that they might eat the passover. 29 h Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? 30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. 31 i Then said Pilate unto them, * Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any h render, So Pilate. i k render, Pilate therefore said. k render, Take him yourselves. prising, that the Jews in the early morning should have been afraid of rendering themselves unclean for the Passover,-since the Passover could not be kept till evening, i. e. on the next day, and the uncleanness which they dreaded did not, by the law, last till the next day. For this reason, the passage in John labours under no small exegetic difficulties, which we cannot altogether solve, from want of accurate knowledge of the customs of the time. Possibly the law concerning Levitical defilements and purifications had in that age been made more stringent or otherwise modified; possibly, they called some other meal, besides the actual Passover, by its name. This last we certainly, with our present knowledge of Hebrew antiquities, must assume: for the law respecting uncleanness will not allow us to interpret this passage of the proper Passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, nor indeed of any evening meal at all." The whole depends on this: can the words, eat the Passover, mean any thing else besides eating the paschal lamb in the strict sense? This is a question which in our day we have no power of answering. See the matter further discussed in the notes to my Greek Test. See note on ch. xix. 14. The tendency of what is there said is, to warn us, not to be rash in assuming a discrepancy between the Evangelists, where computations of time may have been so vague and various. 29.] Though Pilate, having granted the service of the band of soldiers to the Sanhedrim, must have been aware of the circumstances under which Jesus was brought before him, he demanded a formal accusation on which legally to proceed: dissimulating his own information on the subject." 30.] They do not mention the charge of blasphemy brought against Him by the Sanhedrim, for fear of the entire rejection of their cause, as by Gallio, Acts xviii. 16. The Procurators in such cases had a discretionary power. On what wanting to their proofs, they want to supply by an appeal to their own authority It is 31.] This answer is best regarded as an ironical reproach founded on their apparently proud assertion in ver. 30— and amounting to this: If you suppose I am to have such implicit confidence in your judgment concerning this prisoner as to take his guilt on your word, take him and put him to death (for so "judge ye Him" must be understood,-see below) according to your law;' reminding them that the same Roman power which had reserved capital cases for his jurisdiction, also expected proper cognizance to be taken of them, and not that he should be the mere executioner of the Sanhedrim. not lawful for us to put any man to death] From the time when Archelaus was deposed (A.D. 6 or 7), and Judæa became a Roman province, it would follow by the Roman law that the Jews lost the power of life and death. Josephus tells us, that it was not lawful to hold a court of judgment in capital cases, without the consent of the Procurator. Some have thought that this power was reserved to them in religious matters, as of blasphemy and sacrilege; but no proof has been adduced of this; the passages commonly alleged in Josephus, and Acts vii. 58, not applying (see note on Acts). The Talmud relates that this had taken place forty years (or more) before the destruction of Jerusalem. Biscoe, on the Acts, argues at great length that the Jews had this power; and that the words here merely mean that they could not put to death on the Sabbath, which, according to the usual custom of executing the next day after judgment, would now have been the case. But this treatment of the words is unjustifiable. Can we suppose for a moment that this can have been meant, when there is not a word in the text to imply it? We may hope that the day for such forced interpretations Friedlieb gives they did say, Grot. observes, What was is fast passing away. ch. xii. 52, man to death: 32 n that the saying of Jesus might be n Matt. xx. 19. fulfilled, which he spake, signifying 1 what death he should die. 33 m Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests [P have] delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, 1 render, what manner of death. m render, Pilate therefore. • render, for perspicuity, concerning me. the most consistent account of the matter. In the Roman provinces generally, the Proprætor or Proconsul conducted judicial proceedings. But Judæa, which belonged to the province of Syria, was an exception. There was there a Procurator with full powers, who exercised the right of judicial cognizance. Jerusalem however possessed the privilege of judging all lighter causes before the three-and-twenty, and heavier causes, with the sole exception of capital trials, before the great Sanhedrim: so that none but these reserved cases remained for the Procurator. Pilate seems to have judged these cases at his visits during the festivals; which would fall conveniently for the purpose, it being the custom in Jerusalem, to execute great criminals at the Feasts. In other provinces the governors made circuits and held assizes throughout their jurisdictions. 32.] See Matt. xx. 19, and other places;-ch. xii. 32, 33. Had the Jews taken Him and judged Him, He would have been stoned, not crucified. And this whole section, vv. 28-32, serves to shew how the divine purpose was accomplished. 33.] This question probably arose out of what Pilate had previously heard, not from any charge to this effect being made between our vv. 31 and 34. Had such a charge been made, our Lord's question ver. 34 would be unnatural. Pilate summoned Jesus in, who had been as yet outside with the Jews. This was the formal reception of the case before him ;the Roman soldiers must now have formally taken charge of Jesus, as servants of the Roman authorities: having previously, when granted by Pilate to the Chief Priests, acted as their police. The judgments of the Romans were always public and in the open air, see ch. xix. 13; -but the enquiries and examinations might Tim. vi. 13. vii. 14. p Dan. ii. 44: Luke xii. 14. 15 : his. viii. 15. ▲ render, palace. Pomit. be private. In this case Pilate appears to have wished to obtain an account from Jesus apart from the clamours of the chief priests and the mob. 34.] On this whole interview, see note on Luke vv. 3, 4. I regard this question, Sayest thou this thing of thyself... as intended to distinguish the senses of the word King as applied to Jesus: and of course not for the information of Him who asked it, but to bring out this distinction in Pilate's mind. If he asked of himself, the word could certainly have but one meaning, and that one would be wrongly applied;—if from information derived from the Jews, this very fact would open the way to the true meaning in which He was King of the Jews. Stier and Ebrard think there may be some reference in the words of thyself, to a momentary earnestness in Pilate's own mind,—a suspicion that his prisoner was what he was charged with being (see ch. xix. 8, 12), from the mention of which he immediately (ver. 35) recoils, and implies the other side of the dilemma. 35.] Pilate at once repudiates the idea of his having any share in Jewish expectations, or taking any personal interest in Jewish matters: all his information he has derived from the public accusation of the people and chief priests. Then in the question, What hast Thou done?, is implied, "There is no definiteness in their charge: let me have thine own account, thy ex-parte statement, that I may at least know something definite of the case.' 36.] This answer goes to explain the injustice of the charge of " 'perverting the nation" (Luke xxiii. 2), and to shew Pilate something of the nature of the kingdom which Jesus really came to establish. My kingdom is not of this world] i. e. not belonging to (ch. viii. 23; then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause t came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one a render, my servants would have fought. u render, may. x. 16) this world; not springing from, arising out of, this world;-and therefore not to be supported by this world's weapons. There is no denial that His Kingdom is over this world; but that it is to be established by this world's power. The words not only deny, they affirm: if not of this world, then of another world. They assert this other world before the representative of those who boasted of their empire, which they called 'orbis terrarum,' i. e. the globe of the earth. Notice the solemn repetition of the words of this world. my servants] certainly not angels (as Stier) nor angels and disciples (as Lampe). This sentence is elliptical, and the fact of "having servants" is included under the supposition introduced, that He was a King. If &c.,-I should have had servants, and those servants would have fought.' that I should not be delivered to the Jews] which was done by Pilate in ch. xix. 16. now is my kingdom not from hence] The word now has been absurdly pressed by the Romanist interpreters to mean that at some time His Kingdom would be from hence, i. e. of this world: as if its essential character could ever be changed. But now implies, as the case now stands;' it conveys an ocular demonstration, from the fact that no servants of His had contended or were contending in his behalf; see similar usages of now, ch. viii. 40; ix. 41; xv. 22, 24: Rom. vii. 16, 17. 37. The word thou, in Pilate's question, is emphatic and sarcastic. "Art THOU, thus captured, bound, standing here as a criminal in peril of thy life, A KING?" Thou sayest] A formula frequent in the Rabbinical writings and conveying assent to the previous enquiry. It seems best, as in margin, to punctuate at it, and regard for, or because, as the reason for the affirmation conveyed in Thou sayest it. This agrees best with the continued affirmation which follows. To this end have I t render, am I come. been born...] Our Lord here preached the Truth of his mission, upholding that side of it best calculated to meet the doubting philosophic mind of the day, of which Pilate was a partaker. He declares the unity and outward reality of Truth :and that Truth must come from above, and must come through a Person sent by God, and that that Person was Himself. "I," is both times emphatic, and majestically set (see above) against the preceding scornful thou of Pilate. Our Lord implies that He was born a King, and that He was born with a definite purpose. The words are a pregnant proof of an Incarnation of the Son of God. This great truth is further expressed by what follows,—'I have been born, but not therein commencing my being-I am (or, have) come into the world.' Thus certainly are the words to be understood, and not of His public appearance, nor as synonymous with His having been born. It is this saying which began the fear in Pilate, which the charge of the Jews, ch. xix. 7, increased. He is come into the world, not merely to speak truth, but to bear witness to the Truth, in its outward reality :-see ch. xvii. 17, 19, of which deep saying this is the popular exposition for his present hearer. The Lord, besides, sets forth here in the depth of these words, the very idea of all kinghood. The King is the representative of the truth: the truth of dealing between man and man;-the truth of that power, which in its inmost truth belongs to the great and only Potentate, the King of Kings. Again, the Lord, the King of manhood and the world, the second Adam, came to testify to the truth of manhood and the world, which sin and Satan had concealed. This testimony to the Truth is to be the weapon whereby His Kingdom will be spread;—'every one who is of the truth,' i. e. here in the most general sense, every one who is a true dealer with his own heart, who has an that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith 9 ch. viii. 47. unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the 1 John iii. 19: iv. 6. find in him no fault at all. Jews, and saith unto them, Ir ch. xix. 4, 6. 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 8 40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Acts ii. 14. Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. XIX. 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3y and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 47 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, better, they all cried out. read, and they approached him, and said. Z read, And Pilate. ear to hear,-'of such are my subjects composed :-they hear my voice. But for the putting this true dealing on its proper and only ground, see ch. viii. 47; vi. 44. His 38.] To this number Pilate did not belong. He had no ear for Truth. celebrated question is perhaps more the result of indifferentism than of scepticism; it expresses, not without scoff and irony, a conviction that truth can never be found: and is an apt representative of the state of the polite Gentile mind at the time of the Lord's coming. It was rather an inability than an unwillingness to find the truth. I find no He waits for no answer, nor did the question require any. Nay, it was no real question, any more than any other, behind which a negation lies hid. fault in him] I, opposed to you, who had found fault in Him. Pilate mocks both the Witness to the Truth, and the haters of the Truth. His conduct presents a pitiable specimen of the moral weakness of that spirit of worldly power, which reached its culminating point in the Roman empire. 39.] At this place comes in Matt. xxvii. 12-14;-the repeated accusation of Jesus by the chief priests and elders, to which He answered nothing; and Luke xxiii. 5-16, the sending to Herod, and second proclamation of His innocence by Pilate,-after which he adopts this method of procuring His release (Luke, ver. 17). ye have a custom] See note Matt. xxvii. 15, and compare, for an instructive specimen of the variations in the Gospel narratives, the to. 40.] four accounts of this incident. 1.] The reason or purpose of this scourging b Acts iii. 13. a с ach. xviii. 38. that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 5 a Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! 6 b When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, c We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; 9 and went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? * But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? e Lev. xxiv. 16. d Matt. xxvi. 65. ch. v. 18: x. 33. e Isa. liii. 7. e a render, Jesus therefore came forth. © render, Take him yourselves. e render, palace. multitude by the mockery and degrada- been cried before, see Matthew, ver. 22 and yourselves] The words of Pilate shew vacillation between his own sense of the innocence of Jesus and his fear of displeasing the Jews and their rulers. He now, but in ironical mockery, as before, ch. xviii. 31, delivers the matter entirely into their hands: perhaps after having received the message from his wife, - Matthew ver. 19. 7.] In consequence of this taunt, they now declare the cause of their condemnation of Him-see Levit. xxiv. 16-and their demand that, though found innocent by the governor, He should die. 8.] This charge served to increase the fear which Pilate had before : see note on ch. xviii. 37. The name Son с of God served also to confirm the omen already furnished by the dream of his wife. That this fear was not a fear of the Jews, nor of acting unjustly, but of the Person of Jesus, is evident from what follows. 9.] He entered, taking Jesus with him. Whence] i. e. not from what province ?'-for he knew this, Luke xxiii. 6, 7: nor, of what parents?'- but whence in reference to the name, the Son of God: Whence is thine origin? Observe that the fear of Pilate is not mere superstition, nor does it enter into the Jewish meaning of "the Son of God:" but arises from an indefinite impression made on him by the Person and bearing of our Lord. We must not therefore imagine any fear of Him as being a 'son of the gods,' in Pilate's mind: this gives a wrong direction to his conduct, and misses the fine psychological truth of the narrative. Our Lord, in His silence, was acting according to His own precept, Matt. vii. 6. Notwithstanding Pilate's fear of Him, he was not in earnest ;-not deter. mined to be led by his conscience, but had already given way to the unjust demands of the people; and He who saw his heart, knew how unworthy he was of an answer to so momentous a question. Besides, this silence was the most emphatic answer to all who had ears to hear it ;-was a reference to what He had said before, ch. xviii. 37, and so a witness to His divine origin. Would any mere man, of true and upright character, have refused an answer to such a question, so put ? Let the modern rationalist consider this. 10.] As in |