Pilate therefore went out to them and said, What accusation do ye bring against this man?
Pilate's opening words in this trial are a judge's proper question: name the charge. The scene is strange from the start. The governor has to come outside to the accusers. When he asks for a crime, the men who dragged Jesus there cannot name one.
Pilate did not summon the accusers in; he went out to them. They refused to set foot in a Gentile building. One writer notes how that demand would have struck a Roman official.
They had led Jesus to him from Caiaphas. But they would not enter his palace, in case it defiled them and left them unable to keep the great festival of the Passover. So the Roman governor had to go out to them to hear their charges. Giving way like this would gall the Roman soldier. He was used to demanding full respect for the Imperial eagle he represented. Who were these Jews who claimed to be polluted by entering the halls of imperial justice?
They were careful about ceremony while they were set on having a man killed. One writer explains what that kind of care is worth.
They did not want to defile themselves, because they wanted to eat the Passover. At that very moment they were handing over the true Passover Lamb to be sacrificed. Scruples are not conscience. We must not violate scruples, if we have them, but conscience looks to God and to His word. Conscience did not stop the Jews buying the blood of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Yet a scruple would not let them put the money Judas threw back into the temple treasury, because it was the price of blood.
Pilate's question followed proper legal order. The pagan governor, not the religious leaders, keeps some form of justice here.
Pilate may be a hard-hearted man of the world, but at least he shows some semblance of justice by asking what the accusation against Christ is. In their answer, the Jews pose as thoroughly upright men. On their showing, it insults them to suggest they would bring the Lord before the judge unless He were a criminal.
Instead of an accusation, they gave a character reference for themselves. One writer names the tactic behind it.
Pilate was right to want a definite accusation. They had none to offer, so they first tried to rush him into a verdict on the general plea that He was an evildoer. It is a common trick of the religious persecutor to attack in general terms and avoid any specific charge.
With no charge, the case should have ended that morning. One writer puts the blame for what followed on the judge himself.
If Pilate had then acted justly, he should have declared the prisoner free, for there was no specific charge against Him. But he was in no way fitted to be a just judge. He wanted to slip out of any responsibility. He kept that up until he had entangled himself in the most dreadful injustice in history.
Pilate tried to send the case back to the accusers, and they refused. That refusal decided how Jesus would die.
Pilate felt that there was no proper case for him, and asks for a definite accusation (verse 29). Lacking one, they dodge it by taking offence, real or pretended, at his question, as if they could not be unjust (verse 30). The governor would gladly have thrown the responsibility back on the Jews. Their answer betrays their settled decision: Jesus must die. They could not lawfully put Him to death themselves, so it had to be done by the hands of lawless men. He must die the death of the cross.
Another writer ties the Roman court to the way Jesus had said He would die:
He came as the Saviour of the world, and so the world power judges Him… The Roman method of capital punishment served to fulfil Christ's predictions about how He would die — that He would be "lifted up" (3:15; 8:28; 12:31).
- Scruple — They stayed out of a building to keep clean for the feast while arranging a killing. Care about appearances is not conscience before God.
- Question — Pilate asked for the charge. That was the one correct step in the trial, and it came from the pagan governor, not the religious leaders.
- Silence — They had no crime to name, so they took offence instead. Attacking in general terms is the standard weapon of the religious persecutor.
- Failure — With no charge, the prisoner should have gone free that hour. Pilate tried to dodge responsibility, and it bound him tighter to the injustice.
- Purpose — They refused to take the case back, so it went to Rome, and so to the cross. That is the death the Lord had foretold for Himself.
They answered and said to him, If this [man] were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered him up to thee.
They bring Jesus to the Roman governor, and Pilate asks the question any court must ask: what is the charge? Their reply names no crime at all, and that refusal shapes everything that follows.
Pilate's question was simple. They gave a label, not a charge. Instead of naming a crime, they told the judge to take their word for it.
Pilate, the Roman judge, must go out to the Jews to ask what their accusation against Christ was. In answer they have no accusation at all. They proudly tell Pilate that he should treat Christ as a criminal simply because they brought Him to Pilate (v. 30)! If Pilate had done what was right, he should have declared the prisoner free, for there was no specific charge against Him.
This is only the first of four charges they bring against Him.
We now read of an indictment with four counts. First, the Lord was a criminal (John 18:30). Second, He made Himself a King (33-37). Third, He declared that He was the Son of God (19:7). Fourth, He spoke against Caesar (12). Heavy charges indeed! Were they true? Could the Jews prove them? Could Roman law even take notice of them?… Now Pilate knew well that the Jews had handed the Lord over to him out of envy. He knew that He was no criminal.
Their answer says more about themselves than about the prisoner. Their whole defence is their own good name.
Pilate may be a hard-hearted man of the world. But at least he makes some show of justice by asking what the accusation against Christ is. In their answer, the Jews act as if they were such upright men that it is an insult to suggest they would bring the Lord before the judge if He were not a criminal.
Acting insulted was an easy way to dodge the question. It also showed they had already decided the outcome.
Pilate felt that there was no proper case for him, and asks for a definite accusation (verse 29). They dodge this by an affected or real offence at his question, as if they could not be unjust (verse 30). The governor would have been glad to throw the responsibility on the Jews. They betray their own settled decision: Jesus must die. Death could not lawfully come at their hands, so it must come by the hand of lawless men.
The men who feared defilement were the men pressing for an innocent death. One writer draws a sharp line between a scruple and a conscience.
They did not want to defile themselves, so that they could eat the Passover (verse 28). At that very moment they were handing over the true Passover Lamb to be sacrificed. Scruples are not conscience. We must not violate scruples, if we have them, but conscience looks to God and to His word. Conscience did not stop the Jews buying the blood of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. But a scruple stopped them. They would not put the money Judas threw back into the treasury of God in the temple, because it was the price of blood.
Because they would not name a charge, the case moved to the Roman court. The way He died was fixed, not accidental.
The Jews might stone Stephen in a burst of religious fury, and Herod might kill James with the sword. But the Jewish chief priests and scribes had to condemn the Son of Man, and the Gentiles had to crucify Him… Man everywhere must prove his guilt to the last degree. God's Word must be fulfilled to the letter, with God Himself cast out in shame from His own earth… Yet it was the deepest moral glory.
A dying man beside Him later said the exact opposite of what the rulers say here.
As soon as he admits that he is justly condemned, he turns to that blessed One hanging beside him. He gives the sweet testimony, "This man has done nothing wrong." Here he contradicts the whole world outright. He takes issue with the chief priests, elders, and scribes, who had handed over the holy One as a criminal. They had declared, "If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you." But the dying thief declares, "This man has done nothing wrong."
- No charge. Pilate asked for an accusation. They gave none — only the claim that handing Him over was proof enough.
- No case. Justice demanded release, because no one could name a specific charge. Pilate knew envy was the real motive.
- No conscience. Men who feared defilement felt nothing about giving up the true Passover Lamb. Scruples are not conscience.
- No accident. They would not act themselves, so Jewish leaders condemned Him and Gentiles crucified Him — just as God's Word said.
- No guilt. A dying thief reversed the world's verdict of "criminal", declaring that this Man had done nothing wrong.
Pilate therefore said to them, Take him, ye, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him, It is not permitted to us to put any one to death;
Pilate's first move is to get rid of the case: let the Jewish leaders judge their own prisoner by their own law. Their answer sounds like a legal technicality: they have no power to execute a man. But that reply settled how Jesus would die.
Pilate could see what lay behind the charge.
Pilate tells the Jews to judge the Lord Jesus by their own law. He knew well that the whole matter was religious prejudice, not a major criminal case — and the Romans did not allow the Jews to handle major criminal cases. But before any trial they had already decided that He must be put to death. They could not do this lawfully themselves, so they demanded that Pilate condemn Him to death. More than this, the Lord Himself had foretold that He would die by crucifixion (v. 32), the Roman way of putting a man to death, rather than by Jewish stoning.
Their claim was true. There is even a record of when Rome took that power away.
"It is not lawful for us..." According to the Talmud, the Romans took the right to carry out the death penalty away from the Jews in the year just before this. That was exactly "forty years" before the fall of Jerusalem.
Notice what the admission cost them. Rome's rule was the thing they resented most. Yet here they lean on it, and ask Pilate for a life.
They hated Jesus more than they hated Roman rule. That rule had been unbearable to them. But now they were ready to put up with it and admit to it, if only it would get rid of Him. So they confessed, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."... What they were really asking for was approval of a sentence already passed on Him. It was a matter of life or death, and Pilate had to decide it.
Their concern for religious rules sits oddly beside what they were asking for.
They are jealous for their ceremonial purity, but they do not care about justice. Judging Him by their own law is not enough for them. They choose to have the Romans put Him to death, for the whole counsel of God had to be fulfilled.
Jewish law knew stoning; crucifixion belonged to Rome. That difference was not an accident of politics.
There was a spiritual reason governing all here. For the curse of the law was to be upon Him, and the public, open sign of the curse was hanging on a tree (Deut. 21:23). But if the Jews themselves had inflicted it, it would have come after death, and its meaning would have changed. Only in Gentile hands could crucifixion serve its purpose.
A Roman evasion and a Jewish demand lock together. Between them they carry out what Jesus had already said about His own death.
Pilate seeks to put the responsibility of judging the Lord upon the Jews. Their reply gives away their fixed purpose. Whatever Pilate decides, they have already concluded that the Lord must die... So Jew and Gentile become the instruments for fulfilling the Lord's own words about the death He was about to die (Acts 4:27-28).
Neither side comes out clean. The hatred and the indifference are not the same, but they end in the same place.
Jew and Gentile unite in denying and rejecting the Lord. The one hates Him and shouts for His death. The other does not care, and hands Him over to death while finding no fault in Him. What a scene! Jewish hatred and Gentile indifference combined, and Jesus, the Holy One, is led out to death.
- Evasion — Pilate saw religious prejudice, not crime. He pushed the case back onto the accusers.
- Admission — "It is not lawful for us" was true. Rome had just taken the death penalty out of Jewish hands.
- Exposure — men careful about ceremonial purity had no problem demanding a death they had settled on before any trial.
- Necessity — stoning was the Jewish penalty. Only Roman crucifixion could hang Him on a tree, the open sign of the curse.
- Counsel — evasion and demand together brought about the death Jesus had foretold. Jew and Gentile were both guilty.
that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke, signifying what death he should die.
Outside Pilate's hall, the religious leaders admit they have no power to put anyone to death. John stops the trial story to tell us why that admission matters. Their legal limit, and Rome's method of killing, matched what Jesus had already said about His own death.
Their claim was true, and the rule behind it was new.
"It is not lawful for us." According to the Talmud, it was in the year just before this that the Romans took from the Jews the right to carry out the death penalty — that is, exactly "forty years" before the fall of Jerusalem.
Pilate tried to hand the case back to them. Their answer left Jew and Roman alike carrying out a word neither of them meant to serve.
Pilate tries to put the responsibility of judging the Lord on the Jews. Their reply shows their fixed purpose. Whatever Pilate decides, they have already settled that the Lord must die. But the Romans had taken from the Jew the power to carry out a death sentence, so they have to leave the matter in Pilate's hands. In this way Jew and Gentile alike become the instruments that fulfil the Lord's own words about the death He was about to die (Acts 4:27-28).
Jesus had said in advance how He would die, and He said it more than once. Other faithful men died in other ways. His death would take one form only.
So the word of Jesus had to be fulfilled, showing by what death He should die (verse 32). Compare John 3:15, John 8:28, John 12:32-33; also Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:12, 22-23. The Jews might stone Stephen in an outburst of religious fury, and Herod might kill James with the sword. But the Jewish chief priests and scribes had to condemn the Son of man, and the Gentiles had to crucify Him.
Crucifixion was not a Jewish penalty at all. That mattered, because the law made hanging on a tree the public sign of the curse.
Crucifixion was not a Jewish penalty: they might hang the dead on a tree, but not the living. There was a spiritual reason behind all of this. The curse of the law was to fall on Him, and the public, open sign of that curse was hanging on a tree (Deut. 21:23). But if the Jews had used it as their own penalty, it would have gone beyond death and changed its meaning. Only in Gentile hands could crucifixion serve its purpose.
Pilate offered them the case, and they pushed it back.
The people refused to take the matter into their own hands when Pilate would have put it there. Even that refusal only serves to fulfil the word of Jesus.
The rule they longed to throw off became the tool they were willing to use.
They hated Jesus more than they hated Roman rule. That rule had been unbearable to them, but now they were ready to put up with it and accept it, if only it would let them get rid of Him. So they confessed, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." But above and behind it all stood His own words, which could not fail: He showed by what kind of death He was going to die.
Rome supplied the method, and the hatred came from the Jews.
He showed that crucifixion would be the manner of His death. This was the Roman way of carrying out a death sentence. But all the hostility against Him was in the heart of the Jew. So it meant He would die a death of utmost shame, rejected by both Jew and Gentile. They lifted Him up from the earth to throw Him aside in contempt — like a snuffer dropped over a candle, to put out His cause and His Name. Yet the result will be the exact opposite. He who was once crucified is to be the universal and everlasting Object of attraction!
- Word first. Jesus had already said how He would die, and every step at Pilate's door fulfilled that word.
- Word over law. Rome had taken the death penalty from the Jews a year before, so the limit on their power drove the case to Pilate.
- Word over refusal. Pilate tried to give the case back. They refused, and their refusal carried out what Jesus had said.
- Word over method. Hanging on a tree was the public sign of the curse, so only Gentile hands could crucify Him.
- Word over shame. They lifted Him up to be rid of Him for good. He is now the everlasting Object of attraction.
Pilate therefore entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus, and said to him, Thou art the king of the Jews?
Pilate goes back inside his headquarters, away from the crowd, and puts one question to his prisoner. It is the only charge a Roman court could act on — and before the talk ends, it is Pilate, not Jesus, who stands exposed.
The leaders arrived with no crime to name, and Pilate pressed them for one.
Pilate rightly wanted a definite accusation, but they had none to offer. So they first tried to rush him into a verdict on the general plea that Jesus was an evildoer. Accusing someone in general terms, while avoiding any specific charge, is a common trick of the religious persecutor. This irregular handling made Pilate want to throw the case back into their hands. Their answer showed that they were determined on His death... However, they eventually fixed on the charge that He sought to make Himself a King.
Everything turns on where the question came from. If Rome feared for Caesar's throne, the Lord's whole public life answered that fear. If the charge came from His own nation, His answer had to be different.
This was the turning point. If the governor were uneasy about Caesar's rights and interests, the Lord could have pointed to His consistent life and His unchanging teaching. That would have disproved the charge completely and put his mind at rest. But the question really came from the Jews. So the Lord had nothing to say but the truth, in the face of Israel's unbelief and contradiction, and nothing to do but bear witness to the "good confession" before Pontius Pilate.
Pilate had his own reason for asking. He did not want this execution, and a simple denial from the prisoner would have solved his problem.
The Jews had handed the Lord over to him on a charge of making Himself a King. So if he could get the Lord to withdraw that claim to be King, he might both save Him and keep himself unharmed. It seems he entered the judgment hall at this time with that plan in mind. But the world in Pilate's heart did not know Jesus.
"King of the Jews" was not a slogan invented by the accusers. It was the ground on which He came to Israel.
He was born King of the Jews. He came to the Jews on that ground, just as the prophets had come on the ground of the arrangement God then had with Israel. If they had received Him, He would have crowned that arrangement and given it glory. But that could not be.
What follows Pilate's question is a confession, not a defence. And the kingship He owned reached further than being David's descendant.
The "good confession" before Pilate covered at least four great points. First, the Lord boldly confessed that He was a King. The context shows what He meant. He was not only the true Son of David by human descent. He also held the place of Son of God, just as Psalm 2 predicted.
Once the door closes, the roles reverse. This private exchange uncovers no evidence against Jesus. It uncovers the state of the man asking.
Clearly, what we see here is the searching out of the Roman's conscience in the light of the Presence he stands before. Judge and accused change places. The governor may be a hard man, stained with many crimes, yet he still comes off better than Israel's leaders, who are blinded and darkened by the light they have shut out.
This testing was no accident of the moment. In these hours both halves of the human race, Jew and non-Jew, met Christ face to face.
The Gentile had to be tested as well as the Jew. Pilate stood for the Gentile, as Caiaphas stood for the Jew. He had now met the Truth, so he must have the chance to bow to Jesus or to reject His claim. The time had come when God's searchlight fell on all men, Jew and Gentile, high and low, to expose their true nature and character.
- The charge. Having no specific accusation, the leaders settled on the one thing Rome must act on: that He made Himself a King.
- The King. The title was true. He was born King of the Jews and came to Israel on that ground. Had Israel received Him, He would have crowned that whole order with glory.
- The confession. He did not deny it. Before Pilate He owned His kingship. That kingship reached beyond David's line to the place of Son of God.
- The escape. Pilate hoped a denial would let him free the prisoner and stay safe himself. But the world in his heart did not know the One standing in front of him.
- The verdict. Judge and accused change places. The question "Are you the King of the Jews?" ends by exposing the questioner. It exposes every person, Jew or non-Jew, who must either bow to that claim or refuse it.
Jesus answered [him], Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me?
Pilate has just asked whether Jesus is the King of the Jews. Instead of a plain yes or no, Jesus answers with a question. It forces two things into the open: where the charge came from, and whether Pilate cares about the answer himself.
Everything in the trial turns on which of the two Pilate admits to. Each one would call for a different answer from Jesus.
He was silent before the high priest until the high priest put Him on oath by the living God. Then He answered Pilate with a question: "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about Me?" (verses 33, 34). This was the turning point. Was the governor uneasy about the rights and interests of Caesar? Then the Lord could have pointed to His consistent life, as in John 6:15, and to His unchanging teaching, as in Luke 20:25. That would have been a perfect disproof and reassurance. But the question came, as it really did, from the Jews (Luke 23:2). So the Lord had nothing to say but the truth in the face of Israel's unbelief and contradiction. He had nothing to do but bear witness to the "good confession" before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim. 6:13). And this He does with all simplicity.
Pilate wanted to save Jesus, but not at the cost of his own standing with Caesar. His question offered the prisoner a way out. The Lord's question asks instead where the charge began.
Pilate would have saved Jesus, if he could at the same time have saved his own reputation as Caesar's friend. The Jews had handed the Lord over to him on a charge of having made Himself a King (Luke 23:2). So if he could only get the Lord to withdraw these royal claims, he could both save Him and keep himself out of harm... Our Lord by this question wanted to learn from Pilate himself where the accusation against Him came from. Was Pilate challenging His claim to be King of the Jews as the protector of the emperor's rights in Judea? Or was it only a charge brought by the Jews?
The question also names what has already gone wrong in this court. Someone had already told the judge lies about the prisoner.
The Lord replies, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about Me?" In this way the Lord lets Pilate know that, against all justice, others had slandered Him to the judge.
Jesus is the accused, yet He is the one examining. His words separate honest inquiry from repeating what others say. Pilate's answer shows which side he is on.
In the Lord's answer we see no effort to win the judge's favour. We see instead a note of divine pity for him. "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about Me?" It was the old question, and the greatest of all questions a man can face: "What do you think of Christ?" Did Pilate want to know? Did his question come from a real desire to know the truth about this striking prisoner? Or was he repeating what he had heard, with no personal interest in the matter? The question brought out what was in him. "Am I a Jew?" he cries... So men look at Christ. Who He may be is to them only a question of religion, a question for theologians, of no personal interest to them.
Pilate's reply names the nation and the chief priests as the ones who handed Him over. That answer becomes the world's own record that Israel refused its King. It also explains why the kingdom Jesus goes on to confess is not from here.
Now this answer of Pilate gave full proof of the guilt of Israel. The man who represented the power of the world at that time settled the matter: Israel had disowned their King and sold themselves into the hands of a stranger. For the present this was everything with Jesus. It at once carried Him beyond the earth and out of the world. For Israel had rejected Him, and His kingdom was therefore not now from here.
- Turning point. His question decides what the case needs. If Caesar's rights were at stake, His life and teaching would answer it. Since the charge came from Israel, He answered with the truth.
- Motive exposed. Pilate's question offered a way out. If the prisoner dropped the claim, the governor could save Him and keep his own standing with Caesar.
- Justice exposed. Others had already slandered the Lord to the very man who was meant to try Him.
- The man exposed. Of your own accord, or from others? That is the greatest question anyone faces about Christ. Pilate's "Am I a Jew?" shows he had no personal interest at all.
- The verdict recorded. Pilate's own words show the nation disowned its King. That is why the kingdom Jesus then confesses is not from here.
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me what hast thou done?
Jesus now stands before Pilate, and has just asked whether the governor's question about His kingship is his own or came from others. Pilate brushes it aside — and in doing so states the fact that decides everything: the King's own nation has handed Him over.
Jesus does not answer Pilate's opening question. He asks first where the question came from, and everything turned on that.
This was the turning-point. Suppose the governor was uneasy about the rights and interests of Caesar. Then the Lord could have pointed to His consistent life, as in John 6:15, and to His unchanging teaching, as in Luke 20:25. Either would have disproved the charge completely and set his mind at rest. But the question really came from the Jews (Luke 23:2). So, faced with Israel's unbelief and contradiction, the Lord had nothing to say but the truth. He had nothing to do but bear witness to the "good confession" before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim. 6:13), and this He does with all simplicity.
Pilate answers with a question of his own, and it refuses any personal stake. One writer reads it as the reaction of a man who treats Christ as somebody else's business.
The question brought out what was in him. "Am I a Jew," he cries. This is merely a Jewish question, beneath the notice of a proud Roman, except in carrying out his duty. That is how men look at Christ: who He may be is to them a mere matter of religion, a question for theologians, of no personal interest to them. But "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus." And "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." Every tongue will confess "that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
The disclaimer does not clear him. A judge is not free to shrug, and the verse ends with him asking the accused to supply the charge.
Pilate was quick to disclaim all responsibility by asking, "Am I a Jew?" But why then had he asked his first question? Of course it was true, as he said, that the Lord's own nation and their rulers had handed Him over to Pilate. But Pilate's responsibility was to judge any charge against the Lord justly. Yet no charge had been laid. He asks the Lord, "What have You done?" This again was no question for a judge to ask. The accusers were to state what He had done, and the judge was to weigh that charge strictly.
Pilate's words name who is really prosecuting. That fact makes his next question reasonable, and it draws out the Lord's answer about His kingdom.
Pilate told Him. It was His own nation and the chief priests who had handed Him over. Those whose King He was had publicly refused Him. His own nation and their religious leaders were seeking His execution. Pilate was therefore justified in putting his next question: "What have You done?"
Because the words came from the mouth of the ruling power of the day, they carry the weight of an official finding — and, on this reading, they explain why the kingdom is not claimed from here and now.
Now this answer of Pilate gave the full proof of Israel's guilt. The man who represented the power of the world at that time settled the point: Israel had disowned their King and sold themselves into the hands of a stranger. For the present this was everything with Jesus. It at once carried Him beyond the earth and out of the world. For Israel had rejected Him, and His kingdom was therefore not now from here.
The governor speaks better than he knows. This statement is one of three testimonies he gave to Christ.
The threefold testimony of the man who represented the fourth kingdom is of the greatest interest. The first testimony he repeated three times: "I find no guilt in this man." So spoke the fourth beast in him (Dan. 7). His second testimony was, "Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me." The third was the inscription on the cross: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."… So a man who did not know what truth is declared the truth, forced by a power he knew nothing of. Meanwhile the only one in this dark scene who had the truth denied three times that he knew Him.
- Question — Jesus asks whose question it is, because everything turns on it. If Rome is uneasy, His life answers the charge. If Israel is accusing, only the good confession remains.
- Dodge — "Am I a Jew?" is the shrug of a man who treats Christ as other people's religion. But a judge must weigh a charge, not ask the prisoner to supply one.
- Verdict — Pilate's own words state the fact: the nation whose King He was had disowned Him and sold itself into a stranger's hands.
- Consequence — The world's ruling power has stated Israel's rejection. So the kingdom is not claimed from here, and the King is carried beyond the earth.
- Witness — The man who did not know what truth is testified to it three times. The disciple who had the truth denied Him three times.
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.
Jesus stands bound before Pilate, accused of claiming a throne. He does not deny that He is a King. He denies where His kingdom comes from, and He points to His followers' empty hands as the proof.
Jesus makes two denials here, and they are not the same. One is about the kind of kingdom it is. The other is about where its power comes from. Older translations end the verse "not from hence" — that is, "not from here." The writers below use that wording.
He also affirmed that His kingdom was neither "of this world," nor "from hence." It does not carry the character or stamp of this world. It does not draw its authority and power from this place. Of course His kingdom draws all its authority and power from Heaven, and it carries the heavenly character. But instead of saying this in a positive way, He put the matter in a negative light. That quietly condemned and rejected this world and this place. It was a bold statement to make in the presence of the man who represented the greatest existing earthly power.
A worldly king with a real claim would have had men fighting for him. Jesus stood there as a prisoner instead, and that settled it.
The Lord explains that His kingdom is not of this world. If it were, He would have made good His claims the way the world does. His presence as accused before Pilate was the proof of it. Jesus does not fail to confess openly that He is King, when Pilate asks Him. He will establish, later on, a power which nothing will be able to resist, but the time had not yet come.
Hours earlier one of His followers had tried to fight. Peter drew a sword in the garden and cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest.
Natural feeling, and a true love for his Master, prompted him to this act. But natural feeling is not always a safe guide. In this case it was not. God's work is not to be spread now by the sword. The Lord's kingdom is not "from hence," as He later told Pilate, so He did not ask His servants to fight for it. Long ago God's cause was advanced by the sword. The earthly people were concerned in that. Now there was the heavenly calling, and the kingdom of the heavens was not to be advanced by weapons of the flesh.
So what does this kingdom run on, if not force? One writer answers from what Jesus told Pilate next.
He came to bear witness to the truth: to tell out what God is, in a world blinded and blighted by the devil's lie. He was the truth Himself. That is surely what He meant when He said, "Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." His kingdom is truth, and there is no lie in it. To hear His voice means to obey the truth. To be in His kingdom means to be subject to Him. No one knows the truth who does not obey it.
Commentators press this verse hard on the believer's relation to the state. One notes that the moment Jesus refused to fight for was the best cause imaginable.
Never was there a more worthy, a more just cause to fight for than at that moment; but the Lord refuses it entirely on the ground of being a stranger in this world. If a Christian fights now it is to uphold the glory of the world that crucified his Lord; and it is a virtual denial of that word which tells us that our citizenship is in heaven.
Refusing to grasp at power is not the same as lawlessness. The same distance from the world's government produces careful obedience to it.
So in the meantime we should be all the more eager to submit to every human institution. That means not only the king as the highest authority, but also the governors he sends to deal justly with evildoers and to praise those who do well. Our proper interests are on high; but that is our duty for the Lord's sake.
The verse denies a source, not a future. Writers are careful that this saying is not turned into a claim that earth will never come under Christ's rule.
Does he mean to say that this world will not be made the kingdom of Christ? He knows this would be entirely contrary to Christian hope and faith. Then the question is its character, the source of its power. "It is not from hence": that I indeed believe.
One writer describes an offer the church accepted, and where it left her.
Satan, as it were, repeated the offer to the church, and she at length accepted it. In seeking the glory of the world, she has sought honour where Satan is the prince... By and by His kingdom will be from here. "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." And when it passes into His hands, the reign of Christians will begin.
- Source, not size. The denial is about origin and character. This kingdom carries no stamp of this world. It draws no authority from it.
- Source shown by silence. A bound prisoner with no army was His own evidence — if the kingdom came from here, men would have been fighting for it.
- Source rules the weapons. Peter's sword was love using the wrong tool; the heavenly calling is not advanced by weapons of the flesh.
- Source defines the entry. It is a kingdom of truth, and you are in it by hearing His voice and submitting to Him.
- Source sets the timing. "Not from hence" does not mean "never here." The world will yet be His. Until then His people obey rulers instead of grasping at thrones.
Pilate therefore said to him, Thou art then a king? Jesus answered, Thou sayest [it], that I am a king. I have been born for this, and for this I have come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.
Pilate, the Roman governor, asks Jesus if He claims to be a king. Jesus answers by naming the reason He was born. His reply raises three questions: what kind of King is He, what did He come to do, and who can hear Him?
Pilate hears a claim to royalty. The Lord does not drop that claim — but He points to where His kingdom comes from.
Its source and character were of a new, heavenly kind, one to which the idea of armed warfare was completely foreign. He does not give up His claim as King of Israel — that always stands — but He rises into a higher region, and declares that He came for something more than to reign on earth.
So His kingship is real. But reigning was not what He came into the world to do.
The Lord's positive answer leaves Pilate with an uneasy conscience. In real fact He is a king, being born and coming into the world, not to reign, but to bear witness to the truth. Here is true moral kingly character shown in lowly grace and rejection before the time of His reigning as King of kings.
Jesus says two things about His coming, not one. He was born, and He came into the world. Writers weigh that second phrase.
To come into the world He must have existed before that coming. And so we have His Godhead stated just as simply. We have the "I" who was born, and the "I" who came — the "I" of Bethlehem, and the "I" who was before Abraham. Yet He was the One who stood in human form and in lowly grace before Pontius Pilate.
Another writer pictures the scene from the judge's side of the room:
Who ever heard a prisoner speak like this before his judge? The One who spoke was a man, for He was born. But He came into the world for a purpose. He does not now say that He was sent.
If He is a King who is not reigning yet, what is He doing here? His answer names a present ministry that Israel's refusal did not interrupt.
For a time the unbelief of His nation held back His possession of the kingdom. But He shows that God's purpose had not failed in this. He had come into the world for other present work than to take His throne in Zion.
This truth is not a theory. It has a content, and hearing it calls for obedience.
He came to bear witness to the truth: to tell out what God is, in a world blinded and blighted by the devil's lie. He was the truth Himself... His kingdom is truth, there is no lie in it, and to hear His voice means to obey the truth, and to be in His kingdom means to be subject to Him.
The last sentence goes straight to the man doing the questioning.
The Lord appeals to the conscience of Pilate. Was he one who had come under the convicting power of the truth? All such hear the voice of the Lord. Sad to say, Pilate shows that the voice of Jesus had never reached his conscience or touched his heart. His flippant reply is: "What is truth?"
So who does hear His voice? Those who have already received life from God.
Those who heard the voice of the Son of God had divine life in them. He who is the truth gave them that life, and that made them "of the truth." These wonderful words were lost on Pilate. He had not the divine capacity to receive them.
Of everything in the Lord's life, Paul chose this scene to hold up before Timothy.
He makes no reference to His glorious resurrection or ascension, nor to any of the miracles He did, though each of them bore such rich testimony to His power and grace. He takes special notice instead of His conduct before the judge.
And nothing anyone could see backed up what He said:
Jesus witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that He was a king, without any mark of royalty about Him. His confession seemed contradicted by His appearance.
- Born — He was born, so He is fully man. He came, so He existed before Bethlehem.
- King — He never drops the title. But His kingdom is of a heavenly kind, so no one fought for Him.
- Came — His work now was not to take a throne. It was to bear witness to the truth, and tell out what God is in a world living under a lie.
- Heard — those who are "of the truth" have already received life from God. They know His voice, and hearing it means obeying it.
- Followed — Paul points Timothy to this confession, not to the miracles. Jesus made it with nothing royal in sight to back it up.
Pilate says to him, What is truth? And having said this he went out again to the Jews, and says to them, I find no fault whatever in him.
Pilate ends his talk with the Prisoner by tossing out a question and walking away before Jesus can answer. In the same breath he gives the only honest verdict of the whole trial. Commentators press two points here: what it means to ask about truth while Truth stands in front of you, and what it means to call the Prisoner innocent and then hand Him over anyway.
The question was not asked into empty air. One writer puts Pilate's question next to the Lord's own words and calls it a missed chance.
Pilate's question, so often asked before and since, shows that the world is utterly ignorant of the truth, and this because it is ignorant of the true God... What an opportunity Pilate missed! He asked, "What is truth?" and there before his eyes was Him who had said, "I am… the truth." Such is man in his greatness! Such is the world in its ignorance of God and His truth!
The clue to Pilate's state is not the question but what he did next — he broke off and left.
We may not know exactly what was in the Roman Governor's mind when he asked that question, but his actions show us his attitude to it. He broke off at this point. If he had really wanted to know the truth, an answer would have come from Him who came into the world to bear witness to the truth. If anything but indifference or scepticism had prompted the question, he would surely have waited for that answer. Attitude to the truth and attitude to Christ are much the same.
The Lord's previous sentence had already offered him a way past his own scepticism.
Yet here was a word that could get behind even such defences. If he did not know what truth was, he could at least know whether he was "of" it. And if a man must be true in order to know truth, maybe that lack was what made truth seem out of reach.
Pilate sat as judge. Finding the truth was his job, not an optional extra.
Pilate held the judge's authority, so his job was to find the truth and judge by it. But he asked, "What is truth?" in a flippant, sceptical tone. That showed how, in his mind, judgment had been cut off from righteousness. As a Roman judge he knew far too much about men and their lies, and he felt that chasing truth was chasing a mirage. That did not excuse his folly. The moment he asked his question, he turned his back on Christ and went out to the lying Jews.
The second half of the verse is Pilate's legal finding. Older translations word it "I find no fault in him."
Pilate questioned Jesus briefly, and his judgment was quick and sure. It was the only one he could have given, for so far there was no evidence of any crime and no charge against Him. So, as the man who administered Roman law, he told the impatient, waiting Jews, "I find no fault in Him at all." If that meant anything, it meant acquittal — the Prisoner released at once and the crowd sent away.
Instead of acting on his own verdict, Pilate looked for a way out.
In that case his only duty was to release Him. But instead of giving in to his conscience, he tries to strike a deal with it. Looking for what seems to him an escape from a hard situation, he puts the whole matter into the people's hands. So he makes it almost impossible to return to the right path he has left, and he openly declares himself to be not of the truth.
The religious leaders had already made their decision. Now the ruling power of the nations takes its turn, and the verse records the result.
The religious leaders of the Jewish nation having rejected Christ, the political leaders of the Gentiles are now put to the test. The blessed Lord is led before Pilate, with the result that government, which had been given to the Gentiles for the praise of that which is good, and the execution of judgment upon him that does evil (Romans 13:4), is used to condemn One in Whom, it is confessed, no fault can be found.
Pilate's finding also became one of several unlikely witnesses to Christ's perfection.
What do you think of the moral and spiritual state of a world that can refuse the threefold testimony then given to Jesus, the Man of Sorrows? Pilate says, "I find no fault in him"; the thief says, "This man has done nothing wrong"; the centurion says, "Certainly this was a righteous man." But He is crucified!
People still ask Pilate's question, and one writer names the tell-tale sign.
Pilate's saying, "What is truth?" showed he did not know what truth was. It is just what unbelievers say now. Their minds are always "open to truth," as they say, and that shows one clear thing — they do not have any... And if I have truth, I show my love of truth by keeping it.
- Truth present. Pilate asked what truth was while the One who said "I am the truth" stood in front of him — the answer was in the room.
- Truth dodged. He walked out before an answer could come. His leaving, not his words, showed indifference or doubt — and attitude to truth is attitude to Christ.
- Truth confessed. He found no fault. That was the only verdict the evidence allowed, and it meant the Prisoner should have gone free at once.
- Truth betrayed. He compromised with his conscience instead of obeying it, pushed the decision onto the crowd, and so showed he was not "of the truth."
- Truth vindicated. The judge, the thief and the centurion all said the same thing: the One they crucified was faultless.