John 19:7

Joh_19:7

The Jews answered him, We have a law

Literalism and party spirit

I.

WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND PRIESTHOOD IN COMPASSING THE DEATH OF CHRIST? It was the one fixed idea of devotion to the law of Moses. It was the stubborn toughness of character which made the Jewish people the backbone of the world. It was the hereditary mark of the house of Levi, which in their zeal for their race knew no other ties. When they took up stones they could not bear to think that Christ was greater than Abraham. When the council met at the raising of Lazarus, Caiaphas declared that one man must die for the people, that was the concentrated essence of the general feeling that the national existence was at stake. And when on that second meeting, convened in the dead of the night in the high priests palace, it was no want of solemnity which called forth the adjuration, no false assumption of horror when he rent his robes and demanded the sentence of death. And when they saw their designs accomplished it was doubtless with a proud satisfaction that they were fifty celebrating their festival. We have a law. Yes, a Divine law, the type and centre of all law. And by that law He ought to die (see Lev_24:16). Often has Jesus declared Himself the Son of God. True, there is in Him an authority which teaches not as Scribes teach; a wisdom which forces us to acknowledge that never man spake as this Man; a power before which storms are hushed and sick healed; a goodness which rises above all legal institutions. All this might seem to be a far higher fulfilment of the law than could be attained by His death. But still the letter of the law, immemorial usage, say that He must die, So they argued, and with such arguments must have acted as they did. They little thought how that nation and those institutions which they had endeavoured to preserve at so dreadful a cost, were doomed by the very act by which they sought to save them.

II. WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL LESSONS? The fact that this crime was not the result of rashness, but was the result of fixed adherence to usage, and resistance to change, might teach us

1. That there are times when such a frame of mind is not the sign of a religious spirit, but a mark of audacious and reckless presumption.

2. That the most enormous evils may flow from carrying to excess any one idea however good. In the story of the Crucifixion we may see reflected the evil of narrowness of purpose, exclusiveness of admiration, idolatry of a single principle, the bowing down to the idols of the cave, the idols of the party, shop, or sect that happens to be ours. Common sense is the one salt which alone can save such exaggerations from their own corruption. Had Caiaphas been open to the new influences, he would have seen in the very law and prophets he was upholding the best witness to Him he was condemning for blasphemy.

3. The value of those feelings of common humanity which justly resist all efforts of hard logic or dry reason to set them aside. Nothing could be more complete than the arguments by which the conduct of the priests was sustained; but within and above all they might have seen a pathos of suffering to which they were nevertheless wholly insensible, by which the whole world has since been moved to sympathy. Witness the revulsion of feeling with reference to other historical events--the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, the outrage on Cromwells remains, &c. (Dean Stanley.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh_19:9. Whence … Jesus gave no answer.—The answer had already been given (Joh_18:36-37 : see also Joh_8:25; Joh_10:24-25). Besides, what Pilate had to settle now was the justice of the charge for which Jesus was brought before him (Isa_53:7).

Joh_19:11. He that delivered He unto thee, etc.—The Jewish high priest claimed to represent a divinely ordered religion and system, and to be directed in his action by divine revelation and guidance. Therefore, as one who should have been in possession of clearer light, he was more guilty than a heathen judge, to whom the light and truth of God had not come.

Joh_19:12. Cæsar’s friend.—Amicus Cæsaris was a title of honour sometimes given to provincial governors. Those men well knew the jealous fears of Tiberius for his authority. The suspicion of treason brought almost inevitable ruin during his reign, and many were charged with that crime.

Joh_19:13. Therefore.—Pilate’s action is that of a man of the world, not of a just, impartial judge—of a man who puts self-interest before truth and righteousness.

Joh_19:14. The preparation (παρασκευή).—Of the passover, which was near at hand. Soon the passover lamb was to be slain, and even on that very day “Christ our passover was sacrificed for us.” The sixth hour.—See note, pp. 536, 537.

Joh_19:15. Shall I crucify your king?—Since those men would persist in the political charge against Christ, Pilate intends that the condemnation of the accused shall rest on that ground, as he clearly showed in the “title” written to be affixed on the cross (Joh_19:19). No king but Cæsar.—This cry, in which the leaders of the theocracy reject their rightful King, is sadly prophetic. They judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life”; therefore the kingdom of God was taken from them (Act_13:46; Mat_21:43). And the world’s rule has been hard and bitter for them and their children.

Joh_19:16. Then delivered lie Him unto them, etc.—I.e. to the priests and rulers of the Jews. Not that Jesus was actually delivered into their hands, but He was delivered up, in order that their evil designs against Him might be carried out. The quaternion of Roman soldiers who carried out the actual crucifixion were only instruments of their wicked will (Act_2:23; Act_3:15).

Joh_19:17. Bearing His cross, etc.—He bore it until He appears to have sunk under it, and then Simon of Cyrene was compelled to help Jesus to bear it (Mar_15:21). Golgotha (from נָּלַלִ).—Probably so called from the rounded form of the mound, or hillock, on which crucifixion was usually carried out. The Vulgate translated the word Calvaria—a skull, or a place of burial. Hence our word Calvary. The question of the site of Calvary and the holy sepulchre need not be discussed here. It is a question that is not yet settled, if it ever can be. But no valid reason has yet been given to lead to a conclusive decision against the spot now covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Joh_19:18. Two others.—The intention, no doubt, in crucifying these two malefactors, and Jesus in the midst as, on account of His alleged treason, more guilty than they, was to offer to the world an ostensible reason for His condemnation.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Joh_19:7-18

Joh_19:7-16. Jesus innocent, yet condemned.—Pilate had done his utmost to deliver Jesus from those implacable foes, i.e. he had done his utmost to effect his purpose by policy. He hesitated to take a firm stand on the platform of even-handed justice. His unjust government of his province made him fear to do this. “Conscience makes cowards of us all”; and here it made Pilate weak and vacillating. The Jewish leaders were quick to see this, and pressed their advantage remorselessly until the divinely appointed end had been reached. Notice—

I. Pilate’s final examination of Jesus.—

1. The last word of Jewish malice made Pilate again hesitate and bethink himself before finally yielding (Joh_19:7).

2. The Son of God! This saying of the infuriated Jews, coupled with the remembrance of his wife’s message regarding her mysterious dream, made Pilate more than ever conscious that in Christ’s presence the eternal world was near. Little wonder that he feared, lest haply he might be found “fighting against God” (Act_5:34-40). But he had neither the clear conscience nor the moral courage of a Gamaliel to make such a stand for truth and right as he should have made.

3. Perturbed in mind, this unbeliever (in whose mind the usual association of unbelief and superstition was found) returned to the judgment hall, and again stood before the silent, suffering Christ. Abruptly and with troubled countenance he asks the question, “Whence art Thou?” but he received no answer from our Lord.

4. It is plain why Jesus did not answer the Roman judge. All the materials for forming a judgment were before him, and on reviewing these Pilate had already pronounced Jesus innocent. Thus the Roman judge himself was indirectly condemned. But it was also in mercy for Pilate’s moral weakness which his heathen education could not change into strength. Therefore He spares him further sin.

5. But in answer to Pilate’s foolish boast about his power Jesus did reply in a fashion that made Pilate yet more uneasy (Joh_19:11). Jesus pointed out to him that his power and authority as judge and governor lay above and behind imperial Rome (Rom_13:1): that this power was given to be exercised justly, and that therefore he would be called to account for the use of it; but that those who knew better—the theocratic judge Caiaphas and the other Jewish leaders, who should have had more enlightenment, and who unjustly pressed Pilate to condemn Jesus—were the most guilty.

II. Pilate’s final declaration of the innocency of Jesus.—

1. This last conversation with the Saviour made Pilate more feverishly anxious than ever to release Jesus. The more he saw of the kingly Sufferer, the more unfathomable abysses of mystery and being seemed to open around Him.

2. In doing this he bore testimony again to his own word, “I find in Him no fault at all” (Joh_18:38). And well might Pilate do so; for Jesus here distinctly acknowledges Pilate’s right to judge derived from above, and thus proves that He is no stirrer-up of the people against properly constituted authority. He declares also the right of Heaven to order human affairs, and thus shows Himself to be no blasphemer.

3. Well then might Pilate seek to release Him. And we should rejoice to be able to accept this evidence of the blamelessness of our great High Priest. It was testimony dragged from an unwilling witness; and it shows us that Jesus in this was fitted for His great mediatorial work as the Redeemer of men.

III. Jesus, though innocent, is condemned.—

1. Pilate’s well-meant efforts to save Jesus from the uttermost penalty proved vain. A cry of wrath from the excited mob rent the air: “If thou let this man go,” etc. (Joh_19:12). The struggle between righteousness and apparent self-interest going on in Pilate’s breast, and which a moment ago seemed being decided on the side of righteousness, was suddenly ended in favour of self-interest.

2. If this accusation, however baseless, came to the ears of Tiberius, and it was proved that Christ had been released, then Pilate knew, or thought, there would be “short shrift” for him. “What was this Jew in comparison with his position and safety. Better the satisfaction of this unjust demand of the Jewish rulers than disgrace or worse at Rome.” Is it so certain, Pilate? and does a God of righteousness not reign? Had you remained firm that day your house might have been established in righteousness (Psalms 112). Unrighteousness will not serve you; the unrighteous shall perish.

3. Pilate therefore, with a heavy load upon his conscience, sat down in his judgment seat to stain his office by a crime. He was not a judge, but a slave in the high light of noon.

4. Strange were his words in pronouncing judgment: “Behold your King”; and as the people cried, “Away with Him, crucify Him,” again the scornful voice was heard: “Shall I crucify your King?” This was the plea on which they finally pressed Pilate to condemn Jesus, and they will not be spared the humiliation of the charge.

5. But if Pilate was a slave, what shall be said of those hypocritical men who boasted of their freedom as they cried out, “We have no king but Cæsar” (Joh_8:32-33)? Jesus is “delivered to be crucified,” and is led away to the cross. But as these men go we see gathering over them the storms of justice, summoned by their imprecation, “His blood be on us and on our children.” We see a subjugated people—a ruined city, the abode of hideous iniquity, round which the eagles gather for their prey—a blazing temple—“a people scattered and peeled”—until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luk_21:24), and the descendants of those murderers shall say, “Blessed is He,” etc. (Mat_23:39).

Joh_19:17-18. Golgotha.—A guard of Roman soldiers issue from one of the gates of Jerusalem escorting three prisoners, and accompanied by a varied crowd, many execrating or jeering, some, mostly of the gentler sex, weeping. The guard hold their way toward an open space near the highway, where, on a low mound, malefactors are wont to be executed. Two of the prisoners are known criminals; the third, who has aid in bearing the cross to which He is soon to be nailed, is Jesus, who was pronounced innocent by the Roman judge. As they come to the place of execution, the flower-scented airs of spring breathe around, and the bright spring sunshine, as yet undimmed, gleams down on this scene. The preliminaries of crucifixion are soon arranged. Jesus and the malefactors are nailed to the crosses they have been bearing, which are then set upright and fixed. Jesus occupies the central position; on either hand the malefactors are placed, and the weary hours begin to pass. We place ourselves in thought before the central cross on Golgotha, and ask the meaning of this scene.

I. The cross of Jesus is the symbol of the punishment of sin.—

1. Around it are marshalled the hosts of light and darkness. The crucial hour of conflict has come, when humanity shall be freed from the guilt of sin—when the darkness that covered the earth, and the gross darkness brooding over the peoples, shall begin to pass, and the true light to shine (1Jn_2:8).

2. Jew and Gentile felt the burden of sin, and perceived that they were responsible for its committal and obnoxious to its punishment. The Hebrew with the divine revelation given to him apprehended this truth most deeply. He realised that sin springs “out of the depths of human personality in opposition to the divine,” that it is “in its nature destructive and leads to death,” and that by it misery comes upon men.

3. But the Gentile also had his idea of sin. It gave rise to the dualism of Persia, it meets us in the thought of the most cultured Gentile peoples; it is one of the foundations on which the loftiest heathen literature, Greek tragedy, has been built. “Behind all the activities of life, and all the play of dramatic passion, … there is a stern background of righteousness which will by no means clear the guilty. A shadowy terror overhangs all wrong-doing, and a curse which cannot be turned away pursues the offenders” (Dr. John Tulloch).

4. Sin and its punishment, then, were amongst the most engrossing thoughts of all men. How to escape its guilt and penalty—that was the cry of the ages.

5. And here on the cross of Jesus the prayers of the ages uttered, or unexpressed, have found an answer. “He was made sin for us who knew no sin.” On the cross He suffered the extreme penalty, even to the hiding for a moment of the Father’s face.

6. There, too, the dominion of evil is broken. The evil power in which sin inheres is vanquished. The head of Satan is bruised; and the kingdom of darkness begins to shrink as the kingdom of light expands.

II. The cross of Jesus is the symbol of divine love.—

1. When sinful men remember that they must stand before God they begin with fear to ask, “How shall I come before Him?” etc. And if they are honest their answer will be, “I cannot answer for one of a thousand transgressions.” I cannot pay the ten thousand talents which I owe. I have no way by which the debt might be cancelled. My own righteousness falls in ruins. The heaven that I would purchase with my good works becomes like an empty dream.

2. “What man could not do God did,” etc. (Rom_8:3). His love planned the way of escape for man. In the Son He lays a foundation on which men may build safely for eternity, “not having their own righteousness which is of the law,” etc. (Php_3:9).

3. And in the cross is seen the love of the Redeemer in His vicarious suffering and self-sacrifice for mankind, in obedience to the Father’s will, “who desires not the death of a sinner,” etc. (Eze_18:32). The cross of shame thus becomes a visible manifestation and symbol of heavenly love toward fallen men.

III. The cross of Jesus on Golgotha is the meeting-point of the ages.—

1. (1) It was foreseen from eternity. Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

(2) It was concealed in the first promise of redemption after Eden’s fall.

(3) Abraham saw it afar off, “and was glad,” when Isaac was spared on Moriah (Gen_22:12-14).

(4) Jacob waited for the salvation of God (Gen_49:18).

(5) Isaiah and all the Old Testament saints and prophets sighed for and looked forward to that happy hour when Christ’s divine sorrow and suffering should bring joy to men. “Oh that Thou wouldst rend the heavens, and come down,” etc. (Isa_64:1). “Yea, many kings and prophets would fain have seen the things which Christ’s disciples saw,” etc. (Luk_10:24).

(6) The Gentile world also felt vague longings after peace and a higher life which no wisest philosophy, no effort, could help men to attain to,—when the love of God wrought redemption for humanity on the cross of shame.

2. (1) And toward this cross all succeeding ages have looked.

(2) Men still have tried in various ways to effect for themselves what the redeeming grace of our great High Priest alone can effect. They have sought through ritual, pilgrimages, etc., to escape the necessity of that full surrender to Christ which has made the cross of Christ “to the Jews a stumbling-block,” etc. (1Co_1:23). But however far men wander into the ways of unbelief or superstition, seeking thus to gain peace and promise of heaven, they have had to come back to the cross of Jesus.

(3) And now in ever-widening circles its influence is spreading. Men of all races, as the years pass on, are turning toward it, as the true centre of life—the true blessedness for time, the only hope for eternity.

Application.—Do we see in this scene on Golgotha divine love exhibited toward us? Do we see in it the wisdom and mercy of God working out through Christ our redemption? Then what joy and comfort should the view bring to our souls! On that cross the dominion of evil is broken, the guilt of sin removed, the sting of death taken away. Do our sins appal us with the thought of judgment? “Christ was delivered for our offences,” etc. (Rom_4:25; Col_1:14). Does death affright? The power has been taken from him (Rom_14:8). Does the law thunder condemnation?

“Free from the law, O happy condition,

Jesus hath bled, and there is remission.

Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall,

Christ hath redeemed us, ‘once for all.’ ”

What reason, then, to rejoice in the cross of Jesus! Thence flow eternal peace, heavenly joy, divine sonship and citizenship; there the darkness passes from our souls for time and eternity, and through the mists of sorrow and pain the morning of joy dawns, and the Sun of righteousness arises, bringing an endless day of truth and grace.

Joh_19:17-18. The cross of Christ.—It is in the mystery of the cross that God has made the glory of His wisdom most evident. The thoughts of men and those of God have been in opposition since men sinned. It is therefore no cause of astonishment that men should have dared sometimes to find fault with the works of God. That which should surprise us most is that men have been offended even at the grace of God. The mystery of a crucified God is foolishness to the worldling. Yet with the apostle we maintain that it is in a special degree the manifestation of divine wisdom. Two things were essential:

1. To satisfy an offended God; and

2. To elevate men, who had become perverted and corrupted. But these ends could not be attained to in any way more effectually than by the cross of the Saviour.

I. There is no other means by which an offended God can be satisfied than the cross of Jesus Christ.—

1. God could be satisfied only by the God-man. And what has this God-man done, or rather what was there that He did not do? Why was God alienated from man? Because man had sought to be as God. “Ye shall be as gods,” etc. (Gen_3:1-5). And I, said the God-man, in order to satisfy My Father, I shall humiliate Myself more than any man: “I am a worm and no man,” etc. (Psa_22:6). Men had rebelled against God. Therefore, said the God-man, shall I become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Php_2:8). Man in sinful concupiscence eats of the forbidden fruit; therefore I (said the God-man) will become a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief (Isa_53:3). Can we conceive a more complete reparation?

2. But this is not all. The Saviour has revealed three great truths with which men should be chiefly concerned:

(1) What God is;

(2) what sin is; and

(3) what salvation is. The knowledge of these truths is essentially connected with the mystery of the cross. What is God? An exalted Being, for whose glory Emmanuel had to be humiliated, even to the death of the cross. The idea of the greatness of God which this gives surpasses all that can otherwise be conceived. And what is sin? An evil, for the expiation of which it was necessary that the God-man should become “a curse” (Gal_3:13) and full of reproach. This is the mystery of the cross which we preach. And what is the salvation of man? It is a blessing to secure which for man the Son of God laid down His life. These are the great truths which this divine Master, dying on the cross, teaches us. Now, a truth which gives us such lofty ideas of God, which inspires us with a perfect horror and hatred of sin, which leads us to prize salvation above everything else, must be a mystery of divine wisdom.

II. There is no means more effectual than the cross of Christ for converting men perverted and corrupted by sin.—

1. There are three sources of sin according to St. John: “The lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1Jn_2:16). The remedy for these our Lord brought when He came from heaven, and He shows us in His passion what they are. The despoilment of His garments teaches us not to love riches, the lust of the eye. The humiliations He underwent testify against ambition, the pride of life. His sufferings witness against sensuality, which is the lust of the flesh. “What would be the result,” said the learned Pic de la Mirande, “if men should agree universally to live according to the example of Jesus Christ, so that this crucified God should become practically the law according to which the world would be governed? To what a degree of perfection would the world speedily be raised which to-day is so corrupt!”

2. In the divine plan how beautifully is the excess of malice corrected by the excess of perfection in Christ, the excess of sinfulness by His superabounding holiness, the excess of base ingratitude by the abounding of His unspeakable love!

3. Behold, here is surely what is sufficient to confound our reason in view of the judgment of God; and may it please Him that this judgment, at which our reason must be convinced of its errors and put to confusion, may not already be begun for us. For from this time forth the dying Saviour has committed to Him the judgment of the world. “Now is the judgment of this world” (Joh_12:31). His cross will rise against us. It is the cross of Christ by which we shall be judged—this cross (so inimical to our passions), which we have honoured in our speculations, and which we have shrunk from in our practice, with it we shall be confronted. All that is not found to be conformable to it shall then bear the character and seal of reprobation. What resemblance is there between it and our fleshly lives? Let not that which should reconcile us to God only make us more worthy of condemnation; but let it be that in which we place all our confidence.—Abridged from Bourdaloue.

HOMILETIC NOTES

Joh_19:14. The time of the crucifixion.—Does John here use the Jewish mode of reckoning time? and if so, how is this statement to be reconciled with Mar_15:25, “And it was the third hour,” etc., and with the assertion of all the Synoptists that the darkness—not mentioned by St. John—lasted from the sixth to the ninth hour, i.e. twelve to three o’clock?

1. It must be remembered that the ancients had not the convenient means we have of determining the exact time. They had to go a good deal by guess-work, by noticing the position of the sun, etc. We are not therefore to think that the hour as given either by the Synoptists or by St. John was what we might call the exact moment in astronomical time. Then St. John expressly uses the word about. It is just as if he had said toward noon.

2. All the Synoptists give the hours when darkness fell on the scene of the crucifixion as the sixth to the ninth. This probably denoted the actual time of our Lord’s crucifixion; and in this way St. John’s general reference would not be at variance with St. Mark’s statement as above.

3. Probably the scourging was regarded by St. Mark as the beginning of the crucifixion. It was preliminary to it. Then would come the march to Golgotha, and the preparation for the crucifixion itself. Both would take time. And as Jesus would almost appear to have been the last of the three to be nailed on the cross, it might be well on toward noon when His cross was finally lifted up.

4. There are strong arguments, however, in favour of the idea that John used the Western mode of reckoning time (a day of twelve hours from midnight to noon and from noon to midnight) as best known in Roman Asia where he laboured. But this surely would only shift the difficulty, and not solve it; for 6 a.m. is not 9 a.m. The likelihood is that amid the events of that day, so awful to the disciples, neither St. John nor St. Peter (if he it was who dictated St. Mark’s Gospel) would have time or thought to inquire what the exact hour by sun-dial or clepsydra was, whilst both might think of somewhat different stages of the proceedings when they made their notes of time.

Joh_19:16-18. The presence of evil in human life.—When we turn to the highest form of life in man himself, the presence of evil haunts it everywhere in endless forms of general and individual experience in all relations of human society, all functions of human industry, and in the noblest energies of human progress. We cannot conceal its working when we look within our own hearts. Nay; here more than anywhere it shows its deepest power, and touches human experience with acutest misery. Different natures will apprehend differently the depth and power of evil in human life; but there are none, not even the more sentimental enthusiasts, can dispute its existence; and it requires only a slight degree of moral earnestness to be solemnly arrested by it. The highest natures have been most moved by its mystery; and those who have most realised the greatness of man, and done most for his good, have at the same time felt most pathetically the shadows of evil that rest upon his lot. So far there can hardly be any difference of opinion as to the fact which we call evil. Whatever men may make of the fact, its presence around them and in their own life admits of no denial. A fact so universal and so painful, touching human life at all points with such a sore pressure, has been necessarily a subject of much inquiry and reflection. Men have never ceased interrogating the mystery which lies around them and within them. The history of religion is in great part a history of the explanations which men have tried to give of it.—Dr. John Tulloch.

Joh_19:17-18. The law is no remedy for sin.—The moral law powerfully contributed to awaken the innersense of the Hebrew people and deepen their consciousness of sin. The divine is presented in it not merely as Sovereign and Lord—although this is the opening keynote (Exo_20:2-3)—but as identified with every aspect of order, truth, righteousness, and purity in human life. A moral idea not only invests all life, but is carried up to Jahveh-Elohim, as the Source of this life and its highest Exemplar. It was impossible to dwell in the light of such an ideal and not to have had the spiritual sense quickened and made sensitive and the feeling of offence toward the divine called forth in many ways hitherto little understood or owned. This is what St. Paul means when he says that “the law entered that the offence might abound” (Rom_5:20), and again, that “without the law sin was dead” (Rom_7:8). He is speaking of his own experience, or of the experience of a devout Jew in his own time; but the experience of the religious nature is always so far the same—nay, the experience of the individual is typical of the race. When the law entered into the consciousness of humanity, and was added to the progressive force of divine revelation, the sense of sin was deepened alongside of it. Conscience became alive in front of the divine commandment, and spiritual life was touched to its depths by that sad undertone of sin which has never died out of it. Through ages the moral law has been the most powerful moral factor of humanity, restraining its chaotic tendencies, and binding it into harmonies of domestic, social, and religious well-being. It has lain not merely upon the human conscience, but entered into the human heart as one of its most living inward springs—bracing its weakness, rebuking its laxity, holding before it an inflexible rule of moral good. Words cannot measure the strength which it has been to all the higher qualities of the race, and the widespread moral education which it has diffused, discriminating and purifying the ideas alike of good and evil wherever it has prevailed, and clothing life with a reality and depth of meaning which it would never otherwise have possessed.—Dr. John Tulloch.

ILLUSTRATION

Joh_19:17-18. The preaching of the cross the power of God unto salvation.—Let me try then to point out to you what some of the effects will be in a man’s preaching from a true sense of the value of the human soul, by which I mean a high estimate of the capacity of the spiritual nature, a keen and constant appreciation of the attainments to which it may be brought. And first of all it helps to rescue the gospel which we preach from a sort of unnaturalness and incongruity which is very apt to cling to it; this is, I think, very important. Consider what it is that you are to declare week after week to the men and women who come to hear you. The mighty truths of Incarnation and Atonement are your themes. You tell them of the birth and life and death of Jesus Christ. You picture the adorable love and the mysterious sacrifice of the Saviour, and you bind all this to their lives. You tell them that in a true sense all this was certainly for them. I do not know what you are made of, if sometimes, as you preach, there does not come into your mind a thought of incongruity. What are you, you and these people to whom you preach, that for you the central affection of the universe should have been stirred? You know your own life. You know something of the lives they live. You look into their faces as you preach to them. Where is the end worthy of all this ministry of almighty grace which you have been describing? Is it possible that all this once took place, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit is a perpetual power in the world, merely that these machine-lives might run a little truer, or that a series of rules might be established by which the current workings of society might move more smoothly? That, which men sometimes make the purpose of it all, is too unworthy. The engine is too coarse to have so fine a fire under it. You must see something deeper. You must discern in all these men and women some inherent preciousness, for which even the marvel of the Incarnation and the agony of Calvary were not too great, or it is impossible that yon should keep your faith in those stupendous truths which Bethlehem and Calvary offer to us. Some source of fire from which these dimmed sparks come, some possible renewal of the fire which is in them still, some sight of the education through which each soul is passing, and some suggestion of the special personal perfectness to which each may attain, all this must brighten before you, as you look at them; and then the truths of your theology shall not be thrown into confusion nor faded into unreality by your ministry to men.—Dr. Phillips Brooks.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

19:7 During the trial before Caiaphas, the charge of blasphemy—calling himself the Son of God—was determined to be Jesus’ true crime (see Mark 14:61-65). • The leaders had already tried pitting Jesus against Roman imperial interests (John 18:33), and would do so again (19:12). Now they challenged the governor on another level: Pilate must keep the peace by upholding local law, even when it was irrelevant to Rome. Claiming to be God’s son was not illegal, because Israel’s kings did this (Pss 2:7; 89:22-27). However, Jesus claimed to have the divine authority of God himself (see John 5:18), which they saw as blasphemy.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 19:7. Νόμον, a law) A part of which was the commandment concerning the putting to death of blasphemers.—ὀφείλει, He ought) They hereby denote His guilt. Nay, but another ought (of which they were unconscious) was lurking beneath their words. Heb 2:17, “In all things it behoved Him (ὤφειλεν) to be made like unto His brethren,” etc.: [and therefore He ought to “destroy, through death, him that had the power of death,” for the sake of His ‘brethren,’ Joh 19:14.]—Θεοῦ Υἱὸν, God’s Son[387]) Pilate had called Him “the man,” Joh 19:5. The Jews seem to have fastened on this now.

[387] The margin of both Editions favours this order of the words; but the Germ. Version has “Zu einem Sohn Gottes.” However this very change in the order is subservient to the expressing of emphasis, which, according to the original order of the words in the text, falls on the word Θεοῦ, rather than on Υἱόν.—E. B. Only inferior authorities have the order Θεοῦ Υἱόν. ABabc Vulg. Origen and Cypr. have Υἱὸν Θεοῦ.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 19:7-12 a . Second private examination by Pilate .

Joh 19:7 . The Jews are as determined that Pilate shall condemn Jesus as he is resolved not to condemn Him, and to his declaration of the prisoner’s innocence they reply, Ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν … ἐποίησεν . He may have committed no wrong of which your Roman law takes cognisance, but “we have a law (Lev 24:16 ), and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself God’s Son”. For the construction see Joh 5:18 . The occasion they refer to is His profession to the Sanhedrim recorded in Mar 14:62 . υἱὸν Θεοῦ here means more than “Messiah,” for the claim to be Messiah was not apparently punishable with death (see Treffry’s Eternal Sonship ), and, moreover, such a claim would not have produced in Pilate the state of mind suggested by (Joh 19:8 ) μᾶλλον ἐφοβήθη , words which imply that already mingling with the governor’s hesitation to condemn an innocent man there was an element of awe inspired by the prisoner’s bearing and words. The words also imply that this awe was now deepened, and found utterance in the blunt interrogation (Joh 19:9 ), Πόθεν εἶ σύ ; “Whence art Thou?” What is meant by your claim to be of Divine origin? To this question Jesus ἀπόκρισιν οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ , “did not give him an answer”. Pilate had no right to prolong the case; because already he had three times over pronounced Jesus innocent. He needed no new material, but only to act on what he had. Jesus recognises this and declines to be a party to his vacillation. Besides, the charge on which He was being tried was, that He had claimed to be King of the Jews. This charge had been answered. Legal procedure was degenerating into an unregulated wrangle. Jesus therefore declines to answer.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by oar law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God--Their criminal charges having come to nothing, they give up that point, and as Pilate was throwing the whole responsibility upon them, they retreat into their own Jewish law, by which, as claiming equality with God (see Joh 5:18 and Joh 8:59), He ought to die; insinuating that it was Pilate's duty, even as civil governor, to protect their law from such insult.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 7. We have a law] In Le 24:14-16, we find that blasphemers of God were to be put to death; and the chief priests having charged Jesus with blasphemy, they therefore voted that he deserved to die. See Mt 26:65-66. They might refer also to the law against false prophets, De 18:20.

The Son of God.] It is certain that the Jews understood this in a very peculiar sense. When Christ called himself the Son of God, they understood it to imply positive equality to the Supreme Being: and, if they were wrong, our Lord never attempted to correct them.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. We have a law. They mean that, in proceeding against Christ, they do what is right, and are not actuated by hatred or sinful passion; for they perceived that Pilate had indirectly reproved them. Now, they speak as in the presence of a man who was ignorant of the law; as if they had said, “We are permitted to live after our own manner, and our religion does not suffer any man to boast of being the Son of God.” Besides, this accusation was not altogether void of plausibility, but they erred grievously in the application of it. The general doctrine was undoubtedly true, that it was not lawful for men to assume any honor which is due to God, and that they who claimed for themselves what is peculiar to God alone deserved to be put to death. But the source of their error related to the person of Christ, because they did not consider what are the titles given by Scripture to the Messiah, from which they might easily have learned that he was the Son of God, and did not even deign to inquire whether or not Jesus was the Messiah whom God had formerly promised.

We see, then, how they drew a false conclusion from a true principle, for they reason badly. This example warns us to distinguish carefully between a general doctrine and the application of it, for there are many ignorant and unsteady persons who reject the very principles of Scripture, if they have once been deceived by the semblance of truth; and such licentiousness makes too great progress in the world every day. Let us, therefore, remember that we ought to guard against imposition, so that principles which are true may remain in all their force, and that the authority of Scripture may not be diminished.

On the other hand, we may easily find a reply to wicked men, who falsely and improperly allege the testimony of Scripture, and the principles which they draw from it, to support their bad designs; just as the Papists, when they extol in lofty terms the authority of the Church, bring forward nothing about which all the children of God are not agreed. They maintain that the Church is the mother of believers, that she is the pillar of truth, that she ought to be heard, that she is guided by the Holy Spirit. All this we ought to admit, but when they wish to appropriate to themselves all the authority that is due to the Church, they wickedly, and with sacrilegious presumption, seize what does not at all belong to them. For we must inquire into the grounds of what they assume as true, that they deserve the title of The Church; and here they utterly fail. In like manner, when they exercise furious cruelty against all the godly, they do so on this pretence, that they have been ordained to defend the faith and peace of the Church. But when we examine the matter more closely, we plainly see that there is nothing which they have less at heart than the defense of true doctrine, that nothing affects them less than a care about peace and harmony, but that they only fight to uphold their own tyranny. They who are satisfied with general principles, and do not attend to the circumstances, imagine that the Papists do right in attacking us; but the investigation of the matter quickly dissipates that smoke by which they deceive the simple.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(7) We have a law, and by our law he ought to die.—The better reading is,. . . . and by the law He ought to die. (Comp. Lev_24:16.) They feel the bitter sarcasm of Pilate’s taunt, and appeal to their own law, which, in accordance with the general Roman policy, was in force in all questions which did not directly affect the Government. They change the accusation then from one of treason against Cæsar (Joh_19:12), of which Pilate claimed to be judge, to one of blasphemy against God, of which they only could be judges; and assert that Jesus is by that law guilty of a capital offence, for which He ought to die. (Comp. Mat_26:63-66, and Luk_22:70.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. We have a law] The Jews answer Pilate’s taunt by a plea hitherto kept in the background. He may think lightly of the seditious conduct of Jesus, but as a Procurator he is bound by Roman precedent to pay respect to the law of subject nationalities. He has challenged them to take the law into their own hands; let him hear what their law is.

by our law] Rather, according to the law; ‘of us’ is not genuine. They refer to Lev_24:16.

the Son of God] Omit ‘the.’ Pilate had said, ‘Behold the Man!’ The Jews retort, ‘He made Himself Son of God.’ Comp. Joh_5:18, Joh_10:33. They answer his appeal to their compassion by an appeal to his fears.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews answered him,.... Finding they could make nothing of the charge of sedition against him, and that Pilate could not be prevailed upon to condemn him to death upon that score, they try another method, and charge him with blasphemy; which, if the other had succeeded, they would have concealed; because this, if proved, according to their law, would not have brought on him the kind of death they were desirous of:

we have a law; meaning the law of Moses, which they had received by his hands from God:

and by our law he ought to die; referring either to the law concerning blasphemy in general, or concerning the false prophet, or to the having and asserting of other gods, and enticing to the worship of them; in either of which cases death by stoning was enjoined:

because he made himself the Son of God; the natural and essential Son of God; not by adoption, or on account of his incarnation and mediatorial office; but as being one with the Father, of the same nature with him, and equal to him in all his perfections and glory. This he had often asserted in his ministry, or what was equivalent to it, and which they so understood; and indeed had said that very morning, before the high priest in his palace, what amounted thereunto, and which he so interpreted; upon which he rent his garments, and charged him with blasphemy: for that God has a son, is denied by the Jews, since Jesus asserted himself to be so, though formerly believed by them; nor was it now denied that there was a Son of God, or that he was expected; but the blasphemy with them was, that Jesus set up himself to be he: but now it is vehemently opposed by them, that God has a son; so from Ecc 4:8 they endeavour to prove (q), that God has neither a brother, , "nor a son"; but, "hear, O Israel, they observe, the Lord our God is one Lord". And elsewhere (r),

""there is one"; this is the holy blessed God; "and not a second"; for he has no partner or equal in his world; "yea, he hath neither child nor brother"; he hath no brother, nor hath he a son; but the holy blessed God loves Israel, and calls them his children, and his brethren.''

All which is opposed to the Christian doctrine, relating to the sonship of Christ. The conduct of these men, at this time, deserves notice, as their craft in imposing on Pilate's ignorance of their laws; and the little regard that they themselves had to them, in calling for crucifixion instead of stoning; and their inconsistency with themselves, pretending before it was not lawful for them to put any man to death; and now they have a law, and by that law, in their judgment, he ought to die.

(q) Debarim Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 237. 3. (r) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 70. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Ver. 7. The Jews answered him, &c.] When they saw that the treason they laid to his charge would not do the deed, they accused him of blasphemy another while, that by some means or other they might take away his life. Thou, and such as thou (said Bonner to Thomas Brown, martyr), report I seek your blood; to whom he answered, Yea, my lord, indeed ye be a bloodsucker; and I would I had as much blood as is water in the sea for you to suck. Another unknown good woman told this bishop in a letter, that he had such store of Christ’s lambs already in his butcher’s stall, that he was not able to drink all their blood, lest he should break his belly, and therefore he let them lie still and die for hunger. My lord (said Mr Saunders to Bonner), you seek my blood, and you shall have it; I pray God you may be so baptized in it, that you may hereafter loathe bloodsucking, and become a better man.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We have a law - The law respecting blasphemy, Lev 24:16; Deu 13:1-5. They had arraigned Jesus on that charge before the Sanhedrin, and condemned him for it, Mat 26:63-65. But this was not the charge on which they had arraigned him before Pilate. They had accused him of sedition, Luk 23:2. On this charge they were now convinced that they could not get Pilate to condemn him. He declared him innocent. Still bent on his ruin, and resolved to gain their purpose, they now, contrary to their first intention, adduced the original accusation on which they had already pronounced him guilty. If they could not obtain his condemnation as a rebel, they now sought it as a blasphemer, and they appealed to Pilate to sanction what they believed was required in their law. Thus, to Pilate himself it became more manifest that he was innocent, that they had attempted to deceive him, and that the charge on which they had arraigned him was a mere pretence to obtain his sanction to their wicked design.

Made himself - Declared himself, or claimed to be.

The Son of God - The law did not forbid this, but it forbade blasphemy, and they considered the assumption of this title as the same as blasphemy Joh 10:30, Joh 10:33, Joh 10:36, and therefore condemned him.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The law they mean, is the law for putting false prophets to death, Deu 18:20. By

the Son of God here, they mean the eternal Son of God, in all things equal with his Father; otherwise it was a term applicable to themselves, whom God calls his son, his firstborn, &c. Now for any in this sense to arrogate to himself this title who indeed was not so, was blasphemy, and that in the highest degree, and brought him under the notion of a false prophet of the deepest dye: but this was injuriously applied to Christ, who thought it no robbery to be equal with the Father, and who was so declared by God himself at his baptism and transfiguration; and who had made his Divine power appear by such works as no mere man ever did.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. We have a law—As much as to say, If you, as a Roman, do not feel his execution to be legal and just, we have plenty of law to sustain the infliction of death.

Made himself the Son of God—To make himself the Son of God, and thereby equal with God, was blasphemy, for which the sentence was death by stoning. But now an unexpected result followed their utterance of the phrase Son of God. There can be no doubt that the personal demeanour of Jesus had an impressive effect upon Pilate. He appeared to the Roman a strangely supernatural being. The warning dream of his wife hung gloomily upon his feelings. Sceptics are often superstitious. Genuine religious feeling often being suppressed in their hearts, abnormal spiritual notions take their place. He puts to himself the startling query: May there not be something supernatural in this remarkable specimen among this half supernatural race?

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews answered him, ready with an expedient which hitherto they had not ventured to try upon the Roman official. It might have met with the kind of reception which Gallio gave to the accusers of Sosthenes in the Corinthian court. He might have driven them at point of spear or whip from the judgment-seat. "The Jews" here mentioned, rather than "the chief priests and officers" of the previous verse, for the multitude by some other spokesmen than they exclaim, We have a law, and according to that (the) lawhe ought to die; whatever you may have made of the charge of political treason. In full session of our Sanhedrin, he made himself, represented himself, as something more than Caesar, nay, more than man, as Son of God. "King of Jews" was a usurpation of the Messianic dignity; but he had claimed, in their very hearing, to be more than a national leader. He raised himself to the position of being "Jehovah"s King upon his holy hill," to whom Jehovah had sworn, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;" "Son of God" as well as "King of Israel." Pilate would not and could not understand this strange "testimony to the truth;" and the people were now in a more angry and excited state than ever, and appealed to the law of their own code, (Lev_24:16) which denounced death upon the blasphemer. This charge was just unless the claim was true. If Christ had not been to his own inmost consciousness what he said he was, the Sanhedrin was in the right; and, according to law, he was guilty of death. It is here vastly interesting to see another indication of relation between the synoptic narrative and the Fourth Gospel. Though John passed ever the scenes before the Sanhedrin, and the circumstance that Christ had been actually there doomed because he had made there no secret of his Divine claims, and declared himself to be a king in a higher sense than Pilate dreamed; yet John has given clear proof that he was well aware of the confession, and records the still more striking tact that this special claim of supreme prerogative actually came to the ears and before the judgment-seat of Rome.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

By our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God - Which they understood in the highest sense, and therefore accounted blasphemy.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Pilate again examines Jesus:

v. 7. The Jews answered him, We have a Law, and by our Law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.

v. 8. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid,

v. 9. and went again into the judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art Thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

v. 10. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest Thou not unto me? Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and have power to release Thee?

v. 11. Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin.

v. 12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him.

When Pilate made his declaration before the people of his belief in the innocence of Jesus, they stopped their noisy demonstration just long enough to give him an answer which was intended to bring his superstitious heart into further subjection. They calmly stated to him that they had a Law, and that according to that Law it was necessary that Jesus die. It was intended to impress Pilate and to browbeat him into submission, by playing upon his superstition. Unwittingly the Jews here uttered a great truth, as their high priest had done a short time before. It was indeed necessary that Jesus die, but not for any guilt of His own. "Mark here that the innocence of Christ, our Lord, stands for our guilt. For though He was condemned to death being innocent, He yet is guilty before God according to the Law; not for His person, but for our persons. He stands before Pilate, not as the son of the Virgin Mary, but as a malefactor; and that not for Himself, but for thee and for me. Thus Christ for His own person is innocent but being in our stead, He is guilty, for He has taken our part to pay our guilt. " The emphasis of the Jews was now upon that one point which had aroused the hypocrites to the highest pitch of pretended indignation, namely. that He had made Himself the Son of God. Their manner implied that they considered His claim to be altogether unfounded, but one that for that very reason merited punishment. It was a point which had no value from the standpoint of the Jews, who were attempting to show that Jesus was a dangerous rebel. "Such accusation of blasphemy toward God had no weight with Pilate, since he knew nothing of the Law of the Jews; and even if the Jews had gained this point and truly had fixed this upon Christ that He had blasphemed God, yet Pilate might have said: Why do you Jews act contrary to your own Law? Your Law commands that a blasphemer should be stoned, and not crucified; but now you cry that I should crucify this man, although crucifying is not the penalty of blasphemy, also according to your Law. Therefore the Jews are again raving and foolish, and are caught. For thus it will happen to all enemies of God that oppose the truth, that they are always caught in their own rascality. " But for us there is a world of comfort in that fact, that Jesus suffered and died as the Son of God. That gives to His Passion the real, lasting worth. The Jews, in their anxiety to force Pilate into submission, almost spoiled their own object. For the effect of their statement concerning the claim of Christ was to make him afraid of the punishment of the gods, if he should carry out the demand of the Jews. So he once more entered the hall and had a second interview with Jesus. He wanted to know whether there were any truth to the statement as to His being of divine origin. The question, blunt as it sounds, must have been spoken also with a certain amount of awe. The silence of Jesus said more strongly than words might have done that the whole trial was a blasphemous farce. Jesus had given testimony concerning Himself, as the King of truth, and Pilate had rejected the words, treated them with contempt. But the silence of Jesus enraged the proud, supercilious Roman, who now sought to impress this poor prisoner with the greatness of his power over Him. That this Man would not answer him, the governor, who, in his belief, had absolute power over His life, was almost unbelievable.

But the calm answer of Jesus pointed out to him his limits: Not wouldest thou have any power over Me if it had not been given to thee from above. Jesus was under divine direction to carry out the divine obligation resting upon Him. God’s purposes were being carried out in the present trial, and not a weak man’s whims and fancies. The greater blame rested with the Jews that had delivered the Lord into the hands of the Gentiles; their sin and guilt was of a nature that would bring them temporal and eternal destruction. "Here thou seest that Christ judges the work according to the heart and not according to outward seeming and appearance. Pilate commits a sin in having Christ crucified, though he finds no cause of death in Him. But since his heart is not so evil as that of Caiaphas and the high priests, therefore did not sin so great as the sin of Caiaphas and the high priests. " Such was the impression that Pilate gained from this interview that he sought more than ever, although without result, to release the Lord. But as Jesus had told him, the matter was no longer in his hands, but in that of a higher power.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How ambitious the chief priests were that Christ should die under a colour of law: We have a law, and by our law he ought to die. The law which they allude to, is the law for putting false prophets and blasphemers to death; of which number they conclude Christ to be, because he made himself the Son of God; whereas he did not make himself so, or only pretend to be so, but really and indeed was so; to wit, the eternal Son of God. Such as are indeed blasphemers, and do arrogate to themselves what is proper to God only, by the law of God they ought to be put to death: but Christ was not guilty of the violation of that law; for he was indeed the Son of God, and did not make himself so.

Observe, 2. How full of fear the conscience of Pilate was, when the Jews told him that Jesus made himself the Son of God: he was afraid to condemn him, no knowing but that he might be some divine and extraordinary person, and consequently might draw down divine vengeance on his own head.

Learn hence, That serious thoughts of a deity will strike terror even into a natural conscience, especially when the sinner is following a course which his own judgment cannot approve; when Pilate heard of Christ’s being the Son of God, he was afraid, knowing what he had done to him was against his own conscience.

Observe, 3. The question Pilate puts to Christ upon this occasion, Whence art thou? that is, What is thy original or parentage? Art thou a divine person or not?

Our blessed Saviour being unwilling to obstruct his own sufferings, or to discover any thing that might hinder Pilate from proceeding against him, would give him no answer, having before made a reasonable and sufficient defence.

O how ready Christ was to lay down his life for sinners, and how willing to pay that ransom for his people which the justice of God required!

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Jews answered him

Here "Jews" is a synecdoche for the Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus. AT: "The Jewish leaders answered Pilate" (See: Synecdoche)

he has to die because he claimed to be the Son of God

Jesus was condemned to death by crucifixion because he claimed he was "the Son of God."

Son of God

This is an important title for Jesus. (See: Translating Son and Father)

translationWords

Jew

law, laws

Son of God

fear

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

7. After τὸν νόμον omit ἡμῶν (obvious amplification) with אBLΔ against A.

7. νόμον. They refer to Lev 24:16. The Jews answer Pilate’s taunt by a plea hitherto kept in the background. He may think lightly of the seditious conduct of Jesus, but as a Procurator he is bound by Roman precedent to pay respect to the law of subject nationalities. He has challenged them to take the law into their own hands; let him hear what their law is. Pilate had said ‘Behold the Man!’ The Jews retort, ‘He made Himself Son of God.’ They answer his appeal to their compassion by an appeal to his fears. See on Joh 8:53.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7.] In consequence of this taunt, they now declare the cause of their condemnation of Him—see Lev 24:16—and their demand that, though found innocent by the governor, He should die.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. The chief priests, however, make an unexpected rejoinder. They tell Pilate that, according to Jewish law, Jesus ought to be put to death as a blasphemer, and they warn him by implication that he must not set aside their law in such a matter. It was the Roman practice to respect the laws and customs of Judæa, as of other distant provinces of the empire; and of this the accusers of Jesus remind Pilate.

Ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν, viz. Lev 24:16, which enacted that a blasphemer should be stoned to death. The chief priests knew that this could not be put into operation (see on 18:31). In any case, the witnesses had to cast the first stone (Deu 17:7), and those who bore witness as to the blasphemy of Jesus were not in agreement with each other (Mar 14:56). The Sanhedrim, therefore, were content, in this particular case, that the responsibility lay with Pilate.

κατὰ τὸν νόμον (the rec. adds ἡμῶν with AΓΔΘ, but om. אBDsuppLNWΔ) ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν. For the verb ὀφείλειν, see on 13:14.

ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν. This charge was better founded than the charge of treason, alleged to be inherent in Jesus’ claim to be a king. “Son of God” was a recognised title of Messiah (see on 1:34); and in his examination before the chief priests Jesus had admitted that He was the Messiah (Mar 14:62, Mat 26:64, Luk 22:70, in the last passage the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. being explicitly used). But He had been suspected of, and charged with, blasphemy on several occasions before this, according to Jn. See 5:18, 10:33, 36. To the question τίνα σεαυτὸν σὺ ποιεῖς; (8:53), the Jews had good ground for believing that υἱὸς θεοῦ would be His answer.

The omission of the def. articles in υἱὸς θεοῦ is probably due to the tendency to drop the article before familiar titles rather than to the phrase being used in any sense less exalted than the highest, as may be the case at Mat 14:33. But in this, the Messianic sense, Pilate could not have understood it, any more than the centurion at the Cross (Mat 27:54). It must have suggested to Pilate a vague, mysterious claim on the part of Jesus to be more than human; and hearing of it awakened in his mind a superstitious fear. υἱὸς θεοῦ is frequently used in inscriptions as a title of the Emperor.1

The Second Examination of Jesus by Pilate (vv. 8-11)

7. Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου (Luk 23:46). Lk. specially notes that this was after the Great Cry (φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ), and that this was the last word spoken. To the utterance of faithful confidence from the ancient Psalm (31:5), the one word “Father” was prefixed, which charged it for future generations with a deeper meaning. In the Psalm, it is the trustful prayer of life; on the lips of Jesus (and thereafter; cf. Act 7:59), it became a prayer of the dying. It is noteworthy that the two personal cries of Jesus from the Cross (Nos. 4 and 7) are old and familiar verses from the Psalter.

Jn. does not record this, but we cannot know his reason. If it was indeed the last word spoken, the Beloved Disciple must have heard it, as well as the witness, Joanna or another, from whom it was transmitted to Lk. It is just possible that the words of Joh 19:30, παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα, contain a reminiscence of Lk.’s παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. But in any case Jn. never attempts to tell all that had happened, or all that he knew; his method is to select and arrange the sayings and acts of Jesus which best bring out the main thesis of his Gospel (20:31). And τετέλεσται is, in his scheme, the final word of the Cross.

Of other arrangements of the Seven Words, that of Tatian, our earliest harmonist, is the most noteworthy. It differs in one particular only from that which has been set out here. Tatian in his Diatessaron puts “Father, forgive them …” immediately before “Father, into thy hands …”; thus contradicting the order in which Lk. (who alone records them both) places the two sayings, “Father, forgive them” and “This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Bishop Andrewes in his Litania places our No. 3 before our No. 2, an arrangement adopted also in some German hymns. Certainty cannot be reached, but a clearer insight into the significance of these Words is gained by any honest attempt to reach the order in which they were spoken.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We have a law. We, emphatic. Whatever your decision may be, we have a law, etc.

By our law. The best texts omit our : Read by that law, as Rev.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 7-9. “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to our law, he ought to die; for he made himself Son of God. 8. When therefore Pilate heard this saying, he was the more afraid. 9. And he entered into the Praetorium again, and says to Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.”

The Romans generally allowed the conquered nations the enjoyment of their laws and their national institutions, exactly as at present the French do with relation to the Mussulmen of Algiers, says Renan. The Jews, placing themselves at this point of view, appeal to the article of their law (Lev 24:16), which condemns blasphemers to death, and they imperiously demand of Pilate the application of this article. We may here lay our finger upon the difference, which is so often misapprehended, between the title Son of God and that of Messiah, or king of the Jews. The inquiry as to the Messianic or royal claim of Jesus is ended: they pass now to an entirely new complaint. And how happened it that the Jews came so late to base the accusation of blasphemy on a title with regard to which there had been a dispute so long from a wholly different point of view? In vain does Weiss try to escape this result by alleging that the question is not of a new complaint, but that the Jews are simply seeking to clear themselves of the matter of asking for the death of an innocent man. The sequel clearly shows that the examination begins altogether anew.

The words of the Jews produced on Pilate an effect which they did not expect. They confirmed a dreadful presentiment which was more and more forming itself within him. He had heard of the miracles of Jesus, of His elevated and mysterious character, of His teachings and His conduct; he had just received from his wife a strange message; Jesus Himself was producing on him an impression such as he had never received from any man; he asks himself if all this is not explained by this title of Son of God! What if this extraordinary man were really a divine being who had appeared on the earth? The truth presents itself to his mind naturally under the form of heathen superstitions and mythological recollections. We know, indeed, how sudden is the passing from scepticism to the most superstitious fears. Reuss is not willing to admit that this was the ground of the increase of fear which John indicates in Pilate. He explains this fact by the authority of the law, which was opposed to his own, and which threw him into an ever-increasing embarrassment. But, in what follows, everything turns upon the dignity of the Son of God. It is this idea which, as we shall see, preoccupies the mind of Pilate, and becomes the subject of his new conversation with Jesus. Here, therefore, is the foundation of his fear. Pilate, having heard the word: Son of God, brings Jesus back to the Praetorium, that he may converse with Him respecting it privately. The question: Whence art thou? cannot refer to the earthly origin of Jesus; Pilate knows full well that He is from Galilee. The meaning certainly is: “Art thou from the earth or from heaven?” It is in vain, therefore, that Reuss claims that it should be applied simply to the mission, and not to the origin of His person, supporting his view by Joh 9:29. In the Sanhedrim one might, indeed, propose the question as to the mission of Jesus: whether He was a true or a false prophet. But this distinction had no meaning for a man like Pilate.

We are surprised at the refusal of Jesus to answer. According to some, He kept silence because He feared that, by answering in accordance with the truth, He would keep alive a pagan superstition in the mind of His judge. According to others, He refused to answer a question which is for Pilate a mere matter of curiosity. Lampe, Luthardt, Keil, think that He does not wish, through revealing His divine greatness to Pilate, to prevent the plan of God from being carried out even to the end. The true answer appears to me to follow from all that precedes: Pilate knew enough about the matter with regard to Jesus to set Him free; he had himself declared Him innocent. This should have sufficed for him. What he would know beyond this “did not appertain to his province” (Ebrard). If he did not deliver Jesus as an innocent man, he deserved the responsibility of crucifying Him, the Son of God. His crime became His punishment.

Moreover, Hengstenberg justly remarks that this silence is an answer. If the claim which the Jews had accused Jesus of making had not been well founded, He could not have failed to deny it.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.