1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
The brook Kidron was a seasonal stream in a valley of the same name that separated the city of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. It was the scene for notable idolatry cleansings under Asa (2Chr 15:16), Josiah (2Kings 23:4-12) and Hezekiah (2Chr 30:14), who cast the ashes of those idols into this brook. Adding further meaning to its history, several Jewish writers describe a sanitary canal which carried the blood and uncleanness of the temple sacrifices directly into the Kidron, making its waters black and dirty (2Chr 29:16; Jer 31:40, see John Gill). Symbolically, the brook Kidron can be thought of as a type of guilt and sin, and for Jesus it marked the point at which He would give up His own will and begin to bear the sins of the world.
The most impressive symbolic detail of the Kidron concerns king David, who crossed this very brook and ascended the Mount of Olives when Absalom, a type of Satan, coveted his throne and came against David with a great army. Betrayed by Ahithophel just as Jesus was betrayed by Judas, David voluntarily endured public humiliation by Shimei, who cursed him, threw stones at him and called him a son of belial; later however, Shimei would be killed for disobeying David’s command to not cross the Kidron again (1Kings 2:42-46). It was at the brook Kidron that David experienced a difficult parting, for he must go on alone with his chosen men, while the priests Zadok and Abiathar returned to Jerusalem with the Ark of the Covenant. In a way, Jesus had to leave behind the Ark of the Covenant too when He crossed the Kidron, for this was one task He must do alone, although surely the Father was watching intently. See my notes for other parallels in these accounts in 2Sam 15:1.
Let us briefly envision the scenes of the previous chapters. Concluded the Communion and Feetwashing ceremonies in the upper room, Judas leaves the group and goes out into the night to finish his determination to betray Jesus to the Jews. Meanwhile, Jesus speaks tenderly and frankly to the Eleven, confirming that He must leave them and return unto the Father. Then they also pass out into the night, and begin to walk toward the Mount of Olives where He was wont to spend the nights (Luke 22:30), perhaps passing by the Temple one final time on the way (John 15:1). He assures the disciples of His love and that He would send the Comforter to them after His departure, and as the group leaves the city, walking slowly down into the Kidron valley, Jesus lifts up His eyes toward heaven and prays His final prayer before entering that spiritually dark hour which He had come to earth to fulfill. For when they cross over the brook Kidron and begin the ascent of the Mount of Olives with its dark garden of Gethsemane, it is then that Jesus gives up His own will to fulfill the purpose of the Godhead, and it is then that He begins to bear the sins of the world in His own body (1Pet 2:24; 2Cor 5:21). This literal hour of darkness at the brook Kidron signified the time He must be delivered up to wicked hands (Luke 22:53; Acts 2:23).
John’s Gospel does not relate Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, but does mention that He entered into a garden. See my notes in Mat 26:36-46 and the account there which describes those moments which I believe was the most difficult of His earthly life, and upon which He experienced His greatest temptation, and certainly His greatest anguish (also Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46).
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
According to the Synoptics, Judas had arrived at his decision to betray Jesus just a day or two before the Passover (Mat 26:14-16; Luke 22:3-6). He had gone to the Pharisees and agreed that for thirty pieces of silver he would help them arrest Him when the multitude was not present. While the text does not directly say so, it appears that Judas’ decision to betray Christ was at least partially instigated by the bitterness he felt when Jesus rebuked him for criticizing Mary for being wasteful in anointing Him with expensive perfume, although sin had already been festering in his heart before. He had been overcome by greed and had been stealing from the disciples for some time (John 12:4-7).
Jesus had arrived in Jerusalem about one week earlier to observe the Passover, and during that time He had been accustomed to leaving the city of Jerusalem each night to sleep on the Mount of Olives. Judas was aware of this practice and the chief priests and scribes had agreed that this would be the perfect spot to secretly arrest Him (Luke 22:6).
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
The other Gospels relate that Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss (Mat 26:48-49; Mark 14:45), which probably was the first act in their meeting. Then Jesus (although already knowing all things that should come upon Him), asked who they were looking for.
“Jesus the Nazarene,” they answered.
“I am [He].” Jesus said, and with that everyone fell backward to the ground. As in John 8:58, the “He” is not in the Greek, making His statement virtually identical to God’s OT title, I AM. No wonder then that the Jews fell back backward to the ground, as Eli did when he heard the words, the ark of God (1Sam 4:17-18). In the messianic Psalms 40, the writer prays that those who seek after his soul would be driven backward (Ps 40:14; 35:4). Clearly an invisible power was at work, for instead of moving forward to apprehend the One they had come to take, the men retreated and fell down. It was the same power that had earlier kept the Jewish officers from arresting Him (John 7:45-46), and had allowed Him to pass unharmed through the midst of them (Luke 4:29-30). That power was still most evidently available, but He chose to lay it down and submit Himself to their evil plans.
Three times in these verses Jesus says, I AM (v5,6,8), and that matches exactly the pattern in the 8th chapter of John (v24, 28, 58). His authority is still intact, but has been voluntarily restrained. However, His words are not supplicatory but imperative when He tells His arrestors, Let these (indicating His disciples) go their way. And they obeyed.
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Earlier that night Jesus had told His disciples that the time had come to sell their garments and buy swords (Luke 22:35-39), but clearly He was speaking figuratively of this moment for when Peter attempted to use the sword Jesus disarmed him and all earthly soldiers forever: Put up thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Mat 26:52). It is shocking to read the arguments of those who advocate the duty of Christians to take up the sword in self-defense and “just war,” when the entire tenor of the New Covenant is to peace, love and self-denial. Many just-war theorists use these verses to promote their ideas, interpreting short phrases in such way as to contradict the body of Scripture.
The sword is a euphemism for conflict, antagonism, persecution and war, which Jesus says His disciples will suffer, not inflict on others (Mat 10:34-36). Of course, Peter was still living according to the lex talionis of the Old Covenant (Mat 5:38), and with admirable courage stood to defend His Master, even though they were greatly outnumbered. While the versions translate sword, the Greek word machaira typically means a knife used for a variety of daily tasks such as cutting meat, offering sacrifices, etc. It also served as a simple weapon for protection from thieves. There were only two knives among the entire group, and that is significant. Attempting to reconstruct a possible thrust or slash that would result in cutting off a man’s ear, I envision a horizontal slash aimed at the neck. But the servant anticipates the blow and ducks his head to the side; almost enough, but not quite. Jesus, however, stopped the action and healed the stricken man (Luke 22:51).
The servant’s name was Malchus. While the other Gospels name neither Peter or Malchus, the book of John helps us to understand the pressure Peter felt later that night and led him to deny that he knew Jesus, for one of his accusers was a relative of this man he had tried to kill a few hours earlier (John 18:26). It is likely that Malchus later became a Christian, and for that we know his name.
The cup which My Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? The cup seems to typify suffering and self-denial (Mat 20:22; Mark 14:6; Luke 22:42).
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
The band and its captain may refer to Roman soldiers (see Acts 21:31). However, the arrest was a Jewish affair, organized and manned by the chief priests, elders and scribes. Although Caiaphas was the acting high priest, the multitude took Jesus instead to the house of Annas, who was Caiaphas’ father-in-law. Annas was a very influential person in Judea. Several of his sons had served as high priests, and Luke 3:2 indicates Annas was himself the high priest with Caiaphas. Perhaps Annas was the primary mediator of the secret pact Judas had made with the Jewish rulers, and so Jesus was first brought to his house. Or maybe Jesus was simply held there until the Sanhedrim could be hastily called to meet in the wee hours of the morning at the house of Caiaphas. Whatever the case, John alone tells us that Jesus went first to the house of Annas.
14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
Concerning the occasion and background for this counsel, in which Caiaphas inadvertently prophesied that Jesus would die for the people, see John 11:47-53.
15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
Peter and another disciple secretly followed Jesus, for the darkness of the night was sufficient to keep them from being discovered. Modern translations of verse 24 lead some to think that verses 15-23 took place in the house of Annas and not Caiaphas, but I think not. Jesus was taken first to Annas’ house (v13) and waited there while the members of the Sanhedrin were hastily called to assemble at the house of the high priest Caiaphas. Meanwhile, Peter was watching in the dark outside Annas’ house until Jesus was led forth, and then he followed Him to Caiaphas’ house (v15) where he was able to gain entrance with the help of another. By that time, it would probably have been around 3:00AM.
The alternative view is that verses 15-23 describe Jesus’ interrogation before Annas, and verses 24-27 describe His trial before the Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas. There are at least three strong arguments against that idea: 1) it requires Peter to deny Christ in both houses while warming himself before two different fires and facing the accusations of two separate female gatekeepers, 2) while Peter entered one of the two houses with the help of another, we are left to guess how he entered the other house, and 3) throughout these verses it is the high priest that questions Jesus. Caiaphas, not Annas, was the acting high priest (v24). The best counter-argument to these facts is the theory that the houses of Annas and Caiaphas were adjacent and shared the same courtyard.
When the two disciples arrived at the house of the high priest, they could not enter because of the damsel that kept the door. However, that other disciple knew the high priest, and by his word Peter was also allowed into the courtyard. There is some disagreement over who this other disciple was; many believe it was the Apostle John, writer of this Gospel, who is everywhere modest and reluctant to draw attention to himself by name. Others point out that usually John refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 20:2), which phrase does not appear here. They also doubt that John the young Galilean would be sufficiently acquainted with the Jewish high priest such that his staff would recognize him. However, the careful details in John’s Gospel at this night meeting make me believe that John was indeed this other disciple, for he and Peter were steadfast friends in everything, and we know that John was at the crucifixion. One supporting detail to the idea that John knew the high priest’s household is that he alone records the name of the high priest’s servant whose ear Peter had cut off.
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. 18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
Peter’s first denial at the gate may have been a simple, flippant “No” to the gatekeeper quick question, “You’re not one of His disciples are you?” That would quickly allay her doubt. See also Mat 26:69; Mark 14:66; Luke 22:56. If, as I proposed in the previous note, Peter had been standing in the cold for several hours outside Annas’ house and then walked to Caiaphas’ house, it is no wonder he was drawn to the fire.
19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. 20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. 21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
Since John says that Caiaphas was the high priest (John 11:49; 18:13), these verses apparently present the same interrogation at the house of Caiaphas that the other Gospels describe. As is common in his Gospel, John relates a statement of Jesus that the others do not: “Why are you asking Me what I said? The standard procedure is to call witnesses that heard Me, in order to substantiate My ‘erroneous’ doctrine. There surely are many, for I ever spoke openly to the world.”
The council eventually did bring witnesses, but only with great difficulty, for their testimonies did not agree. In the end, the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death on account of His own testimony that He is God (Mat 26:59-66; John 19:7).
22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Before this same council several years later, the Apostle Paul was also hit in the face (Acts 23:2). The Sanhedrin was a corrupt and unjust council of supposed religious leaders who used cruelty and false testimony to manufacture the decisions they wished to impose. Until this moment, Jesus had never once been physically abused during His ministry, but from now until the end, He would be mistreated and humiliated often. It is another sign of the sudden and striking change to that hour in which the powers of darkness were permitted to have their way with Him. Before, men were forbidden to touch Him by some unseen power (John 7:45-46), now He can only respond with words of wisdom, for He had laid down His God-powers (Php 2:7-8).
24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
The translations of this verse that are based on the Textus Receptus (ie. KJV) indicate that Jesus had earlier been sent to Caiaphas, and so the events of the previous verses would have taken place there. Modern translations based on the Nestle text render the verse in the present tense (then Annas sent Him bound…), which makes the prior verses seem to take place at the house of Annas. For the arguments against the latter option, see the note for v15.
25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Peter was still warming himself when several others around the fire began to question him: Art not thou also one of His disciples? Perhaps the first denial was a flippant answer to a playful question, but this time he is forced into a corner by several accusers. Seeing those faces arraigned against him around the fire, Peter is completely intimidated and denied that he was a disciple of Jesus. A little later, yet a third person, this one a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, enters the scene and confronts Peter: Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? And once more Peter denied that it was he, whereupon the rooster immediately crowed. Luke records (Luke 22:56-62) that then the Lord turned and looked at Peter, who suddenly remembered Jesus’ words of just a few hours earlier: The cock shall not crow til thou hast denied Me thrice (John 13:38). Peter recalled his own over-confident boast that even though all others should forsake Christ, he would never do so (Mat 26:31-35), and thinking upon these things, he left the house and wept bitterly.
Much has been written and many illustrations have been drawn from Peter’s high-profile denial, yet let us first emphasize the points concerning Christ, that Jesus knew the future exactly and that He was authoritatively involved in the high-stakes battle of the spirit world: The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not (Luke 22:31-32). Peter was but a pawn in this battle; we are weak but He is strong. Rather than focus on Peter’s failure, let us take lesson from his overcoming faith. Judas denied too, and did not have the faith to repent unto salvation. If in his own strength Peter failed, being perhaps the strongest of the twelve in courage and determination, may we recognize that sufficient power to overcome our own trials of faith is available only in Christ.
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.
John does not describe the injustice and cruelty that Jesus suffered before the Sanhedrin, nor does he detail the sentence of death that they pronounced upon Him, all of which can be found in the Synoptics (Mat 26:63-68; Luke 22:63-71). Daylight was just breaking when Jesus was led bound unto the hall of judgment (praitorion), the Roman court of Jewish affairs in Jerusalem (Mark 15:16).
In order to guard themselves from becoming ceremonially unclean and thereby excluded from eating the Passover, the Jews refused to enter the praetorium. The Passover lamb was to be slain that evening, and that also marked the beginning of the week-long Festival of Unleavened Bread in which the first day was the most holy festival day in all the Jewish calendar. This particular year, that day happened to fall upon the normal weekly sabbath, making it a high day sabbath (John 19:31). The hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders here is shockingly evident and almost unbelievable. They blatantly broke a multitude of their own rules of etiquette and justice in condemning Jesus to death in the dark of night, yet before the people they were piously righteous.
According to the Mosaic law a person who became ceremonially unclean was to remain that way until evening, and that would have denied the Jewish rulers the right to eat the Passover lamb (Num 9:13). This verse highlights a fact that ought to put to rest all notions that the Jewish Passover had taken place the night before, and that therefore Jesus was crucified on the first day of Unleavened Bread. The ceremonial laws specified that the lamb be slain on the 14th Nisan and eaten that evening. The 15th Nisan was a mandatory holy day to the Lord, one of the two most sacred days in all the Jewish calendar. No servile work was permitted, and a holy convocation of all Jewish adults was observed in the temple on this day (see note John 13:1). It is inconceivable that the Jewish leaders would have crucified Jesus on 15 Nisan, and it would contradict their own decision to not arrest Him on that day (Mat 26:5). If instead Jesus was crucified on the Passover day (14 Nisan), all difficulties are removed and the details involved mesh with facts given. The 14th was not a holy day, and normal work and activities were permitted. A minor detail in Mark 15:21 is yet another supporting fact in this argument. As Jesus was walking out of the city to be crucified, Simon the Cyrenian was entering the city from out of the country. Jews came from hundreds of miles to Jerusalem to eat the Passover, and apparently Simon was one of them. If, as some say, this was after the Passover, Simon was breaking the Jew’s law which dictated that one could not travel more than 2000 cubits (about 1/2 mile) outside the city on the Sabbath.
The only reason some commentators propose that Jesus died on the 15 Nisan is because the Synoptics say that Jesus ate the Passover the night before He died. See our notes that reconcile the apparent differences.
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:
Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26-37, appointed by the Roman Emperor, Tiberius Caesar. Although his normal quarters were in Caesarea on the sea, Pilate’s garrison of Roman soldiers went periodically to Jerusalem to keep the peace and to quell any Jewish uprising. During the previous year’s passover, he had apparently angered Herod Antipas (20BC-AD39), tetrarch of the region of Galilee, by killing some Jews during their sacrifices (Luke 13:1; 23:12). According to Philo, a Jewish intellectual of Alexandria who lived ca 20BC-50AD, Pilate was a cruel man of ferocious passions who regularly executed persons without waiting for a trial. He was noted for obstinacy and selfish ambitions, but had very recently been sternly reprimanded by Tiberius for having installed some ceremonial shields in Herod’s Jerusalem palace. That had provoked outrage by the Jews, who saw it as a demotion of their customs and heritage. So at the time, Pilate found himself embroiled in a delicate situation both in Rome and Jerusalem. If the year of Jesus’ death was indeed 33 A.D., and the greatest evidences do favor that date, then Pilate was additionally concerned with Tiberius’ ongoing purge of anyone who seemed to have supported Sejanus in his emperoral ambitions. Pilate himself had probably been appointed by Sejanus. Historians call this period Tiberius’ “reign of terror,” which began in 31AD with the execution of Sejanus and ended in 34AD.
Pilate’s first clash of the day with the scribes and Pharisees concerning Jesus went poorly for the Jews, who could not come up with a believable accusation that would cause the Romans to execute Jesus. Sedition against the Roman government carried the death penalty, but Pilate was rightfully very suspicious. The Jews were ideologically and violently antagonistic to Roman rule in Jerusalem, why would they suddenly be so zealous for Rome as to turn in a seditious person on the eve of their holy week? The intention of the chief priests before Pilate is truly amazing. They didn’t want Pilate to judge Jesus (they had already done that), they just wanted Pilate to put Him to death.
The real reason the Jewish rulers wanted Pilate to take responsibility of Jesus is revealed: they want Him publicly put to death. Virtually certain that the Jews had not brought Jesus to him because of plotting against Rome, Pilate tells the Jews to take Jesus and judge Him according to their law, a remarkably generous gesture on Pilate’s part. The Jews respond: But it is not lawful for us to put any man to death. Now, there are sufficient examples in history and the Scriptures (Acts 7:59; Mat 26:4) that convince us that the Jews would not have let this little detail restrain them from killing Jesus. Religious assassinations and stonings were commonplace in Jerusalem. However, the Jews wanted more than a simple murder; they wanted Jesus to be humiliated and executed in public as a common criminal and so forever eliminate Him from undermining them before the people, and to discourage any others who might try to continue His anti-Jewish doctrine. Public executions were the domain and right of the Roman government, so the Jews needed to get Rome to kill Jesus.
While Pilate is to be commended in this instance for not simply rubber-stamping the envious and guilt-stricken Jewish leaders’ death sentence, he cannot escape the huge blot on his character record that has him standing in the annals of history forever trying to wash his hands from the guilt of participating in killing the Son of God. Yes, the greater sin would fall upon the Jews (John 19:11), but Pilate’s word alone could have set Jesus free. However, he was too weak to withstand the wrath and clamor of the Jewish people. Almost certainly those Jewish taunts about not being a friend of Caesar hint at his worry about recrimination from Rome. A further hint is seen in the fact that when the Jews refused to enter the Judgment Hall, Pilate then went out unto them. Yet later when the Jews tried to get him to change the title he had put upon Jesus’ cross, Pilate refused (John 19:20-22). He had had enough of the Jews’ pressures, but by then it was too late, and he seems to have wished that he would have had acted otherwise.
32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
What death He should die. Jesus had prophesied in detail that He would be delivered up to the Romans to be publicly humiliated and executed by crucifixion: The Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him (Mat 20:18-19). His words were exactly fulfilled. According to Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” a major stumbling-block the early Christians encountered in evangelizing the Jews was that Jesus had died by crucifixion. This manner of death was considered such a shameful disgrace that many could not accept Him as the Messiah. Even when the Christians explained carefully that the curse of sin which all mankind had incurred was carried by Christ (Gal 3:13), they were doubtful. Justin gave several fore-shadows of the crucifixion from the Jewish Scriptures, explaining that Moses’ lifted up hands formed a figure of the cross (Ex 17:11-12), and that Isaiah 65:2 likewise pictures God in the form of a cross. He saw in the horns of the unicorn (Ps 22:21) another signification of the death that the Messiah would die, for the three extremities of the cross appeared as horns, The brazen serpent lifted up on a pole also pre-figured Christ’s crucifixion, for it went contrary to the Law to ask the children of Israel to worship an image, and even more, the image of a serpent.
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?
Now Pilate began to understand why the Jews had brought Jesus to him. They wanted Him shamed and put to death. He called for Jesus and, in the absence of the Jews (who would not enter the judgment hall), he interrogated Him: Art Thou the King of the Jews? His question sprang from the Jewish rulers’ charge that Jesus was secretly mounting an attempt against the Roman government, and that He was proclaiming Himself to be a King (Luke 23:1-2).
Sayest thou this thing of thyself? Judging by this answer, Jesus had not been present when the Jews accused Him before Pilate outside the Praetorium, but His words are not those of a man in peril of death. In fact, Jesus’ answers will make Pilate more and more convinced of His innocence.
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.
The Kingdom proclaimed. Jesus’ words before Pilate have been called the good confession (1Tim 6:13), and they have been one of the pillars of the suffering, pilgrim churches of Christ down through history: My Kingdom is not of this world. When citizens of the Kingdom truly grasp the transcendental significance of that concept it will deeply affect their worldview, the purpose of being church and the very reasons for living (Luke 17:21). When you are buffeted by the trials and difficulties, think: My Kingdom is not of this world! When the enemy comes offering pleasures, ease and pomp, remember: My Kingdom is not of this world! When sadnesses, despairs and discouragements strike at the soul, repeat: My Kingdom is not from hence!
The prophets foretold of a day in which the God of heaven would set up a Kingdom that would never be destroyed (Dan 2:44; 7:14). Pilate saw and heard the dawn of that Kingdom from the outside. To this end was [Christ] born, and for this cause came [He] into the world (v37). Jesus’ ministry began with a proclamation that the Kingdom of heaven was at hand (Mat 4:17), and it ended with its foundations of Truth fully established. By bearing witness to the truth, Jesus inaugurated the gospel of your salvation (Eph 1:13), and everyone who hears His voice is of the Truth.
Thou sayest that I am a king, or, “it is as thou sayest.” An earthly kingdom must have a king, a country, a constitution and servants, and so too does the heavenly Kingdom of Christ.
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.
After questioning Jesus, Pilate was sure of one thing: Jesus was no threat to Rome. Clearly the chief priests had lied to him; it was probably a matter of disputing about their laws, and for envy they wished Him killed (Mark 15:10). So it is with some bitterness that Pilate says, What is truth? He wasn’t expecting a response, he was just tired of lies and deception. Nevertheless, his question has rung down through the centuries in the halls of religion, philosophy, science, history and all other fields that human knowledge has pursued.
In the most basic of meanings, truth is simply the real state of things. Truth can generally be proven or shown to be true, yet there are several foundational truths which cannot be proven at all. These are accepted to be true because they are so universally and consistently believed. It is impossible, for instance, to scientifically prove that the law of cause and effect is true. Yet it is so universally consistent that even evolutionists, who could wish ever so much that it were not true, accept it’s truthfulness. Sincerity is not enough; it has to be true! Seek the Truth with a sincere, honest heart and you will find it (Mat 7:7).
Truth is discovered by either logic or by divine revelation, but divine revelation is the ultimate truth, and must supersede the truth of logic. Example: the logical truth that will result from human wisdom must say that Jesus Christ did not resurrect from the dead; but divine revelation says that He did. We believe divine revelation because the Spirit is truth (John 15:26), Jesus Christ is Truth (John 14:6), God’s Word is truth (John 17:17; Dan 10:21; 1Thes 2:13; 2Tim 2:15), and the Church of Jesus Christ is the pillar and ground of truth (1Tim 3:15). Truth discovered by man’s logic and wisdom may be flawed, but divinely revealed truth is infallible because it originates in the God (1Cor 1:25; 3:19) who is True (Deut 32:4). Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). So Truth is Christ and His Word, for the Scriptures make us wise unto salvation, prepared and equipped against every possible doctrine of deception (2Tim 3:15-17). Jesus used revealed truth to combat Satan during His great desert temptation, so possessing the truth of the Scriptures is key to standing firm before the wiles and schemes of the devil. The brethren are counseled to prove whether the words of church teachers are based in Truth by studying the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; 1Thes 5:21).
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.
One of the peculiar elements in the story of Jesus’ crucifixion is why Pilate tried so hard to be rid of any responsibility concerning Jesus’ death. The Romans were cruel and merciless as a rule, and the death of one more Jew was hardly a matter of much concern, even if He happened to be innocent. Yet Pilate was clearly unnerved by this Man who spoke so calmly and confidently, yet would not even defend Himself. And His odd assertion that He had been sent to earth as a King but not of this world? The more Pilate learned about Him, the more worried he became. Then, while still in the judgment hall with Jesus, he received a message from his wife: Have thou nothing to do with that just man for I have suffered many things in a dream this day because of Him (Mat 27:19). The Romans were notoriously superstitious, and were convinced that the gods predicted events by these types of omens.
Pilate felt trapped. The Jews were practically out of their minds, threatening revolt and riot if he did not acquiesce to their demands that Jesus be executed. The Man was clearly innocent, but his job was to keep peace and order in Jerusalem, which was presently in a precarious state. The other Gospels even more clearly portray this fact.
Under these pressures Pilate went out to the Jewish crowd outside the Praetorium. I find in Him no fault at all, he told them. But the chief priests would not accept his answer and the gathering mob became even angrier in accusing Jesus of sedition and of stirring up the people. During this second encounter with the Jewish rulers, Pilate learned that Jesus was a Galilean and so had Him sent to Herod as recorded in Luke 23:1-15. However, the matter only worsened during the short time that Herod interviewed Jesus, and by the time Jesus returned to Pilate’s hall (perhaps an hour later) an even greater and more angry Jewish multitude was gathered outside the Roman hall.
The multitude began clamoring that Pilate release a Passover prisoner to them (Mark 15:8), and Pilate, hoping and expecting that the Jewish population would not agree with their rulers concerning Jesus of Nazareth, responded by offering to release the King of the Jews instead of Barabbas (Mark 15:9-10). But the chief priests were able to move the multitude to ask that Barabbas be released and that Jesus be crucified (Mark 15:11-13). Luke’s parallel account gives a very similar record of events (Luke 23:16-25).
The fact that all four gospels record the account of Barabbas being freed makes it likely that there is a deeper significance in that exchange. Now Barabbas was a robber, and had been cast into the Roman prison because of sedition and murder (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:25). The Jewish people rejected the good and righteous King and chose a robber and murderer as their king (Acts 3:13-14). These are striking figures of Satan! See John 8:44; 10:10. Physical Jews have ever since been characterized as seditious, robberous people. Yet let us be clear, not just the Jew but every Gentile who rejects and disregards the living Word is shouting with that rebellious crowd: Not this Man, but Barabbas! What terrible, awful choice. The parallel account says, And Pilate released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will (Luke 23:25).