Chapter 12: “Behold your King!” John 19 | Assembly Testimony Magazine

“Behold the man! … Behold your King!” John 19.5,14

by Brian Currie, N. Ireland

In this meditation we will consider the events from the Lord’s crossing the brook Cedron until His deliverance to be crucified, Jn.18.1 to 19.16.

JOHN 18
The Treachery of Judas and Devotion of Christ: the Thoughts of a Crook – vv.1-14
The Test of a Maid and Denial of Peter: the Tragedy of Cowardice – vv.15-18
The Tactics of Annas and Declaration of Openness: the Testimony of Christ – vv.19-24
The Throng around Peter and Denials of Peter: the Threat of Company – vv.25-27
The Travesty of Justice and Discernment of Pilate: the Tranquility of Christ – vv.28-40

JOHN 19
The Violence
The Visage
The Vision
The Vileness
The Vacillation
The Verdict

JOHN 18

This chapter highlights the depravity of man and the delivering up of Christ.

We see the depravity of Judas, an apostate; Annas, a religious man; Peter, acting like a carnal man; Pilate, a political man, and the Jews, who were nationally depraved, since they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ for Barabbas.

The delivering up or trial of Christ had two sections: religious and political, both with three phases, making a total of six phases. In the religious section, He was before Annas, then Caiaphas, then the Sanhedrin; in the political section, He was before Pilate, then Herod, then Pilate again. John records the appearance before Annas and the two before Pilate; the trial before Herod comes between verses 38 and 39. There are seventeen questions in our reading and those who spend time considering Bible numerals know that this is the number which tells of the intensity of investigation, yet victory is assured. After the Flood, the ark rested on the seventeenth day of the month, Gen.8.4, and the Lord’s resurrection also took place on the seventeenth day of the month. In that beautiful Psalm of encouragement, Psalm 23, we read “I”, or “me”, or “my” or “mine” seventeen times.

The chapter divides into five broad sections:

The Treachery of Judas and Devotion of Christ: the Thoughts of a Crook – vv.1-14
The Test of a Maid and Denial of Peter: the Tragedy of Cowardice – vv.15-18
The Tactics of Annas and Declaration of Openness: the Testimony of Christ – vv.19-24
The Throng around Peter and Denials of Peter: the Threat of Company – vv.25-27
The Travesty of Justice and Discernment of Pilate: the Tranquility of Christ – vv.28-40

THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS AND DEVOTION OF CHRIST: THE THOUGHTS OF A CROOK – vv.1-14

If we keep in mind that John’s is the Gospel of the burnt offering, this will explain many differences between John and the other Gospels. Gethsemane is common to all four Gospels. John was there and, with Peter and James, he was taken further than the others, so he was well fitted to give a full account of what happened, but it is striking that in his Gospel there is no mention of any of the following: “sore amazed” and “very heavy”; “My soul is exceeding sorrowful”; “being in an agony”; “sweat … as it were great drops of blood”; the angel strengthening Him; prostration on the ground; “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass”; sleeping disciples; the traitor’s kiss; “Friend, wherefore art thou come?”; “betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”; “this is your hour, and the hour of darkness”. John presents the Lord Jesus as moving with dignity; all His energy is for God. He is willingly going to death for God’s glory. For example: “what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour:’ but for this cause came I unto this hour. ‘Father, glorify Thy name.’” Jn.12.27,28.

There are eight glories of the Lord Jesus in these verses:

Rejected Sovereign: “He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron …” v.1.
Devoted Servant: “Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth …” v.4.
Despised Sojourner: “Jesus of Nazareth [‘Jesus the Nazarene’]” v.5.
Majestic Son: “I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground” v.6.
Protective Shepherd: “if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way …” v.8.
Willing Sacrifice: “the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” v.11.
Submissive Saviour: “… took Jesus, and bound Him, and led Him away …” vv.12,13.
Prophesied Substitute: “Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people” v.14.

Rejected Sovereign

“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” v.1.

Period – “When Jesus had spoken these words”

We note that chapters 13 to 17 end with His prayer, but He now enters the garden to pray. There is always a great need for prayer, especially in time of crisis. He totally relied upon God for everything, and so should we: “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” Phil.4.6. We often rely on guile rather than God. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not: and it shall be given him” Jms.1.5. Here James is not referring to general praying but is specifically writing concerning those who are in the bitterness of severe trial, whose greatest need is wisdom.

Path – “He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron”

Perhaps it was now around midnight! Many years before this, David had crossed the same brook: “the king also himself passed over the brook Kidron [Cedron], and all the people passed over” 2Sam.15.23. David crossed the Cedron to flee from his enemies, but Christ to face His! For both King David and the Levites who crossed the brook with him there were tears in view of the treachery taking place. David crossed the Cedron in obedience, but years later Shimei crossed in disobedience and died: “it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head” 1Kgs.2.37.

The brook Cedron (Kidron) was the place where idols were destroyed by Asa: “Asa destroyed her [his mother’s] idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron” 1Kgs.15.13; Josiah: “he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder …” 2Kgs.23.6; Hezekiah: “took away the altars that were in Jerusalem, and all the altars for incense took they away, and cast them into the brook Kidron” 2Chr.30.14. The implication is clear: if we rightly appreciate Gethsemane our affections will be preserved, as will our behaviour and character: “my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry” 1Cor.10.14; “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” 1Jn.5.21.

In the summer the brook Cedron dried up and was very narrow, but in winter all was different, thus J.N. Darby translates it as “the torrent Cedron”. “Cedron” means ‘dark’. How apt this is: the Lord was going to face the dark torrent of Calvary.

Place – “where was a garden, into the which He entered”

Sin commenced in a garden and would be dealt with near to a garden: “in the place where He was crucified there was a garden” Jn.19.41. His agony would be anticipated in a garden. John does not mention Gethsemane, the ‘olive press’, by name: the pressure evident in the other Gospels is absent; in John there is no “strong crying and tears” Heb.5.7, or the words “if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me” Matt.26.39. John simply says that He entered into “a garden”: a place normally associated with what is glorious and fair. There would be growth and beauty as a result of this visit to the garden!

People – “and His disciples”

The question may be asked: why did He take His disciples? It could have been to show to them what is involved in true submission, or to show them His protecting care over them, or to reveal to them their weakness and the folly of depending on the flesh. These are all lessons that we too need to learn from what took place there.

Perhaps Judas went back to the Upper Room to betray Him and, finding it empty, came to the garden: “And Judas also, which betrayed Him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with His disciples. Judas then having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons” vv.2,3. How foolish, to come to meet the Light of the world with torches, and to come to face the unresisting Christ with weapons!

Devoted Servant

“Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said unto them, ‘Whom seek ye?’” v.4.

“Knowing all things” – the Head of the Burnt Offering

Throughout his Gospel, John presents the Lord’s perfect knowledge: “Before that Philip called thee [Nathanael], when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee” 1.48; “He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man” 2.24,25; “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him” 6.64; “I am the good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine” 10.14; “Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father” 13.1; “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God” 13.3; “For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, ‘Ye are not all clean.’” 13.11; “I know whom I have chosen” 13.18; “Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, ‘I thirst.’” 19.28; “Peter … said unto him, ‘Lord, Thou knowest all things’” 21.17. With all the knowledge He had He did not try to plan a way to escape but rather He took the initiative in the garden.

“Went forth” – the Legs of the Burnt Offering

He was the willing burnt offering, working for God. This is also seen in John’s Gospel: “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work” 4.34; “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” 5.17; “I must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” 9.4; “I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do” 17.4.

Nothing would turn Him back from the purpose of God: He willingly went forth to meet the enemy, reminding us of how David ran to meet the giant, 1Sam.17.48.

Despised Sojourner

“They answered Him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus saith unto them, ‘I am He.’ And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them” v.5.

“Jesus of Nazareth” is actually “Jesus the Nazarene”. This term has the connotation of reproach as seen by Nathanael’s question, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Jn.1.46. There are twenty occasions when the title “Jesus of Nazareth” is used: thirteen in the Gospels and seven in the Acts. When He asked those coming to arrest Him whom they were seeking, they did not answer, ‘Thee’, because they did not know Him, teaching us that human light is insufficient to recognise Christ! There are those who think that a big library, human intelligence, seminaries and the like will automatically mean a person will be tremendously intelligent in spiritual matters and have outstanding eloquence in delivering a sermon. A person may have all the human resources and yet lack one essential: the Holy Spirit of God.

Majestic Son

“As soon then as He had said unto them, ‘I am He,’ they went backward, and fell to the ground” v.6.

They did not fall backwards, as some suggest, but this is a picture of Phil.2.10, where Jew and Gentile prostrate themselves before Him. He could have escaped while they were on the ground and He could have called twelve legions of angels, Matt.26.53! He waited until they had composed themselves and “asked He them again, ‘Whom seek ye?’ And they said, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’” v.7.

Protective Shepherd

“‘I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way:’ that the saying might be fulfilled, which He spake, ‘Of them which thou gavest Me have I lost none.’” vv.8,9.

The paramount concern of a shepherd is the welfare of the sheep; thus, we read His words in Jn.10.11: “the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep”.

“Let these go” is a command and we know that He could have commanded His own release! He was in perfect control. Shepherding by remote control is an impossibility! Guiding the flock is not a matter of bullying or maltreating the sheep, as we learn by the example of the Lord Jesus in John chapter 10 and from Peter’s First Epistle.

We note the activities of David regarding true shepherding:

Passion for the sheep: “Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, ‘Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep.’” 1Sam.16.19.
Providing for the sheep: “David … returned … to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” 1Sam.17.15.
Pity for the sheep: “David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper” 1Sam.17.20.
Protecting the sheep: “David said unto Saul, ‘Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: and I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth’” 1Sam.17.34,35.

Willing Sacrifice

“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?’” v.11.

Simon Peter had acted rashly and in misguided devotion and would really have hindered the work of God! The Lord manifested His power and grace before they laid hands on Him: what folly to bind this Man!

The healing of Malchus was the Lord’s last miracle before Calvary. Just a comment to stir our “pure minds”: does the fact that it was Malchus’ right ear that was amputated teach us that Peter was left handed?

Peter’s protest against His arrest gave sufficient grounds for him to be arrested. The Lord had said, “Let these go their way”. Now He states that He will take the cup from His Father and drink it, which He did, and drained the last dark drop!

Submissive Saviour

“Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound Him, and led Him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year” vv.12,13.

The details of vv.12-14 are not in the other Gospels. Annas was appointed high priest in 7 AD but was removed by the Romans. A few years later his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas was appointed; both are called high priest in Lk.3.2. In Acts 4.6 Annas is called the high priest. While Caiaphas held office, he was largely influenced by Annas, his father-in-law. There were twenty-eight high priests from the reign of ‘Herod the Great’ (so-called) to 70 AD, five of whom were sons of Annas. Caiaphas was in office for about seventeen years and was removed a few years after the crucifixion.

Jew and Gentile were united against the Lord: “the band and the captain”, who were Romans, and “officers of the Jews”. In vv.12,13 there are three verbs in the aorist tense, in which the dramatic definiteness of their actions is highlighted: “took”, “bound” and “led”. These are descriptive of the first sufferings He experienced at the hands of wicked men at that time.

He was “bound”. Isaac was bound and laid on the altar, Gen.22.9, and the proper, clean animals were bound to the horns of the altar, Ps.118.27. These men bound a willing victim; it was not cords but love that bound Him. He could have called twelve legions of angels (one legion consisted of six thousand men), but that would not be a true, devoted burnt offering. To suffer for loved ones is understandable, to submit to those who are more powerful is inevitable, but for Him to submit is unfathomable. “Then”: as a result of submitting to the Father; only this allowed Him to be bound.

He was “led”. Adam was driven from a garden, Gen.3.24, but here He was led from a garden. Samson broke his fetters, Judg.15.13,14, but our Lord Jesus was led as a lamb to the slaughter, Isa.53.7. Our Lord is gentle and mild: He said, “I am meek and lowly in heart” Matt.11.29.

He was led away “to Annas first”. We have previously noted that there seems to have been six phases to his trial, three of them religious (before Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin) and three civil (before Pilate, Herod and then Pilate again). Only John records the first part of the trial (before Annas).

In the Old Testament the sacrificial victim was taken to inspect for imperfection; here, in the New Testament it was to highlight His perfection. The trial was unlawful according to Sanhedrin law: it was not permitted at night, and a prisoner could not be condemned on the day of his trial, but he could be acquitted! It was unscriptural: Judas was paid for his work, but the Law said, “thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous” Ex.23.8. It was immoral: all was contrary to natural justice, involving plotting, scheming, no valid accusation, no true witnesses, etc.

Prophesied Substitute

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

The reference is to Jn.11.49-52: “Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, ‘Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’ And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

This was a prophecy made in ignorance: “that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people”. He was thinking that allowing this Man to continue His work would put the nation in danger of being destroyed by the Romans. To borrow the words of Joseph, Caiaphas “thought evil … but God meant it unto good … to save much people” Gen.50.20: He went to Calvary for others, not for just those of that nation, but for you and me!

THE TEST OF A MAID AND DENIAL OF PETER: THE TRAGEDY OF COWARDICE – vv.15-18

“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” v.15.

“Another disciple”: all other similar mentions imply that this was John himself: “Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest” v.16; “she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved” 20.2; “Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre” 20.4; “the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre” 20.4; “Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre” 20.8.

That disciple “was known to the high priest”. John’s mother was Salome, sister to the virgin Mary; that means they were cousins to Elisabeth, the mother of John Baptist. She was of the priestly tribe and priestly relatives of John may have been known that way. Also, there was a good trade in salted fish between Jerusalem and Galilee and Zebedee was a well-known fisherman. There is a warning for us here: it is possible that we may go where others following may fail, and we need to be careful about the example we set: “through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” 1Cor.8.11.

The “palace”, or courtyard, is likely where the trial was held. The courtyard was separated off by steps and a railing, thus Peter was in the palace, yet “without” (“Now Peter sat without in the palace” Matt.26.69) and “beneath” (“as Peter was beneath in the palace” Mk.14.66).

“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” v.16.

It would have been better for Peter if he had remained outside. This account was written by Peter’s friend, John, who gave a true account of his own mistake, in having Peter brought in, and of Peter’s denial.

“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.’” v.17.

Jesus is questioned about His disciples, and He stands; the disciple, Peter, is questioned about Him, and he fails! He was the last man expected to fall like this! This was the man who walked on the water! Twice the Lord says, “I am” vv.5,8, but twice Peter says, “I am not” vv.17,25.

Peter fell due to an unexpected attack from an unexpected quarter. We are always being attacked and we need to heed the apostolic warning: “let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” 1Cor.10.12. With disciples in the garden he would have fought; now, alone, he fails. Loneliness is a fertile soil that reveals true character. Matthew and Mark say that after his first denial he went out into the porch, Matt.26.71; Mk.14.68; perhaps he tried to leave but, feeling the cold, he came back to the fire and thus the second and third denials took place, Jn.18.25-27.

Luke records that there was “a little while” between the first and the second denial, Lk.22.57,58, and “about the space of one hour” between the second and the third, Lk.22.59. This implies that there were three occasions, and at each Peter may have persistently denied.

“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” v.18.

“It was cold”: this was in the dead of night in April. It illustrates Peter’s spiritual state. The people there were more concerned about the temperature of his body rather than his soul! We note occurrences of “it was” in John’s Gospel:

He “entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them” 6.17 – restlessness;
“And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter” 10.22 – reproach;
“He then having received the sop, went immediately out: and it was night” 13.30 – rebellion;
“And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold” 18.18 – repudiation;
“Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early” 18.28 – rejection;
“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre” 20.1 – resurrection.

In another part of the hall the Lord stood as a prisoner! What a scene! The judge had become the accused and the accused the judge. In everything we learn that circumstances change when we introduce Him into them.

THE TACTICS OF ANNAS AND DECLARATION OF OPENNESS: THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST – vv.19-24

“The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine” v.19.

The tactics of Annas were to ask “Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine”: was Annas asking who His disciples were? Were they a subversive, secret society? What was their motive, the plan? It seems he wanted to extract from Jesus something that would incriminate and give grounds for condemnation. Our Lord did not answer concerning His disciples, but did answer concerning His doctrine, and this is developed. His conversation was about His kingdom and kingship. We should not try to answer for others! The chief priests already had the report: “never man spake like this man” 7.46.

“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.’” v.20.

Twice the emphatic “I” is used in the verse. He would speak of Himself, not His disciples.

“Openly” means ‘boldly, freely’; as in 11.14: “Then said Jesus unto them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead.’”; 16.25: “I shall shew you plainly of the Father”; Acts 4.13: “when they saw the boldness of Peter and John”; Heb.4.16: “come boldly unto the throne of grace”; Heb.10.19: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter the holiest”. The Lord had no secret teaching meetings, or any hidden agendas. Note that Paul found it necessary to emphasise this truth on more than one occasion: “among many witnesses” 2Tim.2.2; “… have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” 2Cor.4.2. Note also Isa.45.19: “I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto

the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek ye Me’ in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” Any private teaching to the Lord’s disciples was to expand and explain what He publicly taught: “in secret have I said nothing”. He could have said to Annas, ‘I am not like you and your colleagues, who plot and scheme in secret.’ Also, He spoke “to the world”: obviously this is not confined to Jews, but to all who would hear. There is no article before “synagogue”: He taught ‘in synagogue’: there were many synagogues but one Temple; there was one Temple for worship but there were many synagogues for teaching.

“Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said” v.21.

Many could have testified to His life. Where were the lame, blind, lepers, etc. who were all blessed by Him? Was the Lord indicating the trial was unrighteous and saying that those conducting it should have witnesses present? “Ask” and “behold” are both imperative: the accused is giving orders! As earlier, there is a big change, but only when He is brought into the circumstances.

“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?’” v.22.

J.N. Darby gives the literal rendering, “gave a blow on the face to Jesus”. There is nothing to suggest that he used his hand, but it likely was with a rod, thus fulfilling Mic.5.1: “they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek”. The word “smitest” in v.23 means to flay. This seems to have been the first blow He received, and it was from a Jew! It was an outrage to smite a prisoner when he was giving his defence, and that in the presence of the judge.

“Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?’” v.23.

This question and that in v.21 are both penetrating questions: “Why askest thou Me?” v.21, and “Why smitest thou Me?” v.23. “If I have spoken evil”, that is, in His past ministry, not just at this time before Annas. “Bear witness” is a command.

In Acts 23.2-5 Paul said to the high priest, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall”, but he was ignorant of who commanded him to be smitten; the Lord is calm in omniscience. In the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ He taught His followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ Matt.5.39, which means not to seek revenge. Here the Lord graciously speaks for truth, but He does not retaliate. This displays the difference between the mouth and hand, which is the difference between rebuke and retaliation.

“Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest” v.24.

This is not referring to a past action: Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas at this point in the narrative. This took place perhaps around 2 to 3 a.m., given that after being to Caiaphas He was before the Sanhedrin and the morning had come by then, Matt.27.1; Lk.22.66-71.

THE THRONG AROUND PETER AND DENIALS OF PETER: THE THREAT OF COMPANY – vv.25-27

Here we have the second and third occasions when Peter denied the Lord. As previously noted, it seems after the first denial he left the palace and went to the porch, maybe to get out; however, due to the cold he returned, with disastrous consequences.

“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.’” v.25.

“And” has the sense of ‘But’, marking a contrast: the Lord was sent away, but Peter stood. He did not deny the Lord’s Person, but rather his relationship with Him as a disciple. This is the second denial, and the third is in v.27.

“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?’” v.26. “I” is emphatic and Peter’s rashness in the garden rebounds on him. Peter had been “with Him”, but now he is standing “with them” v.18!

“Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew” v.27.

He fell on his strong point, which was courage; Abraham’s was faith; Moses’ was meekness; Solomon’s was wisdom; David’s was devotion. Peter had his feet washed, partook of the Supper, listened to the best of ministry in the Upper Room, companied with other disciples, heard the Lord pray and was personally warned by the Lord Jesus; yet, full of self- confidence, he fell. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” 1Cor.10.12; “The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe” Prov.29.25.

The cock crowing had lessons for Peter: he had been ‘crowing’ in the garden! But it was now time for him to awake! In John chapter 13 he learned the lesson from the basin; now he learns from the bird. The courage and actions of the previous evening were insufficient for the next morning; the ‘rock’ man became ‘sand’! Do we condemn him? “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone …” Jn.8.7.

It appears that the cock crowed twice: around midnight and at dawn. Here we see the Lord controlling creation. The cock was crowing at night, which was contrary to nature. The creatures often obey His commands better than men. He controls:

Association: in Noah’s ark, there was no fighting between the animals, Genesis chapters 7,8!
Announcements: the donkey spoke to Balaam, Num.22.28-30; the cock crowed at Peter’s denial, Jn.18.27.
Affections: the milch kine left their calves when they brought the ark of the Lord, 1Sam.6.10-12.
Aggressiveness: Daniel was unharmed by the lions, Dan.6.22; the Lord Jesus rode an unbroken colt, Lk.19.29-38.
Appetite: Ravens fed Elijah, 1Kgs.17.4-6; the Lord told Peter that he would find money in the fish’s mouth, Matt.17.27.

THE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AND DISCERNMENT OF PILATE: THE TRANQUILITY OF CHRIST – vv.28-40

The Lord is before Pilate in accusation: they say that He is “a malefactor [‘an evil doer’ Newberry margin]”. The accusation is followed by interrogation: “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” v.33. The subsequent verses show that what Pilate is doing is on a wrong basis: the question is based on hearsay: “What hast Thou done?” v.35; his concept of the kingdom is wrong, and the Lord has to tell him that it is “not of this world” v.36; his idea of the basis of the kingship is wrong: “Art Thou a King then?” v.37, to which the Lord states that it is based on “truth” v.37; Pilate responds, “What is truth?” v.38. His understanding is all wrong!

Throughout, our Lord maintains His dignity: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world” v.37. Three times Pilate declares, “I find no fault in Him” 18.38; 19.4,6. There was never a time when our Lord was not in the will of His Father. He was perfectly sinless and sinlessly perfect. Pilate’s conclusion is “I find in Him no fault at all” v.38. Yet, instead of releasing Him, he delivers Him to be crucified.

“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” v.28.

The “hall of judgment” was the imperial palace of the Roman governor and was possibly the Antonia Fortress, which overlooked the north-western corner of the Temple area. “It was early”: they could not get rid of Him soon enough! “Early” is day break, and the only other mentions are in Matt.21.18: “in the morning as He returned into the city, He hungered”; Matt.27.1: “When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death”; and Jn.21.4: “when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore …”

The only other mentions of “defiled” are in Titus 1.15: “unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled”; Heb.12.15: “lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled”; and Jude 8: “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” In Num.9.7-11 we read of people who were defiled by a dead body and who thus were debarred from keeping the Passover for one month, but kept it on the fourteenth day of the second month. Here the Lord’s accusers did not go into the judgment hall, “lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover”. Here we see the hypocrisy of religion: they would not go in but would plot the murder of the Son of God! Ceremonial cleansing was more important than moral purity! This was straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!

“The passover” seems to have been a kind of private ceremony, but there was also the lamb slain nationally. The Lord partook in the first along with His own in the Upper Room, but He was on the cross when the national ceremony took place. It is important to note that both “lambs” died at the same time: the animal slain by the nation, and the Lamb of God, on the cross.

“Pilate then went out unto them, and said, ‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’” v.29.

Why was Pilate prepared to receive them so early: about 4 to 5 a.m.? Had he been approached by Caiaphas after Judas made his deal? Is that why there were Roman soldiers with the Jews in the garden? Roman law demanded a specific allegation, but their response to Pilate’s request for it seems to indicate they were surprised by his question, as if he was reneging on a deal.

“They answered and said unto him, ‘If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.’” v.30.

Having gone through the night, their hatred is now at boiling point and the four accusations become clearer: malefactor, v.30; King, vv.33-37; Son of God, 19.7; speaking against Caesar, 19.12. They want a verdict without a trial, and would be happy to kill Him with a lynch mob. They have lost all moral reasonableness. Any accusation would be false, like Jezebel’s witness against Naboth, 1Kgs.21.8-14; again, we hear the voices of the husbandmen in the parable: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him” Matt.21.38.

“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’” v.31.

Their reference to putting a man to death reveals what they wanted to do to the Lord. He healed lepers but was hated by leaders; He dispelled sickness but was despised by scribes. Their statement also shows that they were not in charge, even of the affairs in the nation. Death according to their law was by stoning, but He must die by crucifixion. Under the Roman law the Jews could not put people to death. How then did Stephen come to be stoned? It seems to have been by mob rule!

“That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die” v.32.

“That the saying … might be fulfilled” is as in v.9. Just as Caesar Augustus, when he decreed the taxation, did not know that he was implementing Divine purpose with regard to Christ’s birth, Lk.2.1, so it is here for these people with respect to His death. He must die by crucifixion: “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” 3.14; “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He” 8.28; “‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.’ This He said, signifying what death He should die” 12.32,33. In Ps.22.16, centuries before crucifixion was invented, it was written that “they pierced My hands and My feet”. Some may ask: What about Old Testament references to hanging on a tree? Does that not refer to crucifixion? No: that was hanging the body up to public ridicule, not as a judicial sentence.

“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, ‘Art Thou the King of the Jews?’” v.33.

Pilate “called Jesus”, meaning that he called Him inside to speak privately to Him. This was illegal since Roman law demanded the accusers and accused face each other. Concerning Paul, the chief captain wrote, “And when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council” Acts 23.28. When he was outside, Pilate must have heard their accusation: “saying that He Himself is Christ a King” Lk.23.2. The religious accusation of blasphemy is here turned to the political accusation of kingship, which is sedition. Anyone who would have claimed to be a king was a threat to Caesar, and was thus Rome’s enemy.

The “Thou” here is emphatic: it is as if Pilate is implying, ‘You have no insignia of royalty; there is nothing kingly about you or your followers: are you a king??!!’

“Jesus answered him, ‘Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?’” v.34.

We are reminded of Paul’s words to Timothy: “I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession” 1Tim.6.13. If the Lord had said ‘No’ to Pilate’s question in v.33, He would have denied His Messiahship; if ‘Yes’, Pilate could have felt he had grounds for condemning Him, as a threat to Rome’s authority.

“Pilate answered, ‘Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me: what hast Thou done?’” v.35.

Pilate’s “I” is emphatic: was this said with a sneer? It would have been an insult to suggest that he was a Jew! He may be saying, in effect, ‘Am I downtrodden? You were brought by your own people, how can you be a king and be rejected by your people?’

This is the seventh and last time we read the question “What hast thou done?” in the Bible. The first time is God asking Cain, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground” Gen.4.10. How very different it is for Pilate asking the question to the Lord Jesus! Multitudes could have answered this question, not in condemnation but in commendation!

“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.’” v.36.

His kingdom is “not of this world”, that is, it does not spring from this world; there is no historical development of it from down here. It is in the world, but it is not of it!

In this verse the Lord mentions “My kingdom” three times and ‘this world’ twice. Elsewhere His only other mention of “My kingdom” is in Lk.22.30: “that ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”. This is very clearly a reference to the Millennial reign. We note the various titles involving the word “kingdom”: “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven”, both of which occur many times; “My Father’s kingdom” Matt.26.29; “the kingdom of His dear Son” Col.1.13; “the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” 2Pet.1.11; “the kingdom of Christ and of God” Eph.5.5; “His kingdom” 2Tim.4.1.

His kingdom did not depend on force and power: any system that requires force is not Christian. The Lord had stopped the violence in the garden. We must remember that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” 2Cor.10.4.

The Lord’s answer acknowledges His Jewish kingship (spiritually) but His is not Roman kingship (visibly). He speaks of “the Jews”; the only other times He refers to “Jews” are in v.20; 4.22; 13.33. “Now is My kingdom not from hence”: Pilate is being told that the Lord’s kingdom does not come within Pilate’s jurisdiction. The “now” is very significant: His time to reign on earth as King will come, but not yet. We are in a different dispensation. Christ is not the ‘King of the Church’.

“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.’” v.37.

“Art Thou a king then?” J.N. Darby catches the surprise in Pilate’s voice: “Thou art then a king?” There is emphasis on “Thou”. In the Lord’s response, “Thou sayest that I am a king”, the “that” means ‘the fact that; since’, that is, ‘Thou sayest rightly, because I am a king.’ His answer is, in effect, ‘I am a king but with a difference’: He was “born” and He “came”, showing His humanity and His Deity.

The phrase “for this cause” reminds us of the Lord’s earlier words, “Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour:’ but for this cause came I unto this hour” 12.27. He came to “bear witness unto the truth”: not a particular truth but “the truth”. Note in the next verse Pilate did not ask, ‘What is the truth?’, but “What is truth?”

“Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice.” Only believers hear in reality and so there is a very real need to be connected with Him Who is the truth, 14.1-6. To hear His voice means to obey the authority in the voice, for example, “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd” 10.16; “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” 10.27; “if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him …” Rev.3.20.

“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.’” v.38.

It is at this stage that Pilate sends Him to Herod and Herod sends Him back again, which John does not record, Lk.23.5-19.

Pilate did not ask, ‘What is the truth?’ His question was a general one, regarding the concept of truth. Pilate was used to truth being bent and denied.

When he declared the Lord’s innocence, “I find in Him no fault at all’’, he ought to have released Him, but he played into the hands of the accusers by going out to them and making the offer regarding Barabbas! The thing that weighed with him was their statement “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend” 19.12. He sacrificed principle for expediency.

“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?” v.39.

The name Barabbas means ‘son of the father’. The Lord Jesus was the Son of His Father, so they were both a ‘son of the father’, but what a contrast between them! One was the sinless Christ, and the other the guilty, condemned sinner Barabbas!

Perhaps it was around this time Pilate got the message from his wife: “Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him” Matt.27.19. God would speak to Pilate up to the end and give him opportunity to repent.

“Then cried they all again, saying, ‘Not this man, but Barabbas.’ Now Barabbas was a robber” v.40.

This illustrates substitution. Barabbas was a robber, and that of life: Lk.23.19,25 says he was in prison for “sedition and murder”. The Lord was a giver, and that of life: “I give unto them eternal life” Jn.10.28.

These events described by John are pictured in the story of the ark of the Covenant coming through the River Jordan, recorded in Joshua chapters 3 and 4. John chapter 18 answers to the Ark approaching the Jordan, and in chapter 19, to which we now come, the Ark goes into the midst of the waters.

JOHN 19

It was a lonely path He trod,

From every human soul apart,

Known only to Himself and God

Was all the grief that filled His heart;

Yet from the trackHe turned not back,

Till where I lay in want and shame,

He found me – Blessed be His name!

(C.A. Tydeman)

This is the chapter of four mentions of the cross, vv.17,19,25,31. While these are not within the verses allocated to the author yet a reference to them adds a reverential awe, even to the reading. The first is v.17: “And He bearing His cross went forth …” Here we see His Person: “He”, the Lord Jesus Christ, and His posture: “bearing His cross went forth”. Israel’s high priest bore the names of the children of Israel in his breastplate, Ex.28.29, and upon his shoulders, Ex.28.12. The Lord Jesus Christ bore the cross, Jn.19.17, and bore our sins, 1Pet.2.24. He shall bear the glory, Zech.6.13.

Man gave Him the cross: He suffered for righteousness’ sake, and this finishes me with the earth: a work done in me. God gave Him our sins: He suffered for sins, and this fits me for heaven: a work done for me.

The Violence

“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged Him” v.1. This is one of several statements in this passage that highlight the submission of our beloved Lord, including “Behold, I bring Him forth to you … Then came Jesus forth” vv.4,5; “Take ye Him, and crucify Him …” v.6; “He brought Jesus forth” v.13; “And they took Jesus, and led Him away” v.16.

Scourged – v.1

Pilate “scourged Him”: He was whipped violently. I understand that Jewish lashing consisted of thirteen stripes on the chest and thirteen on each shoulder, down the back, which totalled thirty-nine. Paul wrote, “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one” 2Cor.11.24. However, the Lord underwent Roman lashing, which was not limited: it commenced and continued until the soldier was tired and exhausted. This stripped the flesh, thus: “The ploughers ploughed upon my back: they made long their furrows” Ps.129.3. All this was done to a holy Man!

Scorned – vv.2,3

“The soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe.” Thorns came as a result of the curse; the robe was a symbol of Roman imperialism. Thus, they mocked the kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ: “and said, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’”

The Visage

Both verbs in v.3, “said” and “smote”, are in the imperfect tense, showing ongoing action: they kept on coming and saying ‘‘Hail …’’ and they kept on smiting Him: “they smote Him with their hands”. The Sovereign was smitten and spat upon.

The Vision

Twice in this chapter we read that Pilate “brought Jesus forth” v.13, and called on the crowd to look upon Him:

“Behold the man!” v.5

“Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, ‘Behold, I bring Him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in Him.’ Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, ‘Behold the man!’” vv.4,5. His words, “Ecce Homo”, echo down through the years. In chapter 4 the woman of Samaria sent out an all-embracive invitation: “Come see a man” Jn.4.29, and many responded to her invitation. But here, at Pilate’s call to behold Him, men continued to sneer. If angels could weep, they would have done so.

“Behold your King!” v.14

“When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” vv.13,14.

The Vileness

On both occasions when Pilate presented the Lord to them, to behold Him, they responded by calling for His crucifixion: “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, ‘Crucify Him, crucify Him.’” v.6; “But they cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him.’” v.15. There was a constant, ongoing cry, first by the leaders, and then the mob. They were incessant in their baying for blood, but they did not realise the significance of their desire for crucifixion: that it would fulfil both the Old Testament Scriptures and the Lord’s foretelling the manner of His death.

The Vacillation

Pilate expressed his assessment that the Lord Jesus was not worthy of death: “I find no fault in Him” v.4, and he repeated this assertion, v.6. He “sought to release Him” v.12, but there were powerful forces at work, to keep Pilate down and subservient to the will of the people: the statement “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar” v.12, was designed to warn him of the danger of incurring the ire of the emperor.

This reminds us of a number of persons in the Scriptures who had a decision to make but who succumbed to forces that led to them making the wrong choice:

Pilate, on whether to release or crucify the Lord Jesus, Jn.19.12 – love of power;
Felix, in response to Paul and the message he preached, Acts 24.27 – love of position;
The rich young ruler, who came desiring eternal life, Matt.19.22 – love of possessions;
Herod, in deciding what to do with John the Baptist, Matt.14.9 – love of popularity;
Lot’s wife, who looked back when fleeing from Sodom, Gen.19.26 – love of pleasure;
Orpah, when choosing to go with Naomi or to remain in Moab, Ruth 1.14,15 – love of a place.

The Verdict

We come to the final verse of the passage for our consideration: “Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led Him away” v.16. Why crucify an innocent Man? Not many days after, Peter proclaimed these words to the people of Jerusalem: “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” Acts 2.23.

O, ’twas because our sins

On Him by God were laid;

He, Who Himself had never sinned,

For sinners, sin was made.

Thus sin He put away,

Thus justice satisfied;

And sinners all who Jesus trust

Through Him are justified.

(Thomas Haweis)