John 18:28-40

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 28-40. The bearing of John 18:28 on the question as to whether Jesus died on the 14th or the 15th of the month Nisan, and, in connection with this, whether the Lord's Supper was instituted on the evening of the Jewish Passover supper, is dependent on whether the expression to eat the Passover can be, or probably is to be, referred to anything else than the Passover supper itself. The presentation of the facts of the case by Godet is sufficient to show two things: first, that the passages from the Old Testament which are relied on to prove the wider extension of meaning for the expression in question do not prove it. Indeed, the point to be proved is not simply an extension of meaning to cover the whole feast, but such an extension as would cover the rest of the feast, with the exclusion of the supper itself; secondly, that there is no sufficient reason to believe that the words that they might not be defiled are not applicable to the 14th day.

It is doubtful whether it can be affirmed as beyond question that the words here used must mean that the Jewish Passover supper had not yet occurred. But this is nevertheless the more natural interpretation of the words, and the probabilities of the case point strongly in this direction.

2. If we may take John's account as giving the beginning of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, it would seem that the Jewish rulers supposed that the mere fact of their presenting Him before the Roman tribunal would secure a verdict in their favor. They must have supposed that this result would be secured either by the respect which Pilate, in such a case, would have for them as rulers among the Jews, or by the fact that the crime of blasphemy was one which might properly come under their jurisdiction, and that the resort to the Roman power was only to obtain permission to inflict the death- penalty which the crime deserved. Their first words to Pilate (John 18:30) in answer to his question of John 18:29 imply, apparently, that whatever charge they have against Jesus belongs within the sphere of their own law, rather than that of the Romans.

3. The simplest explanation of the question proposed by Pilate in John 18:33 is that the Jews, after John 18:31, brought forward the charge which is mentioned in Luke 23:2: “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King.” This view of the matter is taken by Godet and others. Meyer denies this, and holds that John could not have omitted such an essential point. He thinks that Pilate must have known of this political accusation through the application of the Jews for the help of the σπεῖρα. Weiss, however, in his edition of Meyer's Commentary, declares these reasons of Meyer to be insufficient. The omission of the charge as something already known, and something that would be understood, is in consistency with what we find in John's Gospel in other cases. It is certainly difficult to account for Pilate's question unless there was some such charge, and the insertion of Luke 23:2 here is not unnatural.

4. The explanation given by Godet in John 18:34 is also, in all probability, the true one. If we hold that Jesus intended to ask whether Pilate meant that He claimed to be a king in the Roman and political sense, or in the Jewish and Messianic sense, the course of the conversation and inquiry moves on in the most simple and natural way. If He claimed to be king in the former sense, there might be just ground of accusation against Him before the Roman tribunal, but if in the latter, there might be none. Pilate answers, “Am I a Jew?” that is to say, I have nothing to do with Jewish questions. I mean, of course, king in the only sense of the word in which I, as a Roman judge, can consider it. This is a matter belonging wholly to the Jews: they have delivered thee to me, with a charge that thou claimest to be a king in opposition to Caesar. I have to investigate this question only. Tell me what thou hast done.

Having drawn an answer to this effect from him, Jesus now, in His turn, gives a more definite reply that He is a king, but not in the Roman sense and He adds the most decisive proof of this negative: namely, that if He were a king or claimed to be one in the earthly meaning of the word, His servants would fight for Him, as they were evidently now not doing. Pilate then asks if He really means that He is a king, and Jesus answers: Yes in the sphere of the truth. Truth is nothing to Pilate, and he goes out at once, and says, I find no crime in Him, and proposes to release Him. Nothing can be more simple and straightforward than this progress of thought, if the explanations of John 18:33-34 which have been suggested are adopted as correct.

5. The servants spoken of in John 18:6 are those who believe in the justice of His claims. They are, in one sense, His disciples, but the case is presented as a hypothetical one, and these adherents are accordingly conceived of as they would be if the circumstances were in accordance with the supposition.

6. The ουκουν of John 18:37 should have the circumflex accent on the last syllable, and the meaning is thus, “After all, then, thou art a king?” “Is it not true, then, that thou art a king?” The question is, so far as the progress of thought in the passage is concerned, merely a renewal of the one which had been suggested before. But it includes a certain ironical element, or an expression of surprise that one in the condition of Jesus should claim to be a king in any sense.

7. The phrase Thou sayest is, in substance, an affirmative answer. A. R. V. regards ὅτι as meaning for, and this is not improbably the true view of the sentence: Yes, for I am a king.

8. The question of Pilate, What is truth? undoubtedly indicates that he felt that there was no such thing, and that it was idle for a man to be dreaming of any such kingdom. Pilate's attitude towards Jesus was not that of enmity or of scorn. He was, apparently, impressed by His calmness, dignity and sincerity. He evidently believed Him guiltless, so far as any charge of crime against the Roman authority was concerned. He comprehended fully, we may believe, the bitterness and selfishness of the opposition of the Jews. He saw clearly that they had no foundation to rest upon, as they brought their case before him. He was disposed to discharge Him, and even tried to effect His release. But as related to “the truth,” he was an intellectual sceptic. He believed that there was no such thing as truth. He had pity for Jesus, and regarded Him as a harmless enthusiast for what He called the truth; but he meant to remind Him by his question, that it was a delusion for Him to give Himself to the search for it, or to suppose that He had discovered it. It was for this reason, as we may believe, that he did not wait for an answer to his question. It was presented with no desire for an answer.

9. Pilate had the Roman sense of justice, as Renan says in the sentence quoted by Godet, and hence, when he went out to the Jewish rulers (John 18:38), he distinctly declared that he discovered no criminality in Jesus, and therefore proposed to release Him. But Pilate was a time-serving politician, rather than a man of lofty character and boldness in obeying his sense of right. He had, also, a dangerous record behind him. He was like men of his class, when placed in his circumstances, in all ages of the world's history. It was certain, from the beginning, that he would yield to the Jews. The question was only whether his resistance would be longer or shorter. The Jewish rulers were far bolder men, and they knew well with whom they had to deal. They pressed him gradually but steadily, and were ready with a new charge whenever the one already presented failed of its effect. The story of the two parties in this judicial attempt to put Jesus to death is so life-like, that it bears the strongest evidence of its truthfulness.

10. This life-like character of the narrative makes it probable that the author was an ear and eye-witness of what he relates, and, as Weiss ed. Mey. remarks, this seems not impossible when the publicity of the Roman judicial trials is borne in mind. That John should have had admission to the examination before Annas, by reason of his acquaintance with him, and to the trial before Pilate, because of the custom of admitting persons in such cases to the judgment-hall, but should have been excluded from the trial in the house of Caiaphas before the Sanhedrim, may easily be supposed and the supposition is in harmony with the facts of the narrative as we find them: namely, the insertion of the story of what took place before Annas and Pilate, and the omission of the scene in the house of Caiaphas.