THE LAST WEEK OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY AND HIS CRUCIFIXION

The First Stage of the Roman Trial – Jesus’ First Appearance Before Pilate

Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:2-5; John 18:28-38

-“The Praetorium (hall of Judgment) was the official residence of Pilate then the Roman governor of

 Palestine…The hour was ‘early,’ about the sixth hour, this being Roman time, and thus at 6 a.m.”

 (Woods, pg 383).

-The Jews refused to enter into the Praetorium, “…lest they should be defiled; but that they might

 eat the passover” (John 18:26). 

            -[It is important to remember, as noted previously on page 154 of this study, that John utilized

             the term Passover in a generic fashion – not limited to the Passover meal itself but of the

             entirety of the Passover meal and the corresponding days included in the Feast of Unleavened

             Bread.] 

            -What an amazing display of inconsistency and hypocrisy on the part of the Jews!  They were

             willing to carry out illegal proceedings in order to unjustly charge an innocent man and then

             demand His execution.  However, for fear of defilement, they wouldn’t enter Pilate’s hall of

             judgment. 

                        -“Here…is illustrated the type of conscience which scrupulously avoids entering the house

                         of a Gentile but finds no difficulty in obtaining by fraud, deception and positive falsehood

                         the condemnation of an innocent man” (ibid)!

-Jesus had been sent in to Pilate but without the specifics of an accompanying accusation.  Therefore,

 Pilate went out to the Jews and asked, “What accusation bring ye against this man?” (John 18:29).

-Initially, the Jews attempted to bypass any specifics regarding charges.  They simply told Pilate that

 if Jesus wasn’t a guilty criminal they wouldn’t have brought Him to the Roman court in the first

 place.  They were hopeful that Pilate would take their word for it and proceed toward Jesus’

 execution without any formal hearing or trial.

            -Obviously, the Jewish leadership had no legitimate claims against Jesus and certainly nothing

             that would be of concern to the Romans.  “They therefore simply insinuate that the case must

             have been bad enough before they would have come to him with it, and that having found him

             worthy of death by their own law, they merely wished him to sanction the execution” (Jamieson,

             Fausset, and Brown).

            -“Pilate understood the character of his petitioners far too well, however, to allow them any such

             presumption of fair-dealing, with the charges kept secret.  No.  They would have to spit it all out

             in open court before Pilate would yield; and even then, he would yield reluctantly” (Coffman,

             John, pg 399).

-Unimpressed by the Jews’ response, and in an effort to completely avoid the situation, Pilate urges

 them to take Jesus and deal with Him according to their own law – the Law of Moses. 

            -In response, the Jews stated, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (John 18:31).

            -At this point, Pilate clearly understood the desire of the Jews – the crucifixion of Jesus (just as

             Jesus had foretold – i.e. Matthew 20:18-19).  Yet, their accusations against Jesus - their claims

             to His guilt - still remained unknown. 

-In response to Pilate, the Jews began their accusations.  “Their assertion was utterly false, for the

 three things which they now mentioned had formed no part whatever of the evidence against Jesus

 in their trial of him.  The first charge, that Jesus was a perverter or seducer of the people, was

 extremely vague.  The second, that he taught to withhold tribute from Caesar, was a deliberate

 falsehood…The third, that he claimed to be king was true, but this third charge, coupled with the

 other two, was intended to convey a sense which was maliciously false…[T]he rulers intended that

 Pilate should regard him as claiming to be a political king, which he constantly refused to do…”

 (McGarvey/Pendleton, pg 705).

-After hearing these accusations, Pilate spoke privately with Jesus in the Praetorium.  It was at that

 time that Pilate asked Jesus a question which is recorded in all four of the Gospel accounts:  “Art

 thou the king of the Jews?”

            -“Here…‘thou’ is in emphatic position in the Greek text, thus signifying, ‘Thou, one so humbled,

             the king of the Jews?’  So pitiable was the appearance of Jesus and so humiliating was his

             position that there was no occasion for any serious consideration of such a charge” (Woods, pgs

             385-386).

-Jesus affirmed His Kingship – “Yes, it is as you say” (Matt. 27:11, NIV).  Jesus then asked whether

 Pilate had reached that conclusion on his own or based upon what others had said.  In other words,

 had such a charge originated with the Romans or with the Jews?

            -As Woods noted, “It was vitally important to the Lord’s cause that it be made clear in what

             sense the phrase, ‘king of the Jews,’ was being used.  Was it as the Romans would use it, or as

             the Jews did?  If it were used in a political sense, as in the latter case, he could repudiate it as

             being utterly groundless; if, in a religious sense, he must accept it; otherwise, the impression

             might go forth that he had repudiated his claim to the messiahship” (pg 386).

            -“Pilate knew how restive the Jews were under the Roman yoke, and how ready they were to

             rebel, and the very hate shown Christ by them was proof that Jesus was not aiming to be such

             a king as they desired.  Pilate comprehends the point” (Lipscomb, pg 286).

                        -Pilate did not know why the Jews hated Jesus so severely.  Yet, he realized that the “king

                         of the Jews” had no political aspirations.  Anything beyond that, Pilate was uninterested in.

                         Therefore, his question, “Am I a Jew?,” which was then followed by his further inquiry,

                         “…what hast thou done?” (John 18:35).

-Jesus continued to explain the nature of His kingdom – “My kingdom is not of this world…” - and,

 in doing so, provided an indirect answer to the query of Pilate.  Jesus’ claim of authority over a

 spiritual kingdom had generated the rejection and hatred of the Jewish leadership.  Yet, with the

 spiritual nature of the kingdom, Pilate had no reason to fear a rebellion on the part of Jesus’

 followers.  

-Pilate responded, “You are a king, then!” (John 18:37, NIV) and Jesus affirmed this truth.  Jesus

 then explained that He had come to this world to bear witness to the truth.  And, those who are

 “of the truth” (John 18:37) would listen. 

            -“This had its personal application to Pilate, who was not of the truth.  His life-style, habits,

             political posture as Caesar’s representative in that city, his willingness to sacrifice even the

             innocent to avoid any political damage to himself – all such things in Pilate prevented his

             acceptance of the Saviour’s words in their higher context or meaning.  Despite this, his inherent

             cunning and political astuteness enabled him to see at a glance how crooked and groundless

             were the false charges of the Pharisees” (Coffman, John, pg 401).

                        -Notice, the words of Jesus implied His previous existence elsewhere prior to coming to this

                         earth.  Could this have caused some uneasiness within Pilate?  If not at this point, as the trial

                         of Jesus continued, Pilate would experience increased uneasiness regarding our Lord. 

                         However, due to his political positioning, he would allow an innocent man to be crucified.

-In response, Pilate asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38).

            -It is difficult to discern Pilate’s true intent and purpose in asking this question.  For this

             reason, many possibilities have been expounded down through the years.

            -“This question has been regarded as an earnest inquiry (Chrysostom), the inquiry of one who

             despaired (Olshausen), a scoffing question (Alford), etc.  But it is evident that Pilate asked it

             intending to investigate the case of Jesus further, but, suddenly concluding that he already

             knew enough to answer his purpose as a judge, he stifles his curiosity as a human being and

             proceeds with the trial of Jesus, leaving the question unanswered” (McGarvey/Pendleton,

             pg 707).

            -“It is very likely that the governor, convinced that Jesus was both harmless and innocent insofar

             as Roman law was concerned, and weary of further discussion, airily dismissed the matter by

             implying, Why talk about such matters further, since no one can really know what truth is

             anyway?” (Woods, pg 388).

-Pilate, taking Jesus with him, went back out to the Jews and told them, “I find in him no fault at all”

 (John 18:38).

            -Once again, things were not progressing as the Jewish leaders had hoped.  In response “they

             were more fierce” (Luke 23:5) and once again accused our Lord “of many things” (Mark 23:3).

            -As Jesus stood there, the target of their unfounded and false accusations, He remained silent.

                        -“Only when his claims to be the Son of God and the king of the Jews in the high unworldly

                         sense were questioned, did he speak” (Dorris, pg 357).

            -Jesus could have convincingly defended Himself before Pilate.  However, Jesus was not seeking

             victory over the Jewish leaders in the Roman court.  Instead, He was seeking victory over

             death and sin for all people.  Of course, such victory required the cross of Calvary.  Therefore,

             in accordance with Old Testament prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 53:7), Jesus remained silent.

                        -The silence of Jesus astonished Pilate who was probably used to having the accused

                         angrily argue in support of supposed innocence or beg for mercy.  Obviously, as very

                         evident before the Roman governor, Jesus exhibited a character and a demeanor which was

                         peculiar to such an occasion.      

                        -Due to Jesus’ silence, Pilate’s role in the proceedings continued to be one of great

                         significance and pressure.  Pilate had not yet found a way of escape nor would he later.

            -Luke’s account reveals that amongst the accusations was this statement, “He stirs up the

             people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place” (vs 5, ESV).

                        -This was a continued attempt on the part of the Jews to represent Jesus as a threat to