Betrayal and Arrest, 1-11

18:1 When he had said these things, Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley. There was an orchard there, and he and his disciples went into it. 18:2 (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times with his disciples.) 18:3 So Judas obtained a squad of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. They came to the orchard with lanterns and torches and weapons.

A squad of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees – The first may have been a detachment of Roman soldiers.  Such a ‘speira‘ could be up to 600 strong, but something smaller is likely here.  These soliders would normally be stationed in Caesarea, but would move to Jerusalem during the feasts, in order to crush any incipient violence of rebellion.

The second was probably a contingent of the Jewish temple guard.

Lanterns and torches – the seach would also have been facilitated by the moonlight (Passover took place near full moon).

18:4 Then Jesus, because he knew everything that was going to happen to him, came and asked them, “Who are you looking for?” 18:5 They replied, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He told them, “I am he.” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing there with them.) 18:6 So when Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they retreated and fell to the ground.

This exchange was probably carried out in Greek.

On Jesus’ knowledge of the future, see Mk 8:31; Lk 9:21-22; 12:49-53; 22:35-37; 24:1-7; Jn 3:11-14; 6:63-64; 13:1-11; 14:27-29; 18:1-4; 19:26-30.

‘We should notice, in these verses, the exceeding hardness of heart to which a backsliding professor may attain.  We are told that Judas, one of the twelve apostles, became a guide to those who took Jesus.  We are told that he used his knowledge of the place of our Lord’s retirement in order to bring His deadly enemies upon Him, and we are told that, when the band of men and officers approached his Master in order to take Him prisoner, Judas “stood with them.”  Yet, this was a man who, for three years, had been a constant companion of Christ, had seen His miracles, had heard His sermons, had enjoyed the benefit of His private instruction, had professed himself a believer, had even worked and preached in Christ’s name!  “Lord,” we say, “what is man?”  From the highest degree of privilege down to the lowest depth of sin there is but a succession of steps.  Privileges misused seem to paralyze the conscience.  The same fire that melts wax hardens clay.’ (Ryle)

“I am he” – What Jesus is actually recorded as saying is, “I am.”  This may mean simply ‘I am he whom you are looking for’.  But it might be an allusion to Ex 3:14.  There was a Jewish tradition that when Moses pronounced the name of God Pharaoh fell backwards.  If Jesus’ hearers though he was pronouncing the divine name, they may too have fell backward in fear, because magicians were thought to cast spells in God’s name. (NT Background Commentary)

The Synoptics record that Judas identified Jesus with a kiss.  Here, he identifies himself.  The two are not necessarily incompatible.

When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they retreated and fell to the ground – This, presumably, might have given Jesus an opportunity to escape.  But he chose not to.

18:7 Then Jesus asked them again, “Who are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” 18:8 Jesus replied, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, let these men go.” 18:9 He said this to fulfill the word he had spoken, “I have not lost a single one of those whom you gave me.”

The word he had spoken – See Jn 6:39; 10:28; 17:12.

“I have not lost a single one of those whom you gave me” – Judas has already been named been named as the one exception.

Eternal security includes all those ‘little’ deliverances that providentially (and sometimes miraculously) attend our way.

18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. (Now the slave’s name was Malchus.) 18:11 But Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

Simon Peter, who had a sword – one of two swords that the disciples had among them, Lk 22:35-38.

This was clearly an act of desperation on the part of Peter: another example of his impulsive nature.

The high priest’s servant – Why the definite article, since the high priest certainly had more than one servant (cf. v26)?  Perhaps this man was the senior member of the arresting party.  He is mentioned again in John’s account of Peter’s third denial, v26.

The slave’s name was Malchus – This incident is also recorded in Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:49–50.  John, however, is the only evangelist who names Peter as the aggressor and Malchus as the victim.  Moreover, John knows that another of the servants of the High Priest is a relative of Malchus.  This provides supporting evidence that John knew Jerusalem well.

Undesigned coincidence.  ‘John records that the high priest’s servant whose ear Peter cut off was called Malchus (Jn 18:10). There is some reason to think that the ‘other disciple’ John mentions in this chapter is John himself. Several church fathers suggest this, as does the fact that John often speaks of himself in the third person as the ‘other disciple’ (Jn 20:2-3), as does the fact that Peter and John are often in association (Lk 22:8; Jn 21:7,21), as does the recording of various trivial details regarding comings and goings in John 18, as does the fact that the other gospels do not mention the ‘other disciple’, nor much detail regarding the event. If this is so, then it can be explained why John is the only gospel writer to name the servant, since John 18:15-16 notes that the ‘other disciple’ was known to the high priest and to the girl who kept the door,  which gives him an easy way of knowing the names of the high priest’s servants. This also explains how John recognises Malchus’ kinsman when he charges Peter with knowing Jesus.’ (Source)

“Put your sword back into its sheath!” – As Michaels, remarks, there is a comical aspect to this.  Jesus has just floored the whole company with a word (v6), and Peter thinks that a sword is necessary!

“Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” – An allusion to Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, Mt 26:39; Mk 14:36; Lk 22:42.

Carson comments:

‘Peter’s bravery is not only useless, it is a denial of the work to which Jesus has just consecrated himself—and entirely in line with the Synoptic evidence as to the failure of the disciples to comprehend the passion when it was announced to them (Mk. 8:31–33 par.; cf. Jn. 13:6–10).’

Undesigned coincidence.  This is the only place in John’s gospel where Jesus’ sufferings are referred to as ‘the cup’.  Nor is any elaboration given here as to its meaning.  For that, we must turn to the Synoptics for passages which themselves find no parallel in the Fourth Gospel (Mt 26.39–42; Mk 14:35f; Lk 22.42).  See McGrew, Hidden In Plain View.

Jesus Before Annas, 12-14

18:12 Then the squad of soldiers with their commanding officer and the officers of the Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and tied him up. 18:13 They brought him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 18:14 (Now it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jewish leaders that it was to their advantage that one man die for the people.)

Caiaphas – Also mentioned in Mt 26:57; Jn 11:49; Acts 4:6. The son-in-law of Annas, he was high priest from AD 18 to 36. He was high priest at the trial of Jesus and during the persecutions described in the early chapters of Acts.  An ossuary possibly containing Caiaphas’ bones was discovered near Jerusalem in 1990: if the identification is correct, these are the first bones ever discovered of a person mentioned in the Bible.

Peter’s First Denial, 15-18

18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) 18:16 But Simon Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. 18:17 The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.” 18:18 (Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire they had made, warming themselves because it was cold. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.)

Another disciple – This unnamed disciple may well be the ‘Beloved Disciple’, and his close association with Peter suggests that he is one and the same person as John the disciple.  Lest is be thought that a Galilean fisherman would not be allowed access to the court of the high priest (just a a fishmonger would not be allowed unquestioned entry to the waiting room of the prime minister) we must be careful not impose our own social model on the situation.  John’s family was quite well-to-do (they owned at least one boat and also had servants), and even rabbis were expected to have a skilled trade apart from their teaching.  See the discussion in Carson & Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament.  We might add that there is a scattering of evidence that John knew (and was well known in) Jerusalem, and that he may have had a dwelling there.

Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd ed.) agrees that this individual may have been the Beloved Disciple, but does not identify his with John the Apostle.

The high priest’s courtyard – Carson thinks it quite possible that the well-to-do Caiaphas lived in a home built in a square shape around a central courtyard.  He may have lived in one wing, with the Sanhedrin meeting in another wing.  It would take very little time from move from one to the other.

The slave girl who watched the door…the girl who was the doorkeeper – Although it seems surprising for there to have been a female doorkeeper, something similar is also attested in Acts 12:13.  This link-up may be regarded as an undesigned coincidence.

The other disciple…brought Peter inside – ‘Given Peter’s violent act in the garden (John 18:10), some have questioned whether the temple police would really allow him to enter the high priest’s courtyard and then sit in their midst while Jesus was interrogated. However, it was dark in the garden, which may have prevented the temple police from discerning who among the press of disciples had struck the servant. Recall that the guard relied on Judas to identify Jesus (Mark 14:45), and so it is apparent that Jesus and his disciples were not very familiar to the arrest party and/or were not easily recognized in the dark conditions of the garden. Furthermore, Jesus immediately healed the servant’s ear (Luke 22:51), a miracle that likely drew attention away from Peter’s assault.’ (Wilkins, Holman Apologetics Commentary on Matthew)

“I am not” – ‘Why Peter should deny any association with Jesus at this point is hard to explain. After all, it seems the other disciple was known to be a disciple and was admitted without any problem, and he was the one bringing Peter into the courtyard. Perhaps Peter felt guilty and vulnerable because he had attacked the high priest’s servant with a sword.’ (Kruse)

A charcoal fire – At this time of the year (Spring), although the days were warm, the evenings and nights would be cool.  Moreover, Jerusalem is an an elevation of over 2,500 feet.

Jesus Questioned by Annas, 19-24

18:19 While this was happening, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 18:20 Jesus replied, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. 18:21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.”

The high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching – Jesus had previously demanded that his disciples be let go, v8.

Kruse says that this is irregular on the part of the high priest: in a formal trial, only witnesses (not the accused) should be questioned.

Jesus’ reply is, in essence, “I have nothing to hide.”

“Ask those who heard what I said” – As noted, this is precisely what Anna should have done.  Jesus is challenging the legality of the proceedings.

18:22 When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest?” 18:23 Jesus replied, “If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?” 18:24 Then Annas sent him, still tied up, to Caiaphas the high priest.

The slap on the face was intended to humilate Jesus.  But, once again, he refuses to be cowed.  Compare Paul’s angry reaction in a similar situation, for which he apologised (Acts 23:1-5).

Peter’s Second and Third Denials, 25-27

18:25 Meanwhile Simon Peter was standing in the courtyard warming himself. They said to him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” Peter denied it: “I am not!” 18:26 One of the high priest’s slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” 18:27 Then Peter denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

‘Against the background of John’s account of the events in Gethsemane, we recognize that Peter is afraid of being identified not just as a disciple of Jesus but as the one who assaulted the servant of the high priest.’ (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses).

Jesus Brought Before Pilate, 28-32

18:28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor’s residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. 18:29 So Pilate came outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 18:30 They replied, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.”

They did not go into the governor’s residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal – Lincoln remarks that

‘the point in supplying this motivation is both theological and ironic. It indicates right at the start of the trial what has been apparent throughout the narrative, namely, that it is their stance toward the law that defines the opponents of Jesus and that is the source of their determination to see him sentenced to death (cf. also 19:7). At the same time this enables the opposition to be depicted as so scrupulously concerned with ceremonial purity that they will not enter a Gentile house but as lacking any scruples about making use of its Gentile occupant in order to do away with Jesus. They are portrayed as fearing that impurity will prevent them from eating the Passover lamb, but, from the implied author’s perspective, they are implicated in the death of the true Passover lamb (cf. 19:14, 31, 36).’

Michaels’ identifies a further irony, in that

‘those who at the beginning of the narrative refused even to enter the Roman praetorium for fear of ritual defilement, in the end cry out, “We have no king except Caesar!” (v. 15b).’

This raises a problem of chronology.  According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper (identified as the Passover Meal in Mt 26:2, 17–19; Mk 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Lk 22:1, 7–8, 13, 15) had already been eaten.  John appears to place that same meal on the following day.

Some, such as R.E. Brown (Death of the Messiah), are well aware of the different ways of attempting to harmonise the two sets of data but conclude that all such attempts are futile.  Brown is a leading exponent of the view that the Synoptic accounts are historical, whereas John has adjusted the chronology for theological reasons (specifically, to have Jesus crucified at the very time that the Passover lambs were slaughtered, this being anticipated in Jn 1:29).

Lincoln, too, is impatient of attempts to harmonise the Synoptics and John.  He writes:

‘the most straightforward interpretation of their narratives is that Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) presents Jesus’ last meal with his disciples as a Passover meal and has Jesus die later on the same day, 15 Nisan, whereas John has the meal and the death on the preceding day, 14 Nisan, the day of preparation for the Passover.’

Most commentators take John as referring to the initial meal of the week-long Passover season, the meal at which the Passover lamb was served.  But this would mean that the Last Supper of John 13 was some other kind of meal, and that Jesus was crucified on the very day that the Passover lambs were slaughtered (cf. Jn 1:29,36 – ‘the Lamb of God’).  Many would then hold that the Synoptic chronology is correct, and that John altered the chronology for theological reasons.  Among more conservative scholars, this is the view of Licona.

Some think that two different calendars were in use, which differed from each other by a day, and that some groups used one, and other groups used the other.  The following note summarises Humphries’ support of this view: .

Morris comes down in favour of the two-calendar view.

Stott thinks that either the aforementioned view is correct, or that

‘there were so many pilgrims in Jerusalem for the festival (perhaps as many as 100,000) that the Galileans killed their lambs on the Thursday and ate them that evening, while the Judeans observed the celebration one day later.’

Blomberg (The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel), however, thinks that the most natural reading of Jn 13 is to regard it as a record of the normal Passover meal.  Any subsequent ‘Passover meal’ would, accordingly, be a meal during the week-long feast of Unleavened Bread.  Extra-biblical Jewish sources, such as the Mishnah, confirm the need for purity during the Jewish festivals.  In 2 Chron 35:7-9, various animals – not just the Passover lamb itself- are referred to by the Heb. word for ‘Passover’, even though they would be sacrificed during the entire week.  Later rabbinic sources confirm the same use of Passover language.

McGrew (Hidden in Plain View) argues that it would be very strange if John, who shows great interest in the order and timing of events, and who shares a number of ‘undesigned coincidences’ with the Synoptics that tends to confirm the factuality of his account, decided to change the chronology of the crucifxion for theological reasons.

Kostenberger (Holman Apologetics Commentary) thinks it probable that:

‘John and the Synoptics present Jesus as having eaten a final meal with his disciples, a Passover meal, on Thursday night, with the crucifixion having taken place on Friday afternoon. If so, the present reference is not to the Passover in a narrow sense but more broadly to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which included the Passover and in its entirety lasted seven days (note Luke 22:1: “the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover”), and in particular to the feast-offering (hagigah), which was brought on the morning of the first day of the festival (cf. Num 28:18-19). “Eat the Passover” probably simply means “celebrate the feast” (cf. 2 Chr 30:21).’

This interpretation is mentioned by Haley (Alleged Errors of the Bible) as being plausible.  He finds equally plausible the idea that the Last Supper was an anticipation of the Passover meal.

Some modern scholars, including France and Wright, think that Jesus and his disciples celebrated the Passover a day early.  They point to the clandestine features of the Last Supper and the absence of any mention of the Passover lamb.

There is deep irony in their zeal to follow the externals of the law while executing their immoral and illegal pursuit of Jesus:

‘They hold fast to the ceremonial law while they seek the execution of the promised Deliverer of Israel, the Son of God and Saviour; and in their zeal to eat the Passover lamb they unwittingly help to fulfil its significance through demanding the death of the Lamb of God, at the same time shutting themselves out of its saving efficacy.’ (Beasley-Murray)

Barclay makes a similar point:

‘Now see what the Jews were doing. They were carrying out the details of the ceremonial law with meticulous care; and at the same time they were hounding to the Cross the Son of God. That is just the kind of thing that men are always liable to do. Many a church member fusses about the sheerest trifles, and breaks God’s law of love and of forgiveness and of service every day. There is even many a church in which the details of vestments, furnishings, ritual, ceremonial are attended to with the most detailed care, and where the spirit of love and fellowship are conspicuous only by their absence. One of the most tragic things in the world is how the human mind can lose its sense of proportion and its ability to put first things first.’ (DSB)

18:31 Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!” The Jewish leaders replied, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” 18:32 (This happened to fulfill the word Jesus had spoken when he indicated what kind of death he was going to die.)

‘Discovered by Grenfeld in Egypt in 1920, the “John Rylands Papyrus” yielded the oldest known fragment of a NT manuscript. This small scrap from John’s Gospel (Jn 18:31–33, 37–38) was dated by papyrologists to 125 a.d., but since it was so far south into Egypt, it successfully put an end to the then-popular attempt to late-date John’s Gospel to the second century rather than to the traditional first century date of a.d. 85–90.’ (Kaiser, in The Apologetics Study Bible)

Jesus had predicted that he would delivered into the hands of the Gentiles and crucified, Mt 20:19; Lk 18:32,33.

Pilate Questions Jesus, 33-40

18:33 So Pilate went back into the governor’s residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 18:34 Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” 18:35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”

“Are you the king of the Jews?”

Undesigned coincidence.  According to v30, the charge that the Jewish leaders brought to Pilate against Jesus was merely that he was a ‘criminal’.  What, then, prompted Pilate to ask Jesus if he was ‘the king of the Jews’?  The answer to this query is found in Lk 23:1-3, where Luke (and only he) records the Jews complaining to Pilate that Jesus, among other things, claimed that ‘him himself is Christ, a king.’ (McGrew, Hidden in Plain View)

18:36 Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 18:37 Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 18:38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?”

“My kingdom is not of this world” – Lit. “My kingdom is not from (ek) this world”.  It has no army and no geographical location.  It is given by God and not won either through human struggle or popular vote.

Carson stresses that Jesus is not saying that his kingdom has nothing to do with this world:

‘John certainly expects the power of the inbreaking kingdom to affect this world; elsewhere he insists that the world is conquered by those who believe in Jesus (1 Jn. 5:4). But theirs is the sort of struggle, and victory, that cannot effectively be opposed by armed might.’

On a Christian involvement in military service:

‘Extending Christ’s kingdom by military means is clearly not part of the ideal of the NT. ‘My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight’ (Jn. 18:36) was the principle enunciated by our Lord when he stood before Pilate. And his words to Peter as recorded in Mt. 26:52 cast a certain shadow on the use of force whatever the circumstances may be. But the Christian is a citizen of two worlds and has duties to both; tension between the conflicting demands is inevitable, especially since the secular powers have been ordained by God and do not ‘bear the sword in vain’ (Rom. 13:4). Paul availed himself not only of Roman citizenship but also of the protection of Roman troops, as when his life was threatened in Jerusalem (Acts 21). Piety was not regarded as incompatible with the pursuit of a military career, moreover, and those soldiers who inquired of John the Baptist as to their higher duty were not encouraged to desert (see Acts 10:1-2; Lk. 3:14). We are to assume, on the other hand, that the cause which bound together Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot in the original Twelve required both to abandon their erstwhile occupations. In the early church a military career for the Christian was generally frowned upon; Tertullian is representative in his view that the two callings were incompatible, though he made allowances for those already committed to military service before conversion.’ (NBD)

On the character of Pilate:

‘The pitiable and miserable character of Pilate, the Roman governor, begins to come into clear light from this point [in John 18.37-40].  We see him a man utterly destitute of moral courage, knowing what was right and just in the case before him, yet afraid to act on his knowledge: knowing that our Lord was innocent, yet not daring to displease the Jews be acquitting Him; knowing that he was doing wrong and yet afraid to do right.  “The fear of man brings a snare” (Proverbs 29.25).  Wretched and contemptible are those rulers and statesmen whose first principle is to please the people, even at the expense of their own consciences, and who are ready to do what they know to be wrong rather than offend the mob!  Wretched are those nations which, for their sins, are given over to be governed by such statesmen!  True godly rulers should lead the people and not be led by them, should do what is right and leave consequences to God.  A base determination to keep in with the world at any price and a slavish fear of man’s opinion were leading principles in Pilate’s character.  There are many like him.  Nothing is more common than to see statesmen evading the plain line of duty and trying to shuffle responsibility on others rather than give offense to the mob.  This is precisely what Pilate did here.  The spirit of his reply to the Jews is: “I had rather not be troubled with the case.  Cannot you settle it yourselves without asking me to interfere?”’ (J.C. Ryle)

“My servants would be fighting” – Michaels says that this is not the usual word for disciples, or for servants.  It is rather, a word used for officials.  It is thus being used in an ad hominem sense.

Undesigned coincidence.  Earlier in this chapter, we read that Simon Peter did fight, maiming Malchus in an attempt to prevent the arrest of Jesus.  Why, based on this chapter alone, would Jesus make the present argument, and why would Herod not have used it against him?  The answer is found in Lk 22:51, which says that Jesus had healed the man’s ear.  Clearly, John’s and Luke’s account are independent, yet complementary.  (McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, p56f.)

‘The kingships of this world preserve themselves by force and violence; if Jesus’ kingship finds its origin elsewhere, it will not be defended by the world’s means. And if it resorts to no force and no fighting, it is hard to see how Rome’s interests are in jeopardy.’ (Carson)

“For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth” – This statement concerning his origin and destiny links back to chapter 1, and also to Jn 8:14.

When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. 18:39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 18:40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

“What is truth?” – Was this asked contemptuously, cynically, wistfully, in jest, in bewilderment, or in earnest enquiry?

Barnes regards Pilate’s question as contemptuous:

‘This question was probably asked in contempt, and hence Jesus did not answer it. Had the question been sincere, and had Pilate really sought it as Nicodemus had done (Jn 3:1), Jesus would not have hesitated to explain to him the nature of his kingdom. They were now alone in the judgment-hall (Jn 18:33), and as soon as Pilate had asked the question, without waiting for an answer, he went out. It is evident that he was satisfied, from the answer of Jesus (Jn 18:36,37), that he was not a king in the sense in which the Jews accused him; that he would not endanger the Roman government, and consequently that he was innocent of the charge alleged against him. He regarded him, clearly, as a fanatic-poor, ignorant, and deluded, but innocent and not dangerous. Hence he sought to release him; and hence, in contempt, he asked him this question, and immediately went out, not expecting an answer. This question had long agitated the world. It was the great subject of inquiry in all the schools of the Greeks. Different sects of philosophers had held different opinions, and Pilate now, in derision, asked him, whom he esteemed an ignorant fanatic, whether he could solve this long-agitated question. He might have had an answer. Had he patiently waited in sincerity, Jesus would have told him what it was. Thousands ask the question in the same way. They have a fixed contempt for the Bible; they deride the instructions of religion; they are unwilling to investigate and to wait at the gates of wisdom; and hence, like Pilate, they remain ignorant of the great Source of truth, and die in darkness and in error. All might find truth if they would seek it; none ever will find it if they do not apply for it to the great source of light-the God of truth, and seek it patiently in the way in which he has chosen to communicate it to mankind. How highly should we prize the Bible! And how patiently and prayerfully should we search the Scriptures, that we may not err and die for ever!’ (Barnes)

Barclay, however, thinks that the question is probably asked wistfully:

‘There are many ways in which a man might ask that question. He might ask it in cynical and sardonic humour. Bacon immortalized Pilate’s answer, when he wrote: “What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.” But it was not in cynical humour that Pilate asked this question; nor was it the question of a man who did not care. Here was the chink in his armour. He asked the question wistfully and wearily.’ (DSB)

Milne, too, wonders if there might be a wistful element in the question.  It is, perhaps, asked

‘from a lifetime’s struggle as a professional politician, steeped in the daily compromises, the prudential balancing of forces, the application of ruthless power, that half-light world of greys and polka dots where people grope wearily for truth and the soul shrivels and dies. Did Pilate, as his destiny for a fleeting second hung in the balances, catch a glimpse in Jesus of a truer, purer, brighter world? We cannot be sure. What is certain is that if the moment came it also passed. The forgiving moment slipped by as Pilate turned on his heel to report his decision to the Jewish leaders.’