The most important of all questions concerning Jesus in Gethsemane still remains to be considered. Why should he even come to the point of ever wishing to avoid the tribulation of the cross? Doing the will of his Father had been his meat and drink all his days (Jn.4 :34). In all things he sought not his own will but the will of the Father which sent him (Jn.5 :30). Then why now the reluctance to “finish his work”? Over the centuries scores of martyrs have endured horrible gruesome treatment because of their faith, and have not shrunk from the ordeal. Then why does their Master appear to be so different? It is a problem that calls for answer.

That physical fear was the cause may be immediately discounted. The man who could face calmly a storm at sea such as terrified experienced sailors, the man who never flinched before violent lunatics, the man who was unperturbed by a mob intent on lynching him— such a man was not likely to quail in cowardice at the prospect of crucifixion, horrible though he knew it must be.

It is to the Messianic Scriptures, more subjective than the gospels in their poignant detail of his agony, that one must turn for answer to this question. They suggest several distinct lines of approach to a problem of unequalled importance and concern to all who associate Gethsemane with their own salvation.

Without God

It is possible, for example, to appreciate that Jesus would view the prospect of crucifixion with a revulsion amounting almost to fear because death would mean deprivation of God. This is indicated by Psalm 6, which Jesus appropriated for himself on three separate occasions (v.8=Mt.7 :23; 25:41; v.3=Jn.12 :27): “Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”

Hezekiah, another outstanding Old Testament type of Jesus, used the same plea that he might be saved from death: “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day” (ls.38 :18,19).

Here, then, is a wholly adequate reason why Jesus feared to die. For him, even more than for David or Hezekiah, death meant utter separation from God, a deprivation of every opportunity of praise and communion, and instead a horror of great darkness.

An open shame

Next, scrutiny of Psalm 69 yields further light on this difficult investigation. Again, the validity of the Messianic application can hardly be questioned (v.9=Jn.2:17; Rom.15:3; v.25=Acts 1 :20; v.4 = Jn.!5 :25; v.21=Mt.27 :34; Jn.19 :29; the fitness of many other details will be immediately evident):

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne ‘reproach; shame hath covered my face.. .When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness” (v.6,7,10,19,20).

This prayer for succour sprang from a sense of the shame inseparable from the afflictions described. Of all forms of death devised by perverted human ingenuity, crucifixion is outstanding for its shamefulness. Socrates drank hemlock with dignity. King Charles 1 was kingly even as he laid his head on the block. Many an aristo was able to meet Madame Guillotine with customary imperturbability and elegance. But the long lingering humiliation of crucifixion has no parallel. And it was this which Jesus was called upon to endure in full measure. Well might his sensitive spirit recoil from it. “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Is.50:6).

The Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes the degradation of Christ in similar terms: “He endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb.12 :2). To crucify the Son of God afresh is to “put him to an open shame” (6:6).

Time and again the Psalms of Messiah couple this aspect of his sufferings with the apparent triumph of wrong over right and the spiteful jubilation of vindictive enemies against slandered innocence:

“Judge me, O Lord my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me. Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up”(Ps.35:24,25).

“Consider and hear me, O Lord my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death; lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved” (Ps.13:3,4).

“O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; (yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy); let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and lay mine honour in the dust” (Ps.7:3-5).

The burden of sin

There are yet other aspects of the Lord’s cup of suffering which call for reconsideration.

Psalm 69, quoted earlier concerning Jesus, has also these words: “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee” (v.5). This is no isolated passage. Other Messianic prophecies raise the same problem.

“For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me” (Ps.40 :12; note that v.6-8 = Heb.10 :5-9).

“I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee” (Ps.41 :4; here v.9=Jn.13:18).

“My strength faileth because of mine iniquity” (Ps.31 :10; here v.5 = Lk.23 :46).

“I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him” (Mic.7 :9; andv.6=Lk.12:53).

The problem posed by such Scriptures is considerable. Solution of the difficulty has been attempted in three different ways:

1. These Scriptures are not true prophecies of Messiah at all. Bits of them are appropriated in the New Testament where the sentiments expressed happen to suit the present purpose or circumstance—as a modern writer might adorn his work with a quote from Gray’s “Elegy”. This approach abandons the authority (and therefore the inspiration) of the New Testament as an interpreter of the Old Testament.
2. Another shift is to accept the Psalm as a prophecy of Christ with the solitary exception of the difficult verse. This device is just as unsatisfactory. It makes the interpretation of Holy Scripture entirely subjective, dependent on the whim of the individual student.
3. It is possible to read these passages as expressions of the imputed guilt of Christ by virtue of his close identification with the race of sinners whom he came to save. Many other Scriptures involve the same or a similar principle: Dan.9 :3-25; Neh.1 :6,7; Ps. 106:6;Josh.7:land22:20,18;lChr.l5:13 and 21 :13; Ezra 9 :6; 2 Sam.21 :1; Lev.4 :3 and 26 :40; Rom.3 :22 and 5 :12; Mt. 23 :35,36; ls.59 :8,9; Acts 9 :4 etc., etc.

The third of these interpretations offers least difficulty.

The suggestion has been advanced—and who can doubt it?—that when Scripture says: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” it is enunciating an absolute truth that, in some mysterious way which can at best be only dimly realised, the sins of those who benefit from the sacrifice of Christ did in a very real sense add to the burden he had to bear. It is possible that in the inscrutable purpose of an almighty timeless God even the sins committed now from day to day—and the sins of next week—add retrospectively to the great burden of guilt which the Son of God bore as he “bowed beneath the sins of men … in sad Gethsemane.”

Dereliction?

Psalm 31 quoted earlier, has much to say about the psychology of Jesus in the time of his adversity, and thus suggests another line of investigation. The last words of Jesus on the cross come from this psalm: “Into thy hand I commend my spirit;” and the words that follow are marvellously apt as the first utterance of the Risen Christ: “Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.”

Three times this psalm alludes to the shame of the cross (v.1,11,17). But another element in the suffering of Christ also comes into prominence: “I said in my haste (RVm: my alarm), I am cut off from before thine eyes” (v.22). This finds an immediate parallel in the familiar words of Psalm 22 :1, recited by Jesus when on the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?

The inference seems to follow that on the cross Jesus experienced an abandonment by his Father so complete and awful as to wring from him this agonized cry of helpless misery. And it has been further inferred that it was the prospect of this dereliction from which Jesus shrank; hence his prayer: “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”

Nevertheless, whatever this “forsaking” was, which Psalms 22 and 31 envisage as the Messiah’s expectation, // did not happen*. Psalm 22 :24 is explicit on this point: “For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” Another Messianic Psalm says the same thing: “In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God; and he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears” (Ps.18 :6). The heavenly answer actually came even whilst Jesus hung on the cross; see Study 228. And if it was true of the first Jesus-Joshua that “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Josh.l :5, quoted with emphatic negatives in Heb.13 :5), it must have been at least equally true of the second.

The apparent contradiction is resolved by due emphasis on the word: “I said in my haste (or, my alarm),”

It would seem, then, that this forsaking of the Messiah, leaving him in utter desolation, was an experience which did not actually happen but which nevertheless seemed real enough at the time, being a consequence of the natural infirmity of the human mind, which Jesus himself undoubtedly shared, yet without sin.

Other psalms express this idea very clearly: “Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency . . . When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end . . Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins” (Ps.73 :13,16,17,21).

“Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said, my foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts (RVm: doubts) within me, thy comforts delight my soul” (Ps.94 :17-19).

This sense of being bereft of all help and guidance, this feeling of despair and futility, is one which all believers experience in some degree. It would be strange indeed if the Son of God, born to save frail human nature by sharing in its burden, were to be exempt from this most characteristic trial of human nature.

The connection between this kind of temporary spiritual blackout and low physical condition is familiar enough. So it would be surprising if Jesus did not experience something akin to this. Gethsemane came at the end of a week of incessant appeal, argument, rebuke, and instruction, a week which was itself the culmination of a sustained campaign of preaching in many parts of the country such as no other man could possibly have undertaken. It is only because Jesus was physically worn out that it was possible for him to reach a point when he could pray: “Let this cup pass from me.” Did not the other great temptation also come when he must have been near the point of physical exhaustion, after fasting in the wilderness for forty days? So it was only thus that there would come to him, whose meat and drink it was to do the will of the Father, a time when “Thy will” and “my will” could be mentioned in the same sentence.

“Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me. And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest. Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness. I would hasten my escape from the windy storm and tempest” (Ps.55:5-8).

There is a suggestion here of utter weariness, of inability to continue the struggle any longer, and of desperate longing for rest and relaxation. Every long-distance runner has known the tremendous temptation to ease up from the intolerable strain on lungs and limbs and muscles. Or, again, those who have borne the exhaustion and discomfort, the utter weakness and weariness, of a long and severe illness know how this can wear away one’s spiritual stamina. It is difficult to imagine that Jesus, who shared so many of the infirmities of human nature, did not know this same exhaustion of body and spirit which in many instances has been the irresistible prelude to the complete collapse of morale.

Psalm 55 goes on to suggest that the last straw, the crowning humiliation and disappointment, was that he should be betrayed by “his own familiar friend, in whom he trusted”:

“For it was not an enemy that reproached me: then I could have borne it; neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: but it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company” 12-14).

Failure?

This special discouragement has close association with another aspect of the Lord’s reluctance to tread the hard road from Gethsemane to Golgotha.

It would appear that Jesus was utterly depressed by the almost complete lack of response to his appeal to the Jewish nation. The large crowds had dwindled away. Their enthusiasm was for miracles rather than the message. Even the one recent demonstration, at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, had sprung from an expectation of immediate inauguration of a new Kingdom of Israel, and not from repentance, not out of an understanding that Jesus was the Son of God, not from appreciation that he was riding into Jerusalem to die and not to reign. Many had “gone back and walked no more with him.” And even those dose to him added discouragement by their lack of insight and understanding. At this moment, even as he prayed for wisdom and strength of purpose, they disregarded his appeal, and slept and slept again. Then why should he die, and die so miserably? What good purpose would be served by his enduring such shame and torture as crucifixion must inevitably involve?

Such a point of view is suggested by two remarkable Scriptures, both of which were surely much in the mind of Jesus at this time.

The Messianic content of Isaiah 49 does not need to be demonstrated or expounded in detail. In addition to direct quotation (v.2 = Rev. 1 :16; v.6 = Acts 13 :47; v.8 = 2 Cor.6 :2; v.10 = Rev. 7 :16), its phraseology constantly re-appears in different parts of the New Testament with reference to Jesus. Verse 4 pictures the Servant of Jehovah in a mood of deep despondency: “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain.” But immediately there comes reassurance from the Almighty Himself: “And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again unto him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. Yea, he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth” (v.4-6).

Here is a more than adequate reason for the “heaviness” of Jesus in Gethsemane. In spite of all his efforts, Israel showed no sign of being gathered by the Shepherd of Israel. His appeal made no impression on hearts of stone. Then to what purpose his suffering and death? Was not both discouragement and despair evinced by his words: “It is enough” (Lk.22 :38)? How like Elijah when he was oppressed with a sense of complete failure! (1 Kgs.19:4).

The answer from God was an angel from heaven strengthening him with the assurance that his work and travail, far from being futile, were to achieve not only the spiritual restoration of Israel, but also the regeneration of Gentiles, near and far.

“I will give thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth . . . In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee, and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people to establish the earth (or, restore the Land), to cause to inherit the desolate heritages . . .” (v.6,8). Perhaps this explains the “Abba, Father” in the prayer Jesus offered. Paul has “Jew-Gentile context in his use of the same double address (Rom.8 :15; Gal.4 :6).

Doubtless it was by Scriptures such as this that the angel imparted strength to a faltering Servant of Jehovah. But to be a “covenant of the people” must require a sacrificial death, even though ultimately he was to be “glorious in the eyes of the Lord,” as well as before His glorified people. And this was to be accomplished in “an acceptable time’—the Hebrew word has frequent association with sacrifice, and also special connection with Passover and the Day of Atonement. Only thus could the Scripture be fulfilled and the gracious Purpose furthered.

Again, Psalm 116 has the same theme. It is a psalm of “the Servant of Jehovah,” one who was “the son of thine handmaid” (v.16) and who had testified faithfully on God’s behalf: “I believed, and therefore have I spoken” (v.10; and note the application of these words in 2 Cor.4 :13-true of Jesus, and his gospel; see v.10,11). But the testimony had met only discouragement: “I was greatly afflicted: I said in my haste “All men are liars” (v.10,11). That word “haste” (RVm: alarm) expresses apprehension (Ps.31 :22;48 :5; 104 :7; Dt.20 :3; 2 Sam.4 :4; 1 Sam.23 :26).So here once again the rejection of Messiah’s message and claims appears to be adequate reason for thrusting aside the cup of suffering. But it was not to be avoided. He was a sacrifice bound with cords to the horns of the altar (Ps.118 :27): “The cords of death (LXX: pangs of death; cp. Acts 2 :24 RV) compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord, O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul” (v.3,4).

Nevertheless, in spite of all hardship and discouragement, “I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints,” (Ps. 116:12-15) and of this Holy One especially.

So, probably, it was by such reinforcement of spirit that “the Son of man was made strong” by God for Himself.

But without such Scripture and without an angel from heaven, what might not have happened?

The recurrence of the phrase: “I said in my haste (or, alarm)”, already noted in Ps.31 :22 (and compare Ps.77 :10; “I said, This is my infirmity”) indicates that the feeling of utter failure, like the momentary sense of desolation and dereliction on the cross, was psychological—real enough in his mind, yet not true in fact. Whilst Psalm 22 :24 is emphatic that Jesus was never forsaken by his Father, it is conceivable that there would be a time when the impression of being forsaken was vivid enough to him. Similarly it would be possible for the mind of Jesus to be temporarily overwhelmed by a shattering sense of futility and defeat even at the very time when angels in heaven were marvelling at the wonder of his complete self-consecration.

Many a weary patient has despaired of restoration to health after the actual crisis has been safely passed. Soldiers have often despaired of victory at the very time when, unperceived by themselves, the hostile forces in another part of the field were already reeling back. Many a cross-country runner has plodded wearily and unhopefully on, miserably unaware that the stamina of his opponent was on the point of cracking under the long drawn-out strain.

It is surely neither irreverent nor inaccurate so to think of the conflict of Jesus as the sweat gathered on his brow in Gethsemane.

Summary

Why was Jesus Brought to his knees with the prayer: “Let this cup pass from me”?

If a bald summary be attempted, the various aspects of his tribulation in the garden include— so the Old Testament Scriptures suggest — the following:

a.	a natural human revulsion from suffering and death.
b.	the utter deprivation of fellowship with his Father, which would inevitably ensue with the oblivion of death.
c.	the shame of crucifixion.
d.	the burden of guilt when “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
e.	the “forsaking” by his Father which, though not a fact, was psychologically real enough.
f.	complete exhaustion of physical strength and spiritual stamina

And especially:

g.	a sense of failure in his mission; a feeling that, since his message was already rejected, there was little to be achieved by his death as a sacrifice for sins.

It is idle to stress any one of these to the exclusion of the rest. That they all had their part can hardly be doubted. Let each in turn provoke a sense of wonder and deep thankfulness.

On careful examination the record of the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane is seen to present a remarkable number of factual and verbal resemblances to the account of David’s flight from Jerusalem at the time of Absalom’s rebellion.

Half a dozen times over, the history of David exhibits impressive anticipations of the experiences of Christ, but none is so impressive as the assembled correspondences between this most eventful period of the life of David and that of his greater Son.

As an explanation, it is hopelessly inadequate to suggest human contrivance. The reader is driven to see here deliberate divine design. This is inspired prophecy-through history.

First, then, the type in its broad outlines:

1. The Beloved
2. crosses Kidron.
3. Followers stoutly assert their loyalty.
4. On the Mount of Olives
5. the king weeps over Jerusalem
6. He goes forth bearing a curse.
7. He is silent before his enemies.
8. The ark is sent back into the city.
9. His helpers (who are priestly runners) stay in the city.
10. He is supported by faithful Gentiles.
11. He is received in a place of rest in a far country.
12. The arch-rebel commits suicide.        
13. The rebellion fails.
14. The king returns to his city.
15. His enemies acknowledge their sin,
16. and are forgiven.

Against this broad background, the following tabulation becomes the more impressive. By themselves some of the details might seem to be no more than casual coincidences, but there are too many of them to allow of such an explanation, and the entire picture is too consistent

	2 Samuel		Gospels
15:11	Two hundred chosen men from Jerusalem.	Jn. 18:3	A band of men and officers
15:14	Arise, and let us flee.	Mt. 26:46	Rise, let us be going.
15:14	Smite with the edge of the the sword.	Lk. 22:49	Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
15:15	LXX According to all that my lord the king chooseth, behold thy servants.	Mt. 26:35	Likewise also said all the disciples
15:16	LXX Went out on foot.	Lk. 22:39	he came out and went…
15:18	LXX At the olive in the wilderness		Gethsemane (shemen = olive, oil)
15:20	I shall go whithersoever may go.	Mt. 26:24	The Son of man goeth as it is written of him.
15:20	LXX Turn thou about, and turn thy brethren.	Lk. 22:32	When once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren (RV)
15:21	Whether in death or in life, even there also will thy servant be.	Lk. 22:33	Lord, I am ready to go with thee to prison and to death.
15:22	lttai (=with me).	Lk. 22:33	With thee.
15:23	Over the brook Kidron	Jn. l8:2	Over the brook Kidron.
15:26	Behold, here am I.	Jn. l8:5	I am he.
15:26	Let Him do to me as seemeth good in his eyes.	Mt. 26:39	Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.
15:30	Covered every man his head . . . weeping as they went up.	Mk. 14:72	Peter wept, casting upon (his head).
15:32	The top .. .where he worshipped	Jn. 18:2	Jesus oftimes restored thither.
16:1	David passed on a little.	Mt. 26:39	he went a little farther,
16:9	Let me go over, and take off his head.	Lk. 22 :49	Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
16:10	So let him curse.	Mt. 26 :52	Put up thy sword.
16:11	The Lord hath bidden him.	Jn. 18:11	The cup which my Father hath given me.
17:1	Choose out twelve thousand.	Mt. 26:53	Twelve legions of angels
17:1	Pursue after David this night.		(Judas going to the chief priests).
17:2	Weary and weak-handed.	Mt. 26:37	Sorrowful and very heavy.
17:3	LXX Even as a bride turneth to her husband.	Mt. 26:49	The kiss of Judas.
17:2	All that are with him shall flee.	Mt. 26:56	All the disciples forsook him and fled.
17:3	LXX The life of one man thou seekest	Jn. 11:50	It is expedient that one man die for the people.
17:4	All the elders of Israel	Mt. 26:47	Chief priests and elders of the people
17:12	Some place where he shall be found.	Jn. 18:2	Judas knew the place
17:13	Until there be not one small stone found there.	Lk 21:6	Not one stone left upon another(?)

The exchange between Jesus and Peter, in Luke 22 :32,33 is specialy interesting, for apparently Peter recognized the allusion to the flight of David and answered with an appropriate allusion to the same occasion.

It would seem also, that this detailed parallel provides an authentic interpretation for the phrases in Mark 14:72 which have been the centre of much guess work by the expositors.

“And there followed him a certain young man having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.” (Mk.)

These two verses, coming in Mark’s gospel only, are generally believed to be about the author himself. The argument usually advanced-that none but the young man himself could have supplied this information-is not as conclusive as it is often deemed to be. Even so, the conclusion is probably correct. Else why should this insertion be made in the narrative at all, for it is really aside from the main story of the sufferings of Christ? The author’s own personal interest in this incident furnishes the best explanation.

The mention of a “linen cloth” may perhaps supply a link of a sort. Linen was normal wear of the priests, and John Mark is known to have been related to Barnabas who was a Levite (Col.4:10; Acts 4:36).

But what brought him to this dangerous situation? It has been surmised, with every degree of reasonableness, that Judas naturally led the soldiers first to the upper room where he had left Jesus. Finding the group gone he immediately knew where they were to be found. Meantime John Mark (at whose home, very probably, the Last Supper had been eaten) was roused from his sleep by the disturbance, and, realising the danger which threatened Jesus, he snatched up the first garment available and ran by some short cut to Gethsemane to warn Jesus and the rest. However he arrived too late, and only just escaped being apprehended himself.

One writer has added a further speculation. According to one tradition, the early church knew John Mark by the nickname Kolobodaktulos-Stump Fingered! (it was a word which was applied to the de-horning of cattle). Did John Mark leave his garment because as he sought to snatch it out of the grasp of those who would arrest him, a slash of a sword took off the ends of his fingers?

But the question still remains: What purpose lies behind the inclusion of this incident in the gospel?

It is known that Matthew left his signature in his gospel in the story of the call of Lev! (Mt.9:9). And John likewise, with his mention of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” who saw “and bare record, and his witness is true” (Jn.19 :26,35), And, Luke, Samaritan (see “Acts”, by H.A.W ch.113) and “beloved physician”, may have had tribute paid to him in the Lord’s parable of the Good Samaritan, which comes only in Luke’s gospel.

Doubtless, similarly, these two verses in Mark 14 are John Mark’s way of signing his gospel. But there must be more to it than this. Here is an attempt to cope with the problem.

In the first missionary journey John Mark left Paul and Barnabas at Perga (Acts 13 :13). Why did he abandon the work? almost certainly not because of homesickness or lack of courage, but because he had no sympathy with Paul’s intention to take the gospel to the Gentiles. So he returned, not to their starting point Antioch, where already Gentiles were being brought into the church (Acts 11 :20-22RV), but to Jerusalem where the Jewish brethren still remained zealous for the Law (Acts 21 :20).

The issue was an important one-without doubt the most important the early church encountered. Were Gentiles to be admitted to the church on equal terms with Jewish believers, or not? No wonder this problem later made John Mark a source of contention between Paul and Barnabas. Probably the latter took the line that it would be wrong to offend the susceptibilities of Jewish brethren by following Paul’s policy. And were there not still plenty of Jews to preach to in almost every city of the empire? Thus his own gentle concessive nature chimes in with personal attachment to his nephew. However this only provoked a disagreement of the gravest kind.

In this contention Paul was certainly right, as is intimated by the words: ‘And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God” (Acts 15 :40). There is no hint of a formal blessing of the church being similarly bestowed on Barnabas and Mark when they went off to Cyprus.

In time the soundness of Paul’s stand was fully recognized by all, and reconciliation with John Mark duly took place (Col.4:10;2 Tim.4:11).

The gospel story of that flight in Gethsemane can now be read as Mark’s amende honorable in later days. Remembering the intensely symbolic character of the gospels ( a feature of those writings which is far from receiving adequate recognition in these days) it is possible to see in his leaving the linen garment (an apt figure of the Law) a picture of his later reluctance to abandon the Law and its gospel of works. Yet the relinquishing of it was nevertheless inevitable if he was to be of further use to the cause of Christ.

Thus, it may be, when John Mark wrote his gospel, he included this as his public acknowledgment that he had been wrong in his earlier attitude to the problem of Gentile converts and their relation to the Law of Moses.

From Gethsemane Jesus was taken to the palace of high-priest Caiaphas. There he was cross-examined first of all by Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, whilst messengers were sent out to summon a midnight assembly of the Sanhedrin.

This Annas was one of the most astute and notorious characters in Jewish history. He himself, now about 60, had been high priest form A.D.6 to 15. Deposed by the Roman governor, he manoevred every one of his five sons into the same high office in succession, and also his son-in-law. It was one of his sons who brought about the violent death of James, the Lord’s brother, in A.D.62.

For a period of at least thirty years he was able to dominate Jewish affairs-an altogether remarkable achievement, especially when it is considered that Herod’s temple had no less than twenty-one other high priests in considerably less than a hundred years.

That Jesus should be taken to Annas first is, then, precisely what might be expected, for he was virtually high-priest still (note Lk. 3:2; Acts 4:6).

Annas proceeded to question Jesus “of his disciples and his doctrine.” About his disciples, doubtless, with a view to preferring a charge of conspiracy or sedition. Annas would be anxious also to know the strength of this Galilean movement, and especially what influential men were open or secret sympathizers. And the question concerning Jesus’ doctrine would probably centre round his own Messianic claims, his attitude to the Roman overlords, and especially (since Annas was a Sadducee) his teaching about the resurrection. Any of these lines of investigation might furnish material to help the case for the prosecution.

According to authorities on ancient Jewish law, this private interrogation pending the summoning of the Jewish council and the formulation of the trial procedure, was altogether illegal. And that this and the later judicial transactions should take place during the hours of darkness was the most flagrant breach of all.

In his reply Jesus had nothing to hide. He had no secret organization. He led no subterranean movement. Annas, with unlimited funds and an army of spies at his disposal, must surely have known this well enough. “I spake openly to the world (i.e. the Jewish world, as in Jn. 7:4; 12:19). I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple where all the Jews come together, and in secret have I said nothing.” (Jesus was quoting ls.48 :16, which has an interesting context: v.12-17).

Thus he made it clear that he had not sought to align himself with any sect or faction in Jewry. “And in secret have I said nothing.” Was there special emphasis on the pronoun here, the better to contrast himself with Annas the arch-intriguer whose entire life was built on scheming and back-stairs diplomacy? By contrast Jesus had laid on his disciples the special responsibility of broadcasting everywhere all they had heard him say; “What I tell you in darkness that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach upon the housetops” (Mt. 10:27).

Then followed a pointed reminder of the glaring illegality of the present proceedings: “Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: Behold, they know what I said.” True justice ought to begin with a statement of the charge and the testimony of witnesses concerning it. {“. The immediate response to the Lord’s altogether justifiable remonstration was a resounding blow across the face, delivered by the officer standing by. On an earlier occasion when the temple guard had been sent to apprehend Jesus, they returned empty-handed with the words: “Never man spake like this man” (Jn.7:32,44,46). It may be surmised with confidence that the officer then in charge was promptly disciplined. This man, promoted in his place, was now bent on showing by a timeserving zeal for his master’s interests that he meant to avoid a like experience. So the brave fellow struck hard at the bound prisoner, knowing well enough that he need fear no reprisal. The phrase “struck Jesus with the palm of his hand” can hardly be right, for whilst a good case can be made for that reading there is the weight of a Messianic prophecy as well as the Greek word rhapisma and also the word “flog” (v.23) to support the alternative: “They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon his cheek” (Mic.5:l).

The officer also self-rightously and most erroneously summoned Scripture to his aid: “Answerest thou the high priest so?” Did not the Law say explicitly “Thou shalt not revile the judges, nor curse the ruler of thy people” (Ex. 22 : 28)? Whereupon Jesus, with the weal from the officer’s rod smarting on his face, quietly reminded him of an adjoining commandment (Ex.23 :1): “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?” Here, yet again, Jesus used a question to administer a rebuke, a question the answer to which, if the man were honest, was: “To impress my master.”

It is worthwhile to note here that Jesus did not literally apply his own commandment about turning the other cheek (Mt.5 :39). but his reply certainly expressed the idea of it, albeit without any spirit of cowed submission.

Annas soon realised that with such a prisoner he could make little progress in his evil purpose, so Jesus was hustled away for another grilling by Caiaphas. But of this experience the gospels tell nothing at all.

A certain mystery surrounds one of the apostles at the time of the arrest of Jesus. Whereas the synoptists emphasize that Peter “followed afar off” after recovering from his first panic, “another disciple went in with Jesus.”

Quite a case can be made for taking this “other disciple” (Jn.18:15) to be Judas. But then there is the difficulty: Why should Judas exert himself to get Peter into the courtyard when that hot-blooded colleague of his could be counted on to resent the Lord’s betrayal very strongly? Was he hoping to enrol a second witness for the prosecution?

On the other hand, assuming that this “other disciple” was John, there is here an easy explanation of the mention in his gospel of Malchus and of the kinsman of Malchus (v.10,26). The reason for his astonishing privilege and immunity is given: “that disciple was known unto the high priest.” All kinds of guesses have been made to explain this strange fact, if it applies to John—from the speculation that the firm of Zebedee and Sons had a contract to supply the high priest’s palace with fish, to the idea of actual family relationship. This last is just within the bounds of possibility, for Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was “of the daughters of Aaron” and was also kin to Mary the mother of Jesus; and she in turn was sister to Salome, the mother of James and John. But one cannot be completely certain that either Annas or Caiaphas had genuine connections with the true high-priestly line.

Whatever the explanation, John was near enough to his Lord during those trying hours to be able to hand on what is obviously an eyewitness account of some of the disreputable transactions here.

Peter however had no means of access to the palace and for a while “stood at the door without.” Yet somehow he knew that John was within and must also have contrived to get a message through to him. Whereupon John got Peter admitted into the courtyard. For Peter this was a risky manoeuvre. By his violence in the garden he had already shown that his protestations of unswerving loyalty to his Master were not just empty words. And now he underlined that sincerity. But he was thrusting his head right into the lion’s mouth. It is John himself who tells how Peter got into the courtyard, as though taking upon himself a share of the blame for Peter’s disastrous collapse of morale soon afterwards.

First Denial

It was an exceptionally cold night, and the servants and officers were standing round a fire. Was it cold or an excess of self-assurance or a desperate anxiety to hear scraps of news about his Master which brought Peter right into that ring round the fire? After a while he even sat down among them (Ps.l :1; cp.also Is.50 :10,11). Probably his face was muffled in a cloak, and he trusted to that to save him from recognition.

Unusually, for this late hour of the night, there was a girl on duty at the gate-a small but significant indication of exceptional activity. She, who had obliged by letting Peter in, all unwittingly began the wretched ordeal he now had to endure. Natural feminine curiosity apart, this girl would reckon it part of her duties to know about any stranger who came on the premises. Or perhaps she simply wanted to cover herself from blame for admitting a disciple of the Galilean. Whatever her motive, she now appears as the only woman in all the gospels, besides her colleague mentioned later, not on the side of Christ-and she only indirectly.

John, who had brought Peter in, was known to be “with Jesus.” Now it dawned on her that this other man might also be a disciple. But if a disciple, why not also “with Jesus”? Hence the form of her question, the Greek of which implies: “You are not one of this man’s disciples also, are you?”, as though inviting a denial. It was that innocent form of question which was Peter’s undoing. It encouraged him to a quick and easy evasion, and he snatched at it, not so much because of physical fear as from shame at being reckoned a disciple of Jesus.

Perhaps the very brusqueness of the hasty alarmed denial aroused the girl’s further suspicions. After a searching look (Gk: em-plepo) by the aid of the fire’s brightening blaze (Mk.14 :54 Gk.) these now crystallized out in a point-blank accusation: “Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth”; and this was confirmed to the rest: “This man also was with him (as we know John was).”

The probability is that if Peter had openly avowed his connection with Jesus no harm would have befallen him, for that circle of underlings may well have contained several who sympathized strongly with the cause of Jesus. And in any case would it not have been assumed that the immunity which covered John extended to Peter also, else why should he be there?

How remarkable that John openly showed his discipleship, and went untouched; Peter tried to hide his discipleship, and paid for it. Peter’s first hasty disclaimer had set him on a very steep and slippery slope. There could now be no going back-or so he would think. Yet even now. an open honest admission that his first “No” sprang to his lips because momentarily he had been too scared to say “Yes”, might have saved him.

Instead: “Woman, I do not know him. I do not even understand what you are talking about.” The very vigour of such a denial would stamp it as a lie, for if Peter had no idea what the girl was talking about, why should he sound so indignant? And to say that he didn’t know anything about Jesus of Nazareth would be altogether too incredible to the rest, for in those days was there a soul who had not heard about him?

However, once this direct accusation had been so roughly rebutted there was nothing else for Peter to do except either stick to his story or else get out of that courtyard as quickly as possible. A wise man would have chosen the latter course. But Peter may have reasoned that to do so would be to invite further suspicion. So his eagerness to be near his Lord and to know what befell kept him there, although both physically and spiritually his danger was now considerable.

To avoid further embarrassment he went out into the porch. He had been “revealed by fire,” coals of fire which had no power to cleanse a man of unclean lips (ls.6 :5-7). So he put a space between himself and any further accusations-or so he hoped. And just then the cock crew. “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice”, Jesus had warned. Mark’s is the only gospel to mention the double cock-crow (14 :30,68,72). It was Peter’s audible conscience, but the warning came at a time when he was too panicky to take warning.

Second Denial

Something like an hour passed (Lk.), and Peter’s nervous tension eased somewhat. The worst of his ordeal was now over, so he thought. That first cock-crow had sounded an alarm. But now, more alert, he was surely not likely to be caught once again in a panicky denial of his Lord. And in any case there was no sign of his being accused again. Yet it happened.

It is in this second phase where the gospels-packed-with-contradictions school of criticism has a field-day. John says: “Peter was standing warming himself;” Matthew and Mark say he had gone “into the porch”, Also, Mark says: “the maid saw him again.” Matthew says it was “another maid.” Luke says it was “another”, and uses a masculine pronoun; and he also words this denial thus: “Man, I am not.”

Reconciliation of these divergences is a comparatively simple matter once it is realised that each of the three occasions when Peter denied his Lord was itself a complex of both uncertain and confident accusations and of reiterated denials spoken not just to one person but to first one and then another in the courtyard group. This is both hinted at and required by such phrases as: “he denied before them all” (Mt.); “she began to say to them that stood by” (Mk.); they said therefore to him” (Jn.). Thus there is no need for the believer to lose sleep over problems of this kind.

It would seem that the maid who had admitted Peter at the gate (Ps.69 :12) and who first accosted him now resumed her accusation, this time more confidently and with greater hostility: “This is one of them,” she said. There are many examples in the gospels of the word “this” being used in an antagonistic or contemptuous spirit, as here. The emphatic repetition now brought confirmation and support from another maid: “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Someone else in the group was either more incredulous or more sympathetic: “You are not one of his disciples also, are you?” The form of the question invited denial. It was the kind of support that Peter would have been better without, for it extinguished any last remaining flicker of resolution to avow himself openly a friend of the Nazarene. The retreat was then turned into a rout by the confident assertion of “another man” who said: “Thou also art one of them.”

So Peter delivered himself to the Enemy: “Man, I am not.” Again (says Matthew) he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.” And the form of the verb used by Mark suggests that he kept on denying over and over again. It is possible that the phrasing in the Fourth Gospel is chosen to hint at a contrast with John himself who was also in the palace yet did not deny his Lord: but such a conclusion is not certain.

Peter’s “Be it far from thee, Lord” had now become “Be it far from me, Lord.” The words: “He denied with an oath,” shock the sensitive reader. The disavowal is to be imagined spoken with roughness and vigour: ‘As the God of Abraham liveth, I do not know the man.’

Peter’s foolishness

It still remains a thing to marvel at that Peter, scared as he had never been in all his life, should still wait around in such a place of danger, and for so long a time (Luke specifies that the time gap between the second and third denials was “about the space of an hour”).

There is a two-fold explanation of this. The determination to hang on in the courtyard in the face of every risk was an expression of Peter’s intense love for his Master. Eagerness to know how things were going with Jesus cancelled out all commonsense judgement which might have told him that he could do nothing to help.

But there was also another very different element in Peter’s thinking. No man would have played with fire so riskily and for so long a time as Peter did that night except out of an inner confidence that he was equal to the occasion. Doubtless after two denials Peter reproached himself bitterly for such failures. And yet at the time he must have comforted himself—as many another poor fool has done-with the reassurance: ‘Never mind, that won’t happen again. The next time I shall be prepared. Not again will I allow myself to be panicked into words of denial. I will tell them boldly that I belong to Jesus, and they can do what they like.’ Behind such an attitude which seems to be implicit in this foolish hanging around in the place of danger was a lack of humility, an unwillingness to recognize his own spiritual limitations and weakness. God has no use for the spirit of se/f-reliance, even though the world reckons it a virtue.

Third Denial

So, with nerves on edge Peter continued to wait around. During this time there was doubtless a certain coming and going in the courtyard. Thus “one of the servants, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off,” found himself close enough to the apostle for recognition. The form of his question expressed his confidence: “I did see thee in the garden with them, didn’t I?” And there was probably mention of the violence that had been shown there.

In these circumstances and after his earlier denials Peter was now too scared to do other than deny again vigorously. “To prison and to death” he had fervently and most sincerely promised his Lord. Yet, such are the quirks of human psychology, this lesser ordeal bore far harder on Peter. And there are plenty like him, for whom the enduring for Christ’s sake of the quiet contempt of others is one of the most trying ordeals in life.

But this latest accusation was only the spark to set going a long explosive wrangle as to Peter’s identity. “Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee”-as does the speech of every true disciple! The words were spoken in Peter’s face, and then immediately repeated to the rest: “Of a truth this man also was with them, for he is a Galilean.” Mark’s phrasing implies that this was repeated more than once, both to Peter and amongst themselves.

There is another detail here in all the synoptic gospels which does not come out in the common version: “for also thy speech betrayeth thee” (Mt. and Mk.): “for also he is a Galilean” (Lk.). Is this intended to signify that John was known to be a Galilean and known to be a disciple? Peter was plainly a Galilean and therefore (with a logic which was hardly water-tight) he too must be a disciple? Or is it that the Galilean dialect was taken as an additional reason, besides recognition by Malchus’ kinsman, for believing Peter to be a disciple? Either way the explanation pre-supposes facts which are found in John’s gospel (either v.15 or v.18 of John 18), and thus once again there is built-in confirmation of the veracity of the records.

Peter’s denial in the face of this latest verbal attack was even more emphatic and violent: “Then began he to curse and to swear”-not only with an oath as in his earlier denial, but now with curses also: ‘ God do so to me, and more also, if I have ever spoken to this Jesus.’ And God did precisely so to him, for he too ended his life on a cross. Or possibly the word “curse” implies an invocation of excommunication, for the word was frequently used in that sense (Rom.9 :3; 1 Cor.16 :22; Gal.1 :8,9). In that case: “Let me be excommunicated from Israel if I lie in this”-and so he was, but only that he might find his place in the true Israel of God.

At this very time when Peter was trying to protect himself with a smokescreen of bluster, Jesus was himself within sight and hearing-probably being led from Annas to Caiaphas, and either passing along a verandah or through the courtyard itself. “And the Lord turned and looked at Peter.” The second verb here is emphatic: “he looked fixedly at Peter”; it might even be translated: “he looked into Peter” (Luke 22 :61), as Peter himself also did, now that conscience was re-awakened by the strident cock-crow and the experience of that penetrating gaze.

But for his denials, Peter now had a superb opportunity to identify himself with Jesus, by going to his side and refusing to be separated from him. And that would have meant “prison and death,” as Peter had declared-a far more glorious outcome than what now transpired. This incident surely fulfilled the prophecy of John 1 :42 when Jesus “beheld him” (the same word as here) and called him Cephas, a stone-not a massive immoveable foundation rock, but a small stone, a stumbling block (Mt.16:23RV).

Thus, too late, “Peter remembered.” Mark, giving Peter’s own version doubtless, puts it this way: “he called to mind the word how that Jesus had said unto him . ..” (RV). That “how” suggests something of the solemn repetition with which Jesus had warned him.

This experience of Peter’s exposes the essence of all failure in time of temptation —he remembered too late! (Hence the emphasis in 2 Pet.l :12,13,15;3 :1). The disciple who has the commandments and warnings of his Lord clearly in mind, whilst not immune from temptation, is certainly fortified against it. But when Christ is out of mind, the disciple offers himself as a ready prey to almost any seduction.

A surge of self-contempt now swept over Peter: “When he thought thereon, he wept.” This is an unsatisfactory though not impossible translation of an enigmatic phrase. “Hurrying forth”, “casting his garment over his head” “bursting into tears”, “putting his hands over his face”, “smiting his breast,” are all possibilities. And the verb “he wept” means “he kept on weeping”-and well he might.

Peter’s wretchedness and self-loathing were not yet at their climax, for a few hours later he was to witness (1 Pet.5 :1) the harrowing sight of a Leader crucified and suffering and dying, and himself without any opportunity to draw near and confess and ask to be forgiven. For this he must wait in misery until the morning of resurrection brought him also forth from the darkness of a living death.

The contrast here with Judas is both moving and instructive. There was really little to choose between the sin of the two men, yet the one was restored to gracious intimacy with his Lord and became the leader of the early church, whilst the other went away and hanged himself. Little difference in the gravity of their sins, but all the difference in the world between their reactions-and this difference sprang ultimately from a difference in their assessment of Christ. To Peter Jesus was a Master who had suffered, being tempted and who therefore could succour them that are tempted. But Judas, convinced at the last that the one he had betrayed would indeed “sit at the right hand of power, and come in the clouds of heaven,” was also convinced that his sin was too great for even Jesus to forgive. So Judas went and hanged himself. What else could he do, poor fellow? But for the other there was the gracious word to the women at the tomb: “Go, tell his discples and Peter… “-especially Peter!

Annas, because he could make no progress in his private interrogation of Jesus or because the preparations for the formal trial were now well advanced, sent Jesus, still bound, unto Caiaphas. Doubtless there was attempt at further cross-questioning by Caiaphas, but the gospels say nothing about this. Their next concern is with Jesus before the Council.

Sanhedrin

This Sanhedrin consisted of seventy, or maybe seventy-one, members. There were two lesser Sanhedrins of twenty-three. It seems likely that these were in the nature of sub-committees, and that there may have been three of these, with the Great Sanhedrin made up by a fusing of all three. There is specific mention of “chief priests and scribes” to underline present fulfilment of Jacob’s vivid prophecy: “Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations” (Gen.49 :5; see “Enjoying the Bible,” H.A.W. p. 159). It is practically certain that Jesus was brought before the Great Sanhedrin, for two of the matters always explicitly referred to the full council were judgement of a false prophet (as Jesus was certainly deemed to be) and all questions involving the death penalty. This does not mean that all seventy members would be present on this occasion. At that hour of the night or early morning it would be virtually impossible to assemble the entire company. Nor would Annas and Caiaphas wish a full attendance. Doubtless the messengers who were sent out during the night to call these men together were sent selectively to those who, from the chief priest’s point of view, were “dependable.” It was sufficient to have a quorum of twenty-three members for a formal sitting of the Sanhedrin. Even so it may be taken as fairly likely that some secret sympathisers of Jesus were included in the number. Otherwise it is difficult to explain the human origin (Lk. l:2) of the detailed and vivid accounts of the trial as they appear in the gospels.

Legal irregularities

There were all kinds of irregularities in legal procedure this day. It was laid down that the Great Sanhedrin must never be convened during the hours of darkness, but always (according to Maimonides) between the time of the morning and evening sacrifice. Nor must the Council meet on a feast day. And if a capital charge were being considered, forty days must be allowed for the assembling of evidence for the defence. Also, the Sanhedrin was not to meet on the Day of Preparation.

The Talmud also declared: “In the judgements against the life of any man they begin first to transact about acquitting the party who is tried, and they begin not with those things which make for his condemnation.”

Also, if a man was condemned, at least twenty-four hours must elapse between sentence and execution.

It is difficult to reconcile the flouting of these legal principles with the evident anxiety of the rulers to preserve the forms of law in other respects. Perhaps-it is only a speculation-Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea was present, and came out into the open, protesting against the grosser illegalities and inadequacies of evidence.

Somewhere about this time (“forty years before the destruction of the Temple”, says one Jewish authority), the power of capital punishment was taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans and vested in the governor. Thus it may even be that the trial of Jesus was the first to be held under this new rule.

The line of investigation which seemed to offer the best prospect of success was the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah, for on the basis of such a claim Jesus could surely be branded a false prophet; and the same charge, with different emphasis, would also serve for his condemnation before Pilate.

Interrogation

Accordingly, Caiaphas put the direct question: “Art thou the Christ?” But Jesus was not to be trapped so easily. They had no legal right to seek to condemn him out of his own mouth, and of this Jesus gave them pointed reminder: “If I tell you, ye will not believe.” He used a very emphatic negative here, and justifiably so, for had he not told them already, in a wide variety of ways?-by his miracles, by the character of his teaching, by his reasoning from Scripture, by his triumphal entry into the city; yet they would in no wise believe.

So the defendant turned accuser: “If I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.” How is the ellipsis here to be filled out? Possibly thus: “If I also ask you what is the charge against me,” or more probably: “What do you believe to be the truth about my claims”-in which case Jesus was saying in effect: ‘On former occasions you have not answered my questions; either you would not, because afraid, or you could not, because confuted by my reasoning (Lk.20:1-7,23-26); then why should I answer your questions? But in any case you will not release me!’ Thus, finally, Jesus showed that he was aware of their illegality; thus he exposed their ruthless determination to destroy him. Thereafter he was silent before them, until the critical moment when he was put on oath by Caiaphas.

False witness

Since it seemed hopeless to entrap the prisoner by his own words, the prosecution “sought false witness against him” for they knew that no true witness of a damaging character was to be had.

This false witness, by men who doubtless were bribed for the purpose was already anticipated in prophecies about Messiah: “False witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty” (Ps.27 :12; cp. also 109 :2). “For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity, your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity” (Is.59 :3,4). Ps.35 :11-13 even suggests that at one time these witnesses may have benefitted from the healing power of Jesus, and still were his enemies.

To these unscrupulous men the stern warning of the Law (Dt.19 :16-21), that a false witness shall pay “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” according to his own malicious report, would be of little consequence. Nevertheless this law did apply. They sought destruction of the Temple of God (Mt.26:61), they paid “tooth for tooth” with the destruction of their own. They conspired for the life of Jesus, and thereby signed their own death warrant. Were they among that great number of Jews whom Titus crucified outside Jerusalem? (B.J.5.11,1).

In two places Mark implied that this seeking of false witness against Jesus was a protracted process. The main reason for this is given: “their witness agreed not together” – “such contradiction of sinners against themselves” (so some Greek MSS of Heb.12 :3). Clearly, from the chief priests point of view, this trial was not running smoothly. If the false witness brought against the prisoner was seen not to “agree together”, it can only be because the discordance was so evident that even a prejudiced Sanhedrin could not base a conviction on it. This, again, suggests that amongst those gathered in the assembly was at least one who was both fair-minded enough to see that the evidence was inadequate and also brave enough to expose it as such. Who might this be? The great Gamaliel was probably a secret sympathizer (“Acts”, H.A.W., ch.23).

But why did not their witness agree? The chief priests had had all the night, at least, in which to make full preparation of the case against Jesus. It would have been a comparatively simple matter, within hours, to get together two or three rogues and rehearse them thoroughly in the false witness they were to swear to at the trial. The varied and contradictory accusations show that in this respect the enemies of Jesus were caught badly unprepared.

The most likely explanation is that Judas had agreed to be chief witness of the prosecution, and at the last minute had refused to go through with it. Some such hypothesis is necessary in order to explain the chaotic inadequacy of the case against the accused. This testifying against Jesus in court would be the main item in Judas’s agreement with the rulers, for the actual apprehension of their enemy would be a comparatively simple matter which could have been carried through without Judas’s help, even if it meant waiting for a better opportunity. (For fuller details see the next Study).

“Destroy this temple”

It would seem, then, that the enemies of Jesus were in fear of seeing their prey slip through their fingers. Their exasperation must have been acute. At this crucial point in the trial (so the language of Mark would seem to imply), goaded to desperation, two members of the Sanhedrin, because the case for the prosecution was collapsing, now threw off the role of judge or jury and “came forward” (Mt.RSV)-Mk: “stood up” (s.w. Mk.14 :60), to testify against him:

“This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”

That Jesus had said something of the sort is clear from John’s narrative of Jesus’ first cleansing of the temple (Jn.2 :19,20). As Morison emphasizes so forcibly in “Who moved the stone?”, this witness by his worst enemies is as good proof as could be desired that Jesus did actually foretell his own resurrection on the third day!

The distortion of the actual words originally spoken should be noted. Jesus did not say: “I am able to destroy … and to build it…” But he did say: “(You) destroy (take down) . . . and I will raise it up.” The reason for the distortions made by these false witnesses is readily seen when the purpose behind the accusation is properly appreciated. It cannot be that they sought the death sentence against Jesus on the ground that he boastfully claimed the ability to raze their massive temple to the ground and to rebuild it single-handed in three days. Such a claim, adequately confirmed, might well qualify a man for a lunatic asylum, but certainly not for crucifixion.

It follows, then, that the gravamen of the charge was either that Jesus claimed power, authority and intention to replace with a new and different system of his own the religion taught by Moses and centred in the temple; or else he was claiming that the true sanctuary of God in the midst of Israel was himself. It could well be that both ideas, inter-related as they are, were seen by these highly intelligent men to be implicit in the words now quoted. A careful consideration of the details in the rest of the trial confirms this view.

But first it is worthwhile to observe that even now “neither did their witness agree together.” Even Matthew and Mark do not report the accusation identically. Mark has: “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will raise another made without hands.” It is not conceivable that these additional phrases represent an invention by the false witness. They must have been part of the original saying of Jesus, even though the narrative in John 2 does not include them.

In Daniel 2 :34 a stone cut out of the mountain “without hands” represents a king of divine origin; it would be so understood by Nebuchadnezzar, for Enlil-“The Great Mountain”-was the Babylonian Jupiter. It was surely to this Scripture that Jesus referred. These words are twice repeated in the New Testament in the sense just suggested-that Jesus was the true sanctuary of God in the midst of Israel: “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 7 :48). And: “Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands . . .” (Heb.9 :11). The deeper meaning behind the Lord’s words here has been expounded in Study 22.

It would seem, then, that whilst the main idea behind the claim of Jesus, sensational and damaging enough in itself, was clearly seen, “neither did their witness agree together” (literally: Even thus their testimony was not equal). Presumably there was such discrepancy as to time and place and detail as to make it easy for any councillor present, who was not intent on getting the prisoner condemned, to expose the weaknesses by a few common-sense objections (cp.Jn.7:50,51).

When such irregularities were evident in a trial, Jewish law required that the case be abandoned. But not in any circumstances was Caiaphas willing to consider doing that. In the face of all this, whilst Jesus “held his peace, and answered nothing” (praying silently? Ps.109 :4; ls.53 :7; 1 Pet.2 :23?), Caiaphas “stood up in the midst,” i.e. at the centre of the great semicircle in which the Sanhedrin was arranged, and to goad Jesus into reply: “Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee?” The remonstration carried the implication that the accusation just made about destroying and re-building the temple was a terribly serious one.

On oath

Faced with continuing silence Caiaphas cried out: “I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” The commentators, to a man, interpret this as a last desperate resort by a schemer who saw the case for the prosecution collapsing and his victim slipping through his fingers, and who therefore with blatant illegality had recourse to a hypocritical expedient. For example, Wieand puts it thus: “The high priest is exasperated.” Burgon’s phrase is: “Whereupon Caiaphas lost patience,” whilst Maclean in the Cambridge Greek Testament says: “Nothing remained but to force him, if possible, to incriminate himself.” Such an interpretation is itself an expedient.

Actually, this illegal interrogation had strict reference to the accusation already brought. This is implied by the phrase: “the high priest answered and said unto him.” Since Jesus had kept silence, this “answered” most likely connects with the allegation made by the false witnesess. In what now followed, every detail was strictly relevant to the accusations they had made.

To put the defendant on oath and to interrogate with a view to eliciting self-condemnatory admissions were both utterly illegal processes. Nevertheless Jesus, following the spirit of a higher law, accepted the oath; for Moses said: “If anyone sin in that he hetireth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Lev.5 :1RV). So Jesus felt bound to give answer, even though, most illegally, he was being made to bear witness against himself.

Also, specially relevant here is 1 Kings 8 :31,32 where Solomon’s prayer has the words: “If… an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house: then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.” True, Jesus was not “before the altar”, but since he was claiming to be the true sanctuary, he must reply. Not to do so would be to deny the truth of his own claim. And-although the mills of God ground slowly in this word of vindication and judgment—according to this Scripture God did “condemn the wicked, bringing his way upon his own head,” and He did “justify the righteous to give him according to his righteousness.” But outwardly, that day, justice was not done, neither did it at all appear to be done.

Messiah?

The full force of the words of Caiaphas and their relevance to what had already transpired have been almost entirely lost through their very familiarity. The phrases made deliberate allusion to God’s great Covenant with David (2 Sam.7). In it there was explicit promise of a Christ, a King of the Jews, who would not only be son of David (“out of thine own bowels”), but also Son of God (“I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son”). This promise came in a context of building a house for the name of Jehovah, not “a temple made with hands,” but a sanctuary of God which should consist of men who would be both seed of David and sons of God (verses 5,6,11). Both House and Kingdom were to be established through David’s divine son. It was to this Promise and the claim made by Jesus to be true House of God in Israel that Caiaphas’ desperate adjuration referred. Hence also the form of the oath: “I adjure thee by the living God”, that is, by the God of the living creatures, the God who sits enthroned above the Cherubim.

Let Jesus now give an explicit “Yes” to this question, and the Council had a case against him. If “No”, then here was an ignominious end to his Messiahship.

So he said “Yes”-“Thou hast said” is not to be read as a half-evasive “That is what you are saying about me.” The parallel in Mark 14:62 shows Jesus to be asserting an uncompromising affirmative: “I am” (cp. Jn.19:7)

Son of man

He could have stopped there. Worldly prudence and self-interest counselled that he should. But this was the very core of his message to men. He must “witness a good confession” before these Jewish leaders as he was also to do before Pilate: “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power.” This was a direct reference to Psalm 110, a prophecy which proclaims not only the kingship but also the priesthood of the Messiah. As David had sat in the presence of Jehovah to pray for his people and for the fulfilment of the Covenant (2 Sam.7 :18) so also Jesus-only in a far more effective sense than could ever be true of David. And was it unreasonable that one who knew himself to have such a destiny should claim to be himself God’s dwelling-place among His people? Thus in quoting Psalm 110 Jesus was, in effect, saying to his adversaries: ‘You may choose now to deem my claims the height of blasphemy. But I have already fulfilled many Scriptures and before long it will become evident to you that others yet more glorious belong to me and will be fulfilled through me!’

This assertion of priesthood would be specially galling to high-priest Caiaphas, for what access did he have to the divine presence? A few brief minutes, at most, on each Day of Atonement, and in a Holy of Holies which was bereft of ark, mercy-seat, cherubim and Shekinah Glory, and which contained nothing but a block of stone. No wonder the words of Jesus provoked a violent reaction. And so also with many of the elders, for, less than a week earlier, Jesus had quoted them the same Scripture in proof of his own virgin birth and divine sonship (Mt.22 :41-46), and had had from them no confutation (Study 166).

But, on oath, Jesus also said; “Ye shall see the Son of man . . . coming on (with) the clouds of heaven.” Here was the Biblical basis (Dan.7 :13) to his claim, now being branded as blasphemy, that he would share the very presence of Almighty God and with that divine Glory would come again as king of “a kingdom that shall not be destroyed.”

Inherent in this declaration of Jesus there is a certain difficulty which has been glossed over in the common version. Correctly translated the words are: “Henceforth (literally: from now) shall ye see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power . . .” The words “shall ye see” are to be taken as referring to spiritual understanding and mental grasp of truth concerning Jesus, as in his other declarations: “Henceforth ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man” (Jn.l :51); and: “From henceforth ye know him, and have seen him” (Jn.14 :7). In these the Greek is the same. Only by such interpretation can contradiction with other words of Jesus be avoided: “Ye shall not see me henceforth until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Mt.23 :39).

Probably from the moment when terrified soldiers came with a message of earthquake | and angels, and certainly from the ensuing Day of Pentecost, the truth of Christ’s priesthood and kingship was inescapably “seen” by all the men who had condemned him. “Henceforth” they knew for certain that he was their Messiah.

The allusions which Jesus had made to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 were immediately recognized: “Then said they all, “Art thou then the Son of God?” His claim to be the Messiah was now utterly unmistakable.

The picture of this entire Council of venerable elders all on their feet shouting at Jesus is a terribly impressive one, and so also is that of their triumphant satisfaction when Jesus returned yet another point-blank affirmative: “Ye say that I am.”

“Blasphemy!”

Thereupon with melodramatic solemnity “the high priest rent his clothes.” This rending of garments may have been a formality prescribed as an open condemnation of a specially heinous offence, but certainly-as in so many places in this part of the gospel story—the action was alive with dramatic irony. Caiaphas, this is your own open proclamation that your own office as high priest in henceforth abolished, and by your own act!

A high priest was not to rend his garments in mourning, not even for the death of a son (Lev. 10 :6; 21 :10). But now in the mind of Caiaphas there was only an evil gladness that at last this “Son of man, Son of God” would be sure to die before the day was dead. Certainly the early church would come to appreciate the unconscious symbolism here. The words of Jesus-“Henceforth shall ye see . . .” surely require that Caiaphas would also. According to the bald facts of history, he was deposed by Vitellius in A.D. 36 or 37, but actually his priesthood ended with the rejection of Jesus. The contrast with the seamless (priestly?) robe of Jesus (preserved untorn and worn again after his resurrection?) is very striking. (Study 227).

The intense relief of Caiaphas that now at last the prisoner’s condemnation was assured, is evident not only in the rending of garments but also in his triumphant appeal to this tribunal of justice: “He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard out of his own mouth. What is manifest to you?”-the Messianic glory he claimed, or his blasphemy? (There is a biting sarcasm here in Mark’s phrase which is past translation).

In their hearts these men knew how completely true was the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God (Lk.20 :14,19). Yet as a ground for condemnation they could wish for nothing better. The murder of the Son of God was now legalised. Strictly speaking, the Sanhedrin had no power to condemn Jesus to death. All they could do was to pronounce him deserving of it. “Guilty of death” (Mt.26:66) is, strictly, “liable to death” (Lev.24 :23; Df.18 :20). They must seek ratification of this from the Roman governor.

Beating and Mockery

Their evident relief at being now a big step nearer their objective thereupon expressed itself in astonishing fashion: “Then did they spit in his face, and buffet him.” This spitting in his face proclaimed him a disowned son of Israel (Num.12 :14); and the smiting re-enacted the indignities meted out to Samson by the Philistines (s.w. Jud.16 :25 LXX). A greater than Samson among men worse than Philistines!

Between them, the synoptists harness almost every word they can muster to describe this vile experience: “beat, clout, throw(l), flog, punch.” the phrasing in both Matthew and Mark requires the meaning that the elders themselves treated Jesus in this abominable fashion. The picture of these dignitaries descending to such contumelious behaviour is almost past imagining, yet it was already written in the prophets: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (ls.50 :6). In Ps.22 :16, “the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me,” the key word describes the Jewish Council; and in verse 13 the word “mouth” (Heb. and RV) emphasizes its unanimity — “they all condemned him.” Jacob had prophesied: “Simeon and Lev! (scribes and priests) are brethren; instruments of violence are their financial agreements … for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they houghed an ox (sacrifice)” (Gen.49:5,6).

And Jesus himself, instructed by such a Scripture, had forewarned his disciples: “The Son of man shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spit upon” (Lk.l8:32).

The men of the temple guard, who had custody of Jesus, naturally took their cue from their masters; they blindfolded him and then “smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?” (cp. Lk.7 :39). Bar-Cochbah the false Messiah of A.D.135, was treated in precisely this way by his Roman captors. But there is one important difference: one day Jesus will prophecy, identifying those who smote him!

It would appear (from Mt.27 :1 and Lk.22 :66) that the Sanhedrin was formally and briefly re-convened when daylight came, in order to ratify their evil scheme pushed through in the hours of darkness. There was, apparently, a rule not only that meetings of the Council should take place in daylight but also that a man be not condemned at the session at which he was tried. Thus is provided another interesting commentary on their strange determination that this trial be, as far as possible, fully legal. Even so, there were illegalities in plenty. There was also need, doubtless, to plan how most effectively to present their case before Pilate, so as to ensure a capital sentence.

The original text possibly implies that a brief consultation was all that was necessary. In any case there must be no loss of time if the crucifixion of Jesus was to be carried through that day, before the Passover sabbath came on. So it was with a haste that was unlike all known processes of law that Jesus was hurried away to Pilate, so that together Jews and Gentiles might contrive the death of the the only begotten Son of God.

Notes: Mt. 26:59-66

59.	All the council. At this time practically the entire Sanhedrin would be in or very close to Jerusalem because of Passover.
	False witness A Mishna passage tells how in a trial on a capital charge a special warning was addressed to witnesses and a great curse if they should fail to speak truth
63.	The living God. Many Scriptures suggest the meaning: “the God of the living creatures”, e.g. Deut.5 .-26; Josh.3:10, 11; 2 Cor.6 :16; Heb.12 :22; Rev.7 :2. Note also the relevance of this challenge to the Lard’s claim to be the sanctuary of God destroyed and raised up.
	Art thou the Christ? etc. Verses 63-67 have a parallel in Lk. 22 :66 ff. So it has to be concluded that Lk. has deliberately misplaced these verses (as in several other instances); but why is not clear.

Mk. 14:55-64

58.	Another. Gk: alias. Yet heteros would seem to be more appropriate!
	Made with hands. In LXX this always refers to idolatry; contrast Is.66:1, 2.
61.	Again seems to imply an interval—for consultation?
63.	His garments. Mk. uses the word which in LXX means priestly garments, and not under-garments (as many commentators say).
65.	Covered his face; Ps.69:7.

Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus has a detail of special significance: “Then Judas. . . when he sow that he was condemned, repented himself. ..” This word “saw” must surely mean that Judas was present at the trial, and saw with his own eyes all that took place. It is true that a secondary meaning is possible: that he gathered or understood that Jesus was condemned. But even this would require that Judas had spent those hours in close proximity to the Council. The word “then” supports this conclusion.

Either way, this seems to be psychologically all wrong. The natural inclination of such a traitor would be to remove himself as far as possible from the scene of his evil work as soon as the money had been paid over. The explanation which best harmonizes with the other details of the trial is that the thirty pieces of silver were only a token payment. The rest of the bribe, the main part of it, was to be for Judas’s help in the role of chief witness for the prosecution. The reason why the Jewish leaders found their case against Jesus so inadequate, and liable to collapse altogether, is best explained by the traitor’s last-minute refusal to go through with this part of the deal.

If this hypothesis is correct—and it explains so much that is otherwise rather odd about the trial-then the interesting problem arises: What brought about this change in Judas? And to this the best answer available appears to be that the witness Jesus gave about himself at the trial (Mt. 26: 61,64) brought a sudden flood of understanding into the mind of Judas, so that all at once he realised that Jesus as the sanctuary of God wouldbe “destroyed” and “raised again”, that he would sit as God’s right hand, and that he would come again in judgment. Such a realisation suddenly illuminating his mind must have brought into the soul of this wretched man a misery past description.

The reaction described in the gospel would be inevitable: “He repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver.” It is idle to say, as has been so often said, that this was unrepentant remorse (if there be such a thing). Pharaoh, Saul and Ahab were genuinely sorry for their misdeeds (Ex.9 :27; 1 Sam.15 :24; 1 Kgs.21 :27); and the word used of Judas, though not the normal New Testament word for repentance, is certainly used with the same meaning (e.g. in Mt. 21: 29,32; 2 Cor. 7:8; Heb 7:21).

Repentance

Then where lay the vital difference between Judas and Peter, for the sin of the latter (Mt. 26; 69-74) was surely not appreciably worse than that of his fellow-disciple? The answer lies in their different estimate of Jesus. Peter knew his lord well enough to realise that, if only he were in his presence again, the sin would be forgiven. But Judas, believing more definitely than Peter did at that time that Jesus would rise again, could not bear the thought of meeting his Master again. “Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven” (Gen. 4: 13 RVm). Grievously underestimating the grace of Christ, as also did the unworthy servant in the parable (Mt. 25; 24), he went away and destroyed himself.

But first he made his confession: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.” It was a confession carrying with it the clear implication that the claims made by Jesus during his ministry and just now at his trial were true. He was the Messiah. And though slain he would rise again and ascend to heaven. And in due time he would come again “on the clouds of heaven.” Poor wretched creature, that this belated confession of faith did not also include faith enough to believe that even this great sin of his might be forgiven by so gracious a Lord!

Suicide

His desperation and misery found little comfort from the priests to whom he now returned: “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Even these hard selfish worldly men would scarcely have been so unconsoling to one who had been their close associate in evil, unless they had felt strong resentment against him. The hypothesis advanced earlier, that Judas was to have been chief witness for the prosecution but at the last minute let them down, harmonizes with this situation perfectly.

The rough words: “See thou to that,” may be just a callous shrugging off of the traitor’s desperation. But, literally translated, the tense is a future: “Thou shalt see to that,” with the possible meaning: “If any trouble arises with the Roman authorities over this, we shall make surethatthe blame is pinned on you/’Such would certainly be a natural reaction if indeed Judas had let them down. But to this frantic man with his new realisation of the truth about Christ, their words: “You shall answer for it,” would sound worse than a death sentence, for to whom would he have to answer but to a “Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Judas’s utterly distraught frame of mind comes out clearly in the remarkable incident which ensued: “He cast the pieces of silver down in the temple.” Literally the passage reads: “in the sanctuary”. This detail seems to imply that the chief priests, intercepted in the temple area on their way to Pilate at the castle of Antoia, retreated to the porch of the sanctuary itself in an attempt to escape from the unwelcome attentions of this frantic man whom they despised. But he followed them even there, and threw the blood money after them. The picture of those unclean coins rolling across the floor of the holy place is a fascinating one, as also is that of august dignified rulers scrambling here and there to gather up the evidence of their own complicity.

Meantime Judas left them abruptly and rushed away (Mt. “he cleared out”-LXX usage: “he fled”), and hanged himself. The grim scene had been enacted a thousand years before in prototype (2 Sam. 17:23). And some years later Pilate also committed suicide (so saysEusebius).

Later on, the ghastly details about Judas were rehearsed by Peter (Acts 1 :18). But it is possible to read Peter’s story differently: “And becoming downcast (with remorse), he burst into the midst (of the chief priests), and poured forth (s.w. Jn. 2 :15) all his feelings.” Read in this way the two narratives match each other.

The field “purchased with the reward of iniquity” was the potter’s field which has been identified as a bed of clay at the south-east corner of the valley of Hinnom (note Jer. 19:1,2).Here at the end of thecity remote from Golgotha this poor wretch came to his untimely end, and presumably his grisly remains would ultimately be slung out into Gehenna.

Aceldama

Later on, when the excitement of that Passover had died down somewhat, the chief priests took counsel what should be done with the thirty pieces of silver. This money had probably been diverted from the temple treasury, for if it had come out of their own purses they would have had few scruples about pocketing it again. But now it would not be lawful to put this tarnished silver into the treasury. The conscience which they evinced was doubtless genuine, for human nature is capable of strange quirks. These men thought nothing of a gross distortion of justice in order to rid themselves of a troublesome adversary, yet over details such as this (and also their refusal to enter Pilate’s judgement hall on Passover Day, and also having a corpse on a cross on the ensuing sabbath John 18: 28 and 19: 31) they could hardly be too punctilious. Yet there was no sign of conscience when they called the money ‘the price of blood’. Amongst themselves they spoke without any dissimulation, but instead with a crude brutal frankness.

So, it was some time later, after the suicide of Judas, when the potter’s field again came into the real estate market at a give-away price, that they decided to buy it with the carefully hoarded thirty pieces of silver—a useful piece of land “to bury strangers in”.

This burying place, bought (in effect) by Jesus, thus provided a place where strangers-Gentiles!—might sleep and rise again in God’s Holy City. How different from the use to which Judas had put it! “Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” The Gentiles who died in Jerusalem would mostly be those believing in the God of Israel. In the course of the next forty years these must have included a big proportion of Gentile Christians. And they sleep in ground bought by the death of Jesus and which by rights belongs to him. It was only princes of the house of Judah who were buried inside the walls of Jerusalem (so 2 Chr. 24:16 seems to imply).

Nor were these things done in a corner, for by common consent that spot changed its name. It was no more “the potter’s field”, but instead, Aceldama, a title which means both “field of blood” (Judas’s suicide) and “the field of silence”. By those who later knew the place only as a cemetery the latter would be the accepted meaning. But disciples of Jesus would always translate that name as “the field of blood”, because purchased with blood money.

Zechariah or Jeremiah?

There is still one problem regarding the death of Judas to be considered. Matthew 27: 9 reads: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom they priced away from the children of Israel; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”

But these words are not to be found in Jeremiah. Instead they occur in Zechariah 11:12, 13. Thus is created one of the best-known problems of the New Testament text. Widely varying explanations have been advanced:

1. That Matthew originally wrote “Zechariah” and that the ascription of this quotation to Jeremiah is a scribal error. This is a prime example of “if the facts don’t fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts;” for out of the mass of manuscripts only two or three (and they of little repute) read “Zechariah”.
2. Simple lapse of memory on Matthew’s part. This, of course, involves the deplorable assumption either that the Holy Spirit had no part in the composition of the gospels, or — almost, if not quite as bad — that the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Matthew did not cover mere accuracy as to facts. It also involves another assumption, vetoed by all the rest of this gospel, that Matthew was, extraordinarily careless in the assembling of his material.
3. Another explanation puts emphasis on the word “spoken.” The suggestion is that Matthew knew that, although the passage about the thirty pieces of silver was included in a written prophecy of Zechariah, it was originally spoken by Jeremiah. The double difficulty here is the complete lack of supporting evidence and the fact that Zechariah 11: 12,13 appears to “belong” to the prophecy where it is found. Also, the same phrase comes in verse 35 with reference to a prophecy which was certainly written.
4. A different approach suggests that Matthew 27: 9,10 is really a combination of Zechariah 11 with allusion to Jeremiah’s purchase of a field for money (Jer.32 :7-10), and that Jeremiah’s name is appended to the quotation because the key word “field” comes in Jeremiah 32 and not in Zechariah 11. But it has to be noted that Jeremiah’s field was in Anathoth, and cost him seventeen shekels of silver, not thirty.
5. Discussing this problem, Sir Isaac Newton decided that Matthew knew what he was about and that therefore Zechariah 11 was written by Jeremiah. This conclusion is most likely to be the correct one. A fair amount of evidence exists for believing that Zechariah 9-14 is by a different author from ch.1-8, For instance, more than thirty similarities of language and idea can be traced between i§ Jeremiah’s prophecies and the second half of what is known today as “Zechariah”, Also, in Zechariah 9-14 there are passages which are extremely difficult to associate with the time of the return from Babylon, but which become much more intelligible when read against the background of the evil days in which Jeremiah lived. So perhaps there is something to be said for the correctness of Matthew’s record after all.

Notes: Mt. 27:3-10

3.	Thirty pieces of silver. Matthew is the only writer to mention this precise sum of money. How did he know? Does Acts 6:7 explain?
5.	In the temple; Gk. naos. Not “into”, as RV gives it.
7-10	are best regarded as a parenthesis describing what happened some time later.
8.	The field of blood. Note the emphasis on “blood” in v. 4,6,8,24,25.

“I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood”, was the horror-stricken cry of poor remorseful Judas. Innocent blood! In the Old Testament the phrase has unusually thought-provoking associations.

Here is a key to unlock hitherto unsuspected prophecies of the Messiah.

Jeremiah 19

The prophet is commanded (v.l) to “get (RV: buy) a potter’s earthen bottle”, and with this in hand to denounce the wickedness and idolatry of his comtemporaries. “Then shalt thou break it in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city . .. and they shall bury them in Tophet till there be no place to bury . . . Behold, I will bring upon this city, and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks that they might not hear my words” (v.10,11,15).

One of the grounds of denunciation was that “they have filled this place with the blood of innocents”. Even without the hint provided by Matthew’s significant record of the words of Judas, it would be tempting to read this chapter again as a prophecy of doom against Jerusalem because of its rejection of the Son of God, and also because of the “innocent blood” of men like James and Stephen who testified in Jerusalem concerning the resurrection of Christ.

An earthen vessel used for temple purposes, once it became defiled (Lev. 15: 12), was to be smashed. Even so Israel in the time of the apostles. The message of the coming retribution was to be such as would cause ears to tingle (v.3). This sinister phrase occurs in one other place, as prelude to the revelation given through the boy Samuel of the imminent rejection of Eli’s family from the office of High-priest. So also in Jeremiah’s day (“remove the mitre, and take off the crown”), and so also after the crucifixion of the Lord’s Anointed. The prophet Caiaphas little realised how direct was the divine guidance which bade him rend his high-priestly robes at the trial of Jesus! “Being high priest that year, he prophesied”, says the apostle John.

Tophet and Hinnom were to become the valley of Slaughter (v.6). That appointed destination of criminals and murderers was to witness the wholesale destruction of those who had blasphemed the Son of God and murdered him.

“And I will empty out the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies . . . And I will make this city to be an astonishment and an hissing: every one that passeth by shall be astonished and hiss, because or all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters” (v.7-9).

It needs but small acquaintance with the curses of Deuteronomy 28 to recognize here Jeremiah’s quotation from it. And it needs equally small acquaintance with the heartrending story of the sufferings of Jerusalem’s people in A.D.70 to recognize that, however applicable these words may have been to the siege of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, they are a distinct prophecy also of the havoc and rapine wrought by the army of Roman Titus.

And all this because “they have filled this place with the blood of the innocents.”

Deuteronomy 21

Verse 1-9 give the details of procedure in a case of undetected murder in Israel.

If the body were found “lying in the field”, then elders and judges were to ascertain carefully the nearest city. The elders of this place were to comeintoa nearby wadi, and there slay a heifer. In presence of the priests they were to wash their hands over the heifer, at the same time making solemn declaration: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge.”

Thus the issue was submitted to the priests: “By their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried.” This remarkable law applied, or rather, failed to be applied to the murder of Jesus.

The nearest city was, of course, Jerusalem. Its elders, specially mentioned in the gospel narratives (e.g. Mt. 27: 1), did not wash their hands (but Pilate did, thus overtly removing guilt from himself to them). And though they did not wash, the day will come when their descendants will; for many a passage in the prophets speaks of the repentance of Israel in the last days. “In that day shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech. 13: 1).

Nor could these elders declare: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it”, for they themselves buffeted him spitefully at his trial, and when he was brought to Calvary, “sitting down, they watched him there.”

And it was futile for them to pray: “Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel”, for the innocent blood could be in no wise forgiven them. Three times Messianic prophecy declared: “Pray not for this people” (Jer. 7: 16; 11: 14; 14: 11).

The word of the priests was to be decisive in judgement, as the voice of God. And their word—cynical, yet prophetic—had been: “His blood be upon us, and upon our children.” And it was, and still is.

The last two curses of Deuteronomy 27 fall respectively upon Judas and upon the priests who perverted justice and the law of God in every possible way in order to gain their fell purpose: “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Dt. 27:25,26).

Isaiah 59

This prophecy reads aptly enough as a denunciation of the demoralised nation in the prophet’s own time, but once again the key phrase “innocent blood” (v.7) gives this inspired utterance a later and more important application. Some of these details have been considered in Study 186.

1 Samuel 19

In one of the most dramatic expressions of the jealousy and hatred of Saul for David, there is enacted an impressive, and much neglected, type of the plotting of the rulers against Jesus.

Even though David had Jonathan on his side, there was no restraining Saul’s animosity: “Wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?” (19: 5). Similarly, although there were men like John the Baptist (the name is the same as Jonathan) and wise councillors like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea to plead the cause of Jesus before the nation, it was in vain. The rulers were determined to slay “David” without a cause, for was it not written of him: “They hated me without a cause”? They went back on their resolve not to arrest Jesus at the feast, as Saul did on his promise to spare David. Instead, it was then that they crucified him.

David’s further victories over the Philistines (v.8) were but the signal for more determined outbursts of fury and jealousy against him. For what was now the third time (v.10; 18:10,11) Saul sought to pin David to the wall with his javelin, but he evaded the blow and got away. In just the same way Jesus somehow avoided being taken by his enemies (Jn. 8 :59; 10:39).

The climax of opposition to David came with a deliberately planned attempt on his life. It was a night of intense prayer by David, as Psalm 59 bears witness. With the aid of Michael he escaped to the sanctuary at Ramah, and in the morning there was found only an empty bed, o goat’s hair pillow and the teraphim.

All of these details are significant. The mention of goats’ hair is a reminder of the scapegoat on the Day of Antonement for sin. The Greek version translates “teraphim” by a word which normally means ‘tomb’ (our word cenotaph). Thus David’s escape pictures the resurrection of Christ when the angel of the Lord rolled away the stone so that the sinless Sin-Bearer might rise to new life and go to the presence of his Father. And all that remained to further confound the adversaries were an empty tomb and the symbols of mortality now left behind for ever.

The entire prayer of David in Psalm 59 (written about this bitter experience) could be cited here with reference to Jesus with an appropriateness which would be astonishing if it were not to be expected. Here are some of the verses:

“Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God: set me on high (his ascension?) from them that rise up against me . . . the mighty are gathered against me, not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O Lord … awake to visit all the Gentiles (the chief priests used Pilate and Herod the Edomite just as Saul used Doeg the Edomite . . . Slay them not, lest my people forget: make them wander to and fro by thy power … let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth … I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.”

The conclusion of this exciting experience of David’s is equally significant. Saul sought to continue the persecution. He sent messengers to apprehend David, but these who came to curse stayed to bless. Eventually Saul came in person and became himself a changed man: “He stripped off his clothes also and prophesied and lay down naked all that day and all that night.”

Similarly, ‘Why persecutes! thou me?’ was the remonstrance addressed to the emissary of wickedness from Jerusalem, with the result that “he which persecuted in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.”

Further, the day is soon to come when the nation itself is to come into the presence of the brd’s Anointed when the tabernacle of God is with men, and then conversion will be complete, as, divested of all self-righteousness and self-reliance, the people of the King humbly prostrate themselves before him whom once they refused. Repenting of the innocent blood which they shed, they will glorify God in confession and praise.

Psalm 94,

The phrase “innocent blood” occurs in v.21. It is the second part of this psalm, where the pronouns change from plural to singular, which is palpably a prophecy of Christ.

First, however, it is to be noted, as a matter not without interest or relevance, that Psalm 93, which has verbal connections with this one, was appointed by the Jews for use in the Temple on Passover Day, whereas, according to the Jewish Calendar, Psalm 94 was sung two days previously.

Hence it follows from Mark 14 :1 that on the very day that Judas and the chief priests were concluding their evil contract, these words were being sung before the Lord in the temple, Jesus himself probably being present at the service, the only one in all that throng who realised precisely what it portended: “They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous one, and condemn the innocen* blood.”

The psalm speaks eloquently of Christ in Gethsemane: “Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said my foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held meup”(v.l7,18).

It is to be noted that these words make divine help in the crisis of the Lord’s conflict absolutely essential. The textual critics, slaves to a theory, who would discard the passage about Jesus being strengthened by an angel (Lk.22: 43), are proved wrong by the prophecy here which demonstrates in graphic fashion how intense was the Lord’s struggle against the power of sin. But (the psalm continues) “in the multitude of my doubts (RV) within me thy comforts delight my soul!”

There are several references here to the trial of Jesus. There is the description of certain who “stood up and bare false witness against him” (Mk. 14:57 RV), and the pathetic cry of the one who was left to face his accusers alone: “Who will rise up for me against evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?”(v.16).

“Shall the throne of iniquity which frameth mischief by law have fellowship with thee?” (v.20). This “throne of iniquity” is surely the high-priesthood; for who more than the high-priest, with his annual access to the Holy of Holies, had better opportunity of fellowship with God? But instead he and others of his kind “framed mischief by statute” (RV); they plotted against their Messiah, and sought to cover the infamy with a show of legality.

But though they might hide their iniquity from man, it could not be hidden from God. “They gather themselves together against the soul of the Righteous One, and condemn the innocent blood;” but (the Lord) shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off” (v.21,23). Here is a kind of anticipatory “echo” of the priests’ own derisive words: His blood be upon us and upon our children”, in marked contrast to the declaration, stamped with all sincerity, which should have been theirs: “Be merciful, O Lord, and lay not innocent blood to thy people of Israel’s charge” (Dt.21:8).

For all their guilt, the psalm asserts the ultimate restoration of this rebel nation: “The Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance” (v.14). Paul uses these very words in a burning importunity for his rejected brethen: “God hath not cast off his people which he foreknew” (Rom.11 :2). The day will yet dawn when “judgment shall return to the Righteous One” (v.15).

Jonah

“As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt. 12:40).

The type is reinforced in the story of Jonah by the use in the sailors’ prayer of the now familiar phrase “innocent blood”: “We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood.”

Thus Jonah was cast forth into the sea, that the lives of those with him in the ship might be spared. Remembering that the sea is used in, Scripture as a figure of the grave (e.g. Rom. 10:7), the parallel with the sacrifice of Christ can be readily perceived. In a different sense, his innocent blood is laid upon men, for it is the “sprinkling of the blood of Christ” which brings safety and salvation, as to those men of prayer in Jonah’s ship. Further, when Jonah came forth from the fish’s belly, he pursued his divine mission, proclaiming: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” But Nineveh repented, and it wasn’t

After Jesus came out of the tomb the message went forth through his apostles, saying (in effect): “Yet forty years, and Jerusalem shall be overthrown.” But this time there was no repentance, so it was.

Thus in half a dozen places—and there are certainly more—it has been possible to use Judas the betrayer as an unwitting (?) interpreter of Messianic prophecy.

Whilst Jesus was suffering all manner of indignity at the hands of the high priest’s retainers, another meeting of all the council was taking place at first light of dawn. In this way (See Study 219), they sought to legalise what had already been decided during the hours of darkness. In spite of the injunction of the rabbis: “Be tardy in judgement”, these evil men were in a hurry. This meeting was brief and clear-cut, but it included amongst other things a consultation as to the best tactics to be employed when bringing the case before Pilate. “While they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life” (Ps.31 :13).

Pilate bribed?

Little difficulty was anticipated here, for already a rogues’ agreement had been reached with the governor, and the smooth working of it ensured, as they thought, by judicious bribery. This much can be inferred from two passages of Scripture. In the course of the trial “Pilate’s wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him” (Mt. 27:19). Even allowing for the possibility that this might have been a special revelation from heaven, the inference is still to be made that Pilate’s wife had become somehow aware that early on this particular day the condemnation of the prophet of Nazareth had been pre-arranged. Yet evidently the message had been sent immediately she awoke and before she could become acquainted with the momentous events that were even then going forward.

This strange incident implies (so Morison infers in “Who Moved the Stone?”) that a deputation from the chief priests had waited on Pilate the night before with a view to securing his acquiescence in a prompt and speedy condemnation of Jesus early next day. In the usual way of things it would scarcely be possible to be confident of Pilate’s co-operation at about half an hour’s notice next morning. On the other hand, it would be perfectly normal (and undoubtedly desirable from the point of view of both Pilate and Caiaphas) to give as much advance notice as possible of this piece of legal business. Hence, almost certainly, after Jesus had been arrested-or maybe even whilst the soldiers were on their way to arrest him-emissaries from the chief priests went hastily through the night to Pilate, apologetically craving audience at such a late hour, explaining with emphasis the extreme urgency of the matter in hand, and unctuously soothing the uncertain temper of the governor with a substantial gift.

The detailed prophecy concerning Christ in Micah 7:3 is very forceful here: “Their hands are upon that which is evil to do it diligently; the prince (Herod) asketh (for a sign; Luke 23: 8), and the judge (Pilate) is ready for a reward; and the great man (Caiaphas), he uttereth the mischief of his soul: thus they weave it together” (RV). It needed the co-operation of these three worldlings to consummate the destruction of the Son of God.

A further hint will soon be available in John’s record that Pilate had already been given warning of what was afoot and had intimated his willingness to oblige.

As soon as the Sanhedrin had concluded its deliberations, Jesus was led away to Pilate. There went also “the whole multitude of them”-the entire Sanhedrin-to impress Pilate with the gravity of the case now being submitted to him. This simple fact is a measure of the unrelenting hatred these venerable elders bore the Man of Righteousness in their midst.

The governor’s praetorium or headquarters was almost certainly in the castle of Antonio, overlooking the temple area, where also the Roman garrison was quartered. This may be implied in Mark 15 :8 RV: “And the multitude went up and began to ask him . . .” The expression would hardly be appropriate if Pilate were, as some assert, at the palace of Herod.

Pilate’s character

This Pontius Pilate was not one of Rome’s aristocrats. His name probably connects with the pileus of Roman f reedmen (of whom Felix was one). However, a fortunate marriage to the daughter of Sejanus, Tiberius Caesar’s favourite, had made his career. Unfortunately Pilate never understood these intractable Jews whom he was called upon to govern. His administration was marred by a series of grievous blunders (or were they unhappy mischances?)

For example, Pilate thought it would surely please Caesar to have Roman eagles installed in Jerusalem — an open sign of Rome’s might and authority. A firm believer in the fait accompli, Pilate had them brought into the holy city under cover of darkness. The Jews could not have taken this insult against their city worse. They picketed the governor’s palace at Caesarea, blocking all access by simply lying down in crowds, until at last Pilate had to give way.

Again, one of the finest things the governor did was to build an aqueduct to bring water from the Pools of Solomon into Jerusalem. But the tactless fellow raided the temple treasury to pay for it. When riots broke out, he sent some of is troops disguised as worshippers into the temple court, and there they massacred innocent and guilty alike (Lk.13 :!?). Order was restored, but love for Rome was not.

On another occasion, doubtless seeking to honour Tiberius, he had gilt imperial shields hung in his palace at Jerusalem. The result of this faux pas was a strong and influential deputation to the emperor himself who promptly bade his governor remove the offending symbols. At length there was another bloody incident when Pilate had a crowd of troublesome Samaritans slaughtered. This led to his recall in A.D. 36. The next Caesar, Caligula, stripped him of his office, and later on he committed suicide, perhaps by order of the emperor.

Philo has left a description of Pilate as “inflexible, merciless, and obstinate”. He refers to “his corruptions, his acts of insolence, his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, and his freuent murder of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity.” But indeed Pilate hardly shows in this light in the gospels. Philo, it is to be remembered, was a Jew, and therefore quite disinclined to say anything but evil about a Roman governor.

The various massacres which Pilate was undoubtedly reponsible for were the kind of incident that any Roman administrator might be responsible for. These things were typical of them.

The biggest problem regarding this man is that, from every angle, his character, as sketched in the gospels, seems to be completely at variance with the picture of him provided by both Jewish and pagan authors. There might be one point in common—the recognition by the Jews that if only they brought sufficient pressure to bear they could impose their will on him. Pilate certainly feared, and the Jews knew that he feared, an appeal to Rome regarding his administrative blunders.

Pilate’s dramatic change

Although it was not yet six o’clock when Jesus was brought before him, Pilate was ready to proceed with the case immediately. For the priests and scribes entrance to the precincts of Pilate’s headquarters would mean, according to their tradition, such serious defilement that they would be disqualified from eating the Passover that same evening (Pr. 30:12; Is. 66:3,4). So they stayed outside in the corner of the temple court adjoining Antonia. Whilst they waited —with what impatience can readily be guessed—a crowd gathered, possibly because they scented that something untoward was afoot, possibly and perhaps most probably because it was the time when they should receive from the procurator their valued Passover gift-one of their public favourites, set free as an act of grace.

Pilate’s first interview with Jesus is unrecorded and was probably brief, but it was sufficient to produce in the governor an immediate volte face which in its turn brought consternation and confusion amongst the enemies of the Lord.

Going out to them-one can picture him addressing them from the higher level of the praetorium courtyard – Pilate spoke impersonally as though he had had no previous acquaintance whatever with the strange case now under judgement: “What accusation bring ye against this man?”

The men to whom he spoke were evidently caught altogether unawares by this request. They had no reply ready, and could only assert with an insolence which was inadequate to cover their confusion: “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” One can almost hear the implied reproach: “Pilate, you are not playing fair! What about our agreement?”

Yet on the face of it Pilate’s question was perfectly reasonable, and their legal unpreparedness was utterly unreasonable in view of their errand. This part of the narrative only makes sense on the assumption already suggested, that Pilate had been not only forewarned, but also “squared”, so that he would assent to their wishes. Only too evidently, the priests expected that Pilate would rubber-stamp their condemnation of Jesus without demur. Yet instead the man insisted on making confident that, for once, they would find him helpful and obliging!

Evasion

The explanation of this changed attitude, as pointed out by Morison, is very simple: Pilate had seen Jesus and had talked with him. He had immediately recognized that here was a prisoner vastly different in character from the ordinary run of disturbers of the peace. And since there was no love lost between himself and the Jewsih leaders, he felt no compunction at all in going back on his “gentleman’s agreement”.

“Take ye him, and judge him according to your law”. Thus Pilate intimated his unwillingness to be entangled in a vicious prosecution of one so palpably innocent. ‘Crucifixion of this Jesus is out of question. You may condemn him on some lesser charge if you wish’. Already Pilate was wishing himself rid of the affair.

In reply the priests showed their equally strong determination to be satisfied with nothing less than the death of Jesus: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jos. B.J. 2,8,1), thus grimly implying: ‘If it were, Jesus would have been dead long ago; but as it is, we must have your official sanction.’ According to the Talmud the power of life and death was taken from the Sanhedrin forty years before the temple was destroyed. Then was this the first case of its kind?

The stoning of Stephen, difficult to harmonize with these known facts, was very probably an example of lynch-law carried out in defiance of the government, perhaps at a time when a change over of governors was taking place. This is precisely what happened years later when James, the Lord’s brother was stoned. And then high-priest Ananias lost his office through it (Jos. Ant. 20,9,1).

Thus if Jesus was to die, he must die at the hands of the Romans and therefore by their normal method of execution-crucifixion. In this way, so John notes, was to be fulfilled the prophecy Jesus had made that the Son of man must be “lifted up” (the words were evidently a current colloquialism signifying crucifixion: John 12 :32-34 seems to require such an interpretation).

It might be noted in passing that in making this point John uses language concerning Jesus’ prophecy, (“that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled”) identical with that which he uses to allude to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, thereby putting the two on the same level. Yet how many in these days would give Old Testament prophecy such an exalted status?

Improvised charges

The priests, desperate and goaded beyond measure by Pilate’s intransigence, hastily improvised accusations of a sort. These Luke summarises thus:

• he is perverting (i.e. turning away) the prophecy, thereby putting the two on the same level. Yet how many in these days would nation;
• he forbids to give tribute to Caesar;
• he proclaims himself Christ, a King.

The charge of blasphemy by which they had declared him worthy of death would be utterly useless before Pilate (cp. Acts 18 :14-17).

The first of the accusations can hardly have meant “turning the Jews away from Rome”, for that was the real meaning of the second charge. It could only mean “turning the people away from accepting our authority”, in which case—quite apart from its vagueness-it was laughable as a basis for prosecution. Even if true, what would Pilate care?

The second charge was a deliberate lie, for less than a week earlier these men had heard Jesus teach: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. And Pilate, who doubtless had his secret agents, probably knew the truth regarding this.

The third accusation was true. It was the one on which they themselves had condemned Jesus; only now they gave it a strong political twist, to impress Pilate the more. But even as they said the words they must have had only uncertain hope that their charge would be upheld, for what was there of the political aspirant about this mild Galilean that Pilate should mete out the most savage of all sentences?

King of the Jews?

Pilate returned into the Praetorium io interrogate Jesus concerning the last of these matters, albeit with incredulity. “Art thou the King of the Jews?” he asked.

Jesus did not give immediate answer, but sought first to ascertain Pilate’s motive in asking. Was he really interested in Jesus as a man with o mission? Or was he merely concerned to deal with his prisoner as impersonally and speedily as possible, one more legal decision in a boring endless routine: “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”

Pilate must have been startled. There was so little of the prisoner-in-the-dock demeanour about this man. With an affectation of brusque indifference he held Jesus at arm’s length. He had no wish for this conversation to become uncomfortably personal. “Am I a Jew? (perhaps implying: ‘Why should I think you a King? You don’t look like one. Only a Jew could imagine that!’) Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me (Why should Jewish rulers want to co-operate ruthlessly with Rome against one of their own people?). What hast thou done?”

Jesus answered: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (contend by law?), that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” So Jesus knew of Pilate’s attempt to hand him back to the Jews! What impression would this leave on Pilate’s mind. “But now (he added) is my kingdom not from hence.”

The words have been much misunderstood, as implying an other-worldly kingdom, a purely spiritual realm. But actually Jesus was saying that his kingdom is not to rest on the wielding of human power such as Pilate’s. Hoskyns paraphrases neatly: “Ho does not say that this world is not the sphere of his authority, but that his authority is not of human origin.” But now (note the present tense: “is”) he claimed no kingdom of the kind that Rome might resent. Yet there was in the words a plain implication that at some future time developments of a different kind could be looked for.

The Truth

Pilate fastened on this immediately: ‘be you are a king then?” To which Jesus replied with an unequivocal affirmative: “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 to the truth.” How often these words also are misunderstood and misquoted! Jesus did not say that he was born and sent on his mission in order that he might be King, but in, order that he might testify to “The Truth”. He continued: “Everyone that is of the Truth heareth my voice”

It was immediately evident that Jesus was not speaking of truth in an abstract philosophical sense, but was using the phrase as a specialised, semi-technical term with reference some particular “Truth”, which found its expression and exposition in himself.

Without the Old Testament as a guide, these words of Jesus would be meaningless. There is a phrase repeatedly used (often along with “Mercy”) to allude to the Messianic Purpose declared to the Fathers of the nations in the Covenants of Promise. (See Notes)

Hence Jesus should be understood as saying: “My mission now is not to be king, but to testify to my future kingship. In me will be fulfilled all that was promised of old to Abraham, and David. And all who would share in the blessing of those promises must believe and obey my word.”

Thus Jesus “before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession (1Tim 6:13, cp Is. 55:4; Rev 1:5).

Pilate, accustomed to associate “kingdom” with “power” rather than “truth”, now recognized even more clearly that Jesus was speaking with reference to some particular “truth” outside his own knowledge. “What is truth?”, he asked. Sir Francis Bacon was altogether wrong in his reading of the gospel here. Far from “jesting”, Pilate was never more serious in his life. Nor is it true that “he would not stay for an answer”. The tense of the verb John’s narrative probably implies that he kept pressing his question. The subsequent course of the trial shows how anxious Pilate was.

From this moment onward, whatever his inner reaction, there was no mistaking the policy he was now bent on following. He went out again to the Jews, and Jesus was led before them all. “I find no fault (RV: crime) at all”. Not Guilty! Pilate was not definitely going back on his agreement with the rulers. Yet he surely knew that in doing so he was risking a riot – and at Passover too!

The priests immediately raised a great clamour of wild and baseless accusations. “They were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place (the temple).”

These words constitute a marvellous witness by the Lord’s enemies to the superhuman effort he had made within the past few months to bring his appeal to the ears of all, so that everyone in Israel might have opportunity to accept him as the Son of God. But the phrase “he stirreth up the people” (s.w. Mk.15 :11!) was as misleading as it well could be. For Christ’s last missionary journey had apparently failed; for the most part his appeal had fallen on deaf ears.

The many and varied accusations now being hurled against him bore witness to the nervous apprehension of these wicked men!: “Answerest thou nothing? “Pilate challenged him,” behold how many things they witness against thee.” This incitement to defend himself by exposing the weakness of the prosecution (and how easily and completely he could have done it!) showed only too clearly that the governor wason his side. “But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled” (s.w. Is.52 :15). As long as the governor’s mind was open to instruction and as long as he was prepared to follow his own limited understanding of right and wrong, Jesus was willing to talk with him. But before these men who had already proved their wilful blindness and obdurate hatred, Jesus used only the rebuke of silence, even as he had done when before the Sanhedrin.

The mention of Galilee by the priests opened up to the mind of Pilate the possibility of another solution to this vexatious problem. The civil-service mentality which is always ready to pass on responsibility to another department is no new phenomenon. “As soon as he knew that Jesus belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who also was at Jerusalem at that time.” The word “also” here in Luke’s narrative intimates neatly that neither Pilate nor Herod were in Jerusalem just then as a matter of choice. Pilate’s headquarters were normally in Caesarea. It was the restless, uncertain character of Jewish crowds at Feast times which made imperative his presence in Jerusalem at Passover. And Herod, of Edomite extraction, had no real sympathy with Jewish religious zeal. It was purely to ingratiate himself with Jewish public opinion that he took any notice at all of Passover.

Doubtless Pilate, as he sent Jesus to Herod, reasoned that, whatever the latter’s decision he himself would be the gainer. If Herod condemned Jesus to death or set him at liberty, the case was no longer his own responsibility. Even if, as actually turned out to be the case, Jesus was returned to him uncondemned, his own hands would be strengthened; there would be yet another cogent reason for setting Jesus free.

Herod too was gratified at this unexpected courtesy from Pilate, with whom he was invariably at loggerheads. Herod moreover was full of curiosity to know more about this Jesus of Nazareth, not only because of an earlier superstitious belief that this might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk.6 :16), but also because of the wild rumours which were already rife in the city about an astonishing miracle wrought by this man even whilst under arrest the night before.

This new development also offered to the sensual, jaded king the possibility of some fresh diversion: “He hoped to see some sign done by him”. What sign?—the healing of his own vice-ridden body? But to this evil and adulterous man there was to be no sign given save the sign of the prophet Jonah (Mt.12 :39,40).

Meantime in an anteroom the chief priests, sent by Pilate as counsel for the prosecution, were gnawing their fingers with vexation and anxiety, fearing (because of Mk.6 :20) that they might lose their victim. When at length they were given access to the king (contrast Jn. 18:28), the very vehemence of their accusations must have made Herod suspect that this case was not just what they represented it to be. Besides, he was too shrewd a man to risk giving offence needlessly to any section of Jewish opinion. So he resolved not to become entangled in the affair at all.

Even so, there was no reason why he should not contrive a little entertainment from this unusual situation. So he and his courtiers proceeded to indulge in buffoonery of the crudest sort. They attempted all kinds of mockery against this silent man before them. But at length, wearying of it, Herod sent the prisoner back to Pilate. At the last moment, however, he consummated his clowning with a rare flash of inspiration. Unfastening the magnificent robe he was wearing, he flung it about the shoulders of Jesus and bade the guard return him thus to the governor.

The word “gorgeous” which Luke employs to describe the robe is one which is elsewhere used of the bright raiment of angels and of the fine linen,clean and white, of glorified saints. Maybe it was something like the “royal apparel” —a sequin-covered robe, according to Josephus —in which another Herod was arrayed on that fatal day some years later when he was acclaimed by the adulatory mob as “god and not man.” In any case there was a marvellously appropriate, though unconscious, prophecy about his action. It is not difficult to imagine the look, first of astonishment and then of grim humour, on Pilate’s face when he beheld his prisoner returned to him arrayed like a King of the Jews, in dazzling raiment proclaiming his innocence.

The maneuver of sending Jesus to Herod, whilst not as completely successful as he had hoped, was not unhelpful. “The rulers had taken counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed” (Acts 4 :26,27), and accordingly “that same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together.”

Notes: Mk. 15:1-5

1.	Took counsel. Gk, aorist probably implies nothing long drawn- out.
	Led away. It has been suggested that Jesus was now in a state of semi-collapse, and had to be carried. The Greek apenengkan (Mk.15 :1) could readily mean this. But Lk.23 :1 has “led, or brought”, the same Gk. word as in ls.53;7LXX.
3.	Many things. Implies that at their next opportunity they added other accusations.
4,5.	Answered nothing. The Gk. is very emphatic.

Lk.23:1-12

5.	They were the more fierce. Literally: “the more strong” or perhaps “overpowering” (and Pilate became the more weak).
7.	Sent (v. 11,15) implies “sent as to a superior;” e.g. Acts 25 :21.
10.	Vehemently accused him. Gk: literally, “well stretched-out”, i.e. full blast. The only other occurrences: Acts 18:28; Josh.6:8; Ecc.7:7.
11.	Mocked him. Esau getting his own back on Jacob! — Herod was an Edomite.
	The details of this incident (Lk.23 :8-12) must surely have come from an eyewitness (cp. Mk.6 :14-29; and see Lk.8:3).

Jn.18:28-38

35.	What hast thou done? And to this question the reader has to supply his own reply: Many a miracle of compassion!
36.	This world. Here again kosmos may be used with reference to the Jewish world; cp.7:4; 12 :19; 16:8,11; 18 :20.
37.	Thou sayest. For interpretation compare Mt.26:64 and Lk.22:70 with Mk. 14 :62.
	The Truth. Out of a tremendous number of passages which relate to this idea the following may be considered: Gen.24:27;32:10; Ex.34 :6; 2 Sam.2.-6; 15:20; Ps.31 :5; 40:10,11; 69:13; 89:14; 91:4; 132:11; Micah7:20.

Feeling his way carefully Pilate now called a conference with the Jewish leaders. Luke mentions the people also. So perhaps the governor was intending to appeal to them, over the heads of their rulers.

‘I am satisfied that the accused is both innocent and harmless. And so also, apparently, is Herod, for he sent him back to us (Lk. 23:15 RV) without any pronouncement against him.’ that use of “us” was doubtless intended to suggest: ‘You and I are working in friendly cooperation here.’

It was becoming increasingly obvious (Mk. 15 :10 eginosken: it was dawning on him) that the chief priests were acting only for personal reasons-and not at all out of zeal for justice or religion. Matthew’s word “envy” (27 :18) is explicit. It recalls the experiences of Abel (Gen. 4 :4,5), Joseph (Gen. 37 :11), Moses (Ps.106 :16), and Paul (Acts 13:45).

But Pilate wanted to keep the right side of these men, so he was careful to say: “I have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him” (Lk.), as if , to say: ‘Of course you are right about him, but your case against him is technically faulty.’ There was therefore no obstacle to his release.

However, as a concession to them, and to teach this Jesus to avoid trouble with the authorities in future, Pilate proposed a fine sample of Roman justice — that he should “chastise” him (a man just declared ‘Not Guilty”), and then set him at liberty,

Here Pilate made a double blunder, for in two respects he showed a marked weakness which would be immediately perceived and used by the astute men with whom he was dealing. In the first instance, he made his decision known beforehand, thus allowing opportunity for organized protest. If, instead, he had acted first (by releasing Jesus), thus presenting the chief priests with a fait accompli, the while turning away heedless from their frantic indignation, there was little they could have done about it.

Then, too, his proposal to scourge and innocent man, a suggestion so obviously intended to appease the anger of disappointed accusers, showed in clear outline his anxiety not to offend these powerful men.

There were reasons for this anxiety. Pilate had blundered too often during his five year’s procurctorship of turbulent Judaea. He had already handled several tricky political situations with conspicuous lack of success. Consequently his tenure of office was probably none too secure. Only recently there had been a nationalist revolution in Jerusalem (Lk. 13 :1). The account in despatches of another riot and upheaval in the city this Passover would be read in Rome with lowering brows. So this latest tricky situation must be handled with all possible care.

Jesus or Barabbas?

All this would be easily read between the lines by the crafty men of the temple. They therefore withdrew from conference with Pilate determined to use every means in their power to bring influence to bear. And Pilate, on his part, was bent on maneuvering them into an impossible position. So he came out before the crowd, took his seat on the place of judgement (a Roman formality, this, which was never omitted) and prepared to give his decision. But already the popular clamour for the customary Passover release had begun. The placatory custom had been introduced by the Romans- quite possibly (Mk. 15:8) by Pilate himself , in an uncharacteristic attempt to be concessive – that, to remind the people of there ancient deliverance from Egyptian bondage at Passover, one popularly chosen prisoner should be set free each time the Feast came round. Pilate now gladly seized on this, hoping to strengthen his position by it.

“Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” —that is, this king (Jesus). The very way he said it was an effort to exercise influence in Jesus’ favour, and he said it more than once. In this he sought cleverly to prejudice the crowd’s reception of his offer by referring to Jesus as though he were a national hero. If only he could in this way get the crowd on his side, it would be safe to disregard completely both the wishes and the resentment of the Jewish hegemony.

Evidently at first there was a good deal of confusion in the crowd when Pilate put his question: “Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” Not that Jesus was scorned by them, but there was also a good deal of support for the claim of Barabbas, the nationalist rebel.

Pilate caught at the mention of Barabbas. Feeling fairly sure of himself, he put the straight alternative before them: “Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?” Again by the way in which he spoke of Jesus as their Messiah he cleverly loaded the scales in his favour.

Pilate’s wife

It would seem that first there was sufficient call in favour of Jesus for Pilate to feel safe in deciding in his favour. So he sat on his judgement seat, about to pronounce Jesus a free man. But at that moment there came an interruption in the form of a message from his wife. It is a detail which displays again the accuracy of the gospels, for the imperial rule had been that a Roman governor must not be accompanied by his wife during his tour of duty. But it is known that by this time the rule had fallen into disuse.

The message said, very urgently: “Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” it is evident (Study 221) that Pilate’s wife knew that at that vary time her husband was concerned with the trial of Jesus. More than this, she referred to him as “that righteous man.” How had this strong sympathy arisen? Possibly-it is only a guess-through personal contact with one of the influential women amongst the Lord’s disciples.

The probable sequence of events by which this warning came has already been considered. It would be a serious omission here to neglect emphasis of the dramatic irony involved in the situation. This message from Pilate’s wife achieved the very thing it sought to prevent!

Pilate’s brief absence within the Praetorium whilst he read and considered the letter (for very probably the dream was described in all its vividness) was used to good advantage by the feverish diligence of the chief priests. Getting to work on the crowd during the short time available to them, they succeeded in persuading them, whether by cajolery or bribes, but certainly by lies against Jesus, to unite in a call for the freeing of Barabbas, and-even more important from their point of view-that Jesus be crucified. Consequently when Pilate came out to them again, to his great surprise he found himself assailed by a unamimous shout for the release of Barabbas.

Rebel leader

The known facts concerning this popular favourite can quickly be catalogued. His name means “Son of a Father”, that is, “Son of a Rabbi” (Mt. 23 :9). (Or was his name self-appointed from Ps. 2 :}2-bar??]. Once again there was an ironic symbolism in the decision. Jewry was seeking salvation by the Law in preference to the salvation offered in Jesus, the true Saviour. “A Sadducee for their high priest, an incestuous Edomite for their King, they choose a murderer for their Messiah.” A few manuscripts have the interesting reading that Barabbas was also called Jesus-hence Pilate’s phrase: “which is called Christ,” to make a distinction.

The charge against Barabbas was that of insurrection and murder. So, evidently, he had been the leader of a popular revolt against the Romans and had shed Roman blood in the process. Almost certainly the malefactors who were later crucified with Jesus wore two of his followers. Further, he was evidently a man of Jerusalem, for the sedition was “made in the city.” Thus all the circumstances combined to make him a great hero with the multitudes now shouting to Pilate for his release.

Three times the astonished procurator sought to sway them from their choice.

A contest of wills.

“What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?” Was that last expression used in sarcasm? or had Pilate failed completely to recognize the swing of popular sentiment away from Jesus? He hoped doubtless that some would take up the cry: “Release him also!” But in actual fact the appeal proved to be a tactical blunder. For Jesus to have Pilate on his side was more than enough to swing the crowd against him. Moreover they were disillusioned by this Galilean’s utter failure to exploit the splendid opportunity for revolt which his triumphal entry into the city had presented (Mt. 21 :9j. So, inflamed by nationalist zeal, this Jerusalem mob lost all interest in the mild prophet of Galilee. “Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas.” Then, in response to a further appeal, came the coarse cry: “Crucify, crucify him” (Is. 5:7)-a singular contrast with u week earlier when the chief priests feared the reaction of the common people in favour of Jesus (Lk. 20:19; 22:2). So this mob outcry was, as Matthew Henry describes it, “a forced end managed thing.” (Consider also ii. 53:3; 49:7),

“Why, what evil hath he done?” asked Pilate. The very form of this expostulation betrayed his weakness and apprehension. There was no reasoned response to Pilate’s question, “Though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain” (Acts 13 :28). Instead: “Ye denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go” (Acts 3 :13). Yet did not the Law about which they were so zealous sternly warn them?: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to turn aside after a multitude to wrest judgment” (Ex. 23 :2).

“I will therefore chastise turn/’ Pilate continued, “and let him go.’

The situation had suddenly got out of hand and a bewildered governor groped around vainly for me means wherewith to cope with it. Thus he blundered into arguing with a crowd to whom he should have been contemptuously dictating. “What evil hat he done? I have found no cause of death in him”. Again, not guilty! Judas and Herod and Pilate and Pilate’s wife had now ail declared their conviction of Christ’s innocence, and before the day was out the malefactor and the centurion and many in the crowd were to add their testimony.

The angry roar of disapproval meeting Pilate’s declaration swept over him like a boiling sea. Nor was there any respite. Luke’s words mean: “they laid on … ‘heir voices overpowered him.” The din persisted in deafening, frightening crescendo so that even the case-hardened statesman was cowed by the ungovernable ferocity of it all. ‘Pilate saw that he could profit nothing,” Here, unless he were very careful, was utter wreck and ruin. His innate well-tutored sense of self-interest peremptorily bade him abandon all high-principled intentions. He could afford no more concessions to this thing men call conscience. He must cut his losses whilst there was time.

However he permitted himself one more gesture before final capitulation: “He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it” (Dt. 21 :6; and Study 220). In fact he was anything but innocent, for he knew what was the right thing for him to do and he had both the authority and the power to do it, but—as with many another since that day —he found the Mammon of Self-Interest a god of more compelling majesty. He was not “of the truth.” So Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate” (cp. Acts 4:27).

The mob responded to his rather pathetic disavowal with a rejoinder of contempt and bravado: “His blood be on us and on our children.” How little they realised the truth of this derisive allusion to their own Scriptures (Dt.19:10; Ex.20:5)l How fully and how bitterly they were to realise it during the Roman war and the siege of Jerusalem when the worst horrors of world history were let loose on those very people in their old age and on the children of whom they so lightly spoke (Dt. 28:18; Ps. 69:25; 109:10,17; Num. 35 :33). There is reason to believe that many of them lived long enough to recognize and acknowledge that the bitterness of that evil time was a direct retribution for their rejection of the Son of God. In A.D. 70 many of them were crucified, or sold for a good deal less than thirty pieces of silver.

Rough treatment

The scourging of Jesus was a normal part of the preliminaries to crucifixion. “Under the Roman system of scourging, the culprit was stripped and tied in a bending posture to a pillar, or stretched on a frame, and the punishment was inflicted with a scourge made of leathern thongs weighted with sharp pieces of bone or lead” (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible). It was an ordeal under which the victim usually fainted, sometimes even died. Yet how briefly and unemotionally is this vile torture alluded to by the witness of the gospels! Under the site of Antonia, Warren discovered a pillar which showed signs of being used for just such a purpose —perhaps for the flogging of Jesus himself!

After this there followed another experience, different in character but surely just as difficult to endure. The entire band of soldiers —there would be at least two hundred of them – led him into their barrack room, and there proceeded to make him the centre of much rough humour and boisterous hooliganism. They clouted him repeatedly in the face (Jn.) and, imitating Herod’s satirical mockery, they clad Jesus in a robe of purple and scarlet (some officer’s cast-off?); they plaited a crown of some spiny creeping-plant and rammed it on his head (Gen. 3:18; 22:13; Ps. 32:4 LXX; Is. 59:17); they thrust a bamboo rod into his hand in lieu of a sceptre; amd then, making him the target of all the hatred and contempt and scorn that they felt for the un-Roman people of Judaea, with hoarse and coarse ribaldry they did him homage as King of the Jews (contrast Ps. 2:8-11); mockingly, they bowed the knee and gave him feigned reverence; pretending a kiss of homage, they spat in his face and pulled out the hair of his beard (Is. 50 :6); instead of humbly touching his “sceptre” (after the manner of queen Esther), they snatched the bamboo from his hand and beat him over the head with it.

Throughout the misery and wretchedness of this cruel buffoonery Jesus must have been hard put to maintain consciousness at all. The wearing effect of the effort involved in making his last great appeal to the nation during the past few months, and especially the fatigue induced by the last week, which had been spent in incessant preaching and controversy in the temple, had already brought him near to the limit of his physical resources. Then had followed the vigil in the garden and the incalculable nervous strain of his “agony” of self-conquest; then, without any respite, his interrogations before Annas and before Caiaphas, and a protracted appearance before the Sanhedrin during a night which gave him not a moment’s sleep or relaxation; then to Pilate; then to Herod and the ill-treatment he meted out; then back to Pilate again; then the barbaric laceration of his back under the “flagellum”; and now the ghastly cruelty of this inhuman and ignorant mockery. It was the beginning of a day of horror in which all his person suffered-head, face, back, hands, feet, knees (Ps. 109 :24), throat and side.

Here was no Jesus of the painters, strong, dignified and unmoved. He was too far gone in physical exhaustion and too much embroiled in a sea of troubles to be any of these. Whereas modern theologians talk airily about “the dignity of human nature” and “the eternal worth of each human soul,” the Bible is at pains to emphasize repeatedly that there is no dignity about human nature and no abiding value in sinful flesh. And since Jesus, in the experiences he was now enduring, was the representative of such, he should in no wise be thought of as majestic, dignified or sublime. How, possibly, in such circumstances could any man be any of these? “There is no beauty in him that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected.”

It was thus, certainly, that Pilate saw him at this time. Was it the piteous spectacle which moved him to make a last attempt to save the life of this innocent man? Or was conscience at work in the mind of this ungodly Roman as it had never been before?

“Behold, the man”

He brought Jesus out again before the Jews, clad in his robe of royal hue and wearing the crown of thorns, and showing in a haggard, worn face framed by tousled unkempt hair all the signs of impending collapse. It was a sight which would have “moved to compassion any heart not made of stone. But the crowd which Pilate hoped to win over by this superbly-staged appeal was now almost entirely gone. They had got their Barabbas and were even now chairing him triumphantly through the streets of the city. So it was to a much smaller group of virulent Sanhedrists and their officers (men who knew only too well the path of self-interest) that Jesus was brought forth.

“Behold, the man!” Surely as their eyes took in the wretchedness of their victim they would relent of their ruthless hostility. Yet how was Pilate to know that by his very appeal he had further loaded the scales of justice against the prisoner? For, all unconsciously, he had both cited and interpreted an inspired Scripture which he had never read. Inevitably as he used the words, the minds of the Bible-trained men before him would run on to complete the passage and set it in its context: “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch; and he shall grow up from beneath (LXX), and he shall build the temple of the Lord: even he (such an one!) shall build the temple of the Lord: and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest at his-God’s-right hand” (Zech. 6 :12,13 LXX: compare Ps. 110 :1,4). And these words were addressed by the prophet to Joshua-Jesus, the son of Josedech (the righteousness of Jehovah)! Was anything more calculated to provoke to fresh excesses the hatred and resolution of these implacable men? Poor Pilate, how was he to know that “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” he was using words which could only have the effect of making the fate of Jesus more certain than ever?

So the demeaning of Pilate in lowering himself to make this appeal to their pity was utterly wasted. “Crucify him, crucify him”, they repeated with vicious emphasis. They had seen the weakness in Pilate and were determined to give him no respite until he yielded to their will.

A desperate expedient

In this situation Pilate showed his weakness yet again: “Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.” This was now the fourth or possibly the fifth time (Jn. 18:38; Lk. 23:4,14,22; Jn. 19 :6) that Pilate had publicly declared his conviction of the innocence of Jesus. He was determined at almost any cost not to be responsible for his death. Yet such was the working of his mind that he thought to put his uneasy ill-tutored conscience to rest by the foul expedient of inciting the priests to take the law into their own hands, and, with his connivance, to lynch Jesus-or was it just a superstitious mind, made ill at ease by the knowledge of his wife’s dream, which led him to such a panicky improvisation?

But this did not at all suit these schemers with whom he was dealing. They immediately foresaw the possibility of being caught in a trap by Pilate. For, suppose they were to do as he suggested, what was there to prevent him turning on them immediately the deed was done, and, denying that he had ever incited them in this way, wreaking on them the most fearful vengeance. The whole affair could then be explained plausibly and convincingly in his reports to Caesar, making Pilate appear as a model administrator of theJudaean province.

So, fearing lest Pilate out-manoeuvre them at the last moment, they clamoured for ratification of what he had already reluctantly conceded. “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” Once again they spoke more truly than they knew: “by our law he ought to die.” They meant one thing (Lev. 24 :16?) but doubtless John saw in it a very different significance as he recorded the words. At sundry times and in divers manners their ancient Scriptures had declared that it behoved the Christ to suffer.

The priests were, of course, alluding to the various passages which required the death by stoning of the blasphemer and the false prophet. But in insisting on this they nearly went too far, for “when Pilate heard that saying (that Jesus made himself the Son of God), he was the more afraid.” Pilate had, indeed, been afraid from the very start of the case, having quickly perceived what manner of man Jesus was, and also because of his wife’s dream, but now he was the more afraid. Had not Jesus told him that his kingdom was ”not of this world?” Could it be that he himself was “not of this world?” So here was a tough adminisirator, who could have been expected to laugh at claims such as those, now worried part believing.

Puzzled and depressed, he sought answer from Jesus himself: “Whence art thou?”, i.e. art thou the Son of God? Let the prisoner just give him a straight “No,” and both he and his, judge would be off the rack. But Jesus would vouchsafe no reply. Pilate had had his opportunity. In various ways he had been shown the path of right, but obsessed by his ingrained sense of self-interest, he still sought some devious less honourable solution to the problem.

He had not yet signed the death sentence. Yet when by a blunt reminder of the power of life and death in his hands he tried to goad Jesus into explicit answer, he received only a rebuke of his abuse of authority: “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above (i.e. from God): therefore he (Caiaphas that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” How true it was! For the high priest had his authority from God far more directly than did Pilate (Rom. 13 :1), and the principle is ever true that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.” But your sin of weakness and selfishness, Pilate, is still forgivable!

Defeated by blackmail

These latest developments made the greatest impression of all on Pilate’s mind. John recorded that “on this ground Pilate sought to release him.” (To a Jewish ear, the name Pilate would sound marvellously like “Deliverer”!) But hadn’t he been attempting deliverance right from the beginning of the “trial”? Can it be that this mention of release alludes to some new move by Pilate? Was an attempt made to release Jesus at some obscure exit from Anionia, away from the observation of the chief priests? Or did he order a detachment of soldiers to fake Jesus off to some remote part of the city and hand him over to his friends? Whatever special steps the words imply, the move was detected and Pilate was brought up sharply by a shout from the priests and their minions: “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar.” This expression, “Caesar’s friend was a formal title, it appears on coins of the Agrippa who tried Paul. These priests knew their man’s weakness and they knew his greatest fear, so they played on these to the top of their bent. And Pilate had to acknowledge himself beaten. They had this trump card that he dare not let such an impeachment as they threatened reach Caesar in Rome. The irony of the situation! Had no! Barabbas, just released, “made himself a king, speaking against Caesar”?

Gabbatha

There was nothing else for it. “Pilate again brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgement seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.”

This part of John’s narrative, apparently simple and straightforward, is actually open to another different interpretation. For the verb “sat down” can be otherwise translated to give the meaning: “and he (Pilate) seated him (Jesus) in the judgement seat” (Cp. Eph. 2:6 Gk.). Two details in the narrative accord very well with this:

• The Pavement was one with a special Hebrew (strictly, Aramaic) name, which fact suggests that it was a place with important Jewish, not Roman, associations.
• The grim jest of Pilate-“Behold your King!”-made at the expense of his tenacious adversaries is now the obvious reason for and sequel to his action.

The early apocryphal “Gospel according to Peter” gives the reading suggested here, so it would seem that in the early church there were those who read John’s gospel in this way.

It does seem possible then — though the matter can hardly be regarded as proven-that Jesus was seated, on Pilate’s instructions, on the president’s platform at a final convening of the Sanhedrin. It is known that, besides officially appointed members, no man might sit in the Priest’s court save a Prince of the House of David. Thus, once again, if indeed it actually happened so, Pilate was declaring a greater truth than he himself understood or believed.

But in any case John doubtless also saw special significance in this fact that Jesus was thus enthroned upon the Pavement. Was he thinking of the vision of glory revealed to Moses and the elders of Israel? “They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone” (Ex. 24 :10). And in later days John would be able to associate with this the words: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3 :21)

Prophecy fulfilled

With uncontrolled fury the chief priests rejected Pilate’s derisive and spiteful proclamation of the kingship of Jesus: “:We have no king but Caesar.” Thus unwittingly they interpreted the ancient prophecy of Jacob to his sons: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the peoples be” (Gen. 49 :10). By their own proclamation the sceptre was departed. Therefore Shiloh was now come; and therefore also the time was ripe for the gathering unto him of the Gentiles!

More than this, just as Pilate all unconsciously had quoted a marvellously relevant Scripture, so also now these priests satirically quoted Hosea: “We have no king, because we fear not the Lord; what then should the king (i.e. his king) do for us?” (10 :3). If is a passage which is part of a detailed and much neglected Messianic prophecy (see Study 223). Phrase after phrase here was to become savagely true in an Israel cast off and swamped in retribution.

This amazing admission: “We have no king but Caesar”, was eagerly grasped by Pilate as a great concession. How well it would read in his dispatches to Rome. So, with that, he conceded what their raucous shouts demanded.

Dramatic Irony

The entire trial of Jesus had been shot through with a vivid element of dramatic irony and unconscious prophecy. It is perhaps worthwhile to bring together the examples that have come to light:

• Rending his garments Caiaphas foretold the end of his own priesthood.
• The very words of Jesus used in hope of condemning him (Jn. 2 :19) were the best possible proof of the truth of his claim to be Messiah and Son of God.
• Herod, arraying Jesus in his own gorgeous robe, proclaimed him King of the Jews.
• The effort made by Pilate’s wife to secure the release of Jesus had exactly the opposite effect. The intervention came at a crucial moment, allowing time for the Lord’s adversaries to organize more effective opposition to Pilate.
• Choosing Barabbas rather than Jesus, the Jews declared their age-long preference for justification by works of the Law rather than by faith in a God-provided Saviour.
• The mockery by the soldiers spoke the truth -Jesus is King of the Jews.
• “By our law he ought to die.” The enemies of the Lord little realised how accurately they were summarising the main theme of their Scriptures-a suffering Messiah,
• Pilate set forth Jesus as ruler of the Jews (in place of himself!) by seating him on the throne of judgment.
• “We have no king but Caesar” —the words have been true from that day to this, even though the Talmud declares: “Israel has no king but God.” And to this list may be added:
• “it was the preparation of the Passover.” Truly it was the preparation of the Jews’ Passover, but the events of that day made it also the preparation for a new and better Passover by the slaying of the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world.
• Either five or six times (Lk. 23 :4, 14-15,22; Mt. 27:24; Jn. 19:4,6) Pilate declared Jesus not guilty, and yet he signed his death warrant.

“And so Pilate, willing to content the people (the hallmark of the career politician in every age! Acts 12 :3; 24 :27; Ex. 32 :1) released Barabbas unto them and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him (Is. 53:5; Mt. 20:19), to be crucified.”

Luke puts the antithesis between these two prisoners in a single sentence of great literary power: “And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but Jesus delivered he to their will.” Thus Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate”!

Notes. Mt. 27:15-31

15.	Release . . . a prisonor,: This may have been already .n Pilate’s mind when he said: “I will chastise him, and let him go” (Lk. 23 :16).
16.	Barabbas Syriac and Armenian versions, the Tiflis Codex, and Origen all give him the additional name Jesus.
22.	Let him be crucified. Perhaps this was entirely a Jerusalem crowd, quite different from the Galileans in 21:9.
23.	Cried out. Gk. imperfect implies that they kept at it.It is the word which often describes “unclean spirits” crying out.

Lk. 23:13-25

14.	Having examined him before you. He hadn’t! A good example of slanted language for the sake of effect.
21.	They cried. Gk. implies: They shouted him down.

Jn. 19:1-16

1-3	In this context consider Phil. 1 :13; 2 :8/10; 3 :10. See also Ps. 72 :11; Is. 45 :23; Rev. 5:8-14.
13.	The Pavement. There are archeological indications of a pavement, 50 yards square, in Antonia.