One may wonder how it became known what went on in the judgment hall between Pilate and Jesus. How did it become known what they said to one another? One reason might be that what they said was taken down by a court stenographer and became a matter of public record. On the other hand, and probably the truer version is that both Joseph and Nicodemus were members of the high council that condemned Jesus, but they didn’t agree and voted for Jesus’ innocence (Luke 23:50-51). One or more probably both of them went into the judgment hall with Jesus and were, thus, able to witness and bear record of what was said.
Jesus’ interrogation by Pilate, the Roman governor, began by Pilate asking him, if he were a king (John 18:33), so apparently the Jewish authorities told Pilate he made himself king and forbade giving tribute to Caesar (Luke 23:2). How should Jesus respond to such a question, when the answer would be no, if Pilates inquiry was politically motivated, but yes, if he asked if Jesus were the Messiah, sent by God? Obviously, Pilate had absolutely no understanding of the spiritual element of his inquiry, but it was necessary for this to be formally set aside. Therefore, Jesus asked the governor, if he inquired, because he knew of Jesus’ claim and was at that time investigating him privately, or was his question the formal accusation of the Jewish authorities who turned him over to Pilate for judgment and execution (John 18:34).
“Am I a Jew?” was Pilate’s reply (John 18:35). In other words, Pilate, the bigot, was taking Jesus’ question as an insult. He wasn’t informed of all the idle gossip of his people. He had no personal interest in such things. On the other hand, “…your own nation, and the chief priest (the Jewish authorities) have turned you over to me. What have you done?” In other words, I am keenly interested in knowing your answer to this accusation. Therefore, the point of Jesus question is realized in Pilate’s reply. Pilate was not, himself, interested in Jesus’ comings and goings (John 1:10), rather his interest lay in the formal accusation of Jesus’ own people (cp. John 1:11). In other words, Jesus had never presented himself to the nation in a manner in which Pilate would have considered it a threat to Caesar—no news of Jesus’ comings and goings would have caused Pilate to become politically suspicious of this traveling preacher.
“What have you done?” The question implies Pilate’s own ignorance of Jesus’ life up to this point in time. His only interest in Jesus lay in the accusation of the leaders of his own people. They claimed Jesus was perverting their nation, and that Jesus was forbidding giving tribute to Caesar. Was this true, and if so, how is it that I have never heard of you? This sort of news or gossip Pilate would have been interested to know throughout Jesus’ public life, but he was admittedly ignorant of any previous political efforts on Jesus’ part, so: “What have you done?”
No doubt Pilate expected Jesus to offer a negative reply, pleading innocent of the charges laid against him. However, Jesus surprised him by admitting from the very beginning that he was King, but not in the manner Pilate would have supposed. Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). In other words, if Jesus’ Kingdom was like any other, his disciples would have fought the Jewish authorities and kept them from arresting Jesus and turning him over to Pilate for execution. Pilate would surely have heard of Jesus in that way, had his Kingdom been politically motivated. How could such a thing be hidden from him. Therefore, “…my Kingdom is not of here” (John 18:36).
Surprised with Jesus’ reply, Pilate then asked: “Then you are a king?” So, Jesus replied again in the affirmative, saying to this end he was born, that he should bear witness to the truth, and everyone who are of the truth or loves the truth, listens to Jesus (John 18:37). Pilate replied like any modern critic might of a religious point of view: “What is truth? (John 18:38). In other words, there are no absolutes. Each person has his own truth. Jesus spoke of the truth, but Pilate spoke in generalities, truth without the article. He knew of nothing that was absolutely true. So, he left the judgment hall, and returned to the Jewish authorities with his verdict: “I find no fault in him!”
The Synoptics add more detail at this point, but in an effort to diffuse the growing fanatical moment, Pilate offered them a choice. During the Passover season, it had been a custom to release a prisoner to the people. Pilate offered them Jesus, whom he knew was innocent and harmless, and Barabbas, who was a known criminal and murderer (John 18:39). By this time there was a great crowd that had gathered at the Antonia hopeful of the release of a prisoner. What I find interesting is that the texts tell us that the chief priests convinced the crowd to call out for Barabbas (John 18:40; cp. Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11). How could the crowd that was willing to receive Jesus as their Messiah earlier in the week, and were so eager to listen to him, suddenly be convinced to turn against him? I believe John provides the answer in his record. They believed Christ abides forever and couldn’t die (John 12:34). In other words, they trusted in the false doctrine preached by the Jewish authorities, and believed, if Jesus truly were the Messiah, Pilate couldn’t execute him. Something would occur to prevent that from happening and the evidence would be clear: the Messiah cannot die, and Jesus, the Messiah, would be returned to them.
Smoodock's Blog 