João 18
Bob Utley · Citado em PreceptAustin
João 18
Utley - This is a SECOND CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE often called “contrary to fact.” Jesus was not an evil doer. This was a sarcastic remark to Pilate who refused to indulge in the “nit-picking” religious charges of Jews. This verb “delivered” is the same one usually translated “betrayed” when used of Judas (cf. 6:68, 71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21; 18:2, 5). The term literally means “to hand on over to an authority” or “to pass on a tradition.” In connection with Judas, the term has intensified among English translators.
João 18
Utley - According to Flavius Josephus, Annas was the High Priest from A.D. 6–15. He was appointed by Quirinius, governor of Syria and removed by Valerius Gratus. His relatives (5 sons and 1 grandson) succeeded him. Caiaphas (A.D. 18–36), his son-in-law, was his immediate successor. Annas was the real power behind the office. John depicts him as the first person to whom Jesus is taken (cf. 18:13, 19–22). William
João 18
Utley on Annas - Annas was the power behind the throne. He reigned from A.D. 6 to A.D. 15. He was immediately followed by his son-in-law and later his five sons and a grandson. Annas, who owned the commercial rights in the temple area, was probably anxious to interrogate the one who cleansed the Temple twice. It is interesting that Annas was concerned about Jesus’ disciples as well as His teachings. NET NOTE - The nature of this hearing seems to be more that of a preliminary investigation; certainly normal legal procedure was not followed (SEE NOTE ON ILLEGALITIES OF JEWISH "TRIALS"), for no indication is given that any witnesses were brought forth at this point to testify against Jesus. True to what is known of Annas’ character, he was more interested in Jesus’ disciples than in the precise nature of Jesus’ teaching, since he inquired about the followers first. He really wanted to know just how influential Jesus had become and how large a following he had gathered. This was of more concern to Annas that the truth or falsity of Jesus’ teaching. This was a sort of preliminary examination before the Sanhedrin should try him officially. James Butler - EXAMINATION John 18:19 - Sermon Starters “The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine” (John 18:19). Our text comes from one of the trials of Christ which preceded His crucifixion. The trials basically were unjust and full of fraud. The people doing the examination had made up their minds that Christ should be put to death (Matthew 27:1) and would not take any testimony to the contrary. In fact they even sought “false” witnesses (Matthew 26:59) to help their case. Our text records an examination of Christ by the High Priest. The comment about the High Priest’s examination is most instructive. We note three aspects of this examination. FIRST—THE DEFICIENCY OF THE EXAMINATION “Asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine.” The High Priest interrogated Christ about two different things. First, the examined Christ regarding His disciples. Second, he examined Christ regarding His doctrine. This is ever the way the world examines things, but it is the wrong way. You should first examine the doctrine then the disciples about any movement. It is true that we can, by looking at the followers of some creed to sometimes tell the character of that creed or movement, but that is not the best way. To examine a movement we must examine their doctrine. What do they believe. Examine something by examining the facts, not just the followers. Radio, newspapers, magazines, TV and now the internet all try to get the endorsement of famous people for their product. But if you listen to the words of these famous people, you learn nothing substantial about the product. To examine the product you should examine the truth, the facts, not what some follower or paid endorser says. SECOND—THE DISCIPLES IN THE EXAMINATION “Asked Jesus of His disciples.” While it is not the best way to examine the Gospel, asking about the disciples is a good exhortation to disciples to live a godly life. You are a representative of the Gospel and people watch your every move. How you act affects whether or not a person will respond positively or negatively to the Gospel. We should not base our acceptance or rejection on who is the follower of a creed, but men do this which means those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ need to live consistent godly lives. THIRD—THE DOCTRINE IN THE EXAMINATION “Asked Jesus … of His doctrine.” Truth is truth no matter who believes it or rejects it. Christ is Christ no matter who rejects Him or receives Him. If the religious leaders had examined the doctrine/teaching of Christ with honesty they would have had to say “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). The problem with the leaders of the people was that they were not interested in facts/doctrine but in popularity. That’s why the investigation began with the disciples not the doctrine of Christ. Examine the facts of any movement, look at the truth and make your decision according. The facts favor Christ. (Sermon Starters) John 18:20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. I have spoken openly: John 7:14,26,28 Jn 8:2 Jn 10:23-39 Ps 22:22 40:9 Mt 4:23 9:35 21:23-27 Mt 26:65 Lu 4:15 19:45-47 20:1-8 21:37 and in: John 7:4 Isa 45:19 48:16 Mt 24:26 Ac 26:26 Related Passages: John 6:59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. John 7:14 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and began to teach. John 7:26 “Look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they? John 7:28 Then Jesus cried out in the temple, teaching and saying, “You both know Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. John 8:2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. John 8:20 These words He spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one seized Him, because His hour had not yet come. Matthew 4:23 Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. JESUS' ANSWERS HE IS GUILTY OF ONLY SPEAKING OPENLY Jesus (Iesous) answered him, “I have spoken openly (parrhesia - frankly, plainness of speech) to the world (kosmos); I always taught (didasko) in synagogues (sunagoge) and in the temple (hieron - entire Temple complex), where all the Jews (Ioudaios) come together (sunerchomai); and I spoke nothing (oudeis absolutely nothing) in secret (kruptos ~ "cryptic") - Of course even when Jesus taught in parables it was not in secret. The hearers simply could not understand because they lacked the eyes to see and ears to hear His truths (Mk 4:10–12+). And of course Jesus had private conversations with His disciples (e.g., the entire Upper Room Discourse was in private) but His message was the same in private as it was in public. He was not trying to hide truth but to reveal truth because He is the Truth. Jesus' testimony reminds us of the words of Isaiah... Isaiah 45:19 “I have not spoken in secret, In some dark land; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek Me in a waste place’; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright. Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” Utley has ain interesting remark on Jesus' teaching - It is certainly true that Jesus taught publicly. However, it is also true that many of His teachings were veiled to the public (cf. Mk 4:10–12+). The real issue was spiritual blindness on the part of His hearers. John
João 18
Utley - “why do you question Me” In v. 20 Jesus asserts the public nature of His teaching ministry. Jesus was pointing out to Annas that his questions were illegal according to Jewish law. Adam Clarke on the illegal aspects of the trial - “For the Talmud states, Sanhedrin. C. iv. S. 1, that-’Criminal processes can neither commence not terminate, but during the course of the day. If the person be acquitted, the sentence may be pronounced during that day; but, if he be condemned, the sentence cannot be pronounced till the next day. But no kind of judgment is to be executed, either on the eve of the Sabbath, or the eve of any festival (ED: BOTH OF WHICH WERE TRUE IN THIS CASE).’” John 18:22 When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” BGT John 18:22 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος εἷς παρεστηκὼς τῶν ὑπηρετῶν ἔδωκεν ῥάπισμα τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰπών· οὕτως ἀποκρίνῃ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; NET John 18:22 When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest's officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, "Is that the way you answer the high priest?" CSB John 18:22 When He had said these things, one of the temple police standing by slapped Jesus, saying, "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" ESV John 18:22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" NIV John 18:22 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. NLT John 18:22 Then one of the Temple guards standing nearby slapped Jesus across the face. "Is that the way to answer the high priest?" he demanded. NRS John 18:22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" NJB John 18:22 At these words, one of the guards standing by gave Jesus a slap in the face, saying, 'Is that the way you answer the high priest?' struck: Job 16:10 30:10-12 Isa 50:5-7 Jer 20:2 Mic 5:1 Mt 26:67-68 Mk 14:65 Lu 22:63-64 Ac 23:2,3 Is that the way You answer: Ac 23:4-5 Related Passages: Matthew 26:67 (THIS WAS AT HIS SECOND RELIGIOUS TRIAL BEFORE CAIAPHAS) Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, Luke 22:63-64 (THIS WAS AT HIS THIRD RELIGIOUS TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN AT DAYBREAK) Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, 64 and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” Isaiah 50:6 I gave My back to those who strike Me, And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting. JESUS STRUCK BY AN OFFICER When He had said this, one of the officers (huperetes) standing nearby struck (rhapisma lit. "gave a blow") Jesus (Iesous) - NET = "struck him on the face" NLT - "slapped Jesus across the face" The KJV adds "with the palm of his hand" (Jn 18:22KJV). officers (huperetes) could have been one of the temple police (same Greek word used for "officers" in Jn 18:2). Struck is two Greek words, didomi which means to give and rhapisma which means a blow as with a stick or the palm of the hand. Have you ever been slapped across your face? I was slapped by my step father when I was 10yo and from that day on we never had a cordial relationship (I was not a believer at the time). There is something utterly demeaning about being slapped in the face and that was surely the officers intent toward Jesus (cf Isa 50:6). Striking a bound man made it even more inappropriate. If this officer never became a believer, can you imagine his horror when he realizes one day Who he had struck and is judged accordingly! Saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest (archiereus)" - One is reminded of the high priest Ananias commanding that Paul be struck on the in Acts 23:1-5+ for reviling "God’s high priest." Of course the irony is that Jesus was the true and great High Priest, not Annas or Caiaphas. And also Paul apologized for his words. Jesus had no need to apologize. Spurgeon Study Bible - When he had said these things, one of the officials standing by slapped Jesus, saying, ‘Is this the way you answer the high priest?’ ‘If I have spoken wrongly,’ Jesus answered him, ‘give evidence about the wrong; but if rightly, why do you hit me?’ ” Here we get an exposition of one of Christ’s own sayings: “If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Mt 5:39). Of course, Christ would carry out his own command, so we see that he did not mean that his disciples were literally to turn the other cheek to those who struck them but that they were to bear such treatment patiently and not to give a railing answer. See how Jesus himself turned the other cheek. Nothing could have been more calm or more dignified and, at the same time, more full of the spirit of forgiveness. Here we get an exposition of one of Christ’s own sayings. You know that he said, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Of course, Christ would carry out his own precept, so we see that he did not mean that his disciples were literally to turn the other cheek to those who struck them, but that they were to bear such treatment patiently, and not to give a railing answer. See how Jesus himself turned the other cheek. Jesus answered him, Not as Paul did, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” The Master is superior to the disciple at all points. Struck (4475)(rhapisma from rhapizo - to strike with a rod, hence to strike with the palm of the hand) means a blow (with a stick or the palm of the hand). To give a blow with the open hand, especially on the face or ear slap, cuff (Jn 18.22; possibly Mk 14.65 and Jn 19.3). A strike with a club or stick blow, hit (possibly Mk 14.65 and Jn 19.3). Only 3x in NT - Mk. 14:65; Jn. 18:22; Jn. 19:3 slaps(2), struck*(1). Once in Lxx - Isaiah 50:6 a Messianic prophecy of Jesus' suffering = "I gave My back to those who strike Me, And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard (Lxx = "my cheeks to blows"); I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting. " Robert Hawker —John 18:22. THOSE are sweet views of Jesus which point to our oneness and union with him, by which alone we derive an interest in him, and are made partakers both in his grace and glory. By virtue of this it is, that the glory the Father gave Jesus, as Mediator, all his people are interested in, and truly enjoy. For though, like the heir of the kingdom, when an infant, the babe is unconscious of his dignity, yet is not the less entitled to his high birth and rank; so the seed of Jesus, while in this childhood of existence, though they do not live up to their high privileges through the weakness of their faith, yet their claim in Jesus is not the less. Jesus hath given them the glory of being brought within the covenant; the glory of redemption; the glory of the Holy Ghost’s gifts and influences; and, in short, all the glory which a state of grace implies, and which is the earnest of the future fulness of glory. And, my soul! dost thou ever pause over this account of present glory as if thou didst now truly know thine interest in and enjoyment of it? Look at it only under these two considerations, and then bow down under a sense of it in the dust before God. In the first, put forth thy utmost faculties to calculate that glory which, if thou art one of Jesus’ redeemed people, thou now truly hast in having union with Christ! Who shall undertake to describe that glory imparted to a poor worm of the earth, who is brought into union with God’s dear Son? Paul speaks of it as an high privilege, when he said, “Ye are come to an innumerable company of angels.” But what is the society of angels, compared to an union with Jesus? Moreover, angels have no such privilege: for while Jesus is to them their Lord and Sovereign, and governs them by his supreme command, yet is he not to them as he is to his church, the glorious head of that church, which is his body, and by which he perpetually communicates to all his members a source of gracious and glorious influences, according to what he hath said, “Because I live, ye shall live also.” Hence what the Redeemer said to the Father is explained on this sure testimony—“The glory thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one.” Look at the subject under another consideration. Hath not Jesus given present glory to all his redeemed in that communication which is perpetually passing and repassing between him and them, by virtue of this oneness, and unity, and interest, into which they are actually brought? My soul! what saith thine experience to this precious truth? Dost thou really and truly partake of what is Jesus’; and doth he not really and truly partake of what is thine? Is there not an exchange, a barter, a fellowship, carried on between thy glorious head and thyself? Surely thou hast communion in whatever belongs to Christ as Mediator, in his righteousness, in his grace, his redemption, his glory. And doth not Jesus manifest continual tokens that he takes part in all that concerns thee; thy sorrows, thy wants, thine afflictions? Was it not said of him, ages before his incarnation, when speaking of his people, “in all their affliction he was afflicted?” And is it not said now, that whosoever toucheth his people, touched the apple of his eye? Oh! unparalleled grace! Oh! matchless love! that the Son of God should thus manifest his affection. What will you call this, my soul, but what thy God and Saviour hath called it—the glory which the Father gave him he hath given to his people? And all this on purpose to prove that they are one with him. Hallelujah! John 18:23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” KJV John 18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? BGT John 18:23 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· εἰ κακῶς ἐλάλησα, μαρτύρησον περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ· εἰ δὲ καλῶς, τί με δέρεις; NET John 18:23 Jesus replied, "If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?" CSB John 18:23 "If I have spoken wrongly," Jesus answered him, "give evidence about the wrong; but if rightly, why do you hit Me?" ESV John 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?" NIV John 18:23 "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" NLT John 18:23 Jesus replied, "If I said anything wrong, you must prove it. But if I'm speaking the truth, why are you beating me?" NRS John 18:23 Jesus answered, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" NJB John 18:23 Jesus replied, 'If there is some offence in what I said, point it out; but if not, why do you strike me?' NAB John 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" YLT John 18:23 Jesus answered him, 'If I spake ill, testify concerning the ill; and if well, why me dost thou smite?' MIT John 18:23 Jesus replied to him, "If I spoke something wrong, indicate what was wrong. If I spoke on the level, why did you strike me?" GWN John 18:23 Jesus replied to him, "If I've said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I've told the truth, why do you hit me?" If: 2Co 10:1 1Pe 2:20-23 JESUS QUESTIONS THE ONE WHO STRUCK HIM Jesus (Iesous) answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly (kakos), testify (martureo - aorist imperative) of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike (dero) Me - Jesus does not back down but challenges Annas to bring forth the evidence that He is in "contempt of the court" so to speak. All Jesus is doing at this point is asking for a fair trial, which He knew they would not give Him. Utley - These are two FIRST CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCES which are assumed to be there from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. Here it is not true to reality. Let us pray that, whenever we are despitefully treated, we may keep our temper, and be as composed as our Lord was; and if we must make an answer to our accusers, let it be as discreet and as justifiable as this answer of our Lord was. Nothing could have been more calm or more dignified, and, at the same time, more full of the spirit of forgiveness. John 18:24 So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Annas: John 18:13 Mt 26:57 bound: John 18:13 Related Passages: Matthew 26:57-68+ (JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS - NOT RECORDED IN GOSPEL OF JOHN) Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” 67 Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” FOR JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS SEE ALSO Mk 14:53-65+ and Lk 22:54, 63-65+ ANNAS "PASSES THE BUCK" TO SECOND "TRIAL" BEFORE CAIAPHAS So (oun) probably signifies progression in the narrative and is not a term of conclusion in this context. Annas knows he has a problem which is the absence of any legitimate charge the Jews could use to justify bringing Jesus before Pilate. So he ships Jesus to Caiaphas to solve this dilemma. Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest (archiereus) - Annas having found nothing of which He could justify a charge sends Jesus to Caiaphas but John has no record of this second of three Jewish religious trials. John does not have a record of this trial (see Matthew passages above). NET NOTE - Where was Caiaphas the high priest located? Did he have a separate palace, or was he somewhere else with the Sanhedrin? Since Augustine (4th century) a number of scholars have proposed that Annas and Caiaphas resided in different wings of the same palace, which were bound together by a common courtyard through which Jesus would have been led as he was taken from Annas to Caiaphas. This seems a reasonable explanation, although there is no conclusive evidence. John 18:25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” was standing and warming himself.: John 18:18 Mk 14:37,38,67 Lu 22:56 They: Mt 26:69,71 Mk 14:68-70 Lu 22:58 He: Ge 18:15 Pr 29:25 Ga 2:11-13 Related Passages: John 13:38+ Jesus *answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times. THE SECOND DENIAL BY PETER Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself - Where? In the courtyard (Jn 18:15-18). A fire would have made his face visible. So (presumably because they recognized him) they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples (mathetes), are you?” - Again this Greek sentence begins with a negative (me) thus expecting a negative response just as Peter gave them in his reply. He denied (arneomai) it, and said, “I am not" - Peter absolutely (Gk = ouk) denies being one of Jesus' disciples. Strike two! We know that the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. He did not speak a word, perhaps lest Peter should fall into the hands of those who were round about him; but his look was sufficient to kindle in Peter the fires of repentance, and he went out to weep bitterly over his shameful denial of his Lord. Two or three or more of them speaking at a time said to him: — Twice over, we are told that, while his Master was being buffeted, Peter stood in the midst of the ribald throng, and warmed himself. Denied (720) arneomai from "a" = negation + rheo = say) literally means "to say no", to say one does not know about or is in any way related to some person or something. Webster says that to deny implies a firm refusal to accept as true, to grant or concede or to acknowledge the existence or claims of. It means in relation to a question or demand to deny. Under certain conditions other shades of meaning appear, such as “to reject” or “to decline”; the word can even mean “to deny something or someone.” It was during the Hellenistic period that arneomai first denoted the meaning so dominant in the New Testament— “to renounce, to deny.” Arneomai means to disclaim association with a person or event (repudiate, disown, verbally or non-verbally). ARNEOMAI - 30V - Matt. 10:33; Matt. 26:70; Matt. 26:72; Mk. 14:68; Mk. 14:70; Lk. 8:45; Lk. 9:23; Lk. 12:9; Lk. 22:57; Jn. 1:20; Jn. 13:38; Jn. 18:25; Jn. 18:27; Acts 3:13; Acts 3:14; Acts 4:16; Acts 7:35; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Tim. 2:12; 2 Tim. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 1:16; Tit. 2:12; Heb. 11:24; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:22; 1 Jn. 2:23; Jude 1:4; Rev. 2:13; Rev. 3:8 John 18:26 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” being: John 18:10 Did: Pr 12:19 Mt 26:73 Mk 14:70-71 Lu 22:59-60 Related Passages: Matthew 26:73+ (THIRD ACCUSATION) A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” Mark 14:70+ But again he denied it. (THIRD ACCUSATION) And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too.” Luke 22:59+ (THIRD ACCUSATION) After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.” PETER RECOGNIZED AS IN THE GARDEN WITH JESUS One of the slaves (doulos) of the high priest (archiereus), being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said - This slave was in the crowd that arrested Jesus and witnessed Malchus' "acute hearing loss." Peter panicked, because the accusation by the slave of the high priest who was a relative of Malchus was the most dangerous accusation. Being a disciple of Jesus was not a crime at this time, but assaulting a man with a sword was a crime. And this would have been an eye witness to the crime! Peter's impulsive action had come back on him like a boomerang (isn't that what many of our foolish acts/actions/words do in our lives? Rhetorical of course!) Luke 22:59+ says "another man began to insist" while Matthew and Mark describe the questioners as "bystanders." (Mt 26:73+, Mk 14:70+) “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” This question, prefaced with the negative "ouk", anticipates a "YES" answer. The slave has Peter in the proverbial corner. Utley - There is some discrepancy among the four Gospels as to who asked the questions of Peter: (1) in Mark, it is a maid who asked the first question (cf. Mark 14:69); (2) in Matthew it is another servant girl (cf. Matt. 26:71); and (3) in Luke 22:58 it is a man. It is obvious from the historical setting that one person asked the question around the fire and the others joined in (cf. Jn 18:18). Ah, me! they who lie once will be all too apt to lie again; those who deny Christ once will be apt to go to still greater lengths in their denial of him. May they be stopped as Peter was! C H
João 18
Utley - “immediately a rooster crowed” The chronology of events from all four Gospels implies this occurred between 12:00 and 3:00 o’clock in the morning. The Jews did not allow chickens inside the city limits of Jerusalem so it must have been a Roman rooster. Luke 22:61 asserts at this point that Jesus looked at Peter. It is assumed that Annas and Caiaphas lived in the same house and the guards were moving Jesus from His meeting with Annas to His meeting with Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. It was in this movement when Jesus looked at Peter. This is all conjecture because we do not have enough historical information to be dogmatic about the sequence of events of these night trials. NET NOTE - It seems most likely that this refers to a real rooster crowing, although a number of scholars have suggested that “cockcrow” is a technical term referring to the trumpet call which ended the third watch of the night (from midnight to 3 a.m.). This would then be a reference to the Roman gallicinium (ἀλεκτοροφωνία, alektorophōnia; the term is used in Mark 13:35 and is found in some MSS [𝔓37vid,45 f1] in Matt 26:34) which would have been sounded at 3 a.m.; in this case Jesus would have prophesied a precise time by which the denials would have taken place. For more details see J. H. Bernard, St. John (ICC), 2:604. However, in light of the fact that Mark mentions the rooster crowing twice (Mark 14:72) and in Luke 22:60 the words are reversed (ἐφώνησεν ἀλέκτωρ, ephōnēsen alektōr), it is more probable that a real rooster is in view. In any event natural cockcrow would have occurred at approximately 3 a.m. in Palestine at this time of year (March–April) anyway. No indication is given of Peter’s emotional state at this third denial (as in Matt 26:74 and Mark 14:71) or that he remembered that Jesus had foretold the denials (Matt 26:75, Mark 14:72 and Luke 22:61), or the bitter remorse Peter felt afterward (Matt 26:75, Mark 14:72, and Luke 22:62). May the cock crow for some who have been asleep up till now, and warn them that the night is far spent, and that it is time for them to awake out of sleep, and wash their eyes with tears, and repent of having denied their Lord! The passages, which we are about to read from three of the Evangelists, make up a continuous narrative of our Lord’s trial before the high priest. First, John gives us an account of our Saviour’s appearance before Annas, of which I need not say much, as I recently preached upon it. Thus was Christ’s prediction literally fulfilled, and thus, by what seems the humble instrumentality of a cock crowing, was Peter brought to repentance. There is many an eloquent divine who has missed the mark when he has been preaching, but God has spoken by a very humble voice. You, dear friend, though you have no gifts of speech, may go and tell the story of Jesus Christ to someone, and God may bring him to repentance through you, as he brought Peter back to himself through the agency of this bird. May God make us all useful, and keep us from falling into transgression as Peter did! Amen. PETER'S DENIAL One of the servants of the high priest . . . said, "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?" Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed (John 18:26-27). DEFEAT Thinking about the muddled mess of mankind, Gordon DePree lamented in his book A Time to Grow, "People sometimes disappoint me, and there are times when I disappoint others. This hurts. Ideals fall. Dreams fade. The concepts of life I was carefully constructing suddenly crumble into a rubble-heap at my feet . . . and I sit in the ruins, wondering if there is anything right about life, or if I even care." After Peter had denied Jesus three times, He knew that nothing was right about life. He had become a blunder mouth beyond belief. With a few foolish words he had wrecked his life, becoming a heap of twisted metal at the feet of his fellow disciples. He had failed Jesus. How Jesus dealt with Peter afterward is an example straight from God's body shop. Following the resurrection, Jesus reaffirmed His love for Peter. He evidently met with Peter alone (1 Corinthians 15:5) and later reminded him that He had a job for him—caring for God's children (John 21:17). No wonder Peter would later write that we can cast our cares upon Him because He really cares for us (1 Peter 5:7). Even though we may be abandoned at the junkyard, Jesus is calling for a wrecker. He will lovingly restore us to mint condition. James Smith - The Biography of Peter is singularly instructive for every follower of Christ. 1 His Call. The first of the Twelve Matt. 10:2 2 His Courage Matt. 14:28 3 His Confession Matt. 16:15–16 4 His Impulsiveness Matt. 17:4; John 18:10 5 His Self-Confidence Mark 14:29–31 6 His Indifference Mark 14:37 7 His Cowardliness Mark 14:54 8 His Denial Mark 14:68–71 9 His Repentance Mark 14:72 10 His Forgiveness Mark 16:7 11 His Faith John 20:2–4 12 His Love John 21:7 13 His Devotion John 21:15 14 His Boldness Acts 2:14; 4:19–20 15 His Power Acts 3:6; 5:3 He was a man of like passions as we are: Be of good cheer. THE FEAR OF MAN John 18:15-27. J H Jowett AND this is the disciple who had been surnamed “The Rock”! Our Lord looked into the morrow, and He saw Simon’s character, compacted by grace and discipline into a texture tough and firm as granite. But there is not much granite here! Peter is yet loose and yielding; more like a bending reed than an unshakable rock. A servant girl whispers, and his timid heart flings a lie to his lips and he denies his Lord. Peter denied the Master, not because he coveted money, but because he feared men. He was not seeking crowns, but escaping frowns. He was not clutching at a garland, but avoiding a sword. It was not avarice but cowardice which determined his ways. He shrank from crucifixion! He saw a possible cross, and with a great lie he passed by on the other side. But the Lord has not done with Peter. He is still “in the making.” Some day he will justify his new name. Some day we shall find it written: “When they saw the boldness of Peter, they marvelled”! Once a maid could make him tremble. Now he can stand in high places, “steadfast and unmovable”! From the spirit of cowardice and from all temporizing, and from the unholy fear of man, deliver me, good Lord! Failure Is Not Fatal You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. — John 6:69 Today's Scripture & Insight : John 18:15-27 Prime Minister Winston Churchill knew how to bolster the spirits of the British people during World War II. On June 18, 1940, he told a frightened populace, “Hitler knows that he will have to break us . . . or lose the war. . . . Let us therefore brace . . . and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire [lasts] for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour!’ ” We would all like to be remembered for our “finest hour.” Perhaps the apostle Peter’s finest hour was when he proclaimed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:69). Sometimes, however, we let our failures define us. After Peter repeatedly denied that he knew Jesus, he went out and wept bitterly (Matt. 26:75; John 18). Like Peter, we all fall short—in our relationships, in our struggle with sin, in our faithfulness to God. But “failure is not fatal,” as Churchill also said. Thankfully, this is true in our spiritual life. Jesus forgave the repentant Peter for his failure (John 21) and used him to preach and lead many to the Savior. Dear Father, thank You for Your forgiveness. Thank You that Your mercy and grace are given freely through the shed blood of Your Son, Jesus. When God forgives, He removes the sin and restores the soul. -- Ps 32:1-2+ QUESTION - What was the reason behind Peter's denial of Jesus? | GotQuestions ANSWER - The story of Peter’s threefold denial of Christ is found in all four Gospel accounts: Matthew 26:69–74, Mark 14:66–72, Luke 22:55–62, and John 18:15–18, 25–27. But why would the chief of the disciples deny even knowing Him? There were two main reasons why Peter denied Jesus: weakness and fear. Peter’s denial was based partially on weakness, the weakness born of human frailty. After the Last Supper, Jesus took His disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane to await His arrest. He told them to stay awake and pray while He went off to pray alone. When He returned to them, He found them sleeping. He warned Peter to stay awake and pray because, although his spirit might be willing, his flesh was weak. But he fell asleep again, and, by the time the soldiers had come to arrest Jesus, it was too late to pray for the strength to endure the ordeal to come. No doubt his failure to appropriate the only means to shore up his own weakness—prayer—occurred to him as he was weeping bitterly after his denials. But Peter learned his lesson about being watchful, and he exhorts us in 1 Peter 5:8, “Be on the alert, because your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Peter’s weakness had caused him to be “devoured” momentarily as he denied his Lord because he hadn’t been prepared through prayer and he underestimated his own weakness. A second reason for Peter’s failure was fear. To his credit, although all the others had fled (Mark 14:50), Peter still followed Jesus after His arrest, but he kept his distance so as not to be identified with Him (Mark 14:54). There’s no question that fear gripped him. From the courtyard, he watched Jesus being falsely accused, beaten, and insulted (Mark 14:57–66). Peter was afraid Jesus would die, and he was fearful for his own life as well. The world hated Jesus, and Peter found that he was not prepared to face the ridicule and persecution that Jesus was suffering. Earlier, Jesus had warned His disciples as well as us today, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. Matthew 24:9). Peter quickly found he wasn’t nearly as bold and courageous as he had proclaimed, and in fear he denied the One who had loved him. We might well wonder why Jesus allowed Peter to fail so miserably and deny his Lord three times that night. Jesus revealed to Peter that Satan had asked for permission to sift Peter like wheat (Luke 22:31). Jesus could have easily protected Peter and not allowed Satan to sift him, but Jesus had a higher goal. He was equipping Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32). Not only did Peter strengthen the other disciples, but he became the pillar of the early church in Jerusalem, exhorting and training others to follow the Lord Jesus (Acts 2). And he continues to this day to strengthen us through his epistles, 1 and 2 Peter. As with all our failures, God used Peter’s many failures, including his three denials of Christ, to turn him from Simon, a common man with a common name, into Peter, the Rock. QUESTION - What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? ANSWER - Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 all record Jesus telling Peter, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Mark words it differently, which has led to some confusion. Mark 14:30 says, “And Jesus said to him, ‘Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times’” (emphasis added). Then, when the first servant girl questioned Peter about his relationship to Jesus, “he denied it, saying, ‘I neither know nor understand what you mean.’ And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). Later, after Peter’s third denial, “immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept” (Mark 14:72). Did the rooster crow once or twice, and what is the significance of that crowing? Since we know that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore accurate (2 Timothy 3:16), we can rest assured that there are always explanations for seeming inconsistencies. In biblical days, roosters were common within the towns and cities. The first crowing often occurred around midnight. The second crowing could be expected before daybreak. Jesus’ prediction about Peter’s denials meant that Peter would have opportunities all night long to repeat the validating claim he made when he told Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). However, despite three opportunities, the overconfident Peter denied His Lord every time. When daylight came, Jesus’ mock trial was over, and Peter lost his opportunities to defend Jesus as he had claimed he would do (Mark 14:29). Jesus did not say that Peter would deny Him before any rooster’s crow. So the report of a first crowing does not negate the validity of Jesus’ words. In those days, when someone made the comment “before the rooster crows,” it would have been commonly understood to mean the crowing at daybreak. But morning was not the only time roosters crowed. As anyone who has lived on a farm can attest, roosters crow whenever they feel like it. A rooster can crow when he senses danger, when another rooster threatens his flock, or simply because he got his days and nights mixed up. So it is perfectly understandable that Jesus would have been precise in prophesying to Peter that a rooster would actually crow twice during the time Peter was denying Him. The first crowing would not have been noticed by Peter at that moment, since people were used to hearing roosters at random times. It is similar to how people living near train tracks get used to hearing the noise of trains and stop noticing the sound. But when the morning rooster crowed, Peter was struck with the accuracy of Jesus’ words, and he went out and wept bitterly. It is also noteworthy that Mark was a close associate of Peter’s (1 Peter 5:13) and would have obtained many details for his Gospel from Peter himself. After the fact, Peter would have considered the first crowing more significant than he did at the time. Jesus’ prophetic words must have played over and over in his head as he then recalled the first crowing and then the second. It seems likely that, in his retelling of that night to Mark, Peter would have made mention of both crowings. Mark does not in any way contradict the other accounts, which only mention the second crowing. The second crowing was the most important one, since it marked the end of Peter’s testing. Because of the prominence of the story of Peter and the rooster, recorded in all four Gospels, the rooster, or cock, has at times been used as a Christian symbol. Some churches even place a rooster atop their steeples. Used as a symbol, the rooster represents the weakness of man and the grace of Christ in forgiving sinners. Peter three times denied his Lord and Savior, but he was forgiven, restored, and sent out to live for the glory of God (John 21:15–19). The rooster reminds us that Christ extends hope to sinners everywhere. The rooster, used as a Christian symbol, can also represent watchfulness. Before His arrest, Jesus prayed in the garden and asked His disciples to do the same. But He found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “Are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation” (Mark 14:37–38). Later that night, Peter did indeed fall into temptation, and the rooster’s crow served as his spiritual wake-up call. The rooster can still be a reminder today that we must watch and pray and live as children of light: “You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thessalonians 5:5). The rooster could also be seen as proclaiming the start of a new day. In Christ, all things become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). A new day of forgiveness and grace has dawned, and believers, saved by grace, proclaim the good news to a world in need of light. Jesus is never impressed with our fleshly bravado such as Peter expressed in Matthew 26:35. Jesus knows our hearts better than we do (Matthew 9:4; Luke 9:47). But, even though He knows the ways we will fail Him, our Lord does not stop loving us or using us to further His message. Those rooster crowings must have haunted Peter for many years and may have helped him stay humble, watchful, and committed to his calling. Our past failures can be battle scars in our lives as well, propelling us toward greater devotion and stricter loyalty to Jesus when we recall how much we have been forgiven (see Luke 7:47). Gleason Archer - How can the various accounts of Peter’s denial of Christ be reconciled? - Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties page 343 (See related discussion by Norman Geisler) Concerning Peter’s denial, Christ is quoted in Matthew 26:34 as stating, “Truly I tell you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will three times deny Me.” Mark 14:30 quotes Jesus a little more fully: “And Jesus says to him, “ ‘Truly I tell you that today, this very night, before the rooster crows twice you will three times deny Me.’ ” (Luke 22:34 substantially follows Matthew’s wording, though in a somewhat briefer version.) Is this a real discrepancy, as some critics allege? Hardly, since we may be very sure that if the rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Apparently Jesus did specify that the cock would crow a second time by the time the third denial had been expressed by Peter. The important part of the prediction, however, lay not in the number of times the rooster would sound out but in the number of times Peter would basely deny to his interrogators that he belonged to Jesus—or even that he was acquainted with Him. To add or include additional information does not amount to a contradiction of the testimony of a witness who has given a somewhat briefer account. Such variation is observed in the lecture notes taken by students in a classroom: some include more details than others. But that does not mean they are not all equally valid witnesses to what their instructor said. The same observation applied to the account of the triple denial itself. Each synoptist includes some items of information not included by the others, and John furnishes many details not found in the Synoptics at all. But it is perfectly clear that none of the statements are actually contradictory. When they are lined up in parallel columns, their rich wealth of information gives us a fuller account than could be gathered from any single one of them. Such a comparison yields the following composite narrative of Peter’s miserable experience during Christ’s trial before Caiaphas. Peter was admitted to the outer court of the high priest after John had spoken to the doorkeeper (thyrōcros is probably masculine here) who guarded the approach from the street (John 18:15–16). After Peter entered, he sat down by a fire to warm himself on that chilly night (Luke 22:56). But a girl who served as a doorkeeper on the inner side of the gate began looking intently at him and finally blurted out, “You too were with Jesus, the Galilean from Nazareth!” (Mark 14:67) (Luke 22:56 reads “You too were with him!”). Then she asked him point blank, “Aren’t you one of His disciples?” (John 18:17). To this Peter uttered his first denial, “I am not!” He added, “I don’t know or understand what you are talking about” (Matt. 26:70; Mark 14:68). Then he stoutly affirmed, “I don’t know Him, woman!” (Luke 22:57). After this brush with danger, Peter wandered off to the portico of the building itself; but even there he attracted some unwelcome attention. Another servant girl, who may well have been tipped off by the female gatekeeper, remarked to one of the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene” (Matt. 26:71). “He certainly was one of them,” she insisted (Mark 14:69). At this point, one of the men in the group leveled an accusing finger at Peter and declared, “You are one of them!” (Luke 22:58). Peter had by this time joined some men standing around a charcoal fire (apparently not the same fire he had stopped by in the outer court); they also picked up the accusation: “You too were with Jesus the Galilean!” (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70). They followed this charge with a forthright question: “Are you one of His disciples?” (John 18:25). With mounting intensity Peter replied, “Man, I am not!” (Luke 22:58). “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about!” (Matt. 26:72). Somewhat later, perhaps as long as an hour after the second denial (Luke 22:59), a relative of the servant Peter had wounded at Gethsemane spotted him and shouted out, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with Him? You certainly must have been with Him, for you are a Galilean” (Luke 22:59). At this the bystanders chimed in; “You are certainly one of them, for you are a Galilean” (Mark 14:70). “You must be, for you talk with Galilean accent” (Matt. 26:73). At this, Peter began to panic; so he broke out into cursing and swearing: “By God, I don’t even know the man you’re talking about!” (Mark 14:71). As soon as he had uttered this lie, Peter heard a rooster crowing. Suddenly he remembered how he had boasted the night before that he was ready to go to his death rather than deny his Lord. It was at that moment that Jesus Himself, who was still standing before Caiaphas under trial, looked over in Peter’s direction—and their eyes met (Luke 22:61). Covered with shame and full of self-loathing, Peter hurried out of the high priestly palace into the darkness of the night, now graying into dawn; and he sat down to weep and sob out his contrition before God. In conclusion, then, the four testimonies of the Evangelists contain no contradictions, even though the information they yield may be somewhat diverse. As in any properly conducted court hearing, it is the task of the judge and jury to piece together the full account of the occurrence under investigation on the basis of the report of their individual witness. Much of their testimony will, of course, be identical; but in each case there will be some details recalled or thought worth mentioning that are forthcoming from the other witnesses. There is under the laws of legal evidence no good grounds for concluding, as some biased scholars mistakenly do, that the difference between the Gospels involve genuine discrepancies and unresolvable contradictions. Critics such as these would be utterly incompetent to sit in judgment in any court of law. John 18:28 Then they *led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. KJV John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. BGT John 18:28 Ἄγουσιν οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον· ἦν δὲ πρωΐ· καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν ἀλλὰ φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα. NET John 18:28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor's residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor's residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. CSB John 18:28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They did not enter the headquarters themselves; otherwise they would be defiled and unable to eat the Passover. ESV John 18:28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. NIV John 18:28 Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. NLT John 18:28 Jesus' trial before Caiaphas ended in the early hours of the morning. Then he was taken to the headquarters of the Roman governor. His accusers didn't go inside because it would defile them, and they wouldn't be allowed to celebrate the Passover. NRS John 18:28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate's headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover. NJB John 18:28 They then led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the Praetorium. It was now morning. They did not go into the Praetorium themselves to avoid becoming defiled and unable to eat the Passover. NAB John 18:28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning. And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover. YLT John 18:28 They led, therefore, Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium, and it was early, and they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the passover; led: Mt 27:1,2-10 Mk 15:1-5 Lu 23:1-5 Ac 3:13 to: John 18:33 19:9 Mt 27:27 Mk 15:16 *Gr: early: Pr 1:16 4:16 Mic 2:1 Lu 22:66 and they: Ps 35:16 Isa 1:10-15 Jer 7:8-11 Am 5:21-23 Mic 3:10-12 Mt 23:23-28 27:6 Ac 10:28 11:3 eat the Passover: John 18:39 19:14 De 16:2 2Ch 30:21-24 35:8-14,17,18 Eze 45:21 James Stalker's classic Trial and Arrest of Jesus Christ - 4. THE CIVIL TRIAL Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:2–4; John 18:28–38. Related Passages: Matthew 27:1-2; 11-14+ Now when morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus to put Him to death;and they bound Him, and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate the governor.....27:11-14) 11Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He did not answer. 13 Then Pilate *said to Him, “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?” 14 And He did not answer him with regard to even a single charge, so the governor was quite amazed. Mark 15:1-5+ Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council (SANHEDRIN), immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He *answered him, “It is as you say.” 3 The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. 4 Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, “Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!” 5 But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate was amazed. Luke 23:1-5+ Then the whole body of them (Sanhedrin) got up and brought Him before Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.” 3 So Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him and said, “It is as you say.” 4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” 5 But they kept on insisting, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place.” See #2 ==> #3 Source: ESV Study Bible JESUS FIRST ROMAN "TRIAL" AT THE PRAETORIUM Then they *led Jesus (Iesous) from Caiaphas into the Praetorium (praitorion), and it was early (proi) - NET = Now it was very early morning." Early is the Greek adverb of time (proi) which means "early in the morning." So by "early" apparently John means it was now daybreak (shortly after sunrise), for the third Jewish religious trial before the Sanhedrin was convened at daybreak to get around the illegality of the first two "trials" which were at night. It would probably have been sometime around 6-6:30 AM. Night trials were strictly forbidden, so these hypocrites wait for the crack of dawn to carry out their third religious trial (SEE CHART comparing the 4 Gospel accounts of the THIRD trial), thinking this would make their trial legal and legitimate. When a person is deceived, by definition they don't even know they are deceived. These Jewish men may have had worldly wisdom, but they were woefully deceived! There daylight religious trial was still illegal, but now they felt they could quickly "legally" shuttle Jesus to Pilate (cf Mt 27:1-2+) for the first of three Roman trials (see chart of all six trials). Vine on it was early (proi) - The significance of the statement in verse 28, “and it was early,” is as follows. A Roman court could be held after sunrise. The occasion being critical, Pilate would be ready to open the court, say, between 4:00 and 5:00 A.M. The Sanhedrin officials were in a difficulty, as a whole day must intervene between their sentence and execution. Hence they go at once to Pilate. If he agrees to execute he can fix the time. So they transferred the breach of their law from themselves to him. Their supercilious adherence to the Law prevented their entering a polluted house, uncleansed from leaven (Ex. 12:15). “Pilate therefore went out unto them,” lit., “went out … outside unto them,” with emphasis on the verb “went out,” marking his concession to their religiousness and his anxiety to avoid disturbance. J R Miller - The religious rulers carried their pious scruples even to the palace of Pilate. Amazingly, they had no scruples about their wicked treatment of an innocent man—but they were scrupulously conscientious about matters of mere ceremonial requirement! They would not set their feet on the Gentile's floor—for that would have defiled them! Yet meanwhile their hearts were full of evil and murderous thoughts and resolves! There will always be people who are most punctilious in their religious rituals—but who in practical life, are little better than heathen! We should learn well, that God is grieved more by our bitter feeling, our lack of love, our hate and envy—than He is with little omissions in religious ceremonies and formalities. NET NOTE - The permanent residence of the Roman governor of Palestine was in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). The governor had a residence in Jerusalem which he normally occupied only during principal feasts or in times of political unrest. The location of this building in Jerusalem is uncertain, but is probably one of two locations: either (1) the fortress or tower of Antonia, on the east hill north of the temple area, which is the traditional location of the Roman praetorium since the 12th century, or (2) the palace of Herod on the west hill near the present Jaffa Gate. According to Philo (Embassy 38 [299]) Pilate had some golden shields hung there, and according to Josephus (J. W. 2.14.8 [2.301], 2.15.5 [2.328]) the later Roman governor Florus stayed there. Nothing is more common than for persons overzealous about rituals to be remiss about morals. --Matthew Poole And they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium (praitorion) so that (term of purpose) they would not be defiled (miaino), but might eat the Passover (pascha) - These legalistic Jews could go inside a Gentile courtyard open to the sky, but taught they could not go into a Gentile building or home with a roof on it without becoming ceremonially unclean! This was tantamount to their hypocritical straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Mt 23:24+) The Praetorium (praitorion) was a residence for Gentiles and for a Jew to enter such a domicile would defile them for the Passover. These men were the worst of all hypocrites, for they would willingly kill the Passover Lamb of God, but would not ceremonially defile themselves so they could eat the passover lamb that foreshadowed the true Passover Lamb (1Co 5:7)! Augustine - O impious blindness! They would be defiled, forsooth, by a dwelling which was another's, and not be defiled by a crime which was their own. They feared to be defiled by the praetorium of an alien judge, and feared not to be defiled by the blood of an innocent brother. John
João 18
Utley - The Jewish leadership had condemned Jesus for blasphemy, but they used the charge of insurrection to have Him executed by the Romans. It was very important to the Jewish leaders that Jesus be crucified because of Deuteronomy 21:23. Jesus had predicted this in v. 32; 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 33 & Gal. 3:13. NET NOTE - Pilate, as the sole representative of Rome in a troubled area, was probably in Jerusalem for the Passover because of the danger of an uprising (the normal residence for the Roman governor was in Caesarea as mentioned in Acts 23:35). At this time on the eve of the feast he would have been a busy and perhaps even a worried man. It is not surprising that he offered to hand Jesus back over to the Jewish authorities to pass judgment on him. It may well be that Pilate realized when no specific charge was mentioned that he was dealing with an internal dispute over some religious matter. Pilate wanted nothing to do with such matters, as the statement “Pass judgment on him according to your own law!” indicates. As far as the author is concerned, this points out who was really responsible for Jesus’ death: The Roman governor Pilate would have had nothing to do with it if he had not been pressured by the Jewish religious authorities, upon whom the real responsibility rested. NET NOTE - The historical background behind the statement We cannot legally put anyone to death is difficult to reconstruct. Scholars are divided over whether this statement in the Fourth Gospel accurately reflects the judicial situation between the Jewish authorities and the Romans in 1st century Palestine. It appears that the Roman governor may have given the Jews the power of capital punishment for specific offenses, some of them religious (the death penalty for Gentiles caught trespassing in the inner courts of the temple, for example). It is also pointed out that the Jewish authorities did carry out a number of executions, some of them specifically pertaining to Christians (Stephen, according to Acts 7:58–60; and James the Just, who was stoned in the 60s according to Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1 [20.200]). But Stephen’s death may be explained as a result of “mob violence” rather than a formal execution, and as Josephus in the above account goes on to point out, James was executed in the period between two Roman governors, and the high priest at the time was subsequently punished for the action. Two studies by A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1–47; and “The Trial of Christ,” Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament [SPCKTC], 97–116) have tended to support the accuracy of John’s account. He concluded that the Romans kept very close control of the death penalty for fear that in the hands of rebellious locals such power could be used to eliminate factions favorable or useful to Rome. A province as troublesome as Judea would not have been likely to be made an exception to this. “That is your way of doing such things, but it is not a method into which we shall fall. Our law does not condemn a man before it hears the evidence against him. I am not going to be your tool, to put this man to death without hearing what is laid to his charge, and the proofs of his guilt. If you want that done, you must do it yourselves.” “You Romans have taken from us the power of life and death, and we want him put to death.” There was a clear confession that nothing short of Christ’s death would satisfy them. Permitted (lawful)(1832) exesti from from ek = out + eimí = to be) is an impersonal verb, signifying "it is permitted, it is lawful" (or interrogatively, "is it lawful?") and that there are no hindrances to an action. Exesti occurs most frequently in the synoptic Gospels and the Acts, especially in Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees over His actions (and those of His disciples) on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:2; 12:4; 12:10; 12:12, etc). It means to be authorized for the doing of something. TDNT on exesti - “It is free,” denoting a. an action that is possible because there is occasion for it or no obstacle to it, b. an action that is not prevented by a higher norm or court, and c. an action to which there is no psychological or ethical block. In the NT the term mostly refers to God’s law or will with its specific demands, especially the OT law. Exesti - 30v - lawful(26), may(3), permissible(1), permitted(2). Matt. 12:2; Matt. 12:4; Matt. 12:10; Matt. 12:12; Matt. 14:4; Matt. 19:3; Matt. 20:15; Matt. 22:17; Matt. 27:6; Mk. 2:24; Mk. 2:26; Mk. 3:4; Mk. 6:18; Mk. 10:2; Mk. 12:14; Lk. 6:2; Lk. 6:4; Lk. 6:9; Lk. 14:3; Lk. 20:22; Jn. 5:10; Jn. 18:31; Acts 2:29; Acts 8:37; Acts 16:21; Acts 21:37; Acts 22:25; 1 Co. 6:12; 1 Co. 10:23; 2 Co. 12:4 Norman Geisler - JOHN 18:31 —Was it lawful for the Jews to exercise capital punishment? When Critics Ask Page 358 PROBLEM: In this verse, the Jews of Jesus’ day claimed that “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” However, in the very next chapter, they insisted that “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die” ( John 19:7 ). Which was correct? SOLUTION: Both statements are correct. According to the Jewish Law of Moses, anyone who blasphemes God was to be given capital punishment (see Lev. 24:16 ). However, when speaking to Pilate, the Roman governor, the Jews correctly noted that the Romans did not allow their subjects to exercise capital punishment, but retained that right for themselves. Thus, the Jews correctly said to Pilate, “it is not lawful [according to Roman law ] for us to put anyone to death” ( John 18:31 ). John 18:32 to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die. the word: John 3:14 Jn 10:31,33 Jn 12:32-33 Mt 20:19 26:2 Lu 18:32,33 24:7,8 Ac 7:59 what kind of death: Dt 21:22-23 Ps 22:16 Ga 3:13 Related Passages: Deuteronomy 21:22-23+ “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Psalm 22:16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE” ROMAN DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION FULFILLS PROPHECY To fulfill (pleroo) the word (logos) of Jesus (Iesous) which He spoke - John recorded the prophetic word of Jesus on two occasions. The first was in John 3:14+ which says “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." The second prophecy was in John 12:32-33+ "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die." Clearly the verb "lifted up" was a prediction of Jesus being lifted up on the Cross. Note also that in John's Gospel the Greek word lifted up (hupsoo) always refers to the cross (Jn 3:14; 8:28, 12:34, Mt 20:19, cf OT prophecy in Ps 22:16). This kind of death for Jesus was not just His NT prophecy, but had also been foreshadowed by the words of Moses in Numbers 21:7-9+ So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. 8 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.” 9 And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (See Why is a bronze serpent used to save the Israelites in Numbers 21:8) Signifying (semaino from sema - a sign) by what kind of death (thanatos) He was about (mello) to die (apothnesko) - John's point is that if the Jews had killed Jesus for blasphemy, it would have been by stoning which would not have fulfilled prophecy. In God's plan of redemption, Jesus had to die at the hands of the Romans who had mastered the "art" of crucifixion. Crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish method of capital punishment, so God overruled the wanton wickedness of the worst of men for the accomplishment of his own eternal purposes, without, however, diminishing their responsibility and guilt in the least degree. It was “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” that Christ was put to death, yet it was “with wicked hands” that they took him, and crucified him. John 18:33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” and said: John 18:37 Mt 27:11 Mk 15:2 Lu 23:3,4 1Ti 6:13 the king: John 1:49 12:13,15 19:3,19-22 Ps 2:6-12 Isa 9:6,7 Jer 23:5 Zep 3:15 Zec 9:9 Lu 19:38-40 Ac 2:34-36 Related Passages: Matthew 27:11+ Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” Mark 15:2+ Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He *answered him, “It is as you say.” Luke 23:2-3+ (JEWS BRING SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST JESUS) “We found this man (1) misleading our nation and (2) forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and (3) saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.” 3 So Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him and said, “It is as you say.” THE FIRST CIVIL TRIAL PILATE'S FIRST QUESTION TO JESUS While Jesus was being tried by Pilate, ultimately it was really Pilate who was on trial! Therefore Pilate entered again (See Pilate's movements) into the Praetorium (praitorion), and summoned Jesus (Iesous) and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews (Ioudaios)? - Pilate succumbs to the wishes of the Jews and now understands they felt this Man had committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. First note that Pilate "entered again into the Praetorium" from which he had come out initially to address the Jews (See Pilate's Movements during this time). Now Pilate goes back inside apparently this time taking Jesus with him. In the Greek text, the "You" is emphatic and so more literally it reads "You, are You the King of the Jews?" Clearly of the three Jewish accusations against Jesus (recorded only in Luke 23:2+), the one that aroused Pilate's attention was the statement that Jesus claimed to be a King, because the last thing Pilate wanted was a political revolt against Rome. Pilate's question is recorded in all four Gospels (Mt 27:11, Mk 15:2, Lk 23:3). Note also that this is the FIRST question Pilate asked Jesus. And while the synoptic Gospels all record Jesus' answer as "It is as you say," John adds a more lengthy interchange in Jn 18:34-38a an extended discourse found only in John's Gospel, in private within Pilate's residence, the Praetorium, and it represents Jesus' explanation to Pilate that He is not a King in the usual sense that Pilate might expect of a typical earthly king. In view of this revelation, Pilate interpreted Jesus as no threat to the Roman empire and for that reason found no guilt in Him. (Jn 18:38b, Lk 23:4). NET NOTE - It is difficult to discern Pilate’s attitude when he asked, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Some have believed the remark to be sarcastic or incredulous as Pilate looked at this lowly and humble prisoner: “So you’re the king of the Jews, are you?” Others have thought the Roman governor to have been impressed by Jesus’ regal disposition and dignity, and to have sincerely asked, “Are you really the king of the Jews?” Since it will later become apparent (Jn 18:38) that Pilate considered Jesus innocent (and therefore probably also harmless) an attitude of incredulity is perhaps most likely, but this is far from certain in the absence of clear contextual clues. He did not look much like it. There was little enough about his appearance or his apparel to suggest the idea of royalty. THE KING OF KINGS John 18:28-38. J H Jowett WHAT a strange King our Lord appears, claiming mystic sovereignty, and yet betrayed by a false friend! And yet, even in His apparent subjection His majestic kingliness stands revealed. When I watch the demeanours of Pilate and Jesus, I can see very clearly who it is who is on the throne; Pilate wears the outer trappings of royalty, but my Lord’s is “the power and the glory.” Pilate fusses about in a little “brief authority,” but my Lord stands possessed of a serene dominion. Even at Pilate’s judgment bar Jesus is the King. But His kingdom is “not of this world.” And therefore this King is unlike every other King. He seeks His possessions not by fighting, but by “lighting”; not by coercion, but by constraint. His servants do not go forth with swords, but with lamps; not to drive the peoples, but to lead them. His visible throne is a cross, and His conquests are made in the power of sacrifice. And so His armaments are the Truth, and the Truth alone. “For this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the Truth.” When the Truth wins and wooes, the triumph is lasting. Garlands won by the sword perish before the evening. To be one of the King’s subjects is to share His nature. “Everyone that is of the truth heareth My voice.” PILATE'S MOVEMENTS DURING JESUS' TRIAL One aspect of Jesus' trial before Pilate that can be confusing is that Pilate moved in and out of the Praetorium in various phases of the trial.. Here is a summary of Pilate's movements into the Praetorium (where Jesus was) and out of the Praetorium (where the Jewish accusers stood). You will notice that Pilate's movement are keyed to John's account, as John reports far more details of this trial before Pilate than do the three Synoptists combined. 1. Jesus led INSIDE the Praetorium or judgment hall (John 18:28). While all four Gospels record that Jesus is delivered to Pilate, only John includes the detail that Jesus is taken INSIDE the Praetorium while His accusers remained outside. This fact sets up multiple movements by Pilate as he addressed the two parties involved in the trial. D A Carson comments that the failure of the Jews to enter the Praetorium "sent Pilate scuttling back and forth, acting on two stages as it were, a front stage and a rear stage. This simultaneously enhances the drama of the narrative, ensures that the Jews do not hear Jesus’ self-disclosing claims before Pilate, and ‘portrays the human predicament in which one must choose between Jesus and the world’. (BORROW Pillar Commentary - John) 2. Movement 1: Pilate comes OUTSIDE of the Praetorium to Jesus' accusers to hear their charges. This begins the formal trial. (John 18:29-32). John records their more general charges against Jesus and tells them to take Jesus and judge Him themselves. This forces them to concoct three specific charges recorded only in Lk 23:2. 3. Movement 2: Pilate goes back INSIDE the Praetorium to Jesus to hear His defense (John 18:33-38). All four Gospels record that Pilate focuses on the third charge that Jesus is a King and asks Him "Are You the King of the Jews?" (Mt 27:11, Mk 15:2, Lk 23:3, Jn 18:33). Only John 18:34-38 records the details of this phase of Pilate's interrogation of Jesus. 4. Movement 3: Pilate goes back OUTSIDE to the people to declare Jesus' innocence (John 18:38). Only John 18:38 and Luke 23:5 record Pilate's FIRST of 3 not guilty verdicts (Jn 19:4, 6, cf Lk 23:22). Pilate's not guilty verdict incites the Jews to a barrage of accusations at Jesus. Only Mt 27:12-14 and Mk 15:3-5 record Jesus' refusal to answer the accusations by the chief priests and elders against Jesus. Only Luke 23:5 records the Jew's accusation that Jesus stirred up the people in Galilee, which prompts Pilate to send Jesus to the wicked ruler Herod (Antipas) who had jurisdiction over Galilee and was in Jerusalem at the time. Only Luke 23:6-12 records the transfer of Jesus from Pilate to Herod and the mistreatment Jesus received in the second phase of the civil trial. Only Luke 23:11 records that Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate. Only Luke 23:13 records that "Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people." Apparently the gathering before the Praetorium had either broken up or decreased in size while Jesus was before Herod. And it is clear that the religious leaders followed Jesus and spoke out again when He appeared before Herod (Lk 23:10). Note that since Pilate summoned the religious leaders and began to sp Only Luke 23:14-15 record Pilate's statement before the Jews (who had been summoned) that he found no guilt in Jesus nor did Herod. Only Luke 23:16 records Pilate's conclusion "Therefore I will punish Him and release Him.” The Gospels do not record the reaction of the Jews to this announcement, but Pilate's subsequent mention of the custom of releasing a prisoner implies that their reaction prevented him from following through and forced him to try another ploy. John 18:39 records Pilate's attempt to release Jesus “But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?” The interchange regarding Barabbas is recorded in John 18:39-40, Matthew 27:15-18, 20-21, and Mk 15:6-11. 5. Movement 4: Pilate goes back INSIDE the Praetorium to scourge Jesus (John 19:1-3). 6. Movement 5: Pilate goes back OUTSIDE to the Jews to offer a compromise (John 19:4-7). 7. Movement 6:Pilate goes back INSIDE to Jesus to investigate the possibility of a supernatural being (John 19:8-11). 8. Movement 7: Pilate goes back OUTSIDE to the Jews to release Jesus (John 19:12). 9. Movement 8: Pilate brings Jesus OUTSIDE, sits on the Judgment Seat and gives his verdict of crucifixion (John 19:13-15). John 18:34 Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” Saying: John 18:36 JESUS QUERIES PILATE NOTE: With the exception of Jesus answering Pilate's question about whether He was a king (See related passages- “It is as you say” ~ "You say correctly that I am a king"), John 18:34-38a ("What is truth?") describes a dialogue between the two which is found only in the Gospel of John. Jesus (Iesous) answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me - NLT = "Is this your own question, or did others tell you about me?” In response to Pilate's question Jesus poses a counter question. Jesus is referring to Pilate's question whether Jesus is the King of the Jews. The idea "Is your knowledge of Me second-hand or is it your own?" What does Jesus mean by asking "is this your own question?" If the question was initiated by Pilate's desire to know whether was king or not, he is approaching Jesus from an earthly, political perspective. That of course was Pilate's greatest fear, that Jesus might be an earthly king and if that were true He would definitely be a treat not only to him but to the Roman Empire. If that was indeed Pilate's intent then Jesus would reply with a definitive "No." However, the way Pilate responds in the next verse indicates he is simply repeating the charge of the Jews.
João 18
Utley - If Pilate was asking the question in reference to a political kingship, Jesus would have denied it. If the Jews had suggested it, then it referred to His Messiahship and Jesus would have affirmed it. Pilate was obviously not ready to discuss the intricacies of Jewish religious thought (cf. v. 35). James Stalker adds that Jesus "desired to learn in what sense the question was asked—whether from the standpoint of a Roman or from that of the Jews; because of course His answer would be different according as He was asked whether He was a king as a Roman would understand the word or according as it was understood by the Jews....Jesus at once proceeded, however, to answer Pilate’s question on both sides, both on the Roman political and then on the Jewish religious side. First, He answered negatively, “My kingdom is not of this world!” He was no rival of the Roman emperor....It was not a kingdom of force and arms and worldly glory He had in view....Yet, even in making this denial, Jesus had used the words, “My kingdom.” And Pilate broke in, “Art Thou a king then?” “Yes,” replied Jesus; “to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. This was His kingdom—the realm of Truth. It differs widely from that of Caesar. Caesar’s empire is over the bodies of men; this is over their hearts. The strength of Caesar’s empire is in soldiers, arms, citadels and navies; the strength of this kingdom is in principles, sentiments, ideas. The benefit secured by Caesar to the citizens is external security for their persons and properties; the blessings of Christ’s kingdom are peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Ghost (ED: "ETERNAL SECURITY!"). The empire of Caesar, vast as it was, yet was circumscribed; the kingdom of Christ is without limits, and is destined to be established in every land. Cæsar’s empire, like every other earthly kingdom, had its day and passed out of existence; but the kingdom of Truth shall last for evermore.”(THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST: A DEVOTIONAL HISTORY OF OUR LORD'S PASSION - see III) Stalker - In the silence, then, of this interior hall He (Jesus) and Pilate stood face to face—He in the prisoner’s lonely place, Pilate in the place of power. Yet how strangely, as we now look back at the scene, are the places reversed! It is Pilate who is going to be tried—Pilate and Rome, which he represented. All that morning Pilate was being judged and exposed; and ever since he has stood in the pillory of history with the centuries gazing at him. In the old pictures of the Child Christ by the great masters a halo proceeds from the Babe that lights up the surrounding figuraes, sometimes with dazzling effect. And it is true that on all who approached Christ, when He was in the world, there fell a light in which both the good and the evil in them were revealed. It was a search-light, that penetrated into every corner and exposed every wrinkle. Men were judged as they came near Him. Is it not so still? We never show so entirely what is in us as by the way in which we are affected by Christ. We are judging ourselves and passing sentence on ourselves for eternity by the way in which we deal with Him. C H