John 18
THE HOUR HAS COME (ch.18:1 – 19:42)
The Betrayal,
the Majesty of His Bearing,
Accompanied by Hints of the Bitter Cup (vs. 1-11)
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.” When Jesus had spoken these words —
i.e. had offered the prayer, and
communed with His Father touching Himself,
His disciples, and His whole Church — He went forth with
His disciples; i.e.
from the resting-place chosen by Him on his way from the “guest-chamber” to
the
area, or some sheltered spot under the shadow of its walls,
where He
uttered His wondrous discourse and intercession. He went over the ravine
— or, strictly speaking, winter-torrent — of Kedron. The stream rises
north of
and the
where it joins the
the peculiar physical conformation of the city. The stream
is in summer dry
to its bed. There is
an old tradition that there is below the present surface of
its bed, a subterraneous watercourse, whose waters may be
heard flowing. The
stream takes a sudden bend to the southeast at En-Rogel, and makes its
way, by the convent of Saba, to
the
that this note of place given by John alone — for the three
other
evangelists simply speak of “the
into relation with the story of David’s flight from Absalom by the same
route, and also the Jewish expectation (Joel 3:2), and
Mohammedan
prediction, that here will take place the final judgment
(Smith’s
‘Dictionary,’ art. “Kedron,”
by Grove; ‘Pictorial
Robinson, ‘Bib. Res.,’ 1:269: Winer’s
‘B. Realworterbuch,’ art. “Kedron;”
Dean Stanley’s ‘Sinai and
Capt. Warren and Capt. Wilson, John 1. and 5.). Where was a garden.
This reference is in agreement (Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32)
with the
synoptic description of the χωρίον - chorion - freehold; parcel
of ground –
small farm, or olive yard, enclosed from the rest of the hillside, and
called
“
dates back to the time of
described by the synoptists. There are still
remaining “the eight aged olive
trees,” which
carry back the associations to the hour of the great travail. It
is certain that the general features of the scene still
closely correspond with
what was visible on the awful night (‘Pictorial Palestine,’
1:86, 98).
Patristic and mediaeval writers see parallels between the
garden of Eden lost
by man’s sin, and the
met
the prince of this world, and bore the weight of
human transgression
and shame, and regained for man the paradise which Adam lost.
It is still
more interesting to notice a further touch recorded
by John: Into which —
into the quiet retreat and partial concealment of
which — He (Jesus) entered
Himself, and His
disciples. We know from the other Gospels that they were
separated —eight remained on watch near the entrance, and Peter and James
and John went further into the recesses of the garden, and again, “about a
stone’s cast” (Luke 22:41), in the depth of the olive-shade, our
blessed
Lord retired to “pray.”
2 “And
Judas also, which betrayed Him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes
resorted thither with His disciples.” Now Judas also, who was betraying Him
(notice present tense in contrast with ὁ παράδους – ho paradous – the one
betraying of
Matthew 10:4), knew the place: because oftentimes Jesus resorted
(literally, was assembled there) thither with His disciples. Luke tells us that during
this very week (Luke 21:37) they
had passed their nights (ηὐλίζετο – aeulizeto –
He camped out)
on the “
conjectured that they had gone thither again to pass the night. The fact here
mentioned by John, that Judas knew the place declares that
John only
represented the place as known to Judas, in order to
enhance the voluntary
nature of the sacrifice. Some explanation may thus be given
of the fact that
the eleven disciples, having reached an accustomed place of
repose, all
slumbered and slept, and were not able to watch one
hour.
The mind of man is naturally interested in places, not so
much for their
own sake, as for the sake of associations connected with
them. Religions
have their sacred places: the Jew cannot forget
Mohammedan venerates the holy
- THE GARDEN WAS TO THE MINDS OF THE
OF HOLY FELLOWSHIP WITH THEIR LORD. “Jesus ofttimes
resorted thither
with His disciples.” Doubtless they
learned much from
Jesus as He taught in the temple
and in the synagogues, in the highways,
and in the dwellings of the
people. But there was much He wished to say to
them which could be said better
in private. He took them aside into a
desert place, and in seclusion
and quiet communicated to them tidings
which were not for the
multitude. He gathered them together in an upper
room, and discoursed to
them with such profundity and spirituality, that it
needed the
illumination of events that were yet to happen to make plain
His wonderful
sayings. He led them away from the
thronged streets and
temple-courts of the city,
crossed the Kedron ravine, and took them into
the retired garden, that He
might, without interruption, reveal to them
whatever truth they were able to
bear.
for the “quiet
resting-places,” where the Savior meets congenial souls, and
unfolds to them
THE VOLUME OF HIS TRUTH, THE MYSTERY OF
HIS LOVE! Such intimacy binds the heart of the scholar
to his Master.
Such fellowship makes its
lasting mark upon the character. “Did not I see
thee in the garden with him?” (v. 26)
- THE GARDEN WAS TO THE LORD JESUS THE SCENE OF
BITTEREST MENTAL ANGUISH. It seems strange that John, who, we
know, was one of the chosen
three who were near Jesus in His agony and
bloody sweat, says nothing of
His Master’s conflict in
silence cannot be attributed to
want of sympathy, for the beloved disciple
felt keenly with and for his
Lord. He was content that his fellow-
evangelists should tell the
awful sorrows of the Redeemer. The
unexampled pains which Christ
endured, when with strong crying and
tears He made supplication,
constituted a phase of His mediatorial ministry,
not only deeply affecting to the
sensitive mind that contemplates the scene
of woe, but doubtless ever
memorable to our Divine Representative Himself.
“Our
Fellow-Sufferer yet retains
A
fellow-feeling of our pains;
And still
remembers, in the skies,
His tears,
His agonies, and cries.”
“Perfect through suffering” (Hebrews 2:10), the Captain of our salvation looks
back to the hour when He drank the bitter cup in our stead;
and to Him
is for ever linked with His sacred undertaking of our
cause, with the price He
paid for our redemption.
- THE GARDEN WAS TO JUDAS THE SPOT WHERE
HE
HEARTLESSLY BETRAYED HIS LORD. To the mind of the traitor the
one point of interest in
might be apprehended by the
officers of the priests and Pharisees, with no
fear of disturbance or
opposition. The garden, though near
secluded and solitary; no
admiring and sympathizing crowd would there
protect or rescue the honored
and beloved Teacher and Healer. After the
capture, during the few hours of
life remaining to him, Judas could not
think of
repentance, but into remorse. The thought of his own sin and of his
Master’s innocence must have
oppressed his guilty soul, until he was
driven to confession and to
suicide. Terrible is the state of that man
before
whose memory there constantly
arises the scene of crime from which he
sees no deliverance, for which he
sees no expiation, the scene of violence
and cruelty, of debauchery, or of
profanity. “Better had it been for that
man that he had never been born.” (Mark 14:21)
- THE GARDEN IS TO CHRIST’S CHURCH FOR
EVER
ASSOCIATED WITH DIVINE SACRIFICE AND REDEMPTION.
The same place, the imagination
of which awoke the guilty conscience of
Judas to misery and despair, is
associated in all Christians’ minds with the
ransom which was
paid for the deliverance of many from sin and death.
There the anguish was endured,
the cry was uttered, the cup was drunk,
the perfect submission was
rendered, the death on
Very dear to the heart, very
present to the memory, of Christendom is the
Garden whither Jesus oft
resorted, where Jesus suffered Himself to be
betrayed, where Jesus took upon
His heart the burden of human sin, where
Jesus cried, “Not my will, O my Father, but thine, be done!” (Luke 22:42)
A Hallowed Spot (vs. 1-2)
There are depths and unique things in this Gospel which
make it easily to
be
accounted for that some should reckon it the choicest of the Gospels. It
has
what the others have not; but when we compare the others with it, to
look for their peculiar excellences, then we find how the others have what
this Gospel lacks. One would have thought beforehand that John would
have enlarged on the mysteries and sorrows of
enough, he passes them over without a word. Here is one of the
illustrations of how real a thing inspiration is, these Gospels being
not
written after the fashion of human books, though they came through
human minds. If John had been asked why he omitted to enlarge on
the
Passion, he could hardly have told. But though John says
nothing of how
Jesus began to be sorrowful and very heavy even unto death,
though he
says nothing of that sweat which was like great drops of blood falling to
the
ground, yet we are sure all these dreadful experiences must have been
often in his grateful recollection.
Jesus and His disciples had free speech before His death,
and it was well that
they should have the recollection of it as a place where they had often
been. Many things at many times Jesus must have told them there, and the
remembrance of the place would bring up the remembrance of the words.
We must not make too much of this mere locality, even if we
were quite
certain of it. Every Christian must have his own hallowed places. Every
Christian must have places, the recollection of which is
sweeter far to him
than ever the mere sight of traditional spots in
have holy, memorable places in our own experience, and then perhaps we
may
get some good from considering the so-called holy places of the so-called
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.” Judas therefore, because he knew the place, was able
treacherously to use his knowledge. Having received the cohort, Ἡ σπεῖρα –
H speira – band; squad - is used for
the legion or portion of
the legion of soldiers,
who, under the direction of the Roman procurator,
garrisoned the
The article (τὴν – taen – the) is probably used because
the χιλίαρχος – chiliarchas –
captain; or commander of the thousand men, had (v. 12) accompanied the
detachment. “The word σπεῖρα, is used by Polybius for the
Latin manipulus,
not cohors (Polyb., 11:23), consisting of about two hundred men, the
third part
of a cohort.” It
should, however, be observed that the word is used of the Roman
garrison of the tower (Acts 10:1; 21:31; 27:1; Josephus,
‘Ant.,’ 20:4. 3; ‘
5:5. 8). Ξιλίαρχος was the proper name
for the commander of a cohors,
equivalent to one-sixth of a legion, i.e. a thousand
men and a hundred and
twenty horsemen. The strength of the cohort differed according
to
circumstances and need. Josephus (‘
σπείραι consisted of a
thousand, some of six hundred, men. It is not
rational to suppose that the whole cohort were visibly present,
but they
were-present in
close proximity. Though John alone
mentions the Roman
soldiers, yet compare
Matthew 26:53-54, where our Lord says, “Thinkest
thou not that I could pray (παρεκαλέσαι)– parekalesai – pray;
entreat)
my Father, and He would henceforth furnish me with more than
twelve
legions of
angels?” — a legion of angels for EACH ONE of the
little group.
The presence of this band of Roman soldiers with the Jewish police gives
very great force and impressiveness to THIS SCENE OF
DEGRATDATION and OF THE
WORLD’S ASSAULT UPON
THE DIVINE SAVIOUR!
. The other hints given by the synoptists
of
the presence of weapons in the “band,” is Peter’s use of
the sword. Judas
brought with him, not only the drilled and armed Roman
soldiers, but the
officers from the
chief priests and of thef2 Pharisees; i.e. a
detachment
of the Jewish guard of the temple, under direction of the
Sanhedrin. The
chief priests would have small difficulty in securing the
aid of a detachment
of the Roman garrison to prevent popular outbreak at the
time of the feast.
These ὑπηρέται – hupaeretai – deputies; subservients
- under the direction of
the chief priests and Pharisees, have been mentioned in ch. 7:32 and 45, and the
same name is given to the ὑπηρέται in Acts 5:22, 26, where the high priests
and Sadducees are spoken of as their masters. In Luke 22:4,
52 the commandants
of the temple are spoken of in the plural, στρατηγοῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ – strataegois
tou ierou – officers of the priests. The Jewish guard was under the custody of one
officer, ὁ στρατηγός – ho strataegos - and he was a man of high rank and dignity
(Josephus, ‘ Ant.,’ 20:6.
2; ‘
to more than one must therefore point to the Roman military official as well, thus
unconsciously sustaining the more definite information
given by John.
Judas with his band cometh
thither with lanterns and torches and
weapons; for, though it was the
Paschal full moon, they were intent on
finding Christ, whom Judas
would identify for them, amid the depths
of the olive shades. (Λαμπάς – lampas is in its primary sense a torch, or
even meteoric light, but it is used for a lamp or lantern;
and φανός – phanos –
lanterns - also
is used for “torch” primarily, with
secondary meaning of “lantern.”)
Matthew and Mark mention “swords”
and “staves,” but say nothing of the
flaring torches which so arrested the eye of John. Thoma sees a reference to the
frequent declaration of Christ, that He was the “Light of
the world,” and to the
contrast between that light and the power of darkness.
4 “Jesus
therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him,
went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek
ye?” Jesus then — the οϋν –
oun – then - implies that our Lord discerned the approach of
the hostile band —
knowing all the
things that were coming upon Him — in full
consciousness of
His position, and in voluntary sacrifice of Himself to the
will of God and the
purpose of His mission — went forth; i.e. from the garden
enclosure;
partly in consequence of the language of the kinsman of Malchus,
“Did I not see
thee in the garden?” But this is perfectly
compatible with the
obvious fact that the eight disciples and the favored three
should have
shrunk behind our Lord when He calmly emerged from the
entrance to the
garden, and that their position would be thus sufficiently
indicated. It is
remarkable that John, who has been accused of personal
malice to Judas
does not refer to the traitor’s kiss. This well-attested
and traditionally sustained
incident is not excluded by the narrative before us —
indeed, the second reference
to Judas seems to imply something special in his conduct,
which is needed to
account for it. We can hardly suppose that it could have
taken place before the
Lord Jesus had uttered his solemn word, but it may easily
have occurred as the
first answer to his summons. And saith unto them, Whom seek ye?
5 “They
answered Him, Jesus of
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.”
They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus saith
unto them, I am He. Then, in all probability, the miscreant, the son of
perdition, said,” Hail, Master!” and kissed Him; and there
followed before
and after his act the sublime replies given, “Companion, wherefore art thou
come?” (Matthew
26:50) and “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a
kiss?” (Luke
22:48) John, however, overwhelmed with
the majesty and
spontaneous self-devotion of the Lord, calls attention to
the language He addressed
to the “band”
which surrounded Him. In some royal emphasis of tone He said,
“I am (He),” and the same kind of effect followed as on various
occasions had
proved HOW POWERLESS, without His permission, the machinations of
His
foes really were. In the temple
courts, and on the precipice of
murderous Jews and Galilaeans
were foiled by the moral
grandeur of His bearing;
and when He said,
I am he, they went backward,
and fell to the ground χαμαί
-
chamai - on the
ground). Whether
this was a supernatural event, or allied to the
sublime force of moral
greatness flashing in his eye or echoing in the tone of His
voice, we cannot say, but associating it with other events in His
history, the
supernatural in His case becomes perfectly natural. It was so that He whose
“I am he” had
hushed the waves and cast out the devil, and before whose
glance and word John and Paul fell to the earth, as if
struck with lightning,
did perhaps allow His very captors (prepared by Judas for
some display of
His might) to feel how
powerless they were against Him. It is
remarkable
that our narrative should place between the “I am He”
and its effect, the
tautologous remark if there be nothing to explain it, Now Judas also, who
was betraying him,
was standing with them. This implies that
Judas had
taken some step equivalent to that described in the
synoptic narrative.
There is some momentary consolation in the thought that the
traitor fell to
the ground with his gang, and for an instant saw the
transcendent crime he
had committed in betraying the innocent blood with the kiss
of treachery
and shame. Thoma sees in the
approximation of Judas the approach of the
prophetic Beast to the true King, and endeavors out of the
letters of his
name to read the number 666! It is true that ch. 13:27 represents
Satan as having entered into Judas (Both Judas and
anti-Christ are both
Referred to in scripture as “the son of perdition” – ch: 17:12;
II Thessalonians 2:3 – CY – 2014). He stood there, he fell there, with the
powers of darkness. What a moment: The devil may have
tempted Christ
to blast His emissaries with the breath of His nostrils;
but, true to His
sublime mission, He is occupied only with the safety and
future work of
those who knew that He had come out from God.
7 “Then
asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of
the cup, the cross, the blood-baptism,
the supreme will, all are at stake) He
asked them, Whom
seek ye? Then, restored from their fright and spasm of
conscience, produced by the presence of One whom no
fetters, not even
those of death itself, could bind, and reassured now by the
same voice
(compare Daniel 10:9-10; Revelation 1:17), they reply, Jesus the Nazarene.
He thus compels them to limit their design, and to single
Himself out for the
malice and devilish plot of their masters.
8 “Jesus answered,
I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek
me, let these go their way:” There is much
in this that lies beneath the
surface.
- There is an explanation of
the miraculous blast which had a few
moments before rolled them at
His feet. They will not dare to
disobey Him. What may He not do, if they proceed to arrest
the
disciples?
- The disciples are
discharged from the immediate function of suffering
and death. They were in imminent
danger, as is conspicuous from the
fleeing youth, and from the
language of the bystanders subsequently to
Peter; but their hour was not yet come.
- He
would tread the winepress alone. (Isaiah 63:3) They were none who
could go with Him into this
terrible conflict (compare “Ye shall
leave
me alone; yet not alone” - ch. 16:32).
The Moral
Courage of Jesus (vs.
4-8)
We see this if we consider:
I. WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
There is no virtue in not doing thus if we cannot do
otherwise. But what
could Jesus do now?
1. He might have not visited the garden on this night. He knew all that was
coming. He knew that the devil of piltering
and covetousness had entered
Judas, and that he was then in
the city betraying Him to His thirsty and cruel
foes. He entered not the garden in ignorance of what was
coming. It would
be the easiest thing for Him to go elsewhere.
2. He might have
escaped before His foes were upon Him. Apart from His
absolute knowledge of things, the gleaming light and subdued talk
of the
hostile throng would give Him sufficient warning, and He could
have made
His escape
under the cover of friendly trees. His
little guard slept fast; but
He was awake, and specially sensitive to every approaching
sight and
sound.
3. He might have
disappeared from His foes in their very presence. He
might have let them come upon Him so as to think that He was in
their
hands, and then at once vanish away from their very clutches,
disappoint
their fondest hopes, and make fools of them all. (Like He had done before:
ch. 5:13; Luke 4:30 - CY - 2023)
4. He could,
with His power, strike them dead, or into a fit so as to make
their hostile attack quite futile. He just showed them
what He could do
when He said, “I am He;” they went
backwards, and fell to the ground.
What produced this? Was it a
flash of His Divinity from without striking
terror to His assailants, or a flash of memory from within of His
mighty
deeds? or was it the effect of the
simple moral courage and majesty of that
defenseless but heroic One? However, they fell to the ground — a
striking
illustration of what He might have done. (And as He will do when He
comes again! “In
flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not
God, and that obey
not the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” II Thessalonians
1:8)
5. He could have received
almighty help from His Father. If He at this time
had not many earthly friends, and those not very strong nor
skilful in
human warfare, He was rich in
heavenly allies, and these were all at his
command, as he told one of his followers, “Thinkest thou
that I cannot
now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more
than twelve
legions of angels? ” (Matthew 26:53-54) One of
these with the brush of
his wing slew the mighty Assyrian army, (II
Kings 19:35) and one of them
would slay all Christ’s
enemies it He so wished. But He did
not use His
power nor influence in His own defense. He had sufficient courage
to stand all alone.
II. WHAT HE DID.
1. He remained in
the garden. He was perfectly self-composed. He had a
special work to do in the garden. There the coming battle was morally
fought and won.
There He trained Himself for the encounter, edged His
sword and put on His armor, and viewed the battle-field. He was
too busily
engaged with His Father and the business of His life to be
disturbed by the
approaching foe.
2. He went forth
to meet His enemies. He had finished His work there, and
His language and action were, “Let us
arise, and go hence.” He went forth
to meet them. His courage was not rash, but discreet, and
under the
guidance of perfect wisdom. He never went forth to meet His enemies
before, for His hour was not come; but now His hour was
come, and as
soon as He heard the clock strike it, instead of waiting their
arrival, He went
forth to meet them. He had a great work to do in an hour, and
there was
no time to lose. His courage completely spoilt their
anticipated sport of a
chase or a fight.
3. He made
himself known to them. He could ask them with firmness,
“Whom seek ye?” but
tremblingly they replied, “Jesus of
Roman soldiers had unflinchingly
faced many mighty foes, but this
defenseless Jesus of Nazareth overpowered them with His majesty. “I am
He” proved too much for them. They fell to the ground. And the
collision
would have proved fatal to them were it not for the buffers of
His goodness
and mercy. Judas’s kiss was unnecessary; Jesus introduced
Himself.
4. He went forth,
although knowing all. “
Knowing all things that should
come upon Him.” His knowledge in one sense was
disadvantageous to Him.
There is a certain amount of
ignorance connected with all human bravery.
Hope of escape and victory is an
element in the heroism of the bravest soldier.
If we knew all our
future, it would go far to unnerve our courage and
paralyze our energies; but Christ knew all. He had mentally gone through
all the tortures of the next few hours. He knew that death with all its
pains
and shame was but a drop to the ocean of His agonies. He knew infinitely
more than the soldiers and the disciples. They only knew the outward;
He knew the inward. They only
knew the visible; He knew the invisible.
They only knew a part; He knew
all. The weight of death was nothing to
the weight of sin He
had to bear. He knew this in all its
bearings and
bitterness; but in spite of all, such was His courage that, in this hour of trial,
He did not flag, but went forth.
III. THE SOURCES OF HIS COURAGE. What courage was His?
1. The courage
of an exceptionally great nature. We must have an
adequate cause to every effect. The heroism of Jesus, although
human, yet
often towered above it and became Divine. He was the Word
made flesh,
and God manifested in the flesh. He was a perfect Man, but
ever united
with Divinity — full of Divine life which made Him triumphant
over death
and its agonies.
2. The courage
of loving obedience to his Father’s will. He was ever
conscious of this. It was His delight, and the inspiration of His
life. “My
meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His
work.”
(ch.
4:34) “The cup that my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
(v. 11)” It is bitter, but I shall
drink from His hand whatever may be the
consequences.
3. The courage
of conscious righteousness and innocency. Guilt and
imposture make a man a coward, while rectitude and innocency make him a
hero. Conscious of the
Divinity of His mission, the purity of His life, the
guilelessness of His spirit, and the rectitude of His motives, Jesus
went forth
to meet His foes; and this consciousness raised Him so far
above timidity as
to clothe Him with
the majesty of Divine heroism, which
sent them reeling
to the ground.
4. The courage of
perfect knowledge of results. He not only knew His
sufferings, but also His joys; not only the shame, but also the
glory; not only
the apparent defeat, but the subsequent grand victories. He could see life
in
His death for myriads, and glory in the
highest. With the agonizing
groans
of
torches and lanterns He could see the
world flooded with light, and heaven
with glory and happiness.
5. The courage
of self-sacrificing and disinterested love. In the greatest
bravery of selfishness there is an element of cowardice; but in
Christ there
was not a taint of selfishness, — HIS LIFE WAS ABSOLUTELY A
SACRIFICE FOLR OTHERS!
He would not implicate others in His
hour of trial, but gave Himself to save them — and all this was
voluntary.
The volunteer is ever more
courageous than the pressed soldier. The courage
of Jesus was that of a volunteer, and His heroism that of Divine and
self-sacrificing love.
·
LESSONS.
1. The foes of Jesus
were the unconscious ministers of Divine justice
demanding His life as a raison for sin. They were inspired by
hatred to
Jesus, but this hatred was
overruled to answer the most benevolent
purpose.
2. Jesus personally
and willingly gave His life up for this purpose. He was
most anxious that justice should be paid in the genuine coin,
and not in
counterfeit. “If ye seek me, let these go.” In
consequence of His meeting
the demand of justice by His life, He demands the release of His friends.
He does not ask this
as a favor, but demands as His right.
4. This demand is
most readily granted. In this instance they were not
touched. Justice cannot resist the logic of Christ’s death and
intercession
with regard to believers. If the accepted surety
pay, the debtor is free.
5. The infinite importance to be united by faith with
Christ. Then the
chastisement of our peace is upon Him (Isaiah 53:5), but otherwise it
must be upon ourselves.
9 “That
the saying might be fulfilled, which He spake, Of them which
thou gavest me
have I lost none.” But John found
a deeper reason still.
He said this in order that the word which He spake an hour or two
before might
be fulfilled, not finally exhausted in its unfathomable
depth, but gloriously
illustrated, Concerning
those whom thou hast given me, not one of them I lost
(ch.
17:12). This
is a proof that the evangelist was quoting exact words of the
Master, not words which he had theologically attributed to
Him. The
temporal safety of the disciples was a means on that dread
night of saving
their souls from death, as well as their bodies from
torture or destruction.
“Christ,” says Calvin, “continually bears with our weakness
when he puts
himself forward to repel so many attacks of Satan and
wicked men,
because He sees that we are not yet able or prepared for
them. In short, He
never brings His people into the field of battle till they
have been fully
trained, so that in perishing they do not perish, because
there is gain
provided for them both in death and in life.” The reference
of the apostle to
ch.17:12 is, moreover, also one of the numerous proofs
which the
Gospel itself supplies, that great, Heaven-taught as the
apostle was, he
stands, with all his inspiration, far below, at least on a
different plane, from
that occupied by the Lord. His occasional interjections and
explanations of
his Master’s words cannot be put on the same level with the
words
themselves.
The Unselfishness of
Christ (vs. 8-9)
Jesus was in the
He was in the presence of the betrayer and his myrmidons (a follower or
subordinate of a powerful person, typically one who is unscrupulous or
carries out orders
unquestioningly). He was about to endure the indignities of
the trials and the anguish of the cross. Yet His thoughts were not of Himself,
but of His friends.
Knowing the danger to which they were exposed, the
weakness which still characterized them, He was anxious on their
behalf
that they should not be exposed to a trial which they were not
then ready
to bear. Hence the stipulation and the plea to which, in
surrendering Himself,
He gave utterance, “If
therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.”
I. THERE WERE SPECIAL REASONS WHY AT THIS
CRISIS JESUS
SHOULD TAKE
MEASURES FOR THE
HIS
FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS.
1. Jesus intended them to be His apostles, and therefore it
was not in
accordance with His purposes that they should at that time accompany
Him
to trial and to death.
2. It was part of
Jesus’ plan to die alone. Malefactors,
indeed, yielded up
their breath by His side. But as His was a death unique in its
import, it was
not agreeable with His wishes that any of His adherents should
partake His
Passion, and distract attention
from Himself. (As the Lamb of
God - CY - 2023)
3. In all likelihood the faith and devotion even of His
nearest friends were
not such as to enable them to endure participation in His
death. They could
not suffer for Christ until Christ had first suffered for
them.
4. Our Lord designed to fulfill His own declaration uttered in
His
intercessory prayer — that of those given to him He had lost none.
II. THIS REGARD OF JESUS FOR OTHERS WAS IN
HARMONY
WITH
HIS CONDUCT THROUGHOUT HIS MINISTRY.
It was His
habit to forget Himself in His benevolent work and in His
regard for those
whom He came to save. E.g. His disinterested and generous
treatment of His
forerunner, John; the complete self-forgetfulness which He
displayed in the
season of His temptation, when He, for the sake of His mission
to men, lost
sight of hunger, reputation, power; His benevolent ministry to
the
multitude, to the sick, the suffering, the sinful. His own ease,
comfort, or
renown, never occupied His attention; but no pains did He ever
spare that
He might serve the objects of His Divine pity. Christ
would not have been
Himself if He had not thought of and secured the liberation of
His threatened
friends.
III. THE UNSELFISHNESS WHICH JESUS DISPLAYED IN
THE
HOUR OF HIS
ARREST WAS PERFECTED IN HIS SACRIFICIAL
SUFFERINGS
AND DEATH. It was His own
profession that the laying
down of His life should be for His friends — His sheep. Paul testified that Jesus
gave Himself a
Ransom for all, that He was a Propitiation for the sins of the
whole world. When the Savior — in
accordance with the appointment of
Divine wisdom, and with a view to ends the most purely
benevolent that
were ever
conceived in the whole history of the universe — hung upon the
cross, it seems to us that He
uttered a cry which was the earnest of the
spiritual deliverance and emancipation of mankind, a cry which was
the
expression at once of the deepest agony and the kingliest gladness of
His
compassionate nature, and-that the purport of the cry was this: “Let
these
men go!”
IV. CHRIST’S BENEVOLENT SELF-FORGETFULNESS IS
OFTEN
NEGLECTED AND
ABUSED. In a family we sometimes observe
one
person peculiarly kind and unselfish, whose demeanor, so far from
being an
example and an advantage to the other members of the household, is
abused. The yielding and self-denial of one sets others at
liberty to carry
out their own
favorite plans, to gratify their own selfish tastes. There is
something parallel to this in the way in which some persons in
Christian
communities take advantage, for their own temporal comfort and
prosperity, of the influences of Christianity, without at all
recognizing their
obligation to the Savior for all the benefits they have received,
social and
domestic. So far as we can see, such persons are little the better
for all that
Christ has
undergone for them, for the immunity from many ills which He
has secured for
them. The self-devotion, magnanimity, and
pity of the
Redeemer should surely be to such, first a rebuke, and then
an exhortation
to
a nobler and a better life.
V. THE SELF-SACRIFICING DEVOTION OF THE SAVIOR
IS THE
EVERLASTING
INSPIRATION OF THE HIGHER LIFE OF
MANKIND. This was the intention of Christ; and it was this prospect
which sustained Him amidst the treachery, the hatred, the
desertion, the
malice, the indignities, to which He exposed Himself. How sorely the world
was in need
of a principle and power which should correct and heal its
selfishness, is well known to
every one who is acquainted with his own
heart, who has studied the moral ills of human society. The wars
and
enmities which even now disgrace humanity are sufficient evidence
of this.
There were others than Christ who to some extent saw the
evil, and desired
to
do what in them lay to remedy it. Even the heathen Seneca could say, “I
would so live as if I knew I received my being only for the
benefit of
others.” But that which philosophical theory, ethical dogma, even
serene
example, could not effect, has been in some measure effected, and will be
brought at last perfectly to pass, by him whose unselfish,
self-sacrificing
spirit found utterance in the cry, “Let these men go!”
The Unselfishness of
Christ (vs. 8-9)
Jesus was in the
He was in the presence of the betrayer and his myrmidons (a follower or
subordinate of a powerful person, typically one who is unscrupulous or
carries out orders
unquestioningly). He was about to endure the indignities of
the trials and the anguish of the cross. Yet His thoughts were not of Himself,
but of His friends.
Knowing the danger to which they were exposed, the
weakness which still characterized them, He was anxious on their
behalf
that they should not be exposed to a trial which they were not
then ready
to bear. Hence the stipulation and the plea to which, in
surrendering Himself,
He gave utterance, “If
therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.”
I. THERE WERE SPECIAL REASONS WHY AT THIS
CRISIS JESUS
SHOULD TAKE
MEASURES FOR THE
HIS
FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS.
1. Jesus intended them to be His apostles, and therefore it
was not in
accordance with His purposes that they should at that time accompany
Him
to trial and to death.
2. It was part of
Jesus’ plan to die alone. Malefactors,
indeed, yielded up
their breath by His side. But as His was a death unique in its
import, it was
not agreeable with His wishes that any of His adherents should
partake His
Passion, and distract attention
from Himself. (As the Lamb of
God - CY - 2023)
3. In all likelihood the faith and devotion even of His
nearest friends were
not such as to enable them to endure participation in His
death. They could
not suffer for Christ until Christ had first suffered for
them.
4. Our Lord designed to fulfill His own declaration uttered in
His
intercessory prayer — that of those given to him He had lost none.
II. THIS REGARD OF JESUS FOR OTHERS WAS IN
HARMONY
WITH
HIS CONDUCT THROUGHOUT HIS MINISTRY.
It was His
habit to forget Himself in His benevolent work and in His
regard for those
whom He came to save. E.g. His disinterested and generous
treatment of His
forerunner, John; the complete self-forgetfulness which He
displayed in the
season of His temptation, when He, for the sake of His mission
to men, lost
sight of hunger, reputation, power; His benevolent ministry to
the
multitude, to the sick, the suffering, the sinful. His own ease,
comfort, or
renown, never occupied His attention; but no pains did He ever
spare that
He might serve the objects of His Divine pity. Christ
would not have been
Himself if He had not thought of and secured the liberation of
His threatened
friends.
III. THE UNSELFISHNESS WHICH JESUS DISPLAYED IN
THE
HOUR OF HIS
ARREST WAS PERFECTED IN HIS SACRIFICIAL
SUFFERINGS
AND DEATH. It was His own
profession that the laying
down of His life should be for His friends — His sheep. Paul testified that Jesus
gave Himself a
Ransom for all, that He was a Propitiation for the sins of the
whole world. When the Savior — in
accordance with the appointment of
Divine wisdom, and with a view to ends the most purely
benevolent that
were ever
conceived in the whole history of the universe — hung upon the
cross, it seems to us that He
uttered a cry which was the earnest of the
spiritual deliverance and emancipation of mankind, a cry which was
the
expression at once of the deepest agony and the kingliest gladness of
His
compassionate nature, and-that the purport of the cry was this: “Let
these
men go!”
IV. CHRIST’S BENEVOLENT SELF-FORGETFULNESS IS
OFTEN
NEGLECTED AND
ABUSED. In a family we sometimes observe
one
person peculiarly kind and unselfish, whose demeanor, so far from
being an
example and an advantage to the other members of the household, is
abused. The yielding and self-denial of one sets others at
liberty to carry
out their own
favorite plans, to gratify their own selfish tastes. There is
something parallel to this in the way in which some persons in
Christian
communities take advantage, for their own temporal comfort and
prosperity, of the influences of Christianity, without at all
recognizing their
obligation to the Savior for all the benefits they have received,
social and
domestic. So far as we can see, such persons are little the better
for all that
Christ has
undergone for them, for the immunity from many ills which He
has secured for
them. The self-devotion, magnanimity, and
pity of the
Redeemer should surely be to such, first a rebuke, and then
an exhortation
to
a nobler and a better life.
V. THE SELF-SACRIFICING DEVOTION OF THE SAVIOR
IS THE
EVERLASTING
INSPIRATION OF THE HIGHER LIFE OF
MANKIND. This was the intention of Christ; and it was this prospect
which sustained Him amidst the treachery, the hatred, the
desertion, the
malice, the indignities, to which He exposed Himself. How sorely the world
was in need
of a principle and power which should correct and heal its
selfishness, is well known to
every one who is acquainted with his own
heart, who has studied the moral ills of human society. The wars
and
enmities which even now disgrace humanity are sufficient evidence
of this.
There were others than Christ who to some extent saw the
evil, and desired
to
do what in them lay to remedy it. Even the heathen Seneca could say, “I
would so live as if I knew I received my being only for the
benefit of
others.” But that which philosophical theory, ethical dogma, even
serene
example, could not effect, has been in some measure effected, and will be
brought at last perfectly to pass, by him whose unselfish,
self-sacrificing
spirit found utterance in the cry, “Let these men go!”
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.” Then Simon Peter. The other
evangelists simply tell us that
one of the number of the disciples performed the following
act. The οϋν
(then) here is introduced between Simon and Peter, as if to
imply that it was not
merely Simon son of Jonas, but Simon the Rock, the man of
mighty
impulsive passion, ready, as he said a few hours since, to
go with his
Master to prison and to death. The name and identification
of Peter with
the brave man who struck at least one blow for his Master,
is a proof, not
of John’s animosity against Peter, or any desire to humble
him, but rather
to exalt him. The extraordinary concomitance of this act
with all the other
delineations of Peter’s character is another undesigned hint of the
authenticity of the narrative. Simon Peter, then, having a sword. Here we
see the unintentional agreement with the synoptic narrative
(Luke 22:38).
Nothing would be less likely than that Peter should have a
sword at
his disposal; i.e. judging from the Johannine narrative. The Gospel of Luke
explains it. Having a sword, he drew it, and smote the slave (not one of
the ὑπηρέται (deputy; subservient – see v. 3) but the δοῦλος – doulos –
body-servant) of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. The slave, in
receiving such a wound, must have been in fearful danger of his life. The
reference to the right ear, mentioned also by Luke (Luke 22:50), is noteworthy.
Now the name of
the slave was Malchus. Here the
eye-witness, not the theologian,
nor the dramatist, reveals
his hand. Thoma sees, however, the fulfillment of
prophetic outline, and a
reference to the kings and chief captains, the Malchuses
andchiliarchs, that are ultimately to flee before him. The subsequently
mentioned circumstance (v. 15) that the evangelist was “known to the
high priest,” explains this recovery of an otherwise valueless name. The
instant when Peter cried, “Shall we smite with the sword?”
was most
opportune. For the moment Peter felt that the whole band
could be
discomfited by a bold stroke. Christ with His word, the brave-hearted
apostle
with his weapon, could scatter all the foes of the Lord. As on so
many other occasions, Peter gives advice to the Master, only to
find
himself in grievous mistake.
The Vanity
of Violence (v. 10)
Here we have a peculiarly valuable illustration of the
vanity of violence.
Over and above
the wickedness of violence, there is the uselessness of it.
Men arm themselves with all sorts of deadly weapons, and go
out against
each other; and what is the good of it all? Man was not made for anything
requiring violence or
extraordinary exertion. He has neither the muscles,
the claws, nor the fangs of the beast of prey. Man gains his proper
results
by the industrious
hand, directed by the
God-glorifying brain. Nothing of
the highest has ever
been gained by brute force.
I. LOOK AT THOSE ATTACKING JESUS. They act after their kind and
according to their light. They
know no weapons but force and stratagem.
The whole
appearance of this multitude, going out with swords, and sticks,
and lamps, and
torches, has something ridiculous and despicable about it.
This array of
forces would have been all right if a lion or a bear from the
wilderness had been seen
skulking about the
weapons would have
corresponded against a murderer or a brigand in
hiding there. But it was Jesus against whom they were going out — Jesus,
who did everything
in his work by persuasion and spiritual energy,
THE ONE WHO WENT ABOUT DOING GOOD! (Acts 10:38)
Of course, all
this showed great ignorance, but that is what the enemies of
Christ and his
Church always do show. The opposition of
the world, being
completely ignorant of what has to be conquered, has no astuteness in
it.
What can all the combined efforts of the world do against a
man who is
ready, if need be, to die for his religion? Jesus in the hands
of His enemies is
the
grand illustration of how little the enemies of the body of Christ can do,
or
rather the
particular enemies who make physical pain their weapon.
Such are not the worst enemies. It is not the wolf,
confessed in all his
natural ferocity, that we have most to fear, but the wolf in sheep’s clothing,
the
foe who comes with the look and language of the friend.
II. LOOK AT THE METHODS OF DEFENSE.
1. The way of Peter.
Peter had very likely made himself possessor of one of
the
two swords mentioned in Luke 22:38. Of course, this shows an
utter misunderstanding of the meaning of Jesus in ibid. v. 36. If we
act
on some wrong meaning of a word of Jesus, we shall suffer for the
blunder, sooner or later. Peter got a weapon into his hands that, to a
man
of his rash,
impetuous ways, was just the thing to bring him into trouble.
Peter should have done the right thing at the right time.
Jesus put him and
others to watch and pray, to act as sentinels. The sentinels fell asleep at
their posts, and
reckless lunging with a sword could not mend matters
afterwards. Notice, too, how the effects of this rash act were worst
to the
man
who committed it. Here surely is the secret of the
subsequent denials.
2. The way of Jesus. Jesus yields. He defends and conquers by yielding. He
shows in His own Person how the just man has a fortress
impregnable to
violence. He could have vanished mysteriously from the midst of His
enemies, as He had done before; but what would that have
advantaged us?
We cannot vanish from an opposing world; we must either
meet violence
with violence, or yield what is merely outward, knowing that the inward is
sacred and invulnerable.
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?”
In Christ’s reply there is no mention made of the miracle
which
followed, and yet the narrative is incomplete without it.
Something must
have restrained the band and the high priest’s own
temple-watch from at
once arresting Peter, if not the entire group. The
characteristic touch,
descriptive of our Lord’s most Divine compassion, is in
itself valuable, but
it also accounts for the immunity of Peter. The solemn
rebuke of Peter is
full of Divine meaning, and is another link with the
synoptic narrative of
the agony. “Put up,”
or more literally, Cast the
sword into its sheath
(κολεός – koleos is the
classical word; θήκην– thaekae – scabbard;
sheath – more
generally used of repository, receptacle, sepulcher, etc.); or
into its hiding-place; bury it away (τόπος - topos – place - is
used in Matthew). Matthew adds a memorable saying (Matthew
26:52),
but is silent as to the deep
Divine reason of the submission of our Lord to His
fate. The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I
not drink it? This
imagery recalls
the Passion, through which we learn from the synoptists
that
our Lord had
passed into a Divine patience and submission to the will of God
(Matthew 20:22; 26:39). The use of this most remarkable
phraseology
recalls that which John too had heard from His lips in the
sweat of His
agony, and of which he and Peter were the principal
witnesses. The
supplementary character of the Gospel, though by no means
sufficient to
account for all the omissions and additions of this
narrative, yet does
explain very much.
Jesus is now of his own accord at the disposal of His
enemies; His words have put a stop to all further steps
taken for His
defense.
The Sword and the Cup (v. 11)
To ordinary human nature work is easier than patience, and
resistance than
submission. Our Lord, in this crisis of His history, both
adopted the more
difficult course for Himself, and commended it to His
disciples.
- CHRIST’S DISAVOWAL OF THE SWORD.
Ø
The sword is the
symbol of physical force, of resistance.
Properly a
weapon of attack, it may nevertheless
be used for defense. The sword
is in the hands of the soldier
who withstands his foe; of the magistrate
who maintains order and
vindicates justice, and who bears it not in vain.
It is the emblem
of secular authority, of carnal power.
Ø
There was a sense in
which the use of the sword had been sanctioned by
Christ. When he had said, “I came, not to send peace, but a sword,”
(Matthew 10:34). Jesus had referred to the conflicts which
should arise in
society as a result of His
mission to earth. But He had, almost immediately
before the occurrence in
connection with which the words of the text were
spoken, expressly directed His
disciples to arm themselves, telling them of
the perils they should
encounter, and bidding them even to sell their garments
in order to procure the means of
defense. Evidently there were some kinds of
danger against which they were
at liberty to arm.
Ø
The time of
Christ’s sacrifice was not the time for resistance. Peter,
indignant at his Lord’s
betrayal, impulsive in his nature, and impetuous in
his action, seeing his Master in
danger, drew and used his sword. But Jesus
forbade and disclaimed the use
of carnal weapons in His cause. His
kingdom was not of this world,
and it would not have been consonant
either with His gentle character
or with the nature of His religion — a
spiritual religion relying on
conviction and affection — to sanction the
promulgation of His doctrine,
the extension of His Church, by means of the
sword. Christ’s people were not prohibited
from taking advantage of their
privileges as citizens, from
using lawful means to secure protection and
safety, from defending
themselves against lawless violence. But to resist
civil authority by force, in the
name of Christ and for the spread of
Christianity, was certainly
forbidden, both by the language and by the
example of Jesus.
- CHRIST’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE CUP.
Ø
The nature of this cup
is apparent from the context as well as from other
parts of Scripture. By “the
cup” we are to understand suffering and
sorrow. This is its meaning in
the question, “Can ye drink of
the cup which
I drink of?” and in the prayer, “If it
be possible, let this cup pass from me.”
The bitter ingredients in
Christ’s cup were the suffering and agony of body
involved in crucifixion; the
mental distress involved in His betrayal, denial,
and forsaking by His disciples,
in the apparent success of His enemies’ plot,
in the fickleness and
ingratitude of His fellow-countrymen; the anguish of
soul consequent upon His
consciousness of the world’s sin, its
estrangement from God, and ill
desert, the heavy burden (to change the
figure) of His sacrifice.
Ø
Christ’s shrinking
from this cup was natural; for His bodily frame was
sensitive, and His heart was
tender. He would fain have avoided drinking
the bitter draught. He even
prayed to be relieved from the distressing
experience, if such avoidance
and relief were compatible with the Father’s
will, and with His own purpose
to redeem mankind.
Ø
The inducement to accept
the sorrow was the highest and the most
constraining possible; the CUP
was “given” him by His Father. Apparently
it was prepared and handed to
Him by His foes. But really, in a wonderful,
mysterious sense, it was the
appointment of the Father’s wisdom. This was
not at the time understood by
Peter or by the other disciples; Jesus alone
comprehended the nature of this
crisis in the moral history of mankind. The
cup was not given as a sign of
the Father’s displeasure, but as a means to a
higher spiritual end, which was
dear to the Father’s heart.
Ø
The resolve of
the Son of man to drink the cup, when this
was seen and
felt to be the
Father’s will, is very instructive.
This was part of His perfect
obedience, of obedience taking
the form of submission. Thus was He made
“perfect through suffering.” (Hebrews 2:10)
Ø
The results of this
sacrifice have been most beneficial and precious to
mankind. By drinking the cup of
suffering our Savior has released us
from drinking the cup of
personal guilt and merited punishment.
- PRACTICAL LESSONS.
Ø
Gratitude and faith
towards a Savior so compassionate and self-sacrificing.
Ø
Patience and
submission beneath the trials and sufferings of life. When
seeking for motive and for
strength to drink the bitter cup of pain and grief,
let Christians
recur with humility and with sympathy to the incomparable
example of their
suffering Lord.
The Apprehension of Jesus (vs. 1-11)
The crisis has come at last.
- THE SCENE OF THE ARREST. “He went forth with His disciples
over the brook Kedron, where was a garden, into which He entered,
and His
disciples.”
Ø The garden was on
the slope of
Ø He did not resort to it for the
purpose of hiding Himself from His
enemies; for Judas,
the traitor, knew the place. It was to be the scene
of His prayers and His agonies.
Its name was
Ø
It belonged, evidently, to some
friend or disciple of Jesus; for it was a
frequent meeting-place for
Jesus and the disciples.
Ø The thought of the garden, as the beginning
of the Lord’s Passion, links
itself
by natural association with the garden of Eden,
the scene of the
Fall of man, which made the
Passion necessary.
- THE ARRIVAL OF THE BAND. “Judas then, having received the
band, with officers
from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh
thither with lanterns and torches and arms.”
Ø
Judas is the leading actor in this scene.
Ø The combination of the Roman
soldiers with the police of the Sanhedrin
marks
the share of Jew and Gentile in the transaction which culminated
in the scene of
Ø The use of lights at a time when
the full moon was in the sky suggested
the
fear that Jesus might try to escape arrest in the dark corners of the
garden.
- THE MEETING OF JESUS WITH THE BAND. “Jesus therefore,
knowing all that
should happen to Him, went forth, and said to them,
Whom seek ye?”
Ø
There was a Divine necessity recognized in our Lord’s action;
for He
foresaw all the events of the
Passion as occurring, not through the mere
malice of men, but by the
foreordination of God.
Ø He does not allow
this foreknowledge to paralyze His action or disturb
the
quietude of His soul.
Ø His question, “Whom seek
ye?” implies that it
was not man’s power,
but
His own permission, which brought His
sufferings upon Him.
Ø
The effect of His statement, “I am He” (Jesus
the Nazarene), is
astounding.
o
Whether it was due to
natural or to supernatural causes, His
presence had an
overwhelming effect upon the band. “They
went backward, and
fell to the ground.”
o
His word was not an
angry word; but Judas may have led the
band to suppose that Jesus
might make a marvelous display
of His power.
o
The scene suggests
fear, awe, veneration, and not the display
of force.
o
It suggested to the
disciples that the band fulfilled its commission
by Christ’s own consent.
Ø
Jesus pleads for His disciples. “I
have told you that I am He: if therefore
ye seek me, let
these go their way.”
o
It was necessary for
the purposes of His kingdom that the apostles
should be spared.
o
They were not yet in a
condition spiritually to die with their Lord.
They all deserted
Christ at last.
o
It was needful that He
should suffer alone. He was to “tread the
winepress
alone.” (Isaiah 63:3)
o
His care for the
disciples was in fulfillment of prophecy. “That
the
saying might be
fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou
gavest me have I lost none” (ch.
17:12). Their temporal
preservation was to involve a
great and more blessed realization
of spiritual deliverance.
- PETER’S ATTEMPT AT DEFENSE. “Then Simon Peter having a
sword drew it, and
smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right
ear.”
Ø The action of the apostle, so
characteristic of his impulsive nature, was
the
proof of love, zeal, faith, and sincerity.
Ø
Our Lord condemns his action.
Ø
o
He healed the ear of Malchus, and thus saved Peter from arrest.
o
He shows that there is
no warrant for irregular actions or for rash
zeal.
o
Peter’s conduct
threatened to compromise our Lord, who was in
a few hours to assure Pilate,
“If
my kingdom were of this world,
then would my
servants fight.”
o
Our Lord recognized in
His coming Passion the bitter cup that His
Father designed for Him. “The cup which my Father hath given
me, shall I not
drink it?” He drank it willingly.
The Preliminary
Examination before Annas
Interwoven with the
Weakness and Treachery of Peter (vs. 12-27)
This passage describes the first steps taken by the enemies
of our Lord to conduct
The examination which was to issue in A JUDICIAL MURDER and therefore to
provide the basis on which the charge might be laid before
Pilate and that
Roman court, which alone could carry into execution the
malicious
conclusion on which they had already resolved. Moreover,
this passage is
interwoven with the melancholy record of the fall of Peter.
12 “Then
the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus,
and bound Him,” Therefore — i.e. since no further resistance was
made by Jesus — the
band (or cohort), which here takes the lead, and the
captain of it, and
the officers of the Jews in
association with each other,
took Jesus, and
bound Him, as sign that He was
their prisoner, and to
prevent escape until He should be in safe keeping. It is
probable that the
binding process was repeated by Annas
and again by Caiaphas (v. 24
and Matthew 27:2), implying that during judicial
examination the
cordage was taken off, and reimposed
when the accused was sent from one
court to another; or else that additional bonds were placed
upon Him, for
the sake either of greater security or of inflicting
indignity. Christ, by
accepting the indignity publicly, yielded His holy will, confessing the
supreme ordinance of the Father as to the method in which
He would now
glorify 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.” And they led
Him to Annas first. The
mention of the word “first” shows
that John
discriminated between the two legal processes, the first
being a preliminary
examination of the accused, with the view of extracting
from Him some matter
which should furnish the priests with definite charges, and
to make a show of
partial conformity with the customs of their own
jurisprudence. He was
father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year. John’s
reiteration of this statement (see ch.11:49 and note) shows that he was in no
ignorance of the custom
and principle of high-priestly succession, which the
Romans had treated
so arbitrarily. “That same year” was the awful year
in
which the Christ was sacrificed to the willful:
- ignorance,
- malice, and
- unbelief
of
the Jews.
14 Now Caiaphas was he,
which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was
expedient that one man should die for the
people.” (see
ch.11:50,
51); and while John leaves no doubt who is the virtual high
priest, he calls
attention to the fact that Jesus had no justice or mercy to
expect from the
decision of His judge, and also reminds his readers once
more of the
significance of every step in this tragedy.
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.” Now. After the first dispersion of all the
disciples, two of them gathered up their courage. Simon Peter was following
Jesus “afar off” (say all the synoptists – Matthew
26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke
22:54), “even εὤς – eos - up to - the court of the high priest” (say
Matthew and Mark). The account of Matthew implies that,
having come
up to the door, he went ἔσω – eso – within
- and sat
down to see the end;
he does not say how he was admitted, though, by the use of
the two prepositions,
he implies there was a cause. And also another disciple:
but that disciple
was known to the
high priest, and therefore to the officials, and went in
with Jesus into (εἰς τὴν - eis taen – into the, right within) the court of
the high priest; for he was well known to be, and from the first did not
pretend to be anything else than, one of the disciples of Jesus.
From the
known habit of the evangelist in other places, the vast
majority of
commentators at once conclude that the writer designates
himself by
this reference. With
the absence of the article before ἄλλος – allos – other,
the matter is left in doubt. But by this supposition much
of the justification
is lost, which the writer of the Gospel quietly supplies,
touching his own ability
to describe what otherwise would never have entered into
the evangelic narrative.
The supposition we have made, that Annas
and Caiaphas occupied the same palace,
or different portions of the same edifice, solves the chief
difficulty. Annas held his
preliminary unofficial inquiry in his department of the
building. The difficult
question arises whether Annas was
assisted or not by the reigning “high
priest” in conducting this examination (see v. 19).
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.” But Peter was standing at the
door without. Up to this moment Peter had only pressed as far as to the
outer
door; the other disciple had gone bravely in. The hum of
voices was now
deadened by the closed door dividing Peter from his Lord.
The height, the cold,
the strange blighting of all his expectations, the
necessary conviction forced
upon him that he had implicated himself by the assault he
had delivered on the
servant of the high priest, combined to induce a new and
desponding
mood. All hope had fled. Then John bethought him of the
condition of his
friend, and so we read that the other disciple, who was known to the
high priest,
therefore went out to the entrance-door, and finding Peter
there, spake to her
who kept the door (compare Acts 12:13). His appeal
may easily be supplied — and he brought in Peter.
The other evangelists
imply that before Peter was challenged the fire of coals
had been lighted,
and that the apostle, with the servants and with the rest
of the group who
had apprehended Jesus gathered round it. He placed himself
as if he were
an unconcerned spectator, identified
himself, as it were, rather with the
captors than with the Lord; nor is the narrative of John inconsistent with
the synoptic statement. In v. 18 the incident is certainly
introduced by
the writer after he mentioned the challenge. Still, he
states it as a condition
of the denial rather than as a subsequent event. Matthew
describes his
position as “without,
in the court ” (Matthew 26:69), not in the audience-
chamber, but in a court opening “upon” it or “above” it, as
Mark (Mark 14:66)
implies. Luke tells
us he was “sitting in the midst of the
court” (Luke 22:55),
with the glow of the burning charcoal on his face, “he was πρὸς τὸ φῶς –
pros to phos – by the fire; by the light - ” (Ibid. v. 56) - where the maiden
might see him more attentively than when she hurriedly
admitted him. “The
other disciple” had moved swiftly on to some corner where he could see
and hear all that was happening to the Master. But Peter’s first
step
downwards had been
already inwardly taken. Before he had verbally denied
his Lord, he had
acted as though he were indifferent to the result. Matthew’s
and Mark’s accounts represent Peter’s first and other
denials as taking place
after the mockery of Jesus that followed upon His great confession of
Messiahship (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke
22:69). Luke places them
all three together before the formal examination or
confession, and before the
judicial
condemnation. John’s account throws much needed light upon the
synoptic narrative, which is more inconsistent with itself
than with that of the
Fourth Gospel.
Matthew’s method of putting together into connected
concurrent groups miracles, events, sayings, or parables
which are allied to
each other, will explain the substantially identical report
contained in his
and Mark’s Gospels. There are with all differences some
remarkable
coincidences:
- All four accounts describe
our Lord’s prediction of Peter’s denial.
- All four evangelists agree
to represent the first temptation as
proceeding from “a
certain maiden,” “one of the maids of the high
priest,” or “a damsel.”
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.” John’s
Gospel explains the
point by saying, the
maid who kept the door (ἡ
θυρωρός - hae thuroros –
the doorkeeper - ) said therefore, seeing she had admitted him, not in the
rush
of the other servants, but at the request of “the other disciple”
— considerable
meaning is thus put into her words, which is lost in the synoptists by lack of the
hint already given by John — Art thou, as well as
my acquaintance yonder, also
one of this Man’s
disciples? He saith, I am not. The other evangelists
amplify
this negative in various ways.
Mark, the reporter of Peter’s own preaching,
aggravates throughout the
heinousness of Peter’s fall, adding, “He denied,
saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.” (Mark 14:68).
His position was sufficiently taken, and he thought to
have established for
himself a perfect incognito.
Ardent
Affection and Fearful Falsehood (vs. 15-17)
The inconsistency of which human nature is capable is
proverbial. In the
conduct of Peter we have a very striking instance of this
characteristic
quality of man. In Peter we have extremes meeting. None of
Christ’s
disciples showed a quicker and clearer appreciation of the Master’s
claims;
none showed a more fervent attachment to the Master Himself. Yet, strange
to
say, Peter was conspicuous above the rest for his faint-heartedness in
the
time of trial and of danger. The two dispositions are equally apparent
upon occasion of the incident recorded in this passage.
I. ARDENT AFFECTION. The sincerity and strength of Peter’s love for
Jesus cannot be questioned.
1. It was this which had impelled him to draw the sword in his
Master’s
defense.
2. It was this which impelled him to follow Jesus when his
colleagues and
companions had fled.
3. It was this which urged him to accompany John without
having the
guarantee of safety which John possessed.
4. It was this which led him to dare the risk attaching to the
neighborhood
of the court and high priest’s dwelling. No motive save the pure motive of
affection could have induced Peter to act as he did.
II. TIMOROUS FALSEHOOD.
1. This was apparently upon a slight occasion and
inappreciable danger.
The charge brought by a maid who kept the door was enough
to throw off
his guard the boldest and chief of the apostles.
2. It was in contrast with his previous confessions. None of
the twelve had
been more forward to apprehend and to acknowledge the claims of
Jesus
to Messiahship and to Divinity than
had Peter.
3. It was a poor recompense for the distinguishing favor which
had been
shown to Peter in common with two other of the twelve. He who
had been
on the mount and in the garden with Jesus now denied Him.
4. It was the occasion of bitter remorse and true repentance
on the part of
the offender against conscience and against Christ.
5. It became a recollection, which in his after-ministry stimulated Peter to
watchfulness and to prayer.
LESSON. The narrative is
a warning against relying too much upon
religious feeling. Peter felt deeply and warmly towards Christ; yet
he fell.
Many Christians think that they are secure because the
gospel touches their
emotions. The counsel of Jesus Himself must not be forgotten: “Watch
and
pray, lest ye enter into temptation!” (Mark 14:38)
The Folly of
Fear (v. 17)
Simon Peter, having shown the vanity of violence in his
useless blow at the
high priest’s servant, now proceeds to show the folly of fear in a
vain
attempt to conceal his connection with Jesus. Extremes meet. The spirit
that impels to a reckless, random attack is immediately followed by the
spirit that seeks
present safety at any cost. The denial by
Peter illustrates
many truths. We take it here as illustrating the folly of fear.
I. PETER MEANT TO BE PRUDENT. He sought to keep safe what he
valued most, and what he valued most was his own present life. What a
man most fears to
lose is his treasure. Peter had not yet
gained the true
prudence, because he had not yet found out the most
precious thing a man
can possess, even
an inward union with that which is inward in Jesus. He
had to do the best
he could for the best he had, and that best led him into a
lie. Once he admitted his association with Jesus, he did not
know what the
admission might lead to.
II. THE ONLY PATH TO TRUE COURAGE. The Christian can be
the
only truly courageous person. For he knows that, whatever may come from
the outside, the best things are safe. A higher courage is often needed than
that in which Peter proved to be lacking, even moral courage. Some would
even dare to die, but they would not dare to fly in the face of the world’s
customs and demands. Peter had harder things to do afterwards than
preserve his natural life. He had to turn his back on Judaism. He
had to
make ready for being laughed at and sneered at, again and again. The
wisest fear is a fear of losing living union with Jesus. If we value that as
we
ought to do, then the laughter and the threats of men will be robbed of
what makes them so dreadful to many.
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.” The εἰστήκεισαν δὲ – heistaekeisan de – had stood
yet - implies
the conditions under which the first fearful
fall of Peter was
accomplished. Now
the servants and the officers were standing (imperfect
tense),
having made (πεποιηκότες – pepoinaekotes – ones
having made - perfect
participle) a fire
of coals (ἀνθρακιάν - anthrakian –
charcoal fire), congeries
prunarum ardentium (compare ch.21:9; Eccleiasticus.
11:32, “a glowing fire;”
Aquila, Psalm 120:4), because
it was cold (in the dead of the night, even in
April, at the present day, the temperature falls
considerably, and the cold is
felt far more keenly in these climates in contrast with the
heat of the sun by
day): and Peter
was standing with them, standing and
warming
himself. The whole
construction of the sentence implies that this was how
matters stood while the examination was going on to which
John then
reverts. The synoptists know or
say nothing of this first examination, which
bears upon it strong marks of authenticity.
19 “The
high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine.”
The οϋν (then) connects the
following incident with vs. 13-14. The high priest.
We find it far more satisfactory to accept this less formal
examination, under the
presidency of Annas, at which an
attempt is made to put the Lord, if possible, to
a test which will incriminate Him. If Caiaphas
were the acting high priest, and at
the same time the soul of the movement against Jesus, it
was for him and
not for his father-in-law to take knowledge of the matter
and report to the
Sanhedrin. We must choose between two difficulties:
- Caiaphas
is first spoken of as “high priest,” who, as we know from the
synoptists, conducted the examination-in-chief, and then that Annas, as
conducting a preliminary
examination, is also styled “high priest” without
any explanation;
- or we must admit the
supposition that after Caiaphas had asked these
incriminating questions, Annas (who
was not ἀρχιερεὺς – archiereus –
chief priest), sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas
the high priest. The former
hypothesis is the easier.
The high priest
then asked Jesus concerning His disciples, the
extent of
His following, the number of His accomplices, the
ramifications of the
society or kingdom He professed to have founded, and concerning His
doctrine, the secret teachings
that held his followers together. He
evidently knows the claims of Jesus well enough; his spies
and officers
have continually been dogging the steps of Jesus, and
hitherto he has failed
to gain evidence positively incriminating Him. And as his
representatives a
few days ago were utterly foiled, notwithstanding their
clever design, he
hopes by his own ingenuity to entrap the Lord in His talk.
Our Lord,
anxious not to endanger His disciples, points to the
publicity of His ministry,
and appeals to all and sundry who have heard Him.
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.” Jesus answered him, I have frankly
(not “openly,” but boldly, with freedom of speech) spoken to the world.
Without reserving any of the essentials of my teaching, always I taught
in
synagogue, and in the temple, whither all
the Jews resort and
come together; and in
secret spake I nothing, which they were not bidden
to proclaim upon the housetops. Christ here repudiates
esoteric teaching
distinct from His abundant public ministry. It is true He
explained His
parables to His disciples, and He had within the last few
hours poured forth
the depth of His feelings upon them; still, He had said the
same things
virtually in the synagogues, on the hillside, in the
temple, in the hearing of
Greek as well as Jew. Much of that which He had just said
in the upper
chamber, hundreds and thousands had already heard. This
great utterance
accounts for the fact that Paul ha
The Publicity of
Christ’s Ministry (vs. 19-20)
Had the high priest questioned Jesus in this manner from
any real desire to
be
his disciple, or from an ordinary and intelligent curiosity, his inquiries
would have been received in a very different manner from that in
which
Jesus did actually respond to them. But it was plain that
the whole purpose
of
the interrogator was to induce Jesus to criminate Himself and His
disciples. Thus it was that Jesus, taking no notice of the question
concerning His adherents, referred the high priest, for information
regarding
His teaching, to those who had heard Him
discourse and converse. There
could be no difficulty in obtaining evidence upon this; for, as
Jesus
asserted, His teaching had been open and public, and multitudes of
the Jews
had
heard His doctrine.
I. AS A MATTER OF FACT, OUR LORD FULFILLED HIS
MINISTRY AS A
PUBLIC TEACHER, WITH UNDENIABLE
PUBLICITY. In the country districts He taught in the synagogues, the
places appointed for public religious instruction and worship. In
the
metropolis He was wont to frequent the precincts of the temple, not
only
upon ordinary occasions, but at the great national festivals. He expressly
witnessed that His open instructions had been intended for the benefit of
the
Jews
and of the world at large.
II. AS A RELIGIOUS TEACHER, JESUS HAD NOTHING TO
CONCEAL AND
EVERYTHING TO PROCLAIM IN PUBLIC. He had
nothing to be ashamed of in the whole cycle of His doctrine. And
knowing
that His
communications were adapted to benefit all mankind, Jesus
benevolently desired to bring as many as possible under the sound of
His
voice, under the influence of His revelation, counsels, and
promises. His
lessons were as the living waters of the brook, which flow in a
ceaseless
stream, so that all may drink of them and be refreshed.
III. THE PUBLICITY OF CHRIST’S TEACHING SECURED
THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF
HIS INNOCENCE AND OF THE INJUSTICE
OF
HIS FOES. If He had spoken aught
secretly, an opening might have
been left for the slanderous imputations of His foes. But all
concerning duty, sin, judgment, forgiveness, and life eternal. Of
high and
holy doctrine unnumbered witnesses were able to testify. But none could
be
brought forward with any credible account of sayings subversive of
order, of peace, of morality. Nothing could be clearer than the
inability of
Christ’s foes to convict Him of any teaching which might
justify their
charges.
IV. IN THIS PUBLICITY CHRIST IS A MODEL FOR ALL
HIS
FOLLOWERS
TO COPY. Christianity has no
esoteric doctrines, no secret
societies or guilds, no rites or ceremonies for private performance.
Christianity is no sect, no party. A world-wide religion,
it challenges the
attention of all mankind. Those who teach and preach in Christ’s name are
bound to follow the
example of their Lord — to discharge their
ministry in
public places wherever men resort. The language of the true
preacher of
wisdom and righteousness is this: “To you, O men, I call, and my
voice is
unto the sons of men.”
d
received, long before the Fourth
Gospel was written, truth allied
to the teaching of the upper chamber.
Nothing to Conceal
(v. 20)
I. A CONTRAST. What religion is there that can bear the light of day as
Christianity can? The false needs to be arranged and
beautified and kept
ever in one particular light. Jesus could expose everything if necessary.
What a contrast to the life in the temple at
priest who could afford to have all his doings brought out and
set before
men.
This ought to be part of our power when we are dealing with false
religions. The more they are searched into, the more their
abominations are
exposed. The more
Christianity is searched into, the more transparent and
attractive it becomes. Not
that everything is clear to the intellect, not that
there is absence of mysteries; but these mysteries, whatever
they are, lie
open for everybody to contemplate them and be the better for them. The
mysteries of heathendom are only priest-craft when one
gets in behind them.
Christianity is symbolized by the contents of the ark. That
ark was sacred,
not
to be touched with heedless hands; but once it was opened, nothing lay
there but the commandments, every one of which uttered forth the
condemnation of everything
false.
II. AN EXAMPLE. That openness which was in Jesus must be in all His
followers. All true Christian assemblies are perfectly open places,
except
when, in charity and kindness to individuals, the door is closed; and even
then the closing of the door is known to all, and why it is so. Those
entrusted with the
propagation of Christianity have nothing to conceal.
Their aim is the good of men; their method is by
persuasion and appeal;
they draw all their topics and their teaching from a book
which is as open
to others as to themselves. None of the first apostles needed to conceal
anything; there was no false step, no dubious word of their Master
to gloss
over or keep in the background; and similarly we have nothing to apologize
for.
We need not to proclaim a mere ideal for the acceptance of men. Our
real is better than the best ideal our imagination can fancy.
III. A CAUSE FOR GLORYING. Difficulty is taken out of our way. We
feel that since all is open and clear and satisfactory now, it always will
be
so.
We find nothing to be ashamed of, nothing contradictory, in our
experience of Christ in time. And similar surely will be our
experience in
eternity. “Whatever record leap to light,”
Christ will be the same. Whatever
testimonies be unearthed, there will be nothing awkward to get over.
21 “Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said
unto them: behold, they know what I
said.” Why askest thou me? If
thou
wantest evidence touching my design, my disciples, or my teaching, ask,
interrogate, those who have heard me, what I have said to
them. Lo, these
(pointing to numbers in the
angry crowd around him) know what I spake
unto them (the ἐγώ – ego – I
– at the end
of this sentence is very emphatic).
Christ thus rebukes the craftiness
and hypocritical endeavor of His enemies to
induce Him to inculpate
His disciples, or to give His prosecutors matter against
Him. To false
witnesses He preserved an invincible silence, and before Caiaphas
and Pilate He
answered to many of their queries not a single word, insomuch
that these governors marveled greatly. However, the case
was altered
when Caiaphas, in full Sanhedrin,
officially challenged Him to say whether
He was the Christ, and adjured Him to declare whether He
was the Son of
God. Then, on the most public scale, knowing well the
issues of His
declaration, and of His oath-bound word, He did not hesitate to confess that
HE WAS THE SON OF GOD, and would come in the glory of His
Father,
and that He was no less than the Christ of God. On the present occasion, when
Annas was seeking to justify his own craft, and to utilize the
disgraceful
betrayal which he had diplomatically and cruelly contrived,
Jesus refused to
incriminate either Himself or His disciples.
The Right People to Ask
(v. 21)
I. WHY JESUS COULD REFER TO HIS HEARERS. It is not every
teacher that could refer confidently to his hearers, not even to
his most
attached and trustful ones. If he did, and if an accurate report
could be got
of
all their impressions, the result might not be very complimentary to the
teacher. He might find out that as yet he himself was only a
learner. He
might find out that he himself was only making guesses and
dealing with
the
surface of things. But Jesus knew whence He came, and all He said was
said with the spontaneity,
the natural coherence, belonging to Him who
spake as never man spake. (ch. 7:46) We know
the impression the teaching
of
Jesus makes upon us, and we know that the miscellaneous crowds who first
listened to Him must have been impressed in the same way. It is not
meant
that they understood everything, or always understood rightly. But there
was
this impression, at all events, that JESUS SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY
and
not as the scribes. Jesus knew that the common people of the country were
not
against Him, and His enemies also knew that they could not afford to inquire
too
curiously into the opinions of the multitude. That multitude might not
be
enthusiastic about Jesus, but a decided condemnation of Him the
multitude never would give, if only a sufficient number of people
had been
asked.
II. A HINT FOR US IN
OUR JUDGMENTS ABOUT JESUS. We are
too
much accustomed to fly to books about Jesus which have intellectual
merit rather than personal experience in them. Jesus referred
confidently to
the
great bulk of His auditors, even the common people. And we should try
to
find out what the common people think about Him. If Jesus cannot bless
everybody, He cannot bless anybody. The scribes and Pharisees made
difficulties where the common people made none. And so we should do
well in our difficulties to consider whether they are shared by others.
There
is
great benefit in listening to the opinions of all sorts of people about Jesus
Christ. It is well, on the one hand, to hear what can be
said by the learned
and
academic mind; and it is also well, on the other, to listen to those who,
behind all that has been peculiar in Christ’s teaching, all that
has wanted
learning whereby to understand it, have
seen the universal truth that was
meant to do them good. Christ’s
teaching can lay hold of hearts and
consciences when the most elaborate system of mere ethics has no
grasp.
Christ is more than anything He has said, and those who
make no pretence
to
intellectual superiority or anything special, can
see Him through His every
word and deed. We had
better not reject Christ before we have listened
well to the kind of people who have accepted Him.
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?” And when He had said these
things, one of
the officers
standing by, anxious to win
with his officious zeal the approval of his
master, gave Jesus a ῤάπισμα – rapisma – slap. (It
cannot be settled
whether this word means a stroke with a rod or a blow on the
cheek or ear, which was the current punishment for a word
supposed to be
insolent; but δέρεις – dereis – you are lashing - of v. 23, which means
“to flay,” implies a more severe punishment than a blow on the face
with
the hand.) This is the
beginning of the coarse and terrible mockery which
was the lot of the sublime
Sufferer through the remaining hours of the
awful day which is now dawning on Him. 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?” Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil,
come forward as a witness of the evil which thou hast heard. Thus He took no
notice of the charge brought against Him. But if I have spoken well, why smitest
thou me? A quiet appeal to the conscience of the wretched upstart who
dared to insult THE
LORD OF GLORY! It is thus that the
Lord explained the
spirit of His own injunction, “Whosoever
shall smite thee on the one cheek,
turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). Nothing was gained by this
private interrogatory except an appeal to the outside world
of His hearers,
and a call for testimony; and no decision could be legally
taken against Him
without incriminating evidence. The chief priests and Pharisees, from their
intestine animosities, had great difficulty in formulating
any specific charge. The
Pharisaic party, if they made a point of His doctrine and
practice concerning
the sabbath, would have been
foiled by the Sadducean latitudinarians; and
the priests did not dare to call in question His imperial
cleansing of the
temple, knowing that the Pharisees would immediately have
justified the
act. Consequently, Annas limited
his inquiries to the supposed esoteric
character of some private teachings to His initiated
disciples — a charge
that was refuted by the continual publicity and openness of
all His teaching.
24 “Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas
the high priest.”
The οϋν (then) is quite in
John’s style, and the verse should read,
Annas therefore sent
Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest; i.e. to the
full court of the Sanhedrin, under the presidency of Caiaphas, now got
together for the judicial sifting and verdict. If John had
intended a
pluperfect sense to be given to the verb, why not use that
tense? The
relative clauses, where the aorist is used for the
pluperfect, are not relevant
here. In other cases the context clearly reveals the
occasion of
such a sense (see Matthew 16:5; 26:48). John is not unaware
of the
momentous consequences of this act of Annas,
seeing that he refers to
them, nor of the fact of the accusation made by the false
witnesses, nor of
the judicial condemnation which followed Christ’s own claim
to be the Son
of God. The subsequent narrative implies such condemnation
(vs. 29-30, 35;
ch.19:11). The author of this narrative does not ignore the
fact of
the appearance before Caiaphas,
nor the issue; but in consequence
of the wide diffusion of the synoptic Gospels, he merely
called attention to
the facts which they had omitted so far as they bore
directly on the human
character of the Lord. The theological bias with which the
evangelist is
credited by some would be strangely subserved
both by the omission of the
scene before Caiaphas, and by the
faithful record of this purely human and
beautiful trait in the personal character of Jesus. The
fact that the fourth
evangelist should have recorded facts of which he was
eye-witness, and
omitted others which would have forcibly sustained his main
thesis, is an
invincible evidence of historicity.
Jesus Before Annas
and Caiaphas (vs. 12-24)
The ecclesiastical trial comes first. Owing to the relation
between Annas
and Caiaphas, they probably dwelt
in the same house, and there may have
been an informal trial by Annas
before the acting high priest, Caiaphas,
investigated the case of Jesus.
- THE INQUIRY OF CAIAPHAS. “The high priest then asked Jesus of
His disciples, and
of His doctrine.”
Ø The object was to extract from
the tips of Jesus some answer that might
become
the ground of His condemnation.
Ø The high priest was anxious to
ascertain the number of Christ’s
disciples
and the principles of His teaching.
- THE ANSWER
OF JESUS. “I spake
openly to the world; I ever taught
in open
synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in
secret have I
said nothing.”
Ø He does not answer
the inquiry concerning His disciples, whose safety
He
fears to compromise.
Ø
He protests the entire publicity of His teaching.
Ø
There was nothing secret or esoteric in His doctrine. He taught publicly
what He taught secretly. The disciples were charged to proclaim on the
housetops what
they heard in the ear (Matthew 10:27).
Ø
He demands a formal trial, and the summoning of witnesses. “Why
askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto
them.”
- THE FIRST ACT OF VIOLENCE AND INSULT OFFERED TO
THE SAVIOR. “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?”
Ø
Jesus had done nothing to justify this rude assault; for in His answer He
was only using the liberty the
Law allowed Him. He was, as always, an
innocent
Sufferer.
Ø
Our Lord’s answer was a gentle reproof of public injustice. “If I have
spoken evil, bear
witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou
me?”
o
He does not smite the
officer dead by His power, but
remonstrates against
injury.
o
Though He does not
avenge the insult, He will vindicate His own
conduct. We therefore
infer:
§
that it is not wrong
to defend our innocence or good name;
§
that there is no
inconsistency between our Lord’s action
in this case and His
counsel in the sermon on the mount:
“If they smite thee on one cheek, turn
the other also.”
This condemns revenge, but
does not silence us
in the presence of wrong.
Our Lord’s own practice, therefore,
explains His precept
(Matthew 5:39).
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.” Ἠν δέ – Hn
de – was yet. In startling contrast to
this scene,
and while Annas had completed his
bad-hearted but foiled inquisition, possibly
even while our Lord was
being transferred from the one court to the other —
an event which
provided an opportunity for the searching, loving, compassionate
glance which broke Peter’s heart — the second and third
denials of Peter
were also being enacted. Now Simon Peter, who had been challenged by
the doorkeeper, was
standing and warming himself (a form of verbal
construction of auxiliary verb with participle to which
John is addicted, and
especially in those portions of his Gospel which represent
his personal
composition; ch.1:6, 9, 24, 27; 3:24, 27) — “standing,” not “sitting,”
as Luke describes his position at the first denial,
having, we might suppose,
impetuously changed his position. They said therefore unto him, Art
thou also one of
his disciples? This sentence of John
really gathers up
another moment of Peter’s terrible fall, variously and even
discrepantly put
by the synoptic narrative, and is virtually accordant with
them all three.
According to Matthew “another
maid,” according to Mark “the maid”
who
had first challenged him, returned to the assault. Nothing
more likely than
that what was said by one woman should be eagerly taken up
by another,
and therefore that both statements are true. Luke, however,
describes the
event thus: ἕτερος – eteros - another man
(perhaps “a different person” –
Luke 22:58) saw him and said, “Thou art
one of them.” John’s statement
embraces the substance of all
three statements, “They said unto him.”
The
general resemblance of the
second charge brought against the apostle, as stated
by all four evangelists, is
remarkable. The different personages by whose lips the
charge was urged can best be explained by the occurrence of
simultaneous
and widely spreading conviction, instead of an unnecessary
multiplication
of the denials themselves. Matthew and Mark represent Peter
as
overhearing the conversation of the maids with (ἐκεῖ – ekei - those who
were there), showing the obvious occasion for some eager ἕτερος (person)
to take up their statement as an accusation. The difficulty
of place is not so easily
resolved, for Matthew and Mark speak of the πυλών – pulon - gate, or
προαύλιον – proaulion – porch - outer hall of the court, and
John of the fire
where Peter first sat in apparent unconcern. We do not know
how near the fire
was
to the πυλών, whether it was not indeed between the θύρα - thura – door –
and
the πυλών, in the προαύλιον. According to Matthew he was moving
towards the πυλών, probably in the stir of the procession from the house
of Annas to the court of Caiaphas. The four evangelists agree in the
declaration made by Peter. He denied, and said, I am not; i.e. I am not
one of the disciples concerning whom Annas
asks. “I
do not know the
Man.”
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.”
Between the second and third denials some time elapsed.
Thus according to
Matthew and Mark “after
a little while” (Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70),
according to Luke “about
the space of one hour after” (Luke 22:59),
an effort was made to identify Peter by some sign of his
association with Jesus.
All the synoptists represent it
as turning on his provincial, Galilaean, speech, but
John gives a closer point of identification. There were
thousands of Galilaeans in
corroborated the suspicion of the maidens and others, that
Peter was an
accomplice of the hated Nazarene; but the charge came home
in terrible
earnest and verisimilitude as recorded by John. His account
is far more
lifelike, forcible, and circumstantial. The fourth
evangelist says, One of the
servants (δούλων -
doulon) of the high priest, being a
kinsman of him whose
ear Peter cut off,
says, Did I not see thee in the garden with Him? The
historically attested fact gave the lie to Peter’s previous
assertions. Clearly
he was seen and recognized and in imminent peril, and he is
now more
vehement than ever. Matthew and Mark tell, “he began to
curse and swear,
saying, I do not
know the Man” (Matthew 26:74; 14:71). John, with less
feeling of reproach, says, Peter therefore denied again.
The intercessory prayer,
the solemn warning, the agony in the garden, above all, the
following of the
sublime encouragements by this fearful failure, the
ignominious binding and rude
indignity offered to the Man who had claimed to be THE VICEREGENT
AND IMAGE AND GLORY OF THE FATHER, combined to shatter Peter’s
courage, though
it did not annihilate his faith. The Lord had prayed that his
faith should not fail (Luke 22:31-32). He was sifted as wheat, but the
apostle knew, even in the depths of his shame, that
he was a poltroon and
coward, and that the Lord was everything He said He was.
But meanwhile
he denied again, he kept up with his violence of
language, his hypocritical
denial of his own faith — and straightway the cock crew. Mark, who had
made the prediction of our Lord cover a twofold
cockcrowing, records the
twofold fulfillment; John, who in ch.13:38 had given the
prediction
“before the cock
crow,” here shows how Peter must have been
reminded
of his Lord’s preternatural knowledge and forecast. So
that, though John
does not mention the repentance, he refers to the
well-known occasion of
it, and, moreover, shows more forcibly than either of the synoptists the
extraordinary tenderness of the risen and reconciled Lord
to his erring and
cowardly disciple.
Some extreme harmonists have spread out the fault of
Peter into nine distinct acts of treachery; others have
reduced them to
seven or eight. M’Clellan, in a
powerful note (p. 447), urges that there
were “twice three,” or six distinct denials. Matthew and
Mark report three
denials while the trial before Caiaphas
was going on; these are, according
to M’Clellan, entirely distinct
from John’s “first denial,” which preceded
even the lighting of the fire. Nor does he allow that
Luke’s first denial,
“sitting at the fire,” can coincide with John’s “second
denial,” which must
also have preceded that which Luke gives as the first, and
that John’s
“third denial” is distinct again from Matthew’s third,
Mark’s third, and
Luke’s third. Thus he makes John’s account entirely
supplementary to the
synoptists. Peter may have used a variety of expressions on each
occasion,
and each challenge may have been accompanied by some
features not
especially noted as to posture or place, but the arrangement
adopted in the
text represents a threefold assault
upon the apostle, which had three crises
of intensity and terrible result. Taking Matthew and Mark as virtually
identical, Luke’s account as a separate tradition with
reference to the
second denial, and agreeing with Matthew and Mark in the
third, and in his
first with John’s second, we have three denials once more
following the
prediction. John’s account, whether distinct or not from
the other two
records, bears the same relation to our Lord’s previous
announcement that
the synoptists’ do to theirs, and
shows that in no quarter was there a
general belief in more than three virtual
acts of apostasy. Mark alone
mentions a twofold warning from the cock, one after the
first denial, and
on
Peter’s going out to the προαύλιον (porch) or the enclosure, i.e. between
the
πυλών (gate) and the θύρα (door) and again after the third denial.
Others find a threefold denial before each crowing of the
cock.
Certainly John has omitted the entire scene detailed by the
synoptists in the
hall of Caiaphas, viz. the
calling of the witnesses; the lack of harmony in
the false witnesses; the adjuration of Caiaphas;
the wondrous confession of
the persecuted and bound Sufferer; the verdict pronounced
against Him, on
the part of all assembled, that He was guilty of death; the
first cruel
mockery; and the very early assembly of the entire
Sanhedrin — all the
chief priests (πάντες οἱ αρχιερείς - pantes oi archiereis) and elders of the people pantes hoi
archiereis – all the
chief priests (Matthew 27:1-2; Mark 15:1, the
chief priests,
with the elders and scribes
and all the Sanhedrin). The synoptists assure us that
the object of this council
— which was probably held in the celebrated chamber
of the temple appropriated for the purpose — was to adopt the most suitable
measures for immediately carrying their unanimous judgment
into effect.
As we shall see shortly, John is perfectly aware of such a
measure having
been taken (see not only v. 31, but ch.11:47, etc.). Nevertheless,
he passes on
at
once to the legal and civil trial before the Roman proprietor.
This is not the place to discuss the twofold trial of Jesus
before the
Sanhedrin. Derembourg, Farrar,
and Westcott suppose that the first
demands of the high priest, as to whether he was the
Christ, as given by
Matthew and Mark, were different from the scene described
by Luke,
where he claimed ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν – apo tou nun – hereafter - to be seated
on the right hand of the power
of God (Luke 22:69), and suppose that this last
was the occasion, when the verdict
was given by the Sanhedrin in full session,
not in the palace of the high
priest, but in the “Gazith,” or possibly in the
“Booths of Hanan,” on the
οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως – oikos tou archiereos - house of the chief priest
(Ibid.v. 54), and the συνέδριον αὐτῶν– sunedrion auton – Sanhedrin,
of
v. 66.
The Three Denials of Peter (vs. 15-17,
25-27)
After all the disciples had fled, some, like John and
Peter, returned to the
scene of our Lord’s last trials. This fact must be
remembered to Peter’s
credit.
- THE HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PETER’S FALL.
Ø The first
circumstance was his introduction into the court of the high
priest
by John. This brought him into dangerous
association with Christ’s
enemies.
Ø The second was his
recognition by those who had seen him in the
garden
at the time of our Lord’s arrest.
Ø
The third was his Galilaean
accent.
Ø
The fourth was the injury he had done with the sword to Malchus. There
was thus a combination of fear
and presumption in his presence among
Christ’s enemies.
- PETER’S FALL The denial of Christ was:
Ø
A serious crime, regarded by itself and its repetition, and in the light of
the warning that preceded it,
and the oaths and the curses that followed
it. It was a crime full of ingratitude,
cowardice, and lies.
Ø
Mark the peculiarity of this crime.
o
Consider it in the
light of Peter’s calling.
§
He was an apostle, a chosen “fisher of men.”
§
He was admitted
to the closest intimacy with our blessed
Lord, and
honored with his deepest confidence and affection.
He might well say, “To whom
shall we go but unto thee?
Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (ch. 6:68)
o
Consider Peter’s crime
in the light of his circumstances, and his
transgression is somewhat extenuated.
§
He had passed the
previous night in watching. He was
nervous and excited from
the want of sleep, as well as
from the prospect of losing
the best of Masters.
§
He was deserted by the
other apostles, who were
scattered everywhere. Peter’s courage was of that
character that rises when
the danger is to be
encountered with
surrounding circumstances of
sympathy.
§
The personal help of
Jesus was, besides, now suddenly
withdrawn.
§
His attack upon Malchus weakened his courage. When a
man does a wrong thing or
takes up a wrong position,
he is from that moment a
weaker man.
§
He did not yet
comprehend the necessity of Christ’s death.
“Far be it from
thee”
(Matthew 16:22). He was not,
therefore, himself in a position to die.
o
Consider Peter’s crime
in the light of his character, and it is easily
explained. He was:
§
confident and
zealous, but
§
lacking in
firmness and resolution. His character was a
curious mixture
of courage and
fear.
- PETER ROUSED FROM THE SLUMBER OF HIS CONSCIENCE.
The crowing of the cock, and our
Lord’s look, awakened him to his true
state. The look had a
penetrative force in his soul.
Ø
It was a look of lasting
remembrance. “Did I not tell thee that thou
wouldst deny me?”
Ø
It was a look of inward sorrow. “Is this thy sympathy for thy Friend?”
Ø
It was a look of blessed
consolation. “I
have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not.” (Luke 22:31-32)
Ø
It was a look that,
perhaps, gave a timely hint to the apostle to depart at
once from the scene of
danger.
- THE EFFECTS OF PETER’S FALL.
Ø
He went out, and wept bitterly.
o
Solitude was the only
resource after such a crisis.
o
The flow of
penitential tears, so honoring to Jesus, would be
refreshing to the apostle.
Ø
His fall made him
humble and sympathizing and consolatory in his
relations with the Church. His
Epistles contain traces of the effects of:
o
his fall and
o
his restoration.
From v. 28 to ch. 19:16 is the account of the Roman trial, presupposing the
decision
of the Sanhedrin.
Without the Praetorium Pilate Extorts the Malign
Intention of the Jews, and Dares Them
to Disobey Roman Law.
(vs.
28-32)
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.”
Then they lead
Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the
Praetorium — to the imperial
palace of the Roman governor. The word is
used primarily for the general’s tent in the Roman camps,
and for the legal
residence of the chief of a province. Now, the ordinary
residence of the
Roman governors was at
were in the habit of going up to
(Josephus, ‘
purpose the former
city. It is, however, more probable that Pilate occupied
the palace of the
and having means of direct communication with it. From the
high-priestly palace
to the castle they led Jesus. And it was early. [In Matthew 14:25 and Mark 13:35
πρωῖ´– proi - is equivalent to the
fourth watch of the night, between three and
six o’clock. The
breadth of the phrase would cover the period of the hurried
council (see Matthew 27.; Mark 15.) and the session of
Pilate. The Roman
judgments were often conducted in early morning (Seneca,
‘De Ira,’ 2:7)
— prima luce.] The council having in
their indecent haste conveyed Jesus
to the Praetorium, while (and)
they themselves went not into the
Praetorium,
lest they should be defiled (μιαίνω - miaino - the solemn word
for
“profane” in Plato, Sophocles, and the
Septuagint). This defilement by
Entrance into the house of a Gentile was not an enactment
of the Law, but
was a purely rabbinic
observance (Delitzsch,
‘Talmudische Studien,’ 14.
(1874);
We find it operative in Acts 10:28, and thus a hint given
not merely of the
author’s knowledge of the inner life of Judaism, but of his
quiet recognition of
the stupendous spectacle of malicious ritualism, and of unscrupulous antagonism
to THE HOLIEST ONE, busying
itself about attention to the letter of that which
was only a rabbinic legislation. But
might eat the Passover. Here in this
passage we come once more face to face with the persistent
puzzle
occasioned by the divergent intimations of John and the synoptists as to the
day of our Lord’s death. In Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12-14
this
very phrase is used for the preparation of that Paschal
supper which our
Lord celebrated with His disciples. So that we have at any
rate a discordant
verbal usage, however the problem be solved. The day is
breaking, which
constitutes, according to John (prima facie),
the 14th of Nisan, in the evening
of which and commencement of the 15th the Passover would be
killed. According
to the synoptists, that Passover
meal was already over, and the first great day of the
feast had commenced — the day of convocation, with sabbatic functions and
duties. The statements
are apparently in hopeless variance. Many emphasize,
exaggerate, and declare insoluble the contradiction,
repudiating either the
authority of John or that of the synoptists.
We have two methods of reconciling
the difficulty:
- An endeavor to show that
the synoptic narrative itself is inconsistent
with the idea that the night of
the Passion was the night of the general
Passover.
o
That the entire
proceeding of the trial was inconsistent with the
feastday;
o
that Simon the Cyrenian could not bear the cross on that day;
o
the circumstance that
that Friday evening was the preparation of
the Passover; and
o
that the reckonings of
the weeks till the Pentecost Sunday are all
made to show that the synoptic
narrative itself admits that the
Crucifixion took place before
the Passover meal.
So also does the decision of the
priests, that they would put Jesus to death
μὴ ἐν τῆ ἑορτῆ - mae en tae heortae – not
on the feast day - (Matthew
26:5; Mark 14:2). On this
understanding the passage before us is interpreted
in its natural sense; the Jews
were unwilling to contract ceremonial
defilement, because they were
about to eat the Passover, and so with
respect to the other references
in John’s Gospel, which all, prima facto,
suggest the same chronological
arrangement.
- A very powerful argument
has been constructed, however, which
brings John’s account here, as
well as elsewhere, into harmony with the
supposed assertion of a synoptic
narrative, that the Paschal meal preceded
the trial of Jesus. It is said
by some commentators that this unwillingness to
defile themselves was because
they were anticipating their midday meal, at
which sacrificial offerings and
thank offerings, also called chagigah, were
regarded as “eating the
Passover”(Deuteronomy 16:2-3; II Chronicles 30:22;
35:7-9). It is argued that, if
the Jews were thinking of a meal which would
not come off till sundown, their
fear of defilement was illusory. But
examination of these passages
shows that there is a distinction drawn
between the Paschal lamb
and the cattle which might form part of the
general sacrificial feasting of
the following days, and that the term
“Passover” is strictly limited to the Paschal lamb. Moreover, the duration
of the defilement thus contracted would certainly have prevented them
from any participation in the slaying of the Paschal lamb “between
the
evenings” of the 14th
and 15th of Nisan. Certainly John makes no reference
to the Passover in his account of the Last Supper, neither does he refer to
the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
Defilement, Ceremonial
and Real (v. 28)
All religions recognize the twofold nature of man. As we
are body and
soul, the requirements of religion respect both these parts of our being.
The
heart is the spring of conduct, and actions are the
manifestation of the
spiritual nature. It is obvious that an opening thus exists for hypocrisy; it is
possible that there may be the outward form where the inner reality
is
lacking. Such was the case with those Jews — chiefly priests and
Pharisees
— whose conduct is described in
the text. They felt no scruple in defiling
their conscience with the crime of shedding the blood of the
innocent; but
they would on no account enter the Praetorium,
where leaven might be
present in some of the rooms, lest they should be polluted, and
unfitted for
taking part in the solemnities of the approaching Passover.
I. CEREMONIAL DEFILEMENT MAY BE AVOIDED WHILST
REAL
DEFILEMENT OF THE
SOUL IS CONTRACTED. The heathen
religions of antiquity were in no vital way connected with morality.
A man
might be a very religious, and yet a very bad, man; and that
without any
inconsistency. But the faith of the Hebrews was based upon revelation,
and
combined belief of the
truth with practice of righteousness. It
was culpable
in
a high degree in men who enjoyed revelation so clear and full, to be led
aside from the ways of justice at the very moment when they were
carefully
observing the requirements of the ceremonial law. It is an
evidence of their
depravity, and at the same time of their blunted sensibilities to
what was
right and reasonable, that they should so act. How much more
deserving of
condemnation are professed Christians, who, whilst scrupulously
observing
the
ordinances of religion and the regulations of their Churches, at the
same time are guilty of serious infractions of the moral law! Yet men are
found who keep with outward strictness the day of rest, who
partake of the
holy Eucharist, and yet are not ashamed to act unjustly, to speak
slanderously, and to cherish a selfish and worldly spirit.
II. CEREMONIAL DEFILEMENT MAY BE CONTRACTED
WHILST
REAL DEFILEMENT
OF THE SOUL IS AVOIDED. There are many
cases in which “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat
of rams.” (I Samuel 15:23) As David ate the showbread, as the disciples
of Jesus
plucked the ears of corn, and Jesus Himself healed the sick on the
sabbath, so men
may
often be justified in transgressing the letter of a commandment in order to
keep the spirit of the law. The claims of humanity are rightly to be
preferred to the requirements of an external character, which
nevertheless
have their place and their use. And good men may even frequent the
society of the vicious, the criminal, the degraded, when, by so
doing, they
may
make an opportunity for bringing the gospel of Christ’s love before
the
minds of those to whom nothing but the gospel can bring rescue,
salvation, and eternal life. Many
methods may upon this principle be
justified which would not on their own account be accepted and
practiced
by
the sensitive and painstaking. Salus populi suprema lex (the
welfare of
the people should be the supreme
law). If it is so in politics, surely in the
religious life we may well be, like the apostle, “all
things to all men, if by
any means we may win some.’ (I Corinthians
9:22)
29 “Pilate
then went out unto them, and said, What accusation
bring ye
against this man?” Pilate therefore, because of their rooted national prejudice,
went out
unto them beyond his court, to
some open space convenient
for hearing the case. Pilate is introduced here without any
preliminary
statement or title, as though the position of the man were
well known to
his readers — another proof that the synoptic narrative is
presupposed.
This scrupulousness contrasts with the summary proceeding
of Herod
Agrippa (Acts 12:1-2), and with the conduct of the Roman
authorities
(Ibid. ch.22:24). The very question he asks implies that
something had
conspired to provoke a certain sympathy on his part with
Jesus, and to
excite additional suspicion of the Jews. The statement of
Matthew 27:19
may account for the former. The fact that he was ready to
hear the
case at this early hour shows that he must have been
prepared for the
scene, and even primed for it. Pilate (the manuscripts vary
between
Peilatos and Pilatos) was the fifth governor of
and held office from A.D. 26-36. He is represented by Philo
(‘Legatio ad
Caium,’ 38) as a proud, ungovernable man; and, in his conflicts
with the
Jews, he had especial reason to detest their obstinate
ceremonial and
religious prejudices. Philo speaks of Pilate’s “ferocious
passions,” says that
he was given to fits of furious wrath, and that he had
reason to fear that
complaints laid before Tiberius for “his acts of insolence,
his habit of
insulting people, for his cruelty, and murders of people
untried and
uncondemned, and his never-ending inhumanity,” might bring upon him
the
rebuke which ultimately the emperor gave him, in
consequence of his
endeavor to force from the Jews assent to his placing gilt
shields in the
and shows that a portion of his administration was not
without beneficent
purpose, thwarted by the fanatical opposition of the Jews.
On this occasion
he asked first of the mob of priests, What accusation do ye bring against
this Man? He may have known,
probably did know, but chose to give
formality to the charge, and not simply to register their
decrees.
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:”
They answered and
said, if He were not a malefactor, we should not have
delivered Him up
to thee. This was somewhat
audacious. It was as much as
to say, “We have judged, you have only to
register our decisions. We are not
bound to go through our evidence before you.” If it had been so, the deprivation
of the jus gladii, the
power of capital execution would
have mattered little to
them. Pilate, in scorn and irony, replies, “If that be so, why have ye brought Him
to me? If you are unwilling
to comply with the terms of Roman jurisprudence,
then it must be
some case which you can dispose of according to your own rules.”
Take ye Him
yourselves, and according to your Law judge Him. Pilate
saw their animus, and that they were thirsting for the
blood of Jesus, and
wished at once to flout them and make them confess their
impotence and
admit his suzerainty. For them to judge (κρίνειν – krinein) was not
equivalent to
put
to death (ἀποκτεῖμαι – apokteinai – to kill),
and Pilate clearly suggested that
much. The Jews
[therefore] said to him, It is not lawful (οὐκ ἔξεστι – ouk exesti –
not lawful; not allowed) to us to put any
man to death. This was perfectly true,
notwithstanding the tumultuary and violent acts and threats, and incipient stonings
of Jesus, to which
the Gospel refers (ch. ; 7:25; 8:3,59). Other
interpretations of
this exclamation have been supplied, viz. “to execute
criminals of state”, “to do so
on feast-days”; but the power had been formally taken from
even the supreme court,
forty years before the destruction of
James the Just, occurring between the departure of one
Roman governor and the
arrival of another, is mentioned by Josephus (‘
infringement and violation of law. The stoning of Stephen
in a wild tumult,
and the proceedings of Herod Agrippa, are rather
confirmations than
violations of the rule. Thus the malign disposition and
distinct purpose of
the Jews were revealed. They would not have brought Jesus
at all before
the Roman governor, nor admitted his claim to decide any
case involving
religious ideas and practices, if they had not fully decided that Jesus must
die. But John sees a deeper reason still.
32 “That
the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake,
signifying what death He should die.” Thus the very
political order of the
world, the whole process by which
of the wondrous plan by which Jew and Gentile should together offer up
the
awful sacrifice, and all
the world be guilty of the death of its Lord. The manner of
the death had been foretold by our Lord. In ch.3:14 He
spoke of being lifted up
(ὑψωθήαι)– hupsothaenai – be
lifted up; to be exalted), in ch.
8:28 He charged
the
Jews with the intention of so lifting Him up to die (ὅταν ὑψώσητε– hotan
hupsosaete –
whenever ye have lifted up; whenever ye should be exalting), implying
a method of capital punishment which was contrary to their
ordinary habits; and in
ch.
12:32 He declared that this lifting up of the Son of man would create part
of His sacred and Divine attraction to the human race. In
the synoptists He
is
said to have repeatedly spoken of His σταυρός - stauros – cross (Luke 14:27;
Mark 8:34; Matthew 10:38; 16:24); but in Matthew 20:19 He
had clearly predicted
His crucifixion by the Gentiles (compare Luke 9:22-23). The
manner or kind of
death was full of significance; it provided opportunity for
the royal demission of
His own life (ch.10:18); it gave conditions for much of the
sublime self-manifestation
of the closing hours; it has proved, notwithstanding all
the shame and curse of the
proceeding, eminently symbolic of the compassion with which
He embraced the
human race in all its defilement and all the variety of
its need. We are not surprised
to find that the evangelist saw, in the complicated
relations of Jewish and Roman
authority, a divinely ordered arrangement, and a clearly
foreseen and
predicted consummation. Luke 23:2 shows that the charge
brought
against Jesus was made to receive a coloring likely to
prejudice the Roman
governor against Him: “We
found this Man perverting our nation, and
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a
King.” The uproar
and the false and malicious charge would be more likely
than any other to move Pilate against Him; and thus the
synoptic narrative,
being presupposed, gives an explanation of the first question
which John,
as well as the synoptists,
represents Pilate as first of all pressing upon the
Divine Sufferer. Without Luke’s statement, Pilate’s
question is abrupt and
inexplicable; but it must be admitted that there is in
John’s narrative no
direct hint of Luke’s addition; and Christ’s
counter-question to the inquiry
of Pilate (which last is given in the same form by all four
evangelists)
implies that he had not overheard the false charge which
the Jews had
brought into the court. The Lord was within the Praetorium. Pilate and the
Jews were on the open, external space, where the
altercation proceeded.
We may also observe that nothing could appear more
anomalous to Pilate
than that these bigoted and rebellious priests, who
perpetually resisted the
claims of Roman governors to enforce tribute, should now
hypocritically pretend
that a prophet-leader of their own had been guilty of such
a charge. Instead of
resisting, the Pharisees would have fostered a demagogue
who had taken such a
disloyal part. Pilate would at once have suspected that
there was something
ominous in the very charge itself, when tumultuously
pressed by a party who
were accustomed to regard such proceedings as patriotic;
and he saw with
shrewdness that the Jews had
merely cloaked their real antagonism by
presenting an incrimination which, under ordinary
circumstances, they
would have treated as a
crowning virtue.
In vs. 33-38, the
scene is the Praetorium where Christ admits that He
was a King, but that His
kingdom was not of this world.
33 “Then
Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the
Jews?” Pilate therefore
entered
again into the Praetorium, out of direct hearing of the vociferous crowd, where
Jesus and John himself had remained under supervision of
the officers of the
court, and called — summoned Jesus to his side, and said to
Him that of which
the mob outside formed an imperfect idea. The account of
John throws much
light on the inference which Pilate drew from the reply of
Jesus, as given in
v. 38 and in Luke 23:4. To the loud accusations and bitter
charges of
“the chief priests
and elders” (Matthew 27:11-12; Mark
15:3-4)
brought in the presence of Pilate, Christ answered nothing.
His solemn and
accusing silence caused the governor to marvel greatly (see
both
Matthew 27:14 and Mark 15:5). He marveled not only at the
silence of the Lord, but at that silence after he, Pilate,
had received from
Him so explicit a statement as to the nature of His own
kingdom. An
explanation of the motive of Pilate, and of his entire
manner upon this
occasion, is to be found in the private interview between
our Lord and the
Roman governor within the Praetorium.
It is unnecessary (with many) to
see in Pilate an “almost persuaded” believer in the claims
of Jesus, who yet
was warring with his better judgment, and apostatizing from
a nascent
faith. He appears rather as the
Roman man of the world, who has never
learned to rule his policy by any notions of
righteousness and truth, and is
utterly unable to appreciate the spiritual claims of this
Nazarene; yet he was
shrewd enough to see that, so far as Roman authority was
concerned, this
Prisoner was utterly harmless. His question was, Art thou the King of the
Jews? Of course, he expected at first a negative reply. Should
this abused
and rejected, this bound and bleeding Sufferer, with no
apparent followers
around Him, actually betrayed by one of His intimate
friends, deserted by
the rest, and hounded to death by the fierce cries of
Pharisee and
Sadducee, chief priest and elder, answer in the
affirmative, it might easily
suggest itself to Pilate that He must be under some futile
hallucination. It
has been said that the question might have been answered
right off in the
affirmative or in the negative, according as the term “King
of the Jews”
was understood. If what Pilate meant was a popular titular
leader,
imperator of Jewish
levies, one prepared for the career of Judas of Galilee,
or Herod the Idumaean, or for
that of Barchochab in after times, —
nothing could seem to be less likely or more patently
repudiated by the
facts; moreover, from our Lord Himself, who had always
refused a quasi-royal
dignity (ch.6:15), it would have required an emphatic negative.
Pilate knew no other way of interpreting the phrase. If the
term meant the
true “King of
King of all kings and Lord of lords, the Ruler of hearts,
who would draw
all men to Him, and cast out and vanquish the prince of
this world, then the
“crown” was His, and He could not deny it; but before this
assertion was
made in the hearing of the multitude, our Lord would draw
from Pilate the
sense in which he used the words. He does not say to him, Σὺ λέγεις –
Su legeis - Thou sayest —a
reply given verbatim by all the synoptists, and
referring to a second demand made in the presence of
the multitude — but
He put a counter-question.
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest
thou this thing of thyself, or did others
tell it thee of me?” Sayest thou this thing, askest thou this question, from
thyself? — from thy knowledge
of the hopes kindled by the ancient books,
or from comparing my words with my appearance, or from any
judgments
thou hast formed a priori? Thus Jesus was not so much informing Pilate of
the
distinction between the two kingships, as claiming qua Prisoner
at the bar the
source of the accusation. “Have I put forth any claim of
this kind, which
thou as the chief magistrate of this Roman province hast
any legal cognizance of?”
It was not an appeal to the man rather than to the governor,
to the conscience of
Pilate rather than to the forms of the tribunal; but, with
the intrepid consciousness
of perfect innocence of the political crime, our Lord asks
for the formal declaration
of the charge brought against Him. Or did others tell it thee concerning
me? It seems like Christ
was discriminating between the theocratic and the political
use of the great phrase. It is obvious that He did rise from
the latter to the former
in the following verses, but it is difficult to find the
distinction in this
alternative question.
“Did others (not thine own police or observation)
—
did the Jews, in fact,
bring thee this charge against me? Nay, did they not?
Is it not entirely
due to this outbreak of hostility to my teaching that they
have chosen thus
to impeach me before thee — to deliver me to thee?”
Therefore, first of all, Christ repudiated the charge, in
the only sense in
which it could have conveyed any colorable idea to the mind
of Pilate.
35 “Pilate
answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
priests have delivered thee unto me: what
hast thou done?”
Pilate answered, with the proud and haughty tone of a Roman
military judge or procurator, Am I a Jew? The ἐγώ – ego – I
-
is very
emphatic, and the force of the question requires a negative. You know
that it would be insult to me to make such a supposition. The nation that is
thine, not mine, and the
chief priests, delivered thee to me. An
unequivocal
statement that he had no reason of his own to assume that
Jesus was a
political aspirant. Whatever inner reasons these Jews had
to malign Jesus
and confuse Pilate’s mind with the ambiguity of the title,
the governor is
innocent as yet of any such theocratic or religious meaning
in the charge.
More than this, the humiliation of the Divine Lord of men,
the King of
Israel, is grievously aggravated by the very use of the
word. “Thy
own
nation has
delivered thee up, has betrayed thee to me.” The crime of Judas
has been adopted by the religious authorities and the
patriotic leaders of
the people. “He came unto His
own, and his own people received Him not.”
(ch. 1:11). Christ frequently anticipated this result of
His ministry; and He
regarded it as the climax of His indignity (see especially
Luke 9:44; and
compare the language of Peter, Acts 3:13), that the
anointed King should by
His own people be “delivered” up
to lawless Gentile hands to be crucified and
slain. Pilate assures Him that, if He is now in His hands, the
cause of it is
simply that His own people had utterly repudiated His
claims, whatever they
may have been. What
didst thou do to transform into thy bitter enemies
those who would naturally condone or favor any such claim
as that of
being a seditious rival to the Roman Caesar?
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.”
In reply to this challenge, Jesus answered — obviously
assuming the fact that He was a king in a sense entirely
different from that
which had been maliciously suggested to Pilate — My kingdom — the
kingdom that is mine — is not of this world. Neither now nor at any
future period will it derive its origin from this world. So far as Christ is
King, His royal
power and state are not furnished by earthly force, or
fleshly ordinances, or physical energies, or material
wealth, or imperial
armies. The dominion
that He will wield will be one over hearts and lives;
the authority of the Lord Jesus cannot be arrested or
overpowered by
physical force. Most commentators justly regard this as a
spiritual
manifesto of the sources and quality of the kingdom of
Christ, and a
foreshadowing of the separation between the spiritual and
secular power
— a declaration that all effort to embody Christian laws
and government in
compulsory forms, and to defend them by penal sanctions and
temporal
force, is disloyalty to the royal rank and crown rights of
the Lord Jesus
Christ. Hengstenberg regards the
assertion as precisely the reverse; sees in
the passage, “rightly understood, the very opposite
purpose. The kingdom
that sprang directly from heaven must have absolute
authority over all the
earth, and it will not submit to be put into obscurity. The
kingdoms of this
world must become the kingdom of the Lord and his Anointed,
and He shall
reign for ever and ever.” This is true, but not along the
lines or with the
machinery of earthly rule and authority. The influence and
authority of
Heaven works upon the spirit by truth and righteousness and
peace, and
thus transforms institutions, permeates
society from the ground of the
heart, modifies the relations between the members of a
household, and
transfigures those between a ruler and his subjects,
between the master and
his slaves, between labor and capital, and between man
and man. Whenever
it is triumphant, whenever the lives of kings and their
peoples are sanctified
by supreme obedience to Christ the King, then war will be
impossible, all
tyrannies and slaveries will be abolished, all malice and
violence of
monarchs or mobs will be at an end; then the wolfish and
the lamblike
nature will be at peace. Then all the means for enforcing
the will of one
against another will be done away. He will have put
down all rule,
authority, and power; for He must reign, and He alone. (I Corinthians
15:24-28). This kingdom is not (ἐκ – ek – from; out of) this world’s methods
or resources; does not begin from without and establish itself, or propagate or
preserve itself, from the world,
which is a rival, and is not to be coerced but
drawn to itself. Like the
individual disciple, the kingdom may be in the world,
but not of it. Christ
proceeded, If the kingdom that is mine
were from this world,
which it is not (mark the form of the condition), then, on that
supposition,
would the servants (ὑπηρέται – hupaeretai generally translated
officers) that
are mine fight, with physical force, in order that I should not be
delivered
up (παροδοθῶ – parodotho – I may be being given up) to the Jews. The
supposition that the ὑπηρέται of whom our Lord spoke
were “the angels”
is
distinctly repudiated by the ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου - ek tou kosmou toutou -
of this present world. If
it were the case, as it is not, then would my officers be,
not
a handful of disciples (whom He generally calls διάκονοι δοῦλοι
– diakonoi,
douloi – ministers;
servants), but the
servants who would be appropriate to
my royal mission, — then would my servants be busily
fighting that I
should not be delivered up by the Roman power that is for
the moment
thrown over me like a shield, to the Jews, who are
thirsting for my blood.
The loud cry of hatred and vengeance may even at this
moment have
pierced the interior of the Praetorium,
thus giving its force, if not form, to
the sentence. Godet thinks our
Lord was referring to the crowds who
actually gathered round him on Palm Sunday, and not to
hypothetical
ὑπηρέται; but the force of the condition goes down deeper, and,
moreover, such language might have awakened the suspicion
that, after all,
Jesus had a political following, if he should choose
to evoke it. Observe
that this entire severance between “the Jews” and the
friends of Christ,
which, though occasionally adopted by the evangelist, is
not the customary
method of our Lord. The moment at which the Savior speaks
gives great
significance to the phraseology (observe ch.4:22; 13:33;
v.20 here; the
only other occasions on which the Lord used this phrase to
denote His own
people). But now
(the νῦν – nun - now) compare ch.9:41
and 15:22, is logical,
not temporal); i.e. But seeing that it is so — my kingdom, He adds, is not from
hence. The ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου
(out
of the worlds equivalent to ἐντεῦθεν
– enteuthen – hence - and suggests that the kingdom derives its resources and
its
energies “from the upper world, from above.”
The Unworldly Kingdom (v. 36)
It is not always possible to return a direct answer to a
question. When
Pilate asked our Lord Jesus, “Art thou a King?” the
reply could not have
been either “Yes” or “No” without misleading the
questioner. In a sense He
was not a king, — that is, He made no claim to an earthly,
temporal
sovereignty; in another sense He was
a King, — a spiritual Sovereign,
although his kingdom was not of this world. Thus the question of the
Roman governor was the occasion of the utterance of a great
truth, a great
principle, distinctive of the religion and Church of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
- CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS UNWORLDLY IN ITS COMPATIBILITY
WITH AND ITS TOLERANCE OF OTHER KINGDOMS. Earthly
governments do not admit of the imperium in imperio. The same
subject
cannot owe allegiance to two
lords. The same land cannot admit the
promulgation of different codes
of law. Oppression, confusion, rebellion,
anarchy, would be the result of
such an attempt. But the kingdom of
the
Lord Jesus can
exist and flourish in the most diverse forms
of secular
government. The subjects of a
despotic monarchy, and the citizens of a
democratic republic, are alike
capable of acknowledging the supremacy and
obeying the commands of King
Jesus. So far from destroying or imperiling
a state, Christianity, when it takes possession of a people,
tends to establish
a state in:
Ø
righteousness,
Ø
freedom, and
Ø
peace.
The ruler and the governed may
alike confess the sway and honor the authority
of the Lord and King of men.
- CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS UNWORLDLY IN THE
CHARACTER
AND THE APPEARANCE OF ITS MONARCH. Earthly kings are always
imperfect in character, and
sometimes unjust, malevolent, vain, and selfish;
yet they may maintain the
outward semblance of dignity, wealth,
magnificence, and power. The
Lord Christ, on the contrary, had no earthly
rank, or splendor, no gorgeous
palace, no imposing retinue. He was in
outward guise lowly and obscure,
and He was by men scoffed at and
despised. Yet He was and is the Holy One and Just, the faultless and
benevolent Ruler
of men, the Lord of heaven, the Judge of all. How
wonderful and sublime a contrast
to the kings of this world is the meek
Monarch, the scepter of whose kingdom is a right scepter! (Psalm
45:6; Hebrews 1:8)
- CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS UNWORLDLY IN ITS
OWN ORIGIN
AND IN ITS SOVEREIGN’S TITLE AND CLAIM. The conception did
not spring up in a human mind. “Now,” said Jesus, “is my kingdom
not
from hence.” Designated “the kingdom of
heaven” and “the kingdom of
God,” it is, in its ground and in its character, what such
designations
involve. It is to the Divine wisdom and love that this unworldly
kingdom
must be traced.
Christ is King by inheritance, as Son of God; by conquest,
as the redeeming
Lord; by choice and election, being
welcomed by the
joyful acclamations of His loyal
subjects. In all these respects our Savior’s
title to the throne is very
different from the titles put forward by the kings
of this earth.
- CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS UNWORLDLY IN THE NATURE OF
ITS DOMINION OVER ITS SUBJECTS. The subjects of an earthly
monarch are usually born beneath
the sway of their liege lord. In any case
their obedience and submission,
their aid and support, are required, and the
requirement is, if necessary,
enforced by penalties. The sway of the king is
over the outward actions, the
speech and habits of the subjects. Very
different is the case with the
members of that spiritual state of which Jesus
is the sovereign Ruler. They are
all citizens of the commonwealth and
subjects of the King in virtue
of personal faith and voluntary submission.
Christ reigns in
the heart; he has no care for the mere
homage of the lips,
the mere prostration of the
body. His is a spiritual empire.
- CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS UNWORLDLY IN THE AIM IT SEEKS
AND THE MEANS IT EMPLOYS. Whilst earthly sovereignties aim at the
outward order and prosperity
of the community, at peace and wealth, at
conquest and glory, at power
and fame, and whilst they employ secular
means towards
these ends — Christ’s kingdom contemplates purely moral
ends — the growth and
prevalence of righteousness and holiness, patience
and love; in a word, those
spiritual characteristics which are distinctive of
every divinely ordered society,
and by means in harmony with such ends.
No fear or constraint, no
magistrates, officers, soldiers, prisons, does
Christ employ. He disclaims
force; “else,” said He, “would my
servants
fight.” His is A KINGDOM
IN WHICH TRUTH IS EMOBODIED
AND REVEALED — truth which calls for faith, and the support of
intelligence and
loyalty. The laws of the spiritual
kingdom are not
prohibitions; they take the form
of examples, and are sustained by the
sanction of Divine love.
- CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS UNWORLDLY IN ITS EXTENT AND
PERPETUITY. Whilst no earthly
conqueror has been suffered by Divine
providence to achieve a
universal dominion, Christ shall “reign from sea
to
sea, and from the
river unto the ends of the earth” (Zechariah 9:10).
Whilst all human governments are
liable to decay, and the
itself passed into a decline
which issued in its fall (I saw on TV within
the last two weeks a secular
discussion on the comparison of
Fall and what is currently
happening in the
16, 2014), Christ’s “kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, and His dominion
endureth to all generations.” (Psalm 145:13)
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.”
Pilate therefore
said to him, Art thou a King then? The
precise meaning of this exclamation depends on the
accentuation of
ουκουν - oukoun – not then - whether
it be οὐκοῦν equivalent to igitur,
“therefore:” “Therefore on your own showing you are a King!” or whether
οὔκουν be the form; then it would have the force of nonne igitur? expecting
an affirmative response. It is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (one time use) in the
New Testament, but it generally implies an inference and a
question expecting
agreement with the questioner. Here Pilate flashes out with
haughty rebuke.
He had satisfied himself that Jesus was no political rival;
hut, in wonderment and
scorn, he would sound a little deeper the mystery of the
kingly claim. It is
not a judicial inquiry, but a burst of ironical surprise: So
then, after all,
thou art a King, even
then? wavering between positive and negative reply.
Jesus answered,
Thou sayest it, that I am a King. This mode of
affirmation
is not found in classical Greek or the Septuagint, but occurs in the New Testament,
and in the synoptists also it is given as the great answer of Jesus.
Some have
translated the ὅτι – hoti – that - as “for” or
“because,” and added “well” and
“rightly” to the λέγεις – legeis – sayest - Thus: Thou sayest
well, for I am a
King. Hengstenberg and Lampe separate this declaration from what follows,
which they interpret exclusively of the prophetic office of Jesus: but the
εἰς τοῦτο
– eis touto – into this - points
backwards as well as
forwards, and our Lord accepts that which He proceeds to
explain as His
royal functions. Westcott,
however, says that Jesus neither accepts nor
rejects the title of King, but simply reiterates Pilate’s
words, “Thou sayest
that I am a King; I will proceed to explain what I mean by
my royal
mission.” Seeing, however, that our Lord had already
implicitly avowed his
kingly state, it is far better to discern in the reply an
acknowledgment of
the inference which Pilate had scornfully drawn (see
parallel method of
answering the question, “Art thou the Son of God?” Luke
22:70, “Ye
say that I am;” . ὅτι ἐγώ
εἰμι - hoti ego eimi – that I am
- compared with
Mark 14:62). This is the “good
confession” to which Paul referred (I
Timothy
6:13). This is the assumption, before the tribunal of the
whole world, THAT
HE WAS AND WOULD EVER REMAIN ITS TRUE KING! To
this end
have I been born Γεγέννημαι – Gegennaemai – have been born - is an
important admission of His true humanity. And
to this end have I come into
the world. These words are not tautological. In the first clause He asserts His
birth as a man, in the second He refers to the state of being which preceded
His incarnation
(compare here ch.16:28, note), out of which He came, and to
which He is now returning. The being “born” of woman
(Galatians 4:4) is one
fact, the “coming into this
world” is another which He makes antithetical to
His
return to the Father. Ἐλήλυθα – Elaelutha – I have come - present
perfect, being
used instead of ἤλθον – aelthon and implies that His
“coming is permanent in its
effects, and not simply a past historic fact”. In order that I might bear witness
unto the truth. This is
His supreme claim. There is an absolute reality. God’s
way of thinking about things is the closest approximation
we can make to the
concept of “truth per se.”
In this is comprehended all the reality
of the Divine
nature and character; all that the eternal God thinks concerning man and the
laws which have been given him, and concerning the failure of man to realize
God’s idea of what he
ought to have been; all the
absolute fact, just as it really
is, of man’s peril and
his prospects, the actual relations between body and spirit,
between the individual and
the community; all man’s positive need of redemption;
all the deep mystery
of Christ’s own Person and work. These constitute the
mighty realm of things, beings, duties, and prospects,
which we call TRUTH.
Jesus said He had been born and had come into the world in
order to BEAR
WITNESS TO THE TRUTH.
From John the Baptist’s
standpoint, that prophet
Bore witness concerning the light (John 1:7-8), and,
according to the range
of his vision, he too (ch.5:33) bore “witness to the truth”
(i.e. so far
as he knew it) of the Christ. Our Lord now solemnly
declares that He
Himself came to bear witness to THE TRUTH in all its
amplitude.
The next clause shows that our Lord is actually defining
by this claim the extent of the kingdom that is “not from hence” or from
this world as its origin. Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice.
To “hear the voice” is to
obey as a supreme authority (ch.10:8,
16, 27), and
the phrase shows how widely the thought ranges. Every mind open to the
influence of truth, every one who is set against the
unrealities
of mere opinion or tradition, who derives life and joy
from the realm of
reality, every one who therefore knows how different he might
be, how
much he needs, who is “of
God,” as the
Source and Beginning and Ground
of all things. Compare here the remarkable parallel to this sentiment,
ch.
8:47; and also the words of the high-priestly prayer, “All thine are mine,
and mine are thine” (ch. 17:10), and “Those whom thou hast given me are
thine (Ibid v.9); thine they were, and thou gavest them me.” (Ibid. v. 6).
The same large embrace of human souls is conspicuous here, Every one that
is of the
truth heareth the voice of Christ, and will accept His
authority as
final and supreme.
The sublime witness
to the truth which He had been bearing,
in this manifestation of the Name of the Father, would make the voice of Jesus
the imperial and august authority for all who felt how much they needed truth.
The Sanhedrists said that “truth is
the seal of God,” and they played upon the
word tma or “truth,” by making it equivalent to the first and middle and last
of all things, seeing that a m t, are the first, middle, and
last of the letters of
the alphabet.
The King of the Jews (v. 37)
It is the peculiarity of some people that a plain “Yes” and
“No” can hardly
ever be got out of them. After all, however, it is only an
irritating
peculiarity, not a dangerous one. The real danger is when
people say “Yes”
and “No” too easily, too thoughtlessly. Here is the
question of Pilate to
Jesus,” Art thou the King of the Jews?” What
at first sight could look
simpler and easier to answer? Yet it was not simple and
easy. Thus we
have to consider:
- JESUS IN HIS TREATMENT OF PILATE’S QUESTION. TO Pilate
the question was simple enough.
He meant, of course, a king in the
ordinary acceptation of the
term. If Jesus had said “No” to this
question,
the answer would have been right
enough, but it would only have led on to
other questions, without any
real result to the interests of truth. Jesus
evidently did not wish to talk
much at this season. The time for teaching
was past; the time for submission and
suffering had now fully come. Still,
whatever Jesus had to say must
be significant, and mere “Yes” or “No” to
ignorant human questionings
would have told nothing. Hence, without
saying He was a king, Jesus
talks about His kingdom and its principles of
defense, which, of course, were
equally its principles of attack.
- Thus we see Jesus answering the question by showing THE
ELEMENTS OF HIS POWER AND THE METHOD OF HIS
PROGRESS.
Ø
The elements of His power. He looks a lonely
man before the
representatives of the greatest
power in the then world. Whatever
could be done by force of
numbers and discipline,
But quantity of a lower kind can do nothing against quality
of a
higher kind. Jesus is not concerned
to maintain the integrity of a
fleshly body, though even that He
could have done if needful.
It was the integrity of the
inner life Jesus had to maintain against
temptation. Jesus had His own
personal battle to fight and
victory to win, before He could
lead men in their greatest battle
and most decisive victory. The risen Savior is the Man Christ
Jesus made fully
manifest in His abiding SINLESSNESS!
If Pilate will only wait a
little while, and open his mind to the
truth, he will see by deeds that
Jesus is a King. Not what a
man says, but what he does,
proves his claim.
Ø
The method of His progress. Jesus wants us to
get above the
ideas of mere conflict and
victory and overcoming of opposition.
What He desires is the
free, joyous, and entire submission of the
individual, because of the
truth which is made clear to him in
Jesus. Jesus is the only
one who can distinguish reality from
appearance, truth from
falsehood, and the abiding from the
perishing. Jesus, as He
says, came into the world. The world was
ever in His thoughts, for the
world’s good. He no more belonged
to the land he happened to live
in than the sun belongs to that
particular part of the earth
where it happens to be shining. The sun
belongs to the
whole world, AND SO DOES JESUS! . The sun
belongs to every
age, AND SO
DOES JESUS! He came into the
world TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUTH and wherever
there is a soul wrapped in delusion and falsehood, MISTAKING
REALITIES FOR
DREAMS and DREAMS
FOR REALITIES,
Jesus is there TO
TELL THE TRUTH, the whole truth,
and
nothing but the
truth.
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.” Pilate saith
unto Him, What is truth? The aphorism of Lord
Bacon, “‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate, and did not
wait for an
answer,” scarcely represents the reality of the case.
Pilate was not
scornfully jesting with a metaphysical problem, nor
professing himself
hopelessly baffled in search for it. The language was not
the utterance of
irrepressible homage to his mysterious Prisoner, or
heartfelt sympathy with
Him. For on this supposition why did he not wait for some
more words of
strange unearthly wisdom? Nor does he go so far in his
skepticism as Pliny
the Eider did when he said, “that there is only one thing
certain, viz. that
there is nothing certain;” but as a man of the world having
to do with
Roman authority or intrigue and Jewish fanaticism, Pilate
despised
earnestness and zeal, and was utterly unable to believe in
the existence of a
world or region where any higher reality than force
prevailed. But the
governor was now, with his narrow range of thought,
strongly convinced
that Jesus was utterly innocent of the charge brought
against Him. The
unanswered question is equivalent to this — What has truth to do with
kingship? What
has the vague shadowy region over which this poor king
reigns to do with plots against Caesar? He saw enough to
induce him to
break off the interview within the Praetorium,
and he proceeded, though
vainly, to deliver a verdict on the case. When he had said this, he went
out to the Jews,
and said, I find no crime in Him. Here, however, must
be introduced the scenes described by Matthew, Mark, and
especially by
Luke — scenes of loud and angry dispute and renewed and
fierce
accusation (Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23. 4-12).
In all
three accounts, after the admission that He was King of the
Jews, the loud,
fierce accusations followed in which our Lord,
notwithstanding the
repeated summons of Pilate, “answered
nothing.” At this the governor
marveled greatly (Matthew and Mark). It is not impossible
that the first
question which Pilate put to him within the Praetorium was renewed and
laconically answered with the Σὺ λέγεις (Thou sayest) is before I but
all the wild roar of the chief priests and people could
extract nothing more.
This silence in face of the accusation of the mob
astonished Pilate, and made
him more than ever convinced of the innocence of his
Prisoner. This interview
with Pilate throws on the synoptic narrative; that, in
fact, Pilate’s whole
conduct is only explicable on the supposition that he had
received cogent
reasons to disarm
all political mistrust. It is of great
interest to compare
this confession before Pilate with the corresponding
confession before
the high priest (Matthew 26:64). The one addressed to the
Jews is in the
language of prophecy, the other addressed to a Roman
appeals to the
verdict of universal conscience. The one speaks of a future manifestation
of glory, the other of a
present manifestation of truth.”
No Crime in
Christ (v. 38)
Pilate’s language and conduct furnish us with an example of
the way in
which weak and unprincipled men are wont to allow themselves to
be
guided by the expected consequences of their actions, instead of
referring
those actions to principles and laws by which they might decide
what is the
right course to follow. Often, as in the case of Pilate, where
the results of
actions are more regarded than their standards, men’s convictions
lead in
one
direction, whilst their practical conduct follows
another and inferior
path.
I. THE IMMEDIATE AND HISTORICAL LESSONS
DEDUCIBLE
FROM
THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PILATE.
1. With reference
to the governor himself who thus spoke, we infer from
this language his judicial impartiality. Accustomed to such
examinations
as that he was now conducting, he saw at once through the
motives of the
accusers, and recognized the absurdity of their charges and the
innocence
of the Accused. This was to the credit of his intelligence;
but his clear
perception of the merits of the case makes his guilt the greater in yielding
to the malice of the priests and the passion of the
populace.
2. This language
testifies to the sinful and malicious conduct of Christ’s
enemies. Pilate was ready enough to see
matters as they were seen by the
influential class among the Jews. But the case was so flagrant a case
of
groundless hatred and false accusation, that it was impossible that Pilate
should be blinded to the truth. What the governor said was
literally true —
there was no crime in Jesus.
3. We are justified in accepting this witness to the character of our Lord.
As Christians we believe,
indeed, far more than the Savior’s innocence of
the crime of civil insurrection. But we are at liberty to take
this evidence,
and to require its acceptance by all students of Christ’s
character and
claims. If the historical inquirer will go no further, we may
justly expect
him to grant that the charge upon which our Lord was put to death was a
charge utterly groundless.
II. THE GENERAL AND RELIGIOUS LESSONS DEDUCIBLE
FROM
THIS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PILATE.
1. It harmonizes
with the declarations of Scripture concerning the
blamelessness and sinlessness
of Jesus.
2. It suggests the
inquiry why one so blameless should endure such
undeserved ignominy and suffering. It is plain from the
narrative that Jesus
might have avoided what, as a matter of fact, He consented to
undergo.
There was a reason for this — a
reason to be found in the Divine purposes
regarding the salvation of sinful men. (Agreed upon before
the world
began - Revelation 5:6; 13:8)
His
qualifications are such as fit Him
for His mighty and merciful office, as THE SINLESS SAVIOUR
OF THE HUMAN RACE!
“What is Truth?” (v. 38)
When the Lord Jesus, in explanation of His claim to
kingship, declared
Himself a Witness to “the
truth,” the turn to the conversation
between Him
and the Roman governor was to all appearance very abrupt.
Government,
royalty, — these were ideas with which Pilate was familiar,
in which his
position bound him to take interest. With regard to truth,
he might or be
might not concern himself. In any case it would scarcely
occur to him that
there was any special connection between kingship and that
witness to the
truth which the accused One professed that it was His
mission to bear.
Whether Pilate asked the question from mere curiosity, from
real interest,
in ridicule, or in cynical unbelief, we cannot confidently
say. The possibility
that any one of these motives may have influenced him
suggests the various
attitudes of mind with which THE TRUTH OF GOD is
regarded by men.
- UNBELIEF ASKS, “WHAT IS TRUTH?” WITH A CYNICAL
CONTEMPT TOWARDS THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY
HAVE FOUND IT. The
disbelief of Christianity as a Divine and
authoritative religion is no new
thing. Infidelity has existed from the
earliest ages of Christianity
down to the present time. It has taken different
forms. Atheism, agnosticism, deism, rationalism, mysticism, differ in what
they affirm, but they largely agree in
what they deny. The chief offence
taken with our religion is
because of its supernatural claim, because, by
affirming Jesus to be the Son of
God and to have risen from the dead, it
affirms the being of a God
deeply interested in man’s true welfare, and
interposing in order to secure
it. That there is some solid basis for the
Christian faith and for the
Christian Church, only the most
ignorant deny.
With regard to the historical
facts which accounted for Christianity as a
human system, there is among
unbelievers difference of opinion. But when
the Christian teacher or
preacher declares, as he is bound to do, that the
Scriptures reveal
“the truth”
concerning the character and purposes of
God, and concerning the nature and prospects of man, then all
the hostility
of the opponent of religion, of the man who believes in food and clothing,
in science and art, and in nothing beyond,
is aroused within him; and with
all the scorn of incredulity
in his tones he asks, assured that there is no
answer to be given, “What is truth?”
- SKEPTICISM ASKS, “WHAT
IS TRUTH?” WITH THE SADDEST
DOUBT AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF ATTAINING IT. The opponent
of the believer is the infidel,
who disbelieves. Between the two stands the
skeptic, whose attitude is one of:
Ø
doubt,
Ø
examination, and
Ø
indecision.
This is a stage of thought
through which most educated and thoughtful persons
pass — some to faith and some to
disbelief, whilst there are those who
linger
in this state throughout the rest of life. Christianity is no foe to candid inquiry;
it bids us “prove all things” (I Thessalonians 5:21);
any other principle would
keep heathens, heathens, and
Mohammedans, Mohammedans, all through life.
What is to be avoided and blamed
is the settled, contented acquiescence in
doubt, which tends to no
conclusion of belief, no definite action. Now, whilst
there are topics upon which we
are not bound to have an opinion — topics
beyond our faculties, or remote
from our interests — it must be maintained
that religion is of importance
so vital, that if truth with regard to it can
possibly be attained, it must
earnestly be sought. Permanent
skepticism is
either a sign of the weakest intellect,
or it is a confession that the problem
of greatest interest to us is
a problem we can never solve.
- INQUIRY
PUTS THE QUESTION, “WHAT IS TRUTH?” WITH
SINCERE AND PRAYERFUL INTEREST. There is no question which
affords to the Christian teacher
and preacher greater pleasure, when
propounded with intelligence and
candor, than this. It evinces a mind alive
to the great
purposes and the great possibilities of life. And further, there is
the assurance that the seeker
shall be the finder of truth. (Jesus said, “Ask,
and it shall be
given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be
opened unto
you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that
seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.” - Matthew
7:7-8) In many of
their enterprises
the fervent, the inquisitive, the avaricious,
the ambitions, are doomed to fail.
But there is a price with which truth may
be bought; and the promise
holds good, “He that seeketh findeth.” Truth
must indeed be sought
in a right method and in a right spirit; so sought,
IT WILL NOT BE
SOUGHT IN VAIN!
- FAITH ASKS, “WHAT IS TRUTH?” AND RECEIVES TO
THE
QUESTION AN ANSWER DEFINITE, ASSURED, AND
SATISFYING. Belief
in Christian truth is reasonable, based as it is upon
evidence and testimony, upon the
highest and most unquestionable
authority, and upon the
congruity between Christianity and the innate
needs of man’s understanding,
conscience, and heart. (My son-in-law
recently asked me “What is faith?” and I
replied “Common Sense.” –
CY – 2014) Belief, as an intellectual assent, is
necessary to true religion;
but it is in itself
insufficient. To believe the gospel is to put faith in Him
who is Himself the Gospel, and
faith in Christ is faith in God. Christ has
said, “I am the Truth” (ch. 14:6); they,
then, who find Him, find revealed
in Him the mind,
the very heart of God. The truth is to
the Christian the
favor and the fellowship of the
Eternal, the law of life, the satisfaction
of the
whole nature. Very different are the Christian’s convictions from many
which
are held tenaciously by the “men of this world;” for they are convictions which
shall never be distrusted and
abandoned; they shall outlast the perishable fabrics
reared by human ingenuity and
human imagination.
In
the last two verses 39-40, the
Roman trial continued without the Praetorium,
where Pilate declared Christ
innocent, and made another effort to save Him.
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?
The Barabbas-proposal. Before the scene
which John here introduces
with a but — as though it followed immediately upon the utterance of a
verdict of acquittal — Luke tells us that casual reference was made to the
circumstance that Jesus was a Galilaean, and was
in Herod’s jurisdiction.
Eager to quit himself’ of a troublesome
presence and business, Pilate caught
at the expedient of sending
Jesus at once to the court of Herod (Luke 23:6-12).
This issuing in no result
except in fresh and hideous mockery of THE KING
OF KINGS and in a
renewed protestation of His innocence and harmlessness, so
far as the Roman Pilate or the Herodian
tetrarch could discover, Pilate
offered to scourge the Son of God, and release Him. The
utter meanness
and cowardice of his offer to add ignominious pain and
insult to the brutal
mockeries of Herod and his soldiers, brands Pilate with
eternal shame. As
soon as the word “release” broke upon their ears, there was
a reminder
from the people that Pilate should follow at the feast the
custom for some
time in vogue, of releasing a prisoner. Now, there was a notorious criminal,
who had stirred up a bloody insurrection in the city, one
which had resulted
in murder. He may
have been popular among the vehement anti-imperial
party for some seditious proceedings against constituted
authorities; he
may, in fact, really have been guilty of the very charge
brought wickedly
against the holy Jesus. This is only conjecture.
But there he stood —
Barabbas, and, according to some manuscripts, “Jesus” also by name,
“Son
of
the Father,” but a violent man, a λῃστής – laestaes – robber - stained with
crime, whether he were a Gaulonite or not. The notion of releasing Barabbas, in
accordance with a time honored custom, did, according to
Luke, originate first
of all with some of the people; and this apparent
difference between the synoptic
narrative and John’s is represented and referred to in this
Gospel by the
introduction of a πάλιν – palin – again - (v. 40). For
although John does not
mention the first attempt to secure the safety of Barabbas, he implied that the
infernal shout, “Not this Man,
but Barabbas!”
had already burst upon his ears,
and was repeated so soon as Pilate had exclaimed, as John
briefly reports, Ye
have a custom,
that I should release unto you one at the Passover (or,
κατὰ δὲ ἑορτήν – kata de heortaen - now at that feast - Mark 15:6).
We know nothing of the origin of this “custom,” nor is it
elsewhere referred to.
The two classes into which critics are divided about the “day of our Lord’s death,”
here take opposite views as to the meaning of
the phrase, ἐν τῷ πάσχα –
en to pascha –
in the Passover. The one class press the fact
that the Paschal meal must be over, and that this must have been the first
day
of unleavened bread, in order to justify this expression; the other critics
urge that since the feast had not commenced, Pilate was
prepared to grant
release in time for Barabbas to
take his place with his friends in all the
national ceremonies. The phrase is so indefinite that it
may most certainly
belong to both the 14th and 15th days of Nisan, and no conclusive argument
can, from its use, be drawn in favor of either day. 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.” Possibly Pilate
wished to find out whether
among the ὄχλος – ochlos – crowd;
multitude - there were any sympathizers
with Jesus, who might be gratified at the expense of the
hated priests; for he
“knew that by
reason of envy they had delivered up
Jesus to him” (Matthew
27:18). He wished to
set the multitude and the priesthood
at variance, and to
save Jesus through their mutual recriminations.
He would have made a diversion
in favor of his Prisoner. He
adroitly suspected that some of the surging crowd
might have been the friends or accomplices of Jesus, and he would have been
gratified to free himself from the responsibility
of slaying an innocent man. The
phraseology of Mark suggests that Pilate would have been justified in
such
a conjecture, for a momentary pause occurred. There were
some symptoms
of wavering in the crowd. But the suggestions of the chief
priests passed to
the people. Matthew (Matthew 27:20) says, “The chief
priests and elders
(ἔπεισαν – epeison - persuaded) the multitudes that they should demand
Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” They needed some
persuasion, then: but,
alas! they yielded to it. Mark (Mark 15:11) is still more
explicit: “The
chief priests stirred up ((ἀνέσεισαν – aneseisan moved; excited)
the people
in order that he
might release Barabbas unto them.” The double phrase sets
forth, in vivid touches, the eager circulation to and fro among the crowds of
the hotheaded and malignant priests and elders, who thus secured, not without
some difficulty, a popular confirmation of their MALIGNANT
SCHEME!
“NOT THIS MAN, BUT
BARABBAS!” was the repeated cry of a
stupefied
crowd. The memory of all
the gracious words and life-giving actions of
Jesus did not
subdue the raging passion of their lust; they could neither see
with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, nor understand
with their hearts.
(Acts 28:24-27). The LIGHT that was in them
was DARKENED! They
preferred that a murderer should be granted to them. “Not
this Man, but
Barabbas!” is
their verdict. Human power and popular feeling and corporate
conscience reached the bottomless abyss of degradation.
the prophets WOULD HAVE NONE OF HIM! Even human
nature itself must
bear the shame which by this cry for vengeance against
goodness was branded
upon its brow for ever. Through this daemonic hatred of the noblest and the best,
manifested by the world, the world is itself condemned. “Who is he,”
said John
afterwards, “that overcometh the world? Even he who believeth that Jesus
is the Son of God.” The world has made its Sesostris,
its Tiberius, its Nero,
its Antinous (and modern so-called liberal and progressive leaders in the world –
CY –
2014) into sons of God; the world has ever cried, “Not this Man” —
not Jesus of
FIND OUT ITS MISTAKE TOO LATE!
The synoptic narrative (Matthew 27:19-23; Mark 15:12-14;
Luke 23:20-23)
had already made the Church familiar with other details
more or
less connected with this incident, and which preceded the
final
sentence. John, who followed his Master as closely as
possible, was
acquainted with some interesting facts, full of suggestion,
which throw
additional light upon the conduct of Pilate, and bring
forth some sublime
traits in the character and bearing of our Lord. From the synoptists we
learn that Pilate struggled for some considerable time to
get his own way,
and he remonstrated repeatedly with the people concerning
their choice of
Barabbas, the murderer and brigand, and their refusal to recall
their
malignant deliverance of Jesus to him as a malefactor. The
bare idea that
this gentle, silent, magnanimous Sufferer, bereft of His
friends, mocked by
Herod, deserted by His disciples, should have the faintest
shadow of a claim
to sovereignty in the only sense in which Pilate could
understand such an
idea, revolted his common sense. The message from his wife
(Matthew
27:19) had furthermore excited his semi-superstitious
fears, and he
maundered in a feeble fashion, “What
shall I do with Jesus that is called
Christ?” —”with him whom ye say is (accused of being) King
of the
Jews?” and for the first time the ominous and terrible cry is
returned,
“CRUCIFY HIM!” They
do not ask that He be speared or beheaded, or
treated like a convicted aspirant or usurper; nay, they will not be pacified
until the doom of a common malefactor, the shameful death of a criminal
slave, is meted out to Him. Pilate is amazed, and even horrified, by the
intensity of their spite and the cruelty of their hatred.
Once and again Pilate
said, “Why, what evil
has He done? I found in him no proved occasion of
any kind of death.” The tumult was rising every moment, and Pilate would
have been glad to compromise the matter by sending Barabbas to the cross;
and before he took the course dictated by the angry mob, he washed his
hands in a basin of water, and proclaimed the fact that
he had, and would
take, no responsibility for the judicial murder to which
they would hound
him. “I am guiltless of the blood of this Man:
see you to it” (Matthew
27:24-25). Many commentators refer this proceeding of
Pilate to the
moment when he finally uttered the cursed verdict: Ibis ad crucem.
(You shall go to the cross). Matthew’s account is much more concise at
this
point than John’s. Heathen writers had repeatedly scoffed
at the notion of
water washing away the guilt of blood. We can hardly
suppose that Pilate
meant more than a disdainful repudiation of any sympathy
with the infuriated
crowd. This act, instead of appeasing, served to madden the
fury
of the populace, who shouted in bitter earnest, “His blood be
upon us, and
upon our children” —a
sentence of their own, which rankled in their
memories, and came back a few months afterwards with grim
earnestness
(Acts 5:28). “Then,” says Matthew, “Pilate
released Barabbas to
them.” (Matthew
27:26). To do this, the governor would return to the
Praetorinm, and Jesus was thus once more face to face with him.
Probably
the gorgeous robe which Herod had thrown over His fettered
limbs had
been taken from Him; and then Pilate, bewildered, weak,
with some ulterior
motive of staving off the madness of the Jews, and
satiating their inhuman
thirst for blood, adopted another expedient.
The Trial
before Pilate v.28-ch. 19:16
This was the civil investigation following the
ecclesiastical. The Sanhedrin
wanted Pilate simply to ratify the sentence of death they had
pronounced
upon Christ.
I. THE EARLY RESORT TO PILATE. “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;
that they might
eat the
Passover.”
1. The Sanhedrin were eager for the destruction of Jesus, and
therefore
sought Pilate at an unusually early hour of the morning. Their
eagerness led
them to disregard the law that did not allow sentence and
execution to
occur on the same day.
2. They were obliged to seek Pilate’s intervention; for the
Romans had
deprived the Jews of the right of inflicting capital punishment.
They might
sentence Jesus to death; it was for Pilate to execute the sentence.
3. Mark their hypocrisy. They feared the defilement of
approaching a
Gentile tribunal, but they did not shrink
from the greater defilement of
shedding innocent blood.
II. THE FIRST PHASE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE. The Jews want
their sentence on
Jesus confirmed without examination. “If
He were not a
malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” They had
judged Jesus; it was for Pilate to act the part of the
executioner.
1. Pilate’s attempt to evade this demand. “Take ye
Him, and judge Him
according to your Law.” The
Jews still had the right of excommunication
and scourging, but not of inflicting capital punishment.
Pilate imagined that
they would be content with the exercise of such inferior
punishment as
remained to them.
2. The Jews deflected the thrust by declaring, in effect, that
nothing but the
capital sentence would satisfy them. “It is not lawful for us to put
any man
to death.” This
language implied their dependence on Pilate for carrying
out the sentence.
3. This fact led to the fulfillment of our Lord’s own
prophecy. “That the
saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake,
signifying what death He
should die?
(a) Crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman
punishment. If the Jews had
been
their own masters in
“lifted up from the earth” (ch. 12:32).
(b) The Gentile as well as the Jew must have a
share in the greatest crime
in all
history. This was to fulfill Christ’s own words that “He should be
delivered to the Gentiles, and be crucified” (Matthew 20:19).
III. THE SECOND PHASE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE. The Jews
frame a political accusation. “Art thou the King of the Jews?”
He had made
Himself a King!
1. The question of Pilate implies a charge on the part of the
accusers as
having given rise to it. The Jews said, “We found Him perverting the
nation, and forbidding to give tribute unto Caesar, saying that
He is Christ
the King” (Luke
23:2).
2. It was a question which admitted of two very different
answers.
(a) Jesus could have repudiated the kingship in the Roman
sense.
(b) He could not have repudiated it in the religious sense
without
disclaiming the Messiahship.
3. Our Lord’s method of answering Pilate’s inquiry. “Sayest thou this thing
of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” Everything depended in the
answer upon the fact whether it issued from Jewish or from
Gentile lips.
Jesus acted wisely; He neither
affirms nor denies anything.
4. Pilate’s hasty and contemptuous rejoinder. “Am I
a Jew? Thine own
nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what
hast thou
done?” What crime have
you committed?
5. Our Lord’s answer is at once an admission and a denial of
kingship,
according as the standpoint of interpretation is Gentile or Jewish. “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.”
(a) His kingdom does not derive its origin
from earth, though here it has its
historical
development.
(b) Jesus makes no concession to the zealots
who looked for a temporal
kingdom
of the Messiah.
(c) His kingdom, as essentially spiritual, was
not to be promoted by
violence
or force.
(d) The
weapons of His warfare were taken from the armory of truth.
“To
this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth.”
(α) The revelation of
God is the true scepter in Christ’s hands; as
unlike as
possible to the methods of Roman rule. Truth is
the realm of Christ.
(β) The subjects of this realm are all who hear
the truth. “Every
one that is of
truth heareth my voice.” “The spiritual man
judgeth
all things.” (I Corinthians 2:15)
6. Pilate’s
contemptuous dismissal of the whole subject.
“What
is truth?”
(1) This question was not the expression of a genuine quest
after truth;
(2) nor
the despair of a spirit that had failed to discover it among the
philosophies of his time;
(3) but the cynical
and frivolous suggestion of a skeptical sprat.
(4) He had the opportunity now of learning all about the truth,
but he
hastily closed the interview with the Prisoner at his bar. “He
went out
again unto the Jews, and said to them, I find in Him no fault at
all.”
Nothing certainly
to warrant the political accusation of the Jews.
But he acted an illogical
and time-serving part. He ought at once
to have dismissed Jesus from his bar.
(5) Pilate makes a fresh effort to save Christ without
offending the Jews.
“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?”
(α) Pilate presumed upon a popular reaction in Christ’s favor.
(β) But the chief priests were masters of the situation.
Barabbas, a robber, was chosen, and Christ left for
crucifixion.
(6) Pilate makes a
fresh effort to save Christ. “Then Pilate took Jesus,
and
scourged Him.”
(α) He hoped in this way to avert the extreme
punishment by conciliating
the less
violent of Christ’s enemies, and awakening the compassion of the
populace.
But he utterly miscalculated
the fierceness of Jewish fanaticism.
(β) The parody of Jewish royalty — the crown of thorns, the
purple robe,
the “Hail,
King of the Jews!” — was the scornful act of the Roman
soldiers,
who wished to pour contempt upon the Messianic hopes of a
people
they despised.
(7) Pilate’s further, but weaker, efforts to save Christ. “Behold,
I bring Him
forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in Him.”
“Behold the
Man!”
(α There is a tone of pity and respect in Pilate’s words, which meets
no
response
among the Jews.
(β) The chief priests and officers demand His crucifixion. “They
cried out,
saying, Crucify Him! crucify
Him!” The name of the
cross is now
mentioned
for the first time, and by Jewish lips. Concessions had only
made them
bolder. Pilate could not now resist their
extreme demands.
IV. THE THIRD PHASE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE — THE
RELIGIOUS
ACCUSATION. “The Jews answered Him, We have a
law,
and by our
law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”
1. The Jews point to the article of their code which punishes
blasphemy
with death, and demand
Pilate’s execution of their
sentence.
2. The charge was
true. Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God.
3. The charge had a startling effect upon the half-skeptical,
half-superstitious
nature of Pilate. “When Pilate therefore heard that saving, he
was the more afraid.”
He asked Jesus, “Whence art thou?”
(a) This is not a question respecting His earthly origin.
Pilate knew
perfectly that He was a Galilaean.
(b) It is a question
as to whether He is a Divine Being who had
appeared on earth.
4. Jesus gives no answer to the question.
(a) Because it is asked in pure curiosity.
(b) The true answer to the question would not
have affected the procedure
of Pilate
in his present circumstances. Had he not already several times
declared
Him to be innocent?
(c) The change of accusation, besides, was the
self-condemnation of the
Jews.
(d) If Jesus had not been the Son of God, He
would not have kept silence.
His silence is
His assent to the charge.
5. Pilate’s offence at the silence of Jesus. “Speakest thou not unto me?
knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power
to
release thee?”
(a) The governor stands upon his power and
authority.
(b) Jesus does not repudiate the claim, but
shows that it is derived, and not
inherent,
with a corresponding responsibility. “Thou couldest
have no
power at all against me, except it were given
thee from above.”
(α) The answer displays at once piety and
meekness.
(β) It
implies a Divine government of society. Under God
“kings reign and princes decree justice.” (Proverbs 8:15)
It therefore
implies that Pilate was responsible for the use of
his
power.
(γ) It implied that it was in accordance with
a Divine dispensation
that He
was now subjected to the disposal of human authority.
6. The
greater responsibility and guiltiness of the Sanhedrim “Therefore
he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”
(a) The Sanhedrin subjected their King to the
authority of the foreigner,
and thus “committed
an act of theocratic felony.”
(b) The greater the light, the more aggravated
is the guilt of offenders. The
Jews were more guilty than the Gentiles
in the whole transaction of our
Lord’s crucifixion.
V. THE FOURTH PHASE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE. The
intimidation of Pilate. “Pilate saith to
them, Shall I crucify your King? The
chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.”
1. The Jews appealed to Pilate’s fears; for he was vulnerable
upon many
points, and Tiberius the emperor was the most suspicious of
despots. “If
thou let this Man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend.”
2. Pilate, in turn, avenges himself upon the Jews by compelling
them to
forswear all their Messianic hopes. They pronounced
with their own lips
the abolition of the theocracy. “Such a victory was a suicide.” It marked
the extreme desperation of the Jews, and their utter
unscrupulousness in
the pursuit of their bloodthirsty ends.
3. The success of their last maneuver. “Then delivered he Him therefore
unto them to be crucified.” The death of Jesus was compassed by a double
treason:
(a) on
the part of the Jews to their true King;
(b)
on the part of Pilate to truth, justice, and law.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.
.