Tag Archives: Herod

MATTHEW 2

Leave a reply

We hope you will find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of each article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

MATTHEW 2

Structure of the chapter

(a) Verses 1-12 The search for the child
(b) Verses 13-15 The sojourn in Egypt
(c) Verses 16-18 The slaughter of the innocents
(d) Verses 19-23 The settlement in Nazareth

(a)   Verses 1-12
The search for the child

2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Now when Jesus was born- Matthew does not give us an account of the actual birth of Christ, but tells us that Joseph was to name the child after He had been born, and also what happened after that. He does not tell us how long after the birth the events he narrates took place, but we may deduce it to a degree. Whereas Dr. Luke tells us the circumstances of the birth, Matthew acts as a registrar, recording the birth officially, as befits the report of the birth of the King.

The expression “when Jesus was born” does not mean that the wise men came the moment He was born. The sense is “Now, Jesus having been born”, without specifying how much time had elapsed. Matthew’s main object is to tell us the birth was during the reign of Herod. He shows how Israel’s king became an enemy of Christ, whereas Luke shows how that the Gentile Caesar, by his issuing a decree as to where the citizens should be enrolled, unwittingly ensured the fulfilment of prophecy.

In Bethlehem of Judea- this is where the prophet Micah said He would be born, and the scribes understood it that way. Bethlehem was David’s home town, and it was appropriate that his most illustrious son should be born there. This confused the Jews later on, for some said, “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” John 7:41,42. So they knew Jesus as being of Nazareth, yet the scripture said Messiah would come out of, (“apo”), Bethlehem. Some decide, therefore, that Jesus cannot be the Messiah. This was because they did not note the difference between being “apo” a town, and being “ek” a town. “Apo” a town means you are living there at the time spoken of; “ek” a town means that was where you were born. For instance, Philip was of (apo) Bethsaida, but he was (ek) the city of Andrew and Peter, which was Capernaum. (The word “ek” is in the Textus Receptus, but has been left untranslated in the Authorised Version). So the fact is that Philip was currently living in Bethsaida, but he originated from the same city as Andrew and Peter, namely Capernaum.

So they said that Jesus was from (apo) the town of Bethlehem, meaning that was where He lived. In this, of course, they were wrong. If they had said He was from (ek) the town of Bethlehem, they would have been right, for that was His birthplace. Of all the occasions that the Lord Jesus is designated as being of Nazareth, (including when He described Himself as such in Acts 22:8), only two have a preposition in the phrase. Those two references are Matthew 21:11, when He rode into Jerusalem, and the multitudes, many of whom would have come from distant countries for the feast, asked who He was, and Acts 10:38, where Peter is preaching to the Gentile Cornelius. So those not familiar with the Jewish scene were told He came from Nazareth as His hometown. He is never said to be Jesus “ek” Nazareth, as if that was His birthplace. We shall see in verse 6 that He was “ek” Bethlehem.

In the days of Herod the king- Matthew has an interest in the throne of Israel, so relates his narrative of the birth of the True King in connection with Herod, who was on the throne of Israel at the time. Luke, however, relates his history to Caesar, for Christ is Son of man, destined to govern the whole world, and do it in a far more extensive way than even Caesar did or could.

Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem- we are not told that these men are kings, nor are we told there were three of them. We should beware of jumping to conclusions in spiritual matters, and always have Scriptural support for what we believe and teach. “What saith the scripture” was the watchword of the apostles.

The word Matthew uses for these men is “magi”, but we should not assume they were magicians. Herodotus uses the term for a tribe of Medes who had a priestly role in the Persian empire. Daniel uses the word of wise men who attended on the King, and claimed to have the ability to interpret dreams, Daniel 1:20; 2:27; 5:15. They were simply learned men, and probably had a deep interest in astronomy. They came from the east, just as Balaam had done many centuries before, Deuteronomy 23:4. Naturally, because they had realised that a king had been born, they made their way to the palace.

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

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? They use the expression King of the Jews, whereas Nathaniel called the Lord Jesus the King of Israel, John 1:49. There are two terms by which the descendants of Jacob were known. They were Israelites, based on Jacob’s other name Israel. This is their name of destiny, for God’s promise is to bless them as Israel. After the nation had been taken into captivity, however, they began to be called Jews, for this is their name of disgrace. The word is based on the name Judah, the tribe that the kings came from. Something of the low state of the nation is indicated, therefore, by this use of the term King of the Jews. The Lord Jesus had made Himself of no reputation, and it is even seen in this title that men gave to Him.

For we have seen his star in the east- the star must have been a supernatural sign given to them, judging by the way it moved, as verse 9 describes, and as this verse implies. They had observed the sudden appearance of this star, for the words are literally “we have seen His star in its rising”. No conjunction of planets could have directed them in such an accurate way, even to the extent of standing over the specific house where Christ was.

It is said that the ancients allocated portions of the night sky to individual nations. Balaam referred to this when he said, “There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for His enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly”, Numbers 24:17,18. So when the magi see a star appear in the section of the sky allotted to the nation of Israel, they correctly deduce that Balaam’s prophecy is beginning to be fulfilled. By star is meant a prominent person, and by sceptre is meant someone to rule. We are reminded of Jacob’s words to Judah, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah…until Shiloh come, and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be”, Genesis 49:10. Being learned men, the magi would no doubt have a copy of the Old Testament, and would know both Jacob’s words, and also the prophecy of Balaam. They put the two together, and resolved to be amongst those who “gathered” to the new-born King. Perhaps they were surprised on arrival in Jerusalem, the capital city, that there was not a great stir at the news of the birth of a king. Is this why they asked where He was, as if they thought they had come to the wrong place? The star does not seem to have led them all the way from the east. They saw it in it’s significant place in the sky, drew their own conclusions, and headed for Jerusalem. It is only after they have not found the King there that the star reappears for them, verse 9.

Notice the unusual idea they have, for no-one is born king normally. The order is usually the birth of a prince who succeeds to the throne on the death of his father the king. This child is different, and even the expression used shows it. He does not succeed to David’s throne only because He is descended from David, for we have already seen that He is not the son of Joseph, whose right to the throne was cancelled by him being descended from Jeconiah. He cannot be King by that route, even though He is descended from David. His kingship is vested in His Deity, for God is King of Israel, Isaiah 43:15, and He is God, and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His Father David, so it will be His by higher prerogative than even Solomon. When he sits on the throne of Israel God the Father will say to Him, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”, Hebrews 1:8.

And are come to worship him- they may not have fully known the identity of this child. It was fitting that they should worship Him, for He is God manifest in flesh, but they do not necessarily realise this, They think Him simply worthy of great respect, since a sign of His birth has been placed in the heavens. But He has made Himself of no reputation.

2:3
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled- well might he be, for he had spent the forty years of his reign in warding off rivals, murdering them if necessary. The reference to a star would not be lost on him, and the ominous words of Balaam would terrify him, for Balaam had spoken of Edom being a possession, and Herod was partly Edomite. Was this a prophecy of his downfall at the hands of the new king?

And all Jerusalem with him- Balaam had said, “Out of Jacob shall come He that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city”, Numbers 24:19. Did the inhabitants of Jerusalem wonder if this meant them? They did not realise that, far from bringing trouble on the nation, Christ came as the Prince of peace. But that peace would be founded on righteousness, and this was why the men of Jerusalem were troubled, for they had guilty consciences. Before he foretells the coming of John the Baptist, Isaiah records God’s words to Jerusalem, “Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins”, Isaiah 1:1,2. God anticipates the result of the coming of Christ, and the atonement He would make for her sins. Only because of this can Jerusalem know comfort. When the wise men came, however, it was a guilty city, in that it went along with Herod and his wickedness. It would later on multiply its guilt by casting out her rightful King and crucifying Him. There can be no comfort for such a people. When He comes again, however, there will be “a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness”, Zechariah 13:1. They will come into the good of His atoning sacrifice at Calvary.

2:4
And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together- this is an indication of the low state of the nation. Herod the king has no real claim to the throne, the scribes are a poor replacement for the prophets, and the chief priests are riddled with corruption. They, all of them, demonstrate the great need in the nation. Isaiah said Messiah would be a root out of dry ground, and here is an illustration of the dryness of the ground.

He demanded of them where Christ should be born- it is interesting that Matthew interprets the request of Herod as an enquiry about the Messiah. He is in no doubt that the Messiah and the King of the Jews is one and the same person. The tense of the verb “demanded” is the imperfect, meaning “he kept on demanding or pestering”. Herod is desperate to know the birthplace of this rival king. This is the sure indication of a man with an evil conscience, who knows his claim to the throne is shaky.

2:5
And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

And they said unto him- they do not seem to have to think about the matter; for them it is common knowledge. For Herod it was new information, such was his disinterest in the Scriptures.

In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet- there was another Bethlehem in the territory of Zebulun in Galilee, Joshua 19:15 so the correct town is given here.

2:6
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

This is a quotation from Micah 5:2. The words as found in Micah and Matthew are as follows:

MICAH 5:2

MATTHEW 2:6

1. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,

1. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,

2. though thou be little

2. art not the least

3. among the thousands of Judah,

3. among the princes of Juda:

4. yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me

4. for out of thee shall come

5. that is to be ruler in Israel;

5. a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

6. whose goings forth have been from of old,

7. from everlasting.

Line 1. The word “Ephratah” identifies the town in Old Testament times, as “in the land of Juda” does in New Testament times.

Line 2. Micah emphasises the littleness of the town in his day. How appropriate that it should be the birthplace of Him who had made Himself of no reputation. He comes not to a famous capital city, but a small place. However, through His birth there the town has received a stature beyond its size, for it is now not the least. Like its honourable visitant, it has gone from littleness to greatness.

Line 3. The word for prince has the thought of chief person or place. The scribes have been asked where the king of the Jews is to be born. The one who is to be born is in no way inferior to the rest of the princes of Judah, so the place is no longer inferior either, despite being the least among the cities thousands of Judah in old time.

Line 4. Micah emphasises that this Personage comes forth to God. The scribes simply say “come forth”, thus lessening the impact of the words of the prophet. Perhaps they can see that Herod is not pleased with the facts that are being presented to him. Matthew infallibly records the fallible translation of the scribes.

Line 5. The word ruler in Micah’s prophecy is an allusion to the promise God gave to David, that “There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel”, 2 Chronicles 7:18. The scribes are strictly correct in their translation, but they are careful to not give the impression that this governor is actually destined for the throne. The scribes speak of “My people Israel”, which perhaps explains why they did not say “unto Me” in line 4, for the thought is contained in the expression “My people”. If He rules God’s people, then He comes forth to God in that way. He will present Himself as the rightful heir to the throne. He would also offer Himself without spot to God, Hebrews 9:14, presenting Himself for sacrifice, for He is son of Abraham as well as son of David.

The idea in the word govern is that of ruling as a shepherd rules his flock, for their benefit and protection. A direct contrast to the rule of Herod, who being part-Edomite, was like Esau the father of the Edomites, who was a cunning hunter, Genesis 25:27.

Lines 6 and 7. The scribes stop at this point, perhaps afraid to speak of the other-worldly nature of this ruler who is to be born. They appreciate that Herod will be even more agitated than he is by such a thought. It is a sad fact that this is indicative of the attitude of the religious leaders of Israel during Christ’s public ministry. They refused the fact that He had been in the purpose of God from all eternity, waiting for that moment when He would step into time to fulfil His Father’s will. Here was a testimony to the eternal being of the Messiah, yet when He came they refused that claim.

2:7
Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men- he makes no comment about the word from the scribes, but immediately begins to devise ways of ridding himself of this rival. But he does not want the scribes to know of this yet, for their conscience is no doubt less hardened than his, and they may protest, and delay his plans. They might also alert the wise men to the cruelty of Herod.

Enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared- he wishes to calculate the age of the child, so that he knows who to slaughter. It took Ezra four months to travel from Babylon to Jerusalem, Ezra 7:9.

2:8
And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child- craftily he uses the wise men to be his spies, so that suspicion against him is not roused. He forgets that “the eyes of the Lord go to and from through the whole earth, beholding the evil and the good”, xxx. He now knows that the one born is a young child, not a new-born baby.

Notice that neither Herod nor the scribes “spiritualise” the prophet’s words, as if to say the child would be born in the “House of Bread”, the meaning of the name Bethlehem. They saw Bethlehem as a physical location, and not a metaphor for a prosperous place. The prophetic writings have no settled meaning if they at the mercy of the imagination of the expositor.

And when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also- if the wise men had not been warned of God, they would have done this. They clearly do not know the character of the man they are dealing with. They might have thought it strange that Herod did not accompany them, but it was not advisable to question a king in those days.

2:9
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

When they had heard the king, they departed- perhaps they were not allowed to be present when the scribes told Herod the location of the child’s birth, so they have to rely on Herod relaying them the information. They hear this, and also his desire to worship the child at a later date.

And, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them– Matthew indicates that the star, having appeared to them in a significant place in the sky when they were in the east, in their home country, now appears again, but this time moving, so that they are able to follow where it leads. This could not be said of any planet. These are learned men; they are not going to imagine a stationary star is moving. They do not have to ask how to get to Bethlehem, for the star guides them. As they travelled, they might have wondered why the king was not born in the palace in the capital city. But this is no ordinary king. They must have even more surprised if they were to see the child in Nazareth, which was an obscure place.

If it is the case that Joseph and Mary have returned home to Nazareth with the child, and have then gone up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord at the age of forty days, and returned to Nazareth again, they have done their duty according to the law before Herod is aware of the birth of the child.

Till it came and stood over where the young child was- it is important to notice that Matthew does not say the star led them to Bethlehem. No doubt they were expecting to be led there, according to the word of the scribes, but the “lo” indicates something of their surprise when the star did not take the Bethlehem road. It is important that Herod should think they are going to Bethlehem, in order that Joseph and Mary can have time to make their escape. So the star, having appeared in the sky when they were in the east, and having reappeared to move them on from Jerusalem, now stands still over the house where the child is, thus pinpointing accurately the spot. Matthew does not say the star was over the house where the family were, but where the young child was, for He is the object of their search. They are left in no doubt as to who they should worship, and to whom they should give their gifts. Those who wish to give Christ His due must do so guided by light from heaven.

2:10
When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy- either this is prior to the star moving them on to where the child was, indicating they were genuinely delighted that they are being led to the one they seek, or, that they rejoiced when they saw that the star had stood still over the house. Herod was troubled, but the wise men were overjoyed.

2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

And when they were come into the house- so Matthew does not mention a stable, nor does he call the Lord Jesus a babe, as Luke does in his account of the birth. The sequence of events is given to us by Luke, for he tells us that the child is presented to the Lord at the age of forty days, and then Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth, Luke 2:22,39. Mary has offered the gift the poor were allowed to bring, so she could not yet have the gold and other valuable gifts the wise men brought. The shepherds are not said to have offered gifts. The place where they came is deliberately left vague, lest superstition should be encouraged.

They saw the young child with Mary his mother- their object of attention, and worship, is the Lord Jesus alone. No mention is made of Joseph, and Mary is called His mother, not Mary, so there is no prominence given to her at all, she is just the mother of the most important person in the house. Nor is the expression “mother and child” used, for the same reason. Such an expression has pagan undertones, stemming as it does from the idolatrous system initiated by Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod.

And fell down, and worshipped him- they worship Him with no ulterior motive, for the child is not yet on the throne; they are not trying to gain favour from an influential monarch. We need not think of this worship being given because they thought Him to be God manifest in the flesh, unless they were informed in some way that this was the case. The worship here is that attitude of respect and deference that is due to an important person; so important that a sign appeared in the heavens at His birth.

And when they had opened their treasures- they no doubt needed resources for the journey, yet are prepared to put their needs to one side, as they recognise His greatness. They had clearly made preparation for their visit to this king, and they do not hesitate to give Him their gifts even though He is not in a palace, for the star has guided them. They did not make the surroundings an excuse to keep their treasures to themselves. The word “treasure” has the idea of a casket in which valuables are placed for safe keeping”. But like Mary of Bethany, who “kept” her alabaster box, John 12:7, so these open their treasures, and dispense them to Him who is most worthy of them.

They presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh- each one of these items was extremely valuable. In fact, frankincense is said to be worth its weight in gold, and all three gifts would be valued highly by kings. We can be sure that heaven valued their gifts highly too, for they represented the estimate these wise men had of His worth. We do not know if the wise men saw the significance of their gifts, but how appropriate they were, and also the order in which they were given.

They first of all give gold, that which in the Scriptures is the symbol of Deity. How fitting that this should be given to Him, (not to Mary or Joseph), for He is God manifest in flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16. The there was frankincense. We noted the following things in connection with the Meat Offering of Leviticus 2:

“The frankincense shrub yielded a gum from its leaves, and also when its bark was injured in some way. The drops that result from this are white, (the Hebrew word for frankincense means “white”), and when they solidify they sparkle. Bitter to the taste, frankincense was very fragrant when burnt. A picture is built up in our minds by these facts. That which manifests itself from within, and this more abundantly under suffering; which by its very name is white, speaking of righteousness and purity; which is at one and the same time bitter and sweet; which is in great demand, and therefore is costly, being said to be worth more than its weight in gold, with kings and emperors competing to secure the best samples; was sourced outside the land of Canaan; which had healing abilities; which was an ingredient of the holy incense used in the Tabernacle.

There is presented to us in these things the very features which marked Christ as a man. For thirty largely-silent years He yielded to God that which gave Him the utmost pleasure, for He grew up before Him as a tender plant, Isaiah 53:2. Yet when the trials and buffetings of His ministry amongst men began, they only served to diffuse the blessedness of His person. He was characterised by righteousness and purity. So much so that He can be positively identified simply by the terms “Holy One”, Psalm 16:10, and “The Holy One and the Just”, Acts 3:14. He is Jesus Christ the righteous, 1 John 2:1.

His life was a perfect blend of sorrow because of the condition of things all around Him, and deep, personal joy in God. He was Man of Sorrows, Isaiah 53:3, yet spoke of His own special joy, John 15:11.

He is expressly described by God as precious, Isaiah 28:16, 1 Peter 2:4,6, and this is echoed by His people, for “unto you therefore which believe He is precious”, 1 Peter 2:7. Like the frankincense, Christ came from other climes, being “from above”, John 8:23, or as we sing sometimes “Thy bosom was, of native right, His proper, secret dwelling-place”.

And such was the preciousness of the personality and character of Christ to His Father, that, like the sweet incense of old, He has been given a place before the very throne of God in the sanctuary, Exodus 30:36, Hebrews 9:24. Perhaps the apostle John had this in mind when, having spoken of the one who is the propitiation for our sins, he goes on to comfort the children of God that their sins have been forgiven for His name’s sake, 1 John 2:12. Their forgiveness is firmly established on the ground of the shed blood of Christ, and on the merits of His person as the Father appreciates them.

The fact that the frankincense was an ingredient of the holy incense, as well as of the meal-offering, reminds us that there has been a man down here who was utterly dependant on His God, for the incense is especially connected with prayer. See Psalm 141:2: Luke 1:10 and Revelation 8:3,4. Unlike Adam, who rebelled against God despite the abundant evidence of His goodness and provision, Christ maintained unswerving loyalty even when in the desert and hungry. He would only act in unison with His Father, refusing all the enticements of the Devil. He was cast upon God from the womb, even when it seemed He was most dependant upon Mary. This dependence was evidenced by His energetic prayer life.

Then there was myrrh, another fragrant and bitter substance. The myrrh tree yields its gum naturally under the hot desert sun, but its flow is increased when its bark is cut or bruised. So Christ, the “tree planted by the rivers of waters”, Psalm 1:3, yielded a sweet fragrance to God as a result of the trials and temptations He experienced during His life. But this was greatly increased when He was on Calvary’s tree. Instead of reacting like the dying thieves, with cursing and railing, there were only spiritual responses from His heart. So it is that His Person, His Life, and His death are all prefigured by the three sorts of gifts the wise men gave. They may have been called wise by men because of their earthly knowledge, but they display the wisdom that comes from above in their choice of gifts. How tragic that during His ministry He was despised, and not esteemed by His own people, Isaiah 53:3, and at the end of His life He should be betrayed for just thirty pieces of silver, the price of a wounded slave.

The items the wise men gave were valued in Egypt, and could all be easily converted to the currency of Egypt. Joseph and Mary now have the necessary resources for the flight into Egypt, and their stay there, but the gifts were presented to Christ Himself. As His guardians, they administer them for Him wisely. Joseph no doubt could ply his trade as a carpenter in Egypt, but there was certainly disruption to his normal work in Nazareth, where his customers were. God recompenses him in return for caring for His Son.

2:12
And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod- they are not now directed by the star, but by a dream. The star disappears, its purpose served, and there is now no indication to Herod where the child is. Even if he was crafty enough to have sent spies to follow the wise men, they slip away, and the star disappears, even though, presumably, their dream was at night. They still have light in the darkness, for God has spoken to them. They are not told why they should not return to Herod, so they show unquestioning obedience to God as He makes known His will in a dream. It is normal now for God to direct the path of His people by the word of God, their infallible guide.

They departed into their own country another way- as has often been noticed, when we have come into personal contact with Christ in some way, either at conversion, or when we come together to remember Him, we can never go out as we come in. His presence always makes a difference. The road through Nazareth joins with the road to Damascus, leading to Babylon, so they do not have to return via Jerusalem to get to their

(b)  Verses 13-15
The sojourn in Egypt

2:13
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

And when they were departed- the Lord waits until the wise men are gone before telling Joseph to flee. In this way the wise men, if accosted by Herod’s spies after Joseph and Mary have fled, can honestly say they do not know where they have gone.

Behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying- this was more than likely the same night the wise men had their dream, (given the urgency of the matter), but after they had left. The angel of the Lord, had assured Joseph that it was right for him to marry Mary, 1:20, and now he is giving Joseph direction again. Heaven gives him guidance as to who to marry, and where to live. And that guidance is still available to believers today, for they are of great importance.

Arise, and take the young child and his mother- the angel refers to Mary as “His mother”, and not “thy wife”. The focus is very firmly fixed on Christ, not the mother, important though she is. It is the safety of the child that is paramount. The word used for “take”, both here and in verse 20, means “to associate with oneself in any familiar act or relation”. It is used in 1:20 when the angel said to Joseph, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife”. The idea is that Joseph is to take personal and direct responsibility for both the young child and His mother, just as he had taken personal responsibility for Mary by marrying her.

And flee into Egypt- many centuries before, another Joseph had gone into Egypt, and had been used of God to preserve His people Israel from a world-wide famine. Joseph’s words to his brothers, (who had sold him into Egypt as a slave), were, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear not: I will nourish you, and your little ones”, Genesis 50:2021. Notice the reference to little ones, for it is the preservation of the nation that is in view. Now another little one is going to be preserved, and He will have a spiritual seed, and will save His people from their sins.

And be thou there until I bring thee word- Joseph is not given specific details as to where he should live in Egypt. There were many Jews in the country, amongst whom he might make his temporary home. He is assured as he goes, however, that his return is certain, and the timing of it is in the Lord’s hands. He will have a specific word from God Himself when the time is right to return to Israel. He is being led on one step at a time.

For Herod will seek the young child to destroy him- Herod pretended to be interested enough in the child to come and worship Him, but this was a lie. If it had been true, why did Herod not accompany the wise men? He planned to wait until they had told him where the child was, and had gone on their way home, and then destroy Him. The expression “Herod will seek” is not simply a prediction, but signifies that he is about to, suggesting his determination.

For long centuries Satan had been attempting to prevent the birth of the seed of the woman, knowing that He would bruise his head, Genesis 3:15. He did this by trying to obliterate the line of the Messiah. He failed, however, so he then sought to destroy Him after He was born. He failed in this, too, for the plan of Herod was thwarted, and Joseph and Mary, being warned of God, took the child Jesus into Egypt, out of harm’s way. In the days of Athaliah there were many sons who could succeed to the throne, but here there is but one.

We read in the Book of Revelation of a sign that John saw in heaven. A woman, representing the nation of Israel, was ready to give birth to a man-child. But John also saw a great red dragon, representing Satan, and John says “the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born”, Revelation 12:3,4. He failed, however, so he then sought to destroy Him after He was born, and used murderous Herod in the attempt. It was foreordained that Christ should die by crucifixion, Psalm 22:16. He must not die by Herod’s sword; by being flung over a cliff at Nazareth, Luke 4:29; by being stoned, John 8:59, 10:31, but by the Gentile mode of crucifixion.

2:14
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt- the angel of the Lord had said to him “Arise”, and now he immediately obeys, for Matthew says, not “And he arose”, but “When he arose”, as if he did not have to contemplate whether to obey or not. He arose from his sleep, and did not wait to arise in the morning, for the matter was urgent. With speed they gather a few things together, no doubt, and immediately, in the night, go on the way to Egypt.

2:15
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

And was there until the death of Herod- it is usually said that Herod died in March or April, 4 BC, meaning that Christ was born some years before the year that begins Anno Domini.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet- we have noted in connection with the quotation found in 1:23. Both there, and here, in 2:15, the Greek word “ina” is used, which means it is “in order that it might be fulfilled”, and the event in question completely fulfils the prophecy. So the prophecy about the virgin’s Son has been completely fulfilled, and so has Hosea’s reference to God calling His Son out of Egypt. It had a partial fulfilment when the nation was brought out at the Exodus, and now it will have its final fulfilment.

Saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son- here Matthew uses a statement made by Hosea about Israel being brought out of the affliction of Egypt, “When Israel was a child I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt”, Hosea 11:1. Notice that Matthew is referring to the coming out of Egypt in the context of their stay there. It is not until verse 19 that we get the account of the return from Egypt. In this way, by the use of a literary device, he is associating the Lord Jesus even more closely with the affliction in Egypt. Israel was God’s national firstborn son, Exodus 4:22; Christ is God’s eternal Firstborn Son, Colossians 1:15,18. He will feel for their national bondage in a day to come, and their bitter sorrow, (for they shall be “led away captive into all nations”, Luke 21:20-24), and will be the means of their deliverance. Just as the lamb was the means of deliverance at the Exodus, so the Lamb of God will be the means in the future. Their joy will be expressed by the four and twenty elders in heaven when they fall down before the Lamb, and sing a new song, saying, “Thou art worthy…for Thou wast slain, and has redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation”, Revelation 5:8,9.

(c)  Verses 16-18
The slaughter of the innocents

2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth- Herod took the departure of the wise men without informing him of the whereabouts of the child as a personal affront. He clearly had an inflated sense of his own importance, as well as a violent temper.

And sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof- Herod is not only furious, but fearful. He is not wholly a Jew, but is part Edomite, (and Esau, the father of the Edomites, was “a cunning hunter”, Genesis 25:27), and relies on the support of the priestly class for his hold on the throne. The news that a king had been born in the appointed place, and had been signalled in the heavens, was deeply worrying to him. He responds in the only way he knows, by violence.

Because the wise men did not come back to him, he still thinks the child is in Bethlehem, (rather than, as we have suggested, Nazareth), and so concentrates his murderous intent on that place. Not content with just the city, he takes in the surrounding area. And not content with tiny babies, extends his edict up to children of two years old. Of course this means that children that are almost three years old are included in the massacre. Such is the wicked wrath of the king.

According to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men- this strongly suggests that, even allowing for the fury of the king ordering more babies that necessary to be slaughtered, the child Jesus is more than just a new-born baby. Perhaps Herod is suspicious of the wise men now they have out-witted him, and imagines they did not give him the correct time of the star’s appearing. Just to be sure the rival to his throne is removed, he orders the death of children as well as babies. Diligently means accurately, so he is not making a guess.

2:17
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying- here, in contrast to verse 15, the word “tole” is found, and indicates that the event was merely a case in point, and is only a partial fulfilment, for there will be tribulation for all Israel in a day to come, so the complete fulfilment awaits a future day.

2:18
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning- to understand why Matthew quotes this passage from Jeremiah 31:15 we need to look at the setting. Jeremiah chapters 30-33 form a definite section in his prophecy, and are concerned with the future restoration of the nation of Israel. In fact, if we read the following two verses to the one Matthew quotes, the Lord says “Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: For thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border”. Now the event which caused “Rachel” to weep, was the carrying away of Judah and Benjamin into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah was personally involved in that, for he was in Jerusalem in prison when the invaders came, and was taken with the captives on the way to Babylon, Jeremiah 39:9,10. But Nebuchadnezzare gave instruction to the captain of the guard to ensure his safety, and he escorted him home, verses 11-14. Now the Babylonians and the captives had gone as far as Ramah when Jeremiah was set free, see 40:1, so he had personal knowledge of what the captives felt like as they left Ramah for Babylon. He expresses those feelings in the words Matthew quotes.

Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not- Ramah was a strong-hold in the territory of Benjamin, on the road that goes north to Damascus and Babylon. The name “Rachel” is used here as she was the mother of Benjamin, Jacob’s youngest son, and therefore “mother” of the tribe. She represents the feelings of the tribe as they are carried away from their homeland, she is the “voice” of the nation. “They are not” means they are not any longer in the land, but as we have seen, they are to return, for the Lord said, “thy children shall come again to their own border”.

How does this relate to Herod’s cruelty to the children of Bethlehem? We have already noticed that Matthew quotes from Hosea 11:1 about Israel being brought out of Egypt, verse 14, but he does it in connection with the Lord being taken into Egypt, as if to say that His being brought out again is a foregone conclusion. This shows the Lord’s solidarity with the nation, as its King. And Matthew’s quote from Jeremiah is another instance of that, for the sorrow of the mothers in Bethlehem is a foretaste of the sorrow of the nation of Israel during the great tribulation.

To understand why that is we need to remember what other thing happened near Bethlehem. Jacob was making his way back to the land of Canaan from Padan-Aram with his wives and children, and we read “And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar”, Genesis 35:16-21.

So just outside of Bethlehem Ephratah, near to the tower of Edar, (which means “flock”, suggesting a tower used by shepherds as they kept watch over their flocks by night on the hillside outside of Bethlehem, see Luke 2:8), Rachel dies in giving birth to a son. She names him Benoni, which means “son of my sorrow”, but afterwards his father called him Benjamin, which means “son of my right hand”.

Now in his statement in Jeremiah 31 that Matthew quotes here, the prophet sees in the sorrow of Rachel outside of Bethlehem a metaphor for the trials and afflictions the nation of Israel will go through in the Tribulation Period, just before they are re-instated in the land of Israel under the Messiah. And those sufferings were described by the Lord Jesus as sorrows, the word referring to birth-pangs, Matthew 24:8.

So by quoting Jeremiah’s word about the sorrow of Rachel, Matthew indicates that he sees in this incident an example of the solidarity of Christ with the nation. He is associated with them in their suffering, and He is also associated with them, (by being brought out of Egypt as the nation of Israel was), with their joy and deliverance. We can see now why Matthew connects the sorrow of the mothers in Bethlehem with Ramah in the territory of Benjamin.

It is interesting to notice that Micah, having uttered the prophecy about the birth of Christ that the scribes quoted in verse 6 of this chapter, immediately says, “Therefore will He give them up, until the time when she which travaileth hath brought forth”, Micah 5:3. So again there is a link between the birth of Christ and the nation bringing Him forth through suffering in a day to come.

No doubt His mother told Him of these things as He grew up, (for she kept all these sayings in her heart, Luke 2:51), and in that way it could be said of Him, as was said of God when His people were oppressed in Egypt, “in all their affliction He was afflicted”, Isaiah 63:9. He is now the Son of His Father’s right hand, having been caught up to the throne of God, and has taken those feelings for His oppressed earthly people to heaven with Him.

(d)  Verses 19-23
The settlement in Nazareth

2:19
But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

But when Herod was dead- because we do not know exactly how old the Lord Jesus was when the wise men came, we do not know how long He was with Joseph and Mary in Egypt. He cannot have been very old because Isaiah’s prophecy implied that he would be living in the land of Israel before He reached the age of discretion, Isaiah 7:16.

Behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt- in Luke the communications to Mary are by an angel directly, whereas in Matthew they are to Joseph by an angel in a dream. God had said, “And be thou there until I bring thee word”, verse 13,and he had been obedient to that command. We can easily see why Joseph was God’s choice to be the legal guardian of His Son, for he could be trusted to comply with God’s will.

2:20
Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.

Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel- this is the fourth instance in the chapter where the emphasis has been on the young child, and Mary is called His mother. The Spirit of God is guiding Matthew to repeat this, so that it is firmly established that this is the order. The Spirit knew that the Mary-cult would raise its ugly head in later years, with its connections with the Mother and the Child of pagan mystery religions, emanating from Babylon.

Note that the land is called the Land of Israel, for it was promised to Jacob, (whose name was changed to israel), as well as to Abraham, and is the land where the Messiah shall rule. Israel means “governed by God”, yet at the time it was governed by Rome. Only when the Messiah has returned to the land a second time shall it live up to its name. It will then be Immanuel’s land, Isaiah 8:8, and Jesus is Emmanuel, Matthew 1:22.

For they are dead which sought the young child’s life- Matthew uses the plural here, meaning more than Herod. Herod’s eldest son Antipater expected to succeed his father. However, he had two step-brothers, so he influenced his father to have them executed. However, Herod had him executed also just five days before he died. We may well think that if Antipater was jealous of his own step-brothers, and their claim to the throne, he would also be jealous of someone who was reputed to have been born king in Bethlehem. He would seek His life, too, but he and his father were removed by God. In this way it can be said, “they are dead”. How ironic that Herod succeeded in slaying his own son, but failed to slay God’s Son. this is the goodness and severity of God.

2:21
And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

And he arose, and took the young child and his mother- this is the eighth time in the chapter that Christ has been described as a young child.

And came into the land of Israel- Joseph is coming from one country, Egypt, to another country, Israel, which was divided into three main parts, Judea, Samaria and Galilee. This is the land that was promised to Abraham, but it was also promised to Jacob just after his name had been changed to Israel, meaning “prince with God” or “governed by God”, Genesis 35:10-13. It is only those who accept the government of God that can be describes as princes with God. Immediately afterwards, as they journeyed, Rachel died near to Bethlehem as she gave birth to Benjamin, verses 16-20.

2:22
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod- with Herod and his son Antipater both dead within a few days of each other, Archelaus succeeds Herod his father, but is not given the title king, but ethnarch. It is as if the presence of the Rightful King in the Land of Israel, His rightful kingdom, means other kings must give way.

He was afraid to go thither- Joseph does not seem to have heard of this new development before he arrived in the land. God allows him to make the discovery himself, for he is being weaned away from relying on dreams, although he is given one more when there is no other way. Archelaus was said to be more cruel than his father Herod.

On his way back to Israel from Egypt, Joseph, (if he took the main route, which he probably would for safety reasons), would come to Gaza just after he had crossed into the land of Israel. We may surmise that he stopped the night in some inn, and there learned the situation with regard to Archelaus and his cruelty.

Notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream- did he contemplate going to some other country? He had been instructed to go to Israel though. The only way to decide what to do is to ask Divine guidance, and this he receives. Did he retire to bed in a state of trouble of mind, just as he had done when he learned that Mary was with child? And that night the angel warned him from God about Archelaus.

He turned aside into the parts of Galilee- this is the same verb that Matthew uses to describe Joseph’s departure to Egypt, and also that of the wise men back to their homeland. It means to withdraw, to put a distance between oneself and something. The wise men withdrew from Herod after they had been warned to go home another way, (a different word to the one used in verse 9 when they departed from Herod to find the child. That word simply means they went on their way). Joseph withdrew from the land of Israel when warned of Herod’s evil intent, and now he withdraws again, this time from the danger posed by Archelaus. The “parts of Galilee” means those regions that made up the province of Galilee, divided as it was between the northern tribes of Israel.

But why did he go into Judea in the first place? He must have been heading that way, because once he learned about Archelaus he was afraid to go there. We know that Mary was of Nazareth, and Luke 2:4 inclines us to believe that Joseph was from that place too. The words are, “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea”. It is not conclusive from these words that he lived there, but it is very probable. These things being so, why did Joseph not go straight to Nazareth? Did he feel that he should live in Bethlehem, since it was from here that the Messiah should emerge? Or was it to preserve Mary from the scandal that conceiving a child before wedlock carried with it? It may not have been very long since they left Nazareth, and folk would remember the circumstances, and not understand.

Just after the city of Gaza the road from Egypt divides. The right hand fork goes to Jerusalem and Judea, the left hand fork goes to Galilee through Nazareth. So it was that Joseph withdrew from going to Judea and took the road to Galilee instead.

2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth- it seems a little strange that Matthew should write here as if Joseph and Mary had not lived there before. We might have expected, “And he came and dwelt again in Nazareth”, but this is not what Matthew wrote by the Spirit. Note it is Joseph who does this. Of course “the young child and Mary His mother” are with him, but the idea is that he, as the head of the house, now decides to settle down in Nazareth.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets- we now learn why Joseph must settle in Nazareth; it is so that the testimony of the prophets might be fulfilled. The formula “that it might be fulfilled” uses the word “opus”, which means that the fulfilment is not complete, but an event which was within the scope and intention of the prophecy. So the dwelling in Nazareth was but part of the fulfilment of the words of the prophets, but did not exhaust the meaning.

He shall be called a Nazarene- there is no statement in the Old Testament that corresponds to these words. But then, Matthew does not say there is, for he says, “spoken”, not “written”, and “by the prophets” in the plural. It is the consensus of the testimony of the prophets which is in view here, not a particular statement they wrote down. Of course it is not Joseph that is referred to as a Nazarene, even though he was going to live there.

We know from Revelation 19:10 that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”. In other words, at the heart of all the utterances of the prophets was the testimony to the Man who was coming, even Jesus. And Peter tells us that the Spirit of Christ moved them to prophesy, 1 Peter 1:11.

The Jews believed that the Messiah would have eight names or titles, and one of the foremost was “The Branch”. There were two main words used in this connection, one being “tsemach”. This word is used in Isaiah 4:2, “In that day shall the Branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious”; Jeremiah 23:5, “Behold, the days come, that I will raise up unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth”; Jeremiah 33:15, “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and He shall execute judgement and righteousness in the land”; Zechariah 3:8, “For, behold, I will bring forth My servant the Branch”, and Zechariah 6:12, “Behold the man whose name is the Branch: and He shall grow up out of His place…and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne”. All these scriptures have the idea of the future reign of Christ in them.

The other word used is “netser”, and is found in Isaiah 11:1, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots…and with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” The rabbis taught that this verse referred to the Messiah. So in one case the branch grows up unto David, the head of the House of David, from which the King shall come. In the second case, He is a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots, suggesting humble beginnings. The word “stem” is connected for the verb “to cut”, and suggests a tree cut down. This is how the word is used in Job 14:8, “For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch will not cease”. When Christ was born the House of David had long since sunk into obscurity, as is demonstrated by the fact that Joseph, a son of David, was a carpenter. But out of the obscurity of Nazareth a branch comes out of roots of Jesse, David’s father.

And this fits in with situation in Matthew 2, where Christ is taken to live in an obscure village in Galilee, not to Jerusalem, “the city of the great King”, Matthew 5:34, or even Bethlehem, “the city of David”, Luke 2:11.

So there is a play on words here, (some of the prophets used this literary device), with the “Netser” living in Nazereth. Nazareth had a reputation, expressed by Nathaniel when he was told about “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph”. He replied, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” John 1:46. So even the village was despised and rejected of men. Nathaniel was encouraged to “Come and see”. When he did so he became convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and the King of Israel, verse 49. When the nation of Israel saw Christ at His first coming, they saw in Him no beauty that they should desire Him, Isaiah 53:2, but one day they will see His moral beauty and desire Him. “It shall be said in that day, ‘Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation”, Isaiah 25:9. Nathaniel’s experience will be theirs, as the Despised One becomes the Desired One. The carpenter will be recognised as the Creator.

JOHN 18

Leave a reply

We hope you find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the e-mail address: martin_margaret3@yahoo.co.uk We would be pleased to hear from you.

JOHN 18

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN CHAPTER 18, VERSES 1 TO 24:

18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

18:2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

18:7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

18:13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

18:14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

18:16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

18:17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.

18:18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

18:19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

18:21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

18:22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

18:24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

Structure of the chapter

(a) Verses 1-14 The delivering up of Christ
(b) Verses 15-18 The denial by Peter the first time
(c) Verses 19-24 The dialogue between Christ and the high priest
(d) Verses 25-27 The denial by Peter the second and third time
(e) Verses 28-32 The dialogue between Pilate and the Jews
(f) Verses 33-37 The dialogue between Pilate and Christ
(g) Verses 38-40 The demand for Barabbas by the Jews

(a) Verses 1-14
The delivering up of Christ

Special note on the injustice of the way Christ was treated
It is difficult to know how to describe the way both Jews and Gentiles treated the Lord Jesus before He was crucified. There were so many illegal acts on the part of Israel, and a gross miscarriage of justice by the Gentiles, that it is flattery to call any of the proceedings a trial. The “princes of this world”, 1 Corinthians 2:8 made their decisions on the basis of prejudice, ignorance, envy and cowardice.

Prejudice, because the chief judge on the Jewish side had said a few days before, “it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not”, John 11:50. John makes it clear that he was referring to Christ. How can a trial be just when the judge believes the accused ought to die? How can it be right for those in charge of the proceedings to seek for witnesses “against Jesus to put him to death”, Mark 14:55. Leaving aside the fact that witnesses should not be sought, but should come forward of their own will, they should come to witness impartially, not against the accused, and should certainly not come with the intention of making sure the accused is put to death. Nor should the Sanhedrin have taken counsel “to put him to death”, Matthew 27:1. They should have taken counsel to discover the truth.

They were marked by ignorance of who He really was. This was wilful ignorance, for He had given ample proof as to who He was by His character as He lived before them, His works as He did miracles, and His words as He spake as none other did. As He Himself said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause”, John 15:22-25. Such was the clarity of His teaching, the power of His works, and the holiness of His character, that to hate Him was to show themselves up as hardened and hateful sinners.

Their decisions were also on the basis of envy, as Pilate realised, for Matthew tells us that “he knew that for envy they had delivered him”, Matthew 27:18. They saw Christ as a threat to their position and power. The people flocked to hear Him, but hated them.

As for Pilate, three times he declared that Christ was without fault as far as the law was concerned, (on the third occasion after he had scourged Him, which was only done to those who were condemned), but still he decreed that He be crucified. Sadly, he put favour with Caesar before favour with God, for when the chief priests saw that he was wavering, and was seeking to release Him, they said, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Ceasar’s friend”, John 19:12. At that point he sat on his judgement seat and delivered the Lord Jesus to be crucified. This was gross injustice on the basis of cowardice.

18:1
When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

When Jesus had spoken these words- in 17:1, the phrase “these words spake Jesus” introduces the prayer that follows. Here the prayer is in the past, and the “I come to thee” of 17:13 is continuing to happen. In His prayer to the Father He had used phrases like “I have finished the work”; “I am no more in the world”; “I come to thee”; “while I was with them in the world”; “now come I to thee”; “for their sakes I sanctify myself”; “where I am”. Each of these seven expression tells of one who is projecting His mind into the future, and is anticipating being back with His Father, where He will ever live to make intercession for His own.

As far back as Luke 9:51 Jesus had been described as one who was going to be received up, a reference to His ascent to heaven. But more than that, He Himself said ” I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father”, John 16:28. So He began to move back to His Father the moment He had come into the world.

He went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron- note the repetition of the word “disciples” in this verse. “With His disciples…and His disciples…with His disciples”, but although marked out as His followers, they became His forsakers in the garden. John does not record this, because he emphasises Christ’s defence of His own, and the way none of them was lost, and if he recorded the disciples fleeing it would detract from this. He does, however, record the Lord foretelling that they would leave Him, John 16:32.

The brook Cedron, (known as Kidron in the Old Testament), was a winter-brook, meaning it did not flow constantly, but only in winter and after storms. Job said, “My friends have dealt deceitfully as a brook, and as the stream of brooks they pass away; which are blackish by reason of the ice, and wherein the snow is hid: what time they wax warm they vanish: when it is hot they are consumed out of their place. The paths of their way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish”, Job 6:15-18. So Christ’s friends disappeared when the heat of the arrest came, but they did not perish like Job’s friends, for their Lord could say “I have lost none”, verse 9. As the Good Shepherd, He gives to them eternal life, “and they shall never perish”, John 10:28.

David crossed the Kidron (Cedron), when Absalom rebelled against him and Ahithophel changed allegiance and betrayed him, 2 Samuel 15,16,17. The traitor psalms, applied to Judas in the New Testament, (Psalms 41, 55, 69, 109), are based on Ahithophel’s treachery.

But there are several contrasts between David and Christ when they crossed this brook, as follows:

1. David had sinned in the matter of Bathsheba, and Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather, 2 Samuel 11:3; 23:34. It is easy to see he had reason to change allegiance. Judas, however, had no reason at all to betray Christ. In fact, he had every reason to be loyal.

2. The judgment on David for his sin in connection with Bathsheba was, amongst other things, that evil would be raised up against him out of his own house, 2 Samuel 12:11. And so it came to pass, for the would-be usurper of David’s throne, Absalom, was his son. There was no sin in Christ, and therefore no reason for any to rise up against Him, especially from His own band of apostles.

3. David fled in the face of Absalom’s rebellion in part because he was weak in body, as he wrote in Psalm 41:8, “An evil disease, say they, cleaveth fast unto him: and now that he lieth, he shall rise up no more”. No such affliction affected Christ, however, to enable His enemies to take advantage of Him.

4. David crossed the Kidron brook to flee into the wilderness to escape, leaving himself vulnerable to the loss of his throne; Christ crossed the same brook at the same place to confront His enemies, and go to Calvary to guarantee His throne.

5. Because the route from Jerusalem both David and Christ took was at the approach to the Mount of Olives, we know from ancient Jewish records that they followed the path that the scapegoat took on the Day of Atonement. But only the Lord Jesus could fulfil the ritual of that day, for He was “once offered to bear the sins of many”, Hebrews 9:28.

6. Once they reached the top of Mount Olivet, they were at the place, opposite the east gate of the Temple, where the Red Heifer would be slain “before the Lord”. In one of his repentance psalms, David appealed to the Lord to “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean”, Psalm 51:7, a reference to the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer over a defiled person to make him clean, Numbers 19:17,18. The writer to the Hebrews contrasts the limited effect of the “ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean”, Hebrews 9:13, with the blood of Christ, which purges the conscience fully.

7. It is said that the blood from the passover lambs was channelled from the altar down to the brook Cedron, so that it is very possible that the waters were still red with their blood. How this must have affected the sensitive soul of Christ as He crossed those waters! But He would do more that cross over the brook, He would go to Calvary and pass through the waters of judgment so that we might be redeemed.

Where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples- John does not name the garden, nor does he name the garden where the sepulchre was, 19:41. He does not use the word Gethsemane, meaning “Place of olive-presses”, for the same reason that he does not record the cry of abandonment on the cross. He is emphasising the Deity of Christ, not His vulnerability. There is no “crushing of the olives” in Gethsemane in John’s gospel, no “being in an agony”, hence no name for the garden which would remind of that. This tells us that the prayer of John 17 was not offered in Gethsemane; even the location was distinct, as well as the content of the prayer. The one was spoken as if the Lord was already in heaven, with the cross in the past, (hence to mention the place-name would be inappropriate), the others in Gethsemane were offered as if the cross was looming large.

There are other contrasts too, as follows:

Matthew, Mark, Luke

John

Location

Gethsemane

Not known

Position adopted

Fallen on His face

Lifting up His eyes to heaven

Themes of prayer

Suffering and death

Glory, eternal life

Length

Short, in an agony

Longer, in view of glory

Subject of prayer

Himself, cup of wrath

Himself, the apostles, believers

Times spoken

Three times

Once

Company

Alone- apostles apart

Apostles probably present

Attitude

“Thy will be done”

“I will”

Display

Reality of manhood

Reality of Deity

18:2
And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples- He would retire there when the authorities in Jerusalem oppressed Him, John 8:1. The place of refuge now becomes the place of arrest. Perhaps Judas and Christ “walked into the House of God in company” from this place, for the mount of Olives was in line with the east gate of the temple, Psalm 55:14.

18:3
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees- putting all the gospel records together, the following were present:

1. A great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people, Matthew 26:47.

2. Mark adds “the scribes”, Mark 14:43.

3. The chief priests, captains of the temple, and the elders, Luke 22:52.

4. A band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, John 18:3.

5. Judas, Luke 22:47.

6. A servant of the high priest, Malchus, verse 51.

7. A kinsman of Malchus, John 18:26.

Remember that more than twelve legions of angels were waiting for a call from Christ that never came, but, as the Lord said, “how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?” Matthew 26:53.

Cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons- perhaps domestic lamps, hastily picked up when the call came, and military torches. Gideon’s torches caused the enemy to flee, Judges 7:19,20, but here it is the “enemy” who are holding the torches. They are sons of darkness coming to apprehend the Light of the World. But He does not need the torches, nor does He flee. Judas agreed to betray Him “in the absence of the people”, Luke 22:6, and this is how he did it. “He that doeth evil hateth the light”, John 3:20.

The Lord highlighted the swords (military) and staves, (domestic), with the words, “Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take Me?” Matthew 26:55. God has put a sword into the hand of the powers that be, so that they can punish evil-doers. But Pilate could ask the question, “Why, what evil hath He done?”, Matthew 27:23, and they refused to respond to that question, because they knew the answer. On the other hand, staves are what a householder would use to defend his property from a burglar. So they were treating Him as if He were the one who, like a thief, was acting illegally against the best interests both of the nation, and the individuals in the nation.

In fact, it was they who were in the wrong, for Jewish law was being contravened in the following ways:

1. The arrest should have been done voluntarily by those who were witnesses to the crime.

2. It was illegal for the temple guard acting for the High Priest to make the arrest.

3. It was illegal in Jewish law to use force against a suspect.

4. The arrest should not have been at night, and constituted an act of violence. This is why the disciples were preparing to prevent it. Malchus was probably one of those foremost in the arrest. If Peter had been preventing a legal arrest, he should have been arrested. The fact he was not, showed the authorities knew they were in the wrong, for the arrest was not legal.

5. The prisoner was bound, which was unnecessary violence, since He was surrounded by only a few men, and the arrest party consisted of many.

6. The prisoner was taken to Annas first, but he was not the proper magistrate.

7. He was interrogated at night, which was prohibited by law.

8. He was detained in a private house, which amounted to kidnap.

9. He was struck gratuitously, and before any charges had been brought, John 18:22.

18:4
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him- the “therefore” indicates that He is acting in line with His knowledge of the Father’s will. He knew He was the foreordained Lamb, 1 Peter 1:20, and that the arrest would lead to His crucifixion.

Went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? In response to the arrival of the arrest party, the Good Shepherd not only goes before to lead, but also to protect the sheep. The enemies of the sheep have to confront the shepherd first. He went forth to meet them, taking the initiative. There is no mention by John of Judas’ actions, which have taken place before this point. There is an emphasis on the love and care of the Shepherd, not the treachery and hostility of Judas, the wolf, who comes, with his accomplices, “to steal and to kill and to destroy”. He takes the initiative, asking whom they sought, so they did not arrest anyone else by mistake in the semi-darkness.

18:5
They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he- the blind man said this, John 9:9 and no-one thought he was claiming Deity. So it must be that the expression reminds them of His word, “Before Abraham was, I am”, John 8:58. They took up stones to stone Him then, but now they are determined to see Him crucified.

How remarkable it is that Jesus of Nazareth is the great “I am”! This tells of His Deity. How remarkable also that the great “I am” should answer to the name of Jesus of Nazareth! This tells of His humility. He still answers to that name in heaven, as Saul of Tarsus found, Acts 22:8. His humble and obedient spirit shall never be forgotten.

And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them- he has done his wretched work, and now stands back with his new-found friends. He prefers their company to that of the Son of God, and thus shows himself to be an unbeliever. John alone mentions this fact, for he was especially sensitive to anyone who was untrue to his Lord. Yet Stephen accuses the nation of being the betrayers of Christ, Acts 7:52, so Judas is just a reflection of the nation. Stephen stood for Christ on earth, and Christ stood to receive him into heaven, verse 56.

18:6
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground- they took steps backward, reversing momentarily their plans, and then fell to the ground, illustrating what God’s plan is. They involuntarily do what they will do before Christ at the great white throne, (unless they have repented beforehand and have bowed the knee in that way), for unto Him every knee shall bow, Philippians 2:10, not only because of what He did when He became man, but also because of His Deity, Isaiah 45:22,23. They have an overpowering sense of Christ’s majesty. They thought they had come to arrest a carpenter, but He is, in fact, the Creator.

18:7
Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth- having shown that He has power in Himself to resist arrest, He now submits to it as His Father’s will, and not as the will of men, thus highlighting that “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter”, Acts 8:32, not resisting at all. They have learnt that they are not in control. They may take Him, but He is delivered by “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”, Acts 2:23.

18:8
Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he- He is in control here, and rebukes them for asking the question again, when He has already given the answer. One man is holding a multitude at bay by His word, before submissively allowing them to take Him.

If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way- having established that they have only come for Him, then, and not before, He requires that the disciples be allowed to go. They cannot refuse this without denying what they have just said. He has put them into a position where they cannot refuse to let the disciples go. The Lord ensures the disciples retire with dignity, even if, when they are out of immediate danger, they flee, as the other gospels record, and as the Lord foretold even in John’s record in 16:32. The emphasis is on His care, and not their fear.

18:9
That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none- John is quoting Christ’s testimony to His Father in 17:12. There is no mention of Judas here, as there was in that verse, for he has now clearly sided with the enemy, and has placed himself out of the range of Christ’s protection as Good Shepherd. This statement shows that our Shepherd is concerned about our physical welfare and safety, as well as our spiritual good.

18:10
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus- this had repercussions in a two-fold way later. First, this incident drew attention to Peter, and so a relative of Malchus, who also was in the garden, accused him of being a disciple, and this resulted in the third of his denials, John 18:26,27. Perhaps this is why John is the only one to name Peter as the one with the sword, so as to make his account of Peter’s denial intelligible. Only Luke the doctor records the healing of the ear.

Peter’s action also gave the Lord the opportunity to show Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world. What earthly king rebukes his followers for fighting, and heals one of the enemy’s soldiers? John does not record the healing of the ear to preserve the climax of the raising of Lazarus. To heal an ear, although having significance, would be an anti-climax if recorded after the raising of a dead person.

18:11
Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath- it is noticeable that the Lord rebuked Peter for seeking to prevent His arrest, but the soldiers do not arrest Peter for the injury to Malchus. They know they are acting illegally. Peter on a human level was justified in seeking to prevent an injustice. The Lord had sanctioned the carrying of a sword when engaged in the work of God, in self-defence, Luke 22:35-38.

The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? The Lord was acting on a higher level than human justice. Note the difference between these words and “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”, Matthew 26:39. The conflict in Gethsemane is over, and the Saviour is resolved to drink the cup.

Peter did not realise it then, but later on he would speak of Christ being delivered by “the determinate will and foreknowledge of God”, Acts 2:23, and yet he had sought to frustrate that will! He will write many years later of “the sufferings of Christ”, meaning “the sufferings that pertained to Christ”, such is the sense conveyed by the particular preposition “of” in that passage, 1 Peter 1:11. Those sufferings were to be His, come what may, and Peter’s sword would not prevent them.

18:12
Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him- this was another illegality, to bind an uncharged suspect. When men came to arrest Elijah, he brought down fire from heaven and consumed the first two arrest parties, and no doubt would have done the same to the third had not the angel intervened, 2 Kings 1:9-15. James and John referred to this as a reason to judge the Samaritans, but the rebuke the Saviour gave was, “The Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them”, Luke 9:54-56. Samson broke his bands and triumphed, Christ gained victory in weakness. They bind the hands that had just healed an ear.

At this point it will be helpful to have the order of subsequent events in our minds. If we were to read each of the four gospels in isolation, we might gain the impression that they were at variance, or that they had their facts wrong. This is not so, however, because John the apostle lived to be an old man, well beyond the time when the other three gospels were written, and the Spirit guided him into all truth, John 16:13. So he, as one present at the proceedings, was able to sanction all four of the records, his own included. We may have confidence, therefore, that what is written is a true witness. We should approach the gospel records, not in a spirit of criticism and doubt, but with an open mind, prepared to accept what they tell us.

Event 1

Arrest in the garden

Event 2

Leading, bound, to Annas

Event 3

Transferral to be questioned by Caiaphas, the other high priest

Event 4

Brought before an informal Sanhedrin, at night, and condemned

Event 5

Brought before a formal session of the Sanhedrin at dawn to ratify the former decision.

Event 6

Led to Pilate, bound, to be questioned.

Event 7

Sent by Pilate to Herod.

Event 8

Returned to Pilate and questioned again.

Event 9

Pronounced by Pilate to be not guilty, but scourged.

Event 10

Presented to the people who call for His crucifixion.

Event 11

Mocked by the Roman soldiers.

Event 12

Brought forth to the people, who cry “Crucify!”

Event 13

Questioned about claim to be Son of God.

Event 14

Delivered to be crucified.

18:13
And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

And led him away to Annas first- He was “led as a sheep to the slaughter”, Acts 8:32, where the word slaughter is not one used of sacrifice. Their object is to kill Him. They have no notion that He will be the sacrifice, even though it is priests who direct the operation. The House of Annas were known as “the whisperers”, (The Jewish Talmud said “they hissed like vipers”). They exerted their influence on the judges, “whereby rivals were corrupted, judgment perverted, and the Shekinah withdrawn”. The Shekinah was the Jewish name for the glory of God. Christ is the brightness of the glory, Hebrews 1:3, and He was withdrawn from the nation by God, being rejected by the High Priests. They of all people should have appreciated the glory of God in Christ.

In the days of Eli the Israelites brought the ark of the covenant into the field of battle, and it was captured. David comments on this later on and writes, “He delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand”, Psalm 78:61. Phinehas’ wife also commented on the incident at the time and said, “the glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken”, 1 Samuel 4:22. She knew that the glory of God dwelt between the cherubim on the mercy-seat which was upon the ark, and lamented its departure. How much more should Israel have lamented after they had taken the one the ark typified, and delivered Him into the hands of the Gentiles. But the priests, like Eli’s sons, had no such appreciation. No doubt the Philistines thought they had won the day, but they found that the ark was stronger than they were, for Dagon their god bowed down to it. And those who took “the ark” in Gethsemane, they bowed down too, as we have seen in verse 6.

For he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year- the reason He was taken to Annas first was because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas. This might seem a strange reason to give, but John is indicating that the high priests were all of the same family, and Caiaphas was high priest that same year only because of the behind-the-scenes manipulation by Annas.

The fact that John mentions this, as well as saying in verse 24 that Annas had sent Christ bound to Caiaphas, suggests that “the high priest” of the following narrative is Caiaphas, and that the Lord was taken first of all to Annas, but not to be formally interrogated. It shows the influence Annas still had. In fact, in Acts 4:6 it is Annas who is called the high priest, and Caiaphas, whilst present, was simply named.

18:14
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people- this refers to John 11:45-54. Caiaphas is clearly not an unbiased judge, for he is of the opinion that one man should die, if that avoids the nation perishing, and that one man is Christ. Not only has he made his mind up, but has made it public. This is further evidence of the illegality of the trial. Christ did indeed die for the nation, but not as a hostage, but a sacrificial substitute. It was indeed expedient, or profitable to them, but not so as to prevent the Romans depriving them of their rights, but so as to secure the rights of God in the matter of sin, and enable Him to righteously justify sinners.

There follows in verses 15 to 18 the account of Peter’s first denial. The gospel writers intertwine Peter’s denials with the account of Christ before the high priests, as if to suggest that they, as representatives of the nation, were denying Him too. This was the case, for Peter himself, having been converted from his lapse, accuses the nation later on of denying the Holy One and the Just, Acts 3:14. He then called upon the nation to “repent…and be converted”, verse 19, just as he had repented and been converted from his denials.

(b) Verses 15-18
The denial by Peter the first time

18:15
And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus- when the Lord was actually arrested, all the disciples forsook Him and fled. Having escaped out of immediate danger, Peter now follows the arrest party, but afar off, Matthew 26:58. He is a marked man, having tried to kill a man in the garden. To his credit, he does not immediately go to his home, although he will do this later, for the Lord said, “Behold the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me”, John 16:32.

And so did another disciple- we are not told who this disciple is. Some think it is John the apostle, but he always identifies himself in the gospel as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

That disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest- this disciple seems to want to be in favour with both parties, Christ and the high priest. He has compromised, and sadly he influenced even Peter in the matter. We should beware of compromise, because it will lead both ourselves and others into difficulties. Like Peter, he has nothing to say when the Lord is falsely accused. The psalmist anticipated this situation when he wrote with Christ in mind, “Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none”, Psalm 69:20.

18:16
But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

But Peter stood at the door without- it would have been better if he had taken the fact that the door was shut against him as a sign that he ought not to enter.

Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter- this disciple must have been very well-known and trusted, for he does not have to get the high priest’s permission, and the girl at the door does what he says. It is almost a “Lot situation”, for that man had entered into Sodom and gained a place of influence there. But no good came of it. Let us ensure that we only influence believers for good, and do not lead them into paths that may result in sin.

18:17
Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.

Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? Peter has gone to stand by the fire, and the maid who let him in follows him. Luke’s account, literally rendered, is “A certain maid, having seen him sitting by the light”. It was a much better situation in Acts 4:13, where we read of Peter and John, that the high priests “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus”. The girl was hardly likely to have been in the garden at the arrest, but she may have seen him if she had watched the entry into Jerusalem.

He saith, I am not- here is the first of Peter’s denials. It is important to notice that he does not renounce the faith. Fearful of his danger, he takes the cowardly course and denies that he is a disciple. We should not underestimate the seriousness of these denials. We should also note how wrong and foolish it is to make Peter the foundation of the church, given that he acted in this way.

Mark tells us that the Lord warned Peter that he would deny Him thrice before the cock had crowed twice, Mark 14:30. He then tells us that after his first denial “he went out into the porch, and the cock crew”, Mark 14:68. The crowing of the cock is under the control of Christ, and He is here giving a warning to Peter after his first denial, reminding him that he is in danger of denying again. Peter is in the porch, so the way of escape from the temptation is available. The word that Matthew uses for porch means a gateway. God always gives us the way of escape, but we do not always take it, to our loss. So it was with Peter. In the upper room he had been like one who thinketh he standeth, and he should have taken heed lest he fall, 1 Corinthians 10:12. But the apostle goes on to say, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it”, 1 Corinthians 10:13. The porch was Peter’s way of escape, and he could so easily have gone out, but sadly he did not do so, and returned into the palace to stand at the world’s fire.

It is well-known that hens have varied levels of importance among the flock, and they maintain this order by pecking. If a hen from a lower level steps out of line, then those higher up peck her into submission. This is called the “pecking order”. It has been discovered of recent years that the cockerels also have a way of maintaining their levels of influence. It is not by pecking, but by crowing. He who crows first and loudest is at the top of the hierarchy. Now when we are given the list of the apostles, we read, “The first, Simon, who is called Peter”, Matthew 10:2. So he was the “chief cockerel”. Without being unkind to him, we have to say that in the gospel records he seems to “crow” first and loudest. How appropriate then that the first and the loudest cockerel in the vicinity of the high priest’s palace should be used as a warning to Peter. His crowing seemed to say to Peter, “You have been given the first place amongst the apostles, so you should set a good example, and not deny your Lord again”.

Matthew, Luke and John do not mention this cockcrow, because it is not the sound that signals the start of the watch of the night called “The cock crow”. We read of the four watches of the night in Mark 13:35, “at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning”, “even” being from 6pm to 9pm; “midnight” being from 9pm to 12 o’clock; “cockcrowing” from midnight to 3am; “morning” from 3am to 6am. So the last three are named by what comes at the end of each one.

Apparently in tropical parts the cockerel often crows in the dead of night, but this is not the “official” cock crow, but rather the expression of a cock calling out of turn. Peter had been like that, speaking out of turn as he denied his Lord. It is this that only Mark records.

So when the Lord says in Matthew 26:34, “before the cock crow”; in Luke 22:34, “the cock shall not crow this day”; and in John 13:38, “the cock shall not crow”, He is speaking of the watch that ends with the cock crowing. Significantly the Lord does not say, “before 3am you will deny Me”, but mentions the audible sound of the cock crowing, thus giving the irregular crowing of the cock special significance to Peter, to reinforce its importance as a warning.

Some have questioned this incident on the grounds that cockerels were unclean birds, and therefore, so they think, would not be allowed in Jerusalem. It may well be that no Jew would keep a cockerel, but we should not forget that there was a Roman garrison in the city, and one of the ways Roman soldiers amused themselves was by watching cock fights.

Special note on denial
The Lord had told His disciples, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven”, Matthew 10:32,33. To confess Christ means to acknowledge who He is. To deny Him is to reject who He is. The context of those words is the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom. Some will believe that gospel, and by so doing will confess Christ. Others will reject it, and so will deny the truth it brings them as to the person of Christ. If they persist in this, then Christ will have to deny they are His in the day of judgment. So the one who confesses is not the same one who denies. So the Lord is not saying here that He may, in certain circumstances, deny one who has previously confessed Him.

So what shall we say of Peter’s denial? We are helped in this by remembering what the Lord said to Him before the event, which was, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”. Peter’s reply to this was, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death”. The Lord’s response, “I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me”, Luke 22:31-34.

So several things are coming together when Peter denied his Lord. First, there was the prior intercession of Christ for him, He knowing what was going to happen. Second, there was the attempt of Satan to get Peter, and the other disciples, to fail in their faith in Christ. In other words, to apostacise. Third, there was the willingness of Peter to cleave to the Lord, even to the point of death. Fourth, there was the weakness of the flesh, despite the willingness of the spirit, as the Lord said to them in Gethsemane, Matthew 26:41. (So it was the power of Christ’s intercession, not the willingness of Peter’s spirit, that kept Peter back from renouncing Him). Fifth, there was the denial when confronted by those around the fire. Sixth, there were the bitter tears after he had denied His Lord. Seventh, the conversion and restoration to full fellowship, with the ability to strengthen his brethren so that they do not deny the Lord as he did.

We may conclude that the denial of an unbeliever is different to the denial by a believer. The Lord prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail, so He recognised him as a believer. He had confidence that he would recover from his lapse, and be in a position to strengthen others so that they do not make the mistake he did. Peter did not renounce his faith in Christ, but sadly denied that he was a disciple and that he knew Him. Nor did the Lord renounce Peter, but interceded for Him and welcomed him back to fellowship.

It is interesting to note that the angels at the empty tomb spoke to Mary Magdalene and the other women, but not to Peter and John. Were they sensitive to the fact that both had forsaken the Lord and fled, and that Peter had denied Him? But it is pleasing to note that the message from the angel to the women was “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you”, Mark 16:7. So the angel was looking forward to Peter’s restoration.

18:18
And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold- it has often been noticed that John gives little insights into the state of things naturally on that night. He has already told us that Judas went out, “and it was night”, 13:30. Night, indeed, as to the time, but night in Judas’ soul, and sadly he goes out eventually into the blackness of darkness for ever. Here, John tells us it was cold. Cold as to the temperature, but cold hearts are plotting the death of their Messiah. Later on in verse 28 he will tell us “it was early”, as far as the time of day, but they hastened to do their ugly deed. Their feet were “swift to shed blood”, Romans 3:15.

And they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself- how sad to find a believer warmed by that which warms unbelievers. The Lord noted this, and after He was risen He made a fire of coals, and Peter was restored to fellowship with Him again, 21:9. That fire, however, was not just to warm cold and sad disciples, but also to cook them a meal and feed them. The world’s fire does not do this, for there is nothing in the world that will feed the souls of saints.

So Peter first of all stood without, verse 16, then he stood within, and then we learn from Luke that he sat down together with them, Luke 22:55. This is the downward path of those who deny their Lord.

After the parenthesis to introduce the idea of Peter’s denial, John continues with his narrative, as he describes the preliminary hearing, designed to prepare the way for the formal hearing before the Sanhedrin at dawn. John is showing us at the outset the disinterest in the truth displayed by the authorities.

(c) Verses 19-24
The dialogue between Christ and the high priest

18:19
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples- he is afraid there is about to be an uprising against the authorities, but they need not have worried. The Lord had rebuked Peter for the use of the sword in Gethsemane. Notice the Lord does not discuss His disciples, as He protects them like the Good Shepherd He is. He arranged for their departure at His arrest, thus shielding them physically, and now He shields them again, ensuring that after His ascension they are not targeted.

And of his doctrine- the High Priestly family were Sadducees, and Luke tells us “they say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit”, Acts 23:8. They are clearly at variance with the teaching of the Lord Jesus. The Lord will not be drawn into details, however, for He had been a recognised teacher in Israel for three and a half years, often in the temple courts, and they had ample opportunity to listen to Him then.

Special note on His doctrine
It was a life-giving word- “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life”, John 5:24.

It was a word from God- “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me”, John 7:16.

It was a word of truth- “He that sent me is true: and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him”, 8:26.

It was a word of insight- “I speak that which I have seen with my Father”, John 8:38.

It was a word of authority- “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak”, John 12:49.

18:20
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Jesus answered him- the Lord was always in control during His trials, yet never acted rudely. “When he suffered, he threatened not”, 1 Peter 2:23. He is confident that truth is on His side, and He will not allow error and falsehood to prevail, even when He is a bound prisoner.

I spake openly to the world- He never limited Himself to a select group of listeners, for all were welcome to hear what He had to say. There was no secrecy. This was a rebuke to Annas, (who was very possibly present, since Peter links all those named as rulers together in Acts 4:8 as being guilty of crucifying Christ), for Annas was notorious for his secret dealings, being known as “the whisperer”.

I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort- His was no attempt to advance some weird doctrines at variance with the teaching of the Old Testament. He was recognised as a teacher in the synagogues, and He taught in the temple courts as other doctors of the law did. He was not a rabble-rouser on the street corner. The prophet had said that “He shall not cry, not lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street”, Isaiah 42:2. The apostles followed this example, preaching either in the synagogues, or in different houses.

The temple was the territory of the High Priests, and their responsibility, so if He had been a heretic, they should have arrested Him immediately. The fact is that when they tried to do so, those who were sent to apprehend Him came back without Him, saying, “Never man spake like this man”, John 7:46. The power of His words was enough to prevent His arrest.

And in secret have I said nothing- of course He had spoken to His disciples in the privacy of the upper room, but that was only after the nation had had three and a half years in which to listen to Him and know the sort of things He was saying and teaching.

18:21
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

Why askest thou me? It was forbidden in Jewish law to try to get the accused to incriminate himself, hence the implied rebuke for asking Him.

Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said- the Lord appeals to those who could bear witness, and implies that the high priest should have been bringing them forward to bear testimony, not false witnesses who couldn’t agree. This is a rebuke from “the Holy One and the Just”, for the high priest’s false dealings.

18:22
And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand- is this the best way that the nation entrusted with God’s righteous law can behave? Have they no procedures by which to deal with this situation? They have no answer to His responses, except an act of contempt and insult. Men still hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18. This is part of the process by which the world was being judged by Christ, bringing it out into the light and exposing its wickedness. He is prepared to be ill-treated in this way if the truth is brought out thereby, as it is.

Saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Any prisoner was within His rights to protest at the illegality of the proceedings. Paul protested at his illegal treatment, so that others would benefit, Acts 16:37. The Lord will not allow unrighteousness. He is “the Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers”, Acts 7:52, (said to the high priest, verse 1). The officer is clearly trying to impress his master with his zeal. He should have been restrained and rebuked for breaking the law, but there was no interest in keeping to the law that night.

18:23
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil- He was either guilty or innocent of reviling the high priest. If guilty, the due process should be followed and measures taken to show His guilt. Annas and Caiaphas are being given a lesson in justice by “the Judge of all the earth”.

But if well, why smitest thou me? That the action of striking Him was illegal is seen in the absence of any response to Christ’s question.

18:24
Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest- why does John tell us this at this point? It may be that Annas lived in the same palace as Caiaphas, and John is preparing us for the possibility that when the Lord was being taken from Caiaphas to Pilate, it was then “He turned, and looked upon Peter”, Luke 22:61. It is also possible that by his deliberate vagueness as to where the conversation took place, John is using a literary device to show his disapproval of what happened. Jacob had said, as he prophesied about the wickedness of Simeon and Levi, “O my soul, come not into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united”, Genesis 49:6. John is heeding Jacob’s advice, and distancing himself from the secret counsels of the descendants of Levi. It would have been better for Peter if he had done this too, for his other name Simon is the equivalent of Simeon, who was allied to Levi, Genesis 49:5; 34:25. Simon Peter came close to being united, (“Levied”), unto their assembly, such is the danger of denial.

John is also pointing out to us the illegality of the proceedings, if we put the emphasis on “bound”. This binding should not have happened, and it sets the tone for the whole of the proceedings of the next few hours.

In John 18:25-27 we have John’s account of Peter’s second and third denial, as if to put side by side the denial of Peter for the third time and the denial of the Jewish authorities of the Lord Jesus for the third time, first before Annas privately, then before Caiaphas and an informal company of “chief priests and elders, and all the council”, Matthew 26:59, and then before the formal Sanhedrin in public at the break of day, (although John does not record this latter “trial”).

By his statement about the sending from Annas to Caiaphas, John is ensuring we realise the informal session of the Sanhedrin we shall consider next was under Caiaphas the High priest’s control, for he was high priest that year. As such, he had already decided that Christ should die, John 49-53, and was not, therefore, an impartial judge.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN CHAPTER 18, VERSES 25 TO 40:

18:25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

18:26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

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.

18:29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

18:30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast Thou done?

18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

(d) Verses 25-27
The denial by Peter the second and third time

18:25
And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself- John repeats what he told us in verse 18, to pick up the narrative of Peter’s denial again.

They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not- so he has denied being one of Christ’s disciples already, (and, as Mark tells us, has been warned by the crowing of the first cock), and now he does the selfsame thing. He has rejected the way of escape that was made available to him through the porch.

18:26
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

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? The fire had warmed him, but this question is red-hot, for to be a disciple is one thing, but to be guilty of attempted murder is another. The man is an eye-witness of what happened, and could have been brought forward in a court of law to condemn Peter. How much anguish Peter could have saved himself by escaping out of the porch!

18:27
Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew- Matthew gives us a sense of Peter’s desperation in the situation he had got himself into. The first denial was a denial that he knew what the maid meant. The second time he denied with an oath. The third time he denied with cursing and swearing, Matthew 26:70,72,74. The first cock was moved to crow after the first denial, and now the second cock is restrained from crowing until after the third denial. Moreover, it crowed immediately after the denial, showing that it was not a coincidence, for the cock was in the Lord’s hands; but better still, Peter was in the Lord’s hands, and His intercession has ensured that his faith in Christ has not failed.

Matthew gives us the sequel, for we read, “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly”, Matthew 26:75. Luke adds a detail, for we read that after the third denial, “And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter”, Luke 22:61. The psalmist had foretold the trials of the Lord Jesus, and had said, “Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none”, Psalm 69:20.

That Peter’s tears were genuine tears of repentance is seen in three ways. First, in that the Lord had personal dealing with him afterwards in a meeting of which we know nothing, Mark 16:7; 1 Corinthians 15:5. If he had not truly repented this could not have happened.

Second, he accused the leaders of the nation with the charge, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just”, Acts 3:14. He could not have done that sincerely if his own denial had not been repented of and forgiven.

Third, his repentance was shown in that he learnt from his mistake. He denied whilst the Lord was suffering at the hands of men and was being buffeted, and later on in his life, writing to Christian servants he said, “For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously”, 1 Peter 2:20-23. He had been beneath in the palace court whilst men buffeted, insulted, and falsely accused God’s perfect Servant. Yet He displayed the utmost poise and restraint. Thinking upon these things, Peter was humbled, and learnt the lesson, and thus his repentance was real.

John has told us in verse 24 that Annas sent the Lord bound to Caiaphas, but there is no appeal to the other members of the council in that passage, simply a conversation between the high priest and Christ. We have to read Matthew 26:57,59-68, and Mark 14:55-65 to find details of the meeting of the council before dawn, at which they agreed to formally charge Christ once the morning was come. They were not allowed to formally charge Him during the night. For the sake of completeness, we will divert to think of this informal session, as found in Mark 14:55-65.

By his statement about the sending from Annas to Caiaphas, John is ensuring we realise the informal session of the Sanhedrin we shall consider next was under Caiaphas the High priest’s control, for he was high priest that year.

Mark 14:55-65

14:55
And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death, and found none- we see the determination of the rulers to obtain what they want. They first of all sought for witness. Now forced witness is of no value, for witnesses must come forward voluntarily. Especially since under Jewish law those who brought false witness were to be condemned with the same punishment as the one they witnessed against would have received. Witnesses therefore would be very reluctant to come forward and give false testimony under this system. The rulers will tell Pilate later on that “by our law he ought to die”, but they did not follow their law.

Note the bias of these judges, for they are bringing forward witnesses for one purpose only, to see that the prisoner is put to death. They are not assembled to seek and find the truth, but to get Christ crucified; that is their agenda.

14:56
For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.

For many bear false witness against him, but their witness did not agree together- the requirement of the law of Moses was as follows: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”, Deuteronomy 19:15-21.

We see from this that the false witnesses should have been crucified, (for that was what their false witness would result in), and the case dismissed as being unjust.

14:57
And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,

And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying- having brought forced witness, and false witness, we now have fabricated witness. Clearly the priests are having trouble in finding any who will witness against Him. There were multitudes in Israel who could bear testimony for Him, so why were these not brought?

14:58
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands- this is a garbled version of what the Lord had said in Jerusalem at the first Passover of His public ministry. He had actually said, when asked what sign He showed to give Him the right to purge the temple, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19. They misunderstood His words, thinking He was referring only to Herod’s temple. This is why they spoke of Him rearing it up in three days, when it had been forty-six years since the building had started, and still it was not finished. After His resurrection from the dead the disciples realised that He had been speaking of the temple of His body, of which the temple was a figure.

So He said nothing about destroying the temple himself. It was they who would do it, when they secured His death. His body, soul and spirit would be separated in death, and since they were responsible for His death, (although from another viewpoint He laid His life down of Himself), they would destroy Him.

There is a vital link between the crucifixion of Christ, and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jacob prophesied of the time when the sons of Levi, the priestly tribe, would, in their anger, slay a man, and in their self-will dig down a wall, Genesis 49:5-7. The slaughter of Christ, and the destruction of the walls of Jerusalem are linked. The parable of the marriage of the king’s son involves the city of those who refused the invitation to the wedding being destroyed, Matthew 22:1-7.

There is a vital connection, then, between the destiny of the temple, and that of His body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Both will be destroyed, but both will rise again. In the case of Christ’s body the destruction would mean the separation of His body, soul and spirit in death, and significantly, when that happened the vail of the temple was rent- the destruction had begun!

So by crucifying Him, they would secure the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple. But Hosea had spoken of a period of three days after which God would raise up His people Israel from the grave of the nations, Hosea 6:1,2, (see also Deuteronomy 32:39). Together with His dead body would they rise, Isaiah 26:19, or in other words, they would be associated with, and believe in, His resurrection at long last, and gain the benefits which His rising again brings to those who believe. When He comes again there will be built a temple fit for His glorious kingdom, as detailed by Ezekiel in his prophecy, chapters 40-47. As Zechariah said, “He shall build the temple of the Lord”, Zechariah 6:12.

It was the Sadducean party that controlled the temple, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They no doubt thought of this statement by Christ during the first passover of His ministry as an attack upon their doctrine. And now at His trial during the last passover of His ministry it is the Sadducean party in control of proceedings. They think it is time for revenge.

And within three days I will build another made without hands- there are at least three misrepresentations here. He did not say He would build another, but would raise up the one that was destroyed. He did not imply that it would take three days, but stated He would do it three days after the destruction. He said nothing of the building being made without hands, as if it were some magical building. They either ignorantly or wilfully misquoted His words.

14:59
But neither so did their witness agree together.

But neither so did their witness agree together- just as the witnesses of verse 56 did not agree together, neither did these latter ones agree either. The case should have collapsed, therefore, but those conducting it are not interested in justice.

14:60
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

And the high priest stood up in the midst- according to Jewish law, for the high priest to stand up during a trial was an illegal act, and should have signalled the end of the trial altogether. Caiaphas is clearly frustrated, and having failed to find two witnesses who will agree, has to resort to trying to get the prisoner to incriminate Himself.

And asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? The Lord Jesus will not appear to endorse false witness by responding to it. When it was a question of His own honour, He would be like a sheep dumb before its shearers, as the prophet had said. Men are here seeking to shear Him of His glory, and He remains silent. When it is a question of the glory of His Father, or the defence of the truth, or the safety of His disciples, He will speak; but not otherwise.

14:61
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

But he held his peace, and answered nothing- He will not even explain why He will not answer, such is His determination to remain silent.

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? We know from Matthew’s gospel that at this point the High Priest had put the Lord Jesus under oath. We read, “And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God”, Matthew 26:63. He was obliged to answer, therefore, as a godly Jew, for it was a trespass against the law to not answer. The word is, “And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity”. By “voice of swearing” is meant “the voice of one who is putting you under oath”.

14:62
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

And Jesus said, I am- in Matthew the answer is “Thou hast said”, which is the formula a polite Jew would use when answering a question of a serious nature. Mark tells us what He said in its plain meaning, for the benefit of his Gentile readers. Here is a definite and unmistakable claim to Deity, and because the rulers did not believe His claim, they reckoned it to be blasphemy.

It should be noticed that to the learned men of Israel the title “Son of the Blessed” was a title of Deity. The fact that He claimed to be God’s Son did not imply He was in some way less than God. He was claiming to be fully God. The expression “son of” to an Eastern mind would mean “the sharer of the nature of”. So the Lord called James and John “sons of thunder”, meaning they shared the same nature as the thunder did, stormy and angry.

And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power- notice He reverts now to the title, Son of man, that is relevant to all men, for judgment has been given to Him because He is Son of Man, John 5:22. The priests are being informed that although they sit in judgment on Him then, in a day to come it will be different. And that He will rise from the dead and ascend to the right hand of God, which is the right hand of power, will ensure that this will happen, for as Paul said to the men of Athens, who scoffed at the idea of the resurrection of the dead, (as the Sadducean priests did in Israel), that God “hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead”, Acts 17:31.

It seems that those in hell can see those in heaven, although between them there is “a great gulf fixed”, Luke 16:23. So it is that when he died and went to hell, Caaiphas was able to see the one he had condemned, and would realise that He was in the highest place of honour, whilst he himself was in the depths of shame.

And coming in the clouds of heaven- Christ would do more than ascend to heaven, He would descend from thence in power and great glory, and “every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him”, Revelation 1:7. We see now why the Lord said “ye shall see”, for this pronoun is plural. All the unbelievers in the nation, represented that day by Caiaphas, shall see these things. And the nation as a whole shall see, too, as their Messiah comes to reign.

14:63
Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

Then the high priest rent his clothes- this in itself was an act contrary to the law, for the Scripture says, “And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes”, Leviticus 21:10. Now it is very unlikely that the high priest would be wearing his garments for glory and beauty at this time, for presumably they were worn during his ministrations in the temple. But this rending of clothes does have a metaphorical meaning, for the official garments of the high priest had gold wires interwoven in them, and if he had rent those garments he would have broken the gold wires. But those wires signified the glory of Deity, interwoven in the threads of linen signifying Christ’s humanity, and thus by rending his clothes the high priest renounced the Deity of Christ that had just been affirmed by Christ’s words.

And saith, What need we any further witnesses? By this statement he admitted that the witnesses already brought before him had not produced any evidence of guilt. He had to resort to placing the prisoner on oath to obtain a confession. He also is bringing the proceedings to a swift conclusion, because he thinks he has obtained what he thinks is a confession of guilt.

14:64
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Ye have heard the blasphemy- Christ had given ample proof of His Deity throughout His ministry, but they were determined not to believe on Him, for that would involve loss of prestige and power. Blasphemy is speech that injures the reputation of another, in this case of God. They believed it was their duty to stone blasphemers to death, and indeed it was, for the law required it in Leviticus 24:15,16, with the words, “And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death'”. So to speak injuriously of God merited stoning; it stands to reason that to claim, as a man, to be equal with God is the ultimate injury and insult.

What think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death- Caiaphas cannot make the decision alone, so he now puts the matter to the vote of the Sanhedrin, and by so doing will make them guilty of the conviction of Christ too. As Peter will say just a few weeks later, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers”, Acts 3:17.

It is interesting to notice in this connection that the only category of person who was to bring a male kid of the goats as a sin offering, was a ruler, Leviticus 4:22-26. And the animal that was slain to atone for the sins of the nation on the Day of Atonement was a male kid of the goats, Leviticus 16:5. Thus there is a link between the rulers and the nation in their sin, (“ye did it, as also your rulers”), and both are provided for in the true sacrifice of Christ for sin which the goat pictured; such is the grace of God.

14:65
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

And some began to spit on him- the soldiers of Pilate, who were Gentiles, did this later on, but we do not expect such behaviour from the officers of the high priest of Israel. The prophet foretold this when he wrote of the Messiah, “I hid not my face from shame and spitting”, Isaiah 50:6. To spit on someone is the ultimate expression of contempt and hatred, and the Lord Jesus did not seek to avoid this expression of the wickedness of men. He endured the cross, for His Father ordained that for Him, but He despised the shame, that which men gratuitously heaped upon Him. Even if a person is guilty, justice does not require that he be insulted. In fact, Jewish law required the utmost respect for a prisoner, and extreme deference was to be shown to him. After all, until condemned, he was to be reckoned innocent.

The Lord Jesus warned His disciples with the words, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished. For He shall be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on, and they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again”, Luke 18:31-33. And so it came to pass,

What the Lord did not tell His disciples was that their rulers would spit on Him also. It was one thing for uncouth Gentile soldiers to do this, but it was entirely another thing for members of the Sanhedrin to do so. They were so contemptuous of Him that they allowed themselves to do it, for we read that in the High Priest’s palace with the council present, when the Lord affirmed that He was indeed the Christ, “some began to spit on Him”, Mark 14:65, and Matthew tells us “they spit in His face”, Matthew 26:67. They no doubt felt justified in doing this, for had He not claimed to be the Son of God, and therefore was an apostate and a blasphemer? They had refused the testimony of His forerunner John, of His Father as He spoke from heaven, and His works, see John 5:32-38. It is gratifying to notice that Mark says that “some began to spit on Him”, Mark 14:65, thus allowing us to believe that Joseph of Arimathea did not stoop so low. So the Gentiles spit on Him in mock anointing, but Jews spit in His face in contempt.

And to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy; and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands- if He is Messiah, and the Son of God, He ought to be able to tell who is striking Him. Matthew’s account says, “They did spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?” At one and the same time they challenge Him to speak in prophecy, and also smite Him on the face to silence Him. They thus mock His claims further, and needlessly abuse Him.

The “trial” we have just looked at was at night, but the authorities knew that Pilate would not accept a decision that they had made illegally, so we now turn to Luke’s account of the formal session of the Sanhedrin which took place as early as it could after dawn:

Luke 22:66
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

And as soon as it was day- Matthew writes, “When the morning was come”, as if they had been impatiently waiting for the day to dawn, for they could not hold their official meeting before then, or else Pilate might declare it invalid and their cause would fail. Mark says “straitway”, a characteristic word of his, but often in connection with the Lord Jesus and His readiness to do His Father’s will. It is now used of the readiness of the Jewish authorities to do Satan’s will. Luke says “as soon as it was day”, so once the day had begun they set about the task of convicting Him. As the apostle says of sinners, they are “swift to shed blood”, Romans 3:15, and he is probably alluding to Isaiah 59:7 which reads, “Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood”. They show their haste by holding the council at the earliest possible moment after daybreak.

They had already passed sentence in their illegal council, for we have already read, “And they all condemned him to be guilty of death”, Mark 14:64, so they had made up their minds already. This further council was simply to confirm officially what they had already decided unofficially. Matthew tells us that they “took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death”, so they had only one outcome in mind.

The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together- Mark tells us it was with the whole council, Mark 15:1. But we are also told that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple, John 19:38, and also that he “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them”, Luke 23:51, so the decision of the council was not unanimous.

And led him into their council, saying- so brief were the proceedings of this council that Matthew and Mark do not even relate what was said.

22:67
Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

Art thou the Christ? tell us- something of their impatience is seen in the terse question and command they gave Him. They find, however, that the Lord Jesus will not be rushed, and shows He knows their hearts. It was illegal to try to get a prisoner to bear witness alone, and He has not been put on oath at this session, so He is not obliged to answer them at all. In any case they had had three and a half years in which to ascertain whether He bore the credentials of the Messiah.

One of the features of the Messiah was that He would give sight to the blind and cause the lame to walk, Isaiah 35:5,6, and these were the two classes of people that came to Him in the temple, for we read of Him being in the temple just a few days previous to this “And the blind and lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them”, Matthew 21:14. These blind and lame persons obviously thought that He was the Messiah, for they came to Him; it was not as if they were brought by others. They were not put off by the fact that David hated the blind and the lame, and had banned them from coming into the temple courts, 2 Samuel 5:8. The Lord Jesus had been welcomed into Jerusalem as the Son of David, Matthew 21:9, but they obviously did not think He hated them like David would have done. So right in the precincts of the temple, the place where the chief priests operated, there had been clear proof just a few days before, that He was the Messiah.

Even though He was not obliged to answer, He did so, and in such a way as to show them that He was indeed the Messiah, for Isaiah had told them that “the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth”, Isaiah 11:2-4.

All these features place Him in stark contrast to those before whom He stood. They lacked wisdom and understanding, they had no fear of the Lord, they judged after the hearing of their ears, listening and believing false witnesses. They had the supremely Poor Man before them, but did not judge Him with righteousness or reprove with equity.

Because He was not on oath, He was not obliged to answer directly, but He did answer indirectly, and in such a manner that they could not gainsay. The best way to achieve conviction in the heart of man, is for that heart to be convinced internally. It is the case with the Scriptures. Once men have approached the Word of God with an unbiased mind and a seeking heart, and are prepared to put aside pre-conceived ideas, then the Spirit of God will use that word to convict them, as they are exposed to its living power. When this happens, the proof lies within the man, and is not imposed on him from without.

So it is with the truth of the Christ-hood of the Lord Jesus. As He speaks to the men who accuse Him, He is skilfully showing that He is indeed the Messiah because He fulfils the criteria Isaiah set out as to His wisdom and understanding. He does this by means of four statements, as we now see.

And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe- this is the first statement, which is a prophecy, and shows that He knows their future, that their unbelief is permanent. They knew in their heart of hearts that this was the case, for they were determined not to believe in Him.

22:68
And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me- He was aware that they knew He was the Messiah, but their hearts were so hard that they would not even respond if He asked them, but would stubbornly refuse to admit it.

Nor let me go- He knew they were not interested in justice, so even though they knew He was the Messiah, their stubborn refusal to believe would prevent them from letting Him go as one against whom there was no charge. The apostle Paul wrote about God’s wisdom, “which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”. It is not that if they had known they would have spared Him crucifixion. Rather, if they had known, they would not have crucified Him because they did not wish God’s purpose to be fulfilled in His crucifixion, and would seek to frustrate it.

22:69
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God- this is the fourth statement and the fourth prophecy, this time not about them, but about Himself. He told them early on in His ministry that authority to execute judgment has been committed to Him because He is Son of Man, John 5:27. He is relevant to all men, not just to the nation of Israel. As Son of man He had been on earth and given them the opportunity to react to Him at close quarters. He foretells that He will rise to heaven to sit on the right hand of God, the place of the Firstborn, the place of administration, which in this context is the place of justice and judgment.

When standing before Caiaphas previously, the Lord had said, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power”, but then added, “and coming in the clouds of heaven”, Matthew 26:64. The point of the latter phrase being that it is a reference to Daniel 7:13, where Daniel writes, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days”. But when he writes of the coming of the Son of Man he says, “until the Ancient of Days came”, verse 22. This is why on that occasion Caiaphas said, “He hath spoken blasphemy”, for He was claiming a Divine title, and the high priest rejected that claim as blasphemy.

22:70
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? Notice the “then”, for it shows they have drawn a logical conclusion from His statement about sitting on the right hand of the power of God. They have rightly seen in this a claim to Deity.

And He said unto them, Ye say that I am- we should not think of this statement as being a vague one, as if to say, “You can say that is the case if you choose to”. Rather, it is the way a polite Jew would answer in the affirmative, so His reply is a definite “Yes”, but framed in a courteous way. It is the same as we find in Matthew 26:25, “Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master Is it I?” He said unto him, Thou hast said”. In other words, “Yes”.

22:71
And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth- this shows that they did not believe He was avoiding their question, but had made a definite statement. The claim to be Son of God on the part of anyone else would indeed be blasphemy, and would merit death by stoning. But this would almost certainly involve the breaking of bones, and Scripture said that “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken”, Psalm 34:20, and to be “Christ our passover”, the Lamb of God must not have any bones broken. God had foreseen this, and had allowed the Roman authorities to take away from the nation the right to stone to death.

They have achieved their object, and have grounds, in their view, for demanding His death. They can now go to Pilate and affirm that in a solemn, formal assembly of the Sanhedrin, after the break of day, they have judged Him to be worthy of death.

We return to John’s account, as he tells of the first interview with Pilate, the Roman governor.

(e) Verses 28-32
The dialogue between Pilate and the Jews

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.

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment- this is Pilate’s residence. This is the third place the Lord has been taken. First to Annas, verse 13, then to Caiaphas, 24, and now to Pilate. Isaiah prophesied He would be “taken from prison and from judgment”, 53:8. Matthew tells us that He was led bound, and then immediately describes the despair of Judas, leading to his suicide. It is as if the binding of Christ convinced Judas that He was not the Messiah, or else He would have freed Himself. Had He not gone His way when the men of Nazareth threatened to throw Him over the cliff? Had He not escaped out of the hand of the Jews when they tried to stone Him in the temple? He thinks Him to be finally defeated.

By handing Him over to Pilate, who was a Gentile, they are handing Him over to wicked or lawless hands, as Peter declared in Acts 2:23. As Jews they were restricted by the law of Moses as to how to treat an accused person, (although they failed even in this), but the Gentiles were not so restricted, as Pilate showed by scourging Him after he had pronounced Him innocent of all charges.

And it was early- this indicates their state of heart, wishing to get the matter over quickly before the multitudes thronging the streets of Jerusalem at the the passover feast had time to protest. The previous examinations must have been at night, which was illegal, especially when the accused is on a charge which carried the death penalty. The formal session of the Sanhedrin had been at break of day, but even after that session it was still early, showing how quickly the matter was rushed through.

There is also the fact that for trials for life, as this one was, the judges must give their verdict before they had eaten or drunk. They must not be sluggish through over-indulgence, or muddled through strong drink. Sadly, they abide by this rule only so that they get the verdict they are looking for, and not through any sense of justice.

And they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled- they refused to enter into the Gentile’s palace because there was the very real danger that there was unleavened bread there. They are particular about the niceties of their religion, but indifferent to the fact that Christ is the “True bread”. They are scrupulous about a speck of leaven, which was figurative of evil, but have no scruples about the evil of sending the Son of God to the cross.

But that they might eat the passover- this does not mean that the passover feast had not been eaten. The gospel writers describe the feast of the Passover as follows:

“Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus and said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” Matthew 26:17.

So “the passover” can mean the whole of the passover Supper.

“And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover”, Mark 14:1. So “the passover” can mean the Passover lamb.

Luke 22:1 “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover”.

So “the passover” can mean the feast of passover together with the connected feast of unleavened bread. This is confirmed by the words of Pilate, when he said, “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover”, John 18:39, so it was ongoing at that point.

Certainly the Lord had eaten the passover meal the evening before, for He would have obeyed the instruction, “they shall eat the flesh in that night”, and “ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning”, Exodus 12:8,10. The Hebrew day had two evenings, the first was when the sun began to decline at about the ninth hour, and the second was when it was possible to see three stars in the sky, about the twelfth hour. It was between those two points that the passover lamb was to be killed. The command was “the whole congregation of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening”, Exodus 12:6.

The passover was to be eaten that night, and nothing left till the morning. Hence in Deuteronomy 16:6 the instruction is to eat the Passover “at the going down of the sun”, and “at the season thou camest forth out of Egypt”. Then they were told to “turn in in the morning, and go unto thy tents”, verse 7. Far from doing this, the chief priests had turned out in the morning, in order to condemn the True Passover Lamb.

There is another use of the word passover, and that is the festive offerings during the seven days of unleavened bread, for this festival followed straight after the passover day, and is actually called the passover in Luke 22:1, as we have noticed. So the priests are concerned that by going to a Gentile’s house they will be defiled, and unable to keep the feast of unleavened bread.

It was also part of their duty as priests to eat the goat of the sin offering that was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread, Numbers 28:22. The purpose of this was to bear the iniquity of the congregation of Israel, and make atonement for them, as we read in Leviticus 10:17 in connection with the goat of the sin offering on the final day of the consecration of the priests. They sat in the temple courts and ate the sin offering, whilst the true sin offering was being made sin, and bearing sins in His own body on the tree. Were they doing this when the darkness came? If so, God was signalling to them that what they were doing was out of date.

18:29
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

Pilate then went out unto them, and said- he has no choice but to go out of his palace and meet them outside. He cannot allow an uproar, especially at a feast, for his position, or even his life, might be in danger when Caesar discovers the situation.

What accusation bring ye against this man? There were three parts to a Roman trial, and the first one was called the accusio, (the accusation). So this is the normal question at the start of a Roman trial, and it was required that it be formally asked. The Jews had condemned Christ for claiming to be the Son of God, Matthew 26:63-66, but they know this will carry no weight with Pilate, for he will not be interested in theological questions. He held the Jews and their religion in contempt, as we see from Luke 13:1, where we are told that he had mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices. The Lord would be classed by him as a Galilean, so it is all the more remarkable that Pilate would do his utmost to get Him freed. There must be something that will over-ride his hatred of Galileans, and we shall see later on that there is.

They have it in mind to bring a charge that will interest Pilate, but they hesitate, seeing if they can get him to condemn Christ without them being involved. Consider who it is upon whom mere men are sitting in judgment. It is the one to whom all judgment has been committed by the Father, John 5:22; who shall “judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom”, 2 Timothy 4:1; who shall “sit on the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations”, Matthew 25:31, who shall “judge the world in righteousness”, Acts 17:31. It is the one who is equal with the Father, and is therefore the “judge of all the earth”, Genesis 19:25. He it is who is being judged by sinners! They sit down on their judgment thrones and He stands before them, but one day the rôles will be reversed, and “kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord who is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee”, Isaiah 49:7.

18:30
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee- it is very likely that the Sanhedrin would have alerted Pilate that they wished to bring to him a prisoner in the early morning, so that a trial and execution could take place before 6pm that day, which was when the sabbath began. He seems to have agreed to this, hence his readiness to deal with the matter early, as John has told us. But something has made him reluctant to deal with the matter. As we shall see, he made numerous and varied attempts to avoid sentencing Christ. Why should this be? He had no personal interest in the case one way or another. The incident recorded in Luke 13:1 shows him to be almost indifferent to human life, and yet he seems to want to spare Christ. Could it be that he is influenced by Satan in this? The latter had tried every ploy down the centuries to prevent Christ being born, and when he failed in this he make several attempts to see Him killed. So why does he move Pilate to not execute Him?

Is it not because he knows that Scripture foretold death by crucifixion, and if this prophecy comes true then the gospel will be furthered, and men will see that God is the true God. He is willing, therefore, to see Christ killed, but in any other way than by dying on a cross with pierced hands and feet, as Psalm 22:16 said He would be.

Now if he had agreed during the night to let the Sanhedrin sentence Christ, and simply agree to their verdict when they brought Him to him in the morning, imagine the surprise and anger of the chief priests when it seemed as if he was not going to do this, but rather asked the question which normally began a Roman trial. Their response is the equivalent to saying, “You agreed to deal with a convicted malefactor, and now that we have condemned Him you are reluctant to handle the case. If we had not condemned Him as a guilty malefactor we would not have brought Him, for they were the terms of our arrangement”.

18:31
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law- this is the first of the several attempts that Pilate made to rid himself of the responsibility of judging Christ. He is prepared to let them judge Him in their religious court. Pilate is shrewd enough to know that whilst the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem wanted Him dead, as they saw Him as a threat to their authority, nevertheless the hundreds of thousands of Jews from around the world who had descended upon Jerusalem for the passover were not opposed to Him. The reaction of the crowds as He rode into Jerusalem had shown that. If he, as the representative of Rome, the occupying power, is seen to crucify a popular figure, the crowds might become restive, and cause trouble. Pilate is very aware that Caesar is sensitive to revolt amongst the provinces of the empire, and he will be displeased. If the Jews take the law into their own hands and stone Him to death, (as they did to Stephen just a few years later), then all will be over in a matter of minutes, and the crowds will hardly know.

But despite all this, God saw to it that Pilate did have dealings with Him, for it was God’s will that both Jew and Gentile should have responsibility for the death of Christ. As Peter said, “ye (Jews) by wicked hands (the hands of lawless Gentiles) have taken, and crucified (the Gentile mode of execution) and slain (the wish of the Jews fulfilled)”, Acts 2:23. On very rare occasions crucified people survived, but they crucified Him until He was dead. And yet no man took His life from Him, but He laid it down of Himself, John 10:18.

The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death- if the Jews judged according to their law, and stoned Him, then His bones would have been broken, and so Scripture would not have been fulfilled, John 19:36. Are they hoping that Pilate will reverse the withdrawal of the death penalty temporarily in order to rid himself of the trouble the matter is causing him?

The right to put to death was taken away from Israel by the Romans a few years before. This no doubt was the overruling of God, so that the prophetic Scriptures as to the manner of His death were fulfilled accurately. He must be able to say, “They pierced my hands and my feet”, Psalm 22:16.

By acknowledging the situation, the priests were confessing the sad state of the nation, for the law of Rome had overturned the law of God. It was lawful as far as the law of Moses was concerned for them to put certain guilty persons to death. The fact that they cannot do this indicates their low state as a nation. They should have been asking themselves why it had come to this. Moses had told them that one of the results of not hearkening to the voice of the Lord would be that those who hated them would reign over them, Leviticus 26:17. It had come to pass before, when the Babylonians took them into captivity, and now it had come to pass again.

18:32
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled- it is not the saying of Caiaphas in John 11:50 that it was expedient for them that “one man should die for the nation” that is to be fulfilled. Rather, it is “the saying of Jesus”, which John puts on the same level of authority as the Old Testament Scripture. He prophesied of the manner of His death, and so did they, and there was perfect agreement.

Which he spake, signifying what death he should die- this refers to the saying of Christ when He said that He would be lifted up. In fact, John is quoting the words he had used to explain the meaning of the Lord’s statement, 12:33. And even before this, the Lord had said to Nicodemus “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up”, 3:14. The word for pole that the brazen serpent was put on, comes from the word “to lift up”. So the mode of Christ’s death was even indicated when Israel were in the wilderness.

To understand why Pilate asked the question “Art Thou a king then?” we must revert to Luke’s account in Luke 23:2,3. There we learn of the charges the Jews brought against Christ that they think Pilate might be interested in, because they involved political matters, and not the religious charge of claiming to be the Son of God. Those political charges were first, that He perverted the nation. Second, that He forbade the people from giving tribute to Caesar. Third, that He claimed to be Christ a King.

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

And they began to accuse him, saying- realising that things are not going well for them, the priests have to back-track, and come up with fresh accusations which they feel may carry more weight with Pilate. He is clearly not interested in religious questions, so they change to political questions. Pilate had already asked them what accusation they brought, and they had sought to evade the issue. Now they have no choice but to respond.

We found this fellow perverting the nation- but far from leading the nation astray, He had sought to bring them back to the right ways of the Lord.

And forbidding to give tribute to Caesar- this is a bare-faced lie, and shows how desperate they are to find something that will interest Pilate. The Lord had in fact said, when tempted by the Pharisees, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”, Matthew 22:21. How can this be construed as forbidding to give tribute, when it is an exhortation to pay their dues? In fact the Lord worked a miracle to provide the silver for the tribute money, Matthew 17:24-27, such was His attitude.

Saying that he himself is Christ a king- in fact, the Lord Jesus never made this claim for Himself, but left others to see that it was in fact true. When the people had tried to take Him by force to make Him king, He withdrew from them, John 6:15. He is content to wait His Father’s time to manifest Himself as King. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords”, 1 Timothy 6:15. They are suggesting to Pilate that He is a dangerous political agitator, in order to make him interested in the case.

Having introduced the idea of a claim to be king into the situation, the Jews have aroused Pilate’s interest, and he re-enters the judgment hall to question Christ on the matter, as recorded by John.

(f) Verses 33-37
The dialogue between Pilate and Christ

John 18:33
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again- Pilate had entered the judgement hall in verse 28, but then went out to them to ascertain the charge they brought against Christ, and now he is re-entering the judgment hall to interrogate Christ.

And called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? To call Jesus would mean to summon Him for formal examination in a law-situation. Pilate is obliged to investigate the charge that Christ claims to be a king; the stability of the empire depends on having control over agitators.

18:34
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Before answering, the Lord establishes what the question, on the lips of Pilate, means. Does it mean “King of the Jews” in Pilate’s way of thinking? In which case the answer is “No”, for he was not a petty agitator, inciting the Jews against the Romans in some futile uprising. Or does it mean, “King of the Jews” as the Jews would understand the title, meaning the Messiah?

Pilate is finding that he is the one being questioned now. In His responses, the Lord reveals the characteristics of His kingdom. Christ’s kingdom is a righteous kingdom, and justice prevails there, and this question is designed to point out that the Jews had switched charges, and hence are acting illegally. They had convicted Him because He claimed to be the Son of God; so where is the charge of being king of the Jews coming from? Is it a further charge from the Jews, or a new charge from Pilate? Not a word was spoken at the two sessions of the Sanhedrin about Him being king of the Jews. The only time they mentioned it was when they changed accusations outside the Praetorium, with Christ inside. He has a right to know what the charge is, especially as it is a “trial for life”, when the death penalty was possible. In any case, where are the witnesses for and against the charge? Is the trial to proceed on the say-so of Pilate alone?

This question is not an evasive tactic on the part of the Lord. He will state directly in verse 37 that He is a king, but He is making sure that all concerned know the facts of the case, and do not make decisions based on rumour and innuendo.

18:35
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? This is the first of three questions, and is a semi-sarcastic jibe at the oddities, (in his Roman view of things), of the Jewish culture. It tells us he is not looking at things dispassionately, but in a prejudiced way. Christ’s kingdom will not be limited to Israel, so whether Pilate, a Roman, could understand was irrelevant.

Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me- this was only half-true, as the nation had welcomed Him as He rode into Jerusalem as King, John 12:12-15. It was the chief priests who had delivered Him for envy. It is true that “He came unto his own, and his own received him not”, John 1:11, but John immediately tells us that there were those that received Him, so rejection was not unanimous, as seems to be implied in Pilate’s statement. His kingdom will be welcomed when it is at last manifested in this world, for the nation shall say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”, Psalm 118:26.

What hast thou done? This suggests that Pilate thought He may have been the ring-leader in some trouble-making. That this is not the case is seen in the Lord’s reference to what had happened in the garden of Gethsemane the night before.

18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world- these words must have been strange and troubling to Pilate. The Lord readily admits that He is a king, but not of the sort Pilate was used to. He was soon to be made friends with Herod, and he was the sort of king Pilate knew. Pilate was not familiar with the idea of a kingdom originating from any other place than earth. Pilate is being assured that His kingdom is not to be set up in rivalry to Caesar’s, although one day this kingdom will displace all Gentile kingdoms, Daniel 2.

If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews- earthly kingdoms are established and increased by means of the armies they deploy. The fact that Christ’s kingdom is not of this sort is seen in that the servants of this king are not organised into an army. In fact, one of Christ’s disciples, Simon, was a Cananite, Matthew 10:4, which does not mean he was an Old Testament Canaanite, but rather, a zealot, (such is the meaning of the Greek equivalent of the word), working to overthrow the Roman occupation. Christ called him to a higher task. Another of the apostles, Matthew, was a tax-gatherer, working for the Roman authorities. He was called away from working for the government, just as Simon the Cananite was called away from working against it. Christianity is not a political movement, and just authority has nothing to fear from it. Governments that oppress Christians show they do not understand Christianity, for the apostles taught believers to not resist the God-given authority of political rulers.

Wrote the apostle Paul, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour”, Romans 13:1-7.

If they live and act as they should, believers do not represent any threat to governments of any sort. In fact, their presence should be welcomed, for they normally are exemplary citizens. Persecution of all such is inexcusable and pointless.

The sense of the verb “fight” is “keep on fighting”, a reference no doubt to the fact that Peter had put up some sort of resistance in Gethsemane when the arrest party came. But Pilate must have known that Christ rebuked Peter for this, and even went so far as to ask permission to heal Malchus, (“Suffer ye thus far”, Luke 22:51). What king rebukes His subjects for fighting, and then heals the wounds of a soldier of the opposing army? This king, and His kingdom, must be of a different sort. This may well have been the point at which Pilate realised that the prisoner was no threat to Rome.

But now is my kingdom not from hence- these words might be misunderstood to mean that this king had suddenly changed tactic under pressure from Pilate, and was now resolved to employ different methods to gain His objective. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The “but now” must be linked with the “if” near the beginning of verse 36. There is a conditional statement beginning with “if”, which sets out a possible situation, namely, that His kingdom was of this world. But this is immediately rejected with the words “but now”. In other words, His kingdom is of another sort all along, and the possible scenario beginning with “if” must be rejected.

18:37
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Pilate’s response was to ask again, pointedly, whether He was a king. The Lord is now prepared to answer the question directly, because He has established first, that He is not a troublemaker, second, that His is not a rival kingdom to Caesar’s, and third, that the kingship they are talking about is of the Messiah, and derives its authority from God.

Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king- this is not an evasive reply. Nor does it indicate that Christ is a king only in the minds of those who believe it, with His kingship not relevant to the rest of men. Rather, this is the formal way a polite Jew will answer a direct question of serious import. It is the same as saying “Yes”, but the Lord is using the Rabbinical formula for answers to direct questions. Courtesy forbids a direct yes or no, but it is a direct answer.

As we have seen, He gave this same response when Judas asked, “Master, is it I”, and the reply came, “Thou hast said”, Matthew 26:25. So also in Luke 22:70,71, where the question of the high priest as to whether Christ is the Son of God is answered by the words “”Ye say that I am”. If this was prevarication, the question would have been asked again. As it is, the response of the chief priest was to declare that no more witnesses were needed, “for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth”. He knew full well what the answer had meant. Mark, with characteristic brevity, gives the Lord’s answer as simply “I am”, the last words of the reply in Luke. It is still the case, however, that the courteous formula is used, and not a direct “Yes”.

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world- the Lord makes a connection here between His birth, and His entrance onto the public stage. He is not suggesting that that was when His kingdom began, but to bear witness to the truth so that men may believe and be born again and thus enter the kingdom of God in its present form. This is the only time the Lord spoke of being born. This is very relevant at this point, for He had been born as one with an unassailable and unique claim to the throne of David, and He had shown Himself to be that, as Matthew’s gospel demonstrates clearly, beginning with His genealogy as the son of David, the one with the right to the throne of Israel.

But more than that, He had not limited Himself to Israel, but had come into the world, thus making a claim to eventually be “king over all the earth”, as the prophet foretold, Zechariah 14:9.

That I should bear witness unto the truth- the kingdom of Christ will be founded on truth, not deceit. As the Scripture says, “for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”, Romans 14:17. As He went about teaching, the Lord presented the truth that men needed to believe in order to enter the kingdom of God. It was not a question of birth, or religion, or tradition, but genuine faith in Him that would secure a place in the kingdom. When He was explaining the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, it was not with a parable about a soldier going forth to war, but with one about a sower going forth to sow, Matthew 13:3, even though the word was “the word of the kingdom”, verse 19. It was not the use of arms that would bring in the kingdom of Christ, but the use of the word of God. Such is the radically different nature of His kingdom, and Pilate needs to understand this if he is at all interested in executing justice.

Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice- this is a direct appeal to Pilate, encouraging him to show himself to be interested in truth, and not mere expediency. This would be the first stage on a path to faith in Christ, and would mean he would avoid the shame of condemning Him falsely, contrary to the truth. The kingdom of Christ is based on truth, not deceit and lies like the kingdoms of men, and His kingdom consists of loyal subjects, who love the truth.

Pilate is baffled, for the statements he is hearing are so different to his thoughts about kings and kingdoms. The subjects of this kingdom are those who respond to truth as they hear the voice of the king.

God’s ideal king is a shepherd-king, leading in the paths of righteousness, so when He presented Himself as the Good Shepherd, the Lord said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”, John 10:27. These are words spoken in Solomon’s Porch, with its associations with the place where Solomon sat on his throne to judge as king.

(g) Verses 38-40
The demand for Barabbas by the Jews

18:38
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? How could he decide these opposing assertions? On the one hand the Jewish authorities made the prisoner out to be a claimant to a throne, and yet He Himself spoke only of truth, and his servants not fighting, and a kingdom not of this world. When he spoke to Nicodemus, the Lord said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”, John 3:3. Only those who have the life of the king can have any true perception of the principles underlying His kingdom. So the answer to Pilate’s dilemma is to “hear His voice”. The genuine seeker after the truth will come to the genuine imparter of truth. So it is that in His conversation with Pilate, the wearer of the Imperial Purple on behalf of Rome, Christ displays the superior purple of the eternal and heavenly kingdom, which He will one day set up on earth, but which His born-again people have already entered, John 3:3,5; Colossians 1:13. These features of His kingdom tell us of the character of His kingship. The Lord makes no response to this question, for the answer has already been given.

And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all- when he went out before, it was to ask what the accusation was, “What accusation?”, verse 29, but now he has concluded that the prisoner is not guilty. “I find in him no fault all” is a legal pronouncement, indicating that he considers, as the representative of Caesar, that there is no legal ground for punishing Him. Thus it stands recorded that Christ was crucified illegally.

We now need to go over to Luke’s account, for he is the only one who records the reaction of the Jews to this statement, which was one of anger, and they presented a further charge, that “He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place”, Luke 23:5. These are lies, but they introduce ideas that might worry Pilate, who was responsible for law and order in the province. Someone who stirs up the people, and whose influence is spreading from Galilee right up to Jerusalem represents a threat to the stability of the empire.

The mention of Galilee presents Pilate with the opportunity of relieving himself of responsibility, so he sends the Lord Jesus to Herod, Luke 23:6-11.

Luke 23:5
And they were the more fierce, saying, he stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

And they were the more fierce, saying- the chief priests and rulers are standing impatiently outside the Governor’s residence, waiting to learn the result of his dealings with Christ. They are hoping that their charge about His claim to kingship will convince Pilate that he ought to convict the prisoner. Imagine their anger and frustration when Pilate comes out to them again and declares he can find no fault in the man they have sent to him. They are more fierce now than they were in their first accusation bwefore Pilate in verse 2.

He stirreth up the people- in their desperation they go further than simply saying He perverted the nation. Now they claim, without any evidence, that He was a troublemaker. Surely this will interest Pilate?

Teaching throughout all Jewry- they misrepresent His teaching ministry as a scheme to incite the people to rise up and revolt, whereas in fact to follow His teaching was to be a good citizen.

Beginning from Galilee to this place- do they conceive a wicked plan at this point? They have had to admit to Pilate that they cannot apply the death penalty. Pilate himself is showing reluctance to be involved in the matter. Their only hope is Herod. He had lately beheaded John the Baptist; perhaps if they mention Galilee, Pilate will send Him to Herod and they will achieve their aim of having Him killed.

23:6
When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.

When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean- all the while, Pilate has been seeking an excuse to not condemn this man. Here is the escape-route for him, as the Jews mention Galilee. There is a battle of wills going on here, for the apostle Peter declared that the Jews delivered Christ up, and “denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go”, Acts 3:13. The chief priests are just as determined to see Him crucified, and if not crucified, executed some other way. But unknown to them there was another will, over-riding both that of Pilate and of the Jews. It was the will of God, and His will was “determinate”, Acts 2:23. In other words, it could not be overturned.

23:7
And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction- Pilate seizes his opportunity, and hands over the case to Herod. This raises the question as to why the Jews did not apply to Herod in the first place. Perhaps he would have had to refer to Pilate in the end, and this would mean delay; they are in a hurry to rid themselves of Him.

He sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time- all seems to be fitting in with their plans; Pilate is willing to hand Him over, and Herod is near at hand to deal with the matter. But even if Herod condemned Him, his way of executing, as we know from what happened to John the Baptist, was beheading, and this would not fulfil Scripture. He must be sent to Herod, therefore, so that God’s will may be seen to be done. As we read in Acts 4:27, “For of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done”.

Herod was the youngest son of King Herod of Great, the one who slaughtered the children around Bethlehem to try to kill the infant Christ. He was known as Herod Antipas, or Herod the tetrarch, Luke 3:9. He was married to the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea, but divorced her and took the wife of his half-brother Philip. John the Baptist had lost his life because he denounced this as unlawful.

Not long before, the Pharisees had come to the Lord saying, “Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And He said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem”, Luke 13:31-33. So the threats of Herod held no fear for the Lord Jesus. Nor did He for a moment think that He would be killed by him, for He would perish at Jerusalem, not in Herod’s territory as John the Baptist had probably done. (We are not told where John the baptist was imprisoned).

23:8
And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad- as is seen from His description of Herod as “that fox”, the Lord Jesus knew the heart of this man, and would not be swayed by the fact that he appeared to be pleased to see Him.

For he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him- clearly Herod was not interested enough in what the Lord taught to enquire further about Him. It is not enough to hear many things of or concerning Him; there must be the hearing of faith. Herod had great opportunities, but discarded them all. He had John the Baptist in his court, of whom the Lord Jesus said, “Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist”, Luke 7:28. Instead of listening to him he silenced him by cutting off his head. And then he had a steward by the name of Chuza, whose wife was a prominent supporter of Christ’s interests, who with others “ministered unto Him with their substance”, Luke 8:3.

And he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him- not only is Herod superficial in his interest in Christ, he is sensual as well, affected by that which is sensational. The Lord Jesus did not perform miracles to put on an exhibition, but to manifest Divine truth, and this does not interest Herod. John the Baptist famously did no miracles, John 10:41, and here is one who does, so Herod is intrigued. But he is only interested in being entertained. Christianity and the entertainment industry have nothing whatsoever in common.

23:9
Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing- the Lord is standing before the one who has unjustly killed His forerunner; and His refusal to answer is a stern rebuke to him. How can He carry on a normal conversation with such a monster?

Herod no doubt knew the Lord had called him a fox. To remain silent when such a person is interrogating is a very dangerous thing to do, and one that takes great courage.

23:10
And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.

And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him- we here learn that the authorities have followed the prisoner to Herod. As Pilate will say later, “I sent you to him, (Herod)”, so Pilate had commissioned them to go and see the case tried by Herod. They had been outwitted by Pilate as they stood outside his gate while he questioned the Lord. They will not allow that sort of thing to happen again. There is too much risk in allowing Herod to conduct the proceedings on his own. Notice the anger in their voices as they accuse Him with all the spite and hate in their being.

23:11
And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

And Herod with his men of war set him at nought- all the elements of a classic murder are here present. There are three things that mark every serious crime, namely means, opportunity, and motive. Herod has the means, for we are told here of his men of war. No doubt one of their number had beheaded John the Baptist. He has the opportunity, for Pilate, no less, has sent the prisoner to him, seeing he came from his jurisdiction. He has the motive, for the prisoner has called him “that fox”, ignored him, and his forerunner has condemned him.

How ironic that the one who made Himself of no reputation is “set at naught”! Frustrated by His refusal to answer, their only response is to vent their anger upon Him, clearly with Herod’s approval. We cannot help noticing the different outcome to that of the other Herods. Herod the Great slaughtered the innocents, the Herod of Acts 12:1 killed James with the sword, but here the prisoner’s life is spared by the one who had beheaded His forerunner. A Divine hand is restraining the designs of men, and is frustrating the plans of the Devil.

And arrayed him in a gorgeous robe- Herod was obviously a party-lover, for he had executed John during his birthday celebrations, Matthew 14:6-12. Here he has Christ dressed up as the master of ceremonies, mocking His claim to be a worker of miracles, which Herod would dismiss as mere party tricks.

And sent him again to Pilate- imagine the disappointment of Herod at seeing no miracles, of the chief priests at seeing no conviction; and now the embarrassment of sending Him back, having been exposed as being powerless against Him.

23:12
And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves- it is indeed sad when hatred of Christ is stronger than hatred of one’s enemies, and the thing that unites them is hostility toward Christ. Hatred of Christ is of the Devil, whereas love to fellow-believers is of God, 1 John 3:10.

Herod having returned Christ to Pilate, the proceedings continue in the judgment hall. The narrative continues in Luke 23:13-15 where Pilate rejects their charges and offers to release Christ after he has scourged Him.

Luke 23:13
And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people- being the first day of unleavened bread, some no doubt had been performing their religious duties whilst Christ was with Herod. They hoped they had seen the end of the matter, but now they receive a call from Pilate, much to their surprise. By “people” is no doubt meant the elders of the people mentioned in Luke 22:66, although we should note that the decision to ask for Barabbas was made by the people, according to Matthew 26:20.

23:14
Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people- Pilate repeats the charge they had levelled against Christ before.

And, behold, I, having examined him before you- we know that they would not enter his judgment hall, and he had to go out to them, but artists represent him dealing with Christ in open view on the upper floor, so if this is correct, it can be said to be “before you”, even though they were not in the building. The “behold” sounds very much as if Pilate is about to make an important announcement that will be of great interest to them.

Have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him- how disappointed they must have been, as the supreme governor declares there is no charge to answer. Their only hope now is Herod; what will Pilate say about him?

23:15
No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him- notice it is not “I sent Him to him”. They had been sent to do the accusing, (which they did with much vehemence, Luke 23:10), and Herod had found no just reason to condemn Him, even though he was said a few weeks before to be ready to kill Him, Luke 13:31. Pilate is placing the blame for the failure to convict on them. Again we notice a restraining hand upon these men, as God’s determinate will is done despite their plans.

And, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him- that is, Herod has not condemned Him for a crime that would result in the death penalty.

23:16
I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him.

I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him- he realises they are thirsting for blood, so hopes this will appease them. If he releases Him without any sort of punishment they might become more angry than they are already. Note the injustice of this decision, for chastising means scourging, and this was the first stage of the process of crucifixion. But He has not been sentenced, and Pilate speaks of releasing Him. The only reason for scourging Him is to placate the Jews; but Pilate was very wrong to do this. Pilate knew that sometimes men died under scourging, and he may have thought this would happen. But again, the prophets, whilst they foretold the scourging, did not say He would die by scourging, but by crucifixion.

18:39
But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the Passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the Passover- Pilate should not have appealed to custom to allow him to avoid condemning the innocent Christ. If there was no fault he should have let Him go regardless of the opinions or customs of the Jews. This is expediency and cowardice, not justice.

Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? He hopes they will agree, so that he can escape his dilemma, and the Jews can be pacified. By calling Him King of the Jews he is either putting pressure on them to think again, or is being sarcastic, holding them in contempt for having a carpenter as their king. But the latter reason would probably be counterproductive, for it would make them react even more strongly.

18:40
Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber- John is very brief in his dealings with the offer to release Jesus or Barabbas. He simply tells us they all cried out, “Not this man, but Barabbas”. Then he adds, “Now Barabbas was a robber”. John seems to write with contempt as he records what his own nation had done with their true Messiah. His deep affection for Christ is in sharp contrast to their deep hatred. They rejected the Divine Giver, and asked for the wicked robber.