Chapter XVIII

Verses 1-11. A comparison with the account of the arrest of our Lord as given by the synoptics, with what John records will show marked differences, but certainly not discrepancies. Matthew, Mark and Luke speak of the agony in the garden; Luke only reports the sweat in the garden, like great drops of blood, but John does not write anything of this agony at all. He passes it over, for his pen is guided by the Holy Spirit, to bring out in his Gospel the glory of Christ as the Son of God, therefore describing His sublime Deity; there was no need of mentioning the agony in the garden, or the blood-sweat of the Son of Man. But John mentions things which are omitted by the other evangelists. He alone names the brook Cedron; he tells us of the collapse of the mob which had come to arrest Him, and only John gives the name of the disciple who drew the sword. All these differences are for a purpose and were ordered by the Spirit of God.

The brook Cedron (Kidron) is repeatedly mer tioned in the Old Testament. It means “the black torrent.” When

Absalom started his rebellion against his father, David went weeping across that brook (2 Sam. xv:23). And now He, whom David called His Lord, the root and offspring of David, went across the same brook, to the place where in agony of soul He offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears (Hebrews v:7). He is now to drink “of the brook in the way” (Psalm cx:7). His deepest humiliation was at hand, the path which led to the cross and from there to glory. There is a tradition that our Lord followed the way by which the scape goat, the Azazel, was sent on the day of atonement into the wilderness. He crossed the brook and His disciples with Him. We do not know if there was a bridge to cross or if they waded through the swollen winter stream. Perhaps the latter was the case; for the greater part of the year the brook was dry. He was going through the deep waters of death, through which He went as once the ark of God carried by the Levites made a way through the waters of Jordan. The brook forded, they were in the garden, the garden of Gethsemane. Augustine in his comment on Gethsemane said: “It was fitting that the blood of the great physician should there be poured out, where the disease of man first began.” It is of course, not true that His blood was poured out in the garden; it was poured out on the cross. But the suggestion is correct. It was in a garden where the fall of man took place, and our Lord’s entrance into the garden marks the beginning of his great sacrificial work as the seed of the woman, first announced on the scene of man’s fall.

He entered that garden with His disciples. It was a familiar place to Him, for often had He been there before, perhaps in anticipation of the final visit when His hour had come. Judas knew the place and knew that our Lord often passed the nights out of doors. Judas through the influence of the chief priests had with him a detachment of Roman soldiers; then there were the officers, that is the temple police, quite a large company. In spite of the full moon they carried, besides their weapons, lanterns and torches, if necessary to seek the prisoner among the darker recesses of the garden. It was a great multitude, perhaps several hundred men (Matt. xxvi:47). Jews and Gentiles were thus represented in the mob ready to seize upon the Lord of glory and lead Him forward to the death of the cross. Did they expect resistance, or perhaps a demonstration of His power? He knew beforehand all things that should come upon Him. He had a perfect knowledge of all the suffering and shame which awaited Him. He knew it before the foundation of the world. He knew it in time. It was always before Him, even in His tender years. He saw it in Scripture. He knew every blow which was to be dealt Him, the smiting of the cheek, the plucking of the hair, the spitting in the face, the cruel Roman scourging, the crown of thorns, the nailing to the cross, all the shame and the suffering on that cross. There was no need of searching for Him. Majestically, when the mob led by Judas advanced, He stepped ahead of His disciples and said, “Whom seek ye?” His hour was come. If it had not yet come, then not all the treachery in the world, nor Rome’s power could have laid hold on Him. And if He had spoken but a word another angel of the Lord would have smitten the great multitude, as once he smote the proud army of Sennacherib.

His question is answered. They seek Jesus of Nazareth. It is evident from what we read in Matthew and Mark that many of the company did not know Him by sight. Judas had given them a sign, the sign of love, the kiss, so that they might know which one it is. When was that kiss given? It must have been given after the Lord had answered their question. The next moment brings His answer, “I am.” It must be noticed that here, as it is in John iv:26, the word “he” is in italics, it is supplied. In chapter viii:58, He had told the Jews, “‘Before Abraham was, I am.”

Enraged by His use of the divine title, “I am,” from which they surmised that He claimed to be the I am, Jehovah, they attempted to stone Him. Here once more He uses the same “I am.” But now they are not picking up stones to stone Him, but when He had said, “I am,” they all fell backward to the ground. What a spectacle it must have been when all these men, that great multitude, fell helpless, backward to the ground, while He stood there in all His dignity! It was a demonstration of His Deity and, as such, a miracle. Not one Roman soldier nor the Jewish officers could stand on their feet. An irresistible power prostrated them to the ground. The miracle occurred for two reasons. First to show to the disciples, and to His enemies as well, that He is the Lord of glory. It was His own omnipotent power which He displayed once more. For this reason it is embodied in the Gospel of John, written to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In the second place, it happened to show that His arrest and subsequent crucifixion did not take place because He could not help it, but because He was willing to have it so, Perhaps Psalm xxvii:2 may be taken as a prophecy of what happened here. ‘‘When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat me up, they stumbled and fell.”” Well has an ancient commentator said: “If He did this when about to be judged, what shall He do when He sits in judgment? If He did this on the eve of death, what shall He do when He comes to reign?” Then all His enemies will lick the dust. Then every knee must bow, of beings in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and every tongue must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 11:10, 11).

For the second time, probably after the whole company had risen to their feet, He asks the question, ‘Whom seek ye?’ And when He spoke the second “I am,” they did not fall to the ground. There was no second exhibition of His power, but He manifested His grace. “Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way.”” Then the Spirit of God reminds us that it was spoken, what He had said in His great prayer, “Of them which thou gavest me I have lost none.”’ Willingly He stretched forth His hands, to let Himself be bound, on the condition that His own should be free. He.is the Good Shepherd ready to give His life for the sheep.

Then Peter acted. He comes forward to resist, perhaps encouraged by the power which had been manifested. He had been sleeping when he should have been watching and praying. He acted in the same spirit in which he said to the Lord, when He had announced His passion, “Be it far from thee, O Lord!’ His hasty action was out of keeping with the grace the Lord was showing. He marred it all when he drew the sword and dealt Malchus, the servant of the high priest, a blow which cut off his ear. All the other Gospel records mention this incident, but only John gives the name of the servant and the name of Peter. Peter probably tried to kill Malchus, but God in His mercy prevented this. As we learn from the Gospel of Luke, the Lord touched the ear of Malchus and healed him instantaneously. It was the last miracle of physical healing our Lord performed, and in it He manifested His wonderful grace, to one who was an enemy. Some of the present day “healers,” who claim to do the same miracles of healing which Christ did, say that faith is necessary for healing. They declare where there is no true faith and trust in the Lord He is unwilling and unable to manifest His power. The incident here disproves their claims. This Jewish servant had no faith in Christ, nor did he trust in Christ for healing.

“Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath; the cup which my Father hath given unto me shall I not drink it?” It was a rebuke to Peter. He wanted to prevent Him from drinking that cup, which the Father had given to Him, the cup concerning which He had pleaded a little while before in those memorable words, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine be done.” He came to drink that cup and in perfect obedience, as the hour had come, He takes it to empty it to the last drop.

“The believer will note the bearing of our Lord throughout these closing scenes — His lowliness, His dignity, His infinite superiority to all who surrounded Him, friends or foes, His entire submission and withal His power intact. He isa Man, sent One of God, throughout. It is He who shelters and secures the disciples; it is He who offers Himself freely. The traitor and the band, the torches and the weapons, had all failed, if He had not been pleased in letting His own go to give Himself up. For this He had entered the world, and His hour was now come. But it was His own doing and according to the will of His Father.”

Verses 12-14. These three verses give an incident in the passion of our Lord which is not mentioned by the other three Gospels. Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Annas had been appointed high priest of the Jews in the year 7 A.D., but had been removed by the Roman Procurator several years previous, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been appointed in his place. In Luke iii:2, both are called high priests, and in Acts iv:6 and xxiii:2, the title is given to Annas. This is not a contradiction. The probable explanation is that while Caiaphas held the office, he was really controlled by his father-in-law, whom the Jews probably regarded as their true high priest, in opposition to the Roman deposition of Annas. At any rate, we know from the Jewish historian, Josephus, that the office of the high priest, when our Lord was here, was characterized by disorders and irregularities. It seems Annas was the controlling spirit and a great politician. There were not fewer than twenty-eight high priests from it he reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple by Titus inf the year 70. Of these, five, besides,Caiaphas, were sons of Annas.

They bound first the willing victim. If they had known that He whom they bound with cords is the Creator of all things, and that those hands uphold all things, and that some day He will be their judge, what terror would have struck their guilty consciences. They acted under the power of darkness and their eyes were blinded. But they needed not to bind Him. He would not have escaped to be free. He yielded Himself and gave Himself over to them, or they could not have bound Him. We are reminded by John that Caiaphas was he who gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient for one man to die for the people. (See John xi:49-51.)

Verses 15-27. While the other disciples were scattered two of them followed Jesus. Peter, as we know from the other Gospels, followed Him “afar off.” He is making a feeble attempt to make good his boast. What feelings must have surged in his bosom! He loved the Lord. He is filled with anxious care; he wants to see what will happen to Him. Yet his first step towards his shameful denial was done when he followed Him afar off. He chose the middle of the road. Instead of clinging close to the Lord he lagged behind, and soon the enemy swept him off his feet.

There are men today who may well take a lesson from Peter. They claim to be the “middle of the road men,”

They declare that they believe in the Bible, they believe in Christ, but they want to be charitable and not*to be outspoken for the fundamental truths of the Gospel. They do not want to be classed with these premillennial conservatives, nor do they want to be classed with the Modernists. They keep in the middle of the road, We have watched some of them and found out later that the middle of the road led them to deny Christ. In our perilous times the safest place is on the Lord’s side, not partly so, but wholly.

Who is the other disciple? Some have thought it was Judas. But there is no evidence whatever that it was the traitor, There is no difficulty in identifying this other disciple with John. In chapter xx:2, 3, 4 and 8 the same expression is used, and in these passages it is John; so it is John here also. John evidently was well acquainted in the palace of the high priest and knew him personally, so that he had no difficulty in entering in with the Lord. How the humble Galilean fisherman had become acquainted with the influential Caiaphas is not stated. Commentators have advanced all kinds of theories. One made the conjecture that John being a fisherman might have become acquainted with the high priest when he came to Jerusalem to sell his fish. It is of little profit to find out these minor details, which are omitted on purpose in the Word of God. Those who maintain that the other disciple was not John point to Acts iv:13, where Peter and John stood before Annas and Caiaphas, but both seemed to have been unknown to them. For this reason some suggested that the other disciple might have been Nicodemus, but he could hardly be called a disciple.

Peter stood outside, Admittance probably was refused to him by the doorkeeper, because he was a stranger. What a good thing it would have been for him if he had remained outside. But the other disciple was anxious for him to gain admittance also; he spoke to the woman who acted as door-keeper. Little did he think of the consequences for his companion which his introduction to the girl at the door would have, by which Peter was enabled to enter. Someone said Peter should have gone away when the door was shut for him, “It was by God’s providence that the door was shut. He got a warning then to leave off but would not. These impediments, cast in our way when we purpose to do a thing, should not be idly looked at.” Yet the word spoken by our Lord concerning Peter’s denial had to be fulfilled.

The portress recognized him. She must have seen him somewhere for she put the question to him at once, ‘‘Art thou not also one of this man’s disciples??? Perhaps she only surmised this. Certainly she had not assumed a threatening or accusing attitude. The lie which Peter told when he answered, “‘I am not,” was but the result of what had gone before. He had been self-confident. In the garden instead of watching and praying, he had relaxed and fallen asleep. Here is the fruit, so often repeated in the lives of the Lord’s people. Here also Peter’s impulsive character, so unstable, comes to the front. A short time ago he would face the garden mob single handed with a sword, and now he is so scared by a damsel and her question that he seeks refuge in a cowardly lie. He enters through lying and something worse follows. It was a cold night and there was a coal fire which was surrounded by the servants and officers, the enemies of Christ who had arrested Him and were now to drag Him from place to place. This miserable company Peter joined to warm himself too and to give the impression that he also belonged to this group. It was another lie, for by mingling with these enemies he tried to conceal his identity. And at the other end of the hall stood the Lord, a prisoner.

Then the judicial examination begins. This examination is not recorded in the preceding Gospel records. Annas asks Him two questions as to His disciples and as to His doctrine. The object of the first question was to get information about His followers and evidence against them. He ignores the first question and says, “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whether the Jews always resort; and in secret I have said nothing. Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me, what I have said unto them, behold, they know what I said.” It is a very dignified answer. He had taught for three years; all was done openly. Not like others who were deceivers did He plot in secret, but in many synagogues, besides in His temple visits He taught the truth. There was no need for

Annas to ask such a question. Furthermore he and his son-in-law Caiaphas had sent officers at a certain.time to report His teaching. They had returned with the testimony that never spake man as He did. Why should then he, the judge, ask of a prisoner to say that which might be used against him? It was not fair nor reasonable. That there is a striking difference between the words of our Lord here, and the words which he used before Caiaphas and the council, as reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke, is known to all thoughtful readers of the Gospels. It is explained that here in John we have another examination before Annas which the Synoptics do not record at all.

Then one of the officers offended by His dignity and His just and fair demand, smote Him with his hand. The Greek literally rendered means “gave a blow on the face,”’ which probably was done with a staff, in fulfilment of Micah v:8: “They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.” ‘This was probably the first blow our blessed Lord received in His passion.

How calm and perfect is His answer to the insulting and painful blow! “If I have spoken ill, bear witness of the ill; but if well, why smitest thou Me?” His sublime perfection is seen in this terse answer. ‘There was no defense from His side. Yet His answer is a rebuke. Luther remarked on this: ‘‘Christ forbids self-defense with the hand, but not with the tongue.” In what a different manner Paul acted when he was treated in a similar way (Acts xxiii:3). Then Annas sent Him away to Caiaphas.

Peter was still warming himself as the Lord was led away. Perhaps the coal fire flared up and the company he had joined began to notice him. They may have noticed his Galilean dress and suspected him at once to be one of the disciples, “Art thou not also one of his disciples??? What will Peter say? Undoubtedly, he had watched from a distance what had been going on. He saw, too, how the officer had struck the face of the Lord. He fears the worst for himself and so he utters his second denial. ‘He denied and said, I am not.” But something worse is in store for him. “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?” As he becomes the center of observation, one scans his features more closely and then expresses his conviction that he was surely in the garden with Him. And this one happened to be a relation of Malchus. Supposing it should be found out that he, Peter, wielded the sword which wounded Malchus, what would be the consequences for him? Poor Peter! for the third time he denied His Lord and Master, and as we learn from the other Gospels, he did this with a loud voice, cursing and swearing at the same time. Then the cock crowed. It was the awakening cry for Peter. It must have been to him a veritable thunderclap. The words of the Lord came back to him: “before the cock crows thou shalt deny Me thrice,” and thrice he had denied Him. From the other Gospel records we learn that the Lord looked upon him as He left the hall, and Peter went out and wept bitterly.

The fear of man bringeth a snare, and “What blinding power of the enemy thus to involve a saint in direct and daring falsehood, and thus to dishonor Him, who was his life and salvation! But of what is not the heart capable when the Lord is not before it, but fear or lust or aught else by which Satan beguiles? God, however, took care that the dread of man to His dishonor should cover the guilty disciple with self-reproach and utter contempt and humiliation, when an eye-witness could brand him before all with his reiterated lying in denial of his Master.’’*

The denial of Peter has many lessons. It shows where a saint will drift to if he, like Peter, neglects to watch and to pray. It shows what is in our poor human hearts, what even His choicest saints are capable of doing. And it brings out the loving tenderness and mercy of our Lord in Peter’s restoration. And He is still the same who “restoreth my soul.””

Verses 28-32. Our Lord’s examination before Caiaphas and the Jewish Sanhedrim, which the three preceding Gospels, the Synoptics, mention, is passed over by John and instead he describes more fully the trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, adding certain facts which the

*W. Kelly.

other Gospels do not state. There is no use to inquire into the reason why this is the case. If these documents were simply historical, produced by men who write history, criticism of their work and their motives would be in order. But they did not write as historians, but were the chosen instruments of the Spirit of God who guided their pens. The author of these records had His good reasons why He held back certain information from the three men who wrote their accounts many years before, and used John to add the things they had to omit. We know, however, the scope and purpose of each Gospel record accounts, at least partially, for these differences.

It was early in the morning when they led their willing victim from Caiaphas to the judgment hall. The Greek for “early” is the same used in chapter xx:1, so that it was between daybreak and sunrise. The judgment hall was the praetorium, the governor’s palace. Josephus, the great Jewish historian gives the information that the governors appointed over Judea had their residences in Caesarea, but when they visited Jerusalem they used the palace of Herod for their residence.

The account shows the feverish haste with which these murderers pushed on. They could not wait till daybreak, but dragged the Son of God, before the day had fully come, into the presence of the Gentile official. When they reached the praetorium they halted. They feared defilement. According to the interpretation of the law by the Pharisees, entering the abode of a Gentile meant their defilement, and would exclude them from eating the passover (Num. ix:6-11).

The Lord Jesus had spoken of “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matt. xxiii:24), and had called them more than once “hypocrites.” Such they were. They had scruples about entering the house of a pagan, but had none whatever in bringing false witness against the Lord of glory to secure His condemnation by fraud and violence. Ceremonial defilement they feared, but not the committing of the sin of all sins — the rejection of the Just One, whom they betrayed and murdered (Acts vii:52).

But is it any better today in Christendom? The Ritualist and the Rationalist manifest the same hypocrisy. The outside of the cup is kept clean, the inside is full of filth and abomination. The Mexican bandit, and others in countries where Rome rules, will be very conscientious in going to mass, and going through all Romish superstitious inventions, while at the same time he schemes and plans his crimes, which do not seem to affect his conscience in the least as long as he has done his superstitious ceremonies. So it is in ritualistic Protestantism. It is the same in Modernism. The Modernist hypocrite can make much about moral reform; speak of evils in the world which ought to be remedied, put on a goody-goody front as a minister of righteousness, but, at the same time, he can deny that which is the foundation of all righteousness in the world, the revelation of God in His holy Word, the Bible, and sneer at the Virgin-birth of our Lord, and in denying His Deity betray Him many times more than the Jews did when they haled Him before the Roman Governor,

Pilate, perhaps hearing the clamoring mob at such an early hour, or being notified by the guard, went out to them and said “What accusation bring ye against this man?” The Valerian law among the Romans demanded a definite charge against a person before that person could be condemned. So, as the highest magistrate, Pilate inquires as to the charge. The question put by Pilate was curt. They answered him in a disrespectful manner, which the proud Roman must have resented very much. “If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” The shrewd character of the Jew comes here to the front. The answer insinuates that the governor had said something foolish in demanding the nature of the accusation. “Do you think we would trouble you at this early hour if we brought to thee an innocent man and not an evil-doer?”’ But they aimed at something else. They tried to get the sentence of death signed without any hearing whatever before the civil court. “Is it not sufficient that we have found out ourselves that He is guilty? What is the use of having another examination? Pronounce the sentence of death!” The Governor answered them in another short sentence. ‘Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.” He evidently did not want to have anything to do with this case at all. From the other Gospels we learn that the motive of their accusation was “envy.” Pilate’s wife had also warned him not to have anything to do with this just person, for she had a significant dream about Him. The miserable coward he was, for political reasons, fearing man, he tried to evade the issue.

Perhaps Pilate thought they did not want Him to be executed, but that He should be chastised according to Roman law. If he did his wrong conception was at once dispelled by the answer from the Jews. “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” ‘The authority of the Roman government over the nation demanded that they had no longer the right to pronounce the sentence of death. The power which had conquered them had the exclusive right. They confessed themselves that what the prophets had predicted should happen had come to pass, when the iron heel of Gentile power would be upon the nation. But it also came about in this way, so that the prediction of our Lord might be fulfilled. At least two of the Lord’s sayings are in view here. He had predicted several times that He would be delivered by them into the hands of the Gentiles. This was now being done. In chapter xii:33 He predicted also death by crucifixion. Stoning was the mode of death used by the Jews. It was a mob, and not the law, which stoned Stephen, the first martyr. Rome had invented a more horrible form of death. Criminals were put to death by crucifixion. This was now to be fulfilled, what He had said, that He should be lifted up.

Verses 33-40. From Luke xxiii:2 we learn that the Jews then stated their lying accusations. He called Jesus with a loud voice to follow him (the meaning of the Greek word) inside of the palace to speak with Him privately. What we read from verse 33 to the unanswered question in verse 38, “What is truth?’ happened inside of the palace,and the mob outside did not hear a word of it. The first question which the Roman asked Him was the question concerning His Kingship. “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” Pilate had evidently heard of the accusation brought against Him, and more than that, he could not have been ignorant of Jewish prophecy and the expectation of the coming of the Messiah, the son of David. The Roman historian Suetonius in his work states that at that time there was a widespread anticipation that a great king was about to take control of Jewish affairs and would rule in due time over the whole world. Pilate must have known of this. Each of the Gospels state this question of the governor, so that there can be no question it was uppermost in the mind of this man. He, therefore, examined Him concerning His kingship. Then he sentenced Him as King and had Him crucified as King, and put above the cross the fact that He is the King of the Jews, so that there might be no mistake about it. Strange it is in view of all these facts concerning the Lord Jesus Christ coming as the Messiah, the promised King, preaching the kingdom first to Israel, that certain teachers can deny this, and invent a theory which lacks scriptural support and which opens the door to the postmillennial hypothesis.

The Lord answered him with a question: ‘‘Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?” Of course, He knew why Pilate had asked the question. He knew also the motive which had inspired it. He did not ask the question for information, but rather to speak through it to the conscience of the man who was to be His judge. If it had been a Roman officer who preferred this charge of being a rebel against the Government it would have been a serious matter, requiring the most painstaking examination. But the accusers were the Jews, saying that He claimed Kingship. But how could it be that the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities should complain of one of their own nation trying to emancipate them from the Roman yoke? Pilate knew how the Jews would have thrown off that yoke at any cost and welcomed any man who would lead a movement against the pagan oppressors. So the accusers were unwittingly the witnesses of His innocence. Of course, Pilate had never heard a word that the man who stood before him accused by the Jews had any desire whatever to lead a revolt against his Roman government and to set Himself up as king. And Pilate was not slow to see the point of the accused. His answer, “Am I a Jew?” shows that. He acknowledged that the accusation came from the Jews and therefore was a false accusation. With this answer he also voiced the fact that he, the Roman governor, despised the Jew. Many of the Roman authors and historians like Horace, Juvenal, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny, speak contemptuously of the Jews. We can imagine the sneering face of Pilate, when he spoke these words, as if he had been insulted. Then he added the truth, “thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me. What hast thou done?” With this sentence he shows that the Jews were the accusers and that he had no use for their charge as to his sedition. Then he appealed to the prisoner to tell him what He had done.

The first question Pilate had asked: “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” our Lord now takes up in His answer. ‘“‘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.”” As Pilate was honestly perplexed He answered his question. Before Caiaphas and Herod He was silent. Later also He did not answer Pilate.

His answer has puzzled a good many. What did our Lord mean? In the mind of the pagan official the thought was uppermost as to the kingdom which the Lord would claim to originate and to control. The kingdoms which are of the world are established by human power, defended by the world’s arms, and the world’s money upholds them. “My kingdom is not of such a nature. When my kingdom comes,” He wants to impress upon the mind of Pilate, “‘it is not established by the world.” And so it will be when He returns as King and receives the kingdom, when all the kingdoms of this world will become His kingdom. It will come from above; not the world will give to Him the kingdom, but He will receive the kingdom from the hands of God His Father. If His kingdom were an earthly, worldly kingdom, such as the Roman empire, His servants would fight and prevent His condemnation.

The little word ‘“‘now” is here of immense significance. “But now is My kingdom not from hence.” ‘The Jews had rejected Him. The promised and offered kingdom could not come. “Now My kingdom in temporal power and glory cannot come; it will come later but now the time is not. My rule is now of a different nature. In this dispensation I shall not have the earthly Kingdom to which ] am entitled.”

It seems the Governor was unable to grasp this answer. He seemed to be convinced that the Lord Jesus was not a political offender. This much Pilate had understood, that the Lord spoke of a kingdom which is now not of the world. If He has any kind of a kingdom, then He must be a king. That is why he asked next “Art Thou a king then?”

Jesus answered: ““Thou sayest that I ama king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” The Lord bears witness here to the fact of His Kingship. He is a King. The original is best rendered, ‘“Thou sayest, for I am a King.” He gave Pilate to understand that He had not come into the world to build up a great kingdom by physical force, as is the case in a worldly kingdom. He came for a higher purpose. He came as a witness to the Truth, yea He Himself is the Truth. Three great facts are to be considered in this good witness which our Lord gave before Pilate (1 Tim. vi:13): (1) The Lord Jesus Christ is a King. As such He came, because He is according to the flesh the son of David, entitled to the throne of His father David. (2) The object of His incarnation was to testify to the Truth, to bear witness to it. His true humanity and His Deity are witnessed to by Himself. When He said, “for this end was I born” He states His true humanity, but when He declared “for this cause came into the world”’ it is not a vain, unmeaning repetition of His birth, but shows that He pre-existed and came from above. (3) They only hear Him (receive Him) who are of the Truth. The meaning is that those proceeding from the truth, who are born again by the power of the truth and the Spirit of truth, hear Him.

Pilate had listened. But the words of the Lord had fallen on barren ground. He has no answer save the question “What is truth?” Was it the question of an honest inquirer? Had his conscience been touched? Would he know more? Was he exercised in his soul? Such was not the case with the proud Roman. The man who said shortly before, with a sneer, “Am I a Jew?” would not inquire of an accused Jewish prisoner what the truth is and thus show willingness to be taught by him. If the question had come from him as a seeker for the truth the incident would not have ended so abruptly. The Lord would have had something to say to the inquiring soul. It was a sneering word, this interjection, “What is truth?”’* He turned suddenly around. He went out to face the murderous mob. He told them, “I find in Him no fault at all.” What a statement! The judge who would sign ere long His death warrant must publicly declare that there is no fault in Him. He was found without spot and blemish as the sacrificial Lamb. Then the politician comes out in all his lying characteristics. One only needs to watch certain politicians of our own day to discover that human nature has not changed a bit since that day. Pilate knows the man before him is innocent and guiltless and, therefore, he should be freed. But he is a politician and he must guard his own political interests. Supposing these Jews became offended? What will happen then? Perhaps a great disturbance, and the matter will be reported to Rome. It would not serve for his best interests. Our next chapter shows what finally induced him to pronounce the sentence (xix:12). Here he tries to wiggle out of the perplexing situation. They had a Passover custom to have released by the government a notable prisoner (Mark xv:8). How and when this custom originated we do not know. He takes refuge under this custom. There was another prisoner, a robber, by name of Barabbas. He was also a murderer (Acts iii:14). He was

*This famous inquiry of Pilate is certainly not the inquiry of an honest seeker for truth (Chrysostom), for he does not even wait for an answer; nor, apparently, the disconsolate question of one who despaired of ever arriving at a standard of truth (Olshausen); for there is no evidence that he ever sought the truth, either in philosophy or religion; nor the scoffing question of one who believes that the truth can never be found (Alford), and whose modern type is the positivist, who believes that all creeds are false, and God, immortality and the soul are unknowable, for there is nothing to indicate that such problems had any interest for him. It is rather asked, half in pity, half in contempt; the question of the practical man in the world, to whom this conception of a kingdom built on truth and maintained without an army and exchequer seemed but the baseless phantom of a harmless religious enthusiast (Ellicott). These are the views of four of the leading commentators.

a lawless outcast. Pilate makes the proposition, ‘‘Will you that I release unto you the king of the Jews?” Back comes the awful cry, “Not this man — Barabbas!’”’ What sin in all the blackness of it and sinfulness of it, is here revealed, along with Satan’s power. Oh! the horror of it, that man rejects the Holy One, the Just One. Such are our hearts.

Bishop Ryle’s remarks on this incident are helpful and worth repeating: “Even here at this juncture we have an illustration of the great Christian doctrine of substitution. Barabbas, the real criminal, is acquitted and let go free. Jesus, innocent and guiltless, is condemned and sentenced to death. So it is in the salvation of our souls. We are all by nature as Barabbas, and deserve God’s wrath and condemnation; yet he was accounted righteous and set free. The Lord Jesus Christ is perfectly innocent and yet He is counted a sinner, and put to death that we may live. Christ suffers, though guiltless, that we may be pardoned. We are pardoned, though guilty, because of what Christ has done for us. We are sinners, yet counted righteous. Christ is righteous, yet counted a sinner. Happy is that man who understands and believes this doctrine, who has laid hold on it by faith for the salvation of his own soul.”