Gospel of John, 18:1-

We are in John Chapter 18. Question sheet number thirty nine. I'm sorry. Thirty eight. Sorry. Thirty eight. And we have gotten down to about question 10 and maybe to set this up. We could have prayed for Ralph. Ralph is going to have hip replacement surgery here in a little while. We still have time to do it.

So we are at the point where the Lord Jesus has been confronted in the garden by Judas and his gang and Simon Peter has drawn his sword and struck the high priest's servant and he cut off his right ear. And we know that the servant's name is Malchus.

And so the Lord had told him to put the sword away and with the admonition should I not drink the cup which my father has given me to drink. So my next question was 12 says, then the detachment of troops and the captain of the officers of Jews arrested Jesus and bound him, and they led him away to Annas first. And my question was, if the officers and troops understood what was happening, would they have to have bound Jesus?

Why not? They didn't know who he was or what he was about. Better answer than that. Yeah, this was his idea, not theirs. He went willingly. I wrote down a couple of things. He has already submitted to man in order to accomplish the counsels and will of his father. So he's bound already. His surrender is an indication of the whole motive of love of his life. The love of the father was primary. If the father permitted suffering, he would gladly endure it.

Love for the disciples was also a compelling factor, for he wanted to spare their arrest and trial. Love for his enemies appears when he heals Malchus's ear. And love for Judas. Don't you find it interesting here that the Lord Jesus, not necessarily in John, but other places, he sort of gets on Peter a little bit, but he doesn't say anything negative to Judas at all. Not a thing. But he tells Peter, hey, put away your sword. So the love of the Lord Jesus is demonstrated here by what he does and what he doesn't do. Okay,

13. And they led him away to Annas' first, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year. Now Caiaphas it was who advised the Jews that It was expedient that one man should die for the people. So why did they take him to Annas' house if Caiaphas was the high priest? I've got a lot of information on Annas and Caiaphas. He more respected, or he was the respected one, kind of the one who had the real power. Caiaphas was the high priest, but Annas was the one who everybody respected. Let me give you some history.

Annas is the father-in-law of Caiaphas. He had been high priest from the year 7 to the year 14 and following him at intervals he had five sons and his son-in-law who all were the high priests. This guy was really influential. He wielded a powerful influence and was regarded as a high priest emeritus. So why did they take him there?

Caiaphas was the one appointed by the Romans to be High Priest, the Jews didn't appoint him, the Romans did. So they take him there, if he can't do anything, if Annas really can't do anything and Caiaphas is the appointed High Priest, why take him there?

That's a good point. They're not having a trial at Annis' place, are they? So why even portray him in front of Annis? If Annis has this kind of influence, then what he's going to do is he's going to set up for the trial. If they get his blessing, which they obviously have, then it's going to be much easier to prosecute him. in front of the Sanhedrin, if Annas goes along with it, which he does.

So there's a method to take in there. The other thing is, is that some of the studies I saw, Annas and Caiaphas may have lived in the same building. And to go from Annas to Caiaphas places was like out this door and into the next one kind of thing. So they were very close like that.

So he's consulted to render an opinion so that the established nature of the accusations should be ratified by the Sanhedrin the next day. So verse 14 says, And now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die. What's it point out? This is a very interesting verse and we talked about it when we mentioned it before. What does it point out that here is a Jewish leader who in all intents and purposes was going to be involved in putting Christ to death but previously he had prophesied.

I thought prophets all had to be friends or colleagues or associates of the Lord Jesus in order to be a prophet. That's exactly right. See, the Lord in his sovereignty can have a person prophesy about an event whether they're in his camp or not. So he's the one that says it's expedient that one man die for the whole country, then the whole country die. Prophecy.

In verse 15 and 16, well let's read that. Now we're talking about, it moves over to Simon Peter. and followed Jesus and so did the other disciple, another disciple, who's the another disciple? Our boy John, never young. And now that disciple was known to the high priest and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. And Peter stood at the door outside and then the other disciple who was known to the high priest went out and spoke to her who kept the door and brought Peter in.

So my question was, which one of these guys is courageous? I mean, it's interesting that John, is it because he just knows everybody? He's a pretty young man, probably in his late teens, early 20s. He just goes in and checks it out. doesn't seem to fear.

And Peter, our friend, is hiding in the weeds. And John has to go get him and talk to the woman who's keeping the door to get him in. So the woman at the door then is the one that accuses Peter for the first time of being one of the Lord's disciples. And oh Peter, in all of his courage, what does he do?

He denies Him. He said, I don't know that guy. I've never been around him. Why do you think He denied knowing Jesus at that very minute? Think about the circumstances that He's involved in, and at that very minute is the minute that He denies Christ. Within less than an hour before, He pulled out his sword, tried to get old Malchus missed and just cut off his ear. But now he's denying that he knows Christ.

Why do you think it's that way? Peter's an interesting guy. If you go back to John 13.8, when the Lord is washing their feet, Peter says, you'll never wash my feet. And Jesus said, well, if I don't wash you, you don't have any part with me. And Peter said to him, Lord, later in 1336, he said, Lord, wherever you go, I'm going to go. And Jesus said to him, where I go, you can't follow me now, but you will later. And Peter said, why can't I follow you now? I'll lay my life down for your sake. And the Lord said in answer to that, I say to you, the cock shall not crow until you have denied me three times. Let me tell you a story.

A close friend of mine is involved with a men's Bible study. And one of the guys in the Bible study, and this will hopefully illustrate why Peter did what he did. One of the guys in the Bible study had been out of work for like six months. He couldn't find a job. And finally he got a job in Castle Rock working for a company, an auto mechanic company that takes care of fleets. And he'd been on the job about a month.

And his boss came to him and said, this customer that's coming in, I want you to lie to him. I want you to tell him a falsehood. And the guy did. and two days later he comes to the Bible study and oh by the way he's the leader of this Bible study and he stands up in front of the men and he tells them the story and he tells them that he lied and he asks the guys to pray for him and so they didn't study the Bible at all that day they spent the whole time talking about why this man did what he did the fact that he's fessed up to it in front of his Bible study group and Why do you think the man lied about the mechanic thing? Because he was scared to death of losing the job, right? He hadn't worked for six months and he'd been on the job for one month and he thought, boy, if I don't go along with what my boss tells me to do, I'm going to lose my job and I'm going to be right back where I was before. So he lied. You see the parallel with our boy Peter here? Why did he lie? He's afraid. Afraid of what? His life. Self-preservation. Isn't every lie designed specifically to preserve good old me? That's what it's designed to do and it shows an absolute abject lack of trust in the Lord to carry out the circumstances of your life.

What I found interesting about it is that all of the guys in the Bible study recommended that that man go sit down with his boss in the next week and say, you know what? I lied to you once, but I'm not going to do it again. And explained to him that he's a believer. They gave him all kinds of advice to tell him how when you have a business and you have integrity in the business, you're much more likely to continue in business. that if you're a liar and people find out about it and you lie to people again and again pretty soon they won't come back and use your service. The real issue is that this man stood up and admitted in front of his group that he lied. But Peter here, he's not only going to do it once, he's going to do it three times and he lies about whether he knew or knows the Lord Jesus Christ.

How powerful a thing is fear to preserve self. Incredibly powerful. Incredibly powerful. So it doesn't let us off the hook for lying, but it's one of those commands that don't lie to one another. Lying is characteristic only of the nature that we got from our friend Satan. He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Lying is done only to preserve self, and self isn't worth preserving. So that's what Peter is doing. Let's see,

19. And the high priest then asked Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. And my question was, Were these questions designed to inform the high priest so that he could render a fair judgment? I think a couple of things here. One, if, let's say Bob Lockwood was an insurrectionist, and we knew he was, and he had a bunch of boys with him, right? So when we arrested him, what would be the first thing we'd ask him?

Give us the names of all your guys, and what do you guys really believe, and what are you up to? So I think that's what they're doing here. It's pretty simple. They're just saying, well, who do you hang around with and what are you doing? They're asking him questions about anyone. If you arrested somebody, if they found Osama bin Laden, what's the first thing they'd start to ask him?

How many guys work for you and what are their names and where are they? But the whole aim here is to try to ensnare the Lord Jesus Christ, because as this process goes on, we're going to see that it's a kangaroo trial anyway. They're going to set him up or try to set him up. And so they're intent on convicting him in order so they can put him to death.

So verse 20, the Lord says, I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple where the Jews always meet. and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard what I said. Indeed, they know what I said. So it's a really, really good answer.

How would you describe it? Is he being aggressive? What's he doing? Is he trying to defend himself? He's exposing them. Yeah, I think that's right, Courtney. He's he's exposing them. He's displaying the truth before them to try to demonstrate how false their accusations were. He's saying, you know, that I've never done anything covertly. I've done everything in the open.

And, you know, it'd be like somebody it'd be like you coming to me and saying, well, what did you teach last Sunday? And I'd say, well, you were here. You heard what I said. Go get the tape. kind of thing. So he's not saying I'm defending myself, he's just saying you really can't falsely accuse me because what I teach is open.

I think it's designed to show that he was and is going to be tried illegally and unjustly and it's unfair what they're going to do to him. Why are they doing this? What's their motive? What didn't they have? They didn't live by faith. And so because they were people, unfaithful people, what they're trying to do is get some ammunition to justify their attitude and their motives. Don't we all do that sometimes? I do.

Is the way one answers more important than the truth itself? Do you understand what I'm asking? The Lord answered in dignity and calmness and at the same time challenging their authority peacefully and morally. So the way in which somebody answers is as important as the truth itself.

What you see here is the poster child for political correctness. See what's going on here? And we have that in our society today where there is a set of principles that society has adopted and they will maneuver the circumstances and the lies to make the principles fit. And the Lord Jesus, just being the truth, just lays out the truth with dignity and quietness and says, OK, this is what really is going on, fellows, so let's not anybody be fooled here, you are going to condemn me unjustly and falsely, and you're going to do it, but nobody is going to get fooled about this. Any questions? Alright, moving on to lesson 39.

I think we've already answered question 1, why does Annas send Jesus over to Caiaphas? I also think that Anna was baffled by Christ's answers to him. He didn't really quite understand and he actually gathered no evidence to prosecute Jesus. So when he goes to Caiaphas house the trial begins and that's really why he's over there.

And here's another thing that the Lord Jesus does, He never acknowledges it either, Annas or Caiaphas or the high priest. He never acknowledges that. And another thing I want you to notice, in John's gospel here, there's no discussion about the trial. Not at all. Why do you think that's so? No discussion about the trial at all. You guys are really asleep today. Easy question. Is it the same reason because he didn't address the agony and resentment? Because his focus is... The focus is on him being the son of God. Yeah. And not the son of man. Yeah, that's really why. Yeah. Okay. And this question too is kind of... It's going to be interesting to see if I get any feedback on this.

In verse 17, 25, and 27 we can have what is described as a baseball batting event. How many pitches did Peter get to swing at and miss? He got three. So whenever I read this I think in 17 I think strike one, in 25 I think strike two, and in 27 I think strike three. He got three softballs and couldn't hit a one. and his denials and everything.

But I think of how the Lord used this, and this changed Peter dramatically after the three denials. I think after that period, he then kind of realizes what's going on and what he did, and I think he's changed. But the only version which I really like, and it always amazed me, it's in the Luke passage of this, where, you know, what's going on with the Lord at this time. And in Luke 22, starting in 60, but Peter said, man, I do not know what you're talking about. Immediately, while he was speaking, a rooster crowed. But 61 is the one that just kills me. It's the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And that's the only version of the Gospels that says that.

I think all the things going on with the trial, everything, You know, he answers and they smack him, you know, the Lord and all this stuff. But at that point, he turns and he looks at Peter. Right. And, you know, I just always think, you know, what that look encompasses, you know, it's love.

It's, you know, just utmost love for Peter saying, now do you understand? And, you know, I really don't think Peter understood until he was restored. He understood the negative part of it. But I love Peter because he is a man of incredible carnal energy.

This is my boy. He's out there, he's the entrepreneurial guy of the apostles. He had a home, a lot of the apostles lived with him, had a couple of fishing boats. He was a very dynamic guy. He was used to making things happen. We normally associate him with leadership amongst the apostles. And he speaks his mind, he's outspoken. I admire him for that. I'm kind of outspoken myself.

I get in trouble for it all the time. So, he doesn't know anything about identification. He doesn't know anything about the benefits of the cross of Christ that it will bring to him. But I think when the Lord Jesus looks at him, like you don't like to say, he went, oops. The Lord told me this was going to happen. After I bragged so much about the fact that I'd go die with him, he told me I would deny him three times. And guess what? That's exactly what I've just done. One minute at the end of that in 62, it says he went out and he wept bitterly.

Yeah. You know, I think like I said, I think this is the beginning of carnal energy, you know, and he's willing to, you know, try and cut off Malchus's, you know, try to kill him and do all this, but to the, you know, the three, you know, slave girl and all the people who he denied, all these weak people, he, you know, he does it. But then I think, like I said, it's that look, when he looks at him, you know, it wasn't just remembering, the Lord looked at him at that moment. And that's what I said, I think that begins the process of him changing, I think. a prescription for the spiritual growth of anybody?

Everybody? Somebody? What do you think? In other words, as we have somewhat of a handle on the identification truths, old man, new man, old nature, new nature, that old nature, does it need to be exposed to you so you can see it for what it really is? Not what all that holy water you've been putting on it?

J. Bernard McGee said that old nature is like manure. You go out and spread it on the lawn in your backyard, he said, you don't go out later and nurture it and keep it going. You leave it alone.

And that's what this proves to Peter. That without the grace of the Lord, and without his mercy towards him, this is what his sin nature or his carnality will do for him. So do you think that the Lord has to do this with every one of us? Bring us to a point where we at some point or another are faced with, you know the old Pogo Biblical translation, we found the enemy within the camp. Guess who it is? It's me. I'm the enemy. I'm my own worst enemy. Because I am this Peter. That's who I really am in the flesh.

And when you know that, when the Lord in his grace shows you that, then you begin to understand the value of the cross. and the real value of your being included in the cross, dead, buried and resurrected with Christ, that you have, in fact, an entirely new nature. Peter recognized instantly that there was nothing about him that was pleasing to the Lord that they were about to crucify. And his only thing he could do was weep about it, bitterly, because imagine, he thinks, Boy, after all my bragging and all of who I am, when it really got down to the tough time, I denied him. And he looked at me, and I knew.

You think you've got to go through that kind of thing? What do you think? You're hoping not, though, right? So the next part of this is when they take Jesus to the Praetorium. Why there? Well, I read it was the residence of the governor and the Roman headquarters and the barracks. And that's right. And here's another historical fact.

The Jews could not put anybody to death by themselves because they were conquered by Rome. Rome said, OK, you can have trials, you can do all your dancing around, but you cannot condemn anybody. We do the condemning. and we do the carrying out of the executions. A couple of things I wrote, here we can see, were people who were very conscientious about the outward things of the law and yet failed to recognize the one whom the type of the law spoke of, the Lord Jesus Christ.

So they're going down there to get the death penalty. That's why they're going. Because they could have find him, put him in jail, done a lot of things themselves, but they cannot take a life. So when we get down, I'm skipping down to verse 30, I'll start at 28.

Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning, but they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. Pilate then went out to them and said, what accusation do you bring against this man? And they answered and said unto him, if he were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered him up to you. My question is, in verse 30, in answer to Pilate, the Jews indicate what he had done. Do the Jews indicate what he had done and what wasn't?

They don't. They don't have a name for it. I mean, it's like if I said, Peggy's on the blacklist and you came up to me and said, why? And I would say to you, well, if I didn't, you know, I don't have to tell you what it is. If I put her on there, that's enough. You see, that's what they're saying. If we wouldn't have brought him down here for you, if we didn't think, didn't think he was guilty of a capital crime. Now, a couple other things I wrote here, because I'm trying to set up a few things here.

John's portrayal is designed to contrast, as we go forward here, the personalities of Pilate and Jesus. There's going to be a contrast here. The judicial aspect of the occasion becomes less prominent than the character of Pilate. Two, it was really a trial of Pilate before Jesus instead of Christ before Pilate. And it'll portray out as we go a little farther, you'll see more and more of that.

The Jews obviously really didn't answer Pilate. They tried to accuse him by saying that they would not have brought him there and accuse him without merit. But the real accusation, the real issue that the Jews had with Jesus was what? Blasphemy. that he claimed to be God, the Son of God. But that's not what they're going to tell the Romans. Because the Romans don't care about blasphemy, do they? Why do they care about whether some Jew says that he's the Son of God? But what the Romans do care about is insurrection.

And so the accusation is going to be, this guy claims to be the king of the Jews. Now how do you Romans like that? You're the ones that conquered us. You see the Jews do the same thing with the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts. Every time they try to get him arrested, they did it on the basis of, not doctrinally, they did it on the basis that this Paul is proclaiming Jesus who is the King, saying he's the King of the Jews, and you Romans better look out, because these people all rally around this Jesus and you're going to have a you're going to have a rebellion on your hands. That was the argument they used when in fact the real argument was that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world and they weren't having any of that.

So, 31 and 32. Then Pilate said to him, you take him and judge him according to your law. Therefore, the Jews said to him, it's not lawful for us to put anyone to death. that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke signifying what death he would die. So why is it important then who will judge and condemn Jesus to death? Why is it important that the Romans are going to do it and not the Jews? To fulfill prophecy. So how does that figure out?

Why couldn't the Jews just... Jews don't do crucifixion. That's right. The Jews stone people. The Romans are the ones that came up with this crucifixion deal and in prophecy the crucifixion had been prophesied several times a long time ago. He had to be lifted up. Had to be lifted up. Didn't the Jews still have the right to stone people for blasphemy at that time? If they had stoned him, many bones would have been broken. That's true. But couldn't they still? I don't think they could without the approval of the governor. I think they had to have the approval to take a person's life.

Although you look at a little later on with Stephen, they just took him out and stoned him. And what's interesting about that is the fervor that was going on at that time. Most people stoned him because they were just insane. So maybe they just violated the Roman law.

So Jesus has to be in his Leviticus 20, 27 for you who want to look it up. And Jesus had foretold it in John 3, 14 and 12, 32 and 33. So this is the fulfillment of prophecy, the Romans. Here's another reason too. Are the Jews the only ones guilty of the death of the Lord Jesus? Are the Gentiles just sort of used by the Jews? No, they're just as guilty. So the death of the Lord Jesus must be something that he's condemned by mankind, Jew and Gentile alike.

That's why the Romans are involved. So why did Pilate ask Jesus if he was the king of the Jews? Now it gets very interesting here. Pilate entered into the Praetorium again. He called Jesus and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews? Now, I'm not sure that that's really the translation that depicts how he said it. I think he said it this way. Are you really king of the Jews? Are you really who they say you are? In other words, I think he was not saying, are you king of the Jews, like it was real serious. I mean, look at who's standing in front of him.

This is a poor, beat up, you know, appears to be unsophisticated Jewish man, bound, and he's got sandals and a robe on, and Pilate says, you're not really the king of the Jews, are you? That's kind of his attitude. He's being cynical. He's not saying, oh, this guy's really a threat to Rome. No, he's not. It'd be like calling me in there and saying, are you the king of the Jews? No, I don't think so. You know, that sort of thing. Pilate's a Roman, and he's responsible to keep control, but the Jews knew that blasphemy wouldn't fly, so they accuse him of being the king of the Jews.

So the Lord Jesus in 34 answers. And here's what he says. Jesus answered and said, Do you say, let me read it out of this version, are you speaking for yourself about this or did others tell you this concerning me? So explain the answer. In other words, he's saying do you have special interest in knowing the truth or is this just a rumor? Why are you asking me this?

Now, if you're a salesman like me, let me give you a little anecdote about selling. He who asks the questions is in control of the conversation. You find in any sort of dialogue, the guy asking the questions controls the conversation because it goes where he asks. Right? What's Jesus doing here? He's answering a question with a question. See? Did you hear this? Is this something you came up with or did you hear this about me? What's happened? The authority just got moved. See?

And it's very interesting that this is the most powerful man in the Mideast right then in Palestine. Pilate. And the Lord Jesus says to him, ask him a question that immediately changes the roles. Isn't that interesting how he did that? So, Jesus is ever ready to explain the truth to one who's really wanting to know it. Now, as we go on today, we're going to talk a little bit more about this.

It's a very dignified reply and I think it takes Pilot by surprise. He's not protesting his innocence. He wasn't sullenly defiant. He treated Pilot as an equal. Isn't that interesting? Notice what he does here. He's not bowing before Pilot. He gets right eyeball to eyeball with him and says, is this something you came up with? and question him in turn. He challenged directly both Pilate's motive and Pilate's justice. What's the Lord Jesus attempting to do here? What's this the beginning of? What's he trying to do? What's he after? He's trying to verify whether he wants to know the truth.

It gets down to that. I think he's after Pilate's soul. I think in the middle of all of this, he's after Pilate. He's going to give Pilate a chance for salvation. That's what I think is going on. But on the other, which it isn't in this translation, but in the Matthew, I think it's in the Matthew, when his wife had the dream the night before and told him, don't mess with this guy. So I wonder, you know, Also that and this question, if he isn't trying to work on Pilate.

He's got something going on. And when you look at verse 35, watch how Pilate responds to this. He's hot. He says, am I a Jew? Your own nation and chief priests have delivered you to me. What have you done? So he doesn't like the fact that the Lord has turned the tables on him. He's hot about it.

He doesn't care, really, if Jesus is the king of the Jews. He doesn't care about that. He views Jesus as just another fanatical Jew who needs to be dealt with. He's done nothing in particularly worthy of death. To him, I think the Lord Jesus is just a public nuisance.

But this man, Jesus, in front of him, put him on the spot. and did it quietly and calmly and made him mad, made him angry because it challenged him so the Lord says Pilate said in 36 Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world if my kingdom were of this world my servants would fight so that I should not be delivered to the Jews but now my kingdom is not from here Pilate said to him, then you are a king?

Is that what you're saying? Then you really are a king? So his answer to my question was, where is the Lord's kingdom from? And I want more than just the answer, heaven. His explanation of his kingdom not being of this world How do I say this? He's saying to him, look, if my kingdom were of this world, then it would respond in a worldly fashion. And the worldly fashion is that if your king gets captured, your boys come and fight. Right? If I take your king, you're going to get all of your people together and you're going to come and fight.

My kingdom doesn't run that way. My people don't come and fight. Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't the Lord Jesus' kingdom function like an earthly kingdom? Because that's what an earthly kingdom would do. You know, you take my leader and I'm going to come and try to get him back. We're going to have a fight. But the principle here is that not only is kingdom not of this world, but it doesn't do things the way the world does.

How come? So I guess I'm after what's the method, what's the Lord Jesus after here in trying to explain to Pilate why if his people were from this world they would come and fight. Is the question perfectly unclear? I think he's trying to tell Pilate, And my kingdom isn't from this world.

And by the way, the principles in my kingdom are totally different. And we do things based on different motives than what you have. In other words, my kingdom isn't vengeful, or revenge, or anything like that. It's all about blessing. He doesn't expand on that, but he's saying to him, the rules are different where my kingdom is. We don't do things the way you do them here on the earth. So, in verse 37, Pilate said to him, so you're a king, huh? And Jesus said, you say rightly that I am a king.

For this cause I was born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice. So, everyone who is of the truth hears my voice. What do you think the challenge is here? Notice it says there's a definite article in front of truth, the truth, and like my version says, everyone who is of the truth, and really the translation there should be everyone who is out from the truth, would hear my voice.

So, what's he trying to say to Pilate? Truth is objective, not subjective. Pilate would be totally a man that believed that truth was subjective, just like our society is today. What truth is, is what I think it is, and what truth is to you is different. It's what you think it is. So the Lord is saying there is such a thing as objective truth. Not relative, but factual. And he says you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Definite article in front of truth. So, if Pilate was devoted to the truth, if he really was devoted to the truth, he would hear what Jesus was having to say. He would brand himself, but he does, if not, he would brand himself as not being from the truth.

Does that make sense? So here again, it's the Lord challenging Pilate. You see how he's doing it? He's saying, look, Pilot, you say I'm a king, and I am, and for this cause it was born, and for this cause it came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. And then he challenges Pilot by saying, everyone who is out from the truth, here's my voice. Do you hear me, Pilot? That's what he's saying. Do you hear me? There's the challenge. So, by about this time, who's controlling this situation? The Lord Jesus is beginning to, isn't he?

So, how would you describe Pilate's view of the truth? And oh, by the way, just so you know there aren't any really wrong answers, there are three, count them, three schools of thought as to what Pilate's view of the truth is, and they're all different. And you can look at commentaries until you're blue in the face, and you'll get one of these three viewpoints, and none of them agree.

So, give me one. I'll give you one and then maybe give me one back. The first one could be that a cynical disavowal of the possibility of knowing any truth. That could have been his attitude. Because it kind of looks that way, doesn't it? The second one could be that he just is contemptuous of anything as impractical as abstract truth. That sounds like America today. How can there be an abstract objective truth? No way, that's totally impractical.

Or the last one is a willful desire to know what nobody thus far has been able to tell him. In other words, the reason he goes on is he's saying, well I've been curious about this thing, the truth, all along and you seem to not have a handle on it. You want to explain it to me? So it's one of those three attitudes. Okay? Bob?

He was talking to the one who was the truth. Yes he was. Yes he was. And based on Pilate's wife talking to him, based on the fact that he absolutely knew this was an innocent man. There was no question in his mind that Jesus was innocent and not guilty of anything that had been been said to him and now he's entered this little dialogue with Jesus and you know this takes place just real shortly and now he's talking to himself. We've gone from I'm going to be the judge whether you live or die to whether I'm answering what the truth is. What is the truth? Kind of thing, see? And this man definitely is not an ordinary Jewish rabble-rouser.

Not him. Because of this dialogue we're having. Boy, this is somebody different. He knows. He doesn't know exactly. But do you see what the Lord's doing to him? He's trying to get a soul. He's gone after him. And he knows he's innocent. He throws him to Herod because in the Luke translation, which you don't get here. Now we know he's from your jurisdiction. There was a Herod. Yeah. That's where Herod dresses him up, gives him the robe, does everything, but then sends him back to Pilate. So he's trying everything he can to get out of this because he knows he's innocent. That's the other thing you find out about Pilate.

He was a coward. Yeah. He wasn't a man who had the courage of his convictions. He didn't have it. He was a politician is what he was. So with just a few words, the Lord Jesus had confronted him with the real issue at stake. His attitude towards what is truth. If you're going to judge me, you better have a handle on the truth. That's what he's saying to him. He had realized it, had he realized it in the answer to his question, The truth was right in front of him, but he didn't realize it.

Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life. Pilate was facing the opportunity of a lifetime right now. It came down to Pilate not being interested in truth for its own sake, but only as an expediency to save his own bacon. He was just there to save himself. Now, here's Pilate.

I mean, you've got to love this guy. He would like he would be like somebody from the American State Department. That's the ambassador to some place. and he gets to rule and judge on things but if he does something wrong then they'll jerk him out of there and he's not a really high level bureaucrat, he's kind of in the middle someplace so he's used to playing both ends against the middle. He's a very savvy political guy.

Okay, we'll stop there and we'll pick up with 14 next time. Dear Father, how we thank you for your grace and how neat it is for us to be able to see Even in the middle of his trial, the Lord Jesus is after the soul of a man who probably doesn't have any interest at all, but the love of your Son comes out and demonstrated right in front of us, Father. We thank you for that. We pray in your Son's precious name. Amen.