pro 2:4-5.) No man ever followed that advice and missed the way to heaven.

==================

Notes-

v28.-[Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas.] A careful reader of the Gospels will not fail to observe here, that John entirely passes over the examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim of the Jews, which is so fully described by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Specially he omits our Lord’s confession, when adjured, that He was the Christ. He takes it all for granted, as a thing well known, and passes on to dwell on His far more important examination before Pilate, the Roman Governor. In this he brings out many striking particulars, which, for wise reasons, Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not record. Writing, as John did, long after the other three, and writing more especially for Gentile readers, we can well understand that he would give far more prominence to the proceedings before the Gentile Governor, than to those before the Jewish Ecclesiastical Court. Yet it cannot be denied that there is a remarkable curtness and brevity in his statement of facts at this point. The Greek is literally they “lead,”-in the present tense.

[Unto the hall of judgment.] This is a Latin word, and admits of two views. The marginal reading, according to Schleusner and Parkhurst, is the correct translation. It is the “Governor’s palace,” rather than the hall of judgment. According to Josephus, the prtors, or governors of Juda, who ordinarily lived at Csarea, when they were at Jerusalem, used Herod’s palace, in the upper part of the city, as their residence. Some say it was the famous tower of Antonia.

[And it was early.] The precise time here meant we cannot exactly tell. It cannot have been so early as day-break, because we are specially told by Luke that the elders and chief priests and the Sanhedrim assembled to examine our Lord “as soon as it was day.” (Luk 22:66.) Considering that the day begins at the equinox about six, we may assume that “early” cannot mean sooner than seven or eight o’clock.

[And they went not…judgment hall…defiled.] The meaning of this sentence is, that the Jews would not go within the walls of Pilate’s palace, lest by so doing they should contract ceremonial uncleanness. Pilate was a Gentile. Peter says in the Acts, “It is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation.” (Act 10:28.) If the Jews had gone inside Pilate’s house, they would have been made ceremonially unclean, and would have considered themselves defiled.

The sentence is an extraordinary example of the false scrupulosity of conscience which a wicked man may keep up, about forms and ceremonies and trifling externals in religion, at the very time when he is deliberately committing some gross and enormous sin. The notorious fact that Italian bandits and murderers will make much of fasting, keeping Lent, confession, absolution, Mary worship, saint worship, and image worship, at the very time when they are arranging robberies and assassinations, is an accurate illustration of the same principle. The extent to which formality and wickedness can go side by side is frightful, and little known. The Jews were afraid of being defiled by going into a Gentile’s house, at the very moment when they were doing the devil’s work, and murdering the Prince of life!-Just so, many people in England will attach immense importance to fasting and keeping Lent and attending saints’-day services, while they see no harm in going to races, operas, and balls, at other times! Persons who have very low notions about the Seventh Commandment, will actually tell you that it is wrong to be married in Lent! The very same persons who totally disregard Sunday abroad will make much ado about saints’-days at home! Absurd strictness about Lent, and excess of riot and licentiousness in carnival, will often go together.

Chrysostom remarks, “Though they had taken up a deed which was unlawful, and were shedding blood, they are scrupulous about the place, and bring forth Pilate unto them.”

Augustine remarks, “O impious blindness! They would be defiled, forsooth, by a dwelling which was another’s, and not be defiled by a crime which was their own. They feared to be defiled by the prtorium of an alien judge, and feared not to be defiled by the blood of an innocent brother.”

Bishop Hall remarks, “Woe unto you priests, scribes, elders, hypocrites! can there be any roof so unclean as that of your own breasts? Not Pilate’s walls, but your own hearts, are impure. Is murder your errand, and do you stick at a local infection? God shall smite you, ye whited walls! Do you long to be stained with blood-with the blood of God? And do ye fear to be defiled with the touch of Pilate’s pavement? Doth so small a gnat stick in your throats, while ye swallow such a camel of flagitious wickedness? Go out of Jerusalem, ye false disbelievers, if ye would not be unclean! Pilate hath more cause to fear, lest his walls should be defiled with the presence of such prodigious monsters of iniquity.”

Poole remarks, “Nothing is more common than for persons over zealous about rituals to be remiss about morals.”

[That…eat…passover.] This sentence contains an undeniable difficulty. How could the Jews eat the passover now, when our Lord and His disciples had eaten it the evening before? That our Lord would eat the passover at the right time we may assume as a matter of course, and that time was Thursday evening. What then can be meant by the chief priests, and elders, and leaders of the Jews, eating the passover on Friday? This is a question which has received various answers.

(a) Some think that in our Lord’s time the whole Jewish Church had fallen into such disorder, and had so fallen away from original purity, that the passover was not kept strictly according to the primary institution, and might be eaten on almost any day within the passover feast.

(b) Some think that it was considered allowable to eat the passover at any time between sunset one day and sunset the next day, so long as it was eaten within the twenty-four hours.

(c) Some think that the passover eating here mentioned was not the eating of the passover lamb, but the eating of the passover feast, called “chagigah,” which took place every day during the passover week.-This is Lightfoot’s view.

(d) Some think that as there is no law without an exception, and even the law of the passover admitted of alteration in case of necessity (see Num 9:11), so the chief priests persuaded themselves that as they had been occupied by duty-the duty (forsooth!) of apprehending our blessed Lord-throughout the night when they ought to have kept the passover, they were justified in deferring it till the next day.

All these, it must be confessed, are only conjectures. There is probably some explanation which, at this distance of time, we are unable to supply. For the present the third and fourth suggestions seem to me the most reasonable.

Chrysostom observes, “Either John calls the whole feast the passover, or means that they were then keeping the passover; while Jesus delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own sacrifice for His preparation day, when also of old His passion was celebrated.”

One thing at any rate is very plain and noteworthy. The chief priests and their party made much ado about eating the passover lamb and keeping the feast, at the very time when they were about to slay the true Lamb of God, of whom this passover was a type! No wonder that Samuel says, “To obey is better than sacrifice.” (1Sa 15:22.)

Bullinger calls attention here to the wide difference between inward sanctification of the heart, and outward sanctimoniousness about forms, ordinances, and ceremonies.

Calvin remarks, that it is one mark of hypocrisy, “that while it is careful in performing ceremonies, it makes no scruple of neglecting matters of the highest importance.”

v29.-[Pilate then went out…said, etc.] This “going out” means that Pilate hearing that the chief priests had brought a prisoner to the courtyard, or open space before his palace, and knowing from experience, as a governor of Juda, that they would not come into his palace for fear of defilement, but waited for him to come out to them, went out and spoke to them. His first question is one which became his office as a magistrate and judge. He inquires what is the charge or accusation brought against the prisoner before him. “Of what crime do you accuse this man?”

The well-known Valerian law among the Romans made it unlawful to judge or condemn any one without hearing the charge against him stated.

v30.-[They answered and said, etc.] The reply of the chief priests to Pilate’s inquiry, as given by John, is peculiar and elliptical. They began by saying that the prisoner was a convicted evil-doer according to their law, or else they would not have brought Him there. They had found Him, by examination before the Sanhedrim, to be a breaker of the law, and they only came there to have sentence pronounced on Him by Pilate. “If He were not a person guilty and worthy of death, we would not have delivered Him up to thee. We have discovered Him to be such a person, and we now ask thee to sentence Him to death. We have convicted Him, and we ask thee, as our chief ruler, to slay Him.” There is a proud, haughty, supercilious tone, we may remark, about this answer, which was not likely to please a Roman Governor.

It is plain, by a comparison with Luke’s Gospel, that at this point the Jews added a statement which John has omitted. “If thou wouldest know the precise nature of this prisoner’s evil-doing, we tell thee that we found Him perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, and saying that He is a King.” (Luk 23:2.) Why John omitted this we cannot tell, but he evidently takes it for granted that his readers knew this accusation was made, by telling us in verse thirty-three, that Pilate asked Him if He was “the King of the Jews.”

Tholuck remarks, that “if the authorities had not regarded the prisoner as worthy of death, they would not have brought him to the procurator, as none but criminal cases needed confirmation by him.”

v31.-[Then said Pilate…take…judge…law.] This sentence indicates a desire on Pilate’s part to have nothing to do with the case. From the very first he evidently wished to put it away from him, and, if he could, to avoid condemning our Lord. How this feeling originated, we cannot tell. Matthew and Mark say that he knew Jesus was delivered to him from “envy.” Matthew says that his wife warned him to have nothing to do with that “just person.” (Mat 27:18; Mat 27:19; Mar 15:10.) It is quite possible that the fame and character of Jesus had reached Pilate’s ears long before He was brought before him. It is hard to suppose that such miracles as our Lord wrought, would never be talked of within the palace of the chief ruler of Juda. The raising of Lazarus must surely have been reported among his servants. Our Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, attended by myriads of people shouting, “Blessed is the King,” must surely have been noted by the soldiers and officers of Pilate’s guard. Can we wonder that all this made him regard our Lord with something like awe? Wicked men are often very superstitious. His language now before us is that of one who would gladly evade the whole case, and leave the responsibility entirely with the Jews. “If He is, as you say, a malefactor, take Him into your hands, and condemn Him to death according to your own law. Do as you like with Him; but do not trouble me with the case.” The word we render “judge,” is literally much stronger in sense. It is rather condemn to death. The only punishment the Jews might inflict, if any (which is more than doubtful), was death by stoning.

The pitiable and miserable character of Pilate, the Roman Governor, begins to come into clear light from this point. We see him a man utterly destitute of moral courage,-knowing what was right and just in the case before him, yet afraid to act on his knowledge,-knowing that our Lord was innocent, yet not daring to displease the Jews by acquitting Him,-knowing that he was doing wrong, and yet afraid to do right. “The fear of man bringeth a snare.” (Pro 29:25.) Wretched and contemptible are those rulers and statesmen whose first principle is to please the people, even at the expense of their own consciences, and who are ready to do what they know to be wrong rather than offend the mob! Wretched are those nations which for their sins are given over to be governed by such statesmen! True godly rulers should lead the people, and not be led by them, should do what is right and leave consequences to God. A base determination to keep in with the world at any price, and a slavish fear of man’s opinion, were leading principles in Pilate’s character. There are many like him. Nothing is more common than to see statesmen evading the plain line of duty, and trying to shuffle responsibility on others, rather than give offence to the mob. This is precisely what Pilate did here. The spirit of his reply to the Jews is, “I had rather not be troubled with the case: cannot you settle it yourselves, without asking me to interfere?”

Ellicott remarks, “It seems clear that from the first the sharpsighted Roman perceived that this was no case for his tribunal, that it was wholly a matter of religious difference and religious hate, and that the meek prisoner who stood before him was at least innocent of the political crime laid to his charge with such an unwonted and suspicious zeal.” He also quotes the just and pertinent remark of a German writer, “Pilate knew too much of Jewish expectations to suppose that the Sanhedrim would hate and persecute one who would free them from Roman authority.”

Calvin thinks that Pilate said this ironically, as he would not have allowed them to inflict capital punishment. Gerhard also regards the saying as sarcastic and sneering. “If this prisoner has done anything against your Jewish superstitions, settle it yourselves.” Yet a comparison with Luke makes this rather improbable in my opinion. The Jews there tell him plainly that Christ made Himself a King. (Luk 23:2.) This, even a Roman must allow, was a serious charge.

Henry suggests that perhaps Pilate thought they did not really want to kill Jesus, but only to chastise Him.

[The Jews…not lawful for us…death.] This answer of the Jews completely defeated the wretched Pilate’s attempt to put away the case before him, and avoid the necessity of judging our Lord. They reminded the Roman Governor that the power of taking away life was no longer in their hands, and that it was impossible for them to do as he suggested, and settle our Lord’s case in their own way.

Let us mark here what a striking confession the Jews here made, whether they were aware of it or not. They actually admitted that they were no longer rulers and governors of their own nation, and that they were under the dominion of a foreign power. They were no longer independent, but subjects of Rome. He that has power of condemning to death, and taking away the life of a prisoner, he is the governor of a country. “It is not lawful for us,” said the Jews, “to take away life. You, the Roman Governor, alone can do it, and therefore we come to thee about this Jesus.” By their own mouth and their own act they publicly declared that Jacob’s prophecy was fulfilled, that “the sceptre had departed from Judah,” that they had no longer a lawgiver of their own stock, and that consequently the time of Shiloh, the promised Messiah, must have come. (Gen 49:10.) How unconscious wicked men are that they fulfil prophecy!

The idea of Chrysostom and Augustine, that the sentence only means that the Jews could not put any one to death during the passover feast, appears to me utterly improbable.

v32.-[That the saying…fulfilled, etc.] This verse is one of John’s peculiar parenthetical comments, which are so frequent in his Gospel. Here, as in many other instances, the meaning is, “By this the saying of Jesus was fulfilled;” and not “The thing took place, in order that the saying might be fulfilled.” What precise saying is referred to, is a point on which commentators have not quite agreed.

(a) Some think, as Theophylact, Bullinger, Musculus, and Gerhard, that John refers to the saying recorded in this very Gospel (Joh 12:33); and that the expression, “what death,” only refers to the particular manner of His death by crucifixion.

(b) Others think, as Augustine, Calvin, and Beza, that John refers to the fuller saying in Mat 20:19, where our Lord foretells His own delivery to the Gentiles as well as His crucifixion.

Of the two views, the second seems to me the preferable one. The previous verse distinctly points to the inability of the Jews to put Jesus to death, and the necessity of the Gentiles doing the murderous work. And John remarks that this was just what Jesus had predicted,-that He would die by the hand of the Gentiles. I think, at the same time, that the crucifixion was probably included, being the death which the Gentiles inflicted, in contradistinction to the Jewish custom of stoning.

v33.-[Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall.] The meaning of this must be that Pilate, disappointed in his attempt to put away the case from him, retired into his palace again, where he knew the Jews would not follow him, from fear of contracting ceremonial defilement, and resolved to have a private interview with our Lord, and examine Him alone.-It is quite clear that the conversation which follows, from this point down to the middle of Joh 18:38, took place within the Roman Governor’s walls, and most probably without the presence of any Jewish witnesses. If that was so, the substance of it could only have been revealed to John by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Pilate’s soldiers and a few guards of the prisoner may have been present. But it is highly improbable that John, or any friend of our Lord’s, could have got inside the Governor’s palace. If the beloved Apostle did manage to get in and hear the conversation, it is a striking example of his attachment to his Master. “Love is strong as death.” (Song of Son 8:6.)

[And called Jesus.] This expression literally means, that he called Jesus with a loud voice to follow him inside the palace; and came out of the outer court, or area, where he had first met the party which had brought the Prisoner to him. It is as though he said, “Come in hither, Prisoner, that I may speak with thee privately!”

[And said,…art Thou…King…Jews?] The first question that Pilate asked of our Lord, was whether he really admitted that He was what the Jews had just accused Him of being. “Tell me, is it true that Thou art the King of the Jews? Dost Thou really profess to be the King of this ancient people, over whom I and my soldiers are now rulers?”-It is far from improbable that Pilate, living so long in Jerusalem, may have often heard of the old Jewish kings, and of the dominion they received. It is far from unlikely, moreover, that he thought it possible he had before him one of those mock Messiahs, who, like Theudas, rose up at this period, and kept the minds of the Jews in agitation. “They accuse Thee of setting up Thyself as a King. Art Thou really a King? Dost Thou lay claim to any royal authority?” The humble attire and lowly appearance of our Lord can hardly fail to have struck Pilate. “Can it be true that Thou, a poor man, with no signs of a kingdom about Thee, art the King of the Jews?”

In order to estimate aright this question which Pilate put, we must remember that Suetonius, the Roman historian, distinctly says that a rumour was very prevalent throughout the East at this period, that a King was about to arise among the Jews, who would obtain dominion over the world. This singular rumour, originating no doubt from Jewish prophecies, had of course reached Pilate’s ears, and goes far to account for his question.

It is noteworthy that each of the four Gospel writers distinctly records that this was the first question that Pilate put to our Lord. It seems to show that the chief thing impressed on the mind of Pilate about Jesus, was that He was a King. As a King he examined Him, as a King he sentenced Him, and as a King he crucified Him. And one main object that he seems to have had in view in questioning our Lord, was to ascertain what kind of a kingdom He ruled over, and whether it was one that would interfere with the Roman authority. On the whole, the question seems a mixture of curiosity and contempt.

v34.-[Jesus answered him, Sayest thou, etc.] Our Lord’s motive in this answer to Pilate was probably to awaken Pilate’s conscience: “Dost thou say this of thine own independent self, in consequence of any complaints thou hast heard against Me as a seditious person? Or dost thou only ask it because the Jews have just accused Me of being a King? Hast thou, during all the years thou hast been a Governor, ever heard of Me as a leader of insurrection, or a rebel against the Romans? If thou hast never heard anything of this kind against Me, and hast no personal knowledge of my being a rebel, oughtest thou not to pay very little attention to the complaint of my enemies? Their bare assertion ought not to weigh with thee.”

Grotius paraphrases the verse thus: “Thou hast been long a ruler, and a careful defender of the Roman majesty. Hast thou ever heard anything that would impeach Me of a desire to usurp authority against Rome? If thou hast never known anything of thyself, but others have suggested it, beware lest thou be deceived by an ambiguous word.”

There is undoubtedly some little obscurity around the verse, and it becomes us to handle it reverently. It certainly looks like an appeal to the Roman Governor’s conscience. “Before I answer thy question let Me ask thee one. For what reason and from what motive art thou making this inquiry about my being a King? Canst thou say, from thy own personal knowledge, that thou hast ever heard Me complained of as setting up a kingdom? Thou knowest thou canst not say that. Art thou only asking Me because thou hast heard the Jews accuse Me of being a King to-day? If this is so, judge for thyself whether such a King as I appear to be is likely to interfere with thy authority.”

Poole says, “Our Saviour desired to be satisfied from Pilate, whether he asked Him as a private person for his own satisfaction, or as a judge, having received any such accusation against Him. If he asked Him as a judge, he was bound to call others to prove what they had charged Him with.”

Burgon remarks that Jesus did not need information in asking this question. He asked, as the Lord asked Adam, “Where art thou?” (Gen 3:9) in order to arouse Pilate to a sense of the shameful injustice of the charge.

v35.-[Pilate answered, etc.] The answer of Pilate exhibits the haughty, high-minded, supercilious, fierce spirit of a Roman man of the world. So far from responding to our Lord’s appeal to his conscience, he fires up at the very idea of his knowing anything of the current opinions about Christ.-“Am I a Jew? Thinkest thou that a noble Roman like me knows anything about the superstitions of Thy people. I only know that Thine own countrymen, and the very leaders of Thy nation, have brought Thee unto me as a prisoner worthy of death. What they mean I do not pretend to understand. But I suppose there is some ground for their accusation. Tell me plainly what Thou hast done.”

Pilate’s answer seems tantamount to an acknowledgment that he knew nothing against our Lord. But as He had been brought before him as a prisoner, and he was pressed to condemn Him, he asks Him what He has done to bring this hatred of the Jews upon Him.

He that would know the depth of scorn contained in that sentence, “Am I a Jew?” should mark the contemptuous way in which Horace, Juvenal, Tacitus, and Pliny speak of the Jews.

Stier remarks, “The Romans were only concerned with what was DONE; not with dreams, like the Jews; nor with wisdom, like the Greeks.” Pilate’s question was characteristic of his nation.

v36.-[Jesus answered…kingdom…not…world.] In this famous sentence our Lord begins His answer to Pilate’s question, “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” “Thou askest whether I am a King. I reply that I certainly have a kingdom, but it is a kingdom entirely unlike the kingdoms of this world. It is a kingdom which is neither begun, nor propagated, nor defended by the power of this world, by the world’s arms or the world’s money. It is a kingdom which took its origin from heaven, and not from earth,-a spiritual kingdom,-a kingdom over hearts and wills and consciences,-a kingdom which needs no armies or revenues,-a kingdom which in no way interferes with the kingdoms of this world.”

The literal rendering of the Greek would be “out of this world.” But it evidently means “belonging to, dependent on, springing from, connected with.” It is the same preposition that we find in Joh 8:23 : “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this World.”

That the above was our Lord’s plain meaning, when He spoke the words before us, is to my mind as evident as the sun at noonday. The favourite theory of certain Christians that this text forbids Governments to have anything to do with religion, and condemns the union of Church and State, and renders all Established Churches unlawful, is, in my judgment, baseless, preposterous, and utterly devoid of common-sense. Whether the union of Church and State be right or wrong, it appears to me absurd to say that it is forbidden by this text. The text declares that Christ’s kingdom did not spring from the powers of this world, and is not dependent on them; but the text does not declare that the powers of this world ought to have nothing to do with Christ’s kingdom. Christ’s kingdom can get on very well without them; but they cannot get on very well without Christ’s kingdom.

The following leading principles are worth remembering, in looking at this vexed question:-

(a) Every Government is responsible to God, and no Government can expect to prosper without God’s blessing. Every Government therefore is bound to do all that lies in its power to obtain God’s favour and blessing. The Government that does not strive to promote true religion, has no right to expect God’s blessing.

(b) Every good Government should endeavour to promote truth, charity, temperance, honesty, diligence, industry, chastity among its subjects. True religion is the only root from which these things can grow. The Government that does not labour to promote true religion cannot be called either wise or good.

(c) To tell us that a Government must leave religion alone, because it cannot promote it without favouring one church more than another, is simply absurd. It is equivalent to saying that, as we cannot do good to everybody, we are to sit still and do no good at all

(d) To tell us that no Government can find out what true religion is, and that consequently a Government should regard all religions with equal indifference, is an argument only fit for an infidel. In England at any rate a belief that the Bible is true is a part of the Constitution; an insult to the Bible is a punishable offence, and the testimony of an avowed atheist goes for nothing in a court of law.

(e) It is undoubtedly true that Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom independent of the rulers of this world, and one which they can neither begin, increase, nor overthrow. But it is utterly false that the rulers of this world have nothing to do with Christ’s kingdom, may safely leave religion entirely alone, and may govern their subjects as if they were beasts and had no souls at all.

Chrysostom says that our Lord’s reply meant, “I am indeed a King; but not such a King as thou suspectest, but one far more glorious.”

[If my kingdom…servants fight…Jews.] Our Lord proceeds to give proof that His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore not likely to interfere with the Roman authority. “If the kingdom of which I am head, were like the kingdoms of this world, and supported and maintained by worldly means, then my disciples would take up arms and fight, to prevent my being delivered to the Jews. This, as thou mayest know by inquiry, is the very thing which I forbade last night. Thine own soldiers can tell thee that they saw Me reprove a disciple for fighting, and heard Me tell him to put up his sword.”

Let us mark that a religion propagated by the sword, or by violence, is a most unsatisfactory kind of Christianity. The weapons of Christ’s warfare are not carnal. Even true Christians who have appealed to the sword to support their opinions, have often found themselves losers by it. Taking the sword, they have perished by the sword. Zwingle dying in battle, and the Scotch Covenanters are examples.

Stier thinks that by “my servants” in this verse our Lord meant the angels! This, however, seems very improbable.

Bullinger makes some good remarks on this sentence, in reply to the Anabaptists of his time. He says, among other things, “Just as it does not follow that the Church is worldly, because we who are flesh and blood, and are the world, are members of the Church,-so no one, unless he wants common sense, will say that the Church is worldly, because in it Kings and Princes serve God, by defending the good and punishing the bad.”

Calvin observes that this sentence “does not hinder Princes from defending the kingdom of Christ; partly by appointing external discipline, and partly by lending their protection to the Church against wicked men.” Beza says much the same.

Hutcheson observes, “This text is not to be understood as if Christ disallowed that they to whom He has given the sword should defend His kingdom therewith; for if magistrates were as magistrates should be, nursing parents to the Church, and ought to kiss the Son, then certainly they may and should employ their power as magistrates for removing idolatry, and setting up the true worship of God, and defending it against violence.”

[But now…my kingdom not…hence.] The true meaning of this little sentence is not very clear. May it not mean, “Now, in this dispensation, my kingdom is not an earthly one, and is not of this world. A day will come by and by, after my second advent, when my kingdom will be a visible one over the whole earth, and my saints shall rule over the renewed world.”-This may seem fanciful to some; but I have a strong impression that it is the true meaning. The adverb “now” is very decided and emphatical.

v37.-[Pilate therefore…Art Thou a King?] Here Pilate returns to his question, though he puts it in a different way: “Art Thou in some sense a King, if not such a King as the Kings of this world? Thou speakest of Thy kingdom and Thy servants. Am I to understand that Thou art a King?” We should observe the distinction in the language here, compared with that of Joh 18:33. There it was, “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” Here it is simply, “Art Thou a King?”

[Jesus answered, Thou sayest…I am a King.] This sentence is a direct acknowledgment from our Lord’s lips that He is a King: a King only over hearts, consciences, and wills, but still a real true King. “Thou sayest,” is equivalent to an affirmation. “Thou sayest truly: I am what thou askest about. I admit that I am a King.”

There can be no doubt that this “is the good confession before Pontius Pilate,” which Paul specially impresses on the attention of the timid disciple Timothy, in his pastoral epistle. (1Ti 6:13.)

[To this end…born…witness…truth.] Here our Lord informs Pilate what was the great end and purpose of His incarnation. “It is true that I am a King, but not a King after the manner of the world. I am only a King over hearts and minds. The principal work for which I came into the world, is to be a witness of the truth concerning God, concerning man, and concerning the way of salvation. This truth has been long hidden and lost sight of. I came to bring it to light once more, and to be the King of all who receive it.”

I think the “truth” in this sentence must be taken in the widest and fullest sense. The true doctrine about man, and God, and salvation, and sin, and holiness, was almost buried, lost, and gone, when Christ came into the world. To revive the dying light, and erect a new standard of godliness in a corrupt world, which neither Egypt, Assyria, Greece nor Rome could prevent rotting and decaying, was one grand end of Christ’s mission. He did not come to gather armies, build cities, amass treasure, and found a dynasty, as Pilate perhaps fancied. He came to be God’s witness, and to lift up God’s truth in the midst of a dark world. He that would know how miserably small is the amount of truth which even the most civilized nations know without Christianity, should examine the religion and morality of the Chinese and Hindoos in the present day.

Some think that “I was born” points to Christ’s humanity, and “came into the world,” to His divinity.

[Every one…of truth…heareth my voice.] I think that in this sentence our Lord tells Pilate who are His subjects, disciples, and followers. “Wouldest thou know who are the members of my kingdom? I tell thee that it consists of all who really love the truth and desire to know more of God’s truth. All such hear my voice, are pleased with my principles, and subjects of my kingdom.” It is like our Lord’s words to Nicodemus: “He that doeth truth cometh to the light.” (Joh 3:21.)

Thus our Lord shows Pilate that His kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, that His business was not to wear a crown and found an earthly monarchy, but to proclaim truth; and that His followers were not soldiers and warriors, but all earnest seekers after truth. Pilate therefore might dismiss from his mind all idea of His kingdom interfering with the authority of Rome.

Let us note that the position of Christ in the world must be the position of all Christians. Like our Master we must be witnesses for God and truth against sin and ignorance. We must not be afraid to stand alone. We must testify.

The expression “every one that is of the truth” is remarkable. It must mean every one that really and honestly desires to know the truth, receives my teaching, and follows Me as a Master. Does it not show that our Lord, when He appeared, gathered round Him all who were true-hearted lovers of God’s revealed will, and were seeking, however feebly, to know more of it? (Compare Joh 3:20; and Joh 8:47.) That there were many such, like Nathanael, among the Jews, anxiously looking for a Redeemer, we cannot doubt. “These,” says our Lord, “are my subjects, and make up my kingdom.” Just as when He speaks of Himself as a shepherd, He says, “My sheep hear my voice;” so when He speaks of Himself as God’s great witness to truth, He says, “All friends of truth hear my voice.”

The wise condescension with which our Lord adapts His language to Pilate’s habits of thought as a Roman, is very noteworthy. If He had used Jewish figures of speech, drawn from Old Testament language, Pilate might well have failed to understand Him. But every Roman in high position must have heard of the arguments of philosophers about “the truth.” Therefore our Lord says, “I am a witness to truth.” In speaking to unconverted people, it is wise to use terms which they can understand.

Theophylact suggests that here is an appeal to Pilate’s conscience: “If you are a real seeker after truth you will listen to Me.”

v38.-[Pilate saith…What is truth?] This famous question, in my judgment, can only admit of one interpretation. It is the cold, sneering, sceptical interjection of a mere man of the world, who has persuaded himself that there is no such thing as truth, that all religions are equally false, that this life is all we have to care for, and that creeds and modes of faith are only words and names and superstitions, which no sensible person need attend to. It is precisely the state of mind in which thousands of great and rich men in every age live and die. Expanded and paraphrased, Pilate’s question comes to this:-“Truth indeed! What is truth? I have heard all my life of various philosophical systems, each asserting that it has found the truth, and each differing widely from the others. Who is to decide what is truth and what is not?”-The best proof that this is the right view of the sentence is Pilate’s behaviour when he has asked the question. He does not, as Lord Bacon remarked two centuries ago, wait for an answer, but breaks off the conversation and goes away.-The supposition that he asked a question, as an honest inquirer, with a real desire to get an answer, is too improbable and unreasonable to require any comment. The right way to understand Pilate’s meaning is to put ourselves in his place, and to consider how many sects and schools of philosophers there were in the world at the time when our Lord appeared,-some Roman, some Grecian, and some Egyptian,-all alleging that they had got the truth, and all equally unsatisfactory. In short Gallio, who thought Christianity a mere “question of words and names,”-Festus, who thought the dislike of the Jews to Paul arose from “questions of their own superstition,”-and Pontius Pilate, were all much alike. The worldly-minded Roman noble speaks like a man sick and weary of philosophical speculations;-“What is truth indeed? Who can tell?”-Nevertheless truth was very near him. If he had waited he might have learned!

Lightfoot alone thinks that Pilate only meant, “What is the true state of affairs? How can one so poor as Thou art be a King? How canst Thou be a King and yet not of this world?”

[And when…said this…went out…Jews.] The meaning of this sentence is that Pilate “went out” of the palace, where he had been conversing with our Lord apart from the Jews, and returned to the courtyard, or open space at the gate, where he had left the Jews at the thirty-third verse. He broke off the conversation at this point. Very likely the mention of “truth” touched his conscience, and he found it convenient to go out hurriedly, and cover his retreat with a sneer. A bad conscience generally dislikes a close conversation with a good man.

Augustine says, “I suppose that just when Pilate said, ‘What is truth?’ the Jews’ custom, that one should be released at the passover, came into his mind at that instant, and for this reason he did not wait for Jesus to tell him what truth was, that no time might be lost!” This, however, seems rather improbable.

[And saith…I find….no fault at all.] In this sentence comes out the true impression of Pilate about our Lord.-“After examining this man I can discern in Him no guilt, and nothing certainly to warrant me in condemning Him to death. He says, no doubt, and does not hesitate to avow it, that He is a King. But I find that His kingdom is not one which interferes with the authority of Csar. Such Kings as this we Romans do not care for, or regard as criminals. In short, your charge against Him entirely breaks down, and I am disposed to dismiss Him as not guilty.”

Our Lord, we may remember, came to be a sacrifice for our sins. It was only fitting that he who was one of the chief agents in killing Him, should publicly declare that, like a lamb without blemish, there was “no fault in Him.”

v39.-[But ye have a custom, etc.] In this verse we see the cowardly, weak, double-minded character of Pilate coming out. He knows in his own conscience that our Lord is innocent, and that if he acts justly he ought to let Him go free. But he fears offending the Jews, and wants to contrive matters so as to please them. He therefore prepares a plan by which he hoped that Jesus might be found guilty and the Jews satisfied, and yet Jesus might depart unhurt, and his own secret desire to acquit Him be gratified.-The plan was this. The Jews had a custom that at passover time they might obtain from the Roman Governor the release of some notable prisoner. Pilate craftily suggests that the prisoner released this passover should be our Lord Jesus Christ.-“Let us suppose that Jesus is guilty,” he seems to say: “I am willing to condemn Him, and declare Him a criminal worthy of death, and a malefactor, in order to please you. But having pronounced Him a guilty criminal, what say you to my letting Him go free, according to the passover custom?”-This cowardly and unjust judge hoped in this way to please the Jews, by declaring an innocent person guilty, and yet at the same time to please himself by getting His life spared. Such are the ways of worldly and unprincipled rulers. Between the base fear of men, the desire to please the mob, and the secret dictates of their own conscience, they are continually doing wicked things, and pleasing nobody at all, and least of all themselves.

About this “custom,” and when it began, we know nothing. Mark’s account would lead us to suppose that as soon as Pilate came out of his palace, the multitude cried out for the usual passover favour to be granted to them. (See Mar 15:8.) Pilate would seem to have caught at the idea at once, and to have suggested that Jesus should be the person released.

There seems a latent meaning in Pilate’s use of the expression “the King of the Jews.” Some think that it is a sneer.-“This miserable, poor, lowly King; will you not have Him let go?”-Others think that Pilate had in view our Lord’s claim to be the Messiah. “Would it not be better to release this man who asserts that He is your own Messiah? Would it not be a scandal to your nation to kill Him?”-A desire to release our Lord, side by side with a cowardly fear of offending the Jews by doing what was just and right, runs through all Pilate’s dealings. He evidently knows what he ought to do, but does not do it.

Henry thinks Pilate must have heard how popular Jesus was with some of the Jews, and must have known of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days before. “He looked on Him as the darling of the multitude, and the envy of the rulers. Therefore he made no doubt they would demand the release of Jesus; and this would stop the prosecution, and all would be well.” But he had not reckoned on the influence of the priests over the fickle multitude.

v40.-[Then cried they all, etc.] This verse describes the complete failure of Pilate’s notable plan, by which he hoped to satisfy the Jews and yet release Jesus. The fierce and bigoted party of Caiaphas would not listen to his proposal for a moment. They declared they would rather have Barabbas, a notorious prisoner in the hands of the Romans, released than Jesus. Nothing would content them but our Lord’s death. Barabbas, we know from Luke (Luk 23:19), was a murderer as well as a robber. The Jews were asked to decide whether the holy Jesus or the vile criminal should be let go free and released from prison.-Such was their utter hardness, bitterness, cruelty, and hatred of our Lord, that they actually declare they would rather have Barabbas set free than Jesus! Nothing in short would satisfy them but Christ’s blood. Thus they committed the great sin which Peter charges home on them not long after: “Ye denied Jesus in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.-Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.” (Act 3:13-14.) They publicly declared that they liked a robber and a murderer better than Christ!

The Greek word rendered “cried,” signifies a very loud cry or shout. It is the same word that occurs at the raising of Lazarus. “He cried, Lazarus, come forth!” (Joh 11:43.)

The expression “again” must either refer to the loud cries the Jews had raised, when they first brought Jesus to Pilate and demanded His condemnation; or else it must refer to a former cry for Barabbas to be released. According to Matthew they TWICE demanded this, with an interval of time between. (Compare Mat 27:15-26.)

The singularly typical character of all this transaction should be carefully noticed. Even here at this juncture we have a lively illustration of the great Christian doctrine of substitution. Barabbas, the real criminal, is acquitted and let go free. Jesus, innocent and guiltless, is condemned and sentenced to death. So is it in the salvation of our souls. We are all by nature like Barabbas, and deserve God’s wrath and condemnation; yet he was accounted righteous, and set free. The Lord Jesus Christ is perfectly innocent; and yet He is counted a sinner, punished as a sinner, and put to death that we may live. Christ suffers, though guiltless, that we may be pardoned. We are pardoned, though guilty, because of what Christ does for us. We are sinners, and yet counted righteous. Christ is righteous, and yet counted a sinner. Happy is that man who understands this doctrine, and has laid hold on it by faith for the salvation of his own soul.

In leaving this chapter, it is vain to deny that there are occasional difficulties in harmonizing the four different accounts of our Lord’s examination and crucifixion. This of course arises from one Gospel writer dwelling more fully on one set of facts, and another on another. But we need not doubt that all is perfectly harmonious, and that if we do not see it, the reason lies in our present want of perception. If each Evangelist had told the story in precisely the same words, the whole result would have been far less satisfactory. It would have savoured of imposture, concert, and collusion. The varieties in the four accounts are just what might be expected from four honest independent witnesses, and, fairly treated, admit of explanation.

Augustine remarks, “How all the Evangelists agree together, and nothing in any one Evangelist is at variance with the truth put forth by another,-this whosoever desires to know, let him seek it in laborious writings, and not in popular discourses, and not by standing and hearing, but by sitting and reading, or by lending a most attentive ear and mind to him that readeth. Yet let him believe, before he knows it, that there is nothing written by any one Evangelist, that can possibly be contrary either to his own or another’s narration.”

Melancthon suggests that the whole history of the passion, in this chapter, is a vivid typical picture of the history of Christ’s Church in every age. He bids us observe what a multitude of portraits it contains! Saints both weak and strong,-enemies of many kinds-traitors, hypocrites, tyrants, priests, rulers, mobs, violence, treachery, the flight of friends, the bitter language of foes. What is it but a kind of prophetic history of Christ’s Church?

The character of Pontius Pilate is so ably drawn out by Ellicott, that it may be well to quote it, in concluding this chapter. “Pilate was a thorough and complete type of the later-Roman man of the world. Stern, but not relentless,-shrewd and world-worn,-prompt and practical,-haughtily just,-and yet, as the early writers correctly observed, self-seeking and cowardly,-able to perceive what was right, but without moral strength to follow it out,-the Procurator of Juda stands forth a sad and terrible instance of a man whom the fear of endangered self-interest drove not only to act against the deliberate convictions of his heart and conscience, but further to commit an act of cruelty and injustice, even after those convictions had been deepened by warnings and strengthened by presentiment.”

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 18:28. They lead therefore Jesus from the house of Caiaphas into the palace, and it was early morning. The palace here spoken of was in all probability a part of the castle of Antonia at the north-west corner of the temple-mount. Pilate had come for the time from Csarea to reside here, in order more effectually to repress the disturbances apt to arise at the season of the Passover. The hour, immediately after cock-crowing, was certainly not later than 3 or 3:30 A.M. It need excite no surprise that the Jews should lead Jesus to Pilate at such an hour. During the whole night of the Passover the city would be in commotion; on this night in particular they were prepared for disturbance (comp. on chap. Joh 18:3); and the governor would certainly be ready to receive any delinquent. It is worthy of notice, however, that Pilate does not take his formal seat on the tribunal until 6 A.M. (Joh 19:14), the hour before which, according to Roman law, no judge was entitled to pronounce judgment.

And they themselves went not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. In a commentary such as the present, where space is necessarily limited, the difficulty occasioned by these words must be very briefly stated. Looked at in their present context, the words that they might eat the Passover can refer to nothing but the Paschal meal properly so called, and not to any of the other meals of the Paschal season. Thus, however, the expression seems to indicate that the Paschal Supper had not been celebrated on the evening previous to the events now passing, but that it was to be celebrated on the evening of the day now begun. On the other hand, the earlier Evangelists distinctly state that it was from the Paschal Supper that Jesus and His disciples rose when they went into the garden, and when the betrayal took place. These Evangelists and John thus appear to be in direct contradiction to one another. We have to do with the question now only in so far as it concerns the verse before us. That verse cannot mean that the Jews referred to in it were looking forward to the celebration of the Passover on the evening of the day about to begin, or just begun. The hour was probably 3 or 3:30 A.M. The Passover was a night-festival. It certainly would not begin till the evening was well advanced; that is, not less than eighteen hours had to pass from the point at which we are now standing till we reach it. These hours include a sunset, the time at which uncleanness of a much more serious kind than that produced by entering into the house of a Gentile was removed by the simple process of washing with water. The Jews could have no fear that by entering into Pilates hall they would unfit themselves for eating a Paschal meal to be celebrated the following evening. But if it be so, what is the meaning of the words? The answer is,they were afraid that they might lose their Passover. The meal was not yet ended in the city. Jerusalem was crowded at the time: a very large number of lambs had to be killed and roasted after 3 P.M.; and it must have been impossible to close the feast in every Jewish family by midnight. The celebration must have gone on the whole night through. Now the persons here referred to had been interrupted in their feast. They may have sat down to the supper; but, before they had finished, Judas had been with them, his offer made, his plans accepted. They had hastily seized the opportunity, and had rushed out to the garden, resolving to return and finish their meal before daybreak. They had failed in this: yet they will take one step more. They will try to obtain from the Roman governor the pronouncing of a final sentence upon their victim. If, however, this is to be done, it must be done quickly. We shall see immediately the marks of haste upon the narrative. From their haste came most naturally their scrupulousness at the thought of entering Pilates house. To think that they would have been thus scrupulous had there been from eighteen to twenty-four hours to pass before they should be called to eat the Passover, is at variance with every feeling of human nature, as well as with the prescriptions of the ceremonial law. They were scrupulous because they desired to eat without an hours delay. They had lost time already; the night was flying fast; the morning light would soon appear; it would be too late then: no interruption that can be escaped must be allowed: they would not go into the palace that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. It is here that we see the marks of rapid action spoken of above: the effect of the true reading and the true rendering being to bring the two verbs be defiled and eat into close connection with each other. The Jews were afraid of defilement at that moment, because at that moment they were desirous to complete their feast. It may perhaps be said in reply that, if this was their intention, it failed. Morning broke before they left Pilate, and they lost the opportunity of eating. Precisely so. It is probably one of the very thoughts that John wishes us to carry away from his story as he tells it. Instead of welcoming the true Paschal Lamb, these Jews rejected Him. What thought more in the manner of our Evangelist than to let us see that, seeking to retain the shadow, and sacrificing the substance for its sake, they lost not only the substance but the shadow too (comp. chap. Joh 11:48)?

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Section 3. (Joh 18:28-40; Joh 19:1-16.)

Hearts made manifest.

1. In the third section the Lord answers for Himself before Pilate; and this is proportionately much dwelt upon, and particulars given which we do not find elsewhere. It is evident that what we are shown is the searching out of the Roman’s conscience in the light of the Presence before which he stands. Judge and accused change places; and, hard as the governor may be -a man stained with many crimes, he yet compares favorably with Israel’s leaders, blinded and darkened with the light they have shut out. That Pilate shrank, though vainly, from what the insane fury of the Jews forced upon him is plain in all the Gospels; but John shows us the under-workings of a convicted soul, as no other does, and the Lord’s compassionate faithfulness towards the, miserable victim of his own self-treachery. Hearts are made manifest all through, and the Light shines upon all the clouds that would obscure it. Even the refusal of the people to take the matter into their own hands, when Pilate would put it in them, only works, as is noted, for the fulfilment of the word of Jesus. Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The “hanging upon a tree” was with them after death, and not a mode of inflicting this: but with death all was ended for the Lord; and the rich man’s sepulchre begins His vindication.

2. Before Pilate the Lord answers at once, when He is questioned, that He is King of the Jews. But He asks, Is this his own question? -has he personal interest in it? Of Messiah he must have heard, and of all the hopes that were connected with it; more surely still, of a reign of righteousness and truth to replace the long oppression, and bring peace at last to a weary, if not sin-weary world. Was the intervention of God anything, -even an alarm perhaps, to one of the world’s rulers? But Pilate puts off the question as a mere Jewish one: let him look at how his own case stands as a man accused by his own people; what reason had they? The Lord answers him, but keeps His steady pressure upon the conscience, already uneasy, of the real criminal before Him the real Judge. He lets Pilate know that His Kingdom is not of this world, -has not its origin or nature from the world: else would, He not have been left, unarmed and without a struggle, to the merciless hands that had been laid upon Him. Had His followers, -out of all the crowds that had gathered round Him, -been organized into such a force as would be needed for the establishment of a kingdom such as Rome could fear or take into account? His Kingdom plainly was not like one of these.

But then He really was a King? the Roman questioned. And the Lord answers that indeed He is a King: that His birth and coming into the world (and here a gleam of His divine nature flashes out) was to bear witness to the truth. Truth, in a false and hollow world, to establish this was the purpose of His life and mission. By this would He establish also His kingdom over the hearts and minds-of men. Truth is one, decisive, imperial: he that would learn it must be subject” to it. And here Christ drops a word for the conscience of His hearer, “Every one who is of the truth heareth My voice.”

Pilate answers like the sceptical Roman that he is, “What is truth?” Alas, their Pantheon of captured gods had had bitter fruit in their rough conquerors. They had learned to believe in gods no more, save in him who had over-topped them all, their emperor; and in him the farce was but too transparent. And yet here was

a word to get behind even such defences: for, if he knew not what was truth, he could know, at least, whether he was “of” it. And, if to be true were needful for such knowledge, was the lack of this, perhaps, what made truth appear such an unattainable thing?

3. Something, at least, makes Pilate uneasy; he stays for no answer, but goes off to the multitude, to declare that he can find no fault with Jesus. His business was, in that case, only to release Him; but he seeks compromise with his conscience, instead of yielding to it, and, in what seems to him a way of escape from a difficult situation, puts the whole matter into the people’s hands. Thus he makes it almost impossible to return to the path of righteousness from which he has departed, and proclaims himself openly as not of the truth.

But the people reveal themselves in a worse fashion still, and do what even a Pilate believes impossible. It is this impossibility upon which he reckons, only to find that he has shut for himself the door of escape which he had hoped to find. They immediately avail themselves of the opportunity to show their preference of a robber and murderer to their own glorious King. We have noticed elsewhere how strangely yet significantly this name Bar-Abbas, “son of the father,” comes in here. It was the Son of the Father, just as that, -whom they were refusing now; but of what father was this lawless one the son? A shadow it is, surely, of their awful apostasy to come, when they will receive him who comes in his own name, true child of the rebel and “murderer from the beginning” of whom the Lord had warned some before, in words which had cut deep into those who heard them, that they were the spiritual children. The works of their father they were indeed now doing.

Pilate, now in their hands, gives up Jesus to be scourged; hoping, however, as it would seem, by this according to his former proposal (Luk 23:22), to appease the people, that he might then release Him. In every compromise of this sort he only and miserably fails. John does not dwell upon all this: he mentions the scourging, the crown of thorns, the mockery of the purple robe; but these very briefly. By all this, Pilate vainly endeavors to awaken sympathy in behalf of the One whom again, to his own condemnation, he declares to be without fault. We may be sure, from his known character, he would have gladly found what would have justified him in pursuing with good will the course upon which he was now being urged unwillingly. Yet he emphatically reiterates that he finds no fault in Him. Israel it is who hound Him to the death; crying out what death, -the most cruel and ignominious one, -they have chosen for Him. “Take ye Him and crucify Him,” Pilate answers” for I find no fault in Him.” Then they bring out their real accusation: “We have a law, and by our law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God.” He must die, because He is what He is, and affirms it. He must die for the grace which has made Him become Man!

4. But Pilate is stricken again by such an accusation: for the legends of heathen superstition are revived at the suggestion, and he remembers, no doubt, that gods and sons of the gods had visited men, according to current beliefs, which he had perhaps too rashly discredited. Did He not carry Himself as if indeed divine? And there were other influences, as the dream of his wife, to make him tremble. He calls Him once more before him, and with an unaccustomed awe upon his spirit, asks Him, “Who art Thou?” He is not a weak man (save as the slave of his own lusts is weak); he is not easily moved to pity; nor is it pity now. He had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, and could have trampled these Jews down now remorselessly, had he not been in hands for the moment stronger than his own. So the Lord plainly and compassionately tells him now. He would have had no authority at all against Him, had it not been given him from above. God, (though moved in a way far different from men,) God had delivered Him up; and, alas! the Jew had found in this his opportunity, misconceive it as he might, to pour out the enmity of his heart upon the very One of whom all the ages prophesied, and whom he had been prepared by the voice of heaven’s messengers continuously uttered to expect. The Jew had then, indeed, a greater sin than Pilate’s: the actual traitor was but the representative of his nation then.

5. Pilate is shaken more than ever by the Lord’s words, and again seeks to release Him; but he is not master of himself, and cannot be of others. The Jews know the man, and know their opportunity, and bring to bear upon him an argument that makes him plastic in their hands at once. God is a possibility indeed, but Rome is a certainty, and nearer at hand. “If thou let this Man go,” they cry, “thou art not Caesar’s friend; every one that maketh himself a king declareth against Caesar.”

“Pilate’s playing with the situation,” observes Lange, “is now past; now the situation plays with him. First he said -not asked, -What is truth? Now his frightened heart, to which the emperor’s favor is the supreme law of life, says, What is justice?” He takes his place on the judgment-seat, therefore, and with what seems something between a taunt and a faint, final plea, says to the Jews, “Behold your King!” But they are only stung to madness: “Away! away with Him!” they cry, “Crucify Him!” “Shall I crucify your King?” he asks again; and now they are made in divine government to pass upon themselves the judgment under which they have ever since been lying: the chief priests answer, “We have no king but Caesar.”

It was not the verdict of the Jews alone, and they have not suffered alone. The whole world has been lying under the yoke which they have preferred to the easy yoke of Christ. They have often got very tired of Caesar, -true; and, as we see by their fitful movements every now and then, would fain be rid of him. They are always crying, “Give us better government;” but all they can do is, with doubtful betterment, to divide him up into many little Caesars; better, as they think, because weaker, and with divided interests, so that the balance of power may secure the even weights of justice. That is still an experiment, some think; but this chronic war is never peace, not can be; and the reason is, men have refused the Prince of peace. Modify it, rename it, disguise it, as you please, the reign of Caesar is the only alternative.

The struggle on Pilate’s part is ended; he consents to the people’s verdict; the Lord of life is adjudged to death, -to the death of the Cross.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

There were two courts of judicature which our blessed Saviour was brought before, and condemned by.

1. The ecclesiastical court or sanhedrin, in which the high-priest sat as judge; here he was condemned to death for blasphemy.

2. The civil court or judgment-hall, where Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, sat judge, who, because he was a Gentile, they would not go into his house, lest they should be defiled; for they accounted it a legal pollution to come into the house of a Gentile.

Where observe, the notorious hypocrisy of these Jews: they scruple the defiling of themselves by coming near the judgment-hall, where Pilate sat, but make no scruple at all to defile themselves with the guilt of that innocent blood which Pilate shed.

When persons are over zealous for ceremonial observations, they are oftentimes too remiss with refernce to moral duties: They brought him to the judgment-hall; but they themselves went not in, lest they should be defiled.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 18:28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment , the pretorium, the governors palace. Properly speaking, the pretorium was that part of the palace where the soldiers kept guard, Mar 15:16; but in common language it was applied to the palace in general. The Jewish high-priests and elders sent Jesus hither that he might be tried by the Roman governor, Pilate, because they could not otherwise accomplish their purpose, the power of life and death being now taken out of their hands. And it was early Although by this time it was broad daylight, yet it was early in the morning, and much sooner than the governor used to appear. It is therefore probable that he was called up on this extraordinary occasion; and they themselves went not into the judgment-hall Or, into the palace, of which the judgment-hall was a part; lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover Having purified themselves in order to eat the passover, they would not enter into the palace, which was the house of a heathen, for fear of contracting such defilement as might have rendered them incapable of eating the paschal-supper. They stood, therefore, before the palace, waiting for the governor, who on such occasions came out to them.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 28-40. The bearing of Joh 18:28 on the question as to whether Jesus died on the 14th or the 15th of the month Nisan, and, in connection with this, whether the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the evening of the Jewish Passover supper, is dependent on whether the expression to eat the Passover can be, or probably is to be, referred to anything else than the Passover supper itself. The presentation of the facts of the case by Godet is sufficient to show two things: first, that the passages from the Old Testament which are relied on to prove the wider extension of meaning for the expression in question do not prove it. Indeed, the point to be proved is not simply an extension of meaning to cover the whole feast, but such an extension as would cover the rest of the feast, with the exclusion of the supper itself;secondly, that there is no sufficient reason to believe that the words that they might not be defiled are not applicable to the 14th day.

It is doubtful whether it can be affirmed as beyond question that the words here used must mean that the Jewish Passover supper had not yet occurred. But this is nevertheless the more natural interpretation of the words, and the probabilities of the case point strongly in this direction.

2. If we may take John’s account as giving the beginning of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, it would seem that the Jewish rulers supposed that the mere fact of their presenting Him before the Roman tribunal would secure a verdict in their favor. They must have supposed that this result would be secured either by the respect which Pilate, in such a case, would have for them as rulers among the Jews, or by the fact that the crime of blasphemy was one which might properly come under their jurisdiction, and that the resort to the Roman power was only to obtain permission to inflict the death- penalty which the crime deserved. Their first words to Pilate (Joh 18:30) in answer to his question of Joh 18:29 imply, apparently, that whatever charge they have against Jesus belongs within the sphere of their own law, rather than that of the Romans.

3. The simplest explanation of the question proposed by Pilate in Joh 18:33 is that the Jews, after Joh 18:31, brought forward the charge which is mentioned in Luk 23:2 : We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King. This view of the matter is taken by Godet and others. Meyer denies this, and holds that John could not have omitted such an essential point. He thinks that Pilate must have known of this political accusation through the application of the Jews for the help of the . Weiss, however, in his edition of Meyer’s Commentary, declares these reasons of Meyer to be insufficient. The omission of the charge as something already known, and something that would be understood, is in consistency with what we find in John’s Gospel in other cases. It is certainly difficult to account for Pilate’s question unless there was some such charge, and the insertion of Luk 23:2 here is not unnatural.

4. The explanation given by Godet in Joh 18:34 is also, in all probability, the true one. If we hold that Jesus intended to ask whether Pilate meant that He claimed to be a king in the Roman and political sense, or in the Jewish and Messianic sense, the course of the conversation and inquiry moves on in the most simple and natural way. If He claimed to be king in the former sense, there might be just ground of accusation against Him before the Roman tribunal, but if in the latter, there might be none. Pilate answers, Am I a Jew?that is to say, I have nothing to do with Jewish questions. I mean, of course, king in the only sense of the word in which I, as a Roman judge, can consider it. This is a matter belonging wholly to the Jews: they have delivered thee to me, with a charge that thou claimest to be a king in opposition to Caesar. I have to investigate this question only. Tell me what thou hast done.

Having drawn an answer to this effect from him, Jesus now, in His turn, gives a more definite replythat He is a king, but not in the Roman senseand He adds the most decisive proof of this negative: namely, that if He were a king or claimed to be one in the earthly meaning of the word, His servants would fight for Him, as they were evidently now not doing. Pilate then asks if He really means that He is a king, and Jesus answers: Yesin the sphere of the truth. Truth is nothing to Pilate, and he goes out at once, and says, I find no crime in Him, and proposes to release Him. Nothing can be more simple and straightforward than this progress of thought, if the explanations of Joh 18:33-34 which have been suggested are adopted as correct.

5. The servants spoken of in Joh 18:6 are those who believe in the justice of His claims. They are, in one sense, His disciples, but the case is presented as a hypothetical one, and these adherents are accordingly conceived of as they would be if the circumstances were in accordance with the supposition.

6. The of Joh 18:37 should have the circumflex accent on the last syllable, and the meaning is thus, After all, then, thou art a king? Is it not true, then, that thou art a king? The question is, so far as the progress of thought in the passage is concerned, merely a renewal of the one which had been suggested before. But it includes a certain ironical element, or an expression of surprise that one in the condition of Jesus should claim to be a king in any sense.

7. The phrase Thou sayest is, in substance, an affirmative answer. A. R. V. regards as meaning for, and this is not improbably the true view of the sentence: Yes, for I am a king.

8. The question of Pilate, What is truth? undoubtedly indicates that he felt that there was no such thing, and that it was idle for a man to be dreaming of any such kingdom. Pilate’s attitude towards Jesus was not that of enmity or of scorn. He was, apparently, impressed by His calmness, dignity and sincerity. He evidently believed Him guiltless, so far as any charge of crime against the Roman authority was concerned. He comprehended fully, we may believe, the bitterness and selfishness of the opposition of the Jews. He saw clearly that they had no foundation to rest upon, as they brought their case before him. He was disposed to discharge Him, and even tried to effect His release. But as related to the truth, he was an intellectual sceptic. He believed that there was no such thing as truth. He had pity for Jesus, and regarded Him as a harmless enthusiast for what He called the truth; but he meant to remind Him by his question, that it was a delusion for Him to give Himself to the search for it, or to suppose that He had discovered it. It was for this reason, as we may believe, that he did not wait for an answer to his question. It was presented with no desire for an answer.

9. Pilate had the Roman sense of justice, as Renan says in the sentence quoted by Godet, and hence, when he went out to the Jewish rulers (Joh 18:38), he distinctly declared that he discovered no criminality in Jesus, and therefore proposed to release Him. But Pilate was a time-serving politician, rather than a man of lofty character and boldness in obeying his sense of right. He had, also, a dangerous record behind him. He was like men of his class, when placed in his circumstances, in all ages of the world’s history. It was certain, from the beginning, that he would yield to the Jews. The question was only whether his resistance would be longer or shorter. The Jewish rulers were far bolder men, and they knew well with whom they had to deal. They pressed him gradually but steadily, and were ready with a new charge whenever the one already presented failed of its effect. The story of the two parties in this judicial attempt to put Jesus to death is so life-like, that it bears the strongest evidence of its truthfulness.

10. This life-like character of the narrative makes it probable that the author was an ear and eye-witness of what he relates, and, as Weiss ed. Mey. remarks, this seems not impossible when the publicity of the Roman judicial trials is borne in mind. That John should have had admission to the examination before Annas, by reason of his acquaintance with him, and to the trial before Pilate, because of the custom of admitting persons in such cases to the judgment-hall, but should have been excluded from the trial in the house of Caiaphas before the Sanhedrim, may easily be supposedand the supposition is in harmony with the facts of the narrative as we find them: namely, the insertion of the story of what took place before Annas and Pilate, and the omission of the scene in the house of Caiaphas.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CXXIX.

FIRST STAGE OF THE ROMAN TRIAL. JESUS

BEFORE PILATE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

(Jerusalem. Early Friday morning.)

aMATT. XXVII. 11-14; bMARK XV. 2-5; cLUKE XXIII. 2-5; dJOHN XVIII. 28-38.

dand they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. [See Joh 12:33, Joh 12:34), but he also gave the details of his trial– Mat 20:18, Mat 20:19, Mar 10:33, Mar 10:34.] c2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. [The Jews now profess to change their verdict into a charge, they themselves becoming witnesses as to the truth of the matter charged. They say “We found,” thereby asserting that the things which they stated to Pilate were the things for which they had condemned Jesus. Their assertion was utterly false, for the three things which they now mentioned had formed no part whatever of the evidence against Jesus in their trial of him. The first charge, that Jesus was a perverter or seducer of the people, was extremely vague. The second, that he taught to withhold tribute from Csar, was a deliberate falsehood. See Joh 6:15.] d33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, a11 Now Jesus stood before the governor [Jesus is called from the guards who have him in custody and stands alone before Pilate that the governor may investigate his case privately]: b2 And Pilate athe governor [705] asked him, dand said unto him, {asaying,} Art thou the King of the Jews? [The Gospels are unanimous in giving this question as the first words addressed by Pilate to Jesus. The question expresses surprise. There was nothing in the manner or attire of Jesus to suggest a royal claimant. The question was designed to draw Jesus out should he chance to be a fanatical or an unbalanced enthusiast.] And Jesus banswering saith {canswered him and said,} bunto him, Thou sayest. dSayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? [Using the Hebrew form of affirmative reply (see Joh 12:19). They objected to his kingly claims ( Mat 21:15, Mat 21:16, Luk 19:38, Luk 19:39), but Jesus shows Pilate that these kingly claims, however distasteful to the Jews, were no offense to or menace against the authority of Rome. Further than this, Jesus did not define his kingdom, for Pilate had no concern in it beyond this. It was sufficient to inform him that it made no use of physical power even for purposes of defense. Such a kingdom could cause no trouble to Rome, and the bare fact stated by Jesus proved that it was indeed such a kingdom.] 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. [See Joh 19:7, Joh 19:8.] 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? [This question has been regarded as an earnest inquiry (Chrysostom), the inquiry of one who despaired (Olshausen), a scoffing question (Alford), etc. But it is evident that Pilate asked it intending to investigate the case of Jesus further, but, suddenly concluding that he already knew enough to answer his purpose as a judge, he stifles his curiosity as a human being and proceeds with the trial of Jesus, leaving the question unanswered.] And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, cunto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man. dno crime in [707] him. [The pronoun “I” is emphatic; as if Pilate said, “You, prejudiced fanatics, demand his death, but I, the calm judge, pronounce him innocent.”] b3 And the chief priests accused him of many things. a12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. [When Pilate left the Prtorium to speak with the Jewish rulers, it is evident that Jesus was led out with him, and so stood there in the presence of his accusers.] b4 And a13 Then bPilate again asked him, {asaith unto him,} bsaying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of. aHearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? b5 But Jesus no more answered anything; a14 And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: binsomuch that Pilate athe governor bmarvelled. agreatly. [Pilate was irritated that Jesus did not speak in his own defense. He had already seen enough of our Lord’s wisdom to assure him that it would be an easy matter for him to expose the malicious emptiness of these charges–charges which Pilate himself knew to be false, but about which he had to keep silent, for, being judge, he could not become our Lord’s advocate. Our Lord’s silence was a matter of prophecy ( Isa 53:7). Jesus kept still because to have successfully defended himself would have been to frustrate the purpose for which he came into the world– Joh 12:23-28.] c5 But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place. [The Jews cling to their general accusation of sedition, and seek to make the largeness of the territory where Jesus operated overshadow and conceal the smallness of their testimony as to what his operations were.] [708]

[FFG 704-708]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

CHAPTER 26.

JESUS AT PILATES BAR

Mat 27:1-14; Mar 15:1-5; Luk 23:1-5; Joh 18:28-38. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the judgment-hall.

When I was in Jerusalem last November and December, I went directly from the Sanhedrin hall, on Mount Zion in the west, to Pilates judgment- hall, north-east wall, on the intervening slope between Mount Moriah and Bezetha. And it was morning. Thus Jesus has been up all night, dragged hither and thither, abused and afflicted by His enemies, and must be awfully fatigued and exhausted. And they did not go into the judgment- hall, in order that they may not be polluted, but may eat the Passover. This illustrates the nonsense into which Satan runs religious people when they give him a chance. Here they are so fearful of contracting ceremonial defilement that they will not so much as enter the Gentile judgment-hall; while they are already guilty of the blackest murder ever concocted in the bottomless pit. You must not think that these things are peculiar to the ancient times. The world is full of them now.

Then Pilate came out to them, and said, What accusation do you bring against this Man? They responded and said, If He were not an evildoer, we had not delivered Him to thee. Then Pilate said to them, You indeed take Him, and judge Him according to your law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to kill any one, in order that the word of Jesus may be fulfilled, which He spoke, signifying by what death He was about to die. Very early in our Lords ministry (Joh 3:14), in the case of the brazen serpent, He predicted the manner of His death by crucifixion. This was a Roman punishment, the Jews having no such a law. Consequently He was delivered by the Jews to the Romans for execution. You see here the dilemma in which the Jews were involved.

a. Having condemned Him to die for blasphemy, they now wake up to the fact that Judea is no longer free, but a Roman province, the prerogative of capital punishment having already passed out of the hands of the Jews and become the sole right of the Romans. Consequently they have to take Him to Pilate, the Roman proconsul.

b. By the time they arrive at Pilates judgment-hall, they have awakened to the fact that the Romans have no law against blasphemy, for which they have condemned Jesus to die. Consequently they see that it will be utterly unavailable to bring this charge against Him before a Roman court. Therefore they have no bill of charges to present to Pilate justifying the commitment of a prisoner to his adjudication.

c. Now they find themselves in a serious puzzle, as the overwhelming probability favors the conclusion that if they present to Pilate the prisoner charged with nothing but blasphemy, on which Roman legislation is utterly Silent, Pilate will simply throw the case out of court, refuse to adjudicate, and drive them all away from his tribunal, as Gallio did at Corinth (Acts 18) when Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, brought Paul to him for condemnation, having no charge against him except matters pertaining to their own religion, which the proconsul looked upon as superstition, and consequently, threw it out of court, driving the Jews away from his tribunal, when the Gentile multitude became so disgusted with the foolish persecutions of the Jews against an innocent man that they took Sosthenes and gave him a good thrashing, which seems to have proved a blessing to him, as we only hear of him once more (1 Corinthians 1), when he is associated with Paul in the evangelistic work at Ephesus, having been converted and turned missionary.

d. The final result of all this tergiversation is, that they drop the charge of blasphemy altogether, and take up a new one, on which there had been no action, committing Him to Pilate under the accusation of high treason, claiming to be King of the Jews, and consequently a rival of the Roman emperor.

Luk 23:2. And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found Him revolutionizing the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is, Christ a King. You see how adroitly they manipulated the matter. As the Scriptures denominate Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, they construe Him as claiming to be King, and consequently a rival of Caesar.

Joh 18:33-38. Then Pilate went again into the judgment-hall, and spoke to Jesus, and said to Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? Jesus responded to him, Do you speak this of yourself, or did others tell you concerning Me? Pilate responded, Whether am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests delivered Thee to me; what hast Thou done Jesus responded, My kingdom is not from this world , If My kingdom were from this world, My servants would fight for Me, in order that I may not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from thence. This statement of our Savior in reference to His kingdom is frequently quoted as an argument against the coming Millennial Theocracy; but a moments reflection reveals the utter impertinency of such an application. Of course, Gods kingdom is not of this world, but of heaven; but that is no reason why, it should, not bear rule over this world. The kingdom of God is here now; yet it is not of this world. The kingdom of Satan is here; not of this world, but of hell, and a usurpation on the earth. When Satan is east out and imprisoned in hell (Revelation 20), thus all obstructions to the heavenly kingdom being removed, the latter, will, so wonderfully prevail on the earth as to receive a boundless, new impetus, not eliminating grace, but adding to it glory, when

He shall have dominion over river, sea, and shore, Far as the eagles pinion or doves light wing can soar.

Then Pilate said to Him, Art Thou not then a King? Jesus responded, Thou sayest that I am. N.B. This is an Oriental form of positive affirmation, Jesus admitting to Pilate that He is King. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I may witness to the truth. His is significantly a kingdom of truth, in contradistinction to Satans kingdom of falsehood and error. Every one being of the truth heareth My voice. Poor Pilate was not of the truth. He was a corrupt thieving politician, therefore he did not hear the voice of Jesus, but came to a miserable end, dying a suicide in lonely exile, having been degraded and banished by Caligula, the Roman emperor.

Pilate says to Him, What is truth? Pilate took up the idea that He was a dreamy, visionary philosopher, gone wild with hard study, imagining that He was a King, and that He had found out the truth, as so many Greek sages claimed to have done; meanwhile he had no confidence in His claims to have discovered the truth. Consequently, when he asked the question, he goes right away, not waiting for an answer.

Saying this again, he went out to the Jews, and tells them, I find nothing criminal in Him. The Roman Empire had conquered all the world, and was at that time ruling all nations. The very idea that a poor prisoner in bonds, without an army to defend Him, should claim to be King of the Jews was, in Pilates judgment, sheer nonsense. Consequently he looks upon the royal claims of his prisoner as simply a matter of ridicule. Believing Him to be a harmless fanatic, dreaming that He is King of the Jews, therefore he makes short work of the judgment by bringing in a verdict of innocence.

Mat 27:12-14. And while He was being accused by the high priests and elders, He responded nothing. Then Pilate says to Him, Do You not hear how many things they witness against You? And He responded to him not a word, so that the governor was astonished exceedingly. Will you not follow the example of Jesus, when people falsely accuse you, and keep silent? Let them tell; ever so many scandals on you, give them no attention whatever; and they will soon get ashamed and let you alone, and in all probability make a specialty of showing you kindness.

Luk 23:4-5. Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, I find nothing criminal in this Man. And they continued to become more and more uproarious, saying that He revolutionizes the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even unto this place. The sun having risen about five is rapidly climbing the Oriental skies, and pouring down, the day from the summit of great Mount Olivet. His enemies, having worked hard all night to get Him condemned and killed before day, lest the people rally and fight, for Him, are now in an awful dilemma. They have Him on hand and are determined to kill Him; meanwhile the people are pouring in from all directions, and they awfully fear an outbreak, in which they will very likely be killed.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Joh 18:28 to Joh 19:16. The Trial before Pilate.From Caiaphas Jesus is brought to the Prtorium, the governors residence, either Herods palace in the W. part of the city, or the Antonia, near the Temple, to the NW. To avoid defilement the Jews remain in the open. The Passover has still to be eaten, in contrast with the Synoptic view of the Last Supper. Pilate, to respect their scruples, transacts his business with them outside. In itself this concession to religious scruple is far from improbable in the light of what is known of Roman practice, however we may judge the frequent going backwards and forwards between the prisoner and His accusers. The governor naturally asks first for a definite charge. The Jews endeavour to get his recognition of their decision without going into detail, demanding the sentence which it is beyond their power to inflict. Pilate replied that in that case they must be content with the punishment which lies within their competence. They urge that nothing but the death penalty will meet the case, and this they cannot inflict. So, the author adds, it came about that the Lords prediction of the manner of His death was fulfilled. If they could have put Him to death, it would have been by stoning. Pilate leaves them and interrogates the prisoner, in words which assume that the Jews have made a more definite charge than has been stated. Jesus asks in what sense Pilate uses the term King? He is no claimant to an earthly sovereignty; Messianic claims He has, which the rulers of His people will not allow. Pilate is scornful; is he a Jew, to be interested in such matters? The leaders of the nation have accused Him of dangerous sedition. Jesus replies that He has put forward no claims which are dangerous from the Roman point of view. If His claims had been political His supporters would have acted accordingly. Pilate presses Him further, and receives the answer that His aim is to set up the kingdom of truth, the true knowledge of God. His subjects are those who will listen to that. He cannot rest on force. Such claims have no political menace, and with a half scornful What is truth? Pilate closes the examination. Convinced of the prisoners innocence, he tries to persuade the Jews to accept a compromise, condemnation and release according to a custom of the feast. In Mk. the demand for the release of Barabbas comes from the people. The custom is not otherwise known, but is in accordance with known methods of administration. An interesting parallel is supplied by the Florentine Papyri (A.D. 85), which contain the protocol of a process before C. Septimius Vegetus, the Governor of Egypt, who says to one Phibion, Thou art worthy of scourging . . . but I give thee to the people.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 28

Defiled; ceremonially; this judgment-hall being the seat of a Roman, and of course Gentile tribunal. Their unwillingness to enter affords a strange illustration of the compatibility of excessive punctiliousness in the outward forms of religion, with the most complete moral corruption. These whited sepulchres, with hearts full of envy, hatred, and murder, could not go into a Roman building, lest they should be defiled!–The passover; that is, probably the remaining sacrifices and feasts of the paschal week; for, according to Luke 22:7,13,14,15, the evening on which the paschal lamb was to be eaten, was the evening preceding.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

18:28 {10} Then led they Jesus from {a} Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

(10) The Son of God is brought before the judgment seat of an earthly and profane man, in whom there is found much less wickedness than in the rulers of the people of God. A graphic image of the wrath of God against sin, and in addition of his great mercy, and last of all of his most severe judgment against the stubborn condemners of his grace when it is offered unto them.

(a) From Caiaphas’ house.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. The Jews’ charge against Jesus 18:28-32 (cf. Luke 23:1-2)

John began his version of this civil trial by narrating the initial public meeting of Pilate and Jesus’ accusers. [Note: For helpful background material on this trial, see R. Larry Overstreet, "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

"They" (NASB) refers to all the Jewish authorities (cf. Mat 27:1-2; Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1). They led Jesus from Caiaphas in the sense that he was the head of the Sanhedrin that had passed sentence on Jesus (cf. Mat 27:1-2; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66-71). The Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus for blasphemy (Mat 26:63-66; Mar 14:61-64), which was a capital offense in Israel (Lev 24:16). However the Sanhedrin could not execute the death sentence for this offense without Roman agreement, and there was little hope of Pilate giving it. Therefore the Jewish leaders decided to charge Jesus with sedition against Rome.

The word "Praetorium" transliterates the Latin praetorium that identified the headquarters of the commanding officer of a Roman military camp or a Roman military governor’s headquarters. [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 587.] Pilate was such a governor. The Gospels use the generic term "governor," though technically Pilate was the prefect of Judea, not its procurator, as the historian Tacitus identified him. [Note: Tacitus, Annals 15:44:4.] Pilate’s normal headquarters were at Caesarea, the capital of the Roman province of Judea. However during the Jewish feasts Pilate came to Jerusalem with Roman troops to discourage uprisings. His headquarters in Jerusalem was either in Herod’s former palace on the western wall of the city or in the Fortress of Antonia immediately north of the temple enclosure. The traditional site is the Fortress of Antonia, the beginning of the Via Dolorosa or "way of sorrow" that Jesus traveled from the Praetorium to Golgotha. However most modern commentators believed Pilate probably interviewed Jesus in Herod’s former palace. [Note: See, e.g., Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1957 ed., s.v. "Pretorium," p. 881; and Edersheim, 2:566.]

It is not clear just when Jesus first appeared before Pilate on Friday morning. John said that it was "early" (Gr. proi). This may be a reference to the technical term that the Romans used to describe the night watch that began at 3:00 a.m. and ended at 6:00 a.m. Probably it is just the normal use of the word that would not necessarily require a time before 6:00 a.m. It would have been early nonetheless, perhaps between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Roman officials customarily began their work around sunrise and often finished their day’s business by 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. [Note: A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 45.] John wrote that Jesus was still in Pilate’s presence later in the morning (19:14).

The Jews who brought Jesus to Pilate stayed outside the Praetorium because they wanted to avoid ceremonial defilement. The Jews thought that merely entering a Gentile’s dwelling made them ceremonially unclean (cf. Act 10:28). [Note: Mishnah Oholoth 18:7, 9. See also Dan Duncan, "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth," Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.] This was because the Gentiles did not take precautions to guarantee kosher (i.e., proper) food as the Jews did. Specifically, Gentiles might have yeast in their homes that would have made participation in the Passover feast unlawful for a Jew (cf. Exo 12:19; Exo 13:7). [Note: Bruce, p. 349.]

Ironically these Jews were taking extreme precautions to avoid ritual defilement while at the same time preparing to murder the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (cf. 2Sa 11:4).

". . . they are anxious to avoid external defilement in order to observe a festival whose real significance was that, as well as reminding God’s people of the ancient deliverance from Egypt, it pointed forward to the true Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice would bring to an end all distinctions between what was ceremonially clean and unclean, and effect an inward cleansing; and it was the death of that true Passover Lamb that the Jews at this moment are anxious to bring about." [Note: Tasker, pp. 200-1. Cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 328; and Edersheim, 2:565.]

These Jews’ superficial commitment to the Mosaic Law resulted in it becoming more difficult for them truly to obey that Law. Their punctiliousness separated themselves from Jesus. Pilate had to shuttle between the Jews outside his headquarters and Jesus inside as his examination proceeded.

We have already drawn attention to the evidence that Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples in the upper room on Thursday evening (cf. 13:1, 27). [Note: Morris, pp. 684-95, discussed this issue quite fully.] Why then were these Jews concerned that entering Pilate’s Praetorium might preclude them from eating the Passover? Had they too not already eaten it the night before? The "Passover" was the name that the Jews used to describe both the Passover proper and the entire festival that followed it including the feast of Unleavened Bread (cf. Luk 22:1). Evidently it was their continuing participation in this eight-day festival that these Jewish leaders did not want to sacrifice by entering a Gentile residence.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

C. Jesus’ civil trial 18:28-19:16

John reported much more about Jesus’ trial before Pilate than did any of the other Gospel writers. He omitted referring to Jesus’ appearance before Herod Antipas, which only Luke recorded (Luk 23:6-12). He stressed Jesus’ authority, particularly His authority as Israel’s King (cf. Joh 18:36; Joh 19:11; Joh 19:14). John seems to have assumed that his readers knew of the other Gospel accounts of Jesus’ passion. This supposition by John supports the view that this was the last Gospel written. The other Gospels stress the legal aspects of this trial. John presented it more as an interview between Jesus and Pilate similar to His interviews with Nicodemus (ch. 3), the Samaritan woman (ch. 4), and the blind man (ch. 9). [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 174.] It proceeded as Pilate asked four questions: "What accusation do you bring against this man?" (18:29), "Are you the King of the Jews?" (18:33), "Do you want me to release the King of the Jews?" (18:39), and "Where are you from?" (19:9).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

XIX. JESUS BEFORE PILATE.

“They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. 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. 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: that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying by what manner of death He should die. Pilate therefore entered again into the palace, 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? 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. 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 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. 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. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and arrayed Him in a purple garment; and they came unto Him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck Him with their hands. And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold I bring Him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in Him. Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man! When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Take Him yourselves, and crucify Him: for I find no crime in Him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard this saying he was the more afraid; and he entered into the palace again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art Thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 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? Jesus answered Him, Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath greater sin. Upon this Pilate sought to release Him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesars friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesars. 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. Now it was the preparation of the Passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! They therefore cried out, Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then therefore he delivered Him unto them to be crucified.”– Joh 18:28-40, Joh 19:1-16.

John tells us very little of the examination of Jesus by Annas and Caiaphas, but he dwells at considerable length on His trial by Pilate. The reason of this different treatment is probably to be found in the fact that the trial before the Sanhedrim was ineffective until the decision had been ratified by Pilate, as well as in the circumstance noted by John that the decision of Caiaphas was a foregone conclusion. Caiaphas was an unscrupulous politician who allowed nothing to stand between him and his objects. To the weak councillors who had expressed a fear that it might be difficult to convict a person so innocent as Jesus he said with supreme contempt: “Ye know nothing at all. Do you not see the opportunity we have of showing our zeal for the Roman Government by sacrificing this man who claims to be King of the Jews? Innocent of course He is, and all the better so, for the Romans cannot think He dies for robbery or wrong-doing. He is a Galilean of no consequence, connected with no good family who might revenge His death.” This was the scheme of Caiaphas. He saw that the Romans were within a very little of terminating the incessant troubles of this Judsean province by enslaving the whole population and devastating the land; this catastrophe might be staved off a few years by such an exhibition of zeal for Rome as could be made in the public execution of Jesus.

So far as Caiaphas and his party were concerned, then, Jesus was prejudged. His trial was not an examination to discover whether He was guilty or innocent, but a cross-questioning which aimed at betraying Him into some acknowledgment which might give colour to the sentence of death already decreed. Caiaphas or Annas[24] invites Him to give some account of His disciples and of His doctrines. In some cases His disciples carried arms, and among them was one zealot, and there might be others known to the authorities as dangerous or suspected characters. And Annas might expect that in giving some account of His teaching the honesty of Jesus might betray Him into expressions which could easily be construed to His prejudice. But he is disappointed. Jesus replies that it is not for Him, arraigned and bound as a dangerous prisoner, to give evidence against Himself. Thousands had heard Him in all parts of the country. He had delivered those supposed inflammatory addresses not to midnight gatherings and secret societies, but in the most public places He could find–in the Temple, from which no Jew was excluded, and in the synagogues, where official teachers were commonly present. Annas is silenced; and mortified though he is, he has to accept the ruling of his prisoner as indicating the lines on which the trial should proceed. His mortification does not escape the notice of one of those poor creatures who are ever ready to curry favour with the great by cruelty towards the defenceless, or at the best of that large class of men who cannot distinguish between official and real dignity; and the first of those insults is given to the hitherto sacred person of Jesus, the first of that long series of blows struck by a dead, conventional religion seeking to quench the truth and the life of what threatens its slumber with awakening.

Had the Roman governor not been present in the city the high priests and their party might have ventured to carry into effect their own sentence. But Pilate had already shown during his six years of office that he was not a man to overlook anything like contempt of his supremacy. Besides, they were not quite sure of the temper of the people; and a rescue, or even an attempted rescue, of their prisoner would be disastrous. Prudence therefore bids them hand Him over to Pilate, who had both legal authority to put Him to death and means to quell any popular disturbance. Besides, the purpose of Caiaphas could better be served by bringing before the governor this claimant to the Messiahship.

Pilate was present in Jerusalem at this time in accordance with the custom of the Roman procurators of Judaea, who came up annually from their usual residence at Caesarea to the Jewish capital for the double purpose of keeping order while the city was crowded with all kinds of persons who came up to the feast, and of trying cases reserved for his decision. And the Jews no doubt thought it would be easy to persuade a man who, as they knew to their cost, set a very low value on human blood to add one victim more to the robbers or insurgents who might be awaiting execution. Accordingly, as soon as day dawned and they dared to disturb the governor, they put Jesus in chains as a condemned criminal and led Him away, all their leading men following, to the quarters of Pilate, either in the fortress Antonia or in the magnificent palace of Herod. Into this palace, being the abode of a Gentile, they could not enter lest they should contract pollution and incapacitate themselves for eating the Passover,–the culminating instance of religious scrupulosity going hand in hand with cruel and blood-thirsty criminality. Pilate with scornful allowance for their scruples goes out to them, and with the Roman’s instinctive respect for the forms of justice demands the charge brought against this prisoner, in whose appearance the quick eye so long trained to read the faces of criminals is at a loss to discover any index to His crime.

This apparent intention on Pilate’s part, if not to reopen the case at least to revise their procedure, is resented by the party of Caiaphas, who exclaim, “If He were not a malefactor we would not have delivered Him up unto thee. Take our word for it; He is guilty; do not scruple to put Him to death.” But if they were indignant that Pilate should propose to revise their decision, he is not less so that they should presume to make him their mere executioner. All the Roman pride of office, all the Roman contempt and irritation at this strange Jewish people, come out in his answer, “If you will make no charge against Him and refuse to allow me to judge Him, take Him yourselves and do what you can with Him,” knowing well that they dared not inflict death without his sanction, and that this taunt would pierce home. The taunt they did feel, although they could not afford to show that they felt it, but contented themselves with laying the charge that He had forbidden the people to give tribute to Caesar and claimed to be Himself a king.

As Roman law permitted the examination to be conducted within the praetorium, though the judgment must be pronounced outside in public, Pilate re-enters the palace and has Jesus brought in, so that apart from the crowd he may examine Him. At once he puts the direct question, Guilty or not guilty of this political offence with which you stand charged?–“Art Thou the King of the Jews?” But to this direct question Jesus cannot give a direct answer, because the words may have one sense in the lips of Pilate, another in His own. Before He answers He must first know in which sense Pilate uses the words. He asks therefore, “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee?” Are you inquiring because you are yourself concerned in this question? or are you merely uttering a question which others have put in your mouth? To which Pilate with some heat and contempt replies, “Am I a Jew? How can you expect me to take any personal interest in the matter? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me.”

Pilate, that is to say, scouts the idea that he should take any interest in questions about the Messiah of the Jews. And yet was it not possible that, like some of his subordinates, centurions and others, he too should perceive the spiritual grandeur of Jesus and should not be prevented by his heathen upbringing from seeking to belong to this kingdom of God? May not Pilate also be awakened to see that man’s true inheritance is the world unseen? may not that expression of fixed melancholy, of hard scorn, of sad, hopeless, proud indifference, give place to the humble eagerness of the inquiring soul? may not the heart of a child come back to that bewildered and world-encrusted soul? Alas! this is too much for Roman pride. He cannot in presence of this bound Jew acknowledge how little life has satisfied him. He finds the difficulty so many find in middle life of frankly showing that they have in their nature deeper desires than the successes of life satisfy. There is many a man who seals up his deeper instincts and does violence to his better nature because, having begun his life on worldly lines, he is too proud now to change, and crushes down, to his own eternal hurt, the stirrings of a better mind within him, and turns from the gentle whisperings that would fain bring eternal hope to his heart.

It is possible that Jesus by His question meant to suggest to Pilate the actual relation in which this present trial stood to His previous trial by Caiaphas. For nothing could more distinctly mark the baseness and malignity of the Jews than their manner of shifting ground when they brought Jesus before Pilate. The Sanhedrim had condemned Him, not for claiming to be King of the Jews, for that was not a capital offence, but for assuming Divine dignity. But that which in their eyes was a crime was none in the judgment of Roman law; it was useless to bring Him before Pilate and accuse Him of blasphemy. They therefore accused Him of assuming to be King of the Jews. Here, then, were the Jews “accusing Jesus before the Roman governor of that which, in the first place, they knew that Jesus denied in the sense in which they urged it, and which, in the next place, had the charge been true, would have been so far from a crime in their eyes that it would have been popular with the whole nation.”

But as Pilate might very naturally misunderstand the character of the claim made by the accused, Jesus in a few words gives him clearly to understand that the kingdom He sought to establish could not come into collision with that which Pilate represented: “My kingdom is not of this world.” The most convincing proof had been given of the spiritual character of the kingdom in the fact that Jesus did not allow the sword to be used in forwarding His claims. “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 did not quite satisfy Pilate. He thought that still some mystery of danger might lurk behind the words of Jesus. There was nothing more acutely dreaded by the early emperors than secret societies. It might be some such association Jesus intended to form. To allow such a society to gain influence in his province would be a gross oversight on Pilate’s part. He therefore seizes upon the apparent admission of Jesus and pushes Him further with the question, “Thou art a king then?” But the answer of Jesus removes all fear from the mind of His judge. He claims only to be a king of the truth, attracting to Himself all who are drawn by a love of truth. This was enough for Pilate. “Aletheia” was a country beyond his jurisdiction, a Utopia which could not injure the Empire. “Tush!” he says, “what is Aletheia? Why speak to me of ideal worlds? What concern have I with provinces that can yield no tribute and offer no armed resistance?”

Pilate, convinced of the innocence of Jesus, makes several attempts to save Him. All these attempts failed, because, instead of at once and decidedly proclaiming His innocence and demanding His acquittal, he sought at the same time to propitiate His accusers. One generally expects from a Roman governor some knowledge of men and some fearlessness in his use of that knowledge. Pilate shows neither. His first step in dealing with the accusers of Jesus is a fatal mistake. Instead of at once going to his judgment-seat and pronouncing authoritatively the acquittal of his Prisoner, and clearing his court of all riotously disposed persons, he in one breath declared Jesus innocent and proposed to treat Him as guilty, offering to release Him as a boon to the Jews. A weaker proposal could scarcely have been made. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, to induce the Jews to accept it, but in making it he showed a disposition to treat with them–a disposition they did not fail to make abundant use of in the succeeding scenes of this disgraceful day. This first departure from justice lowered him to their own level and removed the only bulwark he had against their insolence and blood-thirstiness. Had he acted as any upright judge would have acted and at once put his Prisoner beyond reach of their hatred, they would have shrunk like cowed wild beasts; but his first concession put him in their power, and from this point onwards there is exhibited one of the most lamentable spectacles in history,–a man in power tossed like a ball between his convictions and his fears; a Roman not without a certain doggedness and cynical hardness that often pass for strength of character, but held up here to view as a sample of the weakness that results from the vain attempt to satisfy both what is bad and what is good in us.

His second attempt to save Jesus from death was more unjust and as futile as the first. He scourges the Prisoner whose innocence he had himself declared, possibly under the idea that if nothing was confessed by Jesus under this torture it might convince the Jews of His innocence, but more probably under the impression that they might be satisfied when they saw Jesus bleeding and fainting from the scourge. The Roman scourge was a barbarous instrument, its heavy thongs being loaded with metal and inlaid with bone, every cut of which tore away the flesh. But if Pilate fancied that when the Jews saw this lacerated form they would pity and relent, he greatly mistook the men he had to do with. He failed to take into account the common principle that when you have wrongfully injured a man you hate him all the more. Many a man becomes a murderer, not by premeditation, but having struck a first blow and seeing his victim in agony he cannot bear that that eye should live to reproach him and that tongue to upbraid him with his cruelty. So it was here. The people were infuriated by the sight of the innocent, unmurmuring Sufferer whom they had thus mangled. They cannot bear that such an object be left to remind them of their barbarity, and with one fierce yell of fury they cry, “Crucify Him, crucify Him.”[25]

A third time Pilate refused to be the instrument of their inhuman and unjust rage, and flung the Prisoner on their hands: “Take Him yourselves, and crucify Him: for I find no crime in Him.” But when the Jews answered that by their law He ought to die, because “He made Himself the Son of God,” Pilate was again seized with dread, and withdrew his Prisoner for the fourth time into the palace. Already he had remarked in His demeanour a calm superiority which made it seem quite possible that this extraordinary claim might be true. The books he had read at school and the poems he had heard since he grew up had told stories of how the gods had sometimes come down and dwelt with men. He had long since discarded such beliefs as mere fictions. Still, there was something in the bearing of this Prisoner before him that awakened the old impression, that possibly this single planet with its visible population was not the whole universe, that there might be some other unseen region out of which Divine beings looked down upon earth with pity, and from which they might come and visit us on some errand of love. With anxiety written on his face and heard in his tone he asks, “Whence art Thou?” How near does this man always seem to be to breaking through the thin veil and entering with illumined vision into the spiritual world, the world of truth and right and God! Would not a word now from Jesus have given him entrance? Would not the repetition of the solemn affirmation of His divinity which He had given to the Sanhedrim have been the one thing wanted in Pilate’s case, the one thing to turn the scale in the favour of Jesus? At first sight it might seem so; but so it seemed not to the Lord. He preserves an unbroken silence to the question on which Pilate seems to hang in an earnest suspense. And certainly this silence is by no means easy to account for. Shall we say that He was acting out His own precept, “Give not that which is holy to dogs”? Shall we say that He who knew what was in man saw that though Pilate was for the moment alarmed and in earnest, yet there was beneath that earnestness an ineradicable vacillation? It is very possible that the treatment He had received at Pilate’s hand had convinced Him that Pilate would eventually yield to the Jews; and what need, then, of protracting the process? No man who has any dignity and self-respect will make declarations about his character which he sees will do no good: no man is bound to be at the beck of every one to answer accusations they may bring against him; by doing so he will often only involve himself in miserable, petty wranglings, and profit no one. Jesus therefore was not going to make revelations about Himself which He saw would only make Him once again a shuttlecock driven between the two contending parties.

Besides–and this probably is the main reason of the silence–Pilate was now forgetting altogether the relation between himself and his Prisoner. Jesus had been accused before him on a definite charge which he had found to be baseless. He ought therefore to have released Him. This new charge of the Jews was one of which Pilate could not take cognisance; and of this Jesus reminds him by His silence. Jesus might have made influence for Himself by working upon the superstition of Pilate; but this was not to be thought of.

Offended at His silence, Pilate exclaims: “Speakest Thou not unto me? Knowest Thou not that I have power to release Thee, and have power to crucify Thee?” Here was an unwonted kind of prisoner who would not curry favour with His judge. But instead of entreating Pilate to use this power in His favour Jesus replies: “Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath greater sin.” Pilate’s office was the ordinance of God, and therefore his judgments should express the justice and will of God; and it was this which made the sin of Caiaphas and the Jews so great: they were making use of a Divine ordinance to serve their own God-resisting purposes. Had Pilate been a mere irresponsible executioner their sin would have been sufficiently heinous; but in using an official who is God’s representative of law, order, and justice to fulfil their own wicked and unjust designs they recklessly prostitute God’s ordinance of justice and involve themselves in a darker criminality.

More impressed than ever by this powerful statement falling from the lips of a man weakened by the scourging, Pilate makes one more effort to save Him. But now the Jews play their last card and play it successfully. “If thou release this man, thou art not Caesars friend.” To lay himself open to a charge of treason or neglect of the interests of Caesar was what Pilate could not risk. At once his compassion for the Prisoner, his sense of justice, his apprehensions, his proud unwillingness to let the Jews have their way, are overcome by his fear of being reported to the most suspicious of emperors. He prepared to give his judgment, taking his place on the official seat, which stood on a tesselated pavement, called in Aramaic “Gabbatha,” from its elevated position in sight of the crowds standing outside. Here, after venting his spleen in the weak sarcasm “Shall I crucify your King?” he formally hands over his Prisoner to be crucified. This decision was at last come to, as John records, about noon of the day which prepared for and terminated in the Paschal Supper.

Pilate’s vacillation receives from John a long and careful treatment. Light is shed upon it, and upon the threat which forced him at last to make up his mind, from the account which Philo gives of his character and administration. “With a view,” he says, “to vex the Jews, Pilate hung up some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, which they judged a profanation of the holy city, and therefore petitioned him to remove them. But when he steadfastly refused to do so, for he was a man of very inflexible disposition and very merciless as well as very obstinate, they cried out, ‘Beware of causing a tumult, for Tiberius will not sanction this act of yours; and if you say that he will, we ourselves will go to him and supplicate your master.’ This threat exasperated Pilate in the highest degree, as he feared that they might really go to the Emperor and impeach him with respect to other acts of his government–his corruption, his acts of insolence, his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending and gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity. Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up nor wishing to do anything which could be acceptable to his subjects, and yet fearing the anger of Tiberius. And those who were in power among the Jews, seeing this and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, appealed to the Emperor.”[26] This sheds light on the whole conduct of Pilate during this trial–his fear of the Emperor, his hatred of the Jews and desire to annoy them, his vacillation and yet obstinacy; and we see that the mode the Sanhedrim now adopted with Pilate was their usual mode of dealing with him: now, as always, they saw his vacillation, disguised as it was by fierceness of speech, and they knew he must yield to the threat of complaining to Caesar.

The very thing that Pilate feared, and to avoid which he sacrificed the life of our Lord, came upon him six years after. Complaints against him were sent to the Emperor; he was deposed from his office, and so stripped of all that made life endurable to him, that, “wearied with misfortunes,” he died by his own hand. Perhaps we are tempted to think Pilate’s fate severe; we naturally sympathise with him; there are so many traits of character which show well when contrasted with the unprincipled violence of the Jews. We are apt to say he was weak rather than wicked, forgetting that moral weakness is just another name for wickedness, or rather is that which makes a man capable of any wickedness. The man we call wicked has his one or two good points at which we can be sure of him. The weak man we are never sure of. That he has good feelings is nothing, for we do not know what may be brought to overcome these feelings. That he has right convictions is nothing; we may have thought he was convinced today, but tomorrow his old fears have prevailed. And who is the weak man who is thus open to every kind of influence? He is the man who is not single-minded. The single-minded, worldly man makes no pretension to holiness, but sees at a glance that that interferes with his real object; the single-minded, godly man has only truth and righteousness for his aim, and does not listen to fears or hopes suggested by the world. But the man who attempts to gratify both his conscience and his evil or weak feelings, the man who fancies he can so manipulate the events of his life as to secure his own selfish ends as well as the great ends of justice and righteousness, will often be in as great a perplexity as Pilate, and will come to as ruinous if not to so appalling an end.

In this would-be equitable Roman governor, exhibiting his weakness to the people and helplessly exclaiming, “What shall I do with Jesus which is called Christ?”[27] we see the predicament of many who are suddenly confronted with Christ–disconcerted as they are to have such a prisoner thrown on their hands, and wishing that anything had turned up rather than a necessity for answering this question, What shall I do with Jesus? Probably when Jesus was led by the vacillating Pilate out and in, back and forward, examined and re-examined, acquitted, scourged, defended, and abandoned to His enemies, some pity for His judge mingled with other feelings in His mind. This was altogether too great a case for a man like Pilate, fit enough to try men like Barabbas and to keep the turbulent Galileans in order. What unhappy fate, he might afterwards think, had brought this mysterious Prisoner to his judgment-seat, and for ever linked in such unhappy relation his name to the Name that is above every name? Never with more disastrous results did the resistless stream of time bring together and clash together the earthen and the brazen pitcher. Never before had such a prisoner stood at any judge’s bar. Roman governors and emperors had been called to doom or to acquit kings and potentates of all degrees and to determine every kind of question, forbidding this or that religion, extirpating old dynasties, altering old landmarks, making history in its largest dimensions; but Pilate was summoned to adjudicate in a case that seemed of no consequence at all, yet really eclipsed in its importance all other cases put together.

Nothing could save Pilate from the responsibility attaching to his connection with Jesus, and nothing can save us from the responsibility of determining what judgment we are to pronounce on this same Person. It may seem to us an unfortunate predicament we are placed in; we may resent being called upon to do anything decided in a matter where our convictions so conflict with our desires; we may inwardly protest against human life being obstructed and disturbed by choices that are so pressing and so difficult and with issues so incalculably serious. But second thoughts assure us that to be confronted with Christ is in truth far from being an unfortunate predicament, and that to be compelled to decisions which determine our whole after-course and allow fullest expression of our own will and spiritual affinities is our true glory. Christ stands patiently awaiting our decision, maintaining His inalienable majesty, but submitting Himself to every test we care to apply, claiming only to be the King of the truth by whom we are admitted into that sole eternal kingdom. It has come to be our turn, as it came to be Pilate’s, to decide upon His claims and to act upon our decision–to recognise that we men have to do, not merely with pleasure and place, with earthly rewards and relations, but above all with the truth, with that which gives eternal significance to all these present things, with the truth about human life, with the truth embodied for us in Christ’s person and speaking intelligibly to us through His lips, with God manifest in the flesh. Are we to take part with Him when He calls us to glory and to virtue, to the truth and to eternal life, or yielding to some present pressure the world puts upon us attempt some futile compromise and so renounce our birthright?

Could Pilate really persuade himself he made everything right with a basin of water and a theatrical transference of his responsibility to the Jews? Could he persuade himself that by merely giving up the contest he was playing the part of a judge and of a man? Could he persuade himself that the mere words, “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man: see ye to it,” altered his relation to the death of Christ? No doubt he did. There is nothing commoner than for a man to think himself forced when it is his own fear or wickedness that is his only compulsion. Would every man in Pilate’s circumstances have felt himself forced to surrender Jesus to the Jews? Would even a Gallio or a Claudius Lysias have done so? But Pilate’s past history made him powerless. Had he not feared exposure, he would have marched his cohort across the square and cleared it of the mob and defied the Sanhedrim. It was not because he thought the Jewish law had any true right to demand Christ’s death, but merely because the Jews threatened to report him as conniving at rebellion, that he yielded Christ to them; and to seek to lay the blame on those who made it difficult to do the right thing was both unmanly and futile. The Jews were at least willing to take their share of the blame, dreadful in its results as that proved to be.

Fairly to apportion blame where there are two consenting parties to a wickedness is for us, in many cases, impossible; and what we have to do is to beware of shifting blame from ourselves to our circumstances or to other people. However galling it is to find ourselves mixed up with transactions which turn out to be shameful, or to discover that some vacillation or imbecility on our part has made us partakers in sin, it is idle and worse to wash our hands ostentatiously and try to persuade ourselves we have no guilt in the matter. The fact that we have been brought in contact with unjust, cruel, heartless, fraudulent, unscrupulous, worldly, passionate people may explain many of our sins, but it does not excuse them. Other people in our circumstances would not have done what we have done; they would have acted a stronger, manlier, more generous part. And if we have sinned, it only adds to our guilt and encourages our weakness to profess innocence now and transfer to some other party the disgrace that belongs to ourselves. Nothing short of physical compulsion can excuse wrong-doing.

The calmness and dignity with which Jesus passed through this ordeal, alone self-possessed, while all around Him were beside themselves, so impressed Pilate that he not only felt guilty in giving Him up to the Jews, but did not think it impossible that He might be the Son of God. But what is perhaps even more striking in this scene is the directness with which all these evil passions of men–fear, and self-interest, and injustice, and hate–are guided to an end fraught with blessing. Goodness finds in the most adverse circumstances material for its purposes. We are apt in such circumstances to despair and act as if there were never to be a triumph of goodness; but the little seed of good that one individual can contribute even by hopeful and patient submission is that which survives and produces good in perpetuity, while the passion and the hate and the worldliness cease. In so wild a scene what availed it, we might have said, that one Person kept His steadfastness and rose superior to the surrounding wickedness? But the event showed that it did avail. All the rest was scaffolding that fell away out of sight, and this solitary integrity remains as the enduring monument. In our measure we must pass through similar ordeals, times when it seems vain to contend, useless to hope. When all we have done seems to be lost, when our way is hid and no further step is visible, when all the waves and billows of an ungodly world seem to threaten with extinction the little good we have cherished, then must we remember this calm, majestic Prisoner, bound in the midst of a frantic and blood-thirsty mob, yet superior to it because He was living in God.

FOOTNOTES:

[24] See note to chapter 18.

[25] The cry according to the best reading was simply “Crucify, crucify,” or as it might be rendered, “The cross, the cross.”

[26] Philo, Ad Caium, c. 38.

[27] Mar 15:12.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles