John Chapter 18:19-40 by Mark Dunagan

The Gospel Of John Chapter 18:19-40

Jesus Questioned By Annas: ‘Here the narrative resumes the account of Jesus before the high priest, briefly suspended at verse 14, in order to report the episode involving Peter and John, with their arrival and entrance.’ (Woods p. 378)

John 18:19 ‘The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching.’ ‘therefore questioned Jesus’-‘Jesus was not brought to him only “to honor the old gentleman”…Annas conducted this examination in order to extract some information for the use of Caiaphas.’ (Lenski p. 1197) Hendriksen notes, ‘Greedy, serpent-like, vindictive Annas, rude, sly, hypocritical Caiaphas, crafty, superstitious, self-seeking Pilate, and immoral, ambitious, superficial Herod Antipas; these were his judges!….It has been emphasized by various authors that the trial of Jesus was illegal on several technical grounds, such as the following: A. No trial for life was allowed during the night. Yet, Jesus was tried and condemned during the hours of 1-3 A.M. Friday. B. The arrest of Jesus was effected as a result of a bribe, namely, the blood-money which Judas received. C. Jesus was asked to incriminate himself. D. In cases of capital punishment, Jewish law did not permit the sentence to be pronounced until the day after the accused had been convicted.’ (pp. 395-396)

‘about His disciples’-Evidently, the disciples of Jesus were not known by everyone. Possibly, Annas also asked Jesus what was expected of his disciples, what they did and so on. In addition, like many people, Annas might have been more concerned about Jesus’ popularity than whether or not He spoke the truth.

‘about His teaching’-‘Luther pictures the proud ecclesiastic in all his haughty arrogance, acting as though he did not know what Jesus taught, as though he had not deemed it worth while hitherto to acquaint himself with the teaching of this inferior man. Of course, Annas takes for granted that the doctrine of Jesus for which he gathered adherents is heretical and contrary to the teaching of the Old Testament…Its one purpose is to find something in whatever Jesus may say about his doctrine that may be used for

condemning him to death.’ (Lenski p. 1198) Annas might also be implying that Jesus was deceitful in His teaching, that while He was teaching one thing while in public, He was teaching something really dangerous in private.

John 18:20 ‘Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.”’ “I have spoken openly to the world”-While Jesus had taught His disciples privately, He had also taught publicly, in the streets, open squares, mountain sides and on the sea shore. ‘There were always plenty of Pharisees or other authorities present when Jesus taught His doctrines.’ (Butler p. 363) ‘His speaking had been open and non-secretive. Whoever wanted to listen, whether at synagogue or in the temple, was welcome. What a contrast between his open teaching and the strictly executive sessions and secret plottings of the Sanhedrin!’ (Hendriksen p. 397)

“in synagogues, and in the temple”-Jesus had taught on ‘their turf’, right under their noses! Notice how Jesus turns the tables on Annas. Why is Annas asking Him about His teaching, when it was so public? Was Annas so out of touch with what was happening that he didn’t know what Jesus taught?

John 18:21 “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold, these know what I said.” “Why do you question Me?”-Notice how Jesus protects the disciples, He ignores the question concerning His disciples, and emphasizes what He did. Jesus isn’t being uncooperative, rather He is insisting that the high priest conduct the trial in a proper manner. ‘One curious feature of legal procedure in the Sanhedrin was that the man involved was held to be absolutely innocent, and indeed, not even on trial, until the evidence of the witnesses had been stated and confirmed. The argument about the case could only begin when the testimony of the witnesses was given and confirmed….Jesus in that incident was reminding Annas that he had no right to ask him anything until the evidence of witnesses had been taken and found to agree.’ (Morris p. 755) Jewish law provided strict safeguards for the accused, and it wasn’t Jesus’ responsibility to prove that He had not committed a crime.

“Question those who have heard”-If Jesus had taught something wrong or false, then certainly there would be many witnesses which they could find. ‘Does Annas fear to lose the case against Jesus by calling in such true witnesses?…Despite all his shrewdness and cunning Annas has messed up the proceedings.’ (Lenski p. 1201) ‘These judges knew that they had no evidence to present against Him. The demand of Jesus that they bring witnesses to testify brings their lack of evidence into the open.’ (Butler p. 364) ‘The insinuation of Annas that there was difficulty in determining what his doctrine was, had as

its aim a reflection on the integrity of him who advanced it; and the Lord immediately and effectively counteracted it.’ (Woods p. 379) Point To Note: Let the reader be impressed that Jesus also taught us to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Therefore, turn the other cheek, in light of Jesus’ behavior at His trial, never meant, ‘roll over and play dead’, or, ‘become a door mat for evil men.’ Jesus didn’t retaliate or take revenge. But He did stand up for His legal rights and He did speak out when the rules of justice were not being followed.

John 18:22 ‘And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?”’ ‘gave Jesus a blow’-the word rendered ‘blow’, ‘originally meant a blow with a rod or the like, but it came to mean a blow struck with the open hand, a slap, and especially a slap in the face (Mark 14:65; John 19:3).’ (Morris p. 756)

“Is that the way You answer the high priest?”-‘One of the high priest’s retainers did not like this independent tone’ (Morris p. 756) Of course, this is another violation of justice. ‘it was not the proper function for an inferior officer to become judge and jury and administrator of the law and the punishment in the case.’ (Woods p. 379)

John 18:23 ‘Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?”’ “bear witness of the wrong”-Jesus stands up for Himself. If He has spoken disrespectfully to the high priest, then He demands that proof be offered. Once again, Jesus demands that valid testimony and witnesses be produced. The officer had not even been ordered to strike. He appears to be the type of person who likes to jump on the bandwagon, regardless of the truth, and might even have been looking for a promotion. Compare Jesus’ response with one given by Paul years later (Acts 23:2-3).

John 18:24 ‘Annas therefore sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.’ ‘From the point of view of Annas the preliminary investigation has been unsuccessful. No incriminating evidence had been presented. The investigation had merely served the purpose of allowing time for the members of the Sanhedrin to hurry to the palace of the highpriest.’ (Hendriksen p. 398)

Peter’s Further Denial:

John 18:25 ‘Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not”.’ ‘They’-Evidently the suspicions of those around the fire (servants, officers, soldiers) had been aroused during the time that Jesus was inside before Caiaphas. The question asked Peter by the door-keeper (18:17), had stuck in their mind. Many of them were probably probing their memories to see if they could remember Peter being with Jesus. In this company which John calls ‘they’, Matthew and Mark include a female servant (Matthew 26:71; Mark 14:69), Luke includes a man (Luke 22:58). What probably happened is that somebody started the question and it was taken up by others.

John 18:26 ‘One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?”’ “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?”-Not only had this servant seen Peter, but Peter had been the one who had lashed out against his relative! This individual would have particular interest in what happened in the garden, after all his relative had been hurt. ‘But it had been done in an uncertain light, and the relative could not be absolutely sure that it was Peter that he had seen.’ (Morris p. 760)

John 18:27 ‘Peter therefore denied it again; and immediately a cock crowded.’ Points To Note: 1.

Matthew records that the above denial was accompanied by solemn oaths and curses (26:74). 2. Before Peter was at the fire, Matthew records that Peter had retreated to the gateway (26:71), to avoid any more questions. 3. Between the second and third denials, Luke records that there was the space of an hour (Luke 22:59). This cock crow, was the second one (Mark 14:72), and Jesus had said, ‘Before a cock crows thrice, you will deny Me three times’ (Mark 14:72). Luke is the one who records that Jesus turned and looked at Peter (22:61). Following this, Peter went out and wept bitterly (Luke 22:62). From the other Gospel accounts it appears that Peter saw Jesus after His trial before Caiaphas, as He was being taken to Pilate, or taken to be detained until He was to be taken to Pilate. As Jesus came out of the residence, showing signs of being beaten and abused, and while Peter was engaged in cursing and swearing that he didn’t know Jesus, their eyes met!

Before Pilate:

John completely omits the trial that took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin and immediately has Jesus before Pilate. Evidently, God felt that there was really nothing to add to the other accounts. Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin is recorded in Luke 22:63-71; Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:55-65. At this trial false witnesses will be produced, Jesus will be accused of blasphemy, He will be abused by the soldiers as they spit in His face, beat Him with their fists and mock Him. ‘In contrast to his handling of the Jewish trial John gives considerable attention to the Roman trial. He scarcely notices the former, merely contenting himself with a sketchy account of Jesus’ interview with Annas, and with the information that it was Caiaphas who sent Jesus on to Pilate. But when he comes to deal with what happened before Pilate his account is much more full. This would probably have been of great interest to his readers who must themselves have come in continual contact with the Romans. And it was part of John’s plan to show that Pilate both bore his testimony to the innocence of Jesus (18:38; 19:4,6), and also tried very hard to deliver Him. It was only at the insistence of the high priestly party that he finally consented to the crucifixion.’ (Morris p. 761)

John 18:28 ‘They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium in order that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.’ ‘from Caiaphas’-Having convinced themselves that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, they will bring Jesus to Pilate (Mark 14:64). ‘In the time of Jesus the Jews were subject to the Romans. The Romans allowed them a good deal of self-government, but they had not the right to carry out the death penalty.’ (Barclay p. 273) Points To Note: 1. Once again we see that God remains in control. For Roman law didn’t keep the Jews from executing people illegally (Acts 7:58). 2. The Jewish law for blasphemy was stoning (Leviticus 24:16), and yet the Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would die, but not a bone in His body would be broken (John 19:36), and that His hands and feet would be pierced (Psalms 22:16). 3. Carefully notice that the prophecies concerning the death of the Messiah could not be fulfilled just at any time. Prior to Roman rule, the Jews would have exercised their own death penalty. And by around 300 A.D., crucifixion had been abolished. 4. Let the reader be impressed that such prophecies could not be fulfilled in our time or culture, because our methods of execution do not involve crucifixion or anything similar to it.

‘Praetorium’-This was the official residence of the Roman governor. The traditional view is that Pilate’s residence was in the fortress of Antonia. From the language which follows it seems clear that this ‘place’ was an enclosed structure, as opposed to a court which was held in some type of public square. For Pilate will go in and out of this structure.

‘it was early’-‘Roman courts were open from dawn to sunset..’ (Lenski p. 1211) So as soon as the court was open, the Jewish leaders rushed Jesus to Pilate. ‘Early’, probably means between around 6 or 7 a.m.

‘in order that they might not be defiled’-‘It was the rule that “The dwelling-places of gentiles were unclean”. Any Jew who entered such a dwelling would immediately contract defilement, a defilement which lasted seven days. This would effectively prevent him from observing the feast. It is a curious commentary on human nature that they were scrupulous about contracting a defilement that would prevent them from keeping the feast, but they were not at all concerned about taking part in an act of judicial murder.’ (Morris p. 763) The Passover under consideration was not the Passover meal proper, for that had already been eaten, but the rest of the Passover festivities. ‘the ceremonial feasts which took place during the seven days of the Passover’ (Harkrider p. 121)

John 18:29 ‘Pilate therefore went out to them, and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?”’ ‘Pilate’-Who was the Roman governor in Judea from A.D. 26 to A.D. 36. His official place of residence was located at Caesarea, but he made frequent trips to Jerusalem to hold court and transact judicial business for the empire.’ (Woods p. 383)

“What accusation”-‘in demanding the accusation Pilate proceeded as a Roman judge should.’ (Lenski p. 1215) ‘Pilate is introduced into the narrative somewhat abruptly. John evidently regards him as quite well known…..Because the Jews would not go in he came out and inquired what the accusation was that they were making. This does not mean necessarily that he did not know what was in their mind. He is simply observing due form and asking for a formal charge.’ (Morris pp. 763-764)

John 18:30 ‘They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.” “If this Man were not an evildoer”-‘Jesus’ enemies were in a somewhat difficult position. They had no charge that would stand up in a Roman court of law and they knew it…They imply that Pilate should trust them. They would not hand over to him anyone other than a criminal.’ (Morris p. 764) It appears that the Jewish leadership simply expected Pilate to take their word for it that this man arrested with the cooperation of Roman soldiers was dangerous and should be executed. Points To Note: 1.

While they had convicted Jesus on the charge of blasphemy, they must now quickly find come up with an accusation which the Roman authority would accept, that is, 6

that Jesus was perverting the nation, forbidding the people to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be an earthly King, a rival of Caesar (Luke 23:2). 2. ‘They want no retrial of Jesus under a Roman judge; they want Pilate to accept their verdict and on the strength of this verdict to order the execution of Jesus.’ (Lenski p. 1215) ‘The death sentence had been pronounced upon him for calling himself the Son of God…They had not even attempted to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God. They dared not reveal the facts to Pilate, for he would at once have turned them away from his tribunal. The Romans would never entertain a religious charge that lay outside of Roman law and pertained only to the religious notions of a subject nation. That is why these Sanhedrists come to Pilate with a bold lie. Yet they flatter Pilate. They come to him as recognizing his authority, for are they not delivering Jesus up to him? Can Pilate ask more of them? …..By calling Jesus an “evildoer” they make it possible to bring any number of charges against Jesus that would condemn him under Roman law.’ (Lenski pp. 1216-1217)

John 18:31 ‘Pilate therefore said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,”’ “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law”-The Jews were free to try all sorts of cases under their own law system. Pilate refuses to act merely as an executioner. If the Jewish leaders are not even willing to give the specific crime, then Pilate wants to have none of it.

“We are not permitted to put anyone to death”-The Jews now admit that they are seeking the death penalty. Which infers that they would have never come to Pilate otherwise.

John 18:32 ‘that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.’ ‘signifying by what kind of death He was about to die”-‘Now the lawful method of execution for the Jew was death by stoning. Any other death was accursed by the law (Deut. 21:23). At this time, however, the Jews were not allowed to put anyone to death. Jesus had predicted that he would be crucified (John 3:14; Matthew 20:19)…And so when the Romans were forced to crucify Him on “a tree”, it fulfilled prophecy.’ (Butler p. 370) See also John 8:28; 12:32 and Galatians 3:13.

John 18:33 ‘Pilate therefore, entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”’

‘entered again’-which seems to suggest that the Praetorium was an enclosed structure. Pilate initially refuses to do anything to Jesus without due process of law. But neither could Pilate ignore these charges, ‘not with suspicious Tiberias in the saddle at Rome!

“Are You the King of the Jews?”-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 pp. 385-386) The Sanhedrin had presented three charges, He perverts the nation, forbids us to pay taxes to Rome, and claims to be a King (Luke 23:2). The charges were basically one charge, ‘This man is a politically dangerous individual, an enemy of the empire. He is guilty of treason.’ Barclay notes as one reads the following conversation between Jesus and Pilate: ‘First and foremost, no one can this story without seeing the sheer majesty of Jesus. There is no sense that Jesus is upon trial….Pilate may have treated many Jewish things with arrogant contempt, but he did not so treat Jesus. As we read the story, we cannot help feeling that it is Jesus who is in control and Pilate who is bewildered and floundering in a situation which he cannot understand.’ (pp. 283-284)

John 18:34 ‘Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?”’ “your own initiative”-‘Is that your own idea, or have others suggested it to you’ (NEB). Jesus is asking Pilate whether he is simply mouthing what the Jewish leadership has said, i.e. that Jesus is claiming to be a physical rival to Caesar, or is he speaking his own convictions. It was very important that Jesus make Pilate realize the true meaning of His Kingship. He isn’t a King as the Jewish rulers claim (i.e. in a political sense), but He is a King in a higher sense. ‘Why are you asking concerning my kingship---is it because you also have the concept of it which these Jews have given you or is it because you really want to know for yourself?’ (Butler p. 370)

John 18:35 ‘Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have You done?”’ “I am not a Jew, am I?”-Pilate doesn’t have any interest in pursuing religious questions, and demonstrates a definite contempt for Jewish things and issues. ‘A Roman like Pilate would not “from himself” investigate any kingship that anyone might attribute to Jesus. The only reason why Pilate makes this investigation is because the own nation of Jesus, together with their chief leaders, the high priests, have with this strange charge delivered Jesus up to Pilate…Pilate bothers with the present business only because this action of the Jews compels him to do so.’ (Lenski p. 1228)

“what have You done?”-For Pilate the important thing is ‘what has Jesus done?’ He doesn’t believe that Jesus is a King, but something lies behind the hatred of the chief priests. ‘Pilate wishes to drag this out into the open in order to see whether it is something that offends against Roman law or not.’ (Morris p. 769)

John 18:36 ‘Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”’ “My kingdom is not of this world”-Jesus admits that He is a King and that He does have Kingdom, but not the type of Kingdom of which the chief priests are claiming nor a Kingdom that would rival Caesar. It is clear that Jesus didn’t come to establish an earthly empire that would destroy the enemies of the Jews, including the Romans.

“then My servants would be fighting”-‘To demonstrate this point Jesus refers to the absence of all military activity on the part of His followers.’ (Morris p. 769) Points To Note: 1.

Note that Jesus infers that the Jewish leadership/nation is as much His enemy as any other nation. He did not come to rescue them from political tyranny. 2. 'Premillennialists today make the same mistake that the Jews made nearly 2,000 years ago when they look for Jesus to return to this earth to reign on the literal throne in Jerusalem for 1,000 years.’ (Harkrider p. 122) 3. His kingdom is not of this world is any sense. Jesus didn’t say, ‘My kingdom one day will be of this world’, or, ‘don’t worry Pilate, My kingdom is of this world, but it won’t happen in your lifetime.’ 4. The Kingdom of God is the same relationship known as the Church (Acts 20:28=Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10). It is a spiritual relationship (Colossians 1:13-14) and it existed in the First Century (Revelation 1:9).

“My kingdom is not of this realm”-Unfortunately, since then many religious people have completely ignored these verses. Various wars and battles have been fought in the name of Christ, when Jesus made it clear that the gospel is not to be spread by carnal means (2 Corinthians 10:3ff). It should also remind Christians that we can convert individuals, but an nation can never be converted and neither can a business or some social agency. Members of the church will make great citizens in any nation, but the church isn’t to run the government which oversees the nation.

John 18:37 ‘Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”’

“So You are a king?”-Pilate caught the inference, Jesus was admitting that He was a King in some sense.

“For this I have been born”-‘What I was born for’ (Knox). ‘Jesus, however, was not a person who, as a result of certain circumstances say, the death of a predecessor, or the successful revolution of a people against its rulers---had become a king. No, he was a born king.’ (Hendriksen p. 409)

“I have come into the world”-Which infers a pre-existence. “to bear witness to the truth”-Jesus came to give Divine testimony. The truth concerning God, man’s salvation and all other spiritual truths. ‘Jesus came to testify to the things which he had seen and heard while in the Father’s presence (3:11,32; 8:28; 38; 12:49; 14:10; 17:8).’ (Hendriksen p. 410)

“Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice”-‘Every one who is on the side of truth’ (TCNT); ‘who is a friend of the truth’ (Wey); ‘who loves truth’ (Phi); ‘lives on truth’ (Ber). Points To Note: 1.

‘This was, of course, an implied invitation that Pilate, too, might listen!’ (Hendriksen p. 410) 2. Anyone who is eager to listen and obey the truth, will compose Jesus’ kingdom. His kingdom is composed of honest and good hearts (Luke 8:15); those who will to do His will (John 7:17). 3. And one has a choice as whether they are of the truth or not. One can either receive a love of the truth or reject it (2 Thess. 2:10-12). ‘Those who love the truth and obey it are “of the truth”, the motivation of their lives is by the truth; because of this they readily hear it when it is taught.’ (Woods p. 388) ‘This was a subtle appeal, for a judge was supposed to adhere to the truth. Logically, then, if Pilate were devoted to truth, he would hear it in Jesus’ voice; if not, he would brand himself as not belonging to the truth.’ (Tenney p. 262) 4. It should seem obvious that those who are of the truth are not a elite or inherently morally superior class of individuals. For the people who readily heard Jesus were publicans, harlots and the sinners. And those who claimed to be of the truth, the Pharisees, rejected what Jesus had to say. 5. Once again, to be of the truth is a choice, it is a choice that a person makes when they heard the gospel message. Will they accept it? Will they change? Will they embrace it with eagerness?

John 18:38 ‘Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”’ “What is truth?”

Points To Note: 1.

What was the tone of voice when Pilate said this? Was is with contempt and skepticism ‘for such high idealism…To a Roman politician of his day truth was relative. Their view of what was good and truthful was cynical pragmatism.’ (Butler p. 371)? 2. Pilate said this, not realizing that ‘the truth’ was standing before him. 3. Is Pilate honest? Or is Pilate saying, ‘Why talk about such matters further, since no one can really know what truth is anyway?’ (Woods p. 388) 4. The world is still filled with people like Pilate. To them the truth might caught their attention for a moment, they might listen to a sermon and like it, but after all, they have business to attend to and they are trying to accomplish so many things. To such people that truth might make a nice momentary diversion, but it isn’t very practical, it gets in the way of getting the job done, of doing business.

John 18:38 ‘And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.”’ Pilate goes out to the Jewish leaders who had been waiting outside, lest they defile themselves. Pilate doesn’t wait for an answer to this question, which seems to indicate that he wasn’t interested in an answer. Pilate has learned what he wants to know. Clearly Jesus isn’t threat to the Roman Empire and neither is He a political revolutionary. Three times Pilate will testify that Jesus is an innocent man (19:4,6).

John 18:39 “But you have a custom, that I should release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?” John 18:40 ‘Therefore they cried out again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas.” Now Barabbas was a robber.’ Points To Note: 1.

Pilate sees an opportunity to do the Jews a favor, which would make his job easier. Even though he had declared Jesus to be innocent, in the next breath he places Jesus right next to Barabbas. It seems clear that Pilate expected that the people would logically choose Jesus over Barabbas. For earlier that week the crowds had applauded Him (John 12:13). Pilate also seemed to know that Jesus was very popular and the Jewish leadership was envious of His popularity with the multitudes (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:9,10). 2. In addition, this offer also enabled Pilate to please the Jewish leadership, for it saved them from the embarrassment of Pilate actually acquitting Jesus. ‘he would also technically be convicting Jesus, and by refraining from an acquittal he doubtless hoped to please the high priest party.’ (Morris p. 772)

“do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?”-But the Jewish leadership was stirring up the crowds and they began to call for Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:20). ‘Did these wretched leaders remind the people that by choosing Jesus they would be playing into the hands of their deadly enemy Pilate? Did they make much of the fact that just a moment ago Pilate had mocked them by calling Jesus the king of the Jews? Did they recount all the crimes which Pilate had previously committed against the Jewish nation?..’ (Hendriksen p. 412)

“Not this Man, but Barabbas”-besides being a robber, the other accounts inform us that Barabbas was also a murderer (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:18). ‘it would seem that Barabbas was a member of the local resistance movement. Because of his opposition to the Romans he would be a hero to many of the Jews…..There is irony in the fact that the chief priests persuaded the people to ask for and secure the release of a man who was guilty of the very crime of which, though He was innocent, they accused Jesus.’ (Morris pp. 773-774) Point To Note: Barabbas was a terrorist. Many such people exist in the world today, and, like these Jews that called for his release, some view them as heroes. But God called him a robber and a murderer (Acts 3:14). To God the end doesn’t justify the means. In addition, God sees through Barabbas, he wasn’t motivated by a love of God or country, rather, he was motivated by hate and greed. Modern day terrorists who claim they are fighting for some ‘holy’ cause, need to seriously reevaluate what God says about Barabbas. Here we see one more insult directed at Jesus, more one agony which surrounded His death. Supposedly, God’s own people rejected Him and chose for themselves an outright evil person instead. Someone said, they would have chosen the devil himself this day, rather than spare the life of Jesus. And yet, do we do the same thing. How many times in life, do we chose something that is wrong, instead of choosing Jesus? And how many times we do put silly little things ahead of our commitment to Jesus?