Chapter 18
In chapter 18 we have the failure of humanity. (In chapters 19 & 20 we have the success of God) In this chapter we have the sin of Judas Iscariot which was unpardonable. It was unpardonable for one reason: he had rejected Jesus Christ as saviour. The difference between a pardonable and an unpardonable sin is the difference of attitude toward Jesus Christ. For the believer in Jesus Christ there is no such thing as an unpardonable sin. The fact that he is a believer means that no sin is unpardonable. However, the unbeliever commits one unpardonable sin—unbelief, rejection of Jesus Christ as saviour. On them other hand we have Peter who denied Jesus Christ, and yet his sin was pardonable; and before we get to the end of John’s Gospel he will be forgiven.
The name of this chapter: The travesty of justice.
Outline:
Verses 1-9, the opposition of the unbeliever.
Verses 10-18, the opposition of the believer.
Verses 19-40, the opposition of the nation.
Verses 1-9, the betrayal of Judas Iscariot. The scene of the betrayal is verses 1-3.
Verse 1 – “When Jesus had spoken these things.” The word Jesus emphasises the humanity of Christ; had spoken is the aorist active participle of legw, which means to speak, to say. The word comes from logoj and logoj always emphasises the content, whereas lalew emphasises the delivery, the communication. This is an aorist active participle and is a reference to the Gethsemane discourse—John chapters 15 & 16 plus the Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane, John 17. The action of the aorist participle precedes the action of the main verb. The main verb: “he went forth.” He went forth after He spoke. This is not clear from the English. “He went forth” is e)cerxomai, it means to go outside the garden, across the bridge.
“with his disciples” – the preposition with is sun, but ordinarily the preposition with is meta. Why sun? Because meta is a preposition of association, and His disciples are disassociated with Him; sun is a preposition of presence and accompaniment, and they are still accompanying Him though they are not associated with Him. The word disciples is maqhthj which means a student under disciple to a rabbi, to a teacher.
“over the brook” – the brook is the Kidron river, Kedrwn in the Greek; Kidron in the Hebrew. Since the Kidron is often dry it is often called the Valley of Jehoshophat. It was used by Kings Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah for burning the heathen idols. It was also used as a garbage dump. David crossed the Kidron to escape the revolt of Israel. Jesus crossed the brook Kidron to meet the revolt of Israel.
“where was a garden” – where kept on being a garden: Gethsemane—Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32.
“into which he entered” should be into which he had entered, aorist active indicative of e)iserxomai. He had entered previously.
Verse 2 – “And Judas also,” the traitor; “who betrayed him” – present active participle which connotes linear aktionsart. This is paradidomi, the usual word which means either to deliver or to betray, the context dictates which. The same verb is used later on in the passage for the deliverance of Jesus Christ to the high priest and the deliverance from the high priest to the Roman governor. It is a present active participle, which means that long before Judas betrayed in a point of time in his mind he had already betrayed the Lord because of negative volition.
“knew the place” – pluperfect of o)ida. O)ida is a perfect used as a present, so when it is in the pluperfect it is a past perfect and is translated in the English, “had had knowledge.” Jesus had complete knowledge of our Lord’s habits, knew where He could be found at this particular time; he knew the place—Gethsemane.
Judas Iscariot
1. His opportunities: He was from the tribe of Judah—John 6:71, the same tribe as Jesus, a ruling tribe. He had the advantage of being called by Jesus Christ—Luke 6:16. He is numbered as one of the twelve in Matthew 10:4. He was the treasurer—John 12:6. He was present at the last supper and offered the highest honour which he accepted and then went out and betrayed Jesus—John 13:26.
2. His sowing: He was covetous to the point of being dishonest—John 12:4-6. He was a thief as a result of being covetous—John 12:6. He lusted for the details of life to the exclusion of any honesty or character. He is unique in the sense that he is one of the few people in history who was actually Satan-possessed—Luke 22:3. He bargained to betray Jesus Christ—Mark 14:10. He was bribed to become a traitor—Matthew 26:14-16.
3. His reaping: He “repented”—Matthew 27:3. But this should not be translated repented because repent [metanoew] means to change your mind, but the word used here is metamelomai, which is an emotional word [melomai = emote]. Judas change in his emotions and this should be translated, he felt sorry for what he had done.
“for Jesus oftentimes” – the adverb pollakij which means frequently; “resorted” –
gathered.
Verse 3 – the action of the traitor. “Judas then, having received [having been
provided with] a band” – Judas received a detachment, aorist active participle of
lambanw which means here to be provided with. The word for band is speira. It was used at this period for the Roman cohorts, and a cohort was a part of a Roman regiment. So this means a detachment of Roman soldiers used for an official arrest. The temple guard was armed but it did not have the power of arrest. Therefore Roman soldiers must go along.
“and officers” – u(phrethj, which means temple guard. A contingent composed of Jewish men trained in military, often by the Romans, and then assigned to the temple for protection and keeping order in the temple.
“and cometh thither with lanterns” – the word lanterns is fanoj, and it isn’t lanterns at all, it means a torch. A Roman soldier carried a torch.
“and torches” – lampen, which is a lamp.
Verses 4-9, a confrontation.
Verse 4 – “Jesus therefore, knowing all things.” The word knowing is o)ida, used for Bible doctrine in the human spirit. From His deity, obviously, His omniscience knew always there things, but in His humanity He had maximum e)pignwsij or maximum o)ida. This is knowing it in His mind.
“Whom do you seek?” – dramatic present of zetew.
Verse 5 – “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus, as inscribed on His warrant for arrest; Nazareth, where He spent His childhood after Egypt. This is the name the scribes and the Pharisees give Him because they don’t want Him identified with David or with Bethlehem. This name ignores: a) that Jesus is God; b) that He is descended from David in His humanity; c) ignores the fact that He is the Messiah, the only saviour.
“Jesus saith unto them, I am” – e)gw e)imi. This is the same as Exodus 3:14, except that it is another language, the same as John 8:58. When Jesus says, I am, it knocks them down.
John does not mention the betrayal kiss.
“And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.” Why does John put this in? Because John wants to show something else. The word stood is the pluperfect active indicative of i(sthmi—“Judas had had stood with them.” The word with is the preposition meta—now we have association. Judas was associated with them. The word stood is important here. It represents not just a posture but it represents an attitude. Question: how can a mental attitude be derived from i(sthmi? Because the same morphology—the same verb, the same pluperfect tense, the same active voice and indicative mood—is found in verse 16. John does not mention the kiss, but both Peter and Judas had a similar attitude. As Judas stood there he had a mental attitude that was shot down. Peter had a mental attitude that was shot down. But there was a difference. With Judas, he was an unbeliever, minus the human spirit. He has a mind and he understands certain things about Jesus in his mind. But the things that he understands are things not connected directly with spiritual phenomena but connected with historical observations, and so what he understands he understands from empiricism which is a human system of perception, and these cannot be applied. Peter is a believer, and under GAP he has an understanding of Jesus in his mind but he had not made the transfer. He has transferred some doctrine but there is a mental attitude that Judas has which is also held by Peter, and in both cases—Peter received this information from GAP; Judas from empiricism—neither could transfer or apply or utilise properly the information. That is what John is teaching at this point.
Verse 6 – “they went backward,” aorist active indicative of a)perxomai. This means in a point of time. The word means to fall backward, to lose one’s balance. This is a)perxomai plus e)ij ta o)pisw, which is a prepositional phrase used as an idiom and means to lose one’s balance. Therefore they fell, aorist active indicative of piptw. The greater power of an impact means one falls backward. When Jesus said, “I am,” they all went backwards. The words of our Lord were a blast! This is the voice of Revelation 19:15, of Isaiah 37:36. No power on earth in that moment could have seized Jesus Christ without His permission. This is the volition of our Lord. He was willing to go to the cross. These words that knocked them to the ground could have destroyed them. Jesus uttered these same words to the woman at the well and she responded by faith—John 4:26. But here the same words are uttered to negative volition and they do not respond. Psalm 27:2 gives the principle. “My sheep hear my voice,” and there were no sheep in that crowd.
Verse 7 – they persisted in their mission. If they hadn’t, the plan of God would have stopped. The plan of God called for this. God knew what kind of men it would take to bring Jesus into custody. It took a traitor, like Judas. It took men of discipline and tenacity, like the Romans. It took men of courage, like the temple guards.
Verse 8 – “if [1st class condition] therefore ye seek me [and you do].” This is present linear aktionsart. Then He gives a command which is obeyed.
“let these go” – aorist active imperative of a)fihmi, which is a military word meaning “dismiss.” Let is a bad translation for an imperative. And notice: the detachment is taking orders from Jesus Christ. In this way Jesus protected those eleven disciples.
Verse 9 – “That the saying might be fulfilled.” Saying is logoj, the Word. This is the Word of John 17:12. So it should be, “That the word might be fulfilled” – aorist passive subjunctive of plhrow which means here simply to fulfil a principle. Aorist tense: in this point of time. Passive voice: it receives fulfilment. Subjunctive mood: until it actually occurred it was a potential factor.
“Of them which thou gavest me I have lost none” is a paraphrase from John 17:12.
But that isn’t all that is being fulfilled. Leviticus 16:17 is also fulfilled—“And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place…” This is a reference to the day of Atonement and it refers to the high priest. He always went in alone, and when this is fulfilled Jesus Christ is going to the cross alone. He is the high priest.
Verses 10-18, the defection of Simon Peter.
Verse 10 – “Then Simon Peter having” – e)xw, present active participle, meaning to have and to hold; “a sword” – maxaira, a short Roman sword. The last kind of weapon Peter should have used. It was to be used only with great training.
“drew it” – e)lkw, aorist active indicative. He should never have done so. Peter was sincere! He was also courageous. He also knew the plan for the cross. Hs problem was that the plan was in his mind and not in his human spirit; he understood it gnwsij but he did not understand it e)pignwsij. When you have doctrine in your mind as gnwsij and haven’t transferred it to your human spirit as e)pignwsij you are going to fail—operation energy of the flesh. No matter how much you want to serve the Lord, or how dedicated you are to the principle of occupation with Christ, if you have gnwsij and not e)pignwsij you are going to be just like Peter—swinging a human sword instead of the sword of the Spirit.
“he smote” – aorist active indicative of paiw.
“the high priest’s servant – douloj. He was not a member of the temple guard or a member of the Roman detachment.
John notices that it was the right ear that was cut off. Peter was trying for the skull, of course, and he missed. How did John know it was Malchus? John was personally acquainted with Ciaphas the high priest. He therefore knew the servant of the high priest. The narrative also indicates John’s coolness under fire. Peter is rash and courageous; John is cool.
Peter
1. Peter understood the crisis—Matthew 26:31-35.
2. Peter had great loyalty and personal courage, both of which are admirable qualities.
3. But Peter’s understanding of the crisis was limited to his mind—gnwsij. GAP malfunctioned between the mind and the human spirit.
4. What Peter lacked was e)pignwsij—doctrine in the human spirit.
5. The application of doctrine from the mind instead of from the human spirit produces operation energy of the flesh.
6. Therefore Peter came to the crisis operating on human resources rather than GAP. The completion of GAP is the cycling into the human spirit and back into the mind as a frame of reference, producing divine viewpoint.
7. This lead to further failure on the part of Peter, including his denial. Peter was using, from his base of operations, human viewpoint.
8. Peter’s failure resulted from the application of doctrine to the mind rather than from the human spirit.
Verse 11 – Peter is rebuked because he is out of phase with the plan of God.
“Put up” – ballw, which means to throw: Throw your sword. Throw it away. God’s
plan doesn’t call for you to go through the military pipe!
“the cup which my Father [the planner] hath given me, shall I not drink it?” “I must
be about my Father’s business” is what the Lord is saying.
1. The word cup is used literally for a drinking vessel. The content of that cup or vessel forms the basis for every biblical analogy.
2. The content of the cup is used in scripture for divine discipline of a national entity—Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15-18 cf. Jeremiah 25:11-13. In those passages the nation drinks the goblet of God’s wrath.
3. The content of the cup is grace blessing from God—Psalm 23:5. Here is a believer operating, like David, on GAP.
4. The content of the cup is salvation—Psalm 116:13.
5. The reason we can drink the cup of salvation is because Christ drank from a cup before us. He drank the sins of the world. 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21. The content of the cup of sins of the world were poured out on Christ at the cross—Matthew 20:22; 26:39, 42; Mark 10:38.
6. The cup is a remembrance of the cross in the Church Age—1 Corinthians 11:25-27.
7. The content of the cup is also used in the scripture for satanic doctrine which people willingly receive—1 Corinthians 10:21. This is the cup of the table of demons.
8. The content of the cup is also anti-Semitism—Zechariah 12:2. This is demonstrated by anti-Semitism in the Tribulation. The people who come to destroy the Jews drink of the cup of anti-Semitism and are destroyed.
9. The content of the cup is the religious system of the beast—Revelation 14:9-11; 18:4.
“my Father” – first person of the Trinity, author of the divine plan. Jesus is speaking from His humanity, so He calls the first person Father. Jesus Christ is the
Son; He obeys the Father.
“hath given” – perfect active indicative of didomi. The perfect tense means that the Father gave it in eternity past with the result that the cross occurred
historically. Active voice: the Father planned it. Indicative mood: the reality of the planning of the cross, the giving of the cup.
“shall I not drink it?” – aorist active subjunctive of pinw. Drinking the cup is Christ
receiving the sins of the world and being judged for them—doctrine of
unlimited atonement. 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15, 19; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2. The negative mh is an unusual negative. In
a question it expects an affirmative answer, and He said, “Yes, I shall drink it.” Why the subjunctive mood then? Because it is a matter of His own volition.
Now it can be seen where Peter is out of line. Peter wants to intercept the cup. It is
God the Father in eternity past who is giving the cup to the Son. The Son is
going to drink the cup to save the world and Peter is waving that sword and trying to cut it off. There is no place for a sword when God’s plan calls for something else. But when God’s plan calls for a sword then it is time to use it.
Principles
1. Doctrine in the mind, intellectually comprehended, cannot be applied from that point.
2. The mind is the staging area for GAP; gnwsij is in the staging area, not in the application area.
3. Under GAP doctrine must be transferred to the human spirit by faith.
4. The believer who takes doctrine into the mind but does not transfer it to the human spirit not only defrauds himself but, like Peter, gets in the way of the plan of God.
5. The greatest of human attributes can actually hinder the plan of God.
6. There is no place in the plan of God for human ability or human good; grace excludes them.
7. The sword in the hand of Peter represents maximum human ability with minimum spiritual dynamics.
Verse 12 – the arrest. Why is the arrest necessary? Was it necessary to have such a show of force to do it? No, but the show of force, the way in which they seized Him, the violence they used in seizing Him, will intimidate the other disciples. And there will be further isolation of our Lord.
“the band” – i.e. the Roman detachment, speira; “officers of the Jews” are the temple guard.
“took” – sunlambanw, which means to seize with violence; “and bound him” – which means they put chains on Him.
Verse 13 – a political aside. Instead of going directly to the high priest, who was Caiaphas, there is a detour. This verse gives us the detour for the interrogation before Annas, the political boss of the southern kingdom. Annas is the former high priest, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Before any kind of a major move it had to be cleared with Annas. This was the modus operandi for all Jewish government activity. The trial and execution of Jesus Christ cannot proceed until Annas has given his approval. Verse 13 is placed in here for us to realise that already the judges have made up their mind. There is no trial yet; they have already decided to kill Jesus and to do it illegally. Immediately we see hostility move in as friends and loved ones move out. True aloneness means friends go, and as these people peel off the enemies move in.
Verse 14 – the prejudice of the judge. The chief judge is Caiaphas. Notice the word “expedient.” That is the system of Caiaphas; he is a politician, a smooth operator.
“Caiaphas was he” – kept on being that way, the imperfect of e)imi; “which gave counsel” – aorist active participle of sumboulew which means to advise a group, to tell a group what to do. He has previously given the information. This is a reference to John 11:49-51. He said to the Sanhedrin that if they wanted to keep their autonomy they had to get rid of Jesus in a way which would not offend the Romans. The gimmick he uses is disguising power lust behind the good of the people—hypocrisy. He says Jesus must go for the benefit of the people. He was thinking of getting the Romans of their back. He was thinking of getting rid of Jesus before Jesus embarrassed them to where the Romans would get rid of them.
“it was expedient” – i.e. advantageous (to Caiaphas, actually). The expediency policy of Caiaphas was to get rid of Jesus and at the same time avoid Roman intervention into the autonomy of the province of Judea.
“one man” is a reference to Jesus Christ; “for the people” – the preposition u(per which means on behalf of, instead of. This is an hypocritical statement.
Verse 15 – the two disciples who did not run away. Simon Peter is operating under the energy of the flesh but hanging in there.
“followed” – this is imperfect active indicative, which means to follow all the way to the palace; “another disciple” is a reference to John—John 21:24, etc. Now there are only two left, John and Peter. The difference is that John is plus doctrine and Peter is minus doctrine. John is operating from e)pignwsij; Peter is operating from gnwsij. One is using human courage; one is using the strength that comes from Bible doctrine.
“that disciple was known unto the high priest” – the disciple is John, and the word was is an imperfect tense of e)imi, he kept on being known. The word for known is the noun gnwstoj which means to be a friend or an acquaintance.
The personal
history of John the apostle
1. He is the son of Zebedee and Salome—Matthew 4:21—who were apparently aristocrats from the northern part of the country, Galilee.
2. Their home is in Bethsaida—Luke 5:10; John 1:44.
3. John has a background of wealth and influence. First of all, John possessed servants—Mark 1:20. Secondly, his mother Salome was very wealthy—Luke 8:3. Thirdly, he is a friend of Caiaphas who has been since 7 A.D. the true ruler of Judea—John 18:15. To be a friend of Caiaphas indicates some kind of background of prominence.
4. It is hard to distinguish exactly when John became a believer—probably under the ministry of John the Baptist. Both John and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist before they became disciples of our Lord—John 1:35-39.
5. John and his brother James were called by Jesus Boanerges, which means sons of thunder—Mark 3:17. This would indicate apparently that John was quite high-spirited. Cf. Luke 9:49 where John is portrayed in the Greek as a high-handed aristocrat.
6. Not only is John portrayed as a high-haded aristocrat but his mother’s ambition keeps popping into the picture. Salome was ambitious for her sons, James and John—Matthew 20:20-22. Apparently her sons had the same idea—Mark 10:35-39. James and John actually approached Jesus themselves to make sure they were numbered among the aristocracy.
7. On three important occasions of Christ’s ministry John is mentioned in the company of his brother James and with Simon Peter to the exclusion of all others in the sense that they seemed to be on a little higher relationship. The first is at the raising of the daughter of Jairus—Mark 5:37. The second is at the point of the transfiguration—Mark 9:2. The third is in Gethsemane—Mark 14:33.
8. John was apparently the only one of the twelve who developed an ECS during the public ministry of Jesus Christ—1 John 1:4.
“and went in with” – i.e. in the company of Jesus, aorist active indicative of
suneiserxomai [eij – into; erxomai = entering into; sun = in the company of
(Jesus)]. When John walked into the palace of Caiaphas with the enemy of the state, as it were, by his side he is getting ready to blow it! It is not the political thing to do. This is a greater act of courage than the act of courage when Peter pulled out the sword. Jesus is persona non grata to the state, but that doesn’t bother John. He identifies himself with the Lord. There is the power of e)pignwsij. This is a magnificent expression of love.
“into the palace” – i.e. into the courtyard of the ruler.
Verse 16 – “But Peter stood,” pluperfect active indicative of i(sthmi. The pluperfect is the past perfect of the perfect tense. This means that Peter stood there for a long time—stood with the result that he was still standing. It implies that Peter not only stood there but he stood there with a lot of regrets in his mind.
“without” – he stood at the door outside, he can’t even get into the courtyard. This isn’t a door, it is a gate.
“Then went out that other disciple” – John went out and helped him; “which was known unto the high priest” – John was one of those aristocrats who knew the high priest.
“and brought in Peter” – he ushered in Peter; e)isagw means to grab him by the arm and bring him in. Peter is in shock and has to be led through. He has already failed, he doesn’t know how to make it up, and he is just hanging in there. So John grabs him by the arm and brings him in.
Verse 17 – “Art thou” or “Aren’t you one of this man’s students.” The word disciple is maqhthj which means a student.
“He saith” – he didn’t say it once, he kept on saying it, present active participle of legw. The present tense is linear aktionsart; “I am not” – he didn’t use the simple negative, he used o)uk, the strong negative.
Verse 18 – the servants are slaves of the high priest, the officers are the temple guard. They “stood” there – pluperfect of i(sthmi again.
“had [already] made a fire of coals” – a)nqrakia, which is genuine coal; “for it was cold” – if you have ever been a failure in anything and it is cold, it depresses you. Imperfect tense: it kept on being cold—yuxoj. The word for soul is yuxh, feminine gender—the soul is a responder, and this is especially true of the woman. The word yuxoj is the same word but it has a masculine suffix. The soul was deliberately used in the feminine gender to show us that our souls respond to the Lord. They were designed to do so under the daily function of GAP. And when our soul does not respond to the Lord it is yuxoj—cold. Peter was out in the night that was yuxoj and all the fires in the world aren’t going to warm him.
“and they warmed themselves” – imperfect middle indicative of qermainw which means to warm one’s self.
“and Peter stood” – this time it is the perfect active indicative of i(sthmi rather than the pluperfect. Peter has stopped thinking, he has given up.
“with them” – meta is the preposition and it means in association. The pronoun is a)utoj. He is now associated with those he intended to kill. While he is warming himself at the fire he has stopped thinking any doctrine he knows. In other words, for the first time these people are no longer his enemies and as he is warming his body his soul is cold. Whatever doctrine he knew he is now in no position to apply it.
Verse 19 – “the high priest” refers to Caiaphas who is the presiding judge.
The illegality of
the trial
1. The trial was held at night, and that was illegal. Jewish law said that it must be a trial by day.
2. The trial was held on a holy day, which was also illegal. This was the Passover.
3. The court was prejudiced and not interested in the facts. The prisoner was assumed to be guilty but the law said that the person was innocent until proven guilty.
4. No defence attorney was present. The penalty could not be pronounced on the same day as the trial. Yet, this was accomplished.
5. No account is given concerning the trial before Annas. All of this pertains to the trial before Caiaphas.
6. The trial before Caiaphas was divided into two parts. John describes the night time trial, but Luke describes the daytime trial—Luke 22:66-71. There is also a brief description of the night time trial in Matthew 26:59-68 and in Mark 14:53-65.
“asked Jesus” – the word for ask is e)rwtaw which is one of the words for interrogation. This is direct interrogation. This means to ask questions whereby the
individual incriminates himself. In other words, they are trying to get Him to incriminate Himself.
“of his disciples” – he interrogated concerning His disciples. This is very important because, as it were, he is trying to get Him to admit that His disciples are guilty so that they can pull a net around all of them. But He never says any such thing.
“and of [concerning] his doctrine” – didaxh, which means His doctrinal teaching. They thought He would panic.
The purpose for this interrogation was to find a basis for indictment. This is a travesty of justice. The purpose of interrogation is to determine the facts, to entrap. They were trying to trap Him; the judge is trying to trap a man who is innocent, rather than to get the facts. This is contrary to Jewish law because Jewish law says an indictment must be based on witnesses, not on the interrogation of the accused—Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15.
Verse 20 – “Jesus answered” is Jesus had an answer. His answer comes from e)pignwsij.
“I spake [communicated]” – lalew in the perfect tense; “openly” – publicly, with boldness, clarity.
“I ever taught” – the word ever is pantote and means at all times; I taught is the aorist active indicative of didaskw, the word for teach and means to teach a group.
“whither the Jews always resort” – like, “Hey, you Jews, where were you?” He has just taken a little piece of sanctified sarcasm and shoved it right down their throats. The adverb whither is o(pou—in which place [in the synagogue]. In which place the Jews assemble.
“and in secret have I not said even one thing,” literally. Jesus never taught one on one, He never taught in secret.
Verse 21 – “Why asketh thou me?” Why do you keep on interrogating me? is what He says.
“ask them” – interrogate them. He uses the present tense of e)rwtaw for Himself; interrogate them, once and for all, aorist tense. They would get an answer which would prohibit any use of Jewish law. In other words, Jesus is telling the high priest how to judge a case! This reminder of a correct judicial procedure cause something. Jesus is right. Sometimes when you are right it means you are going to get clobbered, and this is what happened. Jesus is going to be the recipient of violence because of this.
“which heard” – notice He doesn’t say, “Ask them on whom I performed miracles.” He only performed miracles to emphasise the message. It is the message that counts, not the miracles.
“behold, they know what I have said” -- aorist active indicative, at any point of time when I spoke. Jesus does not suggest that those whom He healed be brought to the stand but those who heard the message.
Verse 22 – “one of the officers,” u(phrethj, temple guard; “standing by” – perfect tense of paristhmi which means to be standing beside Him. Perfect tense: they had been standing there all the time.
“struck Jesus with the palm of his hand” – he didn’t slap Him at all, he punched Him. That fulfilled Micah 5:1—“They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.” In other words, the judge of Israel is Jesus Christ.
“Answerest thou the high priest so [in this way]?”
Verse 23 – “If.” There are two kinds of first class conditions. There is a true 1st class condition, which means if and it is true. There is a 1st class condition of supposition, generally used is debater’s technique, which means you suppose it is true. We have two 1st class conditions, the first is the 1st class of supposition—“If I have spoken evil [and you assume that I have].”
“bear witness of the evil” – testify right now of the evil. In other words, ‘Look, if I have been out of line you stand right up and testify to the judge against me.’
“but if well [and I have], why do you strike me with a rod?” – the word is derw and He wasn’t struck with the palm of the hand, He was struck with a rod. Notice that the judge did not check the violence in the courtroom.
The Jewish law
1. In the night trial and in the morning trial before Caiaphas no sentence will be pronounced by the presiding judge. There was a verdict of guilty found by the Sanhedrin acting as a jury but the sentence was never passed. When Judea lost its independence in 6 A.D. the Sanhedrin had lost the right to administer capital punishment. That right was taken by Rome. This jurisdiction was transferred to the Roman procurator. The Sanhedrin does everything it can but cannot pronounce a sentence.
2. There is a twofold indictment which is coming up. a) Destroying the temple and building another in three days; b) Claiming to be the Son of God.
3. The illegality of this Jewish trial.
a. The judge was prejudiced and had previously plotted the death of Jesus.
b. The court was without jurisdiction to try a capital offence. That belonged to the procurator of the province of Judea.
c. The incompetence of the judges can be seen from the cross examination of Jesus, because the cross examination reveals an objective of self-incrimination.
d. The judges are going to demonstrate further prejudice by an attempt to obtain testimony from false witnesses.
e. The trial was by night, therefore illegal.
f. They rendered the verdict of guilty without the elapse of a day.
g. They held a morning session on the feast day.
h. They rendered a verdict without legal evidence.
4. The reason why objectivity becomes subjectivity. Religion [and legalism] destroys the objectivity of the law.
5. Law in general:
a. Law to be objective must prove guilt. Therefore any system of law that is bona fide recognises a person as innocent until proven guilty.
b. Guilt must be proved in a trail by true laws of evidence.
c. In the ancient world two such systems existed: Roman and Jewish law.
d. Both followed the same principle as the Anglo-Saxon heritage in law—innocence until proven guilty.
e. Jewish law was distorted by the infiltration of religion.
f. Roman law was distorted by political expediency.
g. In His trials Jesus had contact with the two greatest systems of law in the ancient world, both distorted by man.
h. In principle, both systems of law were objective but in practice they were influenced by Satanic or cosmic thought as a part of the angelic conflict.
i. Any nation whose laws move from objectivity to subjectivity, whether it is criminal law or simply the modus operandi of divine institution #4, it is the sounding of the death-knell.
Verse 24 is a retrospective verse which merely shows us how Jesus Christ came to have a Jewish trial. (John does not deal with the details of the Jewish trials—Matthew 26:59-68; Mark 14:53-65)
Verses 25-27, the denials of Peter.
Verse 25 – “And Simon Peter stood” – stood is a perfect active participle of i(sthmi, the word for standing. He stood with the result that he kept on standing.
“and warmed himself” – present middle participle of qermainw. Present tense: he kept on doing it. Middle voice: he made this decision on his own. The participle emphasises linear aktionsart, he stayed there. He moves up to the fire as a stranger and is eventually recognised by others.
“They said” – the soldiers, some Roman and some temple guards; some of them are temple servants, and all are standing around. This is an aorist active indicative of legw. The aorist tense means at different times within a span of time.
“Art thou not” is a present active indicative of e)imi, plus the negative mh which is a negative which often demands a positive answer. In other words, they knew the answer.
“of his disciples” – of is e)k, out from; disciples is maqhthj. The gender of maqhthj is feminine, which tells us that these people are recipients of something. It means students. “Are you not one from among his students?” This is a trap. They know the answer. They are filled with pride and want to put him down.
“He denied it, and said, I am not.” And he uses a different negative—e)imi plus o)uk. This is a very strong denial. Peter was beaten because of a mental attitude sin—lack of security.
Verse 26 – “being his kinsman.” It looks as though it is the high priest’s kinsman, but it isn’t; it is a kinsman to Malchus: “One of the servants of the high priest, being kinsman [to the person] whose ear Peter cut off.”
A third challenge: “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” The word with is meta, the preposition of association, “in association with him.” If it was just with him it would be sun.
Verse 27 – “Peter then denied again.” The word denied is a)rneomai which means to repudiate. Aorist tense: this is very firm. Active voice: Peter did it on his own. Indicative mood: the reality of his repudiation.
“and immediately” – the adverb e)uqewj; “the cock crew” – fwnew, uttered a sound. Peter is in utter defeat; but he is alive! He is going to get right up and move.
Verses 28-40, the Gentile (Roman) trial.
Verse 28 – “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment” – present active indicative, dramatic present. The Praetorium was the official Roman judgment hall—praitwrion, the palace of the Roman governor of the province.
“and it was early” – the imperfect here is conative imperfect of e)imi and should be translated, it began to dawn. The word early is prwi which means dawn.
“and they themselves” – Caiaphas, the judges, the Sanhedrin, the scribes, the Pharisees.
“went not” – incorrectly translated. The Greek verb is e)iserxomai [e)rxomai = to come; e)ij = into]. They would not go into the judgment hall. They will not come in because it is the Passover, it is a holy day and they cannot enter into a Gentile house of any type or they are “defiled.” They are about to be defiled with one of the darkest stains in history but that doesn’t seem to bother them very much. They observe, as so many superficial people do, the amenities of religion. They stand outside so as to avoid defilement, and to observe the Passover, but Christ our Passover is in there. The whole meaning of the Passover is inside, undefiled and prepared for the cross.
“lest” – i(na plus mh, introducing a negative purpose clause; “they should not be defiled” – miainw. Here are the Jews, filled with unscrupulous scrupulosity and, at the same time, unrighteous conscientiousness. In other words, they are so religious and so legalistic and self-righteous it is pitiful. They were afraid of getting sewage on their clothes by going into the praetorium but they were getting sewage in their souls instead.
“but that they might eat” – aorist active subjunctive of e)sqiw, the ordinary word for eating; “the Passover” – eating the Passover is a picture of faith in Christ. They have rejected Jesus Christ, the Passover, and yet they are going to go ahead and eat the Passover—pasxa, taken from the Hebrew pasach. Christ the Passover will be slain right before their very eyes, and after this is all over the Pharisee will go and eat the Passover lamb! They do this because they are negative; they have sewage in their souls.
Verse 29 – “Pilate then went out.” The verb is e)cerxomai. That means that Pontius Pilate caters to the Jews, and no Roman governor is ever going to win out by doing so. The Jews will not go inside because of the Passover and Pilate made his first mistake when he went out and talked to them. Instead of being a judge representing the greatest human power on earth at that time and sitting in his judgment throne he begins to show the weakness of his character. What he should have done was tell the Jews that if that wanted to accuse Jesus they should come in and do it. This was to be a Roman trial; inside that Praetorium was Rome! A Praetorium represents Rome, and since it represents Rome you come into Rome! So here Pontius Pilate is an errand boy. He comes into Jesus; he goes out to the Jews.
“unto them” – face to face with them, proj plus the accusative. He had to leave the trial and go out into the courtyard.
“What” – nominative plural interrogative pronoun tij; “accusation” – kathgoria, from which we get categories in the English. We now have mobs putting pressure on the law. A good system of law says, Destroy the mobs. Mobs to not represent law and order and no mob in history ever accomplished anything. No mob ever has the right to violate the law in order to gain some principle. Not only do we have a mob here but we have religion behind the mob. The Sanhedrin is behind this and the leaders behind this mob are religious types.
“bring ye against this man?” – here is objectivity. He doesn’t assume that Jesus is guilty because there is a big mob out there shouting for the death of our Lord. Pilate shows no prejudice, he has total objectivity at this point.
Verse 30 – “They answered and said unto him.” They refers to the religious leaders who speak for the mob.
“If” – second class condition, if and not true; “he were not a malefactor [but He isn’t]” – imperfect active indicative from e)imi. Imperfect tense: in time past He always was a criminal. Malefactor means a professional criminal. E)imi plus the negative mh goes with the second class condition to indicate that they said He was a professional criminal but He really was not.
“we would not have delivered him to thee” – which is ridiculous. In the first place, when a mob delivers up someone you can count on it that the person is either innocent or he is not getting a square deal because the mob is incapable of giving anyone a square deal. A mob is run by a mass of emotion. There is no legal procedure or fairness.
We do not have at this point in this passage the actual accusation brought against the Lord Jesus Christ. All we have at this point is that the Jews are obviously upset by Pilate’s question. They didn’t expect Pilate to come out and use Roman law on them, to ask what the indictment was. They were hoping that the mob would persuade Pilate, especially since they know he is in trouble with Tiberius the Roman emperor. There is really no basis for a Roman trial. John doesn’t mention what they actually said, but in Luke 23:2ff we have the three accusations against Jesus: fomenting a revolution, bucking the system of revenue, claiming to be a King.
Verse 31 – “Take ye him and judge him according to your law.” The Jews could judge someone but they could not kill him, and they don’t want to go through a trial anyway, they just want to kill Jesus Christ. The Romans never permitted a subject people to administer capital punishment.
“judge him” is an aorist active imperative from krinw. He means do it now; do it while you can; that’s an order from Rome.
“It is not lawful for us to put him to death.” They have not followed the Jewish system of law or come up with bona fide evidence. They have hearsay, prejudice, have had violence in the courtroom, and yet they come up and say it is not lawful for them to put Him to death. They use the word a)pokteinw which means to annihilate Him.
Verse 32 – “That” introduces a result clause; “the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled.” The word saying here is logoj and it means the Word, o( logoj. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 20:19 and John 12:32,33. Jesus prophesied that he would die by crucifixion. But remember that when the Jews were an autonomous state their system of execution was always stoning. That was prescribed by the law. And who had to throw the first stone? The accuser. So if the accuser ever had any doubts he would never throw the stones!
“might be fulfilled” – aorist passive subjunctive of plhrow. Aorist tense: in a point of time. Passive voice: Jesus would receive this type of death. Subjunctive mood: when Jesus declared it He was not dead and it was still potential. The potentiality of the subjunctive mood goes right back to the volition of the humanity of Christ. It was a free will decision to go to the cross and bear our sins and take our place.
“what death he should die” – the word what is poioj and means what kind of; the word death is qanatoj, used for both spiritual death and physical death; “he should die” – a)poqnhskw (actually taken from qanantoj) [a)po = ultimate source; qnhskw = to die], which means to doe from the ultimate source of Himself. This also means utter separation. This is also in the dramatic historic present. Active voice: Jesus Christ produced the action of the verb, He dismissed His own spirit when He died. The infinitive is the purpose. It was His purpose to come into the world to die for the sins of the world.
Verse 33 – “judgment hall” is the Greek word for Praetorium; “entered in” the aorist active indicative, Pilate couldn’t get back in there fast enough.
“and called Jesus” – fwnew means to summons someone for the purpose of satisfying curiosity, or for the purpose of interrogation. He just had to talk to Jesus. Where is the king around here?
“Art thou the King of the Jews?” This accusation intrigues Pontius Pilate—for several reasons. If he could ever find a true king he is going to get rid of the Sanhedrin because he was persona non grata with them. They were always a thorn in the flesh to Roman administration. There were a lot of things going through the mind of Pilate. The Jewish leaders are trying to get rid of him and are complaining to the emperor. He realises that if he is ever going to get out of the jamb he is in he had better find someone who could rule these people better than the Sanhedrin.
The synoptic Gospels all give the answer to Pilate’s question; John does not. The answer is “Thou sayest,” which means affirmative: “I am.”
Verse 34 – “Jesus had an answer,” aorist passive indicative of a)pokrinomai. A)pokrinomai is passive in form and is generally assigned an active meaning. This is generally called a deponent verb. But in a deponent verb when the morphology is passive and the meaning is active it indicates that Jesus Christ answers but He always has had an answer. A)pokrinomai comes from the very depths of the character of the Lord Jesus Christ. He has an answer because He is God and in eternity past He knew the situation. He has an answer because He is a man with an ECS. Obviously He has an answer and will have answers all the way through—on the cross, leading up to the cross, and sometimes He will have answers and not give them.
“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it to thee of me?”
“Sayest thou” is a present active indicative of legw, the ordinary verb to say, to speak, to tell, to relate.
“Of thyself” is literally, from the source of yourself—a)po, preposition of ultimate source. In other words, Is this your idea or the idea of someone else? Jesus answers a question with a question for this reason. Jesus was not outside when Pilate spoke to the chief priests, and He is speaking from His humanity. The charges of Luke 23:2 were made against Him outside and out of His hearing. Therefore He seeks to establish the origin of the implication of this phrase, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” because behind it is a violation of Roman law called majestus, which means treason. In other words, Do you set yourself up as a king against Rome. This is why Pontius Pilate asked Him the question originally.
Verse 35 – “Am I a Jew?” This means that he had an answer, and this answer came from the depths of his character. He is so nerve-frayed and worn and upset and disturbed by the way things are going and the dilemma in which he finds himself that he counters with another question. Here is a man who is losing his objectivity through exasperation. With the question he puts the negative mh, but it is mhti this time. Mh in itself means no, I am not. In other words, he answers it for himself. But mhti is even stronger, and we have to go to our English idiom which is basically a “Hell no” answer. In other words, How can I know what these Jewish customs are? what do I know about this thing? This is frustration, exasperation.
“Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?” When he says “thine own nation,” Pilate expresses the real issue. At the same time he denies any personal prejudice. Not being a Jew Pilate has no personal prejudice in the matter, he is not interested in Jewish law.
“have delivered” – the aorist active indicative of paradidomi means more than just to deliver, it means also to betray. It means deliverance and betrayal: Your own nation has betrayed you. Then he asks the question: “What have you done?” When he asks the question he shows that even though he is exasperated he is still an objective Roman judge fulfilling his duty. This question is a desire for information.
Verse 36 – “Jesus answered.” Again, a)pokrinomai, Jesus had an answer, aorist passive indicative. Now we have a verse which is very important to us. It has to do with our relationship to the Lord, also our relationship to our country, it demands that the believer in Jesus Christ should be patriotic. There is no conflict between being a citizen of our country and being a citizen of the kingdom of God.
“My kingdom” – basileia. Jesus is actually referring to royal power or royal rule. He is referring to a kingdom.
1. The etymology of basileia: it means royal rule. It represents either a spiritual or a political kingdom but it refers to an organised system of authority. When it is used in a political sense it refers to divine institution #4; when it is used in a spiritual sense it is used for the kingdom of God which is the Church in the Church Age—those who are born again.
2. As Jesus used the word “My Kingdom” it has a spiritual connotation. This is a kingdom of regenerate persons.
3. Jesus Christ also has another kingdom. This kingdom is described in the Davidic covenant and it is a political kingdom but it will not exist until the Second Advent. From the death of Christ, all the way through the Tribulation, Jesus Christ does not have on earth a political kingdom. During this stage of the angelic conflict Satan is the ruler of this world. God’s protection against the kosmoj basileia is divine institution #4, nationalism. Nationalism is the protection from the destruction of Satan. The attack against nationalism from the outside is internationalism, and from the inside it is mob action and revolution.
4. Until the second advent of Christ there will exist for believers [only] a dual kingdom situation. Every believer is the member on earth of a spiritual kingdom and at the same time of a national entity (divine institution #4), a political kingdom. He has a responsibility to his spiritual kingdom—GAP, and he has a responsibility to divine institution #4—patriotism.
5. The kingdom of the Church is in the world but not of the world.
“is not” – present active indicative of e)imi, absolute status quo, plus the negative
o)uk.
“of this world” – e)k, preposition from. That is, the spiritual kingdom is not the
national entity and is not in competition with the national entity.
Next we have one of the most important conditional clauses in the New Testament
from the standpoint of clarifying some things. The word “if” is a second
class condition, used here to set up a hypothetical but not real situation: if and it is not true. But if it were, He is saying in effect, I would not be here now.
“then would my servants fight” – this is what alerted Pontius Pilate. No one is trying to rescue Jesus, no one is fighting. And Peter almost ruined this whole answer by pulling out a sword.
“were” is imperfect active indicative of e)imi which means keeps on being. This sets up a hypothetical situation.
“then” – now we have the apodosis; “would my servants fight”—the word for fight is a)gwnizomai which refers to a battle or an athletic contest. Here it means to fight to the death. This answers two things. A spiritual kingdom of regenerate is not in opposition to human government—divine institution #4. Secondly, fighting for one’s country is legitimate and the responsibility of the believer—Luke 22:36.
“that” introduces a purpose clause; “I should not be delivered to the Jews” or literally, I should not be betrayed to the Jews—paradidomi. Aorist tense: in a point of time. Aorist tense: receive betrayal. The negative mh indicates that He was betrayed, and so the mh plus the second class condition indicates that there is His defense.
“but now” – nun de refers to that moment. The particle de is used as a conjunction of contrast; nun is an adverb that means right this minute. The fact that Jesus is standing there is proof of His innocence.
“my kingdom is not” – e)imi plus o)uk; “from hence” is literally, from this place, the adverb e)nteuqen.
1. Jesus is saying there is no conflict between the Roman government and His own spiritual kingdom.
2. Pilate is wrong about one thing. He keeps saying that this is a Jewish issue, but this is not a Jewish question. This is a point of doctrine pertinent to the entire human race, including Pilate himself. Can you be a born again believer and be loyal and patriotic to the national entity in which you are born and of which you are a citizen? The answer is yes.
3. The Lord’s kingdom is composed of those who believe in Jesus Christ. They are born again. The very nature of their birth indicates the nature of the kingdom. We have a spiritual birth and therefore it is a spiritual kingdom composed of those who have eternal life.
4. Pilate is on the verge of making his greatest discovery. He, too, while loyal to Rome could enter this spiritual kingdom. But negative volition will blind his mind—2 Corinthians 4:3,4.
5. The next verse will portray how close Pilate came to eternal life, and yet how far away negative volition removed him from salvation.
Verse 37 – “Art thou” is the present active indicative of e)imi; “ a king then?”
1. Pilate understands the spiritual nature of His kingdom without understanding its implications.
2. Pilate in an unbeliever, therefore incapable of understanding doctrine and especially doctrine dealing with a spiritual kingdom—1 Corinthians 2:14.
3. However, if Pilate possessed positive volition at the point of God-consciousness he could then ask questions that would lead to his understanding of the gospel.
4. The results would have been the salvation of Pilate.
5. But Jesus is in the hands of a judge on negative volition at God-consciousness. But at the same time a Roman judge who under Roman law must be fair and objective.
6. And this Pilate will be until he reaches the point of political expediency. The point of political expediency is going to demonstrate his weakness, and his weakness is based upon negative volition at the point of God-consciousness.
“Jesus had an answer,” Thou sayest” – idiom for positive, affirmative.
“that I am” – the word that is literally because; or literally, “Yes, because I am and
always will be.”
“To this end” – e)ij plus touto. E)ij is used here as a purpose preposition, and this
should be translated, For this purpose.
“I was born” – perfect passive indicative of gennaw. Perfect tense: He was born in
the past with the result that He would be humanity forever. That makes
Him the God-Man, hypostatic union. Passive voice: He received humanity. Indicative mood: the reality of the hypostatic union, and the purpose of the first advent was to go to the cross, to go as a King, and to establish a spiritual kingdom.
Then we have the same phrase again: “for this cause” – e)ij touto, and again it has
the same connotation; “came I into the world” – first advent.
“that” introduces a purpose clause. Jesus Christ comes into the world. He receives
true humanity. The attributes of His deity will not permit Him to go to the
cross as God, therefore He had to become true humanity.
“I should bear witness” – and this doesn’t mean witnessing as we use it so poorly today. This word is much, much stronger than our concept, it is the aorist active subjunctive of marturew. It means to bear witness, but Jesus Christ bears witness first of all by His birth whereby He becomes the God-Man. The fact that He is the God-Man causes everyone to sit up and take notice. The virgin birth is an adaptation to this. Then, His demonstration as humanity developing the ECS first. He didn’t go out and start performing miracles, He first of all functioned under GAP and erected and ECS—“And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the immediate source of the Father.” Once He has an ECS then at age 30, after all this preparation, He is ready to go. Now He is the producer of divine good, of miracles, we have the three years of His earthly ministry. Thirty years of preparation; three years of ministry. Marturew refers to His entire ministry of three years. It does not refer to His preparation, it refers to the results. Preparation comes first. Production is based on doctrine, not on human action.
“unto the truth” – the truth is a)lhqeia, which is doctrine. His life bears witness to the power of doctrine.
“Every one that is of the truth” – the one being from the source of the truth. “The one being” – present active participle of e)imi, linear aktionsart, the one always being from the source of the truth. This describes positive volition at the point of God-consciousness. Those who are positive at the point of God-consciousness are said to be out from the source of the truth. That means that when they hear the truth they will respond to the truth and the truth will make them free. Pontius Pilate is not from the source of the truth.
“What is truth?”
1. If Pontius Pilate had been on positive volition at God-consciousness he would have changed his interrogation to one of personal interest, resulting in receiving gospel information.
2. But Pilate continues his interrogation along lines compatible with Roman law.
3. If Pilate had been on positive volition at the point of God-consciousness he would have concluded that Jesus was the Son of God.
4. But Pilate was on negative volition at God-consciousness, therefore he concluded that Jesus was innocent. His conclusion was correct but he missed the boat.
5. In finding Jesus not guilty Pilate was a good administrator, but not saved.
6. Salvation is just as much open to Pilate as anyone else, therefore if he had believed in Christ he would be the possessor of eternal life and still be a good administrator.
7. Pilate is right about the innocence of Jesus but wrong about the person of the Saviour.
8. Pilate is right about the Roman law but wrong about grace because of negative volition at God-consciousness.[1]
1. He was appointed governor of Judea in 26 AD by the emperor Tiberias, a fighting man who admired soldiers.
2. When he became governor he offended the Jews with resultant antagonism. He changed army headquarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem and the Jews
were offended by the Roman standards which went with army headquarters. He hung golden shields with the names of Roman deities from the Praetorium.
He appropriated the redemption money from the temple the build an aqueduct and improved the water system in Jerusalem. They had more water but they
resented losing that money. He slaughtered the Galileans in the temple while they were sacrificing—Luke 13:1. These four things aroused Jewish
antagonism, so by the time he had been governor for one year he was thoroughly despised.
3. Pilate now faces a tremendous internal struggle. a) He is now developing a fear of further offending the Jews and losing his job. b) He has a conviction that Jesus is innocent and should not be executed. This puts him on the horns of a dilemma because Roman law was designed to protect the innocent, not execute them. He also is getting another feeling that Jesus is God and it is going to scare him to death.
4. Pilate attempted to compromise between Roman law and Jewish hatred, which backfired when the Jews chose to release Barabbas. Application: You can never compromise with hatred or any other mental attitude sin.
5. His compromise was one of expediency. Expediency destroys leadership. A person in authority cannot compromise with any mental attitude sin.
6. Pilate’s attempted compromise did not save him from political disaster.
7. Pilate was sent to Rome to answer charges of maladministration by Vitellius.
8. In the meantime Tiberius died and Pilate had to answer to Calligula.
9. Before his trial Pilate committed suicide.
10. He died an unbeliever—John 3:18.
11. In lifetime Pilate regarded the innocence of Jesus as a mere trifle compared to his own political ambition. In death the trifle became the basis for his eternal punishment.
12. Pilate, however, did try to extricate himself from the dilemma of condemning an innocent man. He passed the responsibility on to Herod—Luke 23:7-11. He offered to punish Jesus by flogging and then release Him—Luke 23:16. He offered to release Jesus as an act of Clemency at the feats of the Passover—John 18:39.
13. But the implacability of the Jews neutralised all of these plans to release Jesus 23:23.
14. Yet Pilate repeatedly declared His innocence—Luke 23:24,15,22.
15. What could have saved Pilate from his own weakness of political expediency was personal faith in Jesus Christ. That would have given him a basis for ignoring and rejecting the obvious antagonism, and perpetuating the innocence of Jesus by releasing Him.
“What is truth?” – made up of an interrogative pronoun ti, plus the present active indicative of e)imi, plus a)lhqeia. This is the end for Pilate, right here. If he
had been asking this question in order to gain the truth he would have received gospel information and he would have waited for it. But he was not seeking information. This is a rhetorical question, not a seeking question. We know this because he left immediately without waiting for an answer.
“he went out” – out of the Praetorium, e)iserxomai; “unto the Jews” – proj plus the accusative, face to face with the Jews. He didn’t wait for an answer, he is now through with Jesus Christ as saviour. He goes outside to the Jews and gives an honest answer.
“I find no fault” – present active indicative of e(uriskw, I keep on finding no fault. The word fault is a)itia and it means charge—the charges that have been pressed. “I find no charge/complaint/case against him.” This is an impartial judge properly administering Roman law. His verdict is reported in 1 Timothy 6:13.
We now begin to the see nobility of Pontius Pilate cracking—a man of great ability and yet he is beginning to fall apart. And as we move along toward the cross and the crucifixion we see the Lord Jesus Christ becoming, as it were, greater and stronger, oriented to the will of the Father and the plan of the Father. Pontius Pilate is not in God’s plan, therefore he is not oriented to grace. The only thing that can be said about Pontius Pilate is that he is oriented to his own advancement, and this is going to trip him up and destroy his life.
Verse 39 – the third attempt of Pontius Pilate to release Jesus Christ. In the first attempt he passed the responsibility to Herod—Luke 23:7-11. His second attempt: he offered to punish Jesus by flogging and then release Him—Luke 23:16.
The penal
institutions of the Roman system
1. The penal institutions [jails] in the ancient world were used to house suspects until trial. Under Roman law punishment followed quickly to the guilty. They had no system of prison terms, you were either innocent, found innocent by law and released, or found guilty and either flogged or killed. In this way they didn’t keep their jails cluttered up with people.
2. Under these conditions crime waves were very infrequent in the Roman empire.
3. The harsh laws of the Roman republic were replaced by humane laws in the empire.
4. The rights of the accused now well recognised at this time. There is a maxim of Roman law which goes like this: “Better to let the guilty escape than to punish the innocent.” This is the objectivity of Roman law.
5. The Roman empire was the first to recognise that all men are equal under the law.
6. Roman law was improved under the empire until a man who was a famous jurist under the emperor Alexander Severus. He contended that slavery had been created by lower law, not enacted by nature but by man. If a man claimed another man as his slave the benefit of any possible doubt was given to the one claimed as a slave, and in this way Roman law actually broke the bondage of slavery.
7. Therefore historically credit must be given to Roman law as the best and most objective in the ancient world.
8. In principle Jewish law was the best but in practice it was distorted into subjectivity by the infiltration of legalism and religion.
9. Under Roman law Jesus Christ was acquitted. The crucifixion of Jesus was not an act of Roman law but an act of expediency by a Roman official who failed to follow up his findings by releasing Jesus Christ.
“But ye have a custom” – ye have is the present active indicative of e)imi, you keep on having a custom.
1. The word for custom is sunhqeia and it refers to an established custom, a practice, not a custom based on law but on precedence.
2. Pilate, in saying “ye have a custom,” is grasping at straws to get off the hook. He is in trouble.
3. His relationship with the Jews is strained to the point of either revolt or complaint to Caesar.
4. Because of this Pilate turns his back on Roman law and operates on expediency.
5. At this point Pilate displays lack of moral courage.
6. By compromising Roman law Pilate has failed as the governor of Judea.
7. By catering to Jewish pressure Pilate has planted the seeds for revolution and he is going to destroy his own career.
8. By negative volition toward Christ as saviour Pilate has guaranteed for himself a place in hell—John 3:36.
“that” introduces a result clause; “I should release” – aorist active subjunctive of
a)poluw which means to release, but in the aorist it means in a point of time, on a feast day. Active voice: the Roman governor could do this. Subjunctive mood: he didn’t always do it.
“one” means one prisoner; “at the Passover” – pasxa. This word is also translated “easter” in Acts, incorrectly, in the KJV.
“will ye” is a mistake. The word used is the present active indicative of boulomai
which means volition; it is the strongest verb of volition. It means to desire something based upon mentality. It also means to decree. This verb is used for decisions of the will based on careful deliberation and thought. It should be translated, “Are you willing?”
“that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” Pilate is a cynic.
1. Pilate’s cynical use of this title infuriated the Jews—he knew it would. He just couldn’t resist the temptation to “twist their tails.”
2. Pilate was, in effect, rubbing their nose in their own maladministration of Jewish law. Jewish law never executes its king. Under Jewish law only God can remove a king. In other words, Jewish law prohibits revolution and mob action. Jewish laws demands that you put it in the Lord’s and the Lord will take it.
3. First Pilate declares the innocence of Christ and now he declares Him the King of the Jews.
4. This is not only cynicism, Pilate has contempt for Jewish law and its function.
5. Obviously then, Pilate is a brilliant man and he sees through the Jewish deception. Now it backfires. When you are choosing between the King of the Jews and the word criminal it should be no contest but Pilate did not know anything about religion. He did not know that religious people are the most vicious people in the world.
Verse 40 – “Then cried they all again, saying.” This means to shout—kraugazw,
which means to vociferate, to have a rotten, mean, vicious mental attitude and to shout. When you shout from mental attitude sins, that is kraugazw. This is an aorist active indicative here. The word saying is legw, and it is a present active participle. Kraugazw describes their mental attitude and its results vocally, but the actual words that they uttered are found in the word legw—present active participle, they kept on doing it. They once and for all had a bad, vicious mental attitude—aorist tense. And they kept on expressing their bad mental attitude. There is a point of doctrine from this grammar and syntax: When you have a bad mental attitude in a point of time you keep on expressing it over a period of time. One mental attitude; many expressions.
“Not this one [not man], but Barabbas.”
“But Barabbas”
1. Barabbas is an Aramaic term which means son of the father. He was a famous criminal—a murderer and a revolutionist, Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19.
2. Barabbas was in prison waiting to be tried for murder by Pilate.
3. Since Barabbas was public enemy #1 Pilate chose him as the alternate to Jesus, thinking that Barabbas would be so repugnant that the Jews would want the release of Jesus.
4. But Pilate failed to realise the depravity of mental attitude sins in religious types.
5. Jewish religious leaders were filled with jealousy, pride, hatred, vindictiveness, implacability.
6. They would prefer the release of a vicious criminal rather than Jesus Christ.
7. As a result, now running loose in the streets of Jerusalem is homicidal, political terrorist. What the Jews have done is choose son of the father instead of Son of God.
8. The Jews chose the criminal son of the father rather than the eternal Son of God, the only saviour.
9. Here is the result of negative volition plus religion—to choose a criminal instead of the saviour.
“Now Barabbas was a robber” – badly translated. The word was is the imperfect tense of e)imi, which means he kept on being, this was a permanent status
quo. The word robber is the Greek word lhsthj which does not mean a robber. It means a professional criminal, both an insurrectionist and a bandit