SERMON: “The Innocent Man” (John 18:28–38)
“The
Innocent Man” (John 18:28–38)
Series: “John: Life in Christ’s Name” #98 Text: John 18:28–39
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: April
6, 2025
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
I.
Introduction
Remember how the account of Joseph in Genesis 39 illustrates
innocence. Joseph was a faithful servant
in Potiphar’s house, but he faced a false accusation from Potiphar’s wife. She twisted the truth, claiming Joseph
attempted to assault her, when he had actually fled her advances. He left his cloak behind as evidence she misused
against him.
Similarly, Jesus, the sinless Son of God, was unjustly
charged with blasphemy and sedition. The
religious leaders brought fabricated charges against Jesus, accusing Him of
crimes He never committed. This is
despite His life of perfect obedience to God.
In both cases, earthly authorities failed to uphold
justice. Yet, Joseph’s path through the
dungeon led to his exaltation as a ruler in Egypt, where he saved many lives
during a great famine. In an even
greater way, Jesus’s journey through the cross led to His resurrection and
ascension, securing salvation for countless believers, and revealing His
ultimate glory as King of Kings.
Keep this is profound irony in mind as we study this
passage. This begins a section of
Scripture that goes all the way to John 19:16, where we read of Jesus’s trials
before Pilate. We’ll see the Jewish
leadership demand crucifixion for their God-sent Messiah. Jesus is entirely innocent, but He is also
entirely in control — knowing that His sacrificial death will mean the
salvation of all who believe.
Jesus Christ is the most innocent man to have ever lived,
and we’ll see that fact is essential for His sacrifice. This morning, we’ll note three evidences of
our Lord’s innocence. First, we’ll note
the Jewish leaders unintentionally confirm it (vv. 28–32). Second, we’ll note the Lord proves it (vv. 33–37). Third, we’ll note Pilate affirms it (vv. 38). Let’s consider the first of these:
II.
First, the Jewish Leaders Unintentionally Confirm
His Innocence (vv. 28–32).
Then they led
Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves
did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might
eat the Passover. Therefore Pilate went
out to them and *said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If this Man
were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves,
and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted
to put anyone to death,” to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke,
signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.
Let’s begin with something that you might find confusing if
you were only reading this Gospel account.
In v. 24, we read that Annas sent Jesus “bound to Caiaphas the high
priest.” Yet, in v. 28, we read that
Jesus is coming from Caiphas.
Because the other Gospel accounts already recorded the two night trials,[1] John
doesn’t rehash that here. Instead, he
jumps straight from the Jewish condemnation of Jesus under Annas to the Roman
condemnation.
Yet, John obviously doesn’t skip over the entire betrayal of
Jesus to Gentile hands (cf. Matt 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1). He simply excludes the later trial with Herod
(cf. Luke 23:5–12) to focus on Jesus before the Roman governor. Yet, he’ll do so while adding a lot of
detail.
So, in v. 28, we read of the Jewish leaders lead Jesus to
the “Praetorium.” Perhaps you grew up
hearing this referred to as the “hall of judgment” (KJV), but the word here is
from the Greek and Latin terms. This is
also translated as Pilate’s “governor’s headquarters” (ESV), a location
somewhere in Jerusalem.[2] This would have been a place for Pilate to
stay during the feast days so that he could monitor for signs of insurrection
or unrest, while his usual lodging was in Caesarea.
The Jewish leadership brought Jesus “early,” perhaps around
6 am. Not mentioned here would have been
Judas’s remorse, his attempt to return the money, and his demise by his own
hand. Meanwhile, the Jewish leadership
had condemned Jesus in an illegal, secret night trial, and they now deliver Him
to Pilate, before the rest of Jerusalem has started its day. Still, there would be a growing crowd as sun
rises, showing the reality of this Good Friday morning.
We’ve already noted that Pilate was the Roman governor,
administrating from ad 26–36, but
who was he? He was not a careful
administrator, carrying out justice with fairness. Rather, he was a proud and compromised man
who covered his ineptitude in his position with violence and oppression. For instance, as one commentary notes,
Reversing the policy of his
predecessors, Pilate had sent troops into Jerusalem carrying standards bearing
images that the Jews viewed as idolatrous.
When many of them vehemently protested against what they saw as a
sacrilege, Pilate ordered them to stop bothering him on pain of death. But they called his bluff, and dared him to
carry out his threat. Unwilling to
massacre so many people, Pilate gave in and removed the offending
standards. The story highlights his poor
judgment, stubborn arrogance, and vacillating weakness. Pilate further angered the Jews when he took
money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct to bring water to
Jerusalem. His soldiers beat and slaughtered
many Jews in the riots that followed.[3]
It was his later mistreatment of the Samaritans,
slaughtering the pilgrims on Mt. Gerizim whom he viewed with suspicion, that
caused the governor of Syria to recall him to Rome in ad 36.[4]
So, it’s odd that the Jewish leadership would sully
themselves by involving such a man now.
Yet, notice their odd behavior of not entering the Praetorium to avoid defilement. The Jews had laws about ritual purity in
dealing with dead bodies (cf. Num 19:11–13), and their present concern was
related to abortion; they believed the Gentiles regularly aborted children in
their homes, disposing of their bodies there.[5] Of course, it’s astonishing that these men
are suddenly so concerned with ritual purity for Passover as they orchestrate Jesus’s
murder on Passover. This is the way of
the legalist, though — keeping external laws while ignoring the need for
internal purity.
We’ve spent a while on that first verse to set the stage, let’s
consider v. 29. Because they wouldn’t
enter, “Pilate went out to them.” He then
formally opened the Roman trial when he asked, “What accusation do you bring
against this Man?” He probably was aware
that his guard was activated the previous night and that they were bringing a
potentially dangerous revolutionary before him.
However, they responded with a less than satisfactory
answer. It’s never a good sign when you
ask for information and someone treats you contemptuously for asking, and that
was their response. It’s almost with a
sneer, a “pious pose of infallibility,”[6] that they indicate Jesus is
obviously “an evildoer” for them to be bringing Him before Pilate.
Pilate returns tit for tat.
He responds, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” He sees their insolence, their inability or
unwillingness to specify charges, and treats them as wasters his time.
It’s here that we see something unintentional in the Jewish
response. Perhaps their hatred of Pilate
and Rome clouded their judgment for the moment, but they tipped their hand that
they held Jesus on trumped up charges.
Pilate is beginning to see that Jesus is little more than a religious
enemy they want to eliminate.
So, the Jews realize they must be more specific. They admit in v. 31 that their goal is to
execute Jesus, but they can’t do so legally without Pilate. Of course, mobs sometimes stoned perceived
blasphemers, as with Stephen in Acts 7; in John 10:31, they almost stoned Jesus! But the Sanhedrin doesn’t quietly take care
of Jesus, perhaps perceiving Him to be too public a figure with too great an
influence. Afraid of losing their
position, they were saving face in the eyes of Rome while also publicly ending
the challenge to their authority.
Whatever their reason, though, God had a greater
reason. His Son would die through
crucifixion, a much more horrendous death than stoning (which may have involved
large stones, rendering the convicted unconscious and providing a swifter death
by comparison). In John 12:32–33, Jesus prophesied,
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself,”
indicating death by crucifixion rather than stoning. Their actions unintentionally confirm divine
purpose.
So, by God allows the Jews to eventually persuade
Pilate. Of course, they lie; according
to Luke 23:2, they accuse Jesus of misleading the nation, forbidding taxes to
Caesar, and claiming to be a king. These
were charges of sedition. Yet, Pilate
can and will see that there is a lot of smoke but not much fire to these
additional accusations. Still, Pilate
does his due diligence and questions Jesus inside the Praetorium, where the
scene shifts next.
III.
Second, the Lord Proves His Innocence (vv.
33–37).
Therefore Pilate
entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You
the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered,
“Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your
own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this
world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so
that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of
this realm.” Therefore Pilate said to
Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king.
For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to
the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Once Pilate summons Jesus, he asks Jesus a straightforward
question: “Are You the King of the Jews?” The Greek reveals an emphatic pronoun here, “Are
You, You, the King of the Jews?” This
suggests that Pilate finds the situation
incredulous; this bound and humble man without an army is a threat to the
security of the region? Jesus’
appearance belies such a claim.
We might expect Jesus to reply with a simple yes or no, but
He instead asks, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others
tell you about Me?” Of course, He’s not being
evasive, but He is probing Pilate’s heart, making it a question of personal
conviction. He is causing Pilate to
question what the word “king” might even mean — is it merely political, or can
it be something else? Jesus needs to
clarify before answering, showing His ultimate concern is for truth, further
evidencing His innocence.
So, in the next verse, Pilate gives a sharp reply: “I am not
a Jew, am I?” As one commentary notes, “Proud
and fine scorn on Pilate’s part at the idea that he had a personal interest in
the question.”[7] He’s uninterested in Jewish religious
disputes; Pilate just wants to know the answer to the pragmatic question: “what
have You done?”
In the next verse, some might be confused. Jesus does not deny being a king, and
Christians should have no problem saying Jesus is King or Christ is King. Yet, Jesus is careful to note that His is a
unique kingdom. If Jesus were a
political king, His followers would resist — like Peter’s sword in Gethsemane
(John 18:10). But His kingdom’s origin is not earthly but divine. Of course, one day, Jesus will return to set
up a physical kingdom on earth, but that is not Jesus’s purpose right now.
So, Pilate realizing Jesus’s admission presses: “So You are
a king?” Jesus replies, “You say
correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come
into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” He is a king, but not as Pilate imagines; His
mission is to “testify to the truth” — God’s redemptive reality (John 14:6). Those “of the truth” hear Him, meaning He
rules and reigns in men’s hearts.
In passing, it’s worth noting that this teaches us a little
about the church and authority. As John
Frame writes, “Jesus gave certain powers to the church. He did not give the church the right to use
physical force to accomplish its tasks.
As theologians say, he did not give the church the power of the sword
(John 18:36; 2 Cor. 10:4). Only the
civil government has that power. But he
did give to the church the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Eph. 6:17).”[8] This is why we understand that the church and
state have different spheres of authority, with the church not having the power
for capital punishment, and the state not having the power to regulate the
church, and with God being supreme over all.
Jesus proved His innocence by defining His kingship as
truth-bearing, not rebellion. He’s no
threat to Caesar; His rule is spiritual, reigning in hearts now and one day
physically at His return (Revelation 19:16).
Here’s the proof of His innocence.
So, Pilate is ready to publicly declare what he’s concluded.
IV.
Third, Pilate Affirms His Innocence (vv. 38).
Pilate said to
Him, “What is truth?”
And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews
and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.”
Pilate gives Jesus the quintessential question for the
skeptic, “What is truth?” While movies
and shows depict various inflections upon Pilate at this point, we don’t know
if he is being sarcastic, dismissive, or introspective at this point[9] — we
can’t read his tone or his heart. All we
know is that he leaves from Jesus at this point; face-to-face with the Truth
(John 14:6), he walks away. Of course,
the reality is that the question is more important for the reader.
Both the Greek New Testament
and the NASB break the text here into a new paragraph. Pilate returns outside to the awaiting
Jews and declares, “I find no guilt in Him.” His emphatic “I” in the original language underscores
his judgment: Jesus is innocent of any Roman crime. In fact, he will repeats this twice more (John
19:4, 6). Pilate sees no sedition, no
threat—just a man the Jews want dead for their own reasons.
Ironically, the pagan governor defends Jesus while His own
people reject Him (John 1:11). This may
seem to be an odd place to stop in the text, but we’ll see a shift after
this. John 18:39 skips over Jesus’s
trial before Herod and begins the second trial before Pilate. Again, John will give us more detail, but
we’ll see that next time. The sad irony
here is that, while Pilate affirms Jesus’ innocence, yet injustice prevails.
V.
Conclusion
What is truth? The
only person ever truly innocent was Jesus Christ — the way, the truth, and the
life. He not only was innocent of any
crime before Pilate, He was innocent of any infraction, transgression, or sin,
ever. He was entirely innocent not just
before a reasonable examination by man, but also before a holy and righteous
standard before God the Father.
This innocence is essential to our salvation, because none
of us are completely and entirely innocent.
It’s true that we often are falsely accused by unreasonable, sinful
people, and may be innocent of particular accusations. Yet, we have always sinned our whole lives,
and we fall short of God’s glory.
Jesus had to be perfect to go to the cross for us. He had to be the spotless Lamb of God, just
as any other sacrifice needed to lack any blemish. Any mark on our Lord’s soul would disqualify
Him from being a sacrifice for us.
Jesus also had to be perfect to live the life we could
not. His obedience, from birth to the
cross, was lived in our stead. He lived
the perfect life in our place.
So, for those of us who trust in Him, know that He was
innocent. He was the perfectly
acceptable sacrifice for your sins, and He lived the life which would make you
acceptable to God. Believe in Jesus
Christ and know that, even though you have sinned, in Christ, you can be
declared innocent, as well.
[1] “John gives no details of the trial before the
Sanhedrin (only the fact, John 18:24, 28) when Caiaphas presided, either the informal
meeting at night (Mark 14:53, 55–65=Matt. 26:57, 59–68=Luke 22:54, 63–65) or
the formal ratification meeting after dawn (Mark 15:1=Matt. 27:1=Luke
22:66–71), but he gives much new material of the trial before Pilate
(18:28–38)” (A. T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933], Jn
18:28).
[2] “The location of the
palace of the Roman governor is disputed.
It could have been at the Antonia Fortress on the north side of the
temple area or at one of Herod’s two palaces on the west of the city” (emphasis
in original. Edwin A. Blum, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An
Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 336–337).
[3] John F. MacArthur Jr., John 12–21, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago, IL: Moody
Publishers, 2008), 327.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Noted in Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 2002), 25B:238. Also
noted in MacArthur, John 12–21, 326,
citing Leon Morris, The Gospel According
to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 763, n. 59.
[6] Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, Jn 18:30.
[7] Ibid., Jn 18:35.
[8] John M. Frame, Salvation
Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg,
NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 242.
[9] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible,
(Biblical Studies Press, 2005).