THE GOSPEL TO THE CHURCH - Lakeside Ministrieslakesideministries.com/2ndCovenant/2nd_Cov_Unedited/… · Web viewSo the English Revised Version ... the word does not of course mean

THIS MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN EDITED FORSCRIPTURAL ACCURACY, SPELLING, OR GRAMMAR

THE GOSPEL TO THE CHURCHLESSON ELEVEN

18-20. THE VICTORY THROUGH DEATH.This last main division of the Gospel falls naturally into four principal sections:

1. The betrayal (18:1-11).2. The double trial (18:12-19:16).3. The end (19:17-42).4. The new life (20).

The last three sections, as will appear afterwards, require further subdivision.1. In comparing the narrative of John with the parallel narratives of the Synoptists, it must be observed generally that here, as everywhere, John fixes the attention of the reader upon the ideas that the several events bring out and illustrate. The Passion and Resurrection are for him revelations of the Person of Christ. The objective fact is a “sign” of something that lies deeper. It is a superficial and inadequate treatment of his narrative on which they were based. It does (it is true) become in part such a supplement, because it is a portrayal of the main spiritual aspects of the facts illustrated from the fullness of immediate knowledge, but the record is independent and complete in itself. It is a whole, and, like the rest of the Gospel, an interpretation of the inner meaning of the history that it contains.

Thus in the history of the Passion three thoughts among others rise into clear prominence:(1) The voluntariness of Christ’s sufferings.

18:4. 18:36.18:8. 19:28.18:11. 19:30.

(2) The fulfillment of a divine plan in Christ’s sufferings:18:4. 19:11.18:9. 19:24.18:11. 19:28.

Compare Luke 22:53.

(3) The majesty which shines through Christ’s sufferings:18:6. 19:11.18:20. 19:26.18:37. 19:36.

The narrative in this sense becomes a commentary on earlier words that pointed to the end.(I) 10:17, 18. (II) 13:1. (III) 13:31.

2. In several places the full meaning of John’s narrative is first obtained by the help of words or incidents preserved by the Synoptists. His narrative assumes facts found in them:E.g. 18:11. 18:40.

18:33. 19:41.

3. The main incidents recorded by more than one of the other evangelists that are omitted by John are:The agony (Matt., Mark, Luke).

1


The traitor’s kiss (Matt., Mark, Luke).

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThe desertion by all (Matt., Mark). Comp. John 16:32.The examination before the Sanhedrin at night; the false witness; the adjuration; the great Confession (Matt., Mark).The mockery as prophet (Matt., Mark, Luke).The council at daybreak (Matt., Mark, Luke).The mockery after condemnation (Matt., Mark).The impressments of Simon (Matt., Mark, Luke).The reproaches of spectators (Matt., Mark, Luke) and of the robbers (Matt., Mark, [Luke]).The darkness (Matt., Mark, Luke).The cry from Psalms 22 (Matt., Mark).The rending of the veil (Matt., Mark).The confession of the centurion (Matt., Mark, Luke).

Other incidents omitted by John are recorded by single Evangelists:Matthew

Power over the hosts of heaven.Pilate’s wife’s message.Pilate’s hand-washing.The self-condemnation of the Jews.The earthquake.

MarkThe flight of the young man.Pilate’s question as to the death of Christ.

LukeThe examination before Herod.The lamentation of the women.Three “words” from the cross (Luke 23:34, 43, 46).The repentance of one of the robbers.

4. The main incidents peculiar to John are:The words of power at the arrest (18:4-9).The examination before Annas (18:13-24).The first conference of the Jews with Pilate, and Pilate’s private examination (John 18:28-37; 19:9-11). Compare (Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3).The first mockery and the Ecce Homo (John 19:2-5).Pilate’s maintenance of his words (John 19:21, 22).The last charge (John 19:25-27).The thirst. “It is finished” (John 19:28-30).The piercing the side (John 19:31-37).The ministry of Nicodemus (John 19:39).

5. In the narrative of incidents recorded elsewhere John constantly adds details, often minute and yet most significant; e.g.

18:1. 18:15. 19:17.

2


18:2. 18:16. 19:19.18:10. 18:26. 19:23.18:11. 18:28. 19:41.18:12. 19:14.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN6. In the midst of great differences of detail the Synoptists and John offer many impressive resemblances as to the spirit and character of the proceedings; e.g.

(a) The activity of the “High Priests” (i.e. the Sadducean hierarchy) as distinguished from the Pharisees.

(b) The course of the accusation: civil charge: religious charge: personal influence.(c) The silence of the Lord in His public accusations, with the significant exception, (Matt.

26:64).(d) The tone of mockery.(e) The character of Pilate; haughty, contemptuous, vacillating, selfish.

7. The succession of the main events recorded by the four Evangelist appears to have been as follows:Approximate time.1 a.m. The agony. “ The betrayal. “ The conveyance to the high-priest’s house, probably adjoining “the Booths of Hanan.”2 a.m. The preliminary examination before Annas in the presence of Caiaphas.3 a.m. The examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin at an irregular meeting at “the

Booths.”5 a.m. The formal sentence of the Sanhedrin in their own proper place of meeting, Gazith or Beth Midrash (Luke 22:66; Matt. 27:1: Comp. Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66).

The first examination before Pilate, at the palace.5:30 a.m. The examination before Herod.

The scourging and first mockery by the soldiers at the palace.6:30 a.m. The sentence of Pilate (John 19:14).7 a.m. The second mockery by the soldiers of the condemned “King.”9 a.m. The crucifixion, and rejection of the stupefying draught (Mark 15:25).12 noon The last charge.12-3 p.m. The darkness (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).3 p.m. The end.

1. The Betrayal. Jesus and the disciples; Judas and the adversaries (John 18:1-11).The substance of this section is peculiar to John, though it presents many points of contact with the Synoptic narratives. The conflict that the other Evangelists record is here presupposed and regarded in its issues. The victory follows the battle. The Lord acts freely and with sovereign and protecting power towards His enemies and His disciples at the moment when He is given over for death.

GETHSEMANE –THE AGONY AND THE ARREST - HISTORICAL FarrarTheir way led them through one of the city gates—probably that which then corresponded to the present gate of Stephen—down the steep sides of the ravine, across the Wady of the Kedron, (The Kedron is a ravine rather than a brook. No water runs in it except occasionally, after unusually heavy rains), which lay a hundred feet below, and up the green and quiet slope beyond it. With a weight of mysterious dread, these few Galileans brooding over their spirits, they followed Him, who with bowed head and sorrowing

3


heart walked before them to His willing doom. We are told but of one incident in the last and memorable walk through the midnight to the familiar Garden of Gethsemane. It was a last warning to the disciples in general, to Peter in particular.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENIt may be that the dimness, the silence, the desertion of their position, the dull echo of their footsteps, the stealthy aspect which their movements wore, and the agonizing sense that treachery was even now at work, was beginning already to produce an icy chill of cowardice in their hearts. Sadly did Jesus turn and say to them that on that very night they should all be offended in Him—all find their connection with Him a stumbling-block in their path—and the old prophecy should be fulfilled, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.” And yet, in spite of all, as a shepherd would He go before them, leading the way to Galilee?

Peter, touched already by this apparent distrust of His stability, haunted perhaps by some dread lest Jesus felt any doubt of him, was loudest and most emphatic in his denial. Even if all should be offended, yet never would he be offended. Was it a secret misgiving in his own heart that made his asseveration so prominent and so strong? Not even the repetition of the former warning, that, ere the cock should crow, he would thrice have denied his Lord, could shake him from his positive assertion that even the necessity of death itself should never drive him to such a sin. And Jesus only listened in mournful silence to vows that should so soon be scattered into air.

So they came to Gethsemane, which is about half a mile from the city walls. It was a garden or orchard marked probably by some slight enclosure; and as it had been a place of frequent resort for Jesus and His followers, we may assume that it belonged to some friendly owner. The name Gethsemane means “the oil-press,” and doubtless it was so called from a press to crush the olives yielded by the countless trees from which the hill derives its designation. Any one who has rested at noonday in the gardens of En-gannim or Nazareth in spring, and can recall the pleasant shade yielded by the interlaced branches of olive and pomegranate, and fig and myrtle, may easily imagine what kind of spot it was.

The traditional site, venerable and beautiful as it is from the age and size of the gray gnarled olive-trees, of which one is still known as the Tree of the Agony, is perhaps too public—being, as it always must have been, at the angle formed by the two paths that lead over the summit and shoulder of Olivet—to be regarded as the actual spot. Jesus knew that the awful hour of His deepest humiliation had arrived—that from this moment till the utterance of that great cry with which He expired, nothing remained for Him on earth but the torture of physical pain and the poignancy of mental anguish.

All that the human frame can tolerate of suffering was to be heaped upon His shrinking body; every misery that cruel and crushing insult can inflict was to weigh heavy on His soul; and in this torment of body and agony of soul even the high and radiant serenity of His divine spirit was to suffer a short but terrible eclipse.

1. Pain in its acutest sting, 2. Shame in its most overwhelming brutality, 3. All the burden of the sin 4. And mystery of man’s existence 5. In its apostasy and fall—this was what He must now face in all its most inexplicable

accumulation.

4


6. But one thing remained before the actual struggle, 7. The veritable agony began.

He had to brace His body, to nerve His soul, to calm His spirit by prayer and solitude to meet that hour in which all that is evil in the Power of Evil should wreak its worst upon the Innocent and Holy. And He must face that hour alone: no human eye must witness, except through the twilight and shadow, the depth of His suffering.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENYet He would have gladly shared their sympathy; it helped Him in this hour of darkness to feel that they were near, and that those were nearest who loved Him best. “Stay here,” He said to the majority, “while I go there and pray.” Leaving them to sleep on the damp grass, each wrapped in his outer garment, He took with Him Peter and James and John, and went about a stone’s throw farther. But soon even the society of these chosen and trusted ones was more than He could bear:1. A grief beyond utterance, 2. A struggle beyond endurance, 3. A horror of great darkness, 4. A giddiness and stupefaction of soul overmastered Him, 5. As with the sinking swoon of an anticipated death.

It was a tumult of emotion that none must see. “My soul,” He said, “is full of anguish, even unto death. Stay here and keep watch. Reluctantly He tore Himself away from their sustaining tenderness and devotion, and retired yet farther, perhaps out of the moonlight into the shadow. And there, until slumber overpowered them, they were conscious of how dreadful was that paroxysm of prayer and suffering through which He passed. They saw Him sometimes on His knees, sometimes outstretched in prostrate supplication upon the damp ground; they heard snatches of the sounds of murmured anguish in which His humanity pleaded with the divine will of His Father.

The actual words might vary, but the substance was the same throughout. “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee! Take away this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt.”And that prayer in all its infinite reverence and awe was heard; that strong crying and those tears were not rejected. We may not intrude too closely into this scene. It is shrouded in a halo and a mystery into which no footstep may penetrate:

(A) The disciples see Him, before whom the demons had fled in howling terror, lying on His face upon the ground.

(B) They hear that voice wailing in murmurs of broken agony, that had commanded the wind and the sea, and they obeyed Him. The great drops of anguish that drop from Him in the deathful struggle looks to them like heavy gouts of blood.

Under the dark shadows of the trees, amid the interrupted moonlight, it seems to them that there is an angel with Him, who supports His failing strength, who enables Him to rise victorious from those first prayers with nothing but the crimson traces of that bitter struggle upon His brow. And whence came:

1. All this agonized failing of heart, 2. This fearful amazement, 3. This horror of great darkness,

5


His passion which almost brought Him down to the grave before a single pang had been inflicted upon Him—which forced from Him the rare and intense phenomenon of a blood-stained sweat—which almost prostrated body, and soul, and spirit with one final blow? Jesus with that heroic fortitude which fifteen hours of subsequent sleepless agony could not disturb—with the majestic silence before priest, and procurator, and king—with the endurance from which the extreme of torture could not wring even one cry—with the calm and infinite ascendancy that overawed the hardened and worldly Roman into involuntary respect—with the undisturbed supremacy of soul that opened the gates of Paradise to the repentant malefactor, and breathed compassionate forgiveness on the apostate priests?

JOHN LESSON ELEVENIt was something far deadlier than death:

1. It was the burden and the mystery of the world’s sin which lay heavy on His heart; 2. It was the tasting, in the divine humanity of a sinless life, the bitter cup that sin had

poisoned; 3. It was the bowing of Godhead to endure a stroke to which man’s apostasy had lent such

frightful possibilities. 4. It was the sense too, of how virulent, how frightful, must have been the force of evil in

the Universe of God that could render necessary so infinite a sacrifice.

He withdrew to find His only consolation in communing with God. And there He found all that He needed. Before that hour was over He was prepared for the worst that Satan or man could do. He knew all that would befall Him; perhaps He had already caught sight of the irregular glimmering of lights as His pursuers descended from the Temple precincts. Yet there was no trace of agitation in His quiet words when, coming a third time and finding them once more sleeping, “Sleep on now,” He said, “and take your rest. It is enough. The hour is come. Lo! The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.”

But all is altered now. It is not I who wish to break these your heavy slumbers. Others will very rudely and sternly break them. “Rise, then; let us be going. Lo! He that betrayed me is at hand.” It has been asked why John tells us nothing of the agony? We do not know; but it may very likely have been because the story had already been told as fully as it was known. Certainly, his silence did not spring from any notion that the agony was unworthy of Christ’s grandeur (see John 12:27; 18:11).

They were going against: (1). One who was deserted and defenseless, yet the soldiers were armed with swords, and even the promiscuous throng had provided themselves with sticks. (2). They were going to seize One who would make no attempt at flight or concealment, and the full moon shed its luster on their unhallowed expedition; yet, lest He should escape them in some limestone grotto, or in the deep shade of the olives, they carried lanterns and torches in their hands.

And even as Jesus spoke the traitor himself appeared. (Throughout the description of these scenes I have taken the four Gospel narratives as one whole, and regarded them as supplementing each other. It will be seen how easily, and without a single violent hypothesis, they fall into one harmonious, probable, and simple narrative). “He whom I kiss,” he had said to them, “the same is He. Seize Him at once, and lead Him away safely.” And so, advancing to Jesus with his usual cold title of address, he exclaimed, “Rabbi, Rabbi, hail!” and profaned the sacred cheek of his Master with a kiss of overacted salutation.

6


“Judas,” said Jesus to him, with stern and sad reproach, “dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” These words were enough, for they simply revealed the man to himself, by stating his hideous act in all its simplicity; and the method of his treachery was so unparalleled in its heinousness, so needless and spontaneously wicked, that more words would have been superfluous. “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” was the eager question of Peter, and the only other disciple provided with a weapon; for, being within the garden, the Apostles were still unaware of the number of the captors.

Jesus did not at once answer the question; for no sooner had He repelled the villainous falsity of Judas than He Himself stepped out of the enclosure to face His pursuers. “Whom are ye seeking?” He asked. The question was not objectless.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENIt was asked, as John points out (John 18:8), to secure His Apostles from all molestation; and we may suppose also that it served to make all who were present the witnesses of His arrest, and so to prevent the possibility of any secret assassination or foul play. “Jesus of Nazareth,” they answered. Their excitement and awe preferred this indirect answer, though if there could have been any doubt as to who the speaker was, Judas was there—the eye of the Evangelist noticed him, trying in vain to lurk amid the serried ranks of the crowd—to prevent any possible mistake that might have been caused by the failure of his premature and therefore disconcerted signal.

“I am He,” said Jesus. One of those minute touches that so clearly mark the eye witness (John)—which are inexplicable on any other supposition, and which abound in the narrative of the beloved disciple.Those quiet words produced a sudden paroxysm of amazement and dread. That answer so gentle “had in it a strength greater than the eastern wind, or the voice of thunder, for God was in that ‘still voice,’ and it struck them (all that came to take Jesus) down to the ground.” Most of them must have heard of the mighty miracles of Jesus, and that all were at any rate aware that He claimed to be a Prophet; that the manner in which He met this large multitude, which the alarms of Judas had dictated as essential to His capture, suggested the likelihood of some appeal to supernatural powers; that they were engaged in one of those deeds of guilty violence and midnight darkness that paralyze the stoutest of minds.

When we bear this in mind, and when we remember too that on many occasions in His history the mere presence and word of Christ had sufficed to quell the fury of the multitude, and to keep Him safe in the midst of them (ref. Luke 4:30; John 7:30; 8:59; 10:39; Mark 11:18.). It hardly needs any recourse to miracle to account for the fact that these official marauders and their infamous guide recoiled from those simple words, “I am He,” as though the lightning had suddenly been flashed into their faces. While they stood cowering and struggling there, He again asked them, “Whom are ye seeking?” Again they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth.” “I told you,” He answered, “that I am He. If, then, ye are seeking me, let these go away.” For He Himself had said in His prayer, “Of those whom Thou hast given me have I lost none.” Also (see Matthew 26:31).

26:31 “Then saith Jesus unto them, all ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” Matthew 26:31 KJV

The words were a signal to the Apostles that they could no longer render Him any service, and that they might now consult their own safety if they would. But when they saw that He meant to offer no resistance, that He was indeed about to surrender Himself to His enemies, some pulse of nobleness or of

7


shame throbbed in the impetuous soul of Peter; and hopeless and useless as all resistance had now become, he yet drew his sword, and with a feeble and ill-aimed blow severed the ear of a man name Malchus, a servant of the High Priest.

The fact that John alone mentions the names of Peter and Malchus may arise simply from his having been more accurately acquainted than the other Evangelists with the events of that heart-shaking scene.Instantly Jesus stopped the ill-timed and dangerous struggle. “Return that sword of thine into its place,” He said to Peter, “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword;” and then He reproachfully asked His rash disciple whether he really supposed that He could not escape if He would? Whether the mere breathing of a prayer would not secure for Him—had He not voluntarily intended to fulfill the Scriptures by drinking the cup that His Father had given Him—the aid, not of twelve timid Apostles, but of more than twelve legions of angels? A legion during the Empire consisted of about 6,000 men. (See Isaiah 37:36 One Angel of the Lord slays 185,000 in one night.)

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN19:11 “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:11-16 NIV

And then, turning to the soldiers who were holding Him, He said, “Suffer ye thus far,” (Let me free for one moment only, while I heal this wounded man), and in one last act of miraculous mercy touched and healed the wound.

Bible Text.John 18:1-1118:1 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. 2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, whom seek you? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7 Then asked he them again, whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered; I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 9 that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? KJV

Homily 83 - John 18:1, 2John 18:1.

8


"When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Kedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples."An awful thing is death, and very full of terror, but not to those who have learnt the true wisdom which is above. For he that knows nothing certain concerning things to come, but deems it to be a certain dissolution and end of life, with reason shudders and is afraid, as though he were passing into non-existence. But we who, by the grace of God, have learnt the hidden and secret things of His wisdom, and deem the action to be a departure to another place, should have no reason to tremble, but rather to rejoice and be glad, that leaving this perishable life we go to one far better and brighter, and which hath no end. Which Christ teaching by His actions, goeth to His Passion, not by constraint and necessity, but willingly. "These things," it saith, "Jesus spake, and departed 'beyond the brook Kedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.'"

Ver. 2. "Judas also, which betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with His disciples."

JOHN LESSON ELEVENHe journeyed at midnight, and crossed a river, and hasteth to come to a place known to the traitor, lessening the labor to those who plotted against Him, and freeing them from all trouble; and showeth to the disciples that He came willingly to the action, (a thing which was most of all sufficient to comfort them,) and placed Himself in the garden as in a prison. (Archbishop John Chrysostom A.D. 400)(From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Volume 14, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) Bishop Chrysostom AD 400

18:1 When Jesus had spoken…] (see John 17:1).1. He went forth…] from the limits of the city (comp. 1 Kings 2:37), probably in the direction of the present St Stephen’s Gate, by the same route as on other days when He went to the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:37; 22:39; Mark 11:19; Matt. 21:17); but now Jerusalem was left. The Lord returned only to die there. In the parallel passages the same word is used, according to the context, of the departure from the upper room (Luke 22:39; Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26).2. The brook Cedron (Kidron)…] this detail is peculiar to John. The parallel narratives have simply “went to the Mount of Olives.” The exact description is probably introduced with a significant reference to the history of the flight of David from Absalom and Ahithophel (2 Samuel 15:23; comp. John 13:18).

2 Sam 15:22-29Verse 22-23. The king crosses the Kidron, and sends the priests back with the ark to Jerusalem. -V. 23. All the land (as in 1 Sam 14:25) wept aloud when all the people went forward; and the king went over the brook Kidron, and all the people went over in the direction of (lit. in the face of) the way to the desert. The brook Kidron is a winter torrent, i.e., a mountain torrent which only flows during the heavy rains of winter (chei'marrhos (NT: 5493) tou' (NT: 3588) Kedroo'n (NT: 2748), John 18:1). It is on the eastern side of Jerusalem, between the city and the Mount of Olives, and derives its name from the appearance of the water when rendered muddy through the melting of the snow (cf. Job 6:16). In summer it is nothing more than a dry channel in the valley of Jehoshaphat (see Robinson, Palestine i. 396, and v. Raumer, Palestine p. 309, note 81). "The wilderness" (midbar) is the northern part of the desert of Judah, through which the road to Jericho and the Jordan lay.

9


(From Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

3. 18:1. A garden…] on the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:39). The name of the “small farm” (Gethseemani N.T. 1068) to which it belonged, Gethsemane, is given by Matthew and Mark (Matt. 26:36, Mark 14:32). Josephus mentions that “gardens” were numerous in the suburbs of Jerusalem (ref. B.J. 6.1.1 compare John 19:41). There is nothing in the context to indicate the exact position of the garden. The traditional site, that may be the true one, dates from the time of Constantine, when “the faithful were eager to offer their prayers there” (ref. Euseb. ‘Onom.’ S.v.).

4. Commentators from (Cyril) downwards have drawn a parallel and contrast between the histories of the fall and the Victory connected with the two “gardens,” Eden and Gethsemane. But there is no indication in the Gospel that such a thought was in the mind of the Evangelist. Yet (see Mark 1:13).5. Entered…] a fence that secured the privacy of the retreat would naturally enclose the garden. Some time passed (Matt. 26:40) between the entry into the garden and the arrival of Judas. In this interval the Agony took place, of which John says nothing, though he implies a knowledge of the even in v. 11. It is evident from (John 12:27) that the incident is not alien from his narrative.12:27 “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” John 12:27 KJV

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN6. And his disciples…] himself and his disciples. Judas was finally excluded from the divine company: (John 13:30).

18:2. Judas also….knew the place…] the withdrawal of the Lord from the city was not now (John 10:40) for the purpose of escaping from the assaults of His enemies. The place to which He retired was well known. Judas, no less than the other apostles, was acquainted with the spot.1. Which betrayed…] the original (as in v. 5 who was delivering up) marks the process of betrayal as going on, and not the single past act (who delivered up, Matt. 27:3). Compare (John 13:11). Judas was already engaged in the execution of his plan.2. Ofttimes…] Comp. (Luke 22:39 (21:37). The word can scarcely be limited to the present visit to Jerusalem. It is reasonable to suppose that the owner was an open or secret disciple of Christ. Comp. (Matt. 26:18).3. Resorted…] the exact force of the original is rather, “Jesus and (with) His disciples assembled there.” The idea appears to be that of a place of gathering, where the Lord’s followers met Him for instruction and not simply of a resting place during the night. But it is possible that the spot was used for this latter purpose also during the present visit (Luke 21:37), and that Judas expected to find all sleeping at the time of his arrival. But the Lord’s nights were now, as at the other crises of His life, times of prayer (Luke 6:12; 9:28; Comp. Luke 5:16).

18:5-8 I AM. There is a double meaning. Yeshua Jesus was both identifying himself and voicing God's authority (see 4:26). Apparently he was demonstrating God's power as well, so that it was in direct consequence that they went backward from him and fell to the ground.(From Jewish New Testament Commentary Copyright © 1992 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved. Used by permission.)

10


18:3-8. a difficulty arises as to the reconciliation of the incidents described in this passage with the narrative of the betrayal in the other Gospels. In the Synoptists the arrest follows close upon the kiss of Judas, that John does not mention (Matt. 26:50; Mark 14:45, yet see Luke 22:48). It is very difficult to believe that the kiss either proceeded (v. 4), or came after (v. 8). Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that the unexpected appearance of the Lord outside the enclosure discomposed the plan of Judas, who had expected to find the whole party resting within the garden, and that for the moment he failed to give the appointed sign, and remained awestricken in the crowd (v. 5).

This being so, the event of (v. 6) followed, and afterwards Judas, taking courage, came up to Christ (Matt. 26:49; Mark 14:45), who then repelled him (Luke 22:48) and again addressed the hesitating multitude. Others suppose, with somewhat less probability, as it seems (but see Matt. 26:49), that the kiss of Judas immediately preceded the first question, whom seek you? And that, touched by his Master’s reproof (Luke 22:48), he fell back into the crowd. Either view presents an intelligible whole; but the phrase in (v. 5 (was standing) is more appropriate to the attitude of one who hesitates to do that which he has purposed to do, than of one who has been already repulsed. It may be added that, though John does not mention the “sign” of Judas, yet he implies that he had undertaken to do more than guide the band to the place where Christ might be found, by noticing that he was with them after they had reached the spot (v. 5).

Homily 83 - John 18:3 - 8Ver. 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."

JOHN LESSON ELEVENAnd these men had often at other times sent to seize Him, but had not been able; whence it is plain, that at this time He voluntarily surrendered Himself. And how did they persuade the band? They were soldiers, who had made it their practice to do anything for money.

Ver. 4. "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said, whom seek ye?"That is, He did not wait to learn this from their coming, but spake and acted without confusion, as knowing all these things. "But why come they with weapons, when about to seize Him?" They feared His followers, and for this reason they came upon Him late at night. "And He went forth, and said unto them, whom seek ye?"

Ver. 5. "They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth."Seest thou His invincible power, how being in the midst of them He disabled their eyes? For that the darkness was not the cause of their not knowing Him, the Evangelist hath shown, by saying, that they had torches also. And even had there been no torches, they ought at least to have known Him by His voice; or if they did not know it, how could Judas be ignorant, who had been so continually with Him? For he too stood with them, and knew Him no more than they, but with them fell backward. And Jesus did this to show, that not only they could not seize Him, but could not even see Him when in the midst, unless He gave permission.

Ver. 7. "He saith again, whom seek ye?" What madness! His word threw them backward, yet not even so did they turn, when they had learnt that His power was so great, but again set themselves to the same attempt. When therefore He had fulfilled all that was His, and then He gave Himself up.

11


Ver. 8. "He answered, I told you that I Am." (Ver. 5. "And Judas also which betrayed Him stood with them.") (Chrysostom)

18:3. Judas then (therefore)…] using his knowledge for the furtherance of his design.1. A band of men and officers from…] the band of soldiers and officers from…. The force is clearly divided in the original into two main parts:

1. The band of soldiers, and2. The “officers” (police) dispatched by “the chief priests and Pharisees” (the Sanhedrin).

The soldiers were part of the well known body of Roman soldiers stationed as a garrison in Antonia (comp. Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; Acts 21:31; and also Josephus ‘Ant.’ 20. 4. 3; ‘B.J.’ 5. 5. 8). The original word (band) is used by Polybius as the representative of the Latin word manipulus, consisting of about 200 men, the third part of a cohort. Whether the word is taken here in this technical sense (v. 12, note), or (as is more likely) in the larger sense of “cohort,” which it appears to bear in the New Testament, it will naturally be understood that only a detachment of the whole body was present with their commander (v. 12). The “officers” who came with “the band” were members of the temple police, who were under the orders of the Sanhedrin. Comp. (John 7:32, 45; Acts 5:22, 26). In the Synoptists the whole company is described in general terms (Matt. 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47; comp. 22:52), and the soldiers are not distinctly mentioned.

1. But it is difficult to suppose that the priests would have ventured on such an arrest as that of Christ without communicating with the Roman governor, or that Pilate would have found any difficulty in granting them a detachment of men for the purpose, especially at the feast-time.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENMoreover, Pilate’s early appearance (v. 28) at the court, no less than the dream of his wife (Matt. 27:19, that just man), implies some knowledge of the coming charge. Perhaps too it is not fanciful to see a reference to the soldiers in the turn of the phrase “twelve legions of angels” (Matt. 26:53). The special mention of the soldiers and of the watch fixes attention on the combination of Gentile and Jew in this first stage of the Passion as afterwards.

2. the chief priests and Pharisees…] and the Pharisees. Comp. (John 11:47, note).3. With lanterns and torches…] although the party had the light of the Paschal full moon, they prepared themselves also against the possibility of concealment on the part of Him whom they sought. The other Evangelists do not notice the lights. The detail belongs to a vivid impression of the scene received by an eyewitness. The temple-watch, to whom the “officers” belonged, made their rounds with torches (ref. ‘Middoth’ 1, 2, quoted by Lightfoot on Revelation 16:15; and in a most interesting note on Luke 22:4), and was, for the most part, not regularly armed (ref. Josephus; B. J.’ 4. 4. 6).

Question. Who betrayed Jesus to the soldiers?.Answer. Judas failed in his mission so Jesus had to do it Himself.

18:4. Jesus therefore…] There was, so to speak, a divine necessity that ruled the Lord’s movements. By Him all was foreseen: and He who had before withdrawn Himself (John 8:59; 12:36; 5:13; 6:15), now that “His hour was come” anticipated the search for which His enemies had made provision, and went

12


forth from the enclosure of the garden (opposed to entered, v.1) to meet them (not simply from the innermost part of the garden or from the circle of the disciples: v. 26 proves nothing against this view).The clause corresponds with the words in Matthew (26:46) and Mark (14:42), “Rise, let us be going,” which are followed by, “behold he is at hand that betrayeth me.”1. That should come…] More exactly, all the things that were coming. The Passion has already begun. Comp. (John 13:1 notes). It must further be noticed that the Passion is spoken of in relation to the divine order (the things that were coming), and not as sufferings to be borne, or evil prepared by enemies. (Comp. v. 11).2. Went (or came) forth, and said…] …and saith. According to the true reading the two acts are marked separately. Christ left the place in which He might have sought concealment; and then He addressed those who sought to take Him.

Whom seek ye?…] The question (as in v. 8) is designed to shield the disciples, and at the same time to bring clearly before the mind of the assailants the purpose for which they had come, and who He was whom they sought. The words fall in completely with the circumstances. The Lord was not recognized in the uncertain light. The company who had come to apprehend Him naturally supposed that He would not Himself advance to meet them, but that the questioner must be some friend. The idea of early commentators, that they were miraculously blinded, find no support in the narrative.

18:5. Jesus of Nazareth…] the tinge of contempt (comp. Matt. 2:23), that appears to lie in the title here, as borrowed from popular usage, is given better by the literal rendering, Jesus the Nazarene. Comp. (John 19:19; Matt. 26:71; Mark 14:67).

The title is characteristic of the first stage of the preaching of the Gospel, when the reproach was turned into glory: (Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14, (22:8, 26:9). It was also used by disciples at an earlier date: (Mark 10:47; 16:6; Luke 18:37; 24:19. Comp. Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34).

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN1. Jesus (He) saith…I am he…] the same words were used on several memorable occasions, (4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58), and on this evening, (John 13:19). For Judas at least they must have been significant, though, as they stand in the context, they simply reveal the Person sought, and not His nature. But the self-revelation of Christ tries to the uttermost and answers the thoughts that men have of Him.2. And Judas…stood…] …was standing. The one figure is singled out, as it were, and regarded as he stands. Comp. (John 1:35, note). There is nothing in the text to support the view that Judas was paralyzed and unable to recognize Jesus. (Westcott)

18:6 as soon then as he had said… (or, When therefore…)…] Omit the had. The incident that follows is made to depend upon the Lord’s words. It is vain to inquire whether the withdrawal and prostration of the band of men was due to “natural” or “supernatural” causes. (Westcott).

On any view it was due to the effect that the presence of the Lord in His serene majesty, had upon those who had come to take Him. Various circumstances may have contributed to the result:

1. It may have been that Judas had led his company to expect some display of power.2. It may have been that he himself hoped for a decisive manifestation of Messiah in sovereignty

now that the crisis had come.

13


A thought: Was Judas a zealot at heart and wanted Jesus to take charge of the situation and proclaim Himself King of all Israel and over through the army of Rome? Or can you believe that a man who kept the purse and had money and was apart of the power of the Living God, could simply betray the Messiah for 30 pieces of silver. If that is the case, then why did he give the money back and kill himself?

Paul the Learner

But the prostration seems to show, at any rate, that the Lord purposed to declare openly to the disciples (comp. Matt. 26:53), that it was of His own free choice that He gave Himself up. And this is the effect that the narrative is calculated to produce upon a reader. The Lord’s assailants were overawed by Him in some way (by the force of I Am Exodus 3 Paul the Learner), and they fulfilled their commission only by His consent. Comp. (John 7:46).

18:6. Went backward, and fell…] the whole action represents the effects of fear, awe, veneration, self-humiliation (Job 1:20), not of external force. Comp. (Rev. 1:17). The exaggeration that describes the men as “falling backwards” is utterly alien from the solemn majesty of the scene. (Westcott)Note: You will find that some theologians seek for a natural reason for something that happens in the supernatural realm. Paul the Learner

1:17 “And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:” Revelation 1:17 KJV

John 18:6Fell to the ground epesan (NT: 4098) chamai (NT: 5476). Second aorist active indicative of piptoo (NT: 4098) with first aorist ending [-an]. This recoil made them stumble. But why did they step back? Was it the former claim of Jesus (I am, egoo (NT: 1473) eimi (NT: 1510)) to be on an equality with God (John 8:58; 13:19) or mere embarrassment and confusion or supernatural power exerted by Jesus? B [Codex Vaticanus] adds Ieesous (NT: 2424) which must mean simply: "I am Jesus."(From Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft & Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press)

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN18:7 Then asked he them again…] Again therefore he asked them. This literal rendering of the original brings out the connection more clearly than the American Version. Those who had come to arrest the Lord hung back, and therefore He Himself again roused them to their work. The spirit of the Lord’s words, thus addressed to the whole company, corresponds with that of the words addressed to Judas “Is it this for which thou art come?” (Matt. 26:50).

Note: I think that the reason why they fell to the ground was two fold:1. If they wanted to take Jesus captive then they could do it only as He let them.2. To fulfill the prophecy they would have to let the disciples go and not take them.

‘Jesus said to them, I have told you that I am he; if then you want me, let these men go away; (That the word which he said might be fulfilled, of those whom thou gavest me, I have lost not even one).’ John 18:8, 9 Peshitta Texts. Paul the LearnerMatt 26:50Wherefore art thou come? Ef' (NT: 1909) ho (NT: 3738) parei (NT: 3918). The interrogation of the King James Version is wrong. The expression is elliptical and condensed. Literally it is: "that for which thou art here;" and the mind is to supply "do or be about." The Lord spurns the traitor's embrace, and

14


says, in effect, "Enough of this hypocritical fawning. Do what you are here to do." So the English Revised Version (1885): "Do that for which thou art come."(From Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)[‘The yet Jesus said to-him comrade! On which you-are-beside-being then toward coming they-on-cast the hands on the Jesus.’ Matthew 26:50 4th Century Greek Text.]

[‘Jesus said to him, Is it for this that you have come, my friend? Then they came near and laid hands on Jesus, and arrested him.’ Matthew 26:50 Peshitta Text.]

1. Jesus of Nazareth…] Even after Christ had made Himself known, His enemies only repeat the name that they had been taught, as if waiting for some further guidance.

Homily 83 - John 18:8, 9See the forbearance of the Evangelist, how he doth not insult over the traitor, but relates what took place, only desiring to prove one thing, that the whole took place with His own consent. Then, lest any one should say that He Himself brought them to this, by having placed Himself into their hands, and revealed Himself to them; after having shown to them all things which should have been sufficient to repulse them, when they persevered in their wickedness, and had no excuse, He put Himself in their hands, saying, "If therefore ye seek Me, let these go their Way." Manifesting until the last hour His loving kindness towards them. "If," He saith, "ye want Me, have nothing to do with these, for, behold, I give Myself up."

Ver. 9. "That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, of those which Thou gavest Me have I lost none."By "loss" He doth not here mean that which is of death, but that which is eternal; though the Evangelist in the present case includes the former also. And one might wonder why they did not seize them with Him, and cut them to pieces, especially when Peter had exasperated them by what he did to the servant. Who then restrained them? No other than that Power which cast them backward. And so the Evangelist, to show that it did not come to pass through their intention, but by the power and decree of Him whom they had seized, has added, "That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake," that "not one, &c." (17:12.) (Chrysostom)

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN18:8. I have told you…let these go…] I told you… In the interval that had passed since the Lord came out from the garden alone (v. 4). His disciples had gathered round Him (let these go), and for them He still intercedes. Their deliverance helped to place His own Passion in a clearer light. It was fitting that He should suffer alone, though afterwards others suffered for His sake. His death, in itself essentially unique, was separated outwardly from the death of His disciples. They were enabled to die because He had died first. Comp. (Isaiah 63:3).

’I am full of a country trodden down; and of the nations there is not a man with Me. I have trodden them down in My wrath, and crumbled them like dust and shed their blood on the earth.’ (Isa. 63:3 LXX)

18:9. that the saying (word)….which thou gavest me have I lost none…] …which thou hast given me I lost none. The Evangelist sees in the care with which the Lord provided for the outward safety of His disciples, a fulfillment of His words, (John 17:12), which were spoken of the past, and which had also a wider spiritual application. But, at the same time, those words spoken in absolute knowledge looked to

15


the end, and therefore included all the events of the Passion (comp. John 17:4 note); and, further, the deliverance from a temptation which they would not at present (as appears from the history of Peter) have been able to support this special act of watchful protection was therefore one fulfillment, but neither the only nor the chief fulfillment, of what the Lord had said of His effective guardianship of those given to Him. The significant difference in the form of the words, as spoken and as referred to (I lost not one, as distinguished from not one perished), is to be noticed.

Homily 83 - John 18:10-14The Evangelist adds the name of the servant, because the thing done was very great, not only because He healed him, but because He healed one who had come against Him and who shortly after would buffet Him, and because He stayed the war which was like to have been kindled from this circumstance against the disciples. For this cause the Evangelist hath put the name, so that the men of that time might search and enquire diligently whether these things had really come to pass. And not without a cause doth he mention the "right ear," but as I think desiring to show the impetuosity of the Apostle, that he almost aimed at the head itself. Yet Jesus not only restrained him by a threat, but also calmed him by other words, saying,

Ver. 11. "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" Showing, that what was done proceeded not from their power, but from His consent, and declaring that He was not one opposed to God but obedient to the Father even unto death.

Ver. 12, 13. "Then Jesus was taken; and they bound Him, and led Him away to Annas." Why to Annas? In their pleasure they made a show of what had been done, as though forsooth they had set up a trophy. "And he was father-in-law to Caiaphas."

Ver. 14. "Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."Why doth the Evangelist again remind us of his prophecy? To show that these things were done for our salvation. And such is the exceeding force of truth, that even enemies proclaimed these things beforehand. For lest the listener, hearing of bonds, should be confounded, he reminds him of that prophecy, that the death of Jesus was the salvation of the world. (Chrysostom)

JOHN LESSON ELEVENNote: We are using different commentaries to try to understand the passage of the scripture that we are looking at:

1. Bishop Chrysostom AD 400 who explains the passage as he understands it, either from the [Latin Text of Jerome ‘the Vulgate’ or from the Codex Vaticanus (B) or Codex Alexandrinus (A) or even the Codex Sinaiticus (S) or some other Greek Text of that day. There may be some information that was verbally passed down that we do not know of. But what ever scripture text He used it was a good one.

2. Lord Bishop of Durham B. F. Westcott, DD., D.C.L. Who did his work around 1881 from Cambridge England. He was an able scholar who had a great understanding of all of the languages of the Bible and the foundation of our study is from his work ‘The Gospel according to St. John.’ This work is now out of print. The last printing was January 1971. His work is hard to understand because I think that he wrote it not for the laity but for his fellow theologians because

16


you would find that it is very hard to understand unless you have knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew, German and other languages.

3. Word Studies in the New Testament by Marvin R. Vincent, D.D. Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York in 1887. Last printed in 1973. He also is quite a scholar in the Greek and Hebrew languages. These men all have there own personal ideals concerning the scripture text. Many times you will find that they add there own thoughts in with the text not because it is contained in the Greek text but this is what they have come to believe it means.

4. We have also used both the Concordant Version of the Sacred Scriptures. Which is a restored Greek Text which is taken from the major three manuscripts (B), (A) and (S) and it gives a clear word by word meaning of the Greek text. We also use from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts called the Peshitta, which is the Authorized Bible of the Church of the East which is taken not from the Greek but from the Syriac. In the first century, Jesus and his earliest followers certainly spoke Aramaic [Eli, Eli, lama sabach’thani My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46] for the most part, although they also knew Hebrew. Therefore the Gospel message was first preached in the Aramaic of the Jews of Palestine.

5. History – The Life of Christ by Frederic W. Farrar, D.D. F.R.S. 1972

This is why you will find such a different opinion concerning a verse and if you would consult other commentaries I am sure that they would disagree or even agree with what I have written. Paul the LearnerNow back to our study.18:10. Then Simon Peter…] Simon Peter therefore… foreseeing what was now about to happen (comp. John 13:37). The Jews among the company seem to have been foremost in the arrest. All the Evangelists describe the incident, but John alone mentions the names of Peter and Malchus. It is easy to see why these were not likely to be particularized in the original oral Gospel, while both were still alive and living at Jerusalem (see Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47, and notes). In Matthew and Mark the incident appears to be placed after “the multitude” had “laid their hands on Jesus and taken” Him (Matt. 26:50; Mark 14:46); and Luke implies the same (Luke 22:51). John, on the other hand, appears to place the “binding” afterwards. If it were so, the two accounts are easily reconcilable. It was perfectly natural that the Lord should be first seized by some of the most eager of the crowd, and then afterwards bound by the Roman guard (v. 12). Peter’s act fell in the brief space of confusion between these two events.

1. Sword…] it was forbidden to carry weapons on a feast-day.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN2. The high priest’s servant…] or rather, the servant of the high priest. The definite article (of the high priest bondman) is preserved in all the Gospels. It is impossible to tell what position he held, or why the Evangelist records his name, which was not an uncommon one. The servant’s prominent action evidently marked him out for Peter’s attack. And further it is difficult not to feel that the healing of the wound, recorded only by Luke (Luke 22:51), helps to explain the apostle’s escape from arrest.

18:11. Then said Jesus…thy sword…] Jesus therefore said…the sword. The words are given more at length in (Matthew, 26:52). The tone of the two records is identical, and the reference to the Scriptures, preserved only by Matthew, serves to illustrate one side of the phrase “which my Father hath given me.”

17


1. The cup…] this clause is peculiar to John. The same image occurs in the Synoptists, (Matt. 20:22; Mark 10:38); and in connection with this scene, (Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). It seems impossible not to feel that the words include the answer to the prayer at the Agony, not recorded by John (Matt. 26:39, “O my Father…let this cup pass away”…), for now, after the prayer, that “cup” is spoken of as “the cup which my Father hath given me.” The cup was not taken away, but given, and the Lord now shows that He had received it willingly. The image is found in several remarkable passages of the Old Testament: (Ezekiel 23:31; Psalms 75:8).

75:8 ‘For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, filled with mixed wine of horror; and out of this He hath poured into that: but the dregs of it are not emptied out; all the sinners of the land shall drink it.’ Psalms 75:8 LXX [The Septuagint Text of 285 B.C.]23:31 ‘Thou hast walked in the way of thy sister; therefore I will put her cup into thy hands.’ Ezekiel 23:31 LXX

2. The double Trial (18:12-19:16)(a) The two ecclesiastical trials (John 18:12-27)(b) The civil trial (John 18:28-19:16)

(a) The ecclesiastical trials. Master and disciples. Jesus and the high priest. Peter and the servants, John 18:12-27. The record of the examination before Annas is peculiar to the narrative of John. The Evangelist appears to have been present at the inquiry (vv. 15, 19).

Historical - FarrarReading the Gospels side by side, we soon perceive that of the three successive trials that our Lord underwent at the hands of the Jews,

1. the first only—that before Annas—is related to us by John; 2. the second—that before Caiaphas—by Matthew and Mark;3. the third—that before the Sanhedrin—by Luke alone.

But nevertheless, John distinctly alludes to the second trial (John 18:24, where apesteilen (NT: 649) means “sent,” not “had sent,”); and Matthew and Mark imply the third (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1). Luke, though he contents himself with the narration of the third only—which was the only legal one—yet also distinctly leaves room for the first and second (Luke 22:54).

Nor is there anything strange in this: 4. Since the first was the practical, 5. The second the potential, 6. The third the actual and formal decision, that sentence of death should be passed

judicially upon Him. Each of the three trials might, from a different point of view, have been regarded as the most fatal and important of the three.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThat of Annas was the authoritative praejudicium, that of Caiaphas the real determination, that of the entire Sanhedrin at daybreak the final ratification. One might, perhaps, from a slightly different point of view, regard the questioning before Annas as mere conspiracy; that before Caiaphas as a sort of preliminary questioning, and that before the Sanhedrin as the only real and legal trial. When the tribune, who commanded the detachment of Roman soldiers, had ordered Jesus to be bound, they led Him away without an attempt at opposition. Midnight was already passed as they hurried Him, from the moonlit shadows of green Gethsemane, through the hushed streets of the sleeping city, to the palace (this was both

18


the entire palace [Matt. 26:58] and the open court within it. Probably the house was near the Temple [see Neh. 13:4]. That Hanan and Caiaphas occupied one house seems probable from a comparison of (John 18:13 with 15). John being known to Caiaphas is admitted to witness the trial before Annas.), of the High Priest.

Before Annas first.It seems to have been jointly occupied by the prime movers in this black iniquity, Annas and his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas. They led Him to Annas first. It is true that this Hanan, son of Seth, the Ananus of Josephus, and the Annas of the Evangelists, had only been the actual High Priest for seven years (A.D. 7-14), and that, more than twenty years before this period, the Procurator Valerius Gratus had deposed him. He had been succeeded first by Ismael Ben Phabi, then by his son Eleazar, then by his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas.

Since the days of Herod the Great, the High Priesthood had been degraded from a permanent religious office, to a temporary secular distinction; and, even had it been otherwise, the rude legionaries would probably care less than nothing to which they led their victim. If the tribune condescended to ask a question about it, it would be easy for the Captain of the Temple—who may very probably have been at this time, as we know was the case subsequently, one of the sons of Annas himself—to represent Annas as the Sagan or Nasi—the “Deputy,” or the President of the Sanhedrin—and so as the proper person to conduct the preliminary investigation.

The title Sagan haccohanim, “deputy” or “chief” of the priests, is said to date from the day when the Seleucids neglected for seven years to appoint a successor to the wicked Alcimus, and a “deputy” had to supply his place. But accident must often have rendered a Sagan necessary, and we find “the second priest” prominently mentioned in (2 Kings 25:18; Jer. 52:24). The Jewish historian calls this Hanan (Annas) the happiest man of his time, because he died at an advanced old age, and because both he and five of his sons in succession—not to mention his son-in-law—had enjoyed the shadow of the High Priesthood; so that, in fact, for nearly half a century he had practically wielded the sacerdotal power.

In spite of his prosperity he seems to have left behind him but an evil name, and we know enough of his character, even from the most unsuspected sources, to recognize in him nothing better than an astute, tyrannous, worldly Sadducee, invulnerable for all his seventy years, full of a serpentine malice and meanness that utterly belied the meaning of his name, that means “clement,” or “merciful.” and engaged at this very moment in a dark, disorderly conspiracy, for which even a worse man would have had cause to blush. It was before this alien and intriguing hierarch that there began, at midnight, the first stage of that long and terrible trial. (See John 18:19-24).

And there was good reason why John should have preserved for us this phase of the trial, and preserved it apparently for the express reason that the other Evangelist had omitted it. But if there were one man who was guiltier than any other of the death of Jesus, that man was Hanan (Annas).

JOHN LESSON ELEVENHis advanced age, his preponderant dignity, his worldly position and influence, as one who stood on the best terms with the Harrods and the Procurators, gave an exceptional weight to his prerogative decision. The mere fact that he should have noticed Jesus at all showed that he attached to His teaching a political significance—showed that he was at last afraid lest Jesus should alienate the people yet more entirely from the pontifical clique than had ever been done by Shemaia or Abtalion.

19


It is most remarkable, and, so far as I know, has scarcely ever been noticed, that, although the Pharisees undoubtedly were actuated by a burning hatred against Jesus, and were even so eager for His death as to be willing to co-operate with the aristocratic and priestly Sadducees—from whom they were ordinarily separated by every kind of difference, political, social, religious—yet, from the moment that the plot for His arrest and condemnation had been matured, the Pharisees took so little part in it that their name is not once directly mentioned in any event connected with the arrest, the trial, the derisions, and the crucifixion.

If we may believe not a few of the indications of the Talmud, that (Sanhedrin was little better than a close, irreligious, unpatriotic confederacy of monopolizing and time serving priests)—the Boethusim, the Kamhits, the Phabis, the family of Hanan, mostly of non-Palestinian origin—who were supported by the government, but detested by the people, and of whom this bad conspirator was the very life and soul.There seems, indeed, to be a hitherto unnoticed circumstance that, while it would kindle to the highest degree the fury of the Sadducees, would rather enlist in Christ’s favor the sympathy of their rivals.

What had roused the disdainful insouciance of these powerful aristocrats? Morally insignificant—the patrons and adherents of opinions that had so little hold upon the people that Jesus had never directed against them one tithe of the stern denunciation that He had leveled at the Pharisees—they had played but a very minor part in the opposition that had sprung up round the Messiah’s steps. Nay, further than this, they would be wholly at one with Him in rejecting the minute and casuistically frivolities of the Oral Law; they might even have rejoiced that they had in Him a holy and irresistible ally in their opposition to all the Hagadoth and Halachoth which had germinated in a fungus growth over the whole body of the Mosaic institutions. (See Josephus Antt. 13. 10 & 6).

Whence, then, this sudden outburst of the very deadliest and most ruthless opposition? It is a conjecture that has not yet been made, but which the notices of the Talmud bring home to my mind with strong conviction, that the rage of these priests was mainly due to our Lord’s words and acts concerning that House of God which they regarded as their exclusive domain, and, above all, to His second public cleansing of the Temple. They could not indeed press this point in their accusations, because the act was one of which, secretly at least, the Pharisees, in all probability, heartily approved; and had they urged it against Him they would have lost all chance of impressing upon Pilate a sense of their unanimity.

1. The first cleansing might have been passed over as an isolated act of zeal, to which little importance need be attached, while the teaching of Jesus was mainly confined to despised and far off Galilee;

2. But the second had been more public, and more vehement, and had apparently kindled a more general indignation against the gross abuse that called it forth.

But, again, it may be asked, is there any reason beyond this bold infraction of their authority, this indignant repudiation of an arrangement that they had sanctioned, that would have stirred up the rage of these priestly families? Yes—for we may assume from the Talmud that it tended to wound their avarice, to interfere with their illicit and greedy gains.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN SECTION TWO1. From A.D. 16 was Eleazar; Jonathan, A.D. 36; Theophilus, A.D. 37; Matthias, A.D. 42-43;

Annas the younger, A.D. 63. An energetic malediction against all these families is found in

20


(Pesachim, 57a, in which occur the words, “Woe to the house of Hanan! Woe to their serpent hissings!)”—

2. The Boethusians are reproached for their “bludgeons;” 3. The Kantheras for their “libels”; 4. The Phabis for their “fists” (ref. Raphall, History of the Jews, i.i. Page 370).

The passage is a little obscure, but the Talmud has many allusions to the worthlessness and worldliness of the priest of this period. (Ref. Renan. L’Antechrist, pp. 50, 51).

Avarice—the besetting sin of Judas—the besetting sin of the Jewish race—seems also to have been the besetting sin of the family of Hanan. It was they who had founded the chanujoth—the famous four shops under the twin cedars of Olivet—in which were sold things legally pure, and which they had manipulated with such commercial cunning as artificially to raise the price of doves to a gold coin apiece, until the people were delivered from this gross imposition by the indignant interference of a grandson of Hillel (a famous Rabbi of his time)

There is every reason to believe that the shops that had intruded even under the Temple porticoes were not only sanctioned by their authority, but also even managed for their profit. To interfere with these was to rob them of one important source of that wealth and worldly comfort to which they attached such extravagant importance. There was good reason why Hanan, the head representative of “the viper brood,” as a Talmudic writer calls them, should strain to the utmost his cruel prerogative of power to crush a Prophet whose actions tended to make him and his powerful family at once wholly contemptible and comparatively poor.

The TrialEven his method of procedure seems to have been as wholly illegal as was his assumption, in such a place and at such an hour, of any legal function whatever. Anxious, at all hazards, to trump up some available charge of secret sedition, or of unorthodox teaching, he questioned Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine.THE ANSWER.The answer, for all its calmness, involved a deep reproof:

7. “I have spoken openly to the world.”8. “I ever taught in the synagogue and in the Temple, where all the Jews come together,

and in secret I said nothing.

Why asks thou me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Lo! These”—pointing, perhaps, to the bystanders—“know what I said to them.” The emphatic repetition of the “I,” and its unusually significant position at the end of the sentence, show that a contrast was intended.

As though He had said, “This midnight, this sedition, this secrecy, this indecent mockery of justice, are yours, not mine. There has never been anything esoteric in my doctrine; never anything to conceal in my actions; no hole-and-corner plots among my followers. But thou? And thine?” Even the minions of Annas felt that before the transparent innocence of this youthful Rabbi of Nazareth the hoary hypocrisy of the crafty Sadducee was abashed.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN

21


“Answered thou the High Priest so?” said one of them with a burst of illegal insolence; and then, unreported by this priestly violator of justice, he profaned with the first that face that, as the poet-preacher says, “the angels stare upon with wonder as infants at a bright sunbeam,” was smitten by a contemptible slave. The insult was borne with noble meekness. He quietly reproved the impudent transgressor with the words, “If I spoke evil, bear witness concerning the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” It was clear that nothing more could be extorted from Him; that before such a tribunal He would brook no further question. Bound, in sign that He was to be condemned—though unheard and unsentenced—Annas sent Him across the court-yard to Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, who, not by the grace of God, but by the grace of the Roman Procurator, was the titular High Priest.

Additional Notes.John 18:12-24. It is interesting to compare the narratives of the Lord’s trial preserved by the Evangelists with the rules laid down in Jewish tradition for the conduct of such cases. It may be impossible to determine the antiquity of the contents of the Mishnah, but the following brief summary of the contents of the Tract ‘Sanhedrin,’ so far as they bear upon the subject, will show in what respects the proceedings as to the Lord agreed with and differed from what was received as law at a very early date:

1. Capital offences were tried by an assembly of twenty-three (chapters 1 & 4): a false prophet could be tried only by the great Sanhedrin, or assembly of seventy-one (chapters 1 & 5).

2. The witnesses were strictly and separately examined in all cases, and the agreement of two was held to be valid (chapters 3 & 6; chapters 5 & 1).

3. In capital cases the witnesses were specially charged as to the momentous consequences of their testimony, and cautioned as to the peril of destroying life (chapters 4 & 5), and they were to say nothing by conjecture or hear say.

4. The judges sat in a semicircle, the president being in the middle, so that all might be face to face (chapters 4 & 3).

5. In capital cases everything was so arranged as to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and with this view the votes for acquittal were taken first (chapters 4 & 1).

6. In civil cases the trial might be continued and decided by night; and a decision either way might be given on the day of trial.

7. In capital cases the trial could take place only by day; and while an acquittal might be pronounced on the day of trial, a sentence of condemnation could not be given till the next day. Hence such cases could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath or of a Feast (chapter 4 & 1: compare chapter 5 & 5).

8. Even on the way to execution opportunity was given to the condemned, four or five times, if need were, to bring forward fresh pleas (chapters 6 & 1);

9. And at the last he was urged to confession, that he might not be lost hereafter (chapters 6 & 2). 10. A crier preceded the condemned, saying, (“A.B. the son of A.B. goes forth to be stoned for such

and such an offence: the witness are C. and D). If any one can prove his innocence, let him come forward and give his reasons” (chapter 6 & 1).

In cases of blasphemy the witnesses were rigorously examined as to the exact language used by the accused. If their evidence was definite the judges stood and rent their garments (chapter 7 & 5).The blasphemer was to be stoned (chapter 7 & 4). After stoning he was to be hung upon a gibbet (chapters 6 & 4), and taken down before night (id.) and buried in a common grave provided for the purpose (chapter 5 & 5).

22


JOHN LESSON ELEVENBible TextJohn 18:12-2312 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people. 15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because the high priest knew this disciple, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in. 17 "You are not one of his disciples, are you?" the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, "I am not." 18 It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself. 19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." 22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. 23 "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" 24 Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest. NIV

18:12. Then the band…and officers…] the band therefore (or, so the band)…and the officers… Seeing that there was no longer any resistance. The enumeration—the band, the captain, and the officers—is emphatic and impressive. All combined to take the willing prisoner. In particular it will be observed that the action of the Roman guard is now noticed. They probably secured the Lord and delivered Him to the priest’s servants “bound” (comp. v. 24). The “bonds” are not mentioned in the Synoptists till afterwards (Matt. 27:2; Mark 15:1); yet such a precaution is implied in their narrative. It was the policy of the priestly party to represent Christ as a dangerous enemy to public order; and perhaps they really feared a rescue by the “people” (Matt. 26:5). Early Christian writers laid stress upon the “binding” as marking the parallel with Isaac (Gen. 22:9; ref. Melito, ap. Routh, ‘Rell. Sacr.’ I. 123 f.).

The title of the “captain” in the original (chiliarchos [NT: 5506]) favors the view that “the band” was a “cohort,” and not a smaller body (“maniple”): (comp. Acts 21:31). The word “chiliarchos” was used as the equivalent of “tribune,” the proper title of the commander of a “cohort;” and the other places in which a “band” is spoken of in the New Testament suggest the same conclusion: (Acts 10:1; 27:1). The words “band” and “captain” may however be both used in a general and not in a technical sense for a detachment of soldiers and the office in command of it. (comp. Rev. 6:15; 19:18).

18:13. Led him (omit away) to Annas first…] Annas (or Hanan, Ananias) is one of the most remarkable figures in the Jewish history of the time. His unexampled fortune was celebrated in that he himself and his five sons held the high priesthood in succession. The last son of Annas put to death James the brother of the Lord (ref. Josephus ‘Ant.’ 20. 8. 1). This mere record found in the Historical section, reveals the skilful intriguer who exercised through members of his family the headship of his party (comp. Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6).

1. First…] this word conveys a tacit correction of the popular misunderstanding of the Synoptic narratives. The Lord was examined before Caiaphas (v. 24), but there was also a prior examination.Which was the high priest that same year…] (See John 11:49, note).

23


JOHN LESSON ELEVEN18:14. Now Caiaphas was he…] (John 11:50). The clause appears to be added to show presumptively what would be the selfish policy of a man who had chosen such a son. Annas exercised his power through those who were like him.

18:15. Followed…] the imperfect (eekolouthei NT: 190) “was following” paints the action in progress. For the fact comp. (Matt. 26:58) and parallels. After the panic, in which all the disciples fled (Matt. 26:56), some again took courage (Matt. 26:58).

1. Another disciple…] not the other. The reader cannot fail to identify the disciple with John. Comp. (John 20:2).2. Known (ginooskoo NT: 1097 to know. Comp. (Luke 2:44; 23:49)…] No tradition (so far as it appears) has preserved the nature of the connection; nor is it possible to draw any satisfactory conclusion from the fact that both John (ref. Polycr. Ap. Eusebius ‘H.E.’ 5. 24) And James the Just, “the brother of the Lord” (ref. Epiph. ‘Haer.’ 78.14) are said to have worn the plate attached to the high priest’s mitre.

Remember that fact and fiction are sometimes though of as the same in historical references. So take it as a possibility only. Paul the Learner

18:15. unto the high priest (the Greek reads like this, een (NT: 2258) gnoostos (NT: 110) too (NT: 3588) archierei (NT: 749). Was known unto the high priest …] It is very difficult to decide who is here spoken of under the title Annas is called the high-priest in (Acts 4:6), while Caiaphas is named at the same time without any title; and so Josephus (ref. ‘Antt.’ 18.5.3; comp. 18. 3 (2). 2) Speaks of “Jonathan the son of Ananus (Annas) the high-priest” after the removal of Caiaphas.

1. In (Luke 3:2), Annas and Caiaphas bear the title together. It is therefore at least possible that Annas may be referred to. On the other hand, Caiaphas has just been described as “the high-priest” (v. 13), and is so called again in (v. 24), where Annas also is mentioned. These facts make it difficult to suppose that the title is abruptly used, without any explanation, to describe Annas.2. The palace (court, see Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54 and notes) of the high priest…] i.e. of Caiaphas. It is quite reasonable to suppose that Annas still retained lodging, in what appears to have been an official residence. In this case there is no discrepancy between John and the other Gospels as to the scene of Peter’s denials (the residence of Caiaphas).3. Nor indeed would there be any difficulty in supposing that Annas presided at an examination in the house of Caiaphas, though he did not live there. Luke (22:54) says that the Lord was led “into the house of the high priest,” without mentioning any name. Though this form of expression the Evangelist perhaps wished to indicate that He was not brought at once officially before Caiaphas took him taken to his palace. The language of Matthew suggests the same idea (Matt. 26:57, “to Caiaphas…where…”). The idea that a change of scene from the house of Annas to the house of Caiaphas is marked in this verse is most unnatural. The narrative of the whole section (vv. 13-27) implies an identity of scene.

18:16. Peter stood…]…was standing. Comp. (v. 5 notes).1. Her that kept the door…] Comp. (Acts 12:13).

24


12:13 “And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.” Acts 12:13 KJV

JOHN LESSON ELEVENHomily 83 - John 18:15 - 19Ver. 15. "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple." Who is that other disciple? It is the writer himself. "And wherefore doth he not name himself? When he lay on the bosom of Jesus, he with reason concealed his name; but now why doth he this?" For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that when all had started away, he followed. Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him. He was obliged to mention himself, that thou mightest understand that he narrates more exactly than the rest what took place in the hall, as having been himself within. But observe how he detracts from his own praise; for, lest any one should ask, "How, when all had retreated, did this man enter in farther than Simon?" he saith, that he "was known to the high priest." So that no one should wonder that he followed, or cry him up for his manliness. But the wonder was that matter of Peter, that being in such fear; he came even as far as the hall, when the others had retreated. His coming thither was caused by love, his not entering within by distress and fear.

For the Evangelist hath recorded these things, to clear a way for excusing his denial; with regard to himself, he doth not set it down as any great matter that he was known to the high priest, but since he had said that he alone with Jesus went in, lest thou shouldest suppose that the action proceeded from any exalted feelings, he puts also the cause. And that Peter would have also entered had he been permitted, he shows by (the sequel); for when he went out, and bade the damsel who kept the door brings in Peter, he straightway came in. But why did he not bring him in himself? He clung to Christ, and followed Him; on this account he bade the woman bring him in. What then saith the woman?

Ver. 17. "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? And he saith, I am not." What sayest thou, Peter? Didst thou not declare but now, "If need be that I lay down my life for Thee, I will lay it down"? What hath happened then, that thou canst not even endure the questioning of a door- keeper? Is it a soldier who questions thee? Is it one of those who seized Him? No, it is a mean and abject door-keeper, nor is the questioning of a rough kind. She saith not, "Art thou a disciple of that cheat and corrupter," but, "of that man," which was the expression rather of one pitying and relenting.

But Peter could not bear any of these words. The, "Art not thou also," is said on this account, that John was within. So mildly did the woman speak. But he perceived none of this, nor took it into his mind, neither the first time, nor the second, nor the third, but when the cock crew; nor did this even bring him to his senses, till Jesus gave him the bitter look. And he stood warming himself with the servants of the high priest, but Christ was kept bound within. This we say not as accusing Peter, but showing the truth of what had been said by Christ. Ver. 19. "The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine." (Chrysostom)

18:17. Then saith the damsel…] the maid therefore… The acquaintance of Peter with John suggested the question. John meanwhile (it must be supposed) had pressed on into the audience-chamber, so that Peter was alone. John, who remained closest to the Lord, was unmolested: Peter, who mingled with the indifferent crowd, fell.

25


1. Art not thou also (Art thou…)…] as well as thy friend (John). The form of the question expresses surprise, and suggests a negative answer. (See John 6:67; 7:47; 9:40). The contemptuous turn of the sentence, “one of the disciples of this man,” corresponds with the same feeling. As the suggestion was made Peter yielded to it. His answer both here and in (v. 25) simply reflects the temper of his questioners.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN18:18. and the servants and officers stood there, who had made…] Now the servants and the officers, having made…were standing… The Roman soldiers had now gone back, and the private servants of the high priest, and the officers—the temple police—alone remained.

1. A fire of coals…] a charcoal fire. There was no bright flame, but a glow of light sufficient to show the features of any one turned towards it, (Luke 22:56. (By the light).2. For it was cold…] as a general rule, the nights in Israel about Passover-time are said to be warm throughout. The cold on this occasion appears to be spoken of as unusual.3. And Peter stood with them, and warmed himself…] and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. Comp. (v. 25). The two main ideas are kept distinct:

1. Peter had joined the company of the indifferent spectators; he was engaged in a trivial act.2. Such outward indifference often veils the deepest emotion.

Homily 83 - John 18:19 -22O the wickedness! Though he had continually heard Him speaking in the temple and teaching openly, he now desires to be informed. For since they had no charge to bring, they enquired concerning His disciples:1. Perhaps where they were,2. And why He had collected them,3. And with what intention, 4. And on what terms.

And this he said, as desiring to prove Him to be a seditious person and an innovator, since no one gave heed to Him, except them alone, as though His were some factory of wickedness. What then saith Christ? To overthrow this, He saith,

Ver. 20. "I spake openly to the world, (not to the disciples privately,) I taught openly in, the temple." "What then, said He nothing in secret?" He did, but not, as they thought, from fear, and to make conspiracies, but if at any time His sayings were too high for the hearing of the many.

Ver. 21. "Why asks thou Me? Ask them which heard Me." These are not the words of one speaking arrogantly, but of one confiding in the truth of what He had said. What therefore He said at the beginning, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true" (5:31), this He now implied, desiring to render His testimony abundantly credible. For when Annas mentioned the disciples, what saith He? "Dost thou ask Me concerning Mine? Ask Mine enemies, ask those who have plotted against Me, who have bound Me; let them speak." This is an unquestionable proof of truth, when one calls his enemies to be witnesses to what he saith. What then doth the high priest? When it would have been right thus to have made the enquiry, that person did not so.

26


Ver. 22. "And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by smote Him with the palm of his hand." What could be more audacious than this? Shudder, O heaven, be astounded, O earth, at the long-suffering of the Lord, and the senselessness of the servants! Yet what was it that He said? He said not, "Why asks thou Me," as if refusing to speak, but wishing to remove every pretext for senseless behavior; and being upon this buffeted, though He was able to shake, to annihilate, or to remove all things, He doth not any one of these, but speaketh words able to relax any brutality. (Chrysostom)

JOHN LESSON ELEVENNote: This action by the officer against Jesus is not worthy because as (Matthew 4:6) states ‘…for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.’ Can you even consider a child and a young man and then a carpenter going through life with out even experiencing any pain and not even one drop of his blood was to be shed before that day of sacrifice? Paul the Learner

18:19. The high priest then (therefore)…] i.e. probably Caiaphas. (See v. 15, note). The narrative is connected with (v. 14). The Master is now contrasted with the disciple. It is probable that a better acquaintance with the history of the time would remove the difficulty that arises from Caiaphas taking the lead in the examination before Annas. Yet it is easy to imagine that arrangements may have been made for a private examination in the chamber of Annas, at which Caiaphas was himself present, and in which he took part. At the close of this unofficial proceeding, Annas, the real leader in the whole action, sent Jesus to Caiaphas for a formal trial.

1. Of his disciples…of his doctrine (teaching)…] this preliminary examination was directed to the obtaining (if possible) of materials for the formal accusation that was to follow. With this view, it was natural to inquire into the class, the character, the number of the Lord’s disciples, and into the general substance of His teaching.

18:20. The Lord leaves unnoticed the question as to His disciples (comp. v. 8), and fixes the attention of the questioner upon Himself alone. Hence an emphatic pronoun (I) stands at the head of each clause. I, whatever others may have done with whom you wish to compare me, I have spoken openly…. I ever taught… So the Lord presents His teaching first as a completed whole (I have spoken, 16:33), and then in its historic presentation (I ever taught). The form of the sentence at the same time suggests a contrast between the openness of His conduct and the treachery that His enemies had now employed.

1. openly…] without reserve. Comp. (John 7:13, note).2. To the world…] comp. (John 8:26). The teaching of the Lord was not addressed to any select group of followers, even if it was veiled in parables (see our study on the teachings of Jesus in Topical Studies in www.lakesideministries.com ) which required spiritual sympathy for their interpretation, (Matt. 13:10).3. Ever (always)…] the word does not of course mean that the Lord’s teaching was confined to these public places, but that at all times He used opportunities of speaking in them.4. In the synagogue…] or rather, in synagogue. “When people were gathered in solemn assembly” as distinguished from (in their synagogues, Matthew 9:35). Comp. (John 6:59 note).5. The Jews always resort…] According to the true reading, all the Jews resort (come together), and not a mere party or clique. The combination “always,” “all”, is singularly emphatic. Christ was from first to

27

http://www.lakesideministries.com/


last a universal teacher, and not the founder of a sect. In manner, time, place, audience, He sought absolute publicity.6. In secret have I said…] in secret I spake. The words simply exclude the purpose of concealment. What the disciples heard in the ear they were charged to proclaim on the housetops (Matthew 10:27).

18:21. Why askest…] the accusers are bound to establish their charge independently.

1. Which heard me, what I have said…they know…] which have heard me, what I spake…these know… The tense and the pronoun seem both to point directly to persons actually present or close at hand, who were able to speak with full knowledge if they pleased.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThus the Lord claims that the examination may proceed in due order by the calling of witnesses; and, according to the rule, the witnesses for the defense were called first (ref. ‘Sanh.’ F. 32. I; f. 40. I, quoted by Lightfoot, ‘Hor. Hebrew, on v. 15).

John 18:21Ask them that have heard me erooteeson (NT: 2065) tous (NT: 3588) akeekootas (NT: 191). First aorist (tense of urgent and instant action) active imperative of erootaoo (NT: 2065) and the articular perfect active participle accusative masculine plural of akouoo (NT: 191), to hear. There were abundant witnesses to be had. Multitudes had heard Jesus in the great debate in the temple on Tuesday of this very week when the Sanhedrin were routed to the joy of the common people who heard Jesus gladly (Mark 12:37). They still know. (Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament)

18:22, with…his hand…] or, “with a rod.” This latter sense suits perhaps better with the word used for “smiting,” though the sense given in the text appears to be more appropriate to the circumstances. Comp. (John 19:3; Acts 23:2). This insult is to be distinguished from the corresponding acts mentioned, (Matt. 26:67; Luke 22:63, 64).

18:23. If I have spoken (rather, spake) evil…] The Lord addresses the servant as one who had heard Him, and as such He challenges him to bear just evidence as to His words, and not to use mere violence. The reference (as it appears) is not to the words just uttered (v. 21), but to the teaching of the Lord that was called in question (v. 20, I spake; v. 21, what I spake; v. 23, If I spake). The old commentators saw in the calm rebuke a true interpretation of the precept, (Matthew 5:39).

18:24. Now Annas had sent him…] Annas therefore sent him… The words cannot be rendered otherwise.

Additional notes.As it was, the accusers were in fact driven to seek evidence from the Lord’s hearers, and to confess that it was inadequate for their purpose. Thus baffled, they called forth, under the most solemn circumstances, His great confession as Messiah. During the inquiry the Lord would naturally be set free. This explains the notice that He was (again) “bound” before going to Caiaphas.

The end of the first trial.

28


Bible Text.John 18:25-2725 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. KJV

Historical - Farrar The second ecclesiastical trialCaiaphas, like his father-in-law, was a Sadducee—equally astute and unscrupulous with Annas, but endowed with less force of character and will. In his house took place the second private and irregular stage of the trial. (Matthew 26:59-68; Mark 14:55-65). Irregular, for capital trials could only take place by daylight (ref. Sanhedr. 4.1 Talmud).

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThere—for though the poor Apostles could not watch for one hour in sympathetic prayer, these nefarious plotters could watch all night in their deadly malice—a few of the most desperate enemies of Jesus among the Priests and Sadducees were met. To form a session of the Sanhedrin there must at least have been twenty-three members present. And we may perhaps be allowed to conjecture that this particular body before which Christ was now convened was mainly composed of Priests. There were in fact three Sanhedrin’s, or as we should rather call them, committees of the Sanhedrin, that ordinarily met at different places—in the Lishcat Hagguzzith, or Paved Hall; in the Beth Midrash or Chamber by the Partition of the Temple; and near the Gate of the Temple Mount.

Such being the case, it is no unreasonable supposition that these committees were composed of different elements, and that one of them may have been mainly sacerdotal in its constitution. If so, it would have been the most likely of them all, at the present crisis, to embrace the most violent measures against One whose teaching now seemed to endanger the very existence of priestly rule. But, whatever may have been the nature of the tribunal over which Caiaphas was now presiding, it is clear that the Priests were forced to change their tactics. Instead of trying, as Hanan had done, to overawe and entangle Jesus with insidious questions, and so to involve Him in a charge of secret apostasy, they now tried to brand Him with the crime of public error.

In point of fact their own bitter divisions and controversies made the task of convicting Him a very difficult one:

1. If they dwelt on any supposed opposition to civil authority, that would rather enlist the sympathies of the Pharisees in His favor;

2. If they dwelt on supposed Sabbath violations or neglect of traditional observances, that would accord with the views of the Sadducees.

The Sadducees dared not complain of His cleansing of the Temple: the Pharisees, or those who represented them, found it useless to advert to His denunciations of tradition. But Jesus, infinitely nobler than His own noblest Apostle, would not foment these latent animosities, or evoke for His own deliverance a contest of these slumbering prejudices. He did not disturb the temporary compromise that united them in a common hatred against Him. Since, therefore, they had nothing else to go upon, the Chief Priests and the entire Sanhedrin “sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death” Many

29


men, with a greedy, unnatural depravity, seek false witness—mostly of the petty, ignoble, malignant sort; and the powers of evil usually supply it to them.

The Talmud seems to insinuate that the custom, which they pretend was the general one, had been followed in the case of Christ, and that two witnesses had been placed in concealment while a treacherous disciple—ostensibly Judas Iscariot—had obtained from His own lips an avowal of His claims. This, however, is no less false than the utterly absurd and unchronological assertion of the tract Sanhedrin, that Jesus had been excommunicated by Joshua Ben Perachiah, and that though for forty days a herald had proclaimed that He had brought magic from Egypt and seduced the people, no single witness came forward in His favor. In fact in the Talmud Jesus is called the Magician. (Ref. Sanhedr. 43 a. (Gratz, Gesch. Jud. Iii 242)—See Excursus II. “Allusions to Christ and Christians in the Talmud.”

Note: The Jews, as a nation rejected the Messiah that was promised to them, and condemned the only one who could bring them into the proper relationship with God as Father. In doing so they condemned themselves and there nations to Judgment and destruction from God. Paul the Learner

JOHN LESSON ELEVENSetting aside these absurd inventions, we learn from the Gospels that though the agents of these priests were eager to lie, yet their testimony was so false, so shadowy, and so self-contradictory, that it all melted to nothing, and even those unjust and bitter judges could not with any decency accept it. But at last two came forward, whose false witness looked more promising. You will notice that the brevity of the Evangelists presents us from knowing whether the ordinary Jewish rules of evidence were observed. For Josephus’s account of the trial of Zechariah the son of Baruch, (see Bell. Jud. 4. 5, & 4). They had heard Him say something about destroying the Temple, and rebuilding it in three days. According to one version His expression had been, “I can destroy this Temple;” according to another, “I will destroy this Temple.”

The fact was that He had said neither, but “Destroy this Temple (His body);” and the imperative had but been addressed, hypothetically, to them. They were to be the destroyers; He had but promised to rebuild (resurrect Himself ‘I have power to take it again). It was just one of those perjuries that was all the more perjured, because it bore some distant semblance to the truth; and by just giving a different nuance to His actual words they had, with the ingenuity of slander, reversed their meaning, and hoped to found upon them a charge of constructive blasphemy. But even this semblable perjury utterly broke down, and Jesus listened in silence while His disunited enemies hopelessly confuted each other’s testimony. Guilt often breaks into excuses where perfect innocence is dumb. He simply suffered His false accusers and their false listeners to entangle themselves in the hideous coil of their own malignant lies, and the silence of the innocent Jesus atoned for the excuses of the guilty Adam.

15:45 “And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven” 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 KJV

Note: ‘No man takes my life, I give it…’1. Judas could not betray Him, Jesus had to do it himself.2. The soldiers could not take Him, Jesus went with them.3. The high priest could not condemn Him, so Jesus had to condemn Himself.

30


4. The Jews and Romans could not kill Him, so Jesus dismissed His spirit.5. The grave could not hold Him, so Jesus rose from the dead.6. The earth could not keep Him, so Jesus went to heaven.7. Heaven can not hold Him, so Jesus is coming back to claim his inheritance.

Paul the Learner

But that majestic silence troubled, thwarted, confounded, maddened them. It weighed them down for the moment with an incubus of intolerable self-condemnation. They felt, before that silence, as if they were the culprits, He the judge. And as every poisoned arrow of their carefully-provided perjuries fell harmless at His feet, as though blunted on the diamond shield of His white innocence, they began to fear lest, after all, their thirst for His blood would go unslaked, and their whole plot fail. Were they thus to be conquered by the feebleness of their own weapons, without His stirring a finger, or uttering a word? Was this Prophet of Nazareth to prevail against them, merely for lack of a few consistent lies? Was His life charmed even against calumny confirmed by oaths? It was intolerable. Then Caiaphas was overcome with a paroxysm of fear and anger. Starting up from his judgment-seat, and striding into the midst—The Sanhedrin sat on opposite divans of a circular hall; the Nasi, or President, who was usually the High Priest, sat in the middle at the farther end, with the Ab Beth Din, or Father of the House of Judgment, on his right, and the Chakam, or Wise Man, on his left.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThe accused was placed opposite to him. (Ref. See Joshua Bell. Jud. 4. 5 &4; Keim III. Ii. 328.)—with what a voice, with what an attitude we may well imagine! —“Answereth Thou Nothing? He exclaimed. “What is it that these witness against Thee?” Had not Jesus been aware that these His judges were willfully feeding on ashes and seeking lies, He might have answered; but now His awful silence remained unbroken. Then, reduced to utter despair and fury, this false High Priest—with marvelous inconsistency, with disgraceful illegality—still standing as it were with a threatening attitude over his prisoner, exclaimed, “I adjure Thee by the living God to tell us”—what? Whether Thou art a malefactor? Whether Thou hast secretly taught sedition? Whether Thou hast openly uttered blasphemy? —No, but (and surely the question showed the dread misgiving that lay under all their deadly conspiracy against Him)—“whether Thou art the Christ [messiah], the Son of God?”

Note: Judas could not led them to Jesus so Jesus had to go to them, now the Sanhedrin could not condemn Jesus through there false witness so Jesus again has to give them the information that will seal His doom. Paul the Learner

Strange question to a bound, defenseless, condemned criminal; and strange question from the judge who was hounding on his false witnesses against the prisoner! Yet so adjured, and to such a question, Jesus could not be silent; on such a point He could not leave Himself open to misinterpretations. In the days of His happier ministry, when they would have taken Him by force to make Him a King—

1. In the days when to claim the Messiah ship in their sense would have been to meet all their passionate prejudices half way, and to place Himself upon the topmost pinnacle of their adoring homage—

2. In those days He had kept His title of Messiah utterly in the background: but now, at this awful decisive moment, when death was near—

3. When, humanly speaking, nothing could be gained, everything must be lost, by the avowal—4. there thrilled through all the ages—

31


5. Thrilled through that Eternity, which is the synchronism of all the future, and all the present, and all the past—

6. The solemn answer, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds (angels) of heaven.”

7:13 “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.” Daniel 7:13 KJV

19:11 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Revelation 19:11-15 KJV

Hence the hybrid term, “Son of a cloud,” applied to the Messiah in (Ref. Sanhedr. 96.6 Talmud). In that answer the thunder rolled—a thunder louder than at Sinai, though the ears of the cynic and the Sadducee heard it not then, nor hear it now.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENIn overacted and ill-omened horror, the unjust judge who had thus supplemented the failure of the perjuries that he had vainly sought—the false High Priest rending his linen robes before the True High Priest (the rending of his robes was forbidden to the High Priest in cases of mourning (Lev. 10:6; 21:10); but the Jewish Halacha considered it lawful in cases of blasphemy (Ref. 1 Macc. 11:71; Jos. B.J. 2. 15 & 4). As to Joseph Caiaphas the Talmud is absolutely silent; but the general conception which it gives of the priest of this epoch agrees entirely with the Gospels.)—Demanded of the assembly His instant condemnation.

“Blasphemy!” he exclaimed; “what further need have we of witnesses? See, now ye heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” And with the confused tumultuous cry, “He is ish maveth,” “A man of death,” “Guilty of death,” the dark conclave was broken up, and the second stage of the trial of Jesus was over. (Cf. Numbers 35:31 ‘Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.’) (Farrar)

Homily 83 - John 18:23-28Ver. 23. "And He saith, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil." That is, "If thou canst lay hold on My words, declare it; but if thou canst not, why strikes thou Me?" Seest thou that the judgment-hall is full of tumult, and trouble, and passion, and confusion? The high priest asked deceitfully and treacherously, Christ answered in a straightforward manner, and as was meet. What then was next to be done? Either to refute, or to accept what He said. This however is not done, but a servant buffets Him. So far was this from being a court of justice and the proceedings those of a conspiracy, and a deed of tyranny. Then not having even so made any farther discovery, they send Him bound to Caiaphas.

Ver. 25. "And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself."

32


Wonderful, by what lethargy that hot and furious one was possessed, when Jesus was being led away! After such things as had taken place, he doth not move, but still warms himself, that thou mayest learn how great is the weakness of our nature if God abandoned. And, being questioned, he denies again.

Ver. 26. Then saith "the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, (grieving at what had taken place,) did I not see thee in the garden?" But neither did the garden bring him to remember what had taken place, nor the great affection which Jesus there had shown by those words, but all these from pressure of anxiety he banished from his mind. But why have the Evangelists with one accord written concerning him? Not as accusing the disciple, but as desiring to teach us, how great an evil it is not to commit all to God, but to trust to one's self. But do thou admire the tender care of his Master, who, though a prisoner and bound, took great forethought for His disciple, raising Peter up, when he was down, by His look, and launching him into a sea of tears. Ver. 28"They lead Him therefore from Caiaphas to Pilate." (Chrysostom)

18:25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself…] Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. Comp. (v. 18).1. They said therefore…] Since Peter was evidently a stranger among them, attention was necessarily turned again to him, when the Lord was again brought into the court at the close of the private examination before Caiaphas, and so occasion was given for the second questioning. During this passage it would be easy for the Lord to turn and “look on Peter” (Luke 22:61), when He had already gone by near him.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN2. Art not thou also…] Art thou… The form of question is the same as that found in (v. 17). Something no doubt in Peter’s manner, as the Lord was led by, betrayed his love. Whereupon followed the words of surprise: Can it be that thou also art one of His disciples?

18:26. Being his kinsman (a kinsman of him)…] A detail that marks an exact knowledge of the household (v. 15).1. In the garden…] as one of His chosen disciples, who were gathered behind the Lord when He stood outside at the entrance facing the crowd (v. 4).

18:27. Peter then (therefore)…] He was already committed to the denial. John, like Luke, omits all the aggravations of Peter’s denials (Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Mark 14:71).1. The cock crew…] the indefinite form of the phrase (a cock crew) is far more expressive than the American Version that rather describes the time than the incident. The silence of the Evangelist, as to the repentance of Peter, is illustrated by (John 21:15-17), where the fact is presupposed. The episode of Peter’s fall is given as the fulfillment of the Lord’s word (John 13:38), which knew to the last detail what he had to bear.

John 21:15-17.15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time,

33


Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. KJV

The end of the second trial.The time between trials.

History - FarrarFor, in the guard-room to which He was remanded to await the break of day, all the ignorant malice of religious hatred, all the narrow vulgarity of brutal spite, all the cold innate cruelty that lurks under the abjectness of Oriental servility, was let loose against Him. They spat in His face; they smote Him with rods; they struck Him with their closed fists and with their open palms. (Matt. 26:67 –slapped with open palm…struck, probably with sticks; Mark 14:65 –Luke 22:63, 64). In the fertility of their furious and hateful insolence, they invented against Him a sort of game.

Blindfolding His eyes, they hit Him again and again, with the repeated question, “Prophesy to us, O Messiah, who it is that smote thee.” Wetstein quotes from (Ref. Sanhedr. F. 93 b, Talmud) a similar tentative applied to the false Messiah, Bar-Cochebas.

So they wiled away the dark cold hours till the morning, revenging themselves upon His impassive innocence for their own present vileness and previous terror; and there, in the midst of that savage and wanton variety, the Son of God, bound and blindfold, stood in His long and silent agony, defenseless and alone. It was His first derision—His derision as the Christ, the Judge attainted, the Holy One a criminal, the Deliverer in bonds.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThe sufferings of Christ God’s lamb.53:3 “He was despised and rejected by men, A man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” Isaiah 53:3-5 NIV

18:28 They didn't want to become ritually defiled. This defilement is not the same as that spoken of at 11:55 but results from entering the home of a Gentile, in this case the Governor's Headquarters. The Torah does not mention such a defilement; it is a rabbinic addition (see Acts 10:28 N).

And thus unable to eat the Pesach meal, literally, “unable to eat the Pesach.” Some scholars believe “the Pesach” refers to the Passover lamb and conclude that Yochanan John, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, places the Seder (the first evening of Passover) on Friday evening after the execution of Yeshua in the afternoon. I do not believe that Yochanan's Gospel reports a different date for the crucifixion from the Synoptics (but see 13:29&N); rather, the meal of 13:1 was the Seder, and it took place on Thursday night; but “the Pesach” in this verse refers to other food eaten during Pesach, specifically the chagigah (festival sacrifice), which was consumed with great joy and celebration on the afternoon following the Seder. This is the Pesach meal which the Judeans gathered outside Pilate's palace would have been unable to eat had they entered, because their defilement would have lasted till sundown. If “the

34


Pesach” meant the Passover lamb, defilement in the morning might not have been a problem, since the Seder meal took place after sundown. (Jewish New Testament Commentary)

Homily 83 - John 18:29, 30This was done, in order that the number of His judges might show, even against their will, how fully tested was His truth. "And it was early." Before cock crow He was brought to Caiaphas, early in the morning to Pilate; whence the Evangelist shows, that being questioned by Caiaphas during an entire half of the night, He was in nothing proved guilty; wherefore Caiaphas sent Him on to Pilate. But leaving these things for the others to relate, John speaks of what follows next.

And observe the ridiculous conduct of the Jews: 1. They who had seized the innocent, 2. And taken up arms, 3. Do not enter into the hall of judgment, "lest they should be polluted."

And tell me, what kind of pollution was it to set foot in a judgment-hall, where wrong-doers suffer justice? They, who paid tithes of mint and anise, did not think they were polluted when bent on killing unjustly, but thought that they polluted themselves by even treading in a court of justice. "And why did they not kill Him, instead of bringing Him to Pilate?" In the first place, the greater part of their rule and authority had been cut away, when their affairs were placed under the power of the Romans; and besides, they feared lest they should afterwards be accused and punished by Him.

18:31 We don't have the legal power to put anyone to death. Although the Torah prescribes the death penalty for a number of offenses, and although the Romans permitted the Judeans a measure of self-government, they did not allow the execution of a death sentence; capital punishment was reserved for Rome.18:32 How he was going to die, by being “lifted up” (3:14, 8:28 12:32) on an execution-stake, a cross, which was a Roman, not a Jewish, method of capital punishment. Jewish New Testament Commentary

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN"But what is, 'That they might eat the Passover?' For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread." Either he calls the whole feast "the Passover," or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated. But they, though they had taken up arms, which was unlawful, and were shedding blood, are scrupulous about the place, and bring forth Pilate to them.

Ver. 29. "And having gone out, he said. What accusations bring you against this man?"Seest thou that he was free from fondness for rule and from malice? For seeing Jesus bound, and led by so many persons, he did not think that they had unquestionable proof of their accusation, but questions them, thinking it a strange thing that they should take for themselves the judgment, and then commit the punishment without any judgment to him. What then say they? Ver. 30. "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." (Chrysostom)

The Third Trial – Farrar HISTORYAt last the miserable lingering hours were over, and the gray down shuddered, and the morning blushed upon that memorable day. And with the earliest dawn—for so the Oral Law ordained, (Ref. Zohar, 56. See Excursus V. Talmud) and they who could trample on all justice and all mercy were yet scrupulous

35


about all the infinitely little—Jesus was led into the Lishcat Haggazzith, or Paved Hall at the southeast of the Temple, or perhaps into the Chanujoth, or “Shops,” which owed their very existence to Hanan and his family, where the Sanhedrin had been summoned, for His third actual, but His first formal and legal trial. (See Luke 22:66-71).

It is only by courtesy that this body can be regarded as a Sanhedrin at all. Josephus observes that there is in the Romish period no trace of any genuine legal Sanhedrin, apart from mere special incompetent gatherings. (Ref. See Josephus Antt. 20. 9 &1; B.J. 4. 5 & 4). But all the facts about the Sanhedrin of this period are utterly obscure. On Sabbaths and feast days they are said to have met in the Beth Midrash, or Temple Synagogue, that was built along the Chel, or wall between the Outer Court and the Court of the Women. (Ref. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.; Keim.). It was now probably about six o’clock in the morning, and a full session met. Well-nigh all—for there were the noble exceptions at least of Nicodemus and of Joseph of Aarimathaea, and we may hope also of Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel—were inexorably bent upon His death:

1. The Priests were there, whose greed and selfishness He had reproved; 2. The Elders, whose hypocrisy He had branded; 3. The Scribes, whose ignorance He had exposed. Note these are the Sopherim, who may perhaps

have ordinarily formed a separate committee of the Sanhedrin. (Ref. See Excursus 13, “The Sanhedrin.”);

4. And worse than all, the worldly, skeptical, would-be philosophic Sadducees, always the most cruel and dangerous of opponents, whose empty sapience He had so grievously confuted.

Bible Text.Luke 22:66-7166 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? Tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68 and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. 70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, ye say that I am. 71 And they said, what need we any further witness? For we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. KJV

JOHN LESSON ELEVENAll these were bent upon His death; all filled with repulsion at that infinite goodness; all burning with hatred against a nobler nature than any which they could even conceive in their loftiest dreams. And yet their task in trying to achieve His destruction was not easy. The Jewish fables of His death in the Talmud, that is shamelessly false from beginning to end, (Ref. Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud s.v. Page 1458, seqq.; Derenbourg, History de Pal. 468, seqq. In unexpurgated editions of the Talmud, the name of Jesus is said to occur twenty times. See Excursus II, “Allusions to Christ and Christians in the Talmud.”), say that for forty days, though summoned daily by heraldic proclamation, not one person came forward, according to custom, to maintain His innocence, and that consequently He was first stoned as a seducer of the people (mesith), and then hung on the accursed tree.

The fact was that the Sanhedrists had not the power of inflicting death, and even if the Pharisees would have ventured to usurp it in a tumultuary sedition, as they afterwards did in the case of Stephen, the less fanatic and more cosmopolitan Sadducees would be less likely to do so. For proof, the Talmud seems to confirm the distinct assertion of John’s account (Ref. Berachoth, f. 58, 1, and six or seven other places. See Buxtorf. Lex. Talmud Page 514). Not content, therefore with the cherem, or ban of greater

36


excommunication, their only way to compass His death was to hand Him over to the secular arm, the wicked hands of Rome as (Acts 2:23) states. (Farrar)

2:23 “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken [Jews], and by wicked hands [Romans] have crucified and slain:” Acts 2:23 KJV

The ProblemThe problem before them was to convert the ecclesiastical charge of constructive blasphemy into a civil charge of constructive treason. But how could this be done?

(A). Not half the members of the Sanhedrin had been present,(B). At the hurried, nocturnal, and therefore illegal, session in the house of Caiaphas (Ref. Be tardy in judgment Pirke Abhoth; Sanh. 1. f. 7); (C). Yet if they were all to condemn Him by a formal sentence, they must all hear something on which to found their vote.

In answer to the adjuration of Caiaphas, He had solemnly admitted that He was the Messiah and the Son of God. The latter declaration would have been meaningless as a charge against Him before the tribunal of the Romans; but if He would repeat the former, they might twist it into something politically seditious. But He would not repeat it, in spite of their insistence, because He knew that it was open to their willful misinterpretation, and because they were evidently acting in flagrant violation of their own express rules and traditions, that demanded that every arraigned criminal should be regarded and treated as innocent until his guilt was actually proved.

But at last, to end a scene at once miserable and disgraceful, Jesus spoke. “If I tell you,” He said, “ye will not believe; and if I ask you a question, you will not answer me.” Still, lest they should have any excuse for failing to understand who He was, He added in tones of solemn warning, “But henceforth shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God.” “Art thou, then,” they all exclaimed, “the Son of God?” (Cf. Daniel 7:13; Psalms 8:4) ‘The Lord said to my Lord; sit at My right hand; till I make thine enemies thy footstool.’ Psalms 110:1 LXX.)

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN“Ye say that I am,” He answered, in a formula with which they were familiar, and of which they understood the full significance. And then they too cried out, as Caiaphas had done before, “What further need have we of witness? For we ourselves heard from His own mouth.” And so in this third condemnation by Jewish authority—a condemnation that they thought that Pilate would simply ratify, and so appease their burning hate—ended the third stage of the trial of our Lord. And this sentence also seems to have been followed by a second derision.

Unless (Luke 22:63-65) (which seems as though it refers to verse 71) describes the issue of one of the trials that he has not narrated; but, literally taken, we might infer from (Matthew 26:67), that those who insulted Jesus Christ after the second trial were not only the servants. This derision resembling the first, but even more full of insult, and worse to bear than the former, inasmuch as the derision of Priests, and Elders, and Sadducees is even more repulsively odious than that of the servants. (Farrar)

37


The end of the third trial.

Bible Text.John 18:28-4028 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover. 29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, what accusation bring ye against this man? 30 They answered and said unto him, if he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. 31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: 32 that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. 33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered; Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. 39 But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the Passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. KJV

2. The civil trial. [4TH TRIAL]The divine King and the Roman governor. The divine King and the apostate people. John 18:28-19:16.

The detailed account of the private examinations before Pilate (John 18:33-37; 19:8-11) is peculiar to John (compare Matthew 27:11. and parallels; 1 Timothy 6:13). John probably went within the palace. He would not be deterred by the scruple of the Jews (v. 28) under such circumstances, and there does not appear to have been any other obstacle to entrance. The apostle who had followed the Lord to the presence of the high priest would not shrink from following Him to the presence of the governor. It will be noticed that John’s narrative explains the language of Pilate to the Jews and to the Lord, which is abrupt and unprepared in the Synoptic narratives.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENThe narrative falls into several distinct sections corresponding to scenes without and within the Praetorian:

1. Without the Praetorian. The Jews claim the execution of their sentence (John 18:28-32).2. Within the Praetorian. “The good confession.” Christ a King (John 18:33-37).3. Without the Praetorian. First declaration of innocence. Barabbas (John 18:38-40).4. Within the Praetorian. Scourging: mockery (John 19:1-3).5. Without the Praetorian. Second and third declarations of innocence. “Son of God” (19:4-7).6. Within the Praetorian. The source of authority, and from this the measure of guilt (19:8-11).7. Without the Praetorian. Conviction overpowered: the King abjured: the last sentence (12-16).

Historical - Farrar

38


Jesus before Pilate.“Suffered under Pontius Pilate”—so, in every creed of Christendom, is the unhappy name of the Roman Procurator handed down to eternal execration. Yet the object of introducing that name was not to point a moral, but to fix an epoch; and, in point of fact, of all the civil and ecclesiastical rulers before whom Jesus was brought to judgment, Pilate was the least guilty of malice and hatred, the most anxious, if not to spare His agony, at least to save His life. What manner of man was this in whose hands were placed, by power from above, the final destinies of the Saviour’ s life? Of his origin and of his antecedents before A.D. 26, when he became the sixth Procurator of Judaea, but little is known.

HISTORY OF PILATEIn rank he belonged to the ordo equester, and he owed his appointment to the influence of Sejanus. His name “Pontius” seems to point to a Samnite extraction; his cognomen “Pilatus” to a warlike ancestry. His prename, if he had one, has not been preserved. In Judaea he had acted with all the haughty violence and insolent cruelty of a typical Roman governor. Scarcely had he been well installed as Procurator, when, allowing his soldiers to bring with them by night the silver eagles and other insignia of the legions from Caesarea to the Holy City, he excited a furious outburst of Jewish feeling against an act that they regarded as idolatrous profanation.

For five days and nights—often lying prostrate on the bare ground—they surrounded and almost stormed his residence at Caesarea with tumultuous and threatening entreaties, and could not be made to desist on the sixth, even by the peril of immediate and indiscriminate massacre at the hands of the soldiers whom he sent to surround them. He had then sullenly given way, and this foretaste of the undaunted and fanatical resolution of the people with whom he had to deal, went far to embitter his whole administration with a sense of overpowering disgust. (Ref. Josephus Antt. 18:3 & 1; B.J. 2. 9 & 2, 3).

In that kingly place—such as in His days of freedom He had never trod—began, in three distinct acts, the fourth stage of that agitating scene that preceded the final agonies of Christ. It was unlike the idle inquisition of Annas—the extorted confession of Caiaphas—the illegal decision of the Sanhedrin; for here His judge was in His favor, and with all the strength of a feeble pride, and all the daring of a guilty cowardice, and all the pity of which a blood-stained nature was capable, did strive to deliver Him. This last trial is full of passion and movement: it involves a threefold change of scene, a threefold accusation, a threefold acquittal by the Romans, a threefold rejection by the Jews, a threefold warning to Pilate, and a threefold effort on his part, made with ever-increasing energy and ever-deepening agitation, to baffle the accusers and to set the victim free. This part that is found in John agrees in the very minutest particulars with everything that we could expect from the accounts that they give us, both of Pilate’s own character and antecedents, and of the relations in which he stood to the Emperor and to the Jews.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN1. It was probably about seven in the morning that, thinking to overawe the Procurator by their

numbers and their dignity, the imposing procession of the Sanhedrists and Priests, headed, no doubt, by Caiaphas himself, conducted Jesus, with a cord round His neck (which is the sign of condemnation: such at least is the early tradition, and Basil derives from this circumstance the use of the stole (Ref. Jer. Taylor, III. 15.). from their Hall of Meeting over the lofty bridge that spanned the Valley of the Tyropoeon, in presence of all the city, with the bound hands of a sentenced criminal, a spectacle to angels and to men.

2. Disturbed at this early hour, and probably prepared for some Paschal disturbance more serious than usual, Pilate entered the Hall of Judgment, whither Jesus had been led, in company (as seems

39


clear) with a certain number of His accusers and of those most deeply interested in His case. Note: Being only a procurator, Pilate had no quaestor, and therefore was obliged to try all causes himself. In this instance, he very properly refused to assume the responsibility of the execution without sharing in the trial. He did not choose to degrade himself into a mere tool of Jewish superstition.

But the great Jewish hierarchs, shrinking from ceremonial pollution, though not from moral guilt—afraid of leaven, though not afraid of innocent blood—refused to enter the Gentile’s hall, lest they should be polluted, and should consequently be unable that night to eat the Passover. In no good humor, but in haughty and half-necessary condescension to what he would regard as the despicable superstitions of an inferior race, Pilate goes out to them under the burning early sunlight of an Eastern spring. One haughty glance takes in the pompous assemblage of priestly notables, and the turbulent mob of this singular people, equally distasteful to him as a Roman and as a ruler; and observing in that one glance the fierce passions of the accusers, as he had already noted the meek ineffable grandeur of their victim, his question is sternly brief: “What accusation bring ye against this man?”

The question took them by surprise, and showed them that they must be prepared for an unconcealed antagonism to all their purposes. Pilate evidently intended a judicial inquiry; they had expected only a license to kill, and to kill, not by a Jewish method of execution, but by one that they regarded as more horrible and accursed. (See Deuteronomy 21:22, 23).

21:22 “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Deuteronomy 21:22-23 KJV

Hence the name of hatred, “the Hung,” applied to Christ in the Talmud; and Christians are called “servants of the Hung.” Their reasons for desiring His crucifixion may have been manifold, besides the obvious motives of hatred and revenge:

1. It would involve the name and memory of Jesus in deeper discredit.2. It would render the Roman authorities accomplices in the responsibility of the murder.3. It would greatly diminish any possible chance of a popular emeute.

“If He were not a malefactor,” is their indefinite and surly answer, “we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” But Pilate’s: (A). Roman knowledge of law, (B). His Roman instinct of justice, (C). His Roman contempt for their murderous fanaticism,

JOHN LESSON ELEVENMade him not choose to act upon a charge so entirely vague, nor give the sanction of his tribunal to their dark disorderly decrees. He would not design to be an executioner where he had not been a judge. “Very well,” he answered, with a superb contempt, “take you Him and judge Him according to your law.” But now they are forced to the humiliating confession that, having been deprived of the jus gladii, they (cannot inflict the death) that alone will satisfy them; for indeed it stood written in the eternal councils that Christ was to die, not by Jewish stoning or strangulation, but by that Roman form of execution

40


which inspired the Jews with a nameless horror, even by crucifixion; (See Deut. 21:23; Num. 25:4; 2 San. 21:6 also Josephus B.J. 7. 6&4).

Some obscurity hangs over the question as to when and how the Jews had lost the power of inflicting capital punishment (John 18:31). The Talmud seems to imply (Ref. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. In loe.) That they had lost it by voluntarily abandoning the use of the Lish Haggazzith, on account of the number of murderers whom they were forced to condemn. That He was to reign from His cross—to die by that most fearfully significant and typical of deaths—public, slow, conscious, accursed, agonizing—worse even than burning—the worst type of all possible deaths, and the worse result of that curse that He was to remove for ever.

Dropping, therefore, for the present the charge of blasphemy, which did not suit their purpose, (Cf. Acts 18:14), they burst into a storm of invectives against Him, in which are discernible the triple accusations, that:

1. He perverted the nation, that 2. He forbade to give tribute, that3. He called himself a king.

All three charges were flagrantly false, and the third all the more so because it included a grain of truth. But since they had not confronted Jesus with any proofs or witnesses, Pilate—in whose whole bearing and language is manifest the disgust embittered by fear with which the Jews inspired him—designs to notice the third charge alone, and proceeds to discover whether the confession of the prisoner—always held desirable by Roman institutions—would enable him to take any cognizance of it. Leaving the impatient Sanhedrin and the raging crowd, he retired into the Judgment Hall. John alone preserves for us the memorable scene. Jesus, though not “in soft clothing,” though not a denizen of kings’ houses had been led up the noble flight of stairs, over the floors of agate and lazuli, under the gilded roofs, ceiled with cedar and painted with vermilion, which adorned but one abandoned palace of a great king of the Jews.

There, amid those voluptuous splendors, Pilate—already interested, already feeling in this prisoner before him some nobleness which touched his Roman nature—asked Him in pitying wonder, “Art thou the King of the Jews?”—Thou poor, worn, tear-stained outcast in this hour of thy bitter need—oh, pale, lonely, friendless, wasted man, in thy poor peasant garments, with thy tied hands, and the foul traces of the insults of thine enemies on thy face, and on thy robes—thou, so unlike the fierce magnificent Herod, whom this multitude which thirsts for thy blood acknowledged as their sovereign—art thou the King of the Jews? There is a royalty which Pilate, and men like Pilate, cannot understand—a royalty of holiness, supremacy of self-sacrifice.

To say “No” would have been to belie the truth; to say, “Yes” would have been to mislead the questioner. “Sayest thou this of thyself?”(This shows that Jesus, who seems to have been led immediately inside the walls of the Praetorian, had not heard the charges laid against Him before the Procurator.). He answered with gentle dignity, “or did others tell it thee of me?” “Am I a Jew?” is the disdainful answer. “Thy own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN SECTION THREEWhat hast thou done?” Done? —Works of wonder, and mercy, and power, and innocence, and these alone. But Jesus reverts to the first question, now that He has prepared Pilate to understand the answer: “Yes, He is a king; but not of this world; not from hence; not one for whom His servants would fight.” “Thou art a king, then?” said Pilate to Him in astonishment. Yes! But a king not in this region of

41


falsities and shadows, but one born to bear witness unto the truth, and one whom all who were of the truth should hear. “Truth,” said Pilate impatiently, “what is truth?” What had he—a busy, practical Roman governor—to do with such dim abstractions? What bearing had they on the question of life and death? What unpractical hallucination, what fairyland of dreaming phantasm was this? Yet, though he contemptuously put the discussion aside, he was touched and moved.

A judicial mind, a forensic training, familiarity with human nature that had given him some insight into the characters of men, showed him that Jesus was not only wholly innocent, but infinitely nobler and better than His raving sanctimonious accusers. He wholly set aside the floating idea of an unearthly royalty; he saw in the prisoner before his tribunal an innocent and high-souled dreamer, nothing more. And so, leaving Jesus there, he went out again to the Jews, and pronounced his first emphatic and unhesitating acquittal: “I find in Him no fault at all.”

3. But this public decided acquittal only kindled the fury of His enemies into yet fiercer flame. After all that they had hazarded, after all that they had inflicted, after the sleepless night of their plots, adjurations, insults, was their purpose to be foiled after all by the intervention of the very Gentiles on whom they had relied for its bitter consummation? Should this victim whom they had thus clutched in their deadly grasp, be rescued from High Priests and rulers by the contempt or the pity of an insolent heathen? It was too intolerable! Their voices rose in wilder tumult. “He was a mesith (Ref. In Masseketh Sandedrin 7. 10), a mesith is defined as an unauthorized person who leads others astray.), He had upset the people with His teaching through the length and breadth of the land, beginning from Galilee, even as far as here.”

Amid these confused and passionate exclamations the practiced ear of Pilate caught the name of “Galilee,” and he understood that Galilee had been the chief scene of the ministry of Jesus (Luke 23:6). Eager for a chance of dismissing a business of which he was best pleased to be free, he proposed, by a master-stroke of astute policy, to get rid of an embarrassing prisoner, to save himself from a disagreeable decision, and to do an unexpected complaisance to the unfriendly Galilean tetrarch, who, as usual, had come to Jerusalem—nominally to keep the Passover, really to please his subjects, and to enjoy the sensations and festivities offered at that season by the densely-crowded capital.

TRIAL FIVEAccordingly, Pilate, secretly glad to wash his hands of a detestable responsibility, sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, (Luke 23:7; Acts 25:21. Mutual jealousies, and tendencies to interfere with each other’s authority, are quite sufficient to account for the previous ill will of Pilate and Herod. Moreover, in all disputes it had been the obvious policy of Antipas to side with the Jews.), who was probably occupying the old Asmonaean palace, which had been the royal residence at Jerusalem until it had been surpassed by the more splendid one which the prodigal tyrant, his father, had built (Ref. Jos. B.J. 2. 16 & 3; Antt. 20. 8 & 11).

And so, through the thronged and narrow streets, amid the jeering, raging multitudes, the weary Sufferer was dragged once more.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENWe have caught glimpses of this Herod Antipas before, and I do not know that all History, in its gallery of portraits, contains a much more despicable figure than this wretched, dissolute Idumaean Sadducee—

42


this petty prince ling drowned in debauchery and blood. To him was addressed the sole purely contemptuous expression that Jesus is ever recorded to have used. (Luke 13:32, “This fox,”). Antipas was rejoiced beyond all things to see Jesus. He had long been wanting to see Him because of the rumors he had heard; and this murderer of the prophets (John the Baptist), hoped that Jesus would, in complement to royalty, amuse by some miracle his gaping curiosity.

He harangued and questioned Him in many words, but gained not so much as one syllable in reply. Our Lord confronted all his ribald questions with the majesty of silence. To such a man, who even changed scorn into a virtue, speech would clearly have been a profanation. Then all the savage vulgarity of the man came through the thin veneer of a superficial cultivation. For the second time Jesus is derided—derided this time as Priest and Prophet. Herod and his corrupt hybrid myrmidons “set Him at naught”—treated Him with the insolence of a studied contempt. Mocking His innocence and His misery in a festal and shinning robe, (Ref. Luke 23:11 probably “white” as a festive color; but the notion of his being a “candidate” for the kingdom, is quite alien from the passage), the empty and wicked prince sent Him back to the Procurator, to whom he now became half-reconciled after a long-standing enmity.

But he contented himself with these cruel insults. He resigned to the forum apprehensionis all further responsibility as to the issue of the trial. Though the Chief Priests and Scribes stood about his throne unanimously instigating him to a fresh and more heinous act of murder by their intense accusations, (Cf. Acts 18:28), he practically showed that he though their accusations frivolous, by treating them as a jest. It was the fifth trial of Jesus; it was His second public distinct acquittal.

THE SIXTH TRIAL4. And now, as He stood once more before the perplexed and wavering Governor, began the sixth,

the last, the most agitating and agonizing phrase of this terrible inquisition. Now was the time for Pilate to have acted on a clear and right conviction, and saved him for ever from the guilt of innocent blood. He came out once more, and seating himself on a stately bema—perhaps the golden throne of Archelaus, which was placed on the elevated pavement of many-colored marble (John 19:13, “Gabbatha.” The Roman governors and generals attached great importance to these tessellated pavements on which their tribunal were placed [Ref. Suet. Jul. Caes. 46])—summoned the Priests, the Sanhedrists, and the people before him, and seriously told them that they had brought Jesus to his tribunal as a leader of sedition and turbulence; that after full and fair inquiry he, their Roman Governor, had found their prisoner absolutely guiltless of these charges; that He had then sent Him to Herod, their native king, and that he also had come to the conclusion that Jesus had committed no crime which deserved the punishment of death.

And now came the golden opportunity for him to vindicate the grandeur of his country’s imperial justice, and, as he had pronounced Him absolutely innocent, to set Him absolutely free. But exactly at that point he wavered and temporized. The dread of another insurrection haunted him like a nightmare. He was willing to go half way to please these dangerous sectaries. To justify them, as it were, in their accusation, he would chastise Jesus—scourge Him publicly, as though to render His pretensions ridiculous—disgrace and ruin Him—“make Him seem vile in their eyes” (Deut. 25:3 also Jos. B.J. 7. 6 & 4)—and then set Him free.Remember Sejanus had been condemned by Augustus of Rome, and Pilate did not want problems that would call attention to himself with Augustus. Paul the Learner

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN

43


And this notion of setting Him free suggested to him another resource of tortuous policy. Both he and the people almost simultaneously bethought themselves that it had always been a Paschal boon to liberate at the feast some condemned prisoner. He offered, therefore, to make the acquittal of Jesus an act not of imperious justice, but of artificial grace. In making this suggestion—in thus flagrantly tampering with his innate sense of right, and resigning against his will the best prerogative of his authority—he was already acting in spite of a warning which he had received:

1. That first warning consisted in the deep misgiving, the powerful presentiment, which overcame him as he looked on his bowed and silent prisoner. But, as though to strengthen his in his resolve to prevent an absolute failure of all justice,

2. He now received a second solemn warning—and one which to an ordinary Roman, and a Roman who remembered Caesar’s murder and Calpurnia’s (Caesar’s wife) dream, might well have seemed divinely sinister.

3. His own wife—Claudia Procula (Ref. Her name is given in the gospel of Nicodemus, which says she was a proselyte. On the possibility of a wife’s presence in her husband’s province, in spite of the ole Leges Oppiae, (see Tac. Ann. 3. Pg. 33, 34; 4. Pg. 20)—ventured to send him a public message, even as he sat there on his tribunal.

That, in the morning hours, when dreams are true, (Matt. 27:19, perhaps she had been awakened that morning (by the noise of the crowd), she had a troubled and painful dream about that Just Man; and, bolder than her husband, she bade him beware how he molested Him. Gladly, most gladly, would Pilate have yielded to his own presentiments—have gratified his pity and his justice—have obeyed the prohibition conveyed by this mysterious omen. Gladly even would he have yielded to the worse and baser instinct of asserting his power, and thwarting these envious and hated fanatics, whom he knew to be ravening for innocent blood. That they—to many of whom sedition was as the breath of life—should be sincere in charging Jesus with sedition was, as he well knew, absurd. Their utterly transparent hypocrisy in this matter only added to his undisguised contempt. If he could have dared to show his real instincts, he would have driven them from his tribunal with all the haughty insouciance of a Gallio.

But Pilate was guilty, and guilt is cowardice, and cowardice is weakness. His own past cruelties, recoiling in kind on his own head, forced him now to crush the impulse of pity, and to add to his many cruelties another more heinous still. (We see the same notions very strikingly at work in his former dispute with the Jews about the shields—“He was afraid that, if they should send an embassy, they might discuss the many mal-administrations of his government, his extortions, his unjust decrees, his inhuman punishments. This reduced him to the utmost perplexity” [Ref. Philo. Leg. Ad Caium. Page 38] also you must remember that his benefactor to Caesar was Sejanus who was now Caesar’s enemy and so killed). He knew that serious complaints hung over his head.

Those Samaritans whom he had insulted and oppressed—those Jews whom he had stabbed promiscuously in the crowd by the hands of his disguised and secret emissaries—those Galileans whose blood he had mingled with their sacrifices—was not their blood crying for vengeance? Dare he stand the chance of stirring up a new and apparently terrible rebellion rather than condescend to a simple concession that was rapidly assuming the aspect of a politic, and even necessary, compromise? His tortuous policy recoiled on his own head, and rendered impossible his own wishes. The Nemesis of his past wrongdoing was that he could no longer do right. Hounded on (Mark 15:11), by the Priests and Sanhedrists, the people impetuously claimed the Paschal boon of which he had reminded them; but in doing so they unmasked still more decidedly the sinister nature of their hatred against their Redeemer.

44


JOHN LESSON ELEVENFor while they were professing to rage against the asserted seditiousness of One who was wholly obedient and peaceful, they shouted for the liberation of a man whose notorious sedition had been also stained by brigandage and murder. Loathing the innocent, they loved the guilty, and claimed the Procurator’s grace on behalf, not of Jesus of Nazareth, but of a man who, in the fearful irony of circumstances, was also called Jesus—Jesus Bar-Abbas (Bar-Abbas, son of a (distinguished) father; perhaps Bar-Rabban, son of a Rabbi. The reading Jesus Bar-Abbas is as old as (Origen), and is far from improbable, although (Matthew 27:20) tells a little against it. If, however, (Origen (as seems to be the case) only found this reading in (verse 17), the probability of its genuineness is weakened. The ingenious combinations of (Ewald), that the Sanhedrists desired his release, as belonging by family to their order, and the people because he had been imprisoned in the Corban riot (Ref.Josephus Antt. Ubi supr.), are highly uncertain.)—Who not only was what they falsely said of Christ, a leader of sedition, but also a robber and a murderer.

It was fitting that they (the Jews), who had preferred: 1. An abject Sadducee to their true priest,2. And an incestuous Idumaean to their Lord and King 3. Should deliberately prefer a murder to their Messiah.

It may be that Bar-Abbas had been brought forth, and that thus Jesus the scowling murderer and Jesus the innocent Redeemer stood together on that high tribunal side by side. (Matt. 27:21). The people, persuaded by their priests, clamored for the liberation of the rebel and the robber. To him every hand was pointed; for him every voice was raised. For the Holy, the Harmless, the Undefiled—for Him whom a thousand Hosannas had greeted but five days before—no word of pity or of pleading found an utterance. “He was despised and rejected of men.” Isaiah 53.

Deliberately putting the question to them, Pilate heard with scornful indignation their deliberate choice; and then, venting his bitter disdain and anger in taunts, which did but irritate them more, without serving any good purpose, “What, then,” he scornfully asked them, “do ye wish me to do with the King of the Jews?” Then first broke out the mad scream, “Crucify! Crucify Him!” In vain, again and again, in the pauses of the tumult, Pilate insisted, obstinately indeed, but with more and more feebleness of purpose—for none but a man more innocent than Pilate, even if he were a Roman governor, could have listened without quailing to the frantic ravings of an Oriental mob—(See Isaiah 7. These Jewish mobs could, as we see from Josephus, be very abusive.

“They came about his (Pilate’s) tribunal, and made a clamor at it” (B.J. 2. 9&4). “Many myriads of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man (Pilate), as crowds of such people usually do…. So he bade the Jews go away, but they, boldly casting reproaches upon him,” (Ref. Josephus Antt. 18. 3 & 2)—“Why, what evil hath He done?” “I found no cause of death in Him.” “I will chastise Him and let Him go.” Such half-willed opposition was wholly unavailing. It only betrayed to the Jews the inward fears of their Procurator—(Thus, in the affair of the gilt votive shields, the Jewish leaders were confirmed in their purpose, by perceiving that Pilate’s mind was wavering [Ref. Philo Ubi supr.])—And practically made them masters of the situation. Again and again, with wilder and wilder vehemence, they rent the air with those hideous yells—“Away with this man.” “Loose unto us Bar-Abbas.” “Crucify! Crucify!” (Farrar)

45


JOHN LESSON ELEVENHomily 84 - John 19:14, 1519 Ver. 14, 15. "Behold your king!" But when they said, "Crucify him," he added again, "Shall I crucify your king?" But they cried out, "We have no king but Caesar."

Of their own will they subjected themselves to punishment; therefore also God gave them up, because they were the first to cast themselves out from His providence and superintendence; and since with one voice they rejected His sovereignty, He allowed them to fall by their own suffrages. Still what had been said should have been sufficient to calm their passion, but they feared, lest, being let go, He should again draw the multitudes, and they did all they could to prevent this. For a dreadful thing is love of rule, dreadful and able to destroy the soul; it was on account of this that they had never heard Him. And yet Pilate, in consequence of a few words, desired to let Him go, but they pressed on, saying, "Crucify him." And why did they strive to kill Him in this manner? It was a shameful death. Fearing therefore lest there should afterwards be any remembrance of Him, they desired to bring Him to the accursed punishment, not knowing that truth is exalted by hindrances.

To prove that they had this suspicion, listen to what they say; "We have heard that that deceiver said, After three days I will rise again" (Matt 27:63); on this account they made all this stir, turning things upside down, that they might ruin matters in after time. And the ill-ordered people, corrupted by their rulers, cried out continually, "Crucify him!" But let us not merely read of these things, but bear them in our mind; the crown of thorns, the robe, the reed, the blows, the smiting on the cheek, the spittings, and the irony. These things, if continually meditated on, are sufficient to take down all anger; and if we be mocked at, if we suffer injustice, let us still say, "The servant is not greater than his Lord" (13:16); and let us bring forward the words of the Jews, which they uttered in their madness, saying, "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil" (8:48); and, "He castes out devils by Beelzebub." (Luke 11:15.)

For on this account He bares all these things, in order that we might walk in His footsteps, and endure those mockings which disturb more than any other kind of reproach. Yet nevertheless He not only bare these things, but even used every means to save and deliver from the appointed punishment those who did them. For He sent the Apostles also for their salvation, at least thou hearest them saying, that, "We know that through ignorance ye did it" (Acts 3:17); and by these means drawing them to repentance. This let us also imitate; for nothing so much maketh God propitious as the loving enemies, and doing good to those who despitefully use us. (Chrysostom)

18:28. Then led they Jesus…] they lead Jesus therefore… Compare (Matthew 27:1). The examination before Caiaphas (Matt. 26:59 and parallels) is implied, and also its necessary issue. The sentence was determined, but the Sanhedrin had no power to carry it out. The subject (they) is not exactly defined. The principal actors (“the chief priests and Pharisees,” “the Jews”) are everywhere present to the mind of the Evangelist. Comp. (John 19:4).

1. Hall of judgment…] the palace. The official residence (head-quarters) of the Roman governor. This was the technical sense of praetorium in the provinces (comp. Acts 23:35). At Rome the usage of the word was different (compare Lightfoot, ‘Philippians,’ pp. 97). The building occupied by Pilate is commonly supposed to have been the palace built by Herod on the western hill of Jerusalem. This was certainly occupied at a later time by the Roman governors (Ref. Philo, ‘Leg. Ad Cai.’ 1034), but there is

46


not any direct evidence, as far as appears, that it was occupied by Pilate, and on the whole it seems to be more probable (comp. John 19:13) that Pilate occupied quarters in Antonia, according to the traditional view.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN2. It was early…] Comp. (Matt. 27:1 parallels). The term (early) is used technically for the fourth watch, 3-6 a.m. (Mark 13:35). A condemnation to death at night was technically illegal. An early meeting of the Sanhedrin appears to have been held to confirm the decision already made, and so to satisfy the form of law, that however was broken by the infliction and execution of the sentence on the day of trial. A Roman court could be held at any time after sunrise. On this occasion it was probably held as early as possible. Pilate, as we may suppose, had been prepared for the charge when application was made for the detachment of soldiers.3. they themselves…] In contrast with the Lord, who was now probably committed again to the soldiers, and taken within the Praetorium (v. 33).4. Lest they should be…; but that they might…] that they might not be…but might…5. Be defiled…] by entering a house from which all leaven had not been scrupulously removed. The praetorium was placed under the protection of tutelary deities (Ref. ‘Journal of Philology,’ 1876, pp. 126; comp. Tac. ‘History” III. 10), but such a dedication is out of the question at Jerusalem. Pilate had learnt by bitter experience with what fierceness the Jews resented every semblance of a violation of their religious feelings (Josephus ‘Bel. Jud.’ II. 9. 2. Comp. Philo, ‘Leg. Ad Cai.’ & 38).6. Eat the Passover…]

John 18:28Eat the Passover. The purpose of this work forbids entering upon the much-vexed question of the apparent inconsistency between John and the Synoptists as to the time of celebrating the Passover.

(Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament,)

18:29. Pilate then (therefore)…said (saith)…] Pilate is introduced quite abruptly, without any title or explanation, as one perfectly well known. Comp. (Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1). In Matthew he is commonly spoken of as “the governor” (Matt. 27:2), a title not found in John. The scrupulousness of Pilate needs some explanation (contrast Acts 22:24). The explanation is probably supplied by Matthew (Matt. 27:19) in the message of Pilate’s wife, which at least indicates that the accusation of Jesus had made an impression upon her, and so probably in Pilate’s household. There is a slight trace in the narrative of Matthew of the informal manner in which the trial was in part conducted.

1. Went out…] the best authorities add “without”. John appears to emphasize the fact that Pilate “went forth without” his own praetorium, as if it were symbolic of the whole proceeding.2. What accusation…] the words do not necessarily imply that Pilate was ignorant of the character of the charge (see v. 3). Pilate requires that the charge should be made formally.

18:30. The Jews were evidently unprepared for the governor’s hesitation in such a case: and attempted to claim the fulfillment of their sentence without rendering account of the grounds on which it rested. Pilate met this affectation of independence by bidding them carry out their purpose to the end by their own authority: Pilate therefore said, Take him yourselves. On this they are forced to confess that nothing less than death will satisfy them, and this punishment they cannot inflict.

47


1. Malefactor…] literally, doing evil, actively engaged in evil. The word in (Luke 23:32), is different (kakourgoi NT: 2557. Evil kakon NT: 2556 “doers” “work,” ergon NT: 2041) an old word, but in the New Testament only in this passage (Luke 23:32-33, 39 and 2 Tim. 2:9).

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN18:31. Take you him…] Take him yourselves… The words have a tinge of irony (yourselves, your law); and Pilate implicitly reminds the Jews of the limits within which their power of “judgment” was confined.

1. The Jews said (omit therefore)…] Pilate’s words left them no alternative. They could not escape from revealing their purpose; and probably they now brought forward against Christ the charge of treason (Luke 23:2) in order to move Pilate the more easily (v. 34)

23:2 “And they began to accuse him, saying, we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.” Luke 23:2 KJV

18:31. It is not lawful…] see Additional Note.

Additional NoteThe words “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” have been interpreted to mean that the Jews could not inflict a capital sentence at this particular time (the Passover), or in the particular manner that they desired (crucifixion). But there is nothing in the context to justify such a limitation of the sense.The whole action of Pilate (compare John 19:10) shows that the question of life and death was legally in his hands alone; and the words must be taken as a simple and direct statement that the Jews could not put to death without the governor’s authority. That this was so appears from the terms which describe the procurator’s power (Ref. Josephus ‘Antt.’ 18.1.1; compare also ‘Antt.’ 16. 2.4, and 16.6). There is also a remarkable tradition preserved in different forms in the Talmud, that the Sanhedrin left their proper place of assembly, Gazith, and sat in Chanjuth (forty years before the destruction of the temple). Now it was forbidden to condemn to death except in Gazith (Ref. See ‘Avoda Zara,’ ed. Edzard, pp. 61 and notes).

The passages quoted from the New Testament (John 8:3, 59; 7:26; Acts 5:33; 7:57; 21:27; [Acts 12:4]) to prove that the Jews could put to death, only show that the Roman governors were not unwilling to tolerate exceptional acts of violence. Compare also (Josephus B.J. 6.2.4, and ‘Antt. 20. 9. 1), where it appears that the execution of James the Just in the interval between the departure of one governor and the arrival of his successor was treated as a grave usurpation of power.

18:32. the saying (word) of Jesus…signifying what death (by what manner of death)…] (John 12:32). Comp. (Matt. 20:19). Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The clause must not be interpreted to convey the idea that the Jews wished a particular form of death to be inflicted, but that the circumstances of the case led to this issue

2. Vv. 33-37. Within the Praetorium: Pilate and Christ: the good confession and the light question.

48


18:33. Then Pilate…] Pilate therefore… The urgency of the Jews constrained him to make further inquiry.1. Called Jesus…] The Lord was already inside the court (v. 28); but Pilate summoned Him to his immediate presence (comp. John 9:18, 24).2. Art thou the King of the Jews?] The words may mean either “Art thou he who has just now become notorious under this title?” or, “Dost thou claim the title, as it is said?” The title itself would be likely to arrest Pilate’s attention, whether he had heard it spoken of before in connection with the entry into Jerusalem or only now from the Jews.

JOHN LESSON ELEVENAnd further, he would rightly conclude that the title, when thus put forward, would be fitted to call out any fanaticism that there might be in a political enthusiast. The full form which the accusation assumed is given in (Luke 23:2. See John 19:12). In each of the four Gospels the first words of Pilate to Jesus are the same: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” (Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3). The form of the sentence suggests a feeling of surprise in the questioner: “Art thou, poor, and bound, and wearied, the King of whom men have spoken?” Comp. (John 4:12).3. King of the Jews…] (v. 39; 19:3, 19, 21. Comp. Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29, 37; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Luke 23:3, 37, 38). The theocratic title the King of Israel (John 1:49 notes) stands in marked contrast with this civil title.

18:34. Sayest thou…tell it thee of me (or tell thee of me)…] The Lord’s question is suited to lead Pilate to reflect on the nature of the charge that he had to judge. In this sense it is an appeal to his conscience. If he admits the alleged assumption of the title to be a crime, he must ask himself whether the title has any meaning for him. Whether he desires to learn what further it may signify? Or whether he has simply adopted a vague accusation, an ambiguous phrase, at random? Pilate’s reply affirms his utter indifference to matters that only concerned (as he assumes) a despised people.

18:35. “Am I a Jew?”…] is it then possible for me to care for these things? Yet in the words that follow he implies that there is something strange in the case. The Jews were ready for the most part to favor any asserter of their national liberty. Now they had brought one called their King to be put to death. “Thine own nation”, and no Roman informer, “and the chief priests, the natural leaders of the people, delivered (omit have) thee unto me: what hast thou done? Or, more exactly, what didst thou do,” that is, to turn those who would naturally favor such as thee into relentless enemies?

18:36. without directly replying to Pilate, the Lord indicates the real ground of the antagonism of the people and of the rulers to Himself, and at the same time explains how He is a King: “His kingdom was not of this world”. He would not make any concessions to the false patriotism of zealots (John 6:15), and yet He did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty of which the spring and source was not of earth but of heaven. In both respects He was opposed to those who professed from different sides to represent the nation (“the Jews”). But as a spiritual King He was open to no accusation of hostility to the empire of Rome. His willing surrender was a sufficient proof that he had never contemplated violence.

1. My kingdom…my kingdom…my servants (hupeeretai NT: 5257) only in this passage comp. (Acts 13:5; 1 Cor. 4:1), vv. 3, 12…] the possessive pronoun is in each case emphasized: “the kingdom, the servants (i.e. disciples and apostles), who truly answer to me, to my nature and my will” Comp. (John 15:11 notes, 12:26). There is an obvious reference to the Jewish conceptions of a kingdom and to the

49


Jewish “officers.” The use of the word hupeeretai (here only of Christians in the Gospels, corresponds with the royal dignity that Christ assumes).2. Is not of this world…hence…] does not derive its origin or its support from earthly forces (Comp. John 8:23; 15:19; 17:14, 16; 1 John 2:16; 4:5). At the same time Christ’s kingdom is “in the world,” even as His disciples are (John 17:11). This verse serves as a comment on (Matthew 2:1). And brings out the full force of Matthew’s characteristic term “the kingdom of heaven.”

2:2 “Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” Matthew 2:2 KJV

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN3. The rhythmical balance of the sentence in the original cannot but be felt: “My kingdom…not of this world…if of this world…my kingdom.” The substitution of “hence” for “of this world” in the last clause appears to define the idea of the world by an immediate reference to the representatives of it close at hand.4. Fight…] the original (eegoonizonto NT: 75) describes a continuous effort, and not merely one definite conflict: “they would now be striving” (Luke 13:24; 1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7), and not “they would have fought” at the moment of my arrest. (Westcott)

John 18:36Fight eegoonizonto (NT: 75). The imperfect tense, denoting action in progress: "would now be striving."

(Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament,)

18:36 The Jews…] the title occurs in the record of the Lord’s words, (John 4:22; 13:33, and above, v. 20) (comp. John 11:8). The color of the word in these places is slightly different from that which it bears in the Evangelist’s narrative. The simple idea of nationality prevails over that of religious antagonism.But now…] as the case really stands, (John 9:41; 15:22, 24).

18:37. Art thou a king then?…] The particle (then), which occurs here only in the New Testament, gives a tinge of irony to the words, which are half interrogative in form and half an exclamation: “So then, after all, thou art a king?” This scornful tone is further accentuated by the personal pronoun at the end of the sentence: “thou, a helpless prisoner.” Comp. (v. 33; 1:21; 4:19, and 8:48).

1. Thou sayest…] The Lord neither definitely accepts nor rejects the title. He leaves the claim as Pilate had put it forward, Pilate had quoted the words of others, and the Lord had made clear in what general sense they must be interpreted. He now signifies further the foundation and character of His sovereignty, and the right which He has to the allegiance of men.2. That I am…] the translation Thou sayest (i.e. rightly), because I am… seems to be both unnatural as a rendering of the original phrase, and alien from the context.

[‘Said then to Him the Pilate not then King are you answered the Jesus you are saying that King am I I into this and have been generated and into this I have come into the system that I should be witnessing to the truth every the one being out of the truth is hearing of me the sound.’ 4th Cent. Translation Greek]

50


(I like to occasionally use the oldest translation of the New Testament to show you the difference from the 4th Cent. To today. I am glad that we have a modern translation for our understanding.)

Paul the Learner

3. to this end….that (in order that)…] the first words (To this end) affirm generally the fact of the sovereignty that Christ exercised: He was born for the very purpose that He should reign; and the last (that I may) the special application of it: His reign was directed to the execution of a divine purpose. Comp. (Acts 9:21; Rom. 14:9; 2 Cor. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:9; 4:6; 1 John 3:8).4. Was I born…for this cause came I…] have I been born…to this end am I come into the world… The two phrases appear to correspond in part with the two in (John 16:28), “I came out from the Father, and am come into the world.”

1. The first marks the entrance upon a new form of being, 2. The second defines the sphere of the Lord’s mission (comp. John 9:39 notes). Or again, 3. The first marks the beginning of the earthly life,

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN4. The second the preexistence with the Father (“the glory that I had with thee before the world

was”).But as addressed to Pilate the words declared only the human birth (comp. Luke 1:35 the born), though a deeper meaning lies beneath them. The emphatic pronoun at the head of the sentence, and the repeated clause to this end, fix attention upon the Speaker and His office.

John 18:37Was I born ... came I gegenneemai (NT: 1080) ... eleelutha (NT: 2064). Both perfects. "Have I been born ... am I come." So the English Revised Version (1885). The Greek order is "I for this have been born," etc., throwing the emphasis on Christ's person and destiny. The perfect describes His birth and coming not merely as historical facts, but as abiding in their results. Compare this confession before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13) with the corresponding confession before the high priest (Matt 26:64). "The one, addressed to the Jews, is framed in the language of prophecy; the other, addressed to a Roman, appeals to the universal testimony of conscience. The one speaks of a future manifestation of glory; the other speaks of a present manifestation of truth. The one looks forward to the Return, the other looks backward to the Incarnation" (Westcott). (Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament,)

18:37. Christ not only affirms the fact of His kingship, but also bases the fact upon the essential law of His being. He places His own Person in contrast with all other men, whether they disbelieve (as Pilate) or believe. And He describes His coming as permanent in its effects and not simply as a past historic fact.

1. Bear witness unto the truth…] Truth, absolute reality, is the realm of Christ. He marks out its boundaries; and every one who has a vital connection with the Truth recognizes His sway. He does not only “bear witness concerning the truth” (he might witness concerning John 1:7, 8), but “bears witness to, maintains, the truth” (John 3:26), as John had done in his place, (John 5:33. Comp. Acts 10:43; 15:8; 3 John 12).2. That is of the truth…] who draws from the truth the inspiration of his life (comp. 1 John 2:21; 3:19). The phrase is parallel to “that is of God” (John 8:47 notes). Comp. Also (v. 36; 3:31; 8:23; 15:19; 17:14; 1 John 2:16; 3:8), and in a wider sense (John 10:16; Col. 4:11). All who thus depend on that which is Christ’s are His proper subjects. For the whole answer comp. (1 Tim. 6:13).

51


6:13 “I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;” 1 Timothy 6:13 KJV

3. The truth…] (Lightfoot on 6:27 quotes two remarkable passages that illustrate one idea of the word): 1.“When the great synagogue had been weeping, praying, and fasting, for a long time, a little roll fell from the firmament to them in which was written Truth. (R. Chaniach) saith; hence learn that Truth is the seal of God.” (Ref. ‘Sanh. Bab.’ F. 64. 1 Talmud). 2. And again: “What is the seal of the holy blessed God? (R. Bibai, in the name of R. Reuben), saith ‘Truth’. But what is Truth? (R. Bon) saith, the living God and King eternal. (Resh Lachish) saith, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and the middle letter and the last: that is, I the Lord am the first…and beside me there is no God….and I am with the last” (Ref. ‘Sanh. Hieros.’ F. 18 Talmud).

The Lord’s confession includes the fulfillment of the double hope. He is the King of the people of God, and the universal Saviour. Comp. (John 4:25; 9:35).

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN18:38. What is truth?] The question of Pilate does not deal with absolute Truth—the Truth as one—of which the Lord had spoken, but simply with truth in any particular case. There is nothing of real reverence or seriousness in his words, still less of awe. He does not shape, even in passing thought, a subject for earnest inquiry, but half sadly, half cynically, implies that even in ordinary matters truth is unattainable. It was so evidently to his mind in the matter before him; but so much at least was plain to his Roman clearness of vision, which the prisoner accused by His countrymen was no political intriguer.He therefore impatiently breaks off the examination that had (as he fancied) shown him enough to decide the case, that he may obtain the release of Jesus if possible.

The sending to Herod (Luke 23:6.) must be placed between (vv. 37, 39).

3. Vv. 38-40. Without the Praetorium. The judgment of Pilate and the judgment of the Jews. The sentence, the offer, the demand, Jesus and Barabbas.

18:38. and when…] the incident that follows is a complete revelation of a weak worldly character. Pilate addressed himself, as it seems, not to the leading accusers of Jesus (the high-priests and Pharisees), but to the crowd that had now gathered round them. He trusted that an expression of popular feeling would enable him to follow his own judgment without incurring any unpopularity. He saw that Jesus was evidently the victim of a party (Matt. 27:18), and perhaps of a small party. Moreover the festival allowed him to effect his purpose without absolutely setting aside the sentence of the Sanhedrin. He suggests therefore that Jesus should be released according to the custom of the Passover. From the narrative of Mark it appears that the demand for the fulfillment of this act of grace was first made by “the multitude” who had come up to the governor’s house (Mark 15:8), and it is not unlikely that some at least of the people hoped in this way (like Pilate) to deliver Jesus.

The name of a notorious criminal was coupled with that of Jesus (Matt. 27:17), that the wish of the people might be expressed more decisively. When the choice was put to them there was for a time a division of feeling, or hesitation (Mark 15:11). At length the high-priests prevailed (comp. John 19:6), and Pilate was then overpowered by the popular cry, from which he had expected to obtain convenient

52


support. He had no firmness to support him when his scheme had failed; and at last, by a strange irony, he was forced to release a man guilty of the very form of crime which the chief priests had tried to fasten upon Christ.

1. I find in him no fault at all…] I find no charge (or crime) in him. The pronoun is emphatic here and (John 19:6 (not in John 19:4), and contains an implied contrast between the partisanship of the priests and the calm judgment of the Roman governor.

18:39. At the Passover…] the custom is made more general in (Matt. (27:15) and Mark (15:6), “at feast time.” Nothing is known of the origin of the custom, nor is it (as far as appears) noticed anywhere except in the Gospels. 1. The King of the Jews…] the title is probably use, as afterwards (John 19:15), to throw contempt on the pretensions of the Jewish leaders.

18:40. Then cried they all again…] they cried out therefore again with the loud cry that will make itself heard. Comp. (John 11:43; 12:13; 19:6, 12, 15). The people, in spite of their late enthusiasm, were driven by their selfish hopes to prefer one who had at least defied the Roman power to their divine King.

JOHN LESSON ELEVEN1. Again…] the word is a singular mark of the brevity of John’s narrative that assumes much as known. He has not noticed the previous demands of the people.2. A robber…] One of those outlaws who not infrequently (Acts 21:38) covered their violence with a cloke of patriotism (comp. Luke 23:19; Mark 15:7; Matt. 27:16). There is an impressive pathos in the brief clause. Comp. (John 13:30).

13:30 “He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.” John 13:30 KJV

This ends lesson eleven.

53


54

Documents

THE GOSPEL TO THE CHURCH - Lakeside Ministrieslakesideministries.com/2ndCovenant/2nd_Cov_Unedited/… · Web viewSo the English Revised Version ... the word does not of course mean