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

“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

Lk.23:1-12

Jn.18:28-38

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

Lk. 23:13-25

Jn. 19:1-16

“And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull.

It is perhaps not as fully appreciated as it might be that when Jesus was led out to crucifixion he was in the very last stages of physical and nervous exhaustion. There are several indications pointing to such a conclusion. And it is by fhese that an apparent contradiction between the Gospels is harmonized, for whilst John describes Jesus bearing his own cross (with obvious intention of making comparison with Isaac bearing the wood on which he himself was to be the offering), the other evangelists all tell how Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service to carry the cross after Jesus.

Simon of Cyrene

Details in Luke and Mark help to make the picture clearer. Luke says that Simon was to bear the cross “after Jesus”, i.e., behind him. The word used by Mark means “lift up” rather than “carry”. Thus it would appear that Jesus was too exhausted physically to take the full burden of the cross, so after a while Simon helped by bearing the hinder end of it. A further detail in Mark might suggest that, even with this help, progress was so slow that after a while the impatient soldiers picked Jesus up bodily and carried him to the place of crucifixion. The word translated “bring” (Mk. 15:22) normally means “bear” or “carry”. It may well be that Jesus collapsed altogether, his physical strength completely exhausted. His death on the cross within the remarkably short time of six hours supports the idea, for crucified men were often known to linger alive and wretched for days (see Mk. 15:44). However, the conclusion is not certain.

The verb about the compulsion applied to Simon has the specialised meaning: “to press into service for the work of the king.” It is the word used in Matthew 5:41 “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” Although it was by the command of Caesar’s centurion that Simon was conscripted, yet it was to help King Jesus that he bore the cross. In days to come the early church almost certainly saw Simon as a vivid illustration of their Lord’s requirement that the true disciple must take up the cross and follow him (Mk. 8:34 and 10:21). Indeed, the symbolism may have been taken even further, the name Simon of Cyrene being understood to suggest one who hears and so becomes the Lord’s man —bearing his cross and thus learning to bear his own.

He was just come “out of the country” (Jn. 11:55). He was a Jew of the Dispersion who had just now arrived in Jerusalem for the Passover, or else he was an immigrant to the Holy Land. Either way he is seen as a Jew who took his religion seriously.

One can imagine how at first he would fret and fume at this vexatious and distasteful interruption of his plans. It could well be that he had now but little time left before the Feast, and he had yet to make arrangement about where he should eat it, had yet to make his purchase of the lamb, the wine, the herbs and the various other things needed for the Feast. And now he must needs waste valuable time as well as suffer provoking humiliation carrying a cross for some Galilean nobody who was on his last legs.

Yet Simon was to learn before the day was out that God had provided himself a Lamb who would yet be remembered through many a Passover with awe and thankfulness. For it may be taken as practically certain that Simon’s conversion to Christ dated from that day when he was dragged away from the observance of the Law of Moses to bear a cross behind Jesus.

Simon would not be mentioned by Mark as “the father of Alexander and Rufus” if these two sons were not people likely to be known to his readers. Years later when Paul sent greetings to the church at Rome (and Mark, it is fairly certain, wrote for Roman readers) he included this: “Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine” (Rom. 16:13). If, as seems likely, this is the son of Simon, in what finer way could Paul have alluded to him? One short phrase, and the mind of all readers would be back at Jerusalem, remembering how Roman soldiers laid rough hands there on Simon, choosing him haphazard from the crowd to carry the cross of Jesus. They little realised, those hard men, that in that very act they had been the instruments of Almighty God, to choose Simon, and through him Alexander and Rufus and their mother too, for the fellowship of the elect of God.

In Romans 16 the wife of Simon was greeted by Paul as “Rufus’s mother and mine.” How so? It would seem from Acts 13:1 that in earlier days before the family moved to Rome, they had been for a good while in Antioch, and there Paul had stayed under their roof. Simon’s wife (her name is written in the Book of Life!) had been a mother to Paul in those days, supplying that same motherly hospitality in Christ that is happily not unknown in these days also. “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen . . . and Saul.” This Simon, mentioned along with another man of Cyrene, had a nickname “Niger”, i.e. the darky (Song of Songs 1:6). Evidently he had a very swarthy complexion, as well he might have, coming from semi-tropical North Africa.

It was this Simon, who found himself— against his own inclination —carrying the cross after Jesus. Thus, all unsuspecting, he provided for all succeeding generations a dramatic illustration of the words of Jesus: “And whosoever doth not bear his own cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” And was it with vivid memory of the same incident that Peter wrote, years later: “Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps,” as did Simon? And what of Hebrews 13:12,13: “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him, without the camp, bearing his reproach (the cross),” as did Simon.

Readers of the gospels may be fairly sure that Jesus, who in his extremity of weariness and pain from flogging could yet bring himself to speak words of commiseration and warning to the women who lined his route, would also have something equally arresting and rewarding for the man who bore his cross, and thus Simon would have his thanks. He had been compelled to go a mile with Jesus, and he went with him not just twain but all his life (Mt. 5:41).

Women lamenting and lamented

Lining the road through the Damascus gate there was “a great company of people,” the crowd which inevitably gathers to witness anything sensational or ghoulish. The gospels suggest that their interest was specially in Jesus rather than in the two followers of Barabbas. The women “bewailed and lamented him.” These were not disciples, as the words of Jesus to them make clear. They were women whose sympathies inevitably went out to one going forth to such a ghastly fate. So Jesus stopped in his slow progress to Golgotha and “turning to them,” he bewailed and lamented the unhappy destiny that was theirs. From the time of Adam it has been true, both in the evil and in the good, that “we are members one of another.” These folk sorrowing over the prophet of Galilee were of a different stamp altogether from the coldblooded wilful rejectors of the Christ of God; nevertheless they too were to suffer—with what extremes of wretchedness—in the vile and vicious vortex of trouble that would inevitably centre on Jerusalem in the unhappy days of impending judgment. Out of pure pity these women wept for Jesus, yet their own plight was infinitely worse.

In a long and moving prophecy which was fulfilled in his own day, and which was to be fulfilled yet again in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Jeremiah had anticipated the horrors of retribution which were yet to come upon his people: “Yet hear the word of the Lord, O ye women, and let your ear receive the word of his mouth, and teach your daughters wailing, and everyone her neighbour lamentation. For death is come up into our windows, and is entered into our palaces, to cut off the children from without, and the young men from the streets. Speak, Thus saith the Lord, Even the carcases of men shall fall as dung upon the open field, and as the handful after the harvestman, and none shall gather them” (Jer. 9:20-22). The entire chapter should be studied with reference to Jesus and the A.D.70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Appropriating the ideas and words of the prophet, Jesus bade them: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children,” All through this day of wretchedness the mind of Jesus was on others, and not on his own plight and sufferings. At his trial he had been concerned for Pilate; here, for the people of Jerusalem storing up judgment on themselves: he prayed for the Roman soldiers crucifying him; he gave special care to his mother, and to the malefactors crucified with him, and in all things he sought to fulfil the will of his Father. Earlier in his ministry he himself had wept over Jerusalem and for their children (Lk. 19:41), because of the fate of horror which rejection of him had made inevitable (Lk. 19:44). It was a fate which had been light-heartedly invoked by their fellows at his trial (Mt. 27:25), and he knew from the writings of the prophets with what dire suffering it would surely come to pass. And it would be on themselves and their children because even in this the sign of the prophet Jonah must be fulfilled: “Yet forty years and Jerusalem shall be overthrown.” How ominous, too, the warning of judgment on their children, since at that Passover they would be celebrating the deliverance of Israel when the firstborn of Egypt were slain. Ironically enough, it was celebration of Passover which packed Jerusalem with Jews in A.D.70, and brought disaster instead of deliverance.

Prophecies of judgment

With wide foreknowledge of what was in store Jesus continued his lamentation and warning: “Behold, the days are coming in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us” (Lk. 23:29,30). Jesus had already said the same thing to his disciples: “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people” (Lk. 21:23). The fantastic climax of human suffering which was to be the experience of this generation, guilty and innocent alike, bore on the soul of a weary Jesus more than all his own pain and shame and misery. One wonders whether there were any in that crowd who did take heed and flee the city before wrath came to the uttermost.

The travail of Israel has dragged from that day to this, with little intermission. And notwithstanding the cocksureness of the modern self-made State of Israel, the day is soon to come when once again, they will find themselves overwhelmed in a sea of affliction. Isaiah 2 used by Paul to describe the Messiah’s return in glory (2 Th. U9), describes the ultimate devastation of their human pride; “And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (2:19). Only when Israel learn to throw themselves on the Lord will their salvation come out of Zion.

The quotation made by Jesus from Hosea 10:8 is not to be missed, and must not be dismissed as irrelevant. The following are all out of the same context:

Only too plainly, this prophecy —in spite of difficulties—is to be read as having Messianic intention. The coincidences cannot be written off. The marvel is that when Jesus was so weak and distressed, he yet thought in terms of intensely relevant Scripture. It is an amazing witness to the extent to which the written Word had become so much part of himself. He was in truth, in yet another sense, the Word-made-flesh. Yet how many of his disciples either consciously or unconsciously fall back on the power of Scripture as fully as they might when face to face with personal hardship or affliction?

“For if they do these things in a green tree, what … in the dry?” Yet again Jesus went instinctively to the Old Testament. But what was his meaning? It could be (on the basis of Ez, 20:47, interpreted in 17:24)_; if the Jews can do such wickedness now, what enormities will they be equal to when the rottenness has spread through the nation? (Jude 12; Mt. 21:19)? Or, is the allusion to Jeremiah 11:16,19, meaning: If the Romans can treat me—the green tree, the righteous one (Ps. 1; Jer. 17;5-8)-in this, fashion, then what will they do with the Jews the sapless dry wood, the dried-up fie, tree, the altogether wicked nation? The verbal connection is closer to the first of these, but the second is easier in idea and more readily fits the context in which Jesus spoke.

Whatever his precise meaning may have been, these words of sadness and warning must have mightily impressed those who heard, it was not only darkness, earthquake and storm which that day sent people to their homes heavy of heart.

Notes: Lk. 23:26-33

Jesus had spoken to the disciples about the New Covenant as a Love Feast, using for it the word agape which also describes the highest of the virtues-the love which he had shown in a thousand ways during his ministry and which he was to exemplify supremely in his sacrifice. In the next part of his discourse his thought moved rapidly and frequently from one meaning of agape to the other, and there was constant close relation of these ideas to a comparable meal of fellowship with which the Old Covenant had been inaugurated at Sinai (Ex.24 :11).

“If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.” At Sinai, the people heard the words of the Book of the Covenant and declared: “All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and be obedient” (Ex.24 :7). With a repetition which could never be over-emphatic, the book of Deuteronomy sought to establish in the mind of every Israelite that the love of God and faithful observance of His commandments are inseparable (5 :10; 7 :9; 11 :1,22; 13 :3,4; 19:9; 30:16).

Now with an authority which would be blasphemous if he were not the Son of God, Jesus laid a like duty on his disciples. His words state very simply a principle of the highest value to all who belong to him. The secret of Christian obedience is the love of Christ. When a man really loves his Lord, obedience (or, the next best thing, earnest repentance after failure) is a relatively easy matter. With the love of Christ as the source and spring of his whole way of life, there is no longer any need for strongminded resolutions to forsake evil. Instead, intense wrestling of the soul gives place to a relaxed confidence in a beloved Lord who now readily commands allegiance. If a man really loves Christ, he does keep his commandments. So learning to love him becomes the highest duty. Directed to anyone but Jesus this is invariably difficult, for to know well any of one’s fellows is to know well the mass of faults and weaknesses which belong to him. But the more a man can learn about Christ the more he must come to love him-this peerless, altogether lovely Son of God. So here is the best of all reasons for ceaseless devoted study of the gospels.

The converse of this fundamental proposition is also true, alas! If a man does not follow a way of life ordered by the principles of Christ’s teaching, by that fact he declares how little he loves his Lord, no matter how pious his pretensions.

There can be little doubt that Jesus spoke this simple truth with primary reference to the “new commandment” which he had just given to his disciples, that they observe the Love Feast, the Agape. And experience has ever shown the truth of his words. No man who loves his Lord will neglect attendance at the Lord’s Table.

Israel and the New Israel

Still drawing out the parallel with the Old Covenant, Jesus now spoke his first promise of the Holy Spirit. At Sinai there had been a corresponding promise: “Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee unto the place which I have prepared. (“I go to prepare a place for you”). Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak (“keep my commandments”) then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries” (Ex. 23:20-22). In another respect also God’s Holy Spirit was made a Helper to His people -when He “took of the spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy elders”, so that “when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more” (Num. 11:25RV), “Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them,” commemorated Nehemiah and his Levites (Neh. 9:20). And in Isaiah’s reminiscence of these experiences “the angel of his presence” and “his holy Spirit” are either closely associated or are actually equated (63:9-11).

The expression “another Comforter” clearly implies that the Holy Spirit was not the only Helper from God. The explanation is in 1 John2:l: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate (same word) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” And in a somewhat enigmatic passage in Romans 8 Paul sets the Holy Spirit’s guidance and intercession alongside that of Christ himself (v.26,27).

The Comforter

There is a lot of argument amongst the commentators and language experts as to the precise meaning intended by the word Jesus used. By fairly general agreement “Comforter” is not really the right idea. “Advocate”, in the legal sense—that is, counsel for the defence-has classical support but seems to belong to another world from these passages in John’s gospel. Probably the rather general word: “Helper” comes as near as any to what was intended.

It is easy enough to understand many of the allusions to the Holy Spirit here and in the later Paraclete passages (14:26; 15:26; 16:13) as having reference to the remarkable powers with which members of the early church were endowed after Pentecost, but here the phrase: “that he may abide with you for ever” presents double difficulty. The Holy Spirit appears to be spoken of as a separate person (cp.v.26; 15:26; 16 :13; the orthodox dogma of the personality of the Holy Spirit has no other Biblical support apart from the pronouns in these places). Also, the abiding character of the Spirit’s indwelling contrasts strangely with Paul’s prophecy that the Spirit’s gifts would be withdrawn (1 Cor. 13:8).

He—the Spirit

One explanation of the first difficulty would be that the pronoun “He” refers to the Father who sends the Spirit in response to the plea of His Son. But this runs into difficulties in verse 17 and also in 16 :13. More probably the masculine pronoun has to be used because the antecendent Greek word for “Comforter” is itself masculine. In this case either “he” or “it” would be a valid translation into English. Or, once again, there is allusion to the angel who cared for natural Israel in their wilderness journey.

“Forever”

The duration of Holy Spirit endowment presents a much more tricky question. In this sequence of “Comforter” promises in John’s gospel, certain details seem to require restriction to the leaders of the first century ecclesia (e.g. 14:26: “he shall bring all things to your remembrance”); Paul was confident that the Spirit’s gifts were only temporary; indeed those gifts could be transmitted to others by none but the Twelve (Ms 8 :14-19), so the second generation was bound to see their gradual disappearance; and all the available historical evidence from early Christian writers supports this conclusion.

Nevertheless here Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would “abide with you for ever” (v.16). There are three ways of coping with this problem.

One is to take the phrase very literally: “unto the age,” as though meaning to the end of the Mosiac dispensation when the temple was destroyed in A.D.70. This is an uneasy solution since, with hardly an exception in the New Testament, “for ever” means just that, and not forty years.

Much more fitting is the suggestion which emphasizes the happy opinion in the early church that the Holy Spirit gifts were to be enjoyed as a foretaste of yet greater blessing: “the powers of the world to come” (Heb.6 :5), “the earnest of our inheritance” (Eph.4 :30). From this point of view, “abide with you for ever” could mean “abide with you now, and ultimately for ever in my kingdom.”

The third alternative regards the charismatic powers of the Spirit as an interim phase of ecclesial development which has not necessarily meant complete inactivity of the Holy Spirit since the first century ended. Otherwise there are, it is pointed out, a big number of familiar New Testament texts which have either to be written off as no longer valid or else have to be given a somewhat indirect meaning with reference to the inspiration of Holy Scripture as the believer’s only resource and guide in modern times. The subject is large and complex and, alas, often nebulous in its modern treatment.

There are evident weaknesses about all of these interpretations. Then, what of this?:

A different approach

The New Testament has plenty of clear indications of a first century expectation of an early return of the Lord. These are all inspired Scriptures, and therefore were correct when they were spoken or written. So also here.

In this discourse by Jesus there is the same expectation that the kingdom would be manifest within a human lifetime. In that case the Lord’s promise that the Comforter will “abide with you for ever” was literally true when spoken. There would never be a time after Pentecost when the Holy Spirit (as experienced in the first century) was not with and in the believers. (The same explanation helps with Acts 2 :39; 1 Cor.13 :10; Lk.11:13).

But these inspired expectations were not fulfilled. For explanation why, see “Revelation” (H.A.W),p.259ff.

Help needed

Jesus foresaw the tremendous tensions which the preaching of the gospel would set up, especially in Jewry, after his ascension. So he promised the Holy Spirit as a guide in times of difficulty, as a mainstay of truth against the contentions of error: “The world (the Jewish world) cannot receive him, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him.” That word “seeth” had reference, doubtless, to the remarkable works of the Holy Spirit in Jesus himself and in the early church. The unbelieving nation saw the miracles, but was blind to the truth which they so graciously and powerfully proclaimed. In this sense, but not in this sense only, the Holy Spirit was to continue the Lord’s own witness. More especially, its guidance would empower frail untutored men to add their inspired witness concerning all aspects of truth which the life of the eccclesia or the preaching of the gospel might need. Remarkably enough, in the earliest days its direction was specially needed to testify against Jewish unbelief in Jesus as the Son of God, but before the apostle John passed off the scene its witness was needed also to confound the opposite “spirit of error” which taught, with increasing success, that “Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh” (1 Jn.4:1-6).

“Ye know him,” Jesus continued, “for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” The tenses here are difficult. Perhaps Jesus meant: ‘By contrast with my adversaries you are readily recognizing the Holy Spirit in my words and actions as I continue to abide with you; the same divine power shall be in you.’

Orphans

In Israel the Firstborn received a double portion of the inheritance in order that, if any younger brother found himself in hard straits— an “orphan’—the Firstborn’s duty of helping such with food and drink could be fulfilled.

It was to this that Jesus now referred: “I will not leave you orphans (13 :33): I come to you.” For them absence need not mean deprivation. “Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but ye see me.” Clearly this “no more” was not to be taken absolutely. The world will assuredly see Jesus again. The Jewish world, which he had specially in mind, will one day “look on me they pierced, and shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, a Firstborn” (Zech.12:10).

The Agape

It was a different vision of their Lord (from that of Zech. 12 :10) which he promised to them, his disciples: “But ye behold me: because I live, ye shall live also.” His expansion of this thought (v.21,23) shows that he spoke of their spiritual contemplation of him in the Agape, which was to celebrate not only his death, but also his living power. “Ye shall live also,” having already “passed from death unto life.” (1 Jn. 3:14 -another allusion to the Agape. How could they think of themselves as orphans, bereft of food and comfort, when he had bequeathed to them such a token of continuing blessing?

“In that day (the day of their meeting together to remember their Lord) ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” What more eloquent means of reassurance concerning these profound Shekinah truths than the simple remembrance of Christ in Bread and Wine as he had just appointed? “He that hath my commandments (13 :34), and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me (the Agape): and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” In all this there was implied comparison and contrast with the experience of the elders of Israel who, through the sacrifice offered by Moses, were given the privilege of beholding the Glory of the Lord and of eating peace-offerings in His Presence (Ex.24 :1-11). But high honour though this was, they could only worship “afar off.” How different the close fellowship with both Father and Son made possible for these humble disciples who were now being taught to appreciate their high status in the heavenly family!

In doing so, Jesus carefully chose a different word to describe this “manifesting” of himself to them from that so frequently employed to describe an open and unmistakable personal appearance (as in 7 :4; 17:6; 21 :1,14).

Judas, probably the youngest of the apostles, fastened on this implied difference. Like the rest, and especially the other Judas (note the parenthesis in this verse), he was eager to see his Master openly proclaimed to the nation as the Messiah of Israel. What other kind ol “manifestation” could Jesus mean? He feared that his leader might be abandoning his Messianic intentions altogether.

Jesus explained carefully the more immediate relevance of his words regarding the Breaking of Bread: “If any man love me (the Agape), he will keep my word (“do this in remembrance of me”): and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him (at the Love Feast), and make our abode with him (in the new spiritual temple, where there are many abiding places; v.2; Ex.25 :8). He that loveth me not (by neglecting the Breaking of Bread) keepeth not my words (and my Father will not love him, and we will not come and make our abode with him; v.23); and this word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me (compare God’s word to Moses: “I will be with thy mouth, and will teach what thou shalt say;” Ex.4 :12). “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethen, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;” (Dt. 18 :18).

Passages such as this are more than sufficient to allay misgivings regarding the notorious “omissions” in John’s gospel. Many a devout reader has been more than a little puzzled, and even distressed, that so many of the highly important features of the Lord’s ministry, detailed by the synoptic writers, should apparently go unmentioned in the fourth gospel. Yet it may be said with fair confidence that most of the supposed omissions are actually included by John, but in his own characteristic fashion. In this particular place the blessing and power of the Breaking of Bread is beautifully expounded for the reader through the Lord’s own commentary, and with a fullness which the other gospels do not attempt.

Notes: Jn. 14:15-24

In that solemn moment when he had given the disciples wine to drink in his name, Jesus had spoken words the remembering of which needed no aid from the promised Paraclete; every syllable was etched in their memory for life: “This is my blood of the New Covenant… I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Whilst they were still in the upper room, or perhaps as they were making their way to Gethsemane, the Lord took their minds once again to that vivid symbolism and its further implications: “I am the True Vine, and my Father is the husbandman.” But there was no Israelite who was not fully aware that his nation, the chosen of heaven, was God’s vine. All knew, and took pride in, the splendid word-picture in Psalm 80-Israel as God’s vine, brought out of Egypt, and planted and nurtured in a land of good soil and sunny hillsides (v.8-11).

The Old Testament Vine

The figure was expanded by Isaiah as he sang the Song of the Beloved and his vineyard (5 :1-7). Fruitful soil, every protection, devoted and patient attention-yet all it produced was “wild grapes”. Alas, there was nothing else for it-if the vine must go wild, then let it, give it some “excuse” for its perverse unfruitfulness, let the fence go to pieces, give this vineyard over to the trampling of wild beasts, steer the blessing of heaven’s rain clouds to some more deserving country, bake the soil hard under a sky of brass, and give the entire place over to briars and thorns. This is the fate of “the men of Judah, God’s pleasant plant.” And the men of Judah read their Scripture, understood its plain message, shook their heads about the waywardness of their fathers—and blithely went about their own special brand of apostasy.

Jeremiah took up the threnody: “I planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thou turned info the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” (2 :21).

There is no such plaintive expostulation in Ezekiel’s variation on this theme. He is all biting satire and burning censure: This vine of Israel-what good is it to anyone? No one would dream of making it into furniture. It is useless even for such a simple purpose as making tools of any sort, or a peg to hang up a water jar, useless as a staff to aid one’s walking, almost useless as fuel, it burns so badly. Good for one thing only, to produce wine to make glad the heart of man. Yet Israel gave no pleasure to its Owner. So, away with it!

Jesus had condensed these withering prophetic reprobations into his own parable of the labourers in the vineyard—the husbandmen punished, and the vineyard let out to others.

Now, a new Vine, a new Covenant, a new Israel, receiving all the sedulous care and attention which had formerly been lavished on “the vine out of Egypt.” “My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.” The allusion to Judas going out into the night seems obvious enough. But such a conclusion is not certain. The Greek word certainly means “take away;” but in many places it also carries the idea of “lift up, take up.” So there is no sure ground here for the drastic action of excommunication which some would take with those of fainting faith or waning zeal. In any case, even if the words mean excision this is for the husbandman to apply his skill to-“and my Father is the husbandman.”

All branches, fruitful or otherwise, receive His assiduous attention: “Every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” No need to say “in me” this time, for this is obvious.

“He taketh away”

Since “bear fruit” seems to refer to converts, “lift up” rather than “takeaway” is probably the correct reading (Mt.12 :12).

Mistakenly, the word “purgeth” has often been taken to signify pruning. The word means “cleanseth” (cp. Heb.10 :2-same word). Here it alludes to the common practice of scrubbing the vine stems with soap and water in order to rid them of a damaging fungus. Thus Jeremiah with reference to the “strange vine” of Israel: “Though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me” (2:22).

Jesus had already applied this process to his disciples, and would continue to do so: “Now ye are clean (13 :10) because of the word which I have spoken unto you.” He was surely alluding to an instruction in the Law of Moses that newly-planted “trees for food” were to be reckoned as “uncircumcised” and the fruit not to be eaten during the first three years. “But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal” (Lev.19 :23,24). Their three years of discipleship were now more than expired. Soon there would be fruit in plenty-“holy to praise the Lord withal”-but only through the vigorous life of Christ in them: “Abide ye in me, and I (will abide) in you (cp.v.7; contrast 5 :38). As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” Failure to learn this lesson has meant tragedy for many. “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (Mt. 11:5). In times of spiritual stress, the very worst thing a man can do is to loosen his connection with the ecclesia which makes him a branch of the True Vine. Yet, not infrequently, this is the first reaction to a bad situation.

Jesus did not say: “I am the stem,” but: “I am the vine”, the entire living organic unit, of which his disciples are the branches. “He that abideth in me, so that I also abide in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing.” That final word can hardly receive too much emphasis. Salt which loses its saltness is “fit for nothing” (Mt.5 :13).” A man can receive nothing, except it be given him of the Father” (Jn.3 :27). Paul’s description of unregenerate or back-sliding human nature is very blunt: “without strength . . . ungodly . .. sinners . . . enemies;” but the obverse of the picture is given by a five-fold “much more”: “justified … reconciled … the grace of God… abundance of grace, the gift of righteousness.. grace abounding unto eternal life” (Rom.5 :6-10,15,17,20,21)-all these are assured when a man is truly a part of the True Vine.

“Cast forth”

Jesus developed the contrast yet further. “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as the (fruitless) branch, and is caused to wither (the verb is Gk. passive).

Here is a truth which is not to be ignored. If a man would have spiritual health, he must remain as an integral part of the Christ Vine. So he must make his own personal decision accordingly.

Alas, it is every bit as important for the ecclesia to recognize this truth also. What tragedies there have been because of coo! severance made of individuals almost desperately eager for continued fellowship, yet this has been disallowed. How many hitherto fruitful branches have been “made to wither” by drastic unsought cutting off! Preservation of unity with the main stock is always to be sought at almost any cost, for nothing is more important, more fundamental. “There is one Body.”

The outcome of severance, Jesus went on, is that “(men) gather them, and cast them into the fire,, and they are burned.” The text has no subject for the verb “gather”. AV has supplied the general term “men”, and there is some support for this in the Isaiah parable (27:11). Alternatively, one may read an even less definite: “they gather them” with possible reference to angels in the Day of Judgment.

The context—”he is cast forth” from the Vine-suggests the former of these ideas (as AV). In which case Jesus is warning against being over-ready to exclude from fellowship because of the greatly intensified danger that “men”, worldly men, will gather those cut off and ensure their destruction with worldliness. How often, and how readily, this happens! And what a responsibility then on those who do the casting forth!

On the other hand, faithful abiding in Christ brings matchless privileges: “Ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” Of course, the words are not to be taken without any qualification, as though the Lord were presenting his disciple with a blank cheque on the Bank of Heaven, somewhat after the fashion of Grimm’s fairy offering the young hero fulfilment of three wishes.

The same apparently absolute promise comes in five other places, yet in each instance the context provides an implied qualifying clause of some kind: “ye shall ask what ye will” for the benefit of others under your spiritual care or guidance, usually those to whom the gospel is being preached (14 :12-14-see Study 198 and 15 :16; in 1 Jn.3 :22 and 5 :14 it is the forgiveness of sins, as the context makes clear).

So also here: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit (v.16: that ye should go forth and bring forth fruit); so shall ye become my disciples.” If this is the Lord’s definition of a disciple, then here is a touchstone for testing the quality of one’s faith. The man who truly has Christ as Lord will not be restrained from talking about him. There will be an irrepressible urge to share out the love of Christ, “that they might be trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord (the True Vine), that he might be glorified” (ls.61 :3)-glorified in his Servant the New Israel (49:3).

“Abide in my love”

And since the essential bond of the Covenant between preacher and learner, between Master and disciple, is necessarily the Breaking of Bread, just instituted, Jesus went on to re-affirm (vv.9-14) the supreme value of this memorial rite, the Love Feast: “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments* ye shall abide in

my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love” (cp. Dt.9:7). What man, except Jesus, could say such a thing as this without complete loss of character? But in his mouth the words are unselfconsciously and obviously true, this matchless, faultless Son of God!

“These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be fulfilled.” In the New Testament by far the most common use of this word “joy” is to describe the joy of fellowship, which is essentially the highest joy of human experience. And since “fulfilled’ nearly always suggests the fulfilment of a promise or prophecy, it seems likely that Jesus was alluding to his words at the supper table: “I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

He continued to commend the Love Feast unto them, as the focus of all their worship, devotion and fellowship: “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, just as (Gk. kathos] I have loved you. This past tense is altogether out of place until the “Love Feast” context is recognized. Then it presents no difficulty. And the next verse could hardly be more appropriate: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” He meant, of course, his own impending self- sacrifice on behalf of his disciples, as his next words plainly imply: “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Taken absolutely, and without any qualifications, this definition excludes every man who ever lived, and Christ died in vain. But when read with specific reference to the Agape, which is and must always be the hall-mark of the follower of Christ, there is no difficulty.

Friends

Eating of the Passover, or of the sacrifices of the Lord, was forbidden to strangers, but could include those who were “servants bought for money” (Ex.12 :44,45; Lev.22 :10). The language seems to imply that a slave could be compelled to be circumcised and thus formally qualified for partaking of the feast. But not so with this new Passover. No special qualification of birth or race or social positon, but only the more real bond of a genuine love for Christ, decides a man’s right to share in this high blessing: “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant (slave) knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends.” At this new Passover no one is under any legal compulsion or constraint. He may come or go, as he pleases-and as Judas did. Instead there is a greater, more effectual, constraint-that of being a friend of the One who provides the meal and the deliverance which it symbolizes.

“Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?” God had said regarding His impending judgement of iniquitous Sodom. So the Friend of God (Jas.2 :23) was admitted to the counsels of heaven. But now, regarding imputed righteousness (not long-tolerated wickedness) and the sharing of a greater deliverance, friends of Jesus have at least equal privileges: “I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you.” To some extent this was a declaration of intention, for only a few minutes later the Lord was constrained to add: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but we cannot bear them now.” These omissions were made good, no doubt, during the next Forty Days or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the Twelve grew to the responsibilities of early church leadership.

It is difficult to be sure whether the ensuing words carry on the allusion to Abraham, or go back to the True Vine. Perhaps both. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and appointed you, that ye should go forth (as childless Abraham was called out of Ur?) and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit may abide; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name (as Abraham sought the fulfilment of his hopes in the birth of a seed), he may give it you.”

Essentially, these words have to do with the propagation of the good news concerning Christ. This was to be apostles’ great task. The influence of their message on the lives of men needing succour from sin was to mean a luscious fruitfulness on the Vine of God. But they could never hope to achieve much of this in their own strength: “Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he will give it you.” Without the wisdom and power of the Spirit of truth, their word — and his—must fall to the ground.

Especially must they remember that the source and spring of all their activity and progress was in Christ. Only “in his name” could they seek the direction and blessing needed on all their endeavours. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” This principle of divine action is fundamental. It is hard to believe, harder still to understand, nigh impossible. Yet it must never be forgotten, lest a man think there is any virtue in his “decision” (forsooth!) to belong to Christ. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”—the words epitomize divine grace and human helplesssness. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn.4 :10).

The life of faith, and therefore of fruitfulness, in Christ depends on an adequate recognition of this amazing, unreasonable, and utterly incomprehensible principle (Mt. 25:34; Jn. 6:37, 39, 44, 65; 17:6; 12:39, 40; Acts 13:48; 18:10, 27; 16:14; 2:23, 39; 4:24-28; 1 Pet. l:2,20; Rom. 8:28-30; 9:10,11; Rev. 13:8; 1 Cor. l:26-28; 4:7; 3:5-7; Eph. l:4, 5, 9, 11 ;2 Th. 2:13).

Notes: Jn. 15:1-17

Apart from this remarkable example of the Lord Jesus in prayer, almost nothing is known of his fellowship with the Father. But how this unique chapter in the gospels makes good all other omissions!

The phrase: “he lifted up his eyes to heaven,” reads most naturally if this prayer were spoken out of doors, whilst Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Gethsemane. Perhaps en route there they spent a short while in the temple court. But such a supposition has to be reconciled with: “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Mt. 23:38).

It seems highly probable that John 17 gives the actual words spoken by Jesus. The later quotation of verse 12 (in 18 :9) strongly supports this: “that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake. Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.” The words are quoted verbatim.

The prayer falls into three sections. In the first the Lord prays briefly for himself and for fulfilment of God’s Purpose through himself. The rest of the prayer is for his disciples and then for those who are brought to faith in him through their labours. But essentially the prayer is on behalf of his apostles.

It is here that the outworking of the theme of John’s gospel comes to its climax: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (1 :17). To read John 17without an awareness of its many points of contact with the work of Moses is to miss one of its main intentions. For convenience’ sake a list of these is tabulated here:

It is to be noted that appropriately, the allusions are mostly to the sublimest experiences of Moses—his vision of the glory of the Lord in Sinai, his ministering of the Law, and his intercession for the people in their sin.

There is marked contrast between the Lord lifting up his eyes to heaven in this prayer and the penitent publican in the parable who “would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven” as he sought forgiveness (Lk. 18 :13). It is a contrast not difficult to understand. But a short while later, in Gethsemane, when Jesus felt borne down by the burden of sin and its penalties now laid upon him, “he fell on his face and prayed” (Mt.26:39).

“Father, the hour is come.” It is the Lord’s characteristic way of referring to a time of outstanding action and vital development (Jn. 2:4; 4:21,23; 5:25,28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23,37; 16:32; 19:27). The successful outcome of the Purpose of God now depended on the consecrated will of His only Son. So he prayed for help in the ordeal and victory in his tribulation.

The main point of his first petition comes out more clearly if it is rearranged: “Glorify thy Son, in order that, as thou hast given him authority over all flesh he might give to them whatsoever thou hast given him (that is, eternal life), even so may the Son glorify thee.” Far from pitying himself because of the burden of responsibility and suffering now laid upon him, Jesus was concerned mostly for a happy outcome to this divine work, that “for God’s pleasure” the New Creation might come into being (Rev.4:11).

It is difficult to believe that at this moment Jesus was not leaning once again (see Study 159) on the wonderful Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 49 : “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified … Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength … a light to the Gentiles … my salvation unto the ends of the earth” (49 :3,5,6). There are passages in the rest of the New Testament which take up this theme with great power and inspiration (e.g. Eph.l :20,23; Ph.2 :7-11; Rev.5 :8-14).

Those with difficulties in personal prayer will note one thing here with re-assurance. Even though this fruitful result of the work and suffering of Christ was already foretold in prophecies which must be fulfilled, and had already been promised to Jesus personally—’I have glorified my Name and I will glorify it again” (Jn.12 :28)—Jesus prayed nevertheless for full achievement of the Father’s intention through himself. It is the old, old paradox of the infallibility of divine purpose and the frailty of human nature, even when that human nature is the Son of God. Inspired prophecy had also said: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Ps.2:8). So Jesus asked, and was to ask again, and was not refused.

“Authority over all flesh” is an unusual phrase. It emphasized a creation in desperate need of redemption. “All flesh”, as grass, had the glory of the lord revealed to it in Jesus. Yet through him eternal life was to come only to “those whom God had given him’—another mysterious paradox—or a different facet of the same. Some find satisfaction in evolving obscure explanations which are supposed to reconcile these seeming differences, at least to their own satisfaction. But it is probably more wholesome, and certainly more in tune with the life of faith to believe implicitly all these enunciations of variegated divine truth, whether they are seen to be reconciled or not.

Jesus defined the gift of eternal life. It is hardly the definition which would first come to the mind of a twentieth-century disciple whose sights are set on power over the nations, the rooting out of wickedness, and the enjoyment of comfort and ease in a springcleaned world. Instead: “that they might know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ.”

Here some try to insist, with over-scrupulosity, on the reading: “in order that they might know thee …” In that case, the main intent behind human redemption is that men be brought into fellowship with the Father and the Son. This is a not unworthy meaning of a sublime passage.

But in a number of places John’s gospel uses this Greek particle [hind] to indicate apposition rather than a purpose or consequence (e.g. 3 :16; 4:34; 13:1); so the meaning suggested by the common version is equally possible; and the word for “know” (= learn about, get to know, perceive) lends support to this. The idiom which speaks of “eternal life” as a part of present experience in Christ is not uncommon in this gospel (e.g. 3 :36; 5 :24; 6 :47,54; 10 :28; 1 Jn.5 :11,13). Learning to know the Father and the Son is the quintessence of life in Christ, a widening experience leading to a fulness of personal knowledge in the age to come. There is little justification for the rather woolly controversy which has now and then centred on this phrase: “eternal life”.

The expression: “the true God” somewhat remarkably makes contrast not with the false gods of men’s devising but with the limited and often typical revelation of Jehovah in Old Testament times. Through His Son men were able to know intimately, if they chose, an expression of God’s own personality and purpose. In the wondrous demonstration of this ineffable truth Jesus “glorified the Father on the earth.” In this sense he “finished the work given him to do.”

It has often been commented that verse 3 gives the first occurrence of the name “Jesus Christ”-apart from the heading of Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels. There is some doubt whether it was actually used by Jesus or whether, as the shape of the Greek sentence may suggest, it is a parenthesis inserted by John himself: “the only true God, and him whom thou didst send (even Jesus Christ).” Yet who would wish to say that this first use of the now familiar name is in any way out of place here? Because of its extended intercession for the disciples this is the Lord’s high-priestly prayer. The name Jesus Christ is an appropriate reminder that he was anointed not only to be King of Israel but also as “an high priest over the house of God” (Heb.10 :21).

It would be a mistake to conclude, because the Lord spoke of a “finished work”, that thenceforth there was nothing left for him to do. He had glorified the Father in countless gracious works (2 :11; 11 :4,40; 5 :36; 9 :4), he had taught with unflagging effort and earnestness the message of the kingdom and the responsibilities of its citizenship (7 :16,18; 4 :34). All this was now rounded off with the matchless appeal of the past few days. There still lay before him his self-denial and suffering, until at last he was to say, with head uplifted: “It is finished” (19 :30). His vital work as mediator still continues (16 :7,23; 14 :13,14; 15 :7,16). And even when he comes again there will be another great work to accomplish 1Cor.15:25,28.

It was surely for the benefit of his redeemed that the Lord now repeated his earlier petition (v.l): “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Words such as these have been used as a sheet-anchor by Trinitarians and others who make the personal pre-existence of Jesus a dogma of high importance.

Once again, it is failure to recognize the idiom of the Bible, and especially of the Johannine writings, which has created the misconception. Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev.13 :8), he is “the root of David” (Rev.22 :16), he is the source of Abraham’s unquenchable joy (Jn.8 :58,56), because from the earliest days his great redeeming work was the very hinge and pivot of every development in the purpose of God. Long before the foundation of the Jewish kosmos, from the time of Abraham, when Sarah “received strength for the founding of seed” (Heb.ll :11), the intensifying teleology of creation converged on Christ. And to this minute nothing has meaning apart from him.

Notes: Jn. 17:1-5

After its first few sentences, all the rest of this prayer of Jesus centred on his disciples, so it may be taken as fairly certain that even the earlier petitions on his own behalf were really with them in mind, for it was only through himself that eternal life and the glory of the Father could come to them. He had been unremitting in his efforts to educate them in this truth: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.” That expression: “Thou gavest them me” comes six times in this prayer! (v.6twice,9,11,12,24).

The Name

The allusions to Moses come through clearly here (see Study 205). The “name” of the Lord declared to Moses (Ex.34 :6,7) was declared by him to the people, just as the glory of the Lord also was visible in him in a truly awe-inspiring fashion (34 :29-35). And as the men of Levi, unexpectedly loyal to their leader and reacting sharply from the sin of the golden calf, were assigned a perpetual loyalty to the sanctuary of the Lord (Dt.33 :8-10), so also now the disciples given to Jesus as his necessary helpers, had hung on in their loyalty to him against all, discouragements.

Jesus had both “manifested” the Name of God (v.6) and “declared” Him (v.26). The former word nearly always implies theophany, the latter means “made known” through his teaching. The “Name” he manifested was, of course, much more than the divine Covenant Name or other cognomen. As with Moses in the mount, the Name of the Lord now declared by Jesus was His character and attributes and purpose. “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth (the fulfilment of His promises), keeping mercy for thousands (very probably means “for a thousand generations”; Ex.20 :6RVm), forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Ex.34 :6,7). It may be doubted whether at this time the apostles appreciated that their Jesus was to be the vehicle of such surpassing grace, but in due time the Spirit of truth illuminated their understanding very remarkably.

“They have known^”

Given to Jesus by the Father, they “kept” his word and became the staunch custodians of his teaching. Here again is yet another aspect of the inescapable paradox woven into so much of the teaching of John’s gospel. Given by the Father-this is election-but keeping their Master’s word is only by personal decision and act of will.

“Now they have come to know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.” Throughout the past three years there had been plenty of occasions when their confidence in him had faltered, times enough when devotion had been clouded by mystification; yet they had held on, unable to define clearly the grounds of their conviction about him, but unwilling to let go.

It seems not unlikely that the past tenses used by the Lord in his prayer concerning his disciples were so used by anticipation of the greater consolidation of faith which came to them later on. The very words spoken by the Father to His Son (Dt.18 :16,18) were now spoken to them by Jesus, “and they received them’—at this time only in a limited sense; the “receiving” of the inner meaning of their Lord’s instruction would be theirs in due course. “They have known surely that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me.” It may be doubted whether at this moment the apostles had grasped as a literal fact that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin (8 :42). And the sense in which he was “sent” would naturally be interpreted by them in the light of his word about themselves: “As thou hast sent me unto the world, even so have I also sent them into the world” (v.18). But the full realisation of the person and work of Jesus would necessarily come to them after the resurrection, after Pentecost.

There is a marvellous exclusiveness about this petition of Jesus for his own: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world” (cp. Mt.10:32). Once again it was the Jewish world which he reprobated. He had come unto his own, and his own received him not (astonishing understatement!). And as long as Israel gave him only a stubborn rejection, “pray not for this people” was the mandate God laid upon him (Jer.11:14;cp. 1Jn.5:19).

So all his concern was centred on these humble inadequate men given him by his Father—’for they are thine: and all mine are thine, and thine are mine.” Once again the paradox shouts for resolution: if this be so emphatically true, why the need for this most intense insistent prayer? But the Book supplies no answer. To the unbeliever this is foolishness, to the man of God it is faith, and thus the Son of God is glorified in him.

How well Jesus knew the frailty of these to whom he was to commit so much. There might well be grounds for concern how they would fare without him: “I am no more in the world, but these are in the world (that hostile Jewish world of entrenched privilege, religious distortion, and consolidated prejudice). Holy Father (the one who prays thus is a High Priest entering into a Holy of Holies),… Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me.”

The unique mode of address used by Jesus here is a measure of the intensification of his emotion and earnestness. In such an environment as the disciples would find themselves, how could they hope to keep their heads above water without having “everlasting arms” to support them and without a wisdom far beyond their own?

The exact equivalent of this prayer (v. 11) is to be found in an impressive Messianic psalm: “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” (69 :6). And another psalm which includes a moving passage about Judas (55:12-14)ends on this note: “Cast upon the Lord that which he has given thee, and he shall sustain thee” (55 :22). In his protracted intercession for those given him by the Father, Jesus expressed the spirit of this psalm perfectly.

The son of perdition

His own concern and vigilance for the twelve had been unremitting: “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept (NEB: kept them safe), and none of them perished, but the son of perdition.” The implications here are very striking. If the twelve were “given” to Jesus by the Father, it must mean that there was direct divine guidance in their selection, a guidance imparted in the course of a whole night spent in prayer about them (Lk.6:12).

Judas was one of those “given” by the Father, yet he became “a son of loss.” Then what did John mean by his earlier declaration that “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (6:64)? Perhaps this should betaken to mean that Jesus knew (from the Old Testament) that the traitor must be one of the inner circle of his disciples.

The added phrase: “that the scripture might be fulfilled,” lends support to this. “Let his days be few, and let another take his office” (Ps.109 :8; and cp. Ps.55 :12-14; 41 :9; 35:12-14).

In this specific example of Judas the earlier paradox reasserts itself. “Given to Jesus by the Father” would seem to imply the inevitability of salvation, Nevertheless Judas perished. Indeed, Jesus spoke of him as already perished (the RV reading is correct), although still competent for the evil work of betrayal. Here once again is the Johannine idiom (learnt from Jesus?). “He that loveth not his Brother abideth in death” (1 Jn. 3:14).

The ground for this prayer on behalf of the disciples was now repeated: “And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world (he surely meant ‘concerning the world—the next few verses seem to demand this meaning), that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.” This repetition of the word “fulfilled” suggests allusion to another Scripture to be fulfilled, probably to Psalm 16 :11: “Thou wilt shew me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand (“I come to thee”) there are pleasures for evermore” (but see also Zeph. 3:17;ls.29:19;51:ll;66:5). Here immediately after a clear prophecy of his resurrection, is a dear prophecy of his ascension. It is to be recalled, also, that just before this prayer Jesus had been making his promise to send the Spirit of truth from the Father (16:7; 15:26; 14:26).

Concern for the disciples

The benefit of the disciples as the spring and source of this prayer had already been copiously emphasized in his earlier words to them. It is worthwhile to bring the passages together, in order to get the full effect of the Lord’s concern for his weak unsure followers:

“Now I tell you before it come, that when it (the betrayal) is come to pass ye may believe that I am he” (13:19).

“And now I have told you before it (the ascension) come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe” (14:29).

“These things (the warning of persecution, and the comfort of the Holy Spirit) have I spoken unto you that ye should not be offended” (16:1).

“But these things (the hostility of the rulers) have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you” (16:4).

“These things (about the new commandment) have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be fulfilled” (15:11).

“These things (his and their relationship to the Father) have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace” (16:33).

For all the hardship which hung over him, Jesus could hardly have shown greater solicitude for his followers and less for himself than by the long and intense sequence of petitions which he offered for them: “I have given them thy word; and the world hated them (cause and effect? 15 :18,19), because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (why this immediate repetition?). The world referred to was, once again, the Mosaic system and the unspiritual men associated with it; and the evil he sought their deliverance from was the danger of their being sucked back into compliance with an entrenched self-interest which his sacrifice must bring to an end.

Sent into “the world”

This part of the prayer has a close affinity with the assurance spoken to Peter a short while before: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan (the Jewish adversary—the “world”) hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Lk.22 :31,32).

If they were true followers, they could expect their own experience to match his own. “As thou didst send me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world” (v.18). This can hardly have reference to the earlier, rather brief, mission they had carried out some months before. It must be about the great work of preaching which they were to undertake after his ascension. But it is not easy to see why a past tense should be used here (cp. 4 :38), unless indeed this prayer was actually offered just before the ascension.

He prayed that their self-denying consecration to an evangelizing mission might match his own: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth . . . Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (v. 19,17).

This “truth”, as in so many places in the Old Testament, alluded to the mighty promises of God which centred in himself. Indeed, the key phrase here was a quotation of king David’s thankful response to the great Messianic promise made to him through Nathan: “Thy words are truth, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant” (2 Sam.7 :28). In the days to come it would be a firm conviction of the immutability of that promise and of its sure fulfilment in Christ which would keep these frail men constant and courageous in their ministry—this, and heaven’s response to their Master’s prayer.

Thus they were launched on their mission— “sent into the world’—even as their Master had himself been “sent into the world” from the time of his baptism by John.

Notes: Jn. 17:6-19

The Lord’s intercession now widened in scope to include the whole family of believers: “Neither pray I for these alone (the apostles), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” There is plain implication here of a preaching mission for which, at present, his disciples were very ill-equipped. But he had already repeatedly assured them that all their inadequacy would be made good by the Spirit of truth. The present participle here (translated “shall believe,” in the AV) is somewhat unexpected: “those who are believing.” But at the time he spoke, his apostles were not active missionaries. Yet the next few verses have ever been read with reference to the whole community of believers, “that they may be one, even as we are.”

This is not the only example here of the unexpected in tenses—have finished (v.4), have kept (v.6), have known surely (v.8), I am glorified (v.10), I come (v.ll), perished (v.12), I come, I speak (v.13), hated (v.U), I sent (v.18), thou gavest, I have given (v.22), I am, hast given (v.24), have tribulation, have overcome {16 :33).

“^:*V The phenomenon, traceable also elsewhere in the Lord’s discourses in John, has been glossed over by students of this gospel. Has any coherent explanation of it ever been forthcoming?

That they may be one”

The existence of this verbal idiosyncracy has never hindered any devout reader of this prayer from a clear appreciation of the profound far-reaching character of its petition: “that they all may be one; as thou art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us.” This is the second of four times (v.11,21,22,23). The repetition is a measure of the high importance set by Jesus on the unity of true believers.

He had set the ideal before the disciples in the sharing of the Bread and the Wine—an ideal which an anxious apostle was one day to strive desperately to impart to partisan Corinthians: “seeing that there is one loaf, we—the many-are one body” (see RVm of 1 Cor.10 :17). “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). Yet there have been times enough when it would seem that the Lord prayed for his own in vain. Would it have been any better had that prayer been offered forty times instead of four?

The ideal became reality in the earliest days of the church: “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4 :32). But even then it did not last. Soon there was “a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews” (6 :1). And it was not long before “certain men . . . taught the brethren, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (15 :1).

Nor has the Truth in Christ fared any better in the twentieth century. Depressed and discouraged, many a disciple has often wondered to what purpose the words were ever said—or read! : “that they may be one, even as we are one.” So there were prayers of Jesus (Mt.26 :39 and Ps. 35 :13 are others) which even divine omnipotence could not and cannot respond to!

What a powerful contrast there is here with the familiar words spoken in Eden: “Behold, the man is become as one of us—to know good and evil” (3 :22). That was a one-ness of the wrong sort—equality of a kind, without fellowship, a human will asserting its independence of its Maker. For his disciples Jesus sought a mending of this discord: “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one.” Several other phrases in this prayer seem to echo Genesis: “the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (v.5); “they have kept thy word” (v.6); “keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me” (v.11); “that thou shouldest keep them from the evil (one)” (v.15); “the glory which thou hast given me … before the foundation of the world” (v.24).

“Perfected into one” is a phrase which makes amends for all present disappointments, for it implies ultimate achievement of what, in this day of small things (and small people) seems to be hopelessly out of reach.

Somewhat unexpectedly, Jesus no less than four (five?) times made this supplication with the word ”one” in a neuter form—to match the word “spirit” (implied?) The oneness of his prayer is that so succinctly expressed by Paul: “One body, one Spirit . . . one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph.4 :4-6). However small the present signs of realisation, aspiration and striving towards this ideal of one-ness in Christ must never be let go. An easy-going compliance with anything less is an open confession that “the body, without the spirit, is dead.”

Consecration and Glory

The means of achievement indicated by Jesus is easily missed by the modern reader because of the idiom involved. The Hebrew phrase for the consecration of a priest (literally: to fill the hand; Ex.29 :29,33,35, and many other places) is translated in the LXX by the word “perfected” (as in Heb.7 :28 etc). So, very probably, Jesus now envisaged the consecration of his disciples as “a spiritual house, a holy priesthood” (1 Pet.2 :5)—hence: “for their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (v.19).

To this he added: “that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me before the foundation of the world.” This is surely not the only allusion in this prayer to the manifestation of the Shekinah Glory of God to Moses and to the Seventy in mount Sinai before the inauguration of the tabernacle and its system of worship—the “foundation of the (Mosaic) world” (Ex.24 :18,10; 33 :22; 34 :29). The same prototype perhaps helps to add meaning to the expression: “that they also be with me where I am.” But in the immediate reference to Jesus and his disciples, “where I am” more probably has reference to condition or status rather than location, as also in Revelation: “They are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple” (7:15).

The appeal of the Son to the throne in heaven on behalf of his own now moved to a perfervid climax: “O righteous Father, the world (of Israel, the covenant nation) hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared to them thy name.” This is not the same as “manifesting” the name of the Father to them (v.6). That referred to the exhibition of the Father’s character and purpose in His Son. This looks back to all the instruction he had imparted to the disciples, especially at the Last Supper and since. And it was said by one who had “known” the Father. What do dogmatic Trinitarians make of the idea of a Son “coequal” with the Fathers who had to “get to know” Him, “learn” about Him?—for that is what the Greek word implies (and so also in 10:15; Mt.11 :27).

“I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it.” The marvellous shock of Christ’s resurrection had the effect of prising open the minds of the apostles to the reception of a vast world of spiritual truth which they drank in thirstily during the exciting experience of the forty days (Lk.24 :45; Acts 1 :3). Two thousand years before, Jehovah had said: “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? . . . For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord . . . that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18 ;17,19). Then how much more must the same be true regarding the Seed of Abraham: “The only begotton Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Jn. 1 :18).And all this, “that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” Here, in few words, is the awe-inspiring and hopelessly illogical paradox of redemption—that a righteous Father should bestow on sinners the love which He has for His only-begotten Son. It makes no sense. And yet the explanation is simple: “I in them.” That is both Why and How.

Notes: Jn. 17:20-26