John 19: The Roman People v. Jesus Christ

Where we last left our hero, Jesus Christ, He was brought before unjust and illegal trial with Annas the high priest. At that trial, Jesus was false declared guilty. With help from the Synoptic Gospels, Christians know that Jesus had to undergo 2 more Jewish trials: one with the high priest Caiaphas and the other with the Sanhedrin. Both of those trials were illegal and unjust, and both of those trials declared Jesus guilty. According to the Jews, Jesus is declared guilty of the blasphemy of calling himself the messiah, the king, and the Son of God. According to the Jewish Law, a man guilty of such crimes is to be executed. But there’s only one thing standing in the way. As we’ll learn later in the text, the Jewish leaders need the Roman leaders’ permission to execute someone. Now Jesus will go from the Jewish courts to Roman courts. Will the verdict be the same? Well, let’s find out.

As promised, I will start where we left in chapter 18, at verse 28. I want to set the scene a little with a reminder from the last chapter’s commentary. On what traditional Christians call “Good Friday,” Jesus underwent 6 trials: 3 were Jewish and 3 were Roman. There 3 Roman trials were, in order, with Pontius Pilate, with Herod, and with Pontius Pilate again. John skips over the trial with Herod for some reason (actually, to be fair, Luke is the only one to mention the trial with Herod). So this will all seem like one trial, but indeed it is 2, and I will point out the divider when I get to it. Perhaps John skipped Herod’s trial because he really wanted to emphasize Pilate’s trials, or maybe he even wanted to emphasize Pontius Pilate himself. Pontius Pilate really was an interesting person. If you are a high school student reading this, and your English teacher has assigned you to do a research paper, and he/she has given you the freedom to choose your topic, choose Pontius Pilate. Like I said, he’s a really interesting guy to learn about. To mix things up a bit, I am going to tell this portion of John focusing around Pontius Pilate. I’m going to do that by giving some introductory information about Pilate’s life before Jesus, then I’m going to go into the text for Christ’s trial under Pilate, and then I’m going to wrap up with the epilogue of Pilate’s life.

Very little is known about Pontius Pilate before he came to Judea, and what little we do know is just tradition and legend (and those traditions and legends probably aren’t the most reliable, either). For example, traditions and legends have stated Pontius Pilate was the illegitimate son of a Roman ambassador and a Scottish woman. Yes, that would mean Pilate would have been half Scottish. But this tradition is easily shot down, as the Romans weren’t anywhere in Britain until after Pilate’s life. More likely, Pontius Pilate was born and raised in central Italy or southern Italy because other people with the same surname have been found there. That would also make more sense because Pontius Pilate’s first job as governor was in that general area, although some traditions and legends claim he was first governor in Gaul, which would be located in France. Whether Pontius Pilate was first a governor in Italy, France, Scotland, Britain, or somewhere else, wherever that place was, Pontius Pilate screwed up. He didn’t screw up bad enough to be executed, imprisoned, or even lose his job, but he did screw up enough to get punished. His punishment was that he was to be governor over the worst part of the Roman Empire that no one wanted to be governor of: Israel/Palestine. I mean, you can’t blame the Roman governors for not wanting to be governor of Israel/Palestine. Think of how bad the Jews are. The Jews hate the non-Jewish people, the Gentiles, so much that they don’t want to even be in the presence of Gentiles. The Jews hated Jewish “half-breeds,” like the Samaritans (half-Jew, half-Assyrian) and Idumeans (half-Jew, half-Roman), that they would not touch, share, or even talk to them. Heck, the Jews even hated each other. Pharisees would hate Sadducees, and Sadducees would hate Pharisees. On top that, you have Essence Jews causing trouble out in the most remote and deserted places, and you have the Zealots assassinating Samaritans, Idumeans, Romans and other Gentiles. Most of the time, the Romans in Israel/Palestine served as the referee, making sure everyone could go about their daily lifestyles in peace without attacking anyone. It was a really hard to task to find ways to make everyone get along. So you can’t blame the Roman governors for wanting to avoid that location. So it almost seemed like perfect timing when Pontius Pilate screwed up and the Roman Senate shuffled the governors, both in 21 A.D. To punish Pontius Pilate, he was going to be the new governor of Israel/Palestine, effective 26 A.D.

So in 26 A.D., Pontius Pilate and his wife packed their bags and moved to the new region he would be governor over. Pontius Pilate settled and built his castle in the town of Caesarea (there are two Caesareas, this Caesarea is the one on the border of the Mediterranean Sea, thus nicknamed “Caesarea Maritime”). Before we move on to our story, I’m going to outline what’s going to happen between now and the trial with Jesus. Pontius Pilate was allowed to remain governor, but he was also reminded that in his new position, if he got 3 strikes, he would be out. Pontius Pilate’s mistake at his last governing position will not be his last. Before the he gets to the trial with Jesus, Pilate will rack up 2 strikes. I’m going to tell you about those strikes.

Sadly, the first strike was as soon as Pontius Pilate arrived in Israel/Palestine. Pontius Pilate had heard the stories about the Jews not getting along with the Gentiles, especially when it came to the Romans. When it came to the Romans, the Jew had a hard time submitting the authority of the Jews. So Pontius Pilate got the idea that best thing to do would be to establish his authority with an iron first and by putting his foot down. To do this, he brought in busts of former emperors and the present emperor, as well busts of the former regional governors and the regional governor, to decorate Galilee, Samaria and Judea, especially in Jerusalem. He also brought in gold shields that declared himself as the high and mighty governor of this late. Those too were put around Judea, especially in Jerusalem. All this was to remind the Jews that the Romans were in charge. The Jews, however, saw this as idolatry, and after being exiled to Babylon for graven images, the Jews learned their lesson and they would not put up with graven images in their land. The Jews responded in peaceful protest, by blocking doorways and laying in the road to create traffic holdup. Word of this got to nearby Roman governor in Syria, and the Syrian governor tattled to the emperor in Rome. The emperor sent word to Pontius Pilate along of the lines of, “The Jews protested in peace, so you should reward peace with peace, and peacefully remove the busts and the shields.” A humbled Pontius Pilate submitted to his emperor’s suggestion and removed all the busts and the shields, but it still went on his record as a bad move. Strike 1.

Further down the road as his career of governor, Pontius Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct that would carry water from Caesarea to Jerusalem. The only problem is Pontius Pilate ran out of money from his Roman governor funds. So Pilate went to the Jewish leaders for funds, mainly to the high priest for money from the temple funds. The Jews didn’t really want the aqueduct in the first place, so of course they said no. But Pilate needed that money, and he wasn’t going to go down without a fight. So Pilate dressed up Roman soldiers to look like the Jewish temple guards. He had them hide their clubs under their clothes. Then, during a festival, when the temple was busy and full of people, the disguised temple guards would enter the temple and steal from the temple treasury. The plan seemed like it would work, but of course someone noticed. Now historians, both ancient ones and modern ones, disagree agree about who struck first, but it resulted in a massacre of Jews and Roman soldiers alike. Once they found out the thieves were Roman soldiers in disguise, it was only a matter of time until it was traced back to Pontius Pilate. This did not go over well with Jews and Romans alike. Heck, this didn’t even go over well with Herod. King Herod hated Pontius Pilate for killing “his subjects” like that. This event was probably what made Herod and Pilate enemies, as mentioned in Luke 23:12 (this event is also possible the event described in Luke 13:1). Strike 2.

Now we are all caught up to the Biblical story in John chapters 18 and 19. Pontius Pilate’s back story wasn’t too long, so I hope you’re still with me. But I think it was totally worth going through it because it really does paint the setting about what’s going to happen. Pontius Pilate has 2 strikes against his name. He knows he got in trouble before by making one mistake in his previous governor job, so he definitely knows he’ll get in big trouble for making 3 big mistakes in his new governor job. He really doesn’t want that 3rd strike. But Pilate is in a tough position. He’s between a rock and hard place. He’s got to please his higher Roman authorities, like the emperor, but he also has to please the Jews. So Pilate is on edge. Keep that in mind as we go into the text. One more thing would be good to note. Remember, this is the Passover season. Jews from all over the Roman Empire are coming into Jerusalem. With the increasing traffic of people, the Romans are expecting things to go down. So just in case, Pontius Pilate and his wife are residing in Jerusalem for the week to make sure everything goes smoothly and be there in case an emergency breaks out. It was that coincidence which would lead the Jewish leaders to bring Jesus before Pilate.

Ok, let’s start at John 18:28. It’s early morning, and this slowly forming mob comes from the Sanhedrin all the way to Pilate’s temporary residence. They’re getting closer to the door when all of a sudden, they stop! They don’t go any further than under the colonnade cover of the house. Why? Jewish customs of the day forbid any Jew from entering the house of Gentile. If they did, they would become unclean. It was a sin to be unclean during the Passover, especially when it came to eating the Passover meal. Only clean Jews could eat the Passover feast. So the Jews waited patiently, maybe yelling a couple times, for Pontius Pilate to come out. How ironic that the Jews, who were planning to murder an innocent man, were worried about cleanliness. It would not be going into a Gentiles house that would make them unclean, but rather, killing an innocent man, that would make them unclean.

Eventually they get Pilate’s attention and Pilate comes out to meet them. Seeing a man bound up, he assumes that the bound-up man is a criminal. So Pilate asks for the charges the Jews brought up against Jesus. Once again, we’re going to have to look towards Luke for the answer, for the thorough Luke has left no detail out. In Luke’s account, the charges the Jews bring against Jesus is that Jesus claims to be the Christ and a king, and that Jesus refuses to pay taxes to Caesar. Obviously, the Jews are trying to use Roman Law to try to convince Pontius Pilate to execute Jesus. But I have to say, I like what the Jews say in John (probably before they give the charges in Luke). In John 18:30, the Jews simply say something along the lines of, “Obviously he’s a criminal. Why else would he bring him to you?” Truth is, the Jews hated Pontius Pilate. They would avoid him at all costs, and they would only talk to if it was absolutely necessary. If the Jews were talking to Pilate, now they needed him. I think that they said this before giving the charges, hoping that tired Pontius Pilate would not be in the mood to argue with them, and thus he would just give them whatever they wanted, even an execution sentence.

Although Pontius Pilate just woke up, he’s a smart man. I bet he took one good look at Jesus and he immediately recognized who he was. Remember Pontius Pilate has been in Jerusalem at least this whole week, and maybe even the week before. So it’s very possible Pilate heard about, or even saw, the Triumphal Entry on Palm Sunday. Perhaps Pilate was thinking to himself, “Hey, isn’t this that guy Jesus, whom they gave a parade on Sunday? Why do they have him all bound up now? I thought they liked him. Is this a trap? Are they trying to trick me into my third strike, so they can get me out of here? Or maybe they’re using reverse psychology and they are using this to cover up a real insurrection! Or maybe they’re using reverse reverse psychology…” By now, if Pilate is thinking such, he’s getting a headache from his head spinning. Maybe he concluded, “Alright, as long as I do the right Roman thing, it doesn’t matter how the Jews respond, the Roman leaders will respect me as a Roman leader, and I won’t get in trouble. So the first step might be to take this case off my hands. Now what can I say or do to get this case off my hands…” Then it hits him. “Aha! They mentioned the Christ. That’s part of the Jews religion, so it has no part with me!”

Pontius Pilate, recognizing that this might be over a religious matter, tells the Jews to judge him by their own law. “There’s only one problem with that,” the Jews say to Pilate. “we have declared him guilty and sentence him to death, but we cannot put anyone to death without your permission.” Pilate has got to be thinking to himself, “Drat. They got a point.” Roman law made it illegal for foreign people to carry out their own executions. The punishment for doing so is execution themselves. The whole reason the Jews are going to Pilate was for the execution permission because only Pilate could give the order to execute. But here’s the tricky part. For Pilate to sentence to death, Pilate also has to declare the defendant guilty. If Pilate declares the defendant not guilty, his verdict vetoes the guilty verdict from the Jews, so much that any punishment towards the defendant is now illegal. So the Jews are now all in, all or nothing.

So Pontius Pilate retreats inside and calls for Jesus to come up. Jesus is sent up. I can imagine Pilate sitting down and saying, “Alright, we’re in private now, I’m not going to tell them what you said. I know how legalistic your leaders can get, and I know how crazy they can get. You just tell me your side of the story, and I bet we can get this all straighten out.” But Jesus says nothing. So Pilate says, “Alright, let’s start with the charges. They said that you said you were their Christ and their king. Is that true? Are you their king? Are you the king of the Jews?” I really like the answer Jesus gives in John 18:34. It’s like Jesus is saying to Pilate, “Did they put that idea into your head, or do you really believe it?” Statements like this, as well as similar statements throughout John’s Gospels and the other Gospels, really make me wonder if Jesus was calling Pontius Pilate to faith. Pilate’s response “Am I Jew?” is a rhetorical question meaning, “I’m not a Jew. I don’t know what makes you a ‘king’ in their religion. I really don’t care. I’m just here to make civil court decisions.” Now Pilate’s next statement has a Greek wordplay in it you won’t recognize unless you can read Greek. Pilate says that Jesus was “handed over.” The Greek word for “handed over” is paredōkan. The Greek word for “betrayed” is paradidous. This is the term used with Judas Iscariot. Notice how closely related they are spelled and sounded out. Some lexical scholars even believe they are coming from the same etymology. Pilate is almost saying, “If you are the king of the Jews, your subjects betrayed you.” Even to Pilate, this is a little bit fishy. Why would the Jews betray their king? Once again, Pilate asks, “What have you done?” and once again, Pilate means, “Tell me your side of the story, and perhaps we can works things out.”

Pay close attention to Christ’s response in John 18:36. You can get a lot out of it. Jesus starts off with two important words: “My kingdom.” The Greek word is basilia, which has been translated both “kingdom” and “reign,” and there’s good theology behind that. In our modern-day minds, “kingdom” is a location, a region, a plot of land, a place. That’s not fully the understanding of ancient people who actually lived in a kingdom. The ancient and medieval understanding of a “kingdom” is the people who the king reigns over. If those people owned land, then the king would be considered the king of the land. He reigns over the people, so he reigns over their land. Jesus was not a king out to take land. Jesus was a king in the hearts of those who believed in Him and followed Him. Christ’s kingdom consisted of his believers who followed His teachings. They were not ones who would form a guerilla army to overthrow the Roman government in a revolution. So Pilate has no need to worry. Perhaps, Jesus is again protecting his disciples. Since the disciples of Jesus would not cause an insurrection, there was no need for the Roman government to go after them.

Unfortunately, Pilate also seems to have a misguided definition of “kingdom.” From “kingdom,” he pulls out the idea that the leader of a kingdom is a “king.” So Pilate exclaims, “Aha! You are a king!” Well, that’s what the NIV says. Most other translations translate as a re-affirmative question, such as “So you are a king?” (as in “So they were right about your claims of being a king?”) Still, the sentence is to be taken a rhetorical understanding positively affirming Jesus to be a king. Since Pilate seems a little surer, Jesus is willing to answer his question fully and truthfully. Indeed Jesus was the king, and he was king in so many ways! First, God is the king of the universe, and Jesus is God, so Jesus is the king of the universe. Second, Jesus is the king because he a descendant of David. If Judah did not mess up the Mosaic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant, then Israel would be a monocratic kingdom, and the king would be, in accordance to the Davidic line, Jesus! Third (and the third one hits home to what Jesus was saying in the rest of the verse), Jesus was the king in the lives of everyone who believed in Jesus and believed in His teaching, the truth. In three ways, Jesus is the king!

Another priceless line from Pilate, Pontius Pilate utters a line that would make any postmodernist proud: “What is truth?” I can almost hear Pilate literally uttering that line under his breath, “Yeah, but what is truth?” Many different interpretations have gone out with this line. Some have said Pilate was inquiring about “The Truth” that Jesus spoke of, while others say Pilate is demanding a clear-cut, “yes” or “no,” answer to the question, “Are you the king of the Jews?” But I think the best interpretation is the postmodern one, that Pilate is being sarcastically skeptical towards epistemology (the philosophical search for truth). Here the Jews were telling Pilate that Jesus was obviously guilty of falsely calling himself a king and Christ, and he needs to be executed. Jesus is claiming that he’s running a non-violent kingdom of some far away place. In Pilate’s mind (as we’ll talk about soon), Jesus is somewhere between a liar and a lunatic, but definitely not guilty of treason or an insurrection. So Pilate wonders, “Which one of us is right? How can all 3 of us be right? Is there really truth if all 3 of us claim that our answer is the truth?” What Pilate doesn’t know, and what Christians do know, is the source of truth comes from Jesus. After all, it was only a few chapters ago Jesus declared “I am the truth.” Truth only comes from Jesus. All who speak the way of Jesus speak truth, but those who speak against the teachings of Jesus speak against truth.

Now we’re going to take a pause right in the middle of the verse to ponder what Pontius is pondering. The Jews have brought forth a man who they say claims that He is the Christ and the King of the Jews. They even try to throw in that He won’t pay taxes to Caesar in order to prove he’s against the Roman government. When Pilate questions him one-on-one, Jesus talks about a kingdom, but he talks about one that’s far away. He doesn’t have a history of violence; in fact, he sounds rather peaceful. All he wants to do is teach the truth. Things aren’t adding up, in comparison to the other people who tried to lead rebellions. They all formed a large army. Jesus only had twelve disciples, and none of them are in sight (well, two might be nearby, but the one is keeping a safe distance and the other one is denying he even knew Jesus). All the other insurrectionists were loud and putting up a fight. Jesus stands there quiet and relaxed all bound up. All the other insurrectionists had to be imprisoned or executed because they were violent threats to the local people and overall government. Jesus seems to be no threat whatsoever. I wondered if Pilate thought that Jesus either was saying He had a kingdom when Jesus knew he didn’t, or Jesus seriously believed He had a kingdom, when (in Pilate’s eyes), he didn’t. So possibly Pilate is now concluding that Jesus is either a liar or a lunatic, but either way, he’s not guilty. He’s innocent. Pilate can find no basis to charge Jesus. So in Pilate’s conscience, Pilate cannot pass an execution on Jesus. But it’s not that easy. The Jews are screaming bloody murder for this guy’s body on a cross. So Pontius must ponder how to set Jesus free, and yet appease the Jews at the same time.

So Pontius Pilate’s first move is to completely take the decision off his hands and put it on someone else’s hands, that someone else being Herod. Between verses 38 and 39 of John 18 is when Jesus is sent to trial with Herod. I’m not going into detail with Herod’s trial of Jesus because that’s only in Luke, and this is a study of John, not Luke. But I will discuss why Jesus goes off to Herod. It seems like Pontius Pilate is forced to make a decision, when all of a sudden it hits him, “Wait! Herod’s in town!” Herod was an Idumean, a half-Roman and half-Jew. He was in Jerusalem for Passover because he was a Roman and a Jew. Since he was a Jew, he was required to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem. Since was a Roman, employed the Romans, he too was in Jerusalem for crowd control. Herod’s main control was over Galilee. Since Jesus was a Galilean, it made sense that Jesus should be sentenced by his king, who is both under Jewish law and Roman law. Under Jewish Law, Herod could pronounce someone guilty over religious matters. Under Roman Law, Herod could execute people. It made more sense for Herod to sentence Jesus than Pilate. The Jews go along with this, but Herod does not. Herod passes Jesus back to Pontius Pilate, passing no judgment whatsoever. It’s up to Pontius Pilate again. Pilate’s first attempt to set Jesus free failed and appeased the Romans.

If anything, sending Jesus to Herod at least stalled Pontius Pilate for time. Perhaps while Jews and the Jewish mob were at Herod’s Palace, Pilate was thinking up a Plan B in case it came back to him. He may have thought, “Alright, this seems to be that Sanhedrin’s idea to execute him. But from what I remembered last Sunday, the lower class and social outcast Jews seem to love him. So if maybe there’s some way I can use that majority of the Jews, I can get Jesus out of this mess.” By the time the unruly Jewish mob gets back to Pontius Pilate, Pilate has already devised a plan. “Here’s what I’ll do,” Pontius Pilate announces to the crowd. “I will declare Jesus guilty and put him under arrest, but I won’t sentence him just yet. I just remembered that this is your Passover. In accordance with the treaty we made with you, I have agreed to follow your custom to pardon a prisoner. Would you like me to pardon Jesus, or pardon Barabbas? How about we pardon Jesus, and say we broke even?”

Now there’s got to be a little discussion here on Barabbas. First of all, his name alone is interesting. Broken down, it’s “Bar-“ and “abbas.” Bar- is the prefix meaning “Son of.” Abbas means Father. His name literally means “Son of the father,” but in the Jewish name’s context, it could very well mean, “Son of The Father” or “Son of God.” To make things even more interesting, some manuscripts give Barabbas as the last name, and the full name, “Jesus Barabbas.” So here you have 2 men named Jesus, and Pilate asks, “Which Jesus does you want?” Pilate has two men called “The Son of God” and Pilate asks, “Which Son of God do you want?” While the two men had very similar names, they couldn’t be further apart in personality. Barabbas was anti-Jesus, if you will. Barabbas had quite the rap sheet. The charges he was declared guilty of was theft, murder, treason, rebellion and insurrection. Barabbas was know to be a member of Zealots and a member of a Jewish resistance movement established to overthrow the Roman government at whatever costs possible. Barabbas was a violent man, willing to hurt or kill any Roman, or even any Jew who disagreed with him or got in his way to domination. Matthew even kind of hints that he’s been in and out of prison a couple times!

I can imagine Pontius Pilate smirking and saying to himself, “I got them now! This is so perfect! I declared Jesus guilty, so that will make the Jewish leaders happy. All the other Jews, like the lower class Jews won’t want their beloved Jesus killed, so they will speak out against their leaders. I’ll pardon him, and that will make all the other Jews happy. It will make me happy too. Not only can I set free an innocent man with a clean conscience, I don’t have to worry about pardoning a dangerous and violent man, but I can put him to death. Come on now, you Jews, pick the obviously right one.” It’s true, Jesus was the obviously right one to set free, in the Roman mindset. In the Roman mindset, Barabbas was a threat to society, but Jesus was not. So in the Roman mindset, it made sense to release Jesus and to execute Barabbas.

It isn’t as obvious in the Jewish mindset. They wanted Barabbas! Why would the Jews want a violent and dangerous man free but would one a wise teacher and a healer killed? You really have to think about it in a Jewish mindset, or in the terms Jews vs. Romans. Yes, Barabbas was harmful and dangerous, but he was also a hero of the resistance to the Roman government and a hero to those who hated the Romans. A vote for Barabbas was a vote against the Roman government. On top of that, I think some of the Jews saw through Pilate’s smokescreen and they realized that Pilate wanted them to pick Jesus. So picking Jesus would be siding with Pilate, which would be like place a pro-Rome vote. On that same note, remember in John 9:23 and John 12:42, the reader learns that anyone who sided with Jesus was excommunicated from the Jews. The Jewish people might have worried that if they chose Jesus, the Jewish leaders would pick them out and shun them. Fearing the shun, the Jewish people followed the lead of the Sanhedrin. One more thing may be a possibility to note, and it all centers around disappointment. The Jerusalem people gave Jesus the Palm Sunday parade because they might have hoped Jesus would start a revolution that week. When Jesus did not start any kind of revolt, the people were disappointed and no longer willing to follow Jesus. Pontius Pilate’s second attempt truly failed, or should I say, backfired. Not only was Pilate unable to set free the innocent Jesus, but he also had to let loose a dangerous and violent Barabbas. For all Pilate knew, Barabbas would start another revolt and end up back in jail by the end of year.

Now let’s enter John 19. Pilate gets that the Jewish crowd is crying out for blood. So his third attempt is to compromise by just giving a little blood. Pilate finds no charge against Jesus, but he’ll punish him with a lighter punishment of a flogging. When I say “lighter punishment,” do not take that lightly. A Roman flogging wasn’t an easy thing to bear. The Romans had perfected flogging. It wasn’t just a whip. It was a whip that had multiple cords, and each cord had a spiked ball-bearing (or pieces of bone) at the end. Not only did this kind of whip hurt when the leather lashed out across your back, but it would literally tear the skin, and sometimes even the muscle off of your back. By the time the flogging was done, the flogged person’s back looked like raw ground beef. In some cases, some people would die from flogging alone. Flogging was nasty, so nasty that some historians claim that Roman citizens could not be flogged. Of course, since the governor did not observe the flogging, sometimes Romans soldiers would take the time to do whatever they pleased. They would mock or torment the victim. They held none of that back for Jesus. Since Jesus was charged as a king, the soldiers mocked Jesus by pretending He was a king, even giving him a purple robe, a crown of thorns (remember than crowns in ancient Rome were laurel reefs around the head), and even mockingly exclaiming, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Matthew and Mark add that he was also spit on during this time.

After Jesus is flogged, Pontius Pilate brings out Jesus to present him as punished to the Jewish people, hoping this is enough for the Jews. When Jesus comes out, Pontius Pilate says in the NIV, “Here is the man!” but I like better the other translations that say, “Behold the man!” If I were to paraphrase this into longer sentences, Pilate is saying to the Jewish crowd, “See, I punished him. He seems to have learned his lesson. Is this good enough for you?” Apparently, it’s not, for as soon as Jesus sets foot out, the Jewish leads cry out for Jesus to be crucified. This was a sad day for the Jews. The Jews hated crucifixion and they believed no man deserves it. Yet here they are, crying out for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate insists for a third time the he cannot find a basis for accusation. In Pilate’s mind, Jesus is still innocent. Pilate even cries out, “You crucify him!” The Jews reply, “Pilate, you know it doesn’t work that way, we need you to declare him guilty and pass the sentence of crucifixion. Our law has clearly told us to execute anyone who claims to be the Son of God. We did our part by holding the trial and giving him a guilty verdict. Now you do your job and pass the sentence of cricufixion”

The next verse, John 19:8, describes Pontius Pilate as afraid. Most scholars believe the fear is over the loud, blood-thirsty Jewish crowd. Pontius Pilate is beginning to fear if they don’t get their way, a revolt will break out in Jerusalem. If they succeed, Pontius Pilate will be kicked out of the land, or even executed! Even in the Romans won and subdued the Jewish crowd, Pilate would have to answer back to Rome why a riot broke out in the city where he was residing. If that was the case, the obvious answer would seem to be to give into the Jews’ demands, but that’s easier than it sounds. First of all, it would make it look like a Roman government was giving into the conquered people. Second, the Roman governor was expected to hold to the Roman law. If Pilate could not find a reason to declare Jesus guilty under Roman law, but passed an execution away, it would seem like Pilate is not following Roman law, but rather Jewish law. That doesn’t look good to the emperor, either. These ideas are the view most schlolars hold on, but there’s a minor view that some scholars take up, too. In Roman mythology, there are many myths about Roman gods disguising themselves as men to test and judge Romans. It’s very possible Pilate might thought this about Jesus. He might have heard Jesus, the followers of Jesus, or even the enemies of Jesus, call Jesus the “Son of God.” Perhaps Pilate heard of some of the miracles Jesus performed. Or maybe Pilate thought Jesus was a god because He was innocent, too innocent. Either way, Pilate might be serious thinking Jesus is one of these gods, doing of one of these tests. This minority view helps make sense of the question in verse 9: “Where do you come from?” It might Pilate trying to get Jesus to reveal He is a god. But going back to the majority view, Pilate is saying this to just uncover something, anything, that might give Pilate some proof that the Jews can’t argue with to declare him innocent. Yet Jesus won’t give it to Pilate. Jesus remains silent. Most scholars believe this is because Jesus already answered that question with His answers in chapter 18, so Jesus sees no reason to repeat them. I would like the throw in also that maybe it’s because Jesus had the Father’s will in mind and didn’t want to defend himself, but rather go to the cross to pay for the sins of mankind. At the least, it fulfilled the prophecy found in Isaiah 53:7.

By John 19:10, Pontius Pilate is irritated with Jesus. Perhaps some of the irritation was due to his fear. Here Pontius Pilate is doing everything is his power to set Jesus free, yet Jesus doesn’t seem to be helping. Pilate asks, “Don’t you get it? I am controlling the balance to whether you go free or you die on the cross.” Jesus speaks boldly to Pilate, reminding him the only reason Pilate is the governor of Israel/Palestine is because God authorized from above. Apart from God’s authorization, it would not happen. This goes wonderfully in line with Romans 13:1. All authorities have been established by God, whether Jewish or Gentile, Christian or non-Christian. This includes Pontius Pilate. If there is any connection between the Roman trials in John 18-19, and the Jewish trials in John 18, it all comes back to the last thing Jesus said to Pontius Pilate. Both authorities were put into place by God, yet both authorities refused to recognize when God’s Son was placed before them in court. For if they did recognize the Son of God on trial, they would declare Him innocent. But they did not recognize the Son of God, so they declared him guilty, and therefore, they are guilty. There’s been debate about who the one guilty of the greater sin, but I believe in this context, it’s the Jewish people, because they have the Law and the History to figure out who the Messiah is, and yet they still missed it. Pontius Pilate does not have this history or the text to figure out the Messiah, so he is not as guilty, but still guilty.

John 19:11 starts out by saying, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free…” but if you ask me, it seems like Pilate had always been trying to set Jesus free. I think the phrase in verse 11 could be re-worded, “Pilate tried other ways to convince the Jews to let Jesus go” or “Pilate tried harder to free Jesus.” By this time, the Jews actually try to help Pontius Pilate. Pilate claimed there was no Roman law to convict Jesus by, so the Jews were going to help Pilate find a Roman law. The Jews pretty much say Pilate, “When we said Jesus called himself ‘king,’ we really meant Jesus called himself ‘Caesar.’ Isn’t another man calling himself the emperor of Rome treason? Then letting him go would be committing treason as well. You wouldn’t want to commit treason, would you?” Well, that helped Pilate greatly. By no means did Pilate want Jews reporting back to the emperor of Rome that he let a man who claimed to be Caesar go. That would definitely be strike 3. He could bend what the Jews were saying to fit that as a charge for treason. It would be following both the Roman law and the Jewish law. Therefore, the decision would please Jews and Roman alike. The only thing in Pilate’s way was a gut feeling and a guilty conscience. But Pilate had to act fast, for if he didn’t he’d either be facing a Jewish riot or a bad report sent to Rome.

Pontius Pilate takes his seat on the Stone Pavement, a judgment seat in a public square where judges made their rulings, verdicts and sentences public for all to witness. Since it was public and in the presence of witnesses, all rulings, verdicts and sentences made on the Stone Pavement judgment seat were official. Pilate one more time states the charges, “Here is your king. Do you want him crucified?” But the Jews shout “Take him away! Crucify him! We have no king but Caesar!” Another sad moment in Jewish history. I don’t believe John, nor the apostles in Acts, were being anti-Semitic, but after that last statement, you can’t blame them for sounding anti-Semitic. They blatantly reject the Messiah they’ve been waiting so long for. They blatantly reject a true Jewish king. Worse part, they blatantly reject God as their God and their king. If there’s anything worse than that, they rejected their Messiah, King and God, not for another Jew, but for a Gentile, one of the same nationality and ethnicity of the person they refused to even step a foot in his house.

If there’s one thing I noticed between John 18 and John 19, it’s another role reversal. This time it’s not between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, but it’s between the Jews and the Romans with their corresponding laws. Look back at the conversations between the Jews and the Romans over their laws. At first the Jews say Jesus is guilty by the Jewish Law, while the Roman governor says Jesus is innocent over the Roman law. But by the end of the conversation, the Roman governor is trying to appease to the Jews with the Jewish law, and the Jews are trying to appease with the Romans with the Roman law. Yet one thing remains true over all this. The true authority is not the Jewish authority, nor is it the Roman authority. The true authority is from God. God has handed down a little authority to the Jews and a little authority to the Gentiles, but he has given it all to Jesus.

So Pilate, seeing there is no way to talk the Jews out of this, and afraid that a Jewish riot might happen, which would result in his strike, passed a sentence of crucifixion. He might have tried to justify it, convincing himself he did the right thing by giving the Jews what they wanted and by protecting the Roman government for a Caesar wannabe. Yet I bet his conscience was still bothering him. He knew Jesus did nothing wrong. He knew Jesus wasn’t a threat to anyone’s safety. He knew that the Jews only wanted Jesus dead because they were jealous. On top of his own conscience, poor Pilate had his wife even telling him it was wrong (see Matthew 27:19). Yet Pilate made a decision for his own safety and his own career.

This isn’t the end of our story with Pontius Pilate. He’s got one more job to do. Crucifixions were done out in the open, not only to teach the criminals a lesson, but also to teach the people a lesson. The lesson was simple: Don’t commit crimes against the Roman Empire or you will die a painful death. To help fully understand the lesson, the judge would make a sign or a notice to nail on top of the cross describing the crime the person committed. So the sign might say, “Thief,” “Robber,” “Murder,” “Started a riot,” “Started in insurrection,” etc. Furthermore, it was written in the top 3 lingua francas (most spoken language) of the day so everyone, Roman citizen and foreigner, could understand the message. You can tell when Pilate wrote the sign, he was still upset at the Jews for killing an innocent man out of their jealousy. So he subtly messes with the Jews. He writes on the sign (combining all 4 Gospel accounts), “This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Now the Jews are upset about this. They say the sign should read, “This man claimed to be the King of the Jews.” Do you see the difference? The Jews are still insisting the crime is that Jesus blasphemed by calling himself God, Christ and the king. That’s the crime he’s being punished for. But Pilate sees right through their smokescreen. He knows they killed him out a jealous. Pilate is sending across a clear message, “This is how the Jews treat their king.” When the chief priests demand the sign to be changed, Pilate says, “Oops! Too late! It’s already up there. No turning back now.”

Now we’re going to take break from Pilate because there a few things I want to point out in the rest of this chapter. But for the sake of time and space, I’m not going to hit every point. The points I will hit are the ones unique to John’s Gospel account.

John’s Gospel names 4 women at the cross on Golgotha. John says these 4 women were Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. This is a lot of Marys. It will be ironic that the women, the last people to see Jesus alive, will be the first people to see Jesus come back to life. How does John know these women are there? Apparently, John was there himself. It makes sense that only in John’s Gospel that John would mentioned being there. No other writer would no this because they were not there. Matthew wasn’t there, he fled. Same with Peter, one of the main sources of Mark. John will later reaffirm he was there to the end, in John 19:35,36. Jesus sees both his mother and his first cousin, his beloved disciple John. Jesus instructs John to take care of his mother for him until she dies. This was a very noble thing for Jesus to do. In the Jewish customs of the 1st century, it was the oldest son’s responsibility to take in the mother when she was elderly and widowed. Since Jesus knew he wasn’t going to be around, he asked his closest friend and first cousin to do the task.

Ok, maybe this next part isn’t unique to John, but I always like to mention it. Jesus asks for a drink, only to refuse it. Why would Jesus ask for a drink to only refuse it? John’s Gospel is the only Gospel that records Jesus asking for it. Some has suggested it’s a fulfillment of prophecy, such as Psalm 69:21. Others say it was for Jesus to reveal his humanity by displaying a human need. Yet others have even presented it as a paradox, that the source of spiritual Living Water needed physical water. They give Jesus wine vinegar, a sour wine, raised up on the stalk of the hyssop plant, possibly putting some hyssop in the wine vinegar. If this wine vinegar got into any of Christ’s wounds, it would burn painfully, but if Jesus digested it, it would act as a slight painkiller. The Synoptic Gospels tell us Jesus refused. It may simply be remember that He promised He would not take part in any wine until the kingdom of God comes (see Luke 22:18), but maybe Jesus refused it because he refused to kill any pain. He was willing to go through the worst pain possible in order to save humankind from their sins. If there is one thing that John uniquely says about this passage, it’s the hyssop plant detail. This could simply be John using details, but it’s a possible John may be make a link to the Passover. At the Passover, the lamb’s blood was sprinkled with a branch of the hyssop plant. It’s a possible link to Jesus, the ultimate Passover lamb.

John ends the life of Jesus with Jesus saying, “It is finished,” obviously referring to the fact that Jesus finished everything the Father had willed for him, from his teaching ministry to the redemptive work on the cross. The death of Jesus is an odd one. Usually, in crucifixion, a person slowly and painfully died. A person could remain on the cross days, if not weeks, until that person died. The crucifixion of Jesus was indeed a painful one, but not as slow. Jesus died in a couple of hours, and he died all at once. If you really want to give a scientific answer, it was probably because of the blood loss from the flogging, but I rather simply believe it was the time the Father had planned for Jesus to die. Interesting enough, John does not mention any effects of Jesus giving up his life. No earthquake, no splitting rocks, no dead prophets coming to life, not even the centurions making a faith statement (especially odd when the faith statement in Matthew and Mark is that Jesus is the Son of God). Most importantly, John does not mention the temple curtain splitting into two, which all 3 Synoptic Gospel writers mention. You would think John would have that important theological event happening, but once again, I will remind you that if John has nothing new to add, he won’t add it.

What John uniquely mentions is the descriptive process of the burial. John reminds his Jewish readers that the Law states that a dead body cannot be hung on a tree (or cross in this case) over night or over a Sabbath. Because of the long process of crucifixion, the Jews would normally allow bodies to stay up overnight if they were Gentiles being crucified. But in this case you have a Jew being crucified. And this isn’t any ordinary night coming up. This is a Sabbath, more specifically the Passover Sabbath, a special Sabbath. The Jews wanted to make sure they were following the Law (once again, very ironic, because the Jews broke the law by rejecting and killing the Prophet like Moses) so they asked Pontius Pilate to speed the process up. The Romans discovered the crucifixion could be sped up by breaking the legs. In this way, the crucified person suffocated just as much as drowning in their internal lung fluid. Indeed, we know this is historically true because archaeologist have discovered crucified bodies with broken legs. So the Roman soldiers are going around, breaking the legs of the criminals still dying (the Bible states two men next to Jesus also being crucified, but it’s very possible there could be more), and they come to Jesus. They look at Jesus, and I imagine one soldier saying to the other, “I think he’s already dead.” Then I picture the other soldier say to him, “Well, let’s make sure.” Now what’s the logical thing to do? I think the logical thing to do would be to break his legs anyway, just in case. Yet they don’t do this. Instead, they poke his side with a spear and pierce Jesus again. Why did they do this instead of breaking his legs? John declares it was to fulfill a prophecy, as well as make him the perfect sacrifice. The Old Testament said that the sacrificial lamb could not have any broken bones. For Jesus to be the perfect sacrifice, his bones could not be broken. God prevented Jesus from having any bones broken. Instead, Jesus had his side pierced. John uniquely mentions that out of the piercing, blood and water flowed. There is nowhere near enough time to explain all the interpretations of this. Some scholars take it very literally and very medically. They believe the spear punctured the lung of Jesus, and crucifixion fills the lungs with blood and other internal fluids, like serum and water. Other scholars have taken it symbolically, that it is the blood of Jesus the Living Water that saves us from our sins and gives us eternal life. But I think that the overall picture we’re to understand is that Jesus was really dead. He was fully dead, not unconscious or in a coma. It also reveals Jesus to be a human, not just God appearing to be human, as some early cult group claimed.

As do all the Gospel writers, John credits Joseph of Arimathea for asking Pontius Pilate for the body. Mark and Luke tell us that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and both say he was looking forward to the kingdom of God, hinting that he believed Jesus was bringing about that kingdom. Both Matthew and John tell us that Joseph of Arimathea was follower of Jesus. Matthew uniquely says that Joseph was a rich man. Luke uniquely says that Joseph voted against the guilty verdict the Sanhedrin put on Jesus. John uniquely adds Joseph was a secret disciple because he feared what the Jews would do to him if he openly confessed. But Mark uniquely reveals that Joseph boldly went to Pilate for the body. I think that means that Joseph wasn’t trying to cover up to the Sanhedrin why he wanted to bury the body. Sick of their decisions and actions, Joseph boldly proclaimed his faith by serving Jesus this one last time.

Nicodemus must have witnessed Joseph’s bold moves because Nicodemus followed suit. He also was sick of the Jews’ hatred towards Jesus and He wanted to serve the great teacher one last time, too. Nicodemus is credited with providing the equipment needed for a proper burial according to Jewish customs. He provided 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes, perfumes used to cover up the stench and decay of a rotting body. Joseph and Nicodemus dressed Jesus in the proper burial clothes. Nearby in a garden was a tomb, meant for one person, and it had never been used. From the descriptions, scholars have noted this is a tomb meant for the rich. The poor had to share tombs with the extended family. Poor families could not afford garden maintenance around their tomb. This was a tomb meant for a rich man. Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, spent a lot of money to buy this time. He intended to use it for himself, but seeing it was the closest tomb to where Jesus was crucified, Joseph thought it was best to put Jesus in there instead. Thus, he was buried like a rich man, fulfilling Isaiah 53:9. This concludes John 19.

Back to Pontius Pilate. Believe it or not, the guilty sentence and execution of Jesus was not strike 3 for Pilate. History doesn’t really say why. There is no official Roman record from the Roman government declaring what the greater Roman government thought of Pilate’s decision. If I were to take a guess, I bet they had no problem with it. Pilate prevented further rioting and a possible insurrection. So if that meant killing a man to do so, then fine, do it. Yet that does not take Pilate off the hook. The Early Church Fathers all criticized Pontius Pilate for his decision. Jewish historians Josephus and Philo criticize Pilate for his actions. Even the Roman historian Taticus, a Roman and a worshipper of the pagan Roman gods, only notes Pilate for the death of Jesus, even above all his other famous (or should I say “infamous”) decisions. So throughout all of history, it doesn’t matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Gentile or Pagan, you’ll know Pontius Pilate from his role in the death of Jesus.

You’re probably wondering, “What could Pilate do that worse than this?” Well, it all happened in 36 A.D., a couple years after He sentenced Jesus to death. Part of Pontius Pilate’s jurisdiction was Samaria as well as Judea. So yes, Pilate was in charge of making sure the Jews and the Samaritans got along, not an easy task. Now before I get any further, I’m going to have to remind you of the cultural tension between the Jews and the Samaritans so this makes sense. Remember that the Jews would not allow Samaritans to worship at the temple on Mount Zion, so the Samaritans had to build their own temple on Mount Gerazim, and to the Jews’ disliking because the Jews claimed that the true temple was the one on Mount Zion. In order to justify their actions, the Samaritans had to re-write the Pentateuch, calling it the Samaritan Pentateuch, in order to re-adjust their justifications. For example, according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac on Mount Gerazim, not Mount Moriah/Zion. Yet the Samaritans had very little proof for it. Well, in 36 A.D. a Samaritan prophet, who claimed to be the Samaritan Messiah, also claimed that God led him to discover the sacred vessels used in the original Tabernacle on Mount Gerazim. To him, as well as his followers, this was proof that the Tabernacle was originally set up on Mount Gerazim, and therefore, the Samaritans had enough proof, in their minds, that the temple on Mount Gerazim was the true one. The Jews, greatly angered by this false prophet, protested Pontius Pilate to do something. Pilate, continuing to try to win the Jews over, and also feeling uneasy about the large gathering at Mount Gerazim, sends a cavalry and heavily armed infantry to subdue the crowd. As with Pilate’s second strike, it’s unclear who attacked first, but the collision between the Samaritans and the Roman soldiers led to a full out brawl, leaving several Samaritans and Roman soldiers dead or dying, much more than the massacre of Jews when Pontius Pilate stole from the temple treasury. Of course, Pilate blamed the Samaritan false prophet and had him executed. But that did not clear everything up with Pilate. The Samaritans told on Pilate to a nearby Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria, and Vitellius tattled on Pilate to Tiberius, the Roman emperor. Strike 3.

With strike 3, Pilate is out. In 36 A.D., Pilate was removed from the office of governor of Judea. Most likely, Pilate was removed from any governor position, if not any government position. From there, it is any good guess what happened to Pilate, for no historical source really records it. Just like the early years of Pilate, the later years of Pilate can only be found in traditions and legends. A lot of traditions state that Pilate committed suicide, most likely by hanging. Perhaps it was depression over repeated failures of being governor, or maybe Pilate was still feeling guilty about putting to death Jesus. Some of those traditions even say that the Caesar gave Pilate the option of killing himself or getting killed by the emperor, in which Pilate chose the former. Some legends say Pilate was executed by the Caesar. Most likely because his failures at being governor were seemed a crime against the Roman Empire, but there is another possibility. The other possibility stems from the idea that if an emperor executed him, it would be Emperor Nero. Nero is famous to Christians as the emperor who hated Christians. If he loved anything about Christians, he loved killing Christians. According to one traditional source, Pontius Pilate struggled every day with the fact he had Jesus executed. One day, however, word got around to Pilate that a handful of believers reported seeing Jesus alive again, and they believed he was the Son of God. According to this tradition, Pilate heard the news, believed in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God, and came to faith. When Nero heard that one of his governors had become a Christian, Nero would not put up with and Nero had Pilate executed immediately, making Pilate a martyr of the faith. As lovely as this sounds, most scholars believe this source is pseudopigrapha, or “false writings.” Very few hold to it as true.

As we come to our close (sorry this is getting so long), I want us to go back to what we always do, and talk about two things. First, how does this chapter put to light the purpose John is trying to convey to the Christian reads? Second, how does John expect the Christian reads to apply this to our lives? Let’s start with the first question. How does the trial between Pontius Pilate and Jesus, as well as the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, reveal Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of God? Let’s start off by stating the obvious. John uses many Old Testament Scripture references within this passage to relate that Jesus is fulfilling prophecy. Even when Old Testament Scripture is not quoted, the Christian reader can connect what is happening to Jesus to Scripture in the Old Testament. Jesus is seen fluffing Messianic prophecy, making Jesus clearly the Messiah, or the Christ. It’s ironic that all Christians can see Jesus fulfilling the Messianic prophecy in his death, but the Jewish leaders who were suppose be experts in the Scriptures could not see it. On a slightly similar note, John shows us in this passage many references to the Passover and to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Jesus is seen as the sacrificial lamb who will pays for the sins of the world, once for all. He is the Passover lamb because He is without blemish, not so much physically, but spiritually, as in he has no sin. The Passover lamb could not have any bones broken, and Christ’s bones were never broken. The prophecies of the Messiah and the typology to the Passover lamb are too similar to be separated. The Christ is the Passover Lamb.

Moving on to our second question, how does the stories of the trials, crucifixion and burial of Jesus relate to our lives? For some reason or another, what really stuck out to be was what Jesus said about the power of the authorities in John. Let me bring up the verse that really stuck out to be on this subject

John 19:10,11-
10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Even though this is only said to Pilate, the Roman governor, I really believe Jesus could have said to Annas or Caiaphas as well. Jesus had the power, the authority and the resources to prevent himself from being arrested, being imprisoned and being executed. Yet Jesus did not use them. Jesus allowed the authorities in power to do as they chose to. Clearly, everyone from Annas to Pilate was not godly men. Yet God used these men to bring apart his plan for salvation, even if it did not seem like godly actions were going on. Today, in America, as well as around the world, people tend to worry about how Godly or how Christian a president or a prime minister is. They will sharply oppose any politician or leader who does not proclaim faith to God or Jesus, and they are highly critical of actions that don’t seem Godly or Christian. The trial between Jesus and Pilate reminds Christians that things can sway either way, and who that person says they are may not always match up with their actions. Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. They were supposed to be the most spiritual Jews on the face of the earth. Yet they cast a verdict that was opposing God. In the same way, politicians can claim they are Christian, but that doesn’t mean every act they do will be Christian. Christians cannot simply mark every action they do as a good, godly action because they claim their action. Things are true on the opposite end, too. Pontius Pilate was a Roman, probably worshipping the pagan Roman gods. Yet Pontius Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent, and he even entertained the thought Jesus might be the Son of God. Even though Pilate did go through with the sentence, God used him to bring about salvation to the world. The Old Testament is full of examples where Gentile kings act godly in accordance with God’s will. When we see this, we must wonder, “Can God use even ungodly leaders to bring about His will and His plan for humanity?” If that is the case, we must not be harsh on the presidents and prime ministers that seem to be ungodly or not Christian. Even if their actions are not Christian or ungodly, God still might be using them. And when these leaders do act godly, we must praise them for it, and encourage it more.

Since this is quite a depressing subject, let me end with a joke, and a non-heretic one, too, that will perfectly transition us into the next chapter. Joseph of Arimathea spent a lot of money to buy an expensive tomb for Jesus. This baffled a lot of Joseph’s family and friends, on why he would spend so much money a controversial person that Joseph barely knew. Joseph’s friends and family questioned Joseph on why he spent so much money on a tomb for Jesus and not a tomb for himself. Joseph simply replied, “Don’t worry, it’s only for the weekend.” :-)

John 3: Nick@Nite

My favorite band of all time is the ApologetiX, a Christian parody band. The first album of theirs that I owned was called Keep the Change. My favorite song from their album Keep the Change is “The Real Sin Savior,” a parody of “The Real Slim Shady” by Eminem. One of the lines from that song that sticks out to me is “But if Jesus loved his enemies, and Pharisees…” The first couple times I heard this song, I thought it said, “But if Jesus loved his enemies, like Pharisees…” The ApologetiX could have said the same thing and it would be true. Jesus did preach, on the Sermon on the Mount, to love our enemies. I truly believe Jesus never asked his followers to do anything He did not do. So we ask, “How did Jesus love his enemies?” but then that leads us to ask, “Who were His enemies?” Christ’s enemies were the ones who opposed Him and His gospel message. Mostly, those opponents were the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as other religious parties within the Jewish religion. So Christ’s enemies were the Pharisees and Sadducees. So how did Jesus show love to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Whenever a Pharisee or Sadducee would approach Jesus in a way that wasn’t meant to insult Him, belittle Him, threaten Him or doubt His authority, Jesus always was open to discuss spiritual matters in a non-threatening environment. John 3 paints a wonderful picture of this.

John 3 opens in verse 1 by introducing Nicodemus, and with quite a résumé. Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, which some people might know better as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish Ruling Council of 70 Jews, from each and every religious party. They were still under Roman rule in the Roman Empire, but among Jews, they were the highest form of government. Religiously speaking, these 70 men were the most intellectual and most spiritual Jews in the land. Nicodemus definitely had the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) memorized, and it’s very possible that Nicodemus had all the books of the Tanak (what we know as the Old Testament) memorized. The Bible only speaks positively of 3 Sanhedrin members: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamiliel. But the Bible doesn’t just hand Nicodemus a positive outlook, so we’ll see how Nicodemus builds up that repertoire throughout the Gospel of John.

Verse 2 first tells the reader that Nicodemus came at night. The Bible doesn’t explicitly tell the reader why Nicodemus came at night, but I have a hunch. It’s the same reason why crime happens more often in the night than in the day. Because of the darkness, night is associated with hiddenness and secrecy. Even if there is 3 men in the Sanhedrin on the side of Jesus, there’s still 67 (maybe more, maybe less) who are against Jesus. If Nicodemus is exposed as being on the side of Jesus, or even giving Jesus a chance, he could be ridiculed or discredited among the Sanhedrin. So Nicodemus has to go when there is the fewest amount of witnesses. As the reader reads on in verse 2, the reader learns that Nicodemus is a skeptic, what politicians would call a “swing vote.” Going back to the Sanhedrin’s stance on Jesus, some scholars have suggested that the standpoint Nicodemus reveals in his beliefs about Jesus is where most of the Sanhedrin members stand on Jesus. They don’t want to believe Jesus is sent from God because Jesus is preaching against them. Yet they can’t help but believe Jesus is from God because of all the miraculous signs. Especially consider this in light of the temple cleansing in John 2. When Jesus cleanses the temple, the Jews demand a miraculous sign to back up his actions. Now, sticking with my belief that the temple cleansing happened within a week of Christ’s crucifixion, Jesus has been performing several miracles, many of which were healing people. On top of that, Christ’s preaching itself was a sign and testimony to His authority (see Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29). So signs are aplenty. It all comes down to whether or not the Jews accept the signs, for whatever those reasons may be. Nicodemus realizes it has come down to this. It’s almost like Nicodemus is saying, “They don’t want you to be a rabbi, but you have to be, because as much as they like to deny it, you do have the signs to prove it.”

Since Jesus sees Nicodemus is coming to Him to really learn, Jesus presents Nicodemus with a simple teaching in verse 3. The NIV translates it as “born again” but other translations have translated it “born anew” or “born above.” All of these translations mean the same thing. Jesus is talking about a spiritual transformation that changes the whole person. Change like this can only come from above, from heaven, from the Father. When this transformation happens, it turns the person into a whole new person, as if he or she has a brand new life. Hence, it is appropriate to compare this to a second birth.

Yet in verse 4 Nicodemus can’t handle the metaphor, and he gets hung up by it. Nicodemus takes the metaphor very literally, believing he must re-enter his mother’s uterus and re-emerge from it in order to receive salvation. Christian readers know this obviously isn’t the answer. But I don’t think Nicodemus believes this is the answer either. It’s like Nicodemus is saying, “You don’t really expect me to believe I have to go through the birthing canal again, do you?”

Jesus can tell Nicodemus can’t handle this “born again” teaching with ease, so He makes the teaching easier for Nicodemus to understand. He uses an analogy of the Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit) to wind. In English, this analogy already makes sense, but it makes more sense in Hebrew and Greek, two languages in which Christ’s Jewish audience would be well familiar with. The Hebrew word is ruah and the Greek word is pneuma. In both languages the word means both “wind” and “spirit.” So comparing the Spirit to wind is like comparing apples to apples because it is the same word. It’s a beautiful wordplay. And whether you’re reading John 3 in Hebrew, Greek or English, the analogy works in full. Nobody knows the source of wind, nor its final destination. Back then, how wind worked puzzled people, and still today our laws about wind are fully complete. Just as wind is still somewhat a mystery, the Holy Spirit is a mystery to us in some aspects. Jesus even tries to reach out to Nicodemus using simple logic. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Simply state: Flesh --> Flesh, Spirit --> Spirit. This verifies Christ’s teaching above on being “born again.” Your first birth was a physical birth. Your second birth, in which you are “born again,” is a spiritual birth. Your physical birth was a result of man’s decision and man’s will (mom + dad. Need I say more) on the earth. Your spiritual birth comes from above, from heaven, from the Holy Spirit.

Before I move on, I guess I must make a comment on John 3:6, where Jesus says that no one is able to be born again “unless he is born of water and the spirit.” What does he mean, especially in regards to “of water and the spirit”? Someone might easily want to say that this is a reference to baptism, for when you are baptized with water, you receive the Holy Spirit. But from that, a lot of issues arise. What about that one criminal crucified next to Jesus who recognized he is being just punished for his evil deeds (I believe this is repentance) and who believes Jesus is Christ, God and sinless (I believe this is showing belief). He was not baptized, and Jesus told him that he would be in Heaven with Jesus. And what about the book of Acts, where people received the Holy Spirit before and after baptism, just as much as those who received it at the same time? Also, if this was a reference to baptism, wouldn’t that technically mean there is an act or work necessary for salvation, so salvation isn’t by faith alone? So it can’t be a reference to baptism. Others have claimed this parallels the difference between the first birth and the second birth. The first birth is of water (after all, when a woman is about to give birth, he “water breaks.”), and the second birth is of spirit. I would say this is the second best interpretation, for it tries to take this verse literally, but at the same time, it’s out of pure logic. People have tried to take “water” more as a metaphor, giving it symbolic. Perhaps water is a symbol for the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. I don’t like either of these interpretations, because it removes a literal meaning too much, and the meaning becomes purely allegorical. Instead, combine the symbolic meaning to first interpretation. When we think of “water” in our faith, we do normally think of baptism. What does baptism represent, or what is it a symbol of? It is a symbol that shows we are dead to our sin, and we are brought back to life by the work of the Holy Spirit. Ah, there’s that word, “Spirit.” So we know this interpretation is dead on track. “Born of water and of spirit” means that we must repent of our worldly life and worldly living, and instead let the Holy Spirit transform us to more spiritual beings. This is the best interpretation because it fits historically, logically and theologically.

Still, with all this explaining, Nicodemus still doesn’t get it. In verse 9, all Nicodemus can utter is, “How can this be?” Jesus wants to reply, “How can you be so dense?” but instead replies in verse 10, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not know these things?” Christ’s question does raise some legitimate concerns. Nicodemus is on the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. He’s suppose to have the Pentateuch memorized, and very possibly the whole Old Testament. Every Jew looks up to this man as a Rabbi who knows the way to God and can show other people the way. What a shocker it is to Jesus, and to the rest of the Jews, to find such a highly regarded Jewish man dumfounded. Think back to what I said about Nicodemus representing the general consensus of the Sanhedrin. If knowledge was measured in comparison to the population, Nicodemus would be average among the Sanhedrin. He probably carries the same knowledge as those 70 Jews do. So all 70 members of the Sanhedrin would also be dumfounded by Christ’s teachings. Maybe that is why so many Pharisees and Sadducees oppose Christ’s preaching. They just don’t get it. This kind of reminds me of the Dark Ages of the Church. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops and the archbishops were suppose to read, remember and understand the Scriptures in order to lead the parishioners into the right spiritual life. Instead, they stopped reading the Scriptures. Their memory of what the Bible actually said faded, and all they could remember was dogmatic tradition. Both this dogmatic tradition and the faint memories of their Bible reading they didn’t understand. It resulted in totally walking down the wrong path. Same seems to be true for the Sanhedrin in 1st century. They don’t understand what the Scriptures are telling them. Instead of receiving grace and faith, they resort to legalism.

I think Jesus sees this and calls out Nicodemus, as well as the whole Sanhedrin, on this. First, they call themselves teachers and rabbis, yet they still lack a lot, so much, they need to be taught. Second, as seen in verse 11, even if the Jews of the day did not understand what was being preached, they could have at least accepted the testimony, or the result, of what was true. Yet they did not even do that. In short, they could (and should) have said, “We don’t fully understand, but we’ll still believe it.” Instead, they said, “We don’t understand it, so it can’t be true!” Third, as seen in verse 12, they are trying to go onto bigger things without understanding the smaller things. It would be like a brain surgeon, trying to operate on a patient’s brain, without knowing how brain cells connect to one another. It would be like a rocket scientist, trying to build a newer rocket for astronauts to use, when the scientist does not know how combustion works. It would be like a mechanic, trying to build a car from scratch, without knowing the parts of an engine. Of course Nicodemus didn’t understand the spiritual matters Jesus was talking about! He couldn’t even comprehend how earthly matters worked! What Nicodemus may or may not have known is that no one can fully understand spiritual matters. Heck, even with the science we have today, we still don’t comprehend earthly matters either. This was humbling experience for Nicodemus, and it would also be a humbling experience for anyone, back then or today, who acts like they know everything earthly and spiritually. Lucky for Nicodemus, and for us, there is someone who does understand the spiritual world, because he was from the spiritual world. His name was Jesus. Jesus is the only one who descended from heaven, and he will also ascend there.

The thought of descending and ascending leads Jesus to another thought, a thought from history. No, it’s not Jacob’s ladder in Genesis, but rather the bronze snake in Numbers. Let me give you a quick reminder of the story. The Israelites are complaining and whining in the desert wilderness. God, sick of the Israelites constant complaining (and probably sick of having to come up with new punishments all the time) decides that if an Israelite sins, he or she will be painfully bitten by a poisonous snake, which will lead to sickness and even possibly death. Well, the Israelites realize their mistake and cry out to the Lord for salvation. So Moses seeks the Lord for a solution. God tells Moses to forge out of bronze a snake on a pole. If an Israelites sins, he or she will receive a fatal bite from a snake, but if the Israelite looks at the bronze snake on the bronze pole (a sign of repentance), God will forgive that individual and heal him or her from the snake poison. Jesus uses this typology for what He is going to do. Jesus reveals humankind is sick with a more deadly poison: sin. Sin kills us both physically and spiritually. The Son of Man, Jesus, will be lifted up like the Bronze Snake, but it will be on a cross. If anyone was to look towards Jesus on the cross (a sign of repentance and belief), he or she would be healed from sin and will receive eternal life.

Now before we go any further, we need to have a lexical study of John 3:16-21 (and “lexical study” simply means we’re going to look at the original text in its original language). If you were to look at different Bible translations, you might have notice that they differ in where they place the quote the ends Christ’s words. Most translations put the end quote after verse 21. But a few translations, like the RSV, place the quotes at the end of verse 15. The 1984 edition of the NIV places the quotes at the end of verse 15, but the 2011 edition has the quotes end at verse 21. What gives? Koine Greek, the Greek language of the 1st century AD, did not have quotation marks. So it’s not as clear when someone’s speaking begins and ends. Trust me, I take Greek. It’s frustrating translating because you don’t know if you should translate the sentence “The prophets say, ‘You should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.’” or “The prophets say that you should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.” Of course, I’m only beginning Greek 2, and some Greek experts might say this is an amateur mistake. But at the same time, this doesn’t mean the experts find translating easy, for there is debatable passages, such as John 3. So if the quotation ends at John 3:15, then who is saying John 3:16-21? That would be the narrator, who in this case is the beloved disciple John. Remember that John’s Gospel is a supplementary Gospel, one in which John gives his own commentary while narrating the events of the book. John 3:16-21 could simply be John explaining Christ’s teachings in John 3, especially 3:11-15. Proponents of the view that John 3:16-21 is John’s commentary say their number 1 proof is that that the speaker is speaking in the third person. But someone could easily object, showing that Jesus many times spoke in the third person. I do believe these verses, especially the famous 3:16 verse, are indeed the words of Jesus. I don’t want to go into the whole lexical, exegetical and hermeneutical arguments, so I will simply defend my view with the numbers. A majority of the scholars believe these words belong to Jesus, and most of these scholars are conservative scholars. A minority of scholars believe those verses are John’s words, and most of those scholars are liberal scholars. But at the end of the discussion and debate, someone can simply say that it doesn’t matter who said them, the words themselves speak a powerful message, a message that needs to be looked at. So let’s stop talking about who said it, and let’s look more at what these verses are saying.

I’m going to breeze over John 3:16 because most Christians already know. It has become a famous Bible verse, seen commonly at football games. One thing I will quickly note is that the Greek word for “perish” does not necessarily mean “annihilate” or “wiped out of existence” as we would think in our English minds. A better definition for perish in this context would be “ruined,” as if verse 16 is telling the reader that whoever does not believe in Jesus is ruining their life, and at the end of life, his or her life will be left in ruins. Very interesting concept. But enough of the famous verse. Let’s look at the lesser famous verses, which have a messages that is just as powerful, if not more powerful. I’ll even put them right into this text.

John 3:17-21-
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

The common questions I will get from non-Christians are questions over the judgment of God, or sometimes even more specific, like the judgment of Jesus. These questions range from “Does God/Jesus judge people?” to “Does God/Jesus judge sin?” Sometimes these questions will turn into comments, some saying, “It’s wrong for God to judge people as sinners for all the wrong things they have done.” (and I still have to hear a convincing argument for why), while others say, “Jesus doesn’t judge people’s sins or judge people as sinners because He loves us and He forgave us.” There are many different routes we can go to point the errors in these comments, including correcting an incorrect view of the Law (or maybe even making light of the ignored Law!). But let’s stick to using this passage to formulate an answer, for both these questions and these comments/claims.

First of all, let me start by saying both the questions and comments are a result of a misunderstanding of the definition of “judgment,” which comes from an unnecessary negative connotation of the word “judgment.” It seems like the generations of the 21st century (and maybe I’ll even add the 1990s generation) have associated the word “judge/judgment” with having to go to court. With a generation that has heavy gang involvement, from which a “no snitching” policy has arisen, this generation has associated going to court, or going to a judge, as a negative experience because they have been convicted of a crime, and the judge will punish them. Even outside the court setting, a lot of people out of this generation, when judged by authorities or even older people, have come out with a bad judgment, for one reason or another. Either way, the 21st century generation sees judgment with a negative connotation, as if it was bad. But a closer look and deeper thought reveals it isn’t always true. Yes, it is bad if you are judged and declared guilty. But it’s good if you judged and declared innocent. It’s also good if the judgment brings justice to you. So “judge” and all forms of it (judging, judgment, etc.) are suppose to be neutral in connotation. The negative word is suppose to be “condemn,” which means to be judged, fail judgment, and to be punished with no hope of escape from the judgment and punishment. And there are many positive connotations to judge, like “forgive,” “innocent” or any other word that shows a positive passing of judgment.

Back to the verses, I do believe God and Jesus play an active role as judge, but I also believe there’s a more passive role, and John 3:17-18 bring light to that. When I say God/Jesus has a passive role in judging, I could simply state it as this: “When sinners stand in the presence of a holy and righteous God, their sins are exposed and they stand in judgment.” God doesn’t have to point out sins. The sins stand out like a sore thumb when they are exposed. To deny fully exposed sins would be like denying a black eye or a big pimple at the end of your nose, which everyone can see. I don’t have to announce to everyone that you have a black eye or big pimple at the end of your nose, for everyone who looks at your face will see it.

What a better way to talk about judgment that using courthouse language, as well as analogies to light and darkness. Did you catch the courthouse vocabulary? “This is the verdict.” Jesus is saying, “The trial has happened, judgment has been passed (neutrally!), and these are the results. What are the results? “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” The Light is Jesus and His Gospel message, the one that will save humankind from their sins. The darkness is the sinful, fallen, depraved world we live in. Logically speaking, someone would think people would want to go from darkness to light. But they don’t! Why not? The light exposes the evil deeds of the dark world, and people are too afraid to come into to the light because their deeds will be exposed, and they will stand condemned. Why are they so afraid? Perhaps they are afraid of shame. Maybe they fear they will ruin their pride.

How true it is for this 21st century generation (and once again, may I add the 1990s generation into this). A common banner I see this generation’s youth and young adults wave is “You have no right to judge me.” This banner covers everything from religion to beliefs to morals. Sometimes this banner comes out in a passive form: “Well, that’s what you believe, but I believe different. So you believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe, and let’s keep it at that.” Other times, this banner has come out more aggressively: “How dare you judge me for my beliefs! Who gave you the right to decide my beliefs are wrong and yours are right?! Your beliefs are right for you, my beliefs are right for me.” Modernists blame postmodernism for this. Modernists claim that postmodernism has made beliefs, spirituality and religion so individualistic that every person’s religious and spiritual beliefs are their own religion and their own personal religious truth, so no one has the right to infringe on their “personal religion.” So what happens to morals? Morality becomes a thing of emotional feeling. If it feels right, it’s moral, but if it doesn’t feel right, it’s immoral. So if something feels right for you, but doesn’t feel right to me, that means it moral to you, but not moral to me. What kind of system is that?

There’s a reason John calls Jesus the “true light.” Think about what light can do. It’s easy to keep things hidden in darkness. You can place something out in the open in the darkness, and the darkness will hide it. It’s hard to hide things in the light, for light will expose everything that it touches. Jesus is the light, and evil is the darkness. Evil tries to hide our sins, tries to convince that our sins are right and we have nothing to be embarrassed about. If someone or something tries to embarrass us or judge us for our sins, they are in the wrong, not us. Jesus, the true light, works differently. Jesus exposes everything, the good and the evil, the righteous and the sinful.

So what do I say to the people who ask me if God judges, if Jesus judges, or even if Christians should judge other people, both Christians and non-Christians? First, I do acknowledge God and Jesus as the judge over all humankind. After all, God/Jesus is holy and righteous, which makes Him better than us fallen sinners. Second, I do admit that the Bible does say Christians shouldn’t judge other people, but I do also recognize the Bible says Christians should judge sinful actions (not going any further on this discussion, as it would take us way off topic). But then I follow that up by saying, “But Christians really don’t have to judge people, and technically, God doesn’t have to either. Because the people already stand in judgment, and the judgment is they are guilty of their sins.” I use John 3:18 to back me up.

That is why, as John 3:17 tells us, that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world. The world already stood condemned because their sins and their evil ways had been exposed. Their crimes had been exposed, and so they were exposed as guilty. They were already condemned. If Jesus were to come into the word to condemn the world, it would be redundant. If humanity were to look at themselves honestly, they would already know they were condemned.

If I were to stop right here, I would be just as guilty as my generation for giving the word “judge” a negative connotation. If Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, he must have come for another reason. Hopefully it’s a positive one! Indeed it is. John 3:16-21 simply says we believe and come into the light by living the truth, we will not be condemned, we will not perish but we will live an eternal life in the light. Jesus didn’t come into the world to declare us guilty, but Jesus came into the world to forgive us, so He could declare us innocent.

So you’d think it would be a “no-brainer” to receive the light and the salvation that comes with it. Everyone should be running out of the darkness and into the light. But not everyone does. Why? It goes back to John 3:19-20, and even back to the true meaning of “perish” in John 3:16. People are given the chance to come into the light, but when they come into the light, their sins will be exposed, so they would have to admit those sins, admit they were evil, and then reject them. The sad reality is some people love the darkness. Some people love their sins and love evil. There’s a reason phrases like “the ways of the world” or “worldly ways” can be synonymous with “sinful ways.” Since the world we live in is a fallen and depraved one, it’s a world that’s going to offer us sin as the “high life.” Sex, drugs, wealth, popularity, partying is what it tries to sell you. Any threat to these lifestyles is an enemy. So if the True Light tries to expose these as wrong, the True Light is your enemy. The ways of the world begs you, “Don’t walk into the light! It will just judge you to put you down and make you feel bad. It wants to embarrass you. Stay in the darkness. It is your friend.” People listen to this dark world. Fear of hurting their pride or even the pride of their sins keeps them from entering the Light. They know a life in the Light will have them reject their old life, and they want to selfishly hold onto their life of sin. So they stay in the darkness. Even if a beam of light comes near them, they yell, “Stay back, Light! Don’t judge me!” Little do they know that they have brought judgment upon themselves. Little do they know that while the darkness hides the evil, it does not get rid of it. They still stand with their evil sins, and thus they still stand condemned. And little do they know that they are slowly perishing, which means they are slowly ruining their lives until they die.

In closing, I am reminded that some evangelists use this book of the Bible as an evangelism tool. While I said and shown that this book is better used for discipleship reasons, I do believe this passage does give a strong evangelistic gospel message. Just don’t use John 3:16, but include John 3:17-21 into this as well. John 3:16-21 paints a beautiful picture of the gospel. There we were, in a dark and fallen world, slowly perishing and slowly ruining our lives. But God, out of His everlasting love, sent God the Son into the world, to expose the world of sin so the people could see how much they were ruining their lives. Some people didn’t mind their sins, so they went back into the darkness and went back to a slow ruin. But some people walked into the light, believed in the Son, and received eternal life. The reader is faced with the same 2 decision. You either go back into the darkness and back to your evil sins, or come into the light by believing in Jesus and walking the ways of truth. Does this gospel message work? Well, look at the first hearer of this word: Nicodemus. Does Nicodemus come to faith? Well, the next time you’ll see Nicodemus, he’ll denounce the Pharisees (remember Nicodemus is a Pharisee!) for not giving Jesus a fair chance to preach or even to defend himself. Later on, you’ll see Nicodemus help Joseph of Arimathea bury Joseph. I think both actions are a demonstration of his faith. By the end of chapter 3, Nicodemus know what Jesus is teaching, understands what Jesus is preaching, believes Jesus is the Son of God and walks from darkness into the light. After all, the next time you see Nicodemus, he won’t be sneaking around in the dark, but boldly standing up for Jesus in the light of the day.

P.S. I decided not to go into the rest of John 3. Why? The rest of John 3 is John the Baptist confirming what Jesus preached earlier in the chapter. To give a quick summary, John the Baptist’s disciples come to John the Baptist whining, complaining, “That Jesus man is taking your disciples!” to which John the Baptist replies, “Good. He is suppose to.” Then John the Baptist verifies Christ’s teaching in John 3 by preaching that Jesus is from above, Jesus testifies about heavenly things, people have not believed in Christ’s testimony, those who receive Christ’s testimony has eternal life, and those who do not are condemned. Everything I can about this I have already said above. Besides, it was already getting too long.