The King Before The Governor

Gospel of John  •  Sermon  •  Submitted   •  Presented   •  46:19
0 ratings
· 5 views
Files
Notes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
View more →
Notes for sermon

1. Outside, the accusation is brought, 18:28-32.

28- after Annas, brought before Caiaphas privately, then again at sunrise/ early morning.
Led from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, Latin loan word came to designate the official residence of a governor of a province. Governor’s residence was in Caesarea Maritima; but the governor came to Jerusalem on special feasts, overseeing the peace-keeping forces of Rome. This was the former residence of Herod the Great.
“it was early” - temporal context; it was truly “the day of the victory of Jesus over the world [was] breaking.”
The religious leaders did not enter the P; their reason is that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. They were being religiously precise in how they transferred Jesus over to the Roman governor. There is great irony here: taking great care to be ritually pure, "the Jews have ironically prepared for the arrival of the True Passover by leading Jesus to the praetorium to be put to death” (Heil, Blood and Water, 46).
29- Who is Pilate? Roman prefect/governor of Judea in AD 26-36. Only his name is given; that he went out to them from the praetorium provides the necessary context regarding his role and relationship to the Jews and Jesus. Pilate is, for all intents and purposes, Rome. The authority he assumes, the questions he asks, and his interactions with the Jews and Jesus express as much to the readers of this gospel.
His question formally initiates the judicial proceedings. He is asking for the charge against Jesus; in light of verse 30, it is probably more demand than request. Pilate will serve as the judge, the Jews as prosecutor, and Jesus, the accused, without defense.
30- Their answer is intentionally indirect—they seek Pilate’s authority without offering details of the charge, leveraging their own position af authority against his, seeking a political advantage. Their accusation offers no evidence, qualification or even a charge. They are just trying to use Pilate to do their dirty work to get their desired outcome, the death of Jesus. These two worldly authorities are fighting over a claim to power that ultimately belongs to neither.
31- Pilate’s response strikes back at the Jews by leveraging their own laws against them, while trying to disassociate himself from this legality. Pilate’s argument essentially: “If your laws can so easily and with little qualification declare his actions as “evil,” then they should just as easily be able to declare him guilty.”
Now the real intentions of the Jews are brought to the light. The issue here may have less to do with Roman authority and more to do with the regulations described by their own law, especially in light of Passover. Before they have spoken freely of killing Jesus with no regard for Roman permission.
John 5:18 NASB95
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 7:1 NASB95
After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
John 11:53 NASB95
So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
They are also the ones to whom Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified, as Jesus predicted.
John 8:28 NASB95
So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
The expression “It is not lawful,” is almost always used in the Gospels to refer to what is either permitted or forbidden by their own law of Moses. The Jews had no need to remind Pilate of what Roman law did or did not permit; in the same way it would be odd to suggest that the Jews deferred to Pilate’s authority (v. 31b) seconds after he had just ordered them to act on their own authority (v. 31a). it is an ironic word of the Jews’ self-condemnation in that it is a confession that they were not allowed to do the very thing they were about to do.
32- What they were about to do is seen in the brief theological commentary John gives, because ultimately neither the Jews nor Pilate were in charge for what was illegal for the Jews and less than desirable for Pilate would still be accomplished, as foretold by “the word of Jesus.” “What kind of death” focuses attention on the mode of Jesus’ death: it will be by Roman crucifixion rather than the traditionally Jewish mode of death by stoning. Even though neither Pilate nor the Jews have decided the mode, it has been foreseen. it is noteworthy that Pilate will tell the Jews, “I find no guilt in Him” v. 38; 19:4, 6), before finally agreeing to their terms.

2. Inside, the interrogation and defense of the accused, 18:33-38a.

A. Interrogation, 33-35.

33- Pilate leaves the Jews in the outer court, proceeding inside to question Jesus privately. Still arrested and probably still bound, the Sovereign is brought before the servant for questioning.
The potent question, “Are you the king of the Jews?”, the “you” placed in the emphatic position. Now the Jews have never explicitly stated the charge against Jesus, but the question suggests that this is the issue at stake. The question seems to function contemptuously toward both Jesus and the Jews as well.
The messianic activities and claims of Jesus is the clear issue confronting both Jerusalem and Rome. Jesus referred to the kingdom of God when He conversed with Nicodemus, as well as received the treatment and attention of a king from both His disciples as well as the crowd in Jerusalem in John 12. To the Jews and Pilate, Jesus was a kingly claimant in both word and deed.
34- Jesus replies to Pilate with a counterquestion. the latter part of His question links Pilate to the politically charged social dynamics at play with the Jewish leaders The former part of the question challenges Pilate to, on his own, make the right judgment regarding Jesus. Jesus has once again reversed roles so that Pilate is interrogated. The very foundation of Pilate’s rule is challenged by the probing counterquestion of Jesus.
35- Pilate quickly and emphatically disassociates himself from the Jews, then counters by reversing the suggested connection Pilate attempts here to place the issue of Jesus’kingship on his ethnicity, his nation and his religious leaders. Yet this “trial” has already shown that the two sides — Jewish and roman — need each other and are collaboratively at work. Pilate reveals his involvement: “{your people] delivered You to me.” More directly, “What have You done?”; this seeks the crime Jesus committed that the Jews found it necessary to hand Jesus over to Pilate.

B. Defense, 36-38a.

36- Jesus offers a response that disassociates Him from this world. His emphatically declares, “My kingdom is not of this world.” it most likely interprets Jesus’ kingdom in the functional sense of “dominion” or “kingship.” its source is not grounded in this world or established by means of this world. Its authority is “from above,” above and beyond the authority of Jerusalem and Rome. It is “the world” and all its kingdoms which are a subset of Jesus’ kingdom. The power and authority of Jesus’s kingdom are clearly at work in this world, but the power and authority of His kingdom is not of human origin. He does make a territorial claim in this gospel when he refers to Himself as the one who comes “from above,” which He connects directly to the kingdom of God. But His kingdom and kingship have an in-but-not-of relationship to the world, very similar to the disciples’ identity in Christ which makes them participants in but not of the world.
Jesus gives evidence that His kingdom is different in kind. He has not called upon His servants; this suggests that His kingdom is so beyond the powers of this world that nothing is happening that is beyond His sovereign control. He is in charge—all else are functioning as subordinates, doing His will for His purposes.
37- Pilate’s question functions here as an emphatic statement. In response Jesus can describe the real reason for His presence in the world. Jesus neither confirms nor denies Pilate’s statement, but explains by describing His kingship and the nature of His rule by explaining His mission’s purpose (truth telling) and result (truth hearing). His language echoes that of John’s prologue in John 1.
His Purpose: “to testify to the truth.” He came to speak truth, to manifest what is true. Its personal nature here points to Jesus, “the Truth,”meaning that Jesus is the reality through which our participation in God and our existence is confirmed and finds its meaning. He is the only one who can define His kingship—He is the King of truth, His testimony to the truth is the enactment of His sovereign reign.
His results: “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” the results of His mission is the creation of those who respond to the truth. The battle is cosmic in nature, between falsehood and truth, between darkness and light.
Ephesians 6:12 NASB95
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Those who know the truth can be set free from the enslavement of sin
John 8:32
John 8:32 NASB95
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
and that freedom may be given to the true “sons and daughters” in the “house” of God.
John 8:35–36 NASB95
“The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
Jesus refers here to those who “hear” and know the voice of the Good Shepherd
John 10:10–11 NASB95
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
Here is the invitation. Jesus graciously invites His judge to participate in this abundant life that only He can give.
38a- Pilate’s question is itself the answer to the issue surrounding the person and work of Jesus. But he asks the wrong question, for truth is not a “what” but a “who” — the person of Jesus Christ. He alone is the answer. The abruptness of Pilate here does not only offer insight into the person of Pilate, but it is meant to echo in our minds as readers of this gospel.

3. The verdict given and compromised, 18:38b-40.

38b- Pilate goes back outside and declares to the Jews waiting his decision, “I find no guilt in Him.” This appears to be a more formal announcement, which suggests that Pilate was addressing himself to a larger crowd. He tells them there is nothing that Jesus claimed that warranted legal or disciplinary action according to Roman law.
39- It appears that in the opinion of Pilate Jesus was only a legal problem for His own people, the Jews. He then decides to use one of their own rules, a Passover “custom”, to handle Jesus so that he is ultimately judged (or released) by Jewish legal practices.
The Jews not only understand Pilate’s suggestion, they quickly offer an apparently unanimous answer in reply.
The title Pilate gave to Jesus most certainly was intended to mock the Jews publicly. He has forced them to respond positively to his offer; by so doing Pilate implicitly forces them to acknowledge the title, which the Jews clearly do not want ascribed to Jesus.
40- Jesus is being personally rejected by the Jews—the very king, God himself, that had freed them from the wrong ruler in Egypt, which Passover commemorated. In fact they would soon declare a foreign ruler to be their king—the Caesar of Rome.
Note they will not even speak Jesus’s name, but they will choose a specific person they call by name: Barabbas. The title given to him, “robber,” suggests that he was one of those violent, lawless men, who were often bandits, preying on travelers and such.
His name means “son of Abba” or “son of the father.” John implicitly directs us to this truth: the Jews have exchanged the Son of the Father for a son of a father.
The fact that he was a robber points to one of the key titles contrasted to the Good shepherd. John 10:10 describes the way of the thief and robber, who does not come except to steal, kill, and destroy. Jesus is the antithesis, who comes to give life by laying down His life for the sheep (John 10:11).
So the Jews have chosen the exact opposite of what they really need—the robber instead of the Good Shepherd, the wrong “Son of the Father.”
John—That You May Believe The Verdict (vv. 38b-40)

Dr. Barnhouse says:

Barabbas was the only man in the world who could say that Jesus Christ took his physical place. But I can say that Jesus Christ took my spiritual place. For it was I who deserved to die. It was I who deserved that the wrath of God should be poured upon me. I deserved the eternal punishment of the lake of fire. He was delivered up for my offenses. He was handed over to judgment because of my sins. This is why we speak of the substitutionary atonement. Christ was my substitute. He was satisfying the debt of divine justice and holiness. That is why I say that Christianity can be expressed in the three phrases: I deserved Hell; Jesus took my Hell; there is nothing left for me but his Heaven.4

Second Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God.” First Peter 2:24 adds, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

Related Media
See more
Related Sermons
See more