Matthew 27:11

11. the governor] The Evangelist uses a general word instead of the more exact term “Procurator.”

Art thou the King of the Jews?] The answer of Jesus to this question, and His explanation to Pilate of the Kingdom of God are given at length, Joh_18:33-37; observe especially that the servants of the kingdom would fight, if they fought at all, not against Rome but against Israel who had rejected the Messiah: “If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews.”

Thou sayest] See note ch. Mat_26:25.

11–26. The Trial before Pontius Pilate

St Mar_15:2-15; St Luk_23:2-7; Luk_23:13-24; St Joh_18:29 to Joh_19:16

St Luke states the threefold charge most clearly: “We found this [fellow] (1) perverting the nation; (2) and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar; (3) saying that he himself is Christ a King.”

Pilate, true to the Roman sense of justice, refused merely to confirm the sentence of the Sanhedrin. “He asked, what accusation bring ye against this man?” (Joh_18:29), being determined to try the case. This accusation amounted to a charge of treason—the greatest crime known to Roman law. Of the three points of accusation, (2) was utterly false; (1) and (3) though in a sense true, were not true in the sense intended. The answer or defence of Jesus is that He is a King, but that His “kingdom is not of this world,” therefore (it is inferred) the “perversion of the people” was not a rebellion that threatened the Roman government; see note Mat_27:11. The defence was complete, as Pilate admits: “I find no fault in him.”

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.

Mat_27:11-14

And Jesus stood before the governor.

Pontius Pilate

The trial of Christ is a part of His humiliation; He who shall judge the nations stands to be judged of another. He who is life expects the sentence of death. The Eternal Word keeps silence.

I. In speaking of the character and conduct of Pilate, we desire to bring him before you, as far as possible, as a man. He has won a terrible pre-eminence among the sons of Adam. Every child is taught to say that its Lord was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It is a mistake to suppose that these instruments of our Lords sufferings were men of astounding depravity. Pilate was not of this class. He was a reluctant agent in these events. He was induced simply by expediency. Indifference to religion can issue in deeds as unpardonable as utter violation of its spirit. Again and again, on a narrower stage, has been acted over that scene of criminal irresolution, resisted impulses, and weak concession to the fear of man.

I. Consider the providence of God towards Pilate. We are sometimes tempted to think that they were in very hard case, who, like Pilate, were involved in events so peculiar as were all things connected with Christs life on earth, that it must have been a great trial of faith to recognize a present God in Jesus as He stood before Pilate. The answer is twofold: First, Pilates guilt did not lie in this, that he condemned the Son of God, but that without evidence, against his own convictions, he condemned an innocent man,-that to gratify the mob, he prostituted his high office. The fact that the prisoner was God in the flesh, only enters into the question of his guilt, so far as he might, if he would, have known Him. But, secondly, it is evident that Pilate was in a remarkable degree held back from his sin. It has been observed, that the Saviour appears to have exercised the most marked grace towards all who were concerned in His final agony. In Pilates instance, every possible way consistent with his free-will seems to have been tried, in order to save him from consummating his guilt. Such was the long silence of Christ at the beginning. It is clear from the Gospels, that there was in the whole of our Lords demeanour an almost supernatural dignity. No words dropped from His lips; He declined, i.e., to plead before an authority inferior to His own, insomuch, it is said, that Pilate marvelled. And when, after Pilate had uttered the fatal words, Take ye Him and crucify Him, yet another appeal was made to his conscience. The Jews triumphantly responded, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God. This open and undisguised claim to superhuman rank, did for a moment startle the wavering judge: When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid. Again, it may be, there recurred to his mind the feelings of involuntary awe inspired from the beginning by his mysterious prisoner; thoughts glanced across him, that there might be more than he surmised in the events in which he bore a part; that Just Man, against whom no charge could be substantiated, and of whose miraculous power tidings so strange had reached his ears, might be (as old records told there had been in former times), at least a messenger of Deity. Hence his earnest question to our Lord, Whence art Thou? Throughout that dread scene of judgment there seems not to have been a moment when Pilate might not have been saved for ever. Again and again he was all but delivered from blood-guiltiness. (J. R. Woodford, M. A.)

The sufferings of Christ under Pontius Pilate

I. The civil magistrate under whose administration he suffered. Pilates name intimately interwoven with the history of Christs sufferings; mentioned more than twenty times. The elements which composed his character were contradictory. He had good qualities, but associated with bad principles.

1. He was influenced by the fear of man.

2. He had a sordid regard to place and power.

3. He discovers a servile love of human applause.

4. The sequel of his history is affecting and instructive; the thing he dreaded came, he lost the favour of the emperor.

II. The peculiar nature and character of those sufferings which he endured. Look at the sufferings of Christ.

1. In their visible form.

2. Their moral design.

III. The lessons they teach.

1. The infinite evil of sin.

2. The unbounded love of Jesus.

3. The full compatibility between the irreversible decrees of God and the freedom of mans agency, and the culpability of mans transgression.

4. The true ground of hope for the self-accusing sinner.

5. What a provision of comfort for the suffering Christian.

6. The fear of man bringeth a snare. (G. Clayton.)

The silence of Jesus

He had never been slow of speech when He could bless the sons of men, but He would not say a single word for Himself. Never man spake like this Man, and never man was silent like Him.

1. Was this singular silence the index of His perfect self-sacrifice? Did it show that He would not utter a word to stay the slaughter of His sacred person, which He had dedicated as an offering for us?

2. Was this silence a type of the defencelessness of sin? Nothing can be said in palliation or excuse of human guilt; and therefore He who bore its whole weight stood speechless before His judge.

3. Is not patient silence the best reply to a gainsaying world? Calm endurance answers some questions infinitely more conclusively than the loftiest eloquence. The best apologists for Christianity in the early days were its martyrs. The anvil breaks a host of hammers by quietly bearing the blows.

4. Did not the silent Lamb of God furnish us with a grand example of wisdom? Where every word was occasion for new blasphemy, it was the line of duty to afford no fuel for the flame of sire The ambiguous and the false, the unworthy and mean, will, ere long, overthrow and confute themselves, anal therefore the true can afford to be quiet, and finds silence to be its wisdom.

5. Our Lord, by His silence, furnished a remarkable fulfilment of prophecy (Isa_53:7). By His quiet He conclusively proved Himself to be the true Lamb of God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

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

Mat 27:11. And Jesus stood before the governor — As a prisoner before the judge. “Little did the governor imagine,” says Bishop Porteus, “who it was that then stood before him. Little did he suspect that he himself must one day stand before the tribunal of that very person whom he was then about to judge as a criminal.” Observe, reader, we could not have stood before God because of our sins, nor have lifted up our face in his presence, if Christ had not thus been judged and condemned, and thereby made a sin- offering for us. He was arraigned that we might be discharged. For a more full account of our Lord’s appearance before Pilate, see Joh 18:29, &c., and Luk 23:2, &c. And the governor asked him, Art thou the king of the Jews? — From Pilate’s asking our Lord this question, we must suppose that the priests explained their accusation by telling him that Jesus had travelled continually through the country, and everywhere had given himself out for the Messiah; and that even during his trial before them, he had been so presumptuous as to assume that dignity in open court. Without some information of this kind, the governor would hardly have put such a question to Jesus, no prisoner being obliged to accuse himself. And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest — That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest. John tells us that our Lord added, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? that is, Dost thou ask this question of thine own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power, or, dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, who affirm that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? Jesus undoubtedly knew what had happened, but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, not being present when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me, as a seditious person. What hast thou done to merit such a charge? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. See on Joh 18:35.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

JESUS BEFORE PILATE, AND THE SURRENDER OF BARABBAS, Mat_27:11-26.

11. Jesus stood before the governor — The Sanhedrim in a body, followed by their partisans, marched with their prisoner from the palace of Caiaphas to Pilate’s abode, which probably was at the town of Antonia, north of the temple. (See note on Mat_21:12, and Temple Plan.) This tower was built by the Maccabees, the illustrious princes of Judah, (see note on Mat_1:17,) as a depository of the high priest’s vestments, and rebuilt with great splendour by Herod. It was a fortress, but at the same time a most magnificent palace. To avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews decline entering Pilate’s palace. We must, then, figure to ourselves the multitudes standing in the broad area before the palace, while Jesus is taken in, either to the court or some public apartment of the building, called thence “the Pretorium,” or pretor’s (governor’s) office. Hence it appears by the narrative, especially in John, that Pilate alternately went out unto them, and returned into the judgment hall, or Pretorium, to Jesus. We may be aided in understanding this by supposing that in the diagram at Mat_26:68, the court answers to the pretorium; and the area or broad space where the Jews are, is at the place marked “street.” It was towards this open yard that Pilate presents Jesus. Joh_19:4.

From the Jews in the front area Pilate learns the charge, and that Jesus is brought before him because the Jews had no power to execute him. Pilate then enters the Pretorium and learns of Jesus that he claims to be a spiritual king. Pilate then goes out to the Jews and pronounces Jesus innocent. Then the multitude raises a clamour of accusations, to which Jesus is so serenely and firmly silent that the governor marvelled greatly.

Art thou the King of the Jews? — The fullest and most striking account of the colloquy between our Lord and Pilate is given by John, and full notes upon it belong to a commentary upon that evangelist. Thou sayest — An affirmative answer of the question. It is as thou sayest.

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

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_27:11. Tie governor asked him.—Pilate, true to the Roman sense of justice, refused merely to confirm the sentence of the Sanhedrin (Carr).

Mat_27:16. Barabbas.—“Son of Abba,” i.e. Son of Father (so-and-so). The name would originally be given to one who was the son of some Rabbi who had been known in his locality as Father (so-and-so). Not unlikely Barabbas would thus be a person of respectable parentage, though for long he had gravitated toward the lowest stratum of society (Morison).

Mat_27:19. When he was set down.—While he was sitting (R.V.). His wife.—Claudia Procula or Procla. Traditions state that she was a proselyte of the gate, which is by no means unlikely, as many of the Jewish proselytes were women. By an imperial regulation provincial governors had been prohibited from taking their wives with them. But the rule gradually fell into disuse, and an attempt made in the Senate (A.D. 21) to revive it completely failed (Carr).

Mat_27:21. They said, Barabbas.—Pilate’s expedient to avoid the necessity of pronouncing sentence is here set forth at length, probably because it brings into strong relief the absolute rejection of their Messiah alike by the rulers and by the people (Gibson).

Mat_27:24. Washed his hands.—See Deu_21:6. Cf. Psa_26:6. See ye to it.—“Ye shall see to it; I presume that ye take to yourselves the whole responsibility of the deed” (Morison).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_27:11-26

The homage of power.—Jesus is now standing before the Roman governor (Mat_27:11); in the presence, therefore, of the representative of the then highest power upon earth. To what conclusion does this Imperial delegate come about Him? And how far does he give evidence of the nature of his thoughts? A threefold answer seems discoverable in the passage before us. Notwithstanding the many accusations (Mat_27:12) to which he is listening, we find Pilate first suspecting, then convinced of, and finally proclaiming, the complete innocency of the Accused.

I. Suspecting the truth.—First, we may believe that the appearance of the Saviour Himself had not a little effect in this way. One of the accusations brought against the Saviour—even a leading one, it would seem (Luk_23:2; Joh_19:12; Joh_19:15)—was that of (constructively) impairing the supreme authority of “Cæsar.” No Roman governor could think lightly of such an accusation. No Roman emperor made more of it than the Roman emperor of that day. Many men of the highest rank were being put to death by him yearly on the mere suspicion of such a charge (see Tacitus). Naturally, therefore, when Pilate heard of it here, he would look with special closeness of attention on the Man charged with such guilt, and would expect to find something at least in Him to correspond with so very lofty an aim. There should be something Cæsar-like—palpably—in any one who thought, however distantly, of being in rivalry with him. It would appear from the story, however, that Pilate found nothing like it in the appearance of Christ; no marks of pride; no sign of ambition; nothing, in fact, to betoken a desire to be great upon earth, in the heavenly meekness of that sorrow-lined face. Hence the peculiar and marked emphasis of the question he asks (Mat_27:11), “Art Thou”—Thou, being such as Thou art—“the King of the Jews?” As much as to say, “Never yet did I see any one with less of earthly royalty in his look.” The Saviour’s demeanour, in the next place, seems to have confirmed this idea. How utterly unmoved He stands by the accusations He hears! How many these are! How silent Himself! Does He hear them, in fact (Mat_27:13)? And, if so, why is it that He takes no notice of them whatever? This does not look like guilt, or a fear of the consequences, or an anxiety to escape them (see Joh_19:10). At any rate, it is clear evidence that there is something strange indeed in this case (Mat_27:14). Lastly, we may well believe that there was something in the demeanour of the Saviour’s accusers which added strength to this thought. Their accusations were such as could easily be accounted for without supposing them to be valid. There was that about their reproaches which showed how highly they valued the praises of men (cf. Mat_23:5-7; Luk_20:45-47), as also how greatly this meek Jesus of Nazareth had interfered with them in this matter. Pilate saw in this, therefore, what was the real root of all their clamour and hate (Mat_27:18; Mar_15:10), and so was struck, most probably, rather by the weakness than by the strength of their case. “Is this the worst that even such consummate ‘envy’ can lay to His charge? If so, there cannot be much in Him that is worthy of death!”

II. Ascertaining the truth.—Two things especially seem to have brought this about. One was connected with a remarkable message which came to him at that time. During the previous night, or early that morning, his wife had dreamed about Christ. The details are not told us, but its effects speak for themselves. She has been so scared thereby that she sends her husband word of it, even while seated in court, and earnestly entreats him, in consequence, to beware how he allows himself to deal with Jesus as other than “just” (Mat_27:19). A somewhat similar warning, in consequence of a dream, is said to have been sent to Julius Cæsar by his wife on the morning of his death. If Pilate was such a believer in dreams and omens as most Romans were in his day, the recollection of that dream would make this one seem to him a message from Heaven itself, and so would help to make him believe that what he had suspected before was nothing indeed but the truth. Another thing telling on him in the same direction was the behaviour of the “multitude” which, by this time, had collected together. Some time previously he had thought that he saw in their presence and apparent disposition a way of settling this case. With this idea he would take advantage of a custom they observed at that “feast” (Mat_27:15). He would give them the choice, in accordance with that custom, between this Man who seemed to be in favour with them (though not with the priests) and another man who was then in prison and notorious for his crimes (Mat_27:16; Joh_18:40). The result turned out exactly contrary to what he had expected and hoped. “Persuaded” by the “priests” (Mat_27:20), the “multitude” asked the release, not of Jesus, but of the other. Not only so, the more he pleads with them in opposition to this the worse they become. They ask now, not only that Jesus should not be released, but that He should die the death of the cross. And they ask it the more, the more he challenges them to give a reason for so doing. And this, in fact, is, so far, the end. He asks them to say, and they cannot say, “what evil” Jesus “hath done.”

III. Proclaiming the truth.—Finding that all appeal is in vain, hearing nothing further in the way of testimony or evidence, and fearing that the only result of further effort to deliver Him would be a “tumult” for which he would have to answer at Rome, Pilate contents himself with openly declaring his own thoughts about Christ. This he does, first, in the most deliberate way—“taking water,” and having it brought to him (as we may infer) for this end. Next, in a most public way, “before the multitude”—in their sight. Further, in the most significant way, viz., by using the water brought him for washing his hands. Once more, in the most explicit way, by explaining verbally what he meant by that sign (Mat_27:24). And, lastly, in a way which the answer of the multitude (Mat_27:25) showed that they perfectly understood. Miserable, in short, as the effort was in the way of exonerating himself, it was trumpet-tongued and beyond capability of mistake in proclaiming the innocence of the Saviour!

This “proclamation” was specially important:—

1. Because of the character of the man.—As we learn from Luk_13:1 and other sources, he was by no means unwilling to be a shedder of blood. Few Roman governors were. Pilate, probably, as little unwilling as any. How striking, therefore, in this case, to see him fighting against it so long, and doing all that he thought he could do, in order to avoid it! There must have been something in his eyes peculiarly dazzling in the lustrous innocence of this Jesus. He was prepared for anything, short of losing his life, rather than treat it as guilt.

2. Because of the nationality and rank of the man.—This Pilate was not only a Gentile, he was a representative Gentile as well. He spoke for Cæsar, who spoke in turn for the world. The whole, in short, of the world’s non-Judaic faith may be said to have culminated then in Tiberius. This fact, therefore, gives to the proclamation in question a kind of “œcumenical” ring; the heathen world, as it were, following up the Jewish world in virtual vindication of Christ.

3. Because of the exceedingly critical character of the juncture.—This final vindication is uttered at the very moment of finally consigning Christ to the cross. Also by the very same lips. The very same power which says He is to die also says He ought not; and that in the very same breath. Thus at once acquitting Him and condemning itself. Thus at once, also, treating Him as guilty and pronouncing Him guiltless—the very marrow of the gospel of Christ!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_27:12-14. The silence of Jesus at the bar of Pilate.—The predictions which we find in the Old Testament in relation to the Messiah seem to have been all fulfilled; and it is not easy to bring them and the life of Jesus Christ into juxtaposition, and resist the conclusion that He was the promised Saviour. It was predicted that toward the close of His beneficent career, He would not so much as open His mouth in certain circumstances, and this prediction, like all the rest, was literally verified. Before the Sanhedrin, before Herod, before Pilate, He “retired into the great empire of silence.” Before Pilate He was not absolutely silent. He appears to have replied to most of Pilate’s queries, and to have given him, in the capacity of judge, all the information that was really necessary to a right decision in the case; and the fact that He spoke when He conceived that there was occasion shows that His silence was not exactly premeditated. There was no obstinacy about it. In prospect of the trial He did not rashly or cunningly resolve that He would not in any way commit Himself by speaking. His silence was spontaneous, natural, and on that account all the more impressive and suggestive. In seeking to account for it, we would observe:—

I. That at those times when He became silent it was not necessary to speak.—After Pilate had heard all that the chief priests and elders had to say against Him, he felt constrained to acknowledge that they had not made good a solitary charge. He, as judge, declared that in his opinion there was no fault in Him, and with this view Herod coincided. Had they substantiated their charges, Jesus might have spoken. Since no tangible proof of political guilt was adduced, He stood before Pilate with sealed lips; and His silence was more condemnatory of His accusers than a score of speeches would have been. It frequently happens that silence is the best answer that can be given.

II. That it would have served no practical purpose for Christ to have spoken.—Suppose that Jesus had with the breath of His mouth blown away the accusations brought against Him by His enemies, as smoke is driven away by the wind, would Pilate have acquitted Him and not have delivered Him to the Jews? No. He had not the courage to set Jesus at liberty, and dare the Jews to lay a finger on Him. His silence did not make against Him, and He was certain that it would not. It may be asked, Was speech not needed for His vindication in the eyes of posterity? No. His silence notwithstanding, posterity has decided that Jesus was all that He professed to be; and this will become more and more its belief.

III. That Jesus came into the world expressly to die.—In the light of this fact, what is there in the silence of Christ to perplex us? Nothing whatever.

Lessons.—

1. There was not in Jesus a morbid love of life.

2. The innocence of Christ.

3. In Jesus there was any amount of self-control.—G. Cron.

Mat_27:19. The dream of Pilate’s wife.—We inquire reverentially:—

I. Why the dream in question was sent.—Among all the absurdities that have been uttered and believed about dreams, the following things seem quite clear, viz., that we cannot order our own dreams; that no other men can order them for us; that God sometimes does (or has, at the least); that no other beings ever have, that we know of, except Him; and, consequently, that however uninterpretable and unimportant such things in general are, those which have a special significance and bearing may be reasonably traced to God’s hands. In the case of this dream, moreover, the fact of its relation by the Evangelist is an additional argument on this side. And if so, then the dream, in reality, was:

1. A Divine preaching of Christ to the mind of the sleeper. It had the effect of concentrating her waking attention, not only on Christ in His innocence, but on Christ in His death—that same marvellous combination which seems to have converted the penitent thief. Had she, therefore, thought of these things as he did; had she followed up these first truths, as she ought; had she inquired, and so heard of the wonders accompanying His crucifixion, and of the truth and glory of His resurrection; who can exaggerate the result? Her dream placed the key of heaven in her hands; something as was done for Cornelius by his own vision and that of Peter, and something as was done for Saul by the vision of Ananias.

2. Another merciful object was to warn another sinner of the extreme peril of his position at that particular time. Pilate, of himself, could know next to nothing of the unparalleled position he stood in. But to warn him of the excessive peril of his position was the purport of the dream and message of his wife. May we not consider that dream, then, a final warning to him to beware? This would be quite in keeping with God’s dealings. Judas had received such a warning from Christ (Mat_26:24) and had conveyed one to the priests (Mat_27:5). So did Pilate himself afterwards to the Jews at large (Mat_27:24). And if so, how affecting an illustration of 1Ti_2:4; 2Pe_3:9, etc.!

II. Why the dream is related.—Partly, it is possible, as an illustration of God’s power, mysteriously controlling even those innermost thoughts which are so uncontrollable by ourselves. Partly, too, by way of illustration of God’s mercy, and as opening out, by the case of Pilate and Pilate’s wife, an almost boundless prospect of the opportunities, strivings, and warnings vouchsafed to our race. But neither of these would appear to be the chief purpose of the history. The prosecution had broken down. In such a case, however, “not proven” is not enough. God would have the innocence of His Son beyond doubt. Two independent, consistent witnesses (as required by the law) “established” this great point—the false disciple and the judge, the unscrupulous and unpopular judge who would lose nothing and gain much (as he judged) by condemning, and the suspicious, yet intimate companion who would certainly have detected evil if there had been any to detect. Thus far the testimony of man. But in a case such as this, virtually tried in the presence of the universe, greater testimony still is required. This we have, therefore, in prophecy, in the subsequent inspired declarations of Apostles, in voices from heaven during life, and now, at last, just previous to death, in this mysterious dream. Thus strikingly, thus almost dramatically, at the very crisis of the Saviour’s fate, is He declared without sin. The whole subject is a signal evidence of the importance attached to the Atonement. The perfect innocence of the Saviour is an essential feature in that doctrine. See how carefully, how profoundly, how anxiously, and so to speak, reconditely, the point is established.—Mathematicus in “Homilist.”

Mat_27:21. Rejecting Christ.—One evening, at a small literary gathering at which Carlyle was present, a lady, who was somewhat noted for her “muslin theology,” was bewailing the wickedness of the Jews in not receiving Christ, and ended her diatribe against them by expressing her regret that He had not appeared in our own time. “How delighted,” said she, “we should all have been to throw our doors open to Him, and listen to His Divine precepts! Don’t you think so, Mr. Carlyle?” Thus appealed to, Carlyle said, “No, madam, I don’t. I think that, had He come very fashionably dressed, with plenty of money, and preaching doctrines palatable to the higher orders, I might have had the honour of receiving from you a card of invitation, on the back of which would be written, ‘To meet our Saviour’; but if He had come uttering His sublime precepts, and denouncing the Pharisees, and associating with the publicans and lower orders, as He did, you would have treated Him much as the Jews did, and have cried out, ‘Take Him to Newgate, and hang Him!’ ”—Tools for Teachers.

Mat_27:22. Christ before Pilate—Pilate before Christ.

I. Let us try to account for the hesitation of Pilate to give up the Lord, and then for his final yielding to the clamour of the people.—Wherefore this unwonted squeamishness of conscience? It was the result of a combination of particulars, each of which had a special force of its own, and the aggregate of which so wrought on his mind that he was brought thereby to a stand. There was

1. The peculiar character of the prisoner.

2. The singular message of his wife.

3. The fatality that there seemed about the case. He had tried to roll it over on Herod, but that wily monarch sent the prisoner back upon his hands. The deeper he went into the case he discovered only the more reason for resisting the importunity of the Jews, and however he looked at it, his plain duty was to set the prisoner free. Why, then, again we ask, was his perplexity? The answer is suggested by the taunt of the Jews, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend.” He foresaw that if he resisted the will of the rulers, he would make them his enemies, and so provoke them to complain of him to the emperor, who would then institute an inquiry into his administration of his office; and that he was not prepared to face. His past misdeeds had put him virtually into the power of those who were now so eager for the condemnation of the Christ. His guilty conscience made him a coward at the very time when most of all he wanted to be brave.

II. The question of the text is pre-eminently the question of the present age.

III. What is true of the age is true also of every individual to whom the gospel is proclaimed.—W. M. Taylor, D.D.

Christ still on His trial.—Jesus Christ is on His trial again before the research and culture of the nineteenth century. The controversies which once raged round His miracles have now gathered about His Person. For acute thinkers saw it was useless to deny the supernatural, so long as Jesus Christ Himself, the great central miracle in history, passed unchallenged. And now, in this age, thoughtful man must, sooner or later, ask himself the question which Pilate put to the Jews: “What shall I do, then?” etc. And from the motley crowd of Jews and Gentiles, of friends or foes, grouped round that calm, majestic Figure, come the three chief answers that the human heart can give.

I. The answer of rejection.—The fickle crowd cried, “Let Him be crucified.” It was the cry of prejudice, of thoughtlessness, of conscious guilt. That cry finds an echo to-day. It is couched in less offensive language. It is clothed in the garb of poetry and philosophy, of the highest culture; the form is changed, the spirit is unaltered. It is still the answer of rejection.

II. From Pilate comes the answer of indifference.—He represented the Roman society of his age, which had lost faith in religion and morality, and yet was troubled by dreams; which was at once sceptical and superstitious; whose creed had been summed up by one of its own writers in a notable saying: “There is no certainty save that there is nothing certain, and there is nothing more wretched or more proud than man”—a nerveless, hopeless, sorrowful creed, the parent of apathy, cynicism, and unrest. Pilate is a picture of that vain and shallow indifference which is too weak to believe in the truth, and yet too fearful to deny it altogether.

III. The answer of faith.—There were some in that crowd insignificant in number, in wealth, in influence—often, alas! untrue to their own convictions—who could give a very different answer to Pilate’s question. One of them the previous night had acted as the spokesman of his brethren, when he said, “Lord, I will follow Thee to prison and to death.” They were brave words, the language of a faithful and loving heart—forgotten and broken at the first blush of trial, but nobly fulfilled in after years; and they are the answer of faith.—F. J. Chavasse, M.A.

Pilate’s questions.—

I. In this day Jesus is on His trial, and it has reached the phase marked by the text. The question to-day is, “But if we accept this deliverance of science or that dictum of criticism, what shall we do, then, with Jesus which is called Christ? How shall we judge Him?” All great questions pass through, say, four stages, viz., neglect, opposition, attention, decision. The question of the Christ has in these days come to the last stage when it must be decided.

II. Some of the present forms of the phase of the trial of Jesus.—Take two—agnostic secularism and evolution.

III. The gravity of the present phase of the trial of Jesus.—To Pilate’s question the answer came, “Let Him be crucified.” The gravity lies here: the trial of Jesus in this day has developed to this crisis; we must either accept Him as the Christ, or deliver Him to be crucified. No middle course possible.—A. Goodrich, D.D.

Mat_27:24. Pilate.—The power of conscience in Pilate was strong enough to protest, but it was not strong enough to resist.

I. We are compelled to look into the man himself for the explanation of his conduct.—

1. He had, by his injustice and selfishness in the administration of his province, put himself already at the mercy of the Jews.

2. He had no sure moral standard for the regulation of his conduct.

3. He held low views of responsibility. Was there ever such a display of silliness as this washing of his hands before the people?

II. Practical lessons.—

1. Be on your guard against fettering yourself for the future by the conduct of the present.

2. Remember there is a higher rule of life than mere selfish expediency.

3. Learn that sin is a voluntary thing.

4. Do not forget that it is not the washing of hands in water, but the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ alone, that can take away guilt.—W. M. Taylor, D.D.

Pilate disclaiming responsibility.—“See ye to it.” Pilate forgot that in things moral men cannot clear one another by a mere act of will. Still less can they, in their individual actions, be like the rowers in our British waters, who look one way and go another.—J. Morison, D.D.

Sinning in the light of the clearest evidence.—Pilate’s conduct plainly shows that it is possible to sin against the conviction of our own mind. Learn:—

I. That guilt may be contracted through others.—Guilt is none the less our own because somebody else is implicated. This should be borne in mind when positions are offered us respecting which we have conscientious misgivings.

II. That guilt knowingly contracted admits of no honourable excuse.

III. That guilt may be contracted by not preventing evil, as well as by committing it.

IV. That guilt, however contracted, cannot be removed by any mere form or ceremony.—“Pilate washed his hands,” etc. It was customary among the Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews, to wash their hands in token of their innocency from any imputed guilt. But no ceremony can of itself cleanse away our guilt. “The blood of Jesus Christ,” etc.—A. Hilittch.

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.

NINTH SECTION

JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS, BEFORE PILATES’S BAR; OR, CHRIST EXAMINED BY THE CIVIL AUTHORITY; INSULTINGLY PUT BESIDE BARABBAS; STILL MORE INSULTING REJECTED, AND, IN SPITE OF THE MOST DECISIVE PROOFS OF HIS INNONENCE, CONDEMNED, DELIVERED TO BE CRUCIFIED, MOCKED

Mat_27:11-31

(Mar_15:2-20; Luk_23:2-25; Joh_18:28 to Joh_19:16.)

11And Jesus stood [was placed]15 before the governor: and the governor asked [questioned]16 him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest [it].17 12And when he was accused of [by] the chief priests and [the] elders, he answered nothing. 13Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things 14[what things, πόσα]18 they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word [and he answered him not a word];19 insomuch [so] that the governor marvelled 15[wondered] greatly. Now at that [the] feast20 the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. 16And they had then a notable [notorious ἐπίσημον],21 prisoner, called Barabbas.22 17Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas,8 or Jesus which [who] is called Christ? 18For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

19When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things [much] this day in a dream because of him.

20But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask [for] Barabbas, and [should] destroy Jesus. 21The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain [Which of the two] will ye that I release unto you? They 22said, Barabbas. Pilate said unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which [who] is called Christ? They all say unto him,23 Let him be crucified. 23And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

24When Pilate saw that he could prevail [avail] nothing,24 but that rather a tumult was [is] made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person:25 see ye to it. 25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 26Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he [but Jesus he scourged and,τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας] delivered him to be crucified. 27Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall [Prætorium],26 and gathered unto him the whole band of 28, soldiers.27 And they stripped him,28 and put on him a scarlet robe. 29And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand:29 and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! 30And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. 31And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

General View.—Matthew describes the sufferings of Christ chiefly from the theocratic point of view. Hence, under the general head of a theocratic reference, we would group the silence of Jesus before Pilate, after He had declared that He was the Messiah; His being put upon an equality with Barabbas; the testimony of the wife of Pilate, and the testimony of Pilate himself (following that of Judas); the cry of the Jews: “His blood,” etc.; and the detailed narration of the mocking Christ in His kingly nature, on the part of the soldiers. The events, according to the Evangelists, occurred in the following order:—At first Pilate wished to hand Jesus over to the Jewish court, that is, to receive a simple ecclesiastical censure. Then he sent Jesus to Herod, to get rid of the difficulty. Thereupon occurred the presentation of Christ along with Barabbas, and, after the failure of that device, the significant hand-washing. Then, the presentation of Jesus to the people, after He had been scourged: Ecce homo. Finally, the scornful treatment of the Jews by Pilate, designed to veil his own disgrace.30

Mat_27:11. Art Thou the King of the Jews?—For the circumstances leading Pilate to put this question, see John 18 Mat_27:29 ff. From the same passage, Mat_27:34-37, we learn that Jesus, before replying in the affirmative, asked whether Pilate used the expression, King of the Jews, in a Roman or a Jewish sense. The chief point for Matthew was, that Jesus, even before Pilate, the civil ruler, declared Himself explicitly to be the Messiah. Theophylact has, without reason, interpreted σὺλέγεις as an evasive answer.

Mat_27:12. He answered nothing.—After He had, according to Joh_18:37, declared that He was the Messiah, and in what sense, He made no answer to the most diverse accusations and questions, and spake not till Pilate cast in His teeth the taunt, “Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and have power to release Thee?” Joh_19:10. The accusations were by His silence stamped as groundless, and this majesty of silence filled Pilate with wonder and amazement.

Mat_27:15. Now at the feast.—Annually, at the Passover. The Passover was the Jewish feast κατ̓ἐξοχήν, and the connection shows that to this festival reference is here made. The antiquity of this custom is unknown. The Talmud makes no allusion to it; but that is in all likelihood an intentional over sight. Grotius says, this custom was introduced by the Romans for the purpose of flattering the Jews. Braune: “The Roman and Greek custom of releasing prisoners upon the birthdays and festive seasons of the emperors, and upon days of public rejoicing, had been undoubtedly introduced among the Jews before the time of Pilate, to soften the Roman yoke.” Meyer: “We must not overlook a reference to the significance of the Passover.” Hence our thoughts are carried back to the free escape of the Israelitish, first-born. Looked at in this light, the release of the prisoners at the Passover reminds us of the Good Friday dramas of southern Roman Catholic countries. The custom, as a Jewish custom, was improper, and was opposed to the law, especially in such a case as the present, Exo_21:12. Barabbas had been arrested for sedition and murder, Luk_23:19.

Mat_27:16. They had then a notorious prisoner.—The wardens of the jails, in which were confined those who had committed offences against the Roman laws.

Called Barabbas.—Several cursive MSS., versions, scholiasts, and also Origen, read Jesus Barabbas. See note appended to the text. Barabbas,=בַּר אַבָּא, which appears frequently, according to Lightfoot, in the Talmud, means “the father’s son.” Ewald says: “He was the son of a rabbi.” Theophylact saw in it an allusion to Antichrist, “the son of the devil.” On the contrary, Olshausen makes it refer to the Son of God, and finds in it a play of divine providence, according to the proverb: Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus. De Wette terms this a very improper play of pious wit; and yet he must acknowledge it to be possible that Barabbas, being a mover of sedition (Luk_23:19), might have played the part of a false prophet, or a messiah. The objection, that he would not have committed a murder had he been representing himself as a messiah, is of no weight. Let us now conceive to ourselves the whole state of matters: a Jesus Barabbas, the son of the father, a pseudo-messiah, is presented to the Jews along with Jesus Christ. Surely in all this may easily be seen a striking sport of so-called “chance.” And why should the supposition that providence controlled the similarity and difference between the two names, be so senseless? It is conceivable, however, that the Christian tradition removed the name Jesus, out of reverence.

Mat_27:17. When they were gathered together.—Pilate had by this time discovered how matters stood. In his crooked policy, accordingly, he calculated upon certain success, when he should place the notorious or distinguished criminal side by side with Jesus, for the Jews to choose which of the two should be released. Besides, he appears to have waited cunningly till the people had reassembled in very large numbers before his palace on the Antonia, after having gone and returned with the train which conducted Jesus to Herod. Because, according to Luke, this train had gone off before the events here recorded occurred. Pilate knew by this time how envious the members of the Sanhedrin were of Jesus, and must from this conclude that he stood high in the favor of the people.

Mat_27:18. For envy.—The Evangelist mentions here, in a historical connection, envy as the cause of all the hostility manifested against Jesus, as if it were something well understood.

Mat_27:19. When he was set down on the judgment-seat.—The people had a moment for consideration, and Pilate regards the issue as one of such certainty, that he ascends the seat of judgment to receive the decision of the people, and to pronounce judgment accordingly. The judge was required to pronounce judgment from a lofty seat of authority, from his chair of office. This stood usually upon a stone pavement (Lithostroton, in Hebrew, Gabbatha, Joh_19:13).31

His wife sent to him.—This fact is found in Matthew only. As formerly, according to Matthew, the spirit of truth had in visions of the night borne witness for the new-born Jesus, and as the testimony of the heathen magi had in the day-season confirmed this witness, so on this occasion is the solemn, political testimony of Pilate on behalf of the suffering Jesus strengthened by a witness speaking out of the dream-life of his wife. Thus it is that each Evangelist selects out of the store of facts those which accord best with his views and purpose. From the time of Augustus, it became usual for the Roman governors to take their wives along with them into the provinces, though the custom was attacked down till the age of Tiberius: Tacit. Annal. iii. 33. Pilate’s wife, according to a tradition, given in Niceph. Hist. Eccles. 1:30, was called Claudia Procula or Procla, and was, according to the Gospel by Nicodemus, θεοσεβής, i.e., a proselyte of the gate, and perhaps one who revered Jesus. The Greek Church has canonized her.

Have nothing to do with that just man. She designates Jesus the Just, and hints that Pilate, by injuring Him, may subject himself to the divine punishment.—For I have suffered much.—An ordinary dream would not be spoken of in this way, as a dream of bitter agony. Nor would such a dream have led a Roman wife to send a dissuasive message to her husband when seated upon the judgment-seat. Some apparition, something supernatural, awful, must be here understood. Hence many have attributed this dream to a direct interposition of God, especially32 Origen, Chrysostom, Augustin; others—namely, Ignatius (Epist. ad Phil. cap. 4), Beda, Bernard, also the old Saxon Gospel-Harmony, Heliand—ascribe the dream in a naive way to the devil, who wished in this way to prevent the redeeming death of Jesus. Of course the dream may have arisen quite naturally, as de Wette and Meyer hold. The governor’s wife knew something of the mission of Jesus; and the night before, the Sanhedrin had in all probability alarmed the procurator’s household, coming to demand a guard. But this view does not militate against divine interposition, although the Evangelist makes no allusion to such intervention. The dream was a morning dream, hence σήμερον—according to the Roman time-division, from twelve at midnight Klopstock makes Socrates appear in the dream to the wife of Pilate (in the seventh Song of the Messias).

[It is a remarkable fact that a woman, and she a heathen, should be the only human being who had the courage to plead the cause of our Saviour during these dreadful hours when His own disciples forsook Him, and when the fanatical multitude cried out. Crucify Him, crucify Him! It is equally remark able that she should call Him δίκαιος ἐκείνος, that just man, and thus remind one of the most memorable unconscious prophecy of heathenism, viz., Plato’s description of the perfect δίκαιος , who, “without doing any wrong, may assume the appearance of the grossest injustice (μηδὲν γὰρ ἀδικῶν δόξαν ἐχέτω τῆς μεγίστης ἀδικίας);” yea, who “shall be scourged, tortured, fettered, deprived of his eyes, and, after having endured all possible sufferings, fastened to a post, must restore again the beginning and prototype of righteousness” (see Plato, Politia, vol. iv. p. 74 sqq.; ed. Ast, p. 360 sq., ed. Bip., and my History of the Apostolic Church, p. 433 sq.). Aristotle, too, says of the perfectly just man, “that he stands so far above the political order and constitution as it exists, that he must break it, wherever he appears.” The prophecies of Greek wisdom and the majesty of the Roman law here unite in a Roman lady, the wife of the imperial representative in Jerusalem, to testify to the innocence and mission of Christ. It is very likely that the wife of Pilate was one of those God-fearing heathen women, who, without embracing the Jewish religion, were longing and groping in the dark after the “unknown God.”—P. S.]

Mat_27:20. But the chief priests and the elders persuaded.—The members of the Sanhedrin availed themselves of the delay during which Pilate was occupied in receiving this message, to canvass the people and obtain their support. The two warnings which came, the one from the thoughtful presentiment of a pious spirit to Pilate, the other from the tortured conscience of Judas to the priests—proved fruitless; indeed, the first occasioned only a delay which the enemies of Jesus turned to their account. Nevertheless the testimony of his wife was not wholly lost on Pilate, for it reacted upon his own later solemn testimony.

Mat_27:21. But he answered, ἀποκριθεὶς δέ.—Meyer properly explains, He replies to these preparations on the part of the Sanhedrin, which he overhears from his chair, by asking the people again, and more definitely: Which of the two, etc., and so puts a stop to this canvassing of the priests.

Mat_27:22. Let Him be crucified, σταυρωθήτω.—They might have asked simply that he would confirm the condemnation for blasphemy, and sentence Jesus to the Jewish mode of execution by stoning; but they go further, and demand his active cooperation in the judgment. They wished Jesus to be executed as an insurrectionist, and hence to be crucified according to the Roman custom. They sought by this extreme penalty and this deepest disgrace to annihilate the memory of Jesus, and to stake the Roman might against faith in Him. Thus, in their senseless, self-destructive fanaticism, they consigned to the Roman cross their own Messianic idea; for the accusation, that Jesus was a mover of sedition, was only an inference which they deduced from the Messianic dignity claimed by Jesus.

Mat_27:23. What evil then hath He done? Tίγὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν;—then, γάρ, implies that they must be able to give positive reasons for His death. The Evangelist passes by, however, the further special points, and represents only the effect of the uproar, which threatened to become an insurrection.

Mat_27:24. Washed his hands.—A symbolical act of Jewish custom (consult Deu_21:6; Sota, 8, 6), by which one frees oneself solemnly from guilt. Pilate adopted a Jewish custom, to make himself from their own stand-point fully understood, and probably also to make a final attempt to dissuade them from the course they were pursuing. “The heathen practice of cleansing the hands to clear them from the guilt of murder after it had been committed, might, from its analogy, have led to the adoption of the Jewish custom.” Meyer. The matter, however, was important enough to call for a peculiar symbolic expression. [Pilate washed his hands, but not his heart, and in delivering up Christ, whom he pronounced innocent, he condemned himself. Sense of guilt made him a coward.]

Mat_27:25. His blood be on us—That is, the punishment for His death, if He be guiltless. That Matthew is the only one who records this act of self-cursing on the part of the people, cannot throw any doubt upon the truthfulness of the same, when we remember that he wrote for Jewish Christians, and brought, in this declaration, the saddest truth before his nation. The early Christians had reason to see in the speedily following downfall of the Jewish state a fulfilment of this imprecation. [The history of the Jews for these eighteen hundred years is a continued fulfilment of this daring and impious imprecation, this fearful legacy bequeathed by the murderers of Jesus to their posterity. Yet for repenting and believing Jews, this curse is turned into a blessing; the blood of Jesus which cleanseth from all sin, and speaketh better things than that of Abel, comes upon them as a cleansing and healing stream, and may yet come upon this whole race, after the fulness of the Gentiles has been saved, Rom_11:25-26.—P. S.]

Mat_27:26. But Jesus he (caused to be) scourged.33—The Roman scourging, of which mention is here made, was much more severe than the Jewish. According to the latter, only the upper part of the body was bared; according to the former, the entire body. The Jews numbered the lashes (2Co_11:24); the Romans laid them on without number or mercy. Besides, the Roman scourge was more excruciating. None but slaves were subjected to this flogging, Act_22:25. Little value was attached to a slave’s life, much less his feelings. It is a matter of controversy whether bones, iron teeth, or leaden balls, were inserted among the thongs of the lash (see Heubner, p. 435). “That such lashes are mentioned, is not to be doubted; one of such a description was called μάστιξ ἀστραγαλωτή, a knout with bones woven to the end of the thongs, from ἀστράγαλος, a joint of the back-bone, then dice, talus.” The Romans scourged in two different ways. Those who were condemned to be crucified were flogged after one fashion. This scourging was so cruel, that the criminals died frequently while undergoing the punishment. Another kind of scourging was inflicted upon delinquents who were not condemned to capital punishment, for the purpose either of extorting a confession from them, or to punish them for a crime. This was the kind of scourging to which Pilate subjected Jesus. It was no less cruel than the other, inasmuch as it lay entirely in the hands of the judge to declare how far the punishment was to be carried.—See Friedlieb, p. 114.—De Wette: “Matthew and Mark represent Jesus as suffering the scourging which the Romans inflicted upon those condemned to the cross. (Liv. 32:36; Joseph. Bell. Judges 5, 11, 1; Hieron. ad 27:34) According to Luke, Pilate merely proposes to punish, that is, to scourge, Jesus, and then release Him; but from his account (Mat_23:16) it would appear that there had been no actual infliction of scourging. From Joh_19:1, it seems that Pilate caused Jesus to be really scourged, hoping thus to satisfy the Jews, and to awaken their sympathy. Paulus holds John’s account to be the decisive one, and hence falsely explains our passage: after having already previously caused Him to be scourged.35 Strauss (2:525) considers that the Synoptists give the more correct and earlier account.” It is manifest that John’s narrative is the most exact. The scourging which Pilate inflicted was employed, it would seem, as a punishment of Him whom he considered innocent, in order to satisfy the accusers, and to move them to compassion. It was a police correction, and the right of inflicting it rested upon the right to employ torture. In this sense it was that Pilate had long ere this, according to Luke, proposed to scourge Jesus, hoping by this act to work upon the feelings of the people, and to influence them in their choice between Barabbas and Christ. Hence Luke considers it superfluous to record the later, actual chastisement. Matthew presents the scourging in its significance as an actual fact, which, in his eyes, was the transition from trial to crucifixion, the first act in the crucifixion agonies. He might all the more properly view the scourging in this light, inasmuch as Pilate sought to effect, in his hesitation, a twofold object. At one moment it seemed as though he would himself take the initiative in the crucifixion; again, as though he would craftily overmaster the Jews.—“It was usually lictors that scourged; but Pilate, being only sub-governor, had no command over lictors, and so handed Jesus over to the soldiers. Hence it is probable that Jesus was not beaten with rods, but scourged with twisted thongs of leather.” Friedlieb, p. 115. Those who were flogged were tied to a pillar; generally they were bound in a stooping posture to a low block, and so the skin of the naked back was stretched tight, and fully exposed to the fearful lashes. The whips were either rods or thongs, to the ends of which lead or bones were attached, to increase the tension of the lash, and render the blow the more fearful. The backs of the prisoners were completely flayed by this process. They frequently fainted, and sometimes died. The soldiers would not inflict the punishment mildly, for they were the cruel ones who mocked Him afterward. It was, moreover, the policy of Pilate that Jesus should be perfectly disfigured.

Mat_27:26. He delivered Him to be crucified.—The actual decision succeeded the presentation of Jesus, after His being scourged and crowned with thorns. The history which Matthew gives of these circumstances is quite systematic. The matter was now as good as settled. The form of the sentence was not prescribed, but must be short and valid. It was commonly: Ibis ad crucem. By the time these transactions were over, it was already, as John informs us, the sixth hour, toward mid-day.

[By delivering Jesus to the Sanhedrin, Pilate sacrificed his lofty and independent position as a secular judge and representative of the Roman law, to the religious fanaticism of the Jewish hierarchy. The state became a tool in the hands of an apostate and blood-thirsty church. How often has this fact been repeated in the history of religious persecution! By this act Pilate condemned himself, and gave additional force to his previous testimony of the innocence of Christ, showing that this was dictated neither by fear nor favor, but was the involuntary expression of his remaining sense of justice from the judgment-seat.—P. S.]

Mat_27:27. Into the prætorium or governor’s house.—Luther translates πραιτώριον by Richthaus (common hall). Its original meaning is the tent of the general in the Roman camp: then it came to signify the residence of the provincial ruler (prœtor, proprœtor), where the court of justice likewise was held. The prœtorium is consequently the residence of a military, or a civil and military magistrate; and hence it is connected with the main guard-house, and equally with the state-prison (Act_23:35). “Already existing palaces were employed as prœtoria in the provincial towns; and we see from Joseph. Bell. Judges 2, 14, 8, that the procurators of Judæa, when they were in Jerusalem, converted the palace of Herod into a prœtorium.” Winer. Is it certain, however, that the palace of Herod was always so used? According to tradition, the governor lived in the lower city, and, as some more definitely assert, in the fortress Antonia. Winer is of opinion, that Pilate would find the empty, waste-standing palace of Herod the most convenient residence. But where, in that case, would Herod Antipas, who had come up to the feast, dwell? There is nothing certain to be made out. The following fact, however, speaks in support of the fortress Antonia. The scourging had taken place in from of the prœtorium. Then Christ was handed over to the soldiers; and they, instead of leading Jesus away immediately, commenced to mock and make a sport of Him. To carry this mockery on undisturbed, they conducted Jesus into the court of the prœtorium. In this conduct, the soldiers followed the excitement of the capital in its hate against Jesus, continuing the godless sport, which Herod had begun when he invested the Lord in a white robe, the token of candidateship, and so make a mock of His claim to the throne. Pilate had, however, the double design, either to mollify the Jews by the sight of the derided Jesus, or to mock them through Him, should his cunning plan fail.

And gathered unto him the whole band.—This is conclusive for the place being the fortress Antonia: σπεῖρα, the tenth of a legion, from 400 to 600 men.36

Mat_27:28. And they stripped Him.—Meyer adopts the reading ἐνδν́σαντες, they clothed Him, and explains that His clothes had been torn off to scourge Him, and were now again put on. But the clothing is silently implied—mention being made here of a new maltreatment. Perhaps they may have first put on again the white dress in which Herod had caused Him to be clothed, to mark Him out as a candidate for royal honors, and then taken it off in order to invest Him with the scarlet robe, the sign of His having attained to kingly dignity. The drama would thus be complete. They, accordingly, again stripped off His outer garment, and, instead of it, put on a scarlet military cloak, sagum, which was intended to represent the imperial purple; “for even kings and emperors wore the sagum (only longer and finer).” Meyer. The mantle was a pallium dyed with cochineal The epithets, purple, purple robe, used by Mark and John, are explained by the fact, that they had before them the ironical import of the cloak.

Mat_27:29. A crown of thorns.—It is impossible to settle accurately what particular kind of thorns was employed to crown Jesus. Paulus assumes, without good reason, that the crown was made of blooming branches of the hedge-thorn (Michaelis, of bear’s wort). Meyer: “A wreath of young, supple thorn-twigs, with which they would caricature the bay crown, as they did the sceptre by the reed. Their object is not to occasion pain, but to mock.” Why thorns then? Consult Winer, art. Dorn, as to the plentiful supply of thorns in Palestine. Hug considers it was the buckthorn. Braune: Perhaps the crown was made from the supple twigs of the Syrian acacia, which had thorns as long as a finger.

And a reed in His right band.—John omits this point, from which we might suppose that the reed had not remained in His hand. Probably a so-called Cyprian (we say now Spanish) reed. Sepp, iii. 516. De Wette says, ἀπέθηκαν, does not agree with κάλαμον. His ἔθηκαν does not agree, however, with the idea of a hand, which did not need to close on receiving the reed.

And they bowed the knee.—“After they clothed Him, they began their feigned homage, bowing the knee, and greeting, according to the usual form: Hail, King of the Jews!”

[On the symbolical meaning of this mock-adoration, Wordsworth observes: “All these things, done in mockery, were so ordered by God as to have a divine meaning. He (Christ) is clothed in scarlet and purple, for He is a military (?) conqueror and King; He is crowned with thorns, for He has a diadem won by suffering, the diadem of the world; He has a reed in His hand, for He wields a royal sceptre, earned by the weakness of humanity (see Php_2:8-11). The cross is laid on His shoulder, for this is the sign of the Son of Man, the trophy of His victory, by which He takes away sin and conquers Satan; His titles are inscribed upon the cross: ‘King of the Jews,’ for He is the sovereign Lord of Abraham and all his seed. In all these circumstances, as St. Hilary says, He is worshipped while He is mocked. The purple is the dress of royal honor; His crown of victory is woven with thorns. As St. Ambrose says (in Luk_23:31): ‘illudentes, adorant.’ ”—P. S.]

Mat_27:30. And they spit upon Him.—Their cruelty, and the intoxication of wickedness, keep them from carrying out to the close the caricature exactly. The satanic mockery changes into brutal maltreatment.

Mat_27:31. And after they had mocked Him.—And after the presentation to the people, Joh_19:5, had taken place,—Pilate’s last attempt to deliver Him. After the final decision, they clothed Jesus in His own garments, to lead Him away.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Jesus, the longed-for Messiah of the Jews, abandoned by His people to the detested Gentiles. Christ, the desire of the old world, driven out by that old world, as if He were the old arch-enemy. Or, the condemnation of the world converted through His victorious patience into the world’s redemption.

2. Christ before the judgment-seat of Pontius Pilate.—When He stood before the judgment-seat of Caiaphas, He pronounced in spirit judgment upon the hierarchy of the old world; but in that He Himself bore this condemnation, He atoned for us. So here, standing before Pilate, He represents the judgment of God upon the old world, its civilization and arts; but, on the other had, He takes upon Himself this judgment, and makes an atonement for that world. Here, too, He stood the real judge Himself: here, too, did He suffer Himself to be judged.

3. The hierarchy, the people’s uproar (revolution), the secular government, and the soldiery of the old world, are all involved in the common guilt of the maltreatment and execution of Christ, though the degree of their guilt diners.

4. Christ’s threefold silence, before Caiaphas, before Herod, and before Pilate, not a silence of contrition because of well-grounded accusations, but an atoning silence of majesty, because of the worthlessness of those courts, which had sunk into the very depths of guilt. In this light, the contrast between the moments of silence and of reply is most significant.

5. On one side, the testimony of Pilate’s wife to the Lord stands most closely connected with Pilate’s own; but, on the other, is strongly opposed. The pious spirit; the political time-server. “It is by no means unusual to see noble, pious women go along side by side with vain, worldly men, like anxious guardian angels, and in moments most fraught with danger, step in their way, and dissuade them from sin.” (From the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. 3, p. 1517.)

6. Persuaded the people (Mat_27:20).—The members of the Sanhedrin stirred up undoubtedly the fanaticism of the people. They would say, Jesus had been condemned by the orthodox court. Barabbas was, on the contrary, a champion of freedom; that Pilate wished to overthrow their right of choice, their civil rights, their spiritual authority, to persecute the friend of the people, etc. And so Barabbas would be gradually made to appear to the people by the statements of these demons of seduction as a Messiah, and the Messiah a Barabbas.

7. Crucify Him.—The State was here dethroned, and made subservient to the Church. Later, again, it became the slave of the heathen, Roman hierarchy, which hated and persecuted Christianity, till the days of Constantine. Again, the hierarchy of the Middle Ages ruled the State in the persecution of heretics. (Even the Emperor Frederic II.37 pronounced sentence of outlawry upon all who were excommunicated from the Church, unless they speedily made their peace with her.) Finally, the reform-detesting hierarchy is seen again and again, in the histories of Roman Catholic states, overriding the civil power. Even at the present day, France, though revolutionized three times, will not suffer a person who has retired from the priesthood to marry. In Austria, a monk can obtain from the civil authorities no defence against a persecution by his superiors, as bitter as the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (at least, it was so till very recently).—The old wound will take long to heal.

8. The crowd of those who cried Hosanna, are driven into the background by the crowd crying: Crucify Him. Hence contradiction. And yet agreement. The same people. The weakest and most cowardly, who ever swim with the stream, allowed themselves to be borne along with both streams.

9. The self-imprecation of the Jewish people, a satanic prediction of the people of the prophets, which was the last evidence and extinction of their prophetic gift. The final prediction of Judaism was a cursing of themselves.

10. Pilate’s total want of character in contrast to the perfect character (Heb_1:3, χαρακτήρ ).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The apparent reconciliation of the Jews and the Gentiles: 1. In its deformity: (a) the priests seducers of the worldlings, the Jews seducers of the Gentiles, who hate them; (b) the Roman State made to be the executioner of the decrees of that Judaism which it despises and humbles; (c) both combined against the king of humanity. 2. The awful results of this reconciliation: (a) the rejection of Christ; (b) the new separation, which appears even before the crucifixion, and culminates in the Jewish war; (c) the downfall of Judaism; (d) the heavy guilt and deep uneasiness of the Gentile world. 3. The significant signs in this apparent reconciliation: (a) a caricature; but also, (b) a presage, though not pattern, of the true reconciliation, which Christ instituted by His death, between Jews and Gentiles, Eph_2:14.—The judge of the world before the bar of the old world.—The courageous confession and witness of Christ before Pilate (1Ti_6:13; Rev_1:5).—The calm consciousness of Christ in His last victorious moments (calm before Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate).—The threefold silence of Christ, a majestic testimony: 1. To the eternal discourse of His life; 2. to the emptiness of His enemies’ replies; 3. to His certainty of a different judgment from God.—What were the motives leading Christ one time to speak, again to keep silence, before the ?Judges 1. He speaks first to preserve His self-consciousness by confession; second, to save His enemies by a great, solemn warning. 2. He makes no reply to the futile, the ambiguous, the confused, which must overthrow itself, confute itself, and reveal its own falsity; above all, He is silent before the unworthy and mean, especially before Herod.—Christ, at the bar of the world, acquitted and yet condemned.—Christ was put to death, not so much in consequence of the condemnation of the civil authority, as in consequence of the hierarchical revolution.—And this revolution was the most disgraceful of all.—Yet was this first year of this disgrace of man made by God’s rule to be the first year of man’s salvation.—Christ and His surrounding company at His trial: 1. The accusers; 2. His partner in trial, Barabbas; 3. the witnesses (Pilate and his wife); 4. the judge.—Notwithstanding the greatest promise of His release, nothing in the world could save Him, because the world was to be saved through His death.—The three arch-enemies of Christ upon His trial, and His impotent friends: 1. Against Him: (a) the envy of the priests; (b) the ingratitude of the people; (c) the unbelief of Pilate. 2. For Him: (a) a witty comparison (with Barabbas); (b) a pious dream; (c) an ineffective ceremony (washing of the hands).—The full powers of bell, and God’s full power to decide and save, were at work in the death of Christ; and yet human freedom was in no respect affected.—The world’s judgment of rejection, as concerns Christ, and Christ’s judgment of salvation, as concerns the world.—Christ and His accusers, and Barabbas, and Pilate’s wife, and Pilate, and the people, and the men of war.—Pilate, the judge of Christ, fallen under judgment. 1. His picture: with full understanding of the circumstances, conscious, warned, anxious, and yet succumbing. 2. The lessons taught by the picture. So fell the ecclesiastical judges of Jesus before him; so will all fall after him who presume to judge the Lord.—Pilate knew that for envy, etc.—Envy, which stirred Cain up against pious Abel, reaches its maturity in Christ’s crucifixion.—The Wis_2:24 : “Through envy of the devil came death into the world.”—The Spirit’s voice in the night-visions a witness from the Lord: 1. At the birth of Christ; 2. at his death.—The significance of the courtesies of hierarchical pride: 1. A sign that it seeks associates to carry out its enmity against Christ. 2. A mask. It appears friendly to government, and says: Christ stirs up the people; friendly to the people, and says: The government encroaches on the freedom of election, upon your rights; friendly to the world, and says: It is possible to live with Barabbas, but not with Christ.—Barabbas; or the people’s misguided selection.—The Hosanna and the Crucify Him: 1. The contrast: (a) the contrast of the two days; (b) the contrast of opinions; (c) the contrast of the criers. 2. The bond of unity: (a) Palm Sunday must lead to Good Friday; (b) enthusiasm for the Lord must excite hell’s opposition; (c) not the same persons, but the same people; and we may suppose some individuals had taken part in both.—Fickleness in the opinions of a people.—Revolution as an instrument used by cunning tyrants, and the powers of darkness.—The instigators of the people in hypocritical attire.—Pilate, frightened by the threat of an insurrection, becomes the murderer of Christ: a lesson to the world for all time.—Pilate washing his hands: 1. A testimony to the Lord; 2. a testimony against himself, against Rome, and against the old world.—His blood be on us! or, the impenitent make the blood of atonement their own condemnation.—The marks of the Jew ever more and more manifest in the Israelite, as he is putting his Christ to death.—The old curse and the eternal atonement.—The policy which would protect the Lord by evil means, only prepares for Him torment and shame without redress.—What means should Jesus, the world’s Saviour, employ, according to the world’s wisdom, to preserve His life? 1. An evil custom (the release of a criminal at the Passover); 2. a false title (as one whom the people had begged off and released); 3. an improper joke and comparison (being put side by side with Barabbas); 4. a futile ceremony on the part of the judge (to wash the hands, and, where needed, to lift them).—Pilate, the impotent saviour and deliverer: 1. In spite of his perception of what is justice, of the legions, of power, of policy, of haughty authority; 2. and exactly because he employed all these to wrest justice.—Then released he Barabbas, but Jesus he caused to be scourged: an old, but ever fresh, picture of the world.—Jesus scourged: 1. Who? The glorious body, the pure soul, the divine spirit. 2. By whom? By barbarism (barbarous, nameless soldiers); by worldly culture and civil power; by the sin of the world and all sinners.—The torture and its midnight history in the world and the Church.—The scourge (knout) is no standard of justice.—The twofold signification of the Lord’s scourging: 1. It was to have saved Him; 2. it was the introduction of His death, not only in a literal, but also spiritual sense.—Jesus given over to the wautonness of (the soldiery.—The repeated mutilation of the image of Christ in war, and by soldiers.—The mocking of the Lord in His Messianic royal character.—The brightness of heaven with which Christ emerges from all this world’s scorn.—The irony of the Spirit and of Divine Providence at the miserable mockery of this world, Psalms 2.—The view of Christ clothed in shame; the cure for all the vanity and pride of the world.—Christ, the true King in the realm of suffering.—So perfected as the King of glory.—Therefore hath God exalted Him, etc. At His name every knee shall bow, Php_2:9-10.—The patience of Christ triumphantly sustained: 1. Imperturbable, yet disturbing all; 2. paling all the world’s glory in its own glory; 3. supremely edifying, and yet awing.

Starke:—When we stand before godless judges, we must nevertheless answer them and honor them, Rom_13:1.—He answered nothing. To atone for our loquacity, which led to the first sin.—The Patient One committed all to God, 1Pe_2:23.—Hedinger: Blind judges in matters of faith are not worth answering, Mat_7:6.—Christ, even in His silence, worthy of admiration, Isa_53:7.—Osiander: It is an ill-timed grace, when wicked persons are spared, in such a way that honest and quiet people are brought into danger.—Luther’s margin: They would sooner have asked the release of the devil, than they would have allowed God’s Son to have escaped. This is the case even now, and will ever be.—There are degrees in sinfulness as in holiness, Joh_19:11.—Canstein: Straightforwardness is best. When we seek to make the truth bend, it usually breaks.—Quesnel: More truth is at times found among civil magistrates, than among those persons from whom we had a right to expect more.—A pious heathen is often more compassionate toward a poor sufferer than depraved Christians and priests, Luk_10:32-33.—Christ was reckoned with the greatest transgressors, and we seek always to be reckoned among the best and most pious, Isa_53:12.—Pilate did not act like a wise diplomatist, who might have easily known how far envy will lead a man.—Canstein: The most implacable foe is envy, and especially among the members of the so-called “spiritual” profession, Ecc_4:4.—Quesnel: Many console themselves with the thought, that they appear to the world wholly de voted to the service of justice and truth; but if we watch them closely, we see they are slaves of injustice and envy.—Wives have nothing to do in official concerns, but they may and should warn their husbands.—God warns man before he falls.—Canstein: In a corrupted Church, the ministers are ever the most corrupted; and corruption issues forth from them, polluting others, Jer_23:15.—Quesnel Faithless teachers seduce the people from Christ, and teach them to prefer Barabbas.—Cramer: Is that not the Antichrist, which can willingly endure brothels and usurers, etc., but which would expel the gospel, and purge their land from it by fire and sword?—Hedinger: The world has ever robbed Christ; it likes Him not.—Murderers, fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, can be tolerated; Christian teaching and living never, Joh_15:19.—Canstein: Carnal wisdom may lead a man, when he despises conscience, departs from the right path, and betakes himself to by-paths, into such snares as he would have gladly shunned.—Ungrateful man wheels like a weathercock.—Conscience often struggles long, ere a man sins against his better knowledge; but the guilt is so much the greater.—The stubbornness of the wicked is more constant than an intention to act right (arising from worldly reasons).—Pilate’s testimony, the most glorious testimony to the innocence of Jesus: 1. Not from favor; 2. a judge’s testimony; 3. a testimony of Pilate against himself. His blood be on us. They act as if they had a good conscience: but it was mere false, assumed ease (impudence).—The Romans soon made them realize this curse: they still feel it. Yet it will one day cease.—Luther’s margin: Believers convert this curse into a blessing.—Zeisius: Accursed parents, who rashly precipitate their children with themselves into ruin!—The just for the unjust, 1Pe_3:18.—Gaze on, O sinner, ecce homo!—Zeisius and others against extravagance in dress.38—Christ has borne all manner of shame and contempt, that we may attain to the highest honor.

Gossner:39—Yes, they probably said, Barabbas is a villain, but he is no heretic. He destroyed only bodies, but Jesus of Nazareth destroys souls.—The devil may be sure of this, that the people will blind themselves by a fair show.—Whoso sitteth in an official chair must not regulate his conduct by the cries of the multitude.

Lisco:—Pilate, a natural man of the world: 1. Not insensible to divine influences; 2. but sunk down into the then existing scepticism of the world; 3. bound by worldly considerations of all sorts; 4. making his conscience a sacrifice to circumstances, which are his gods.

Gerlach:—Mocking, they made him king; but it was really by virtue of His humiliation that Jesus received His kingdom.

Heubner:—Christ retained His dignity even in the deepest humiliation, where His claims appeared as madness or fanaticism.—The custom of releasing one: injustice trying to support itself by injustice.—A Christian wife should be the guardian angel of her husband.—Dreams, too, often deserve attention.—How easily can the people he misled!40—The placing of Jesus side by side with Barabbas is one of the mysteries of His humiliation. So is it often in the world: there, truth and falsehood, innocence and guilt, honor and dishonesty, worth and worthlessness, righteous leaders and seducers, the Prince of Peace and the great rebel, the fountain of life and the murderer, are often set side by side. The future will resolve all this confusion.—Innocence is dumb, guilt cries out.—The consequences of the choice: The Barabbas spirit, the devilish, the intoxicating passion for licentious freedom, entered like an evil spirit into the people, inflamed their hatred still more and more against the Romans, swept them with resistless sway beyond all prudence, and precipitated them at last into the pit of destruction. This spirit has entered into their posterity, leading them still to reject Jesus, and give heed to many false messiahs.—Jesus is our consolation, whenever in this world of imperfection the worthy and unworthy are classed together, yea, the former subordinated to the latter.—Such a choice as that of Barabbas is by no means uncommon: 1. In respect of faith; unbelief instead of belief in Jesus, etc. 2. In regard to our lives and acts; rather an unbridled, unfettered life, than a stern, moral regulation and life. 3. As regards civil government; rather obey demagogues than the soft words of Jesus.—What shall I do, etc.? Many know not what to do with Jesus.—Was the adage true here: vox populi, vox Dei?—In one sense do the people demand the crucifixion: God had decreed it in another.—The name of Pilate is preserved among the Christians, but as a name of disgrace: here, and in the Apostles’ Creed, it is the name of a coward, who wished to release Jesus, and yet surrendered Him,—who knew Him in some degree, and yet feared to confess Him.—His blood. Already we see the fruit of their choice of Barabbas: blind presumption, blasphemy, mockery of God’s justice.—If the Jews were not so blinded, they must see clearly that their fathers had committed a greater sin than had been ever perpetrated, when they had been punished before with a captivity of 70 years, and are now enduring one of 1800.—God has preserved them as a witness to the truth of the gospel.—As Christ’s high-priestly (prophetic) dignity had been mocked before the ecclesiastical tribunal, so was His kingly before the civil.

Rambach:—Thou must, my Redeemer, atone for the shame of my nakedness, and regain for me the robe of innocence which I had lost.—Consolation for derided saints.—Christ fled from a worldly crown; He took the thorny crown, to indicate that His kingdom was not of this world.—It is no true love, which is not willing to endure thorns.—The thorns of love are: hostile opposition, ingratitude, derision, insult.—The crown of thorns which we have plaited for ourselves: lusts, earthly cares, pangs of conscience. Christ has made atonement for this.—The rod with which Christ will feed His sheep (the rod of gentleness, the rod of affliction).—The court of justice, the liberty-hall of innocence, converted into a place of injustice.—This robing of Christ was full of shame and disgrace.

Braune:—The third hour was the hour at which the Roman judge took his seat in the place of judgment: on this occasion Pilate is forced to begin three hours earlier, in consequence of the wrath of the priests, and their feigned piety.—Barabbas: that is a horrifying deception, fearful, surpassing all others.—Pilate’s wife: no woman was found among Jesus’ enemies. The maid who forced Peter on to his denial stands alone there, in her forward character.—Peter’s sermon on this text, Act_3:13-21.

Grammlich:—Daily is blessing or curse (Christ or Barabbas) set before thee, my soul!

F. W. Krummacher:—The crown of thorns calls for repentance, gratitude, submission.

[Burkitt:

Mat_27:11-14. The silence of Christ is to be imitated when our reputation is concerned; the confession of Christ, when the glory of God and the interests of truth are at stake.—He knew that for envy they had delivered Him (Mat_27:18). As covetousness sold Christ, so envy delivered Him. Envy is a killing and murdering passion. Envy slayeth the silly one, Job_5:2.

Mat_27:19. Several kinds of dreams, natural, moral, diabolical, and divine. That of the wife of Pilate was from God. When all Christ’s disciples were fled from Him, when none of His friends durst speak a word for Him, God raises up a woman, a stranger, a pagan, to give evidence of His innocency. At our Saviour’s trial, Pilate and his wife, though Gentiles, are the only ones who plead for Christ and pronounce Him righteous, whilst His own countrymen, the Jews, thirst after His innocent blood.—Hypocrites within the visible Church may be guilty of acts of wickedness which the conscience of pagans and infidels protests against.

Mat_27:25. What the Jews with a wicked mind put up as a direful imprecation, we may with a pious mind offer up to God as an humble petition: Lord, let Thy Son’s blood, not in the guilt and punishment, but in the efficacy and merit of it, be upon us and upon our posterity after us, for evermore.—Thomas Scott:—If Christ were now to appear on earth in disguise, He would meet with no better treatment.—There are still enough of hypocritical Pharisees and high-priests, ungodly Pilates, unstable multitudes, and hardened scoffers, to persecute, mock, and crucify the Lord of glory.—Barabbas is preferred to Jesus whenever the offer of salvation is rejected.—We are all chargeable with the guilt of crucifixion, as “He was wounded for our transgressions.”—All who delight in anathemas and imprecations will find that they rebound upon themselves.—All which has been admired in the suffering and death of heroes and philosophers is no more comparable to the conduct of Christ, than the glimmering taper is to the clear light of day.—We are called to do good, and to suffer evil, in this present world, after the pattern of Christ.—All our sufferings are light and trivial compared with His.—Ph. Doddridge:—How wisely was it ordained by divine Providence that Pilate should be obliged thus to acquit Christ, even while he condemned Him; and to pronounce Him a righteous person in the sane breath with which he doomed Him to the death of a malefactor! And how lamentably does the power of worldly interest over conscience appear, when, after all the convictions of his own mind, as well as the admonitions of his wife, he yet gave Him up to popular fury! O Pilate, how ingloriously hast thou fallen in the defence of the Son of God! and how Justly did God afterward leave thee to perish by the resentment of that people whom thou wast now so studious to oblige!—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[15]Mat_27:11.—Lachmann and Tischendorf read ἐστάθη [for ἔστη], according to B., C., L., [also Cod. Sinait, which generally agrees with Cod. Vaticanus. Meyer and Alford regard ἐστάθη as a correction to suit the sense better.—P. S.]

[16]Mat_27:11.—[Ἐπερώτησεν is “a part of the formal judicial inquisition;” hence, questioned.—P. S.]

[17]Mat_27:11.—[So Coverdale and Conant, who insert it. Others insert right or truly. Εύ λέλεις, like σὺ εἷ πας in Mat_26:25, is a form of affirmative answer, common in Rabbinic writers (solennis affirmantium apud Judœos formula, as Schöttgen says); the object of the verb being implied.—P. S.]

[18]Mat_27:13.—[So Dr. Lange: welche Dinge. Also Dr. Conant, who refers the word πόσα, quantus, how great, not so much to the number of the offences charged upon Him, as to their magnitude; and in this sense the reader naturally understands the word what in this connection.—P. S.]

[19]Mat_27:14.—[Coverdale renders πρὸς οὐ δὲ ἓν ῥῆμα: not one word; Conant: not even to one word; Lange: nicht auf irgend ein Wort; Meyer: auf nicht einmal ein einziges Wort, i.e., not even to one inquisitorial question.— P. S.]

[20]Ver 15.—[At the feast, at every passover. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[21]Mat_27:16.—[The word ἐπίσημος is here used in a bad sense, as in Joseph. Antiq. v. 7,1, and Euripides, Orest. 289; hence, notorious (Rhemish Version, Symonds, Norton), or famous (Wiclif, Campbell, Scrivener), or noted (Conant); in German: berüchtigt (de Wette, Lange, etc.). The term notable, which dates from Tyndale, and was retained by Cranmer, the Genevan, and the Authorized Version, is now generally employed in a good sense. The Latin Vulgate, however, translates: insignis, and Ewald: berühmt.—P. S.]

[22]Mat_27:16-17.—Fritzsche and Tischendorf read Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν, following some cursive Codd, the Syriac and other versions, and Origen. Meyer thinks the sacred name was left out through reverence. De Wette supports this reading. [In his large critical edition of 1859 Tischendorf omits Ἰησοῦμ, and defends the usual reading: see his critical note. So also Alford, who thinks that some ignorant scribe, unwilling to ascribe to Barabbas the epithet ἐπίσημος, wrote in the margin Ἰησοῦς. This is doubtful. The insertion cannot be satisfactorily explained, and I am disposed to agree with Meyer, that Ἰησοῦς is genuine. It makes the contrast still more striking.—P. S.]

[23]Mat_27:22.—The αὐτῷ of the Recepta, according to the best testimonies, is to be omitted.

[24]Mat_27:24.—[The older English Versions and Campbell take ὅτι οὐδ ἐνὠ φελεῖ personally. So also Alfora, the Latin Vulgate, the German Versions, Lange (dass er nichts ausrichte), and Meyer (dass er nichts nütze). But Beza, Ewald, Norton, and Conant translate it impersonally=οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖται, dass es nichts nütze, that it avails nothing.—P. S.]

[25]Mat_27:24.—The words τοῦδικαίου [before τούτου] are wanting in B., D. But Cod. A. reads: τούτου τοῦ δικαίου. Lachmann puts them in brackets, Tischendorf omits them [so also Alford]. The omission is more difficult to account for than the insertion. [Cod. Sinait. differs here from the Vatican Cod. and sustains the text. rec.: τοῦδικαίου τούτου.—P. S.]

[26]Mat_27:27.—[The scourging took place outside of the πραιτώριον, which is the official palace of the Roman Procurator, or the the governor’s house, as the margin of the Authorized Version explains. Comp. Mar_15:16 :ἕσω τῆς αὐλῆς.—P. S.]

[27]Mat_27:27.—[The interpolation: of soldiers, is a useless repetition. for ὅλης τήν σπεῖραν is meant the whole cohort (the tenth part of a legion) then on duty at the palace.—P. S.]

[28]Mat_27:28.—Several Codd., B., D., etc., read ἐν δύσαντες [having clothed Him, By ἐκ δύσαντες αὐτόν]. Lachmann adopts it, but regards this reading as an old writing error. [Lachmann’s object, it should be remembered, is not to establish the most correct, but the most ancient text attainable, as it stood in the fourth century. Tischendorf and Alford retain ἐκδύαντες. See the Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[29]Mat_27:29.—The best supported reading: ἐν τῇ δεξιῦͅ [for the lect. rec.: ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν, represents the conduct of Christ more passive, and is more suitable. [Cod. Sinait. reads ἐντῇ δεξιᾷ, and ἐπί τῆς κεφαλῆς for ἐπί τήν κεφαλήν.—P. S.]

[30][In German: “Schliesslich eine höhnische Behandlung der Juden, die seine (viz., Pilate’s) Schmach verhüllen sollte.” Dr. Lange refers evidently to the mockery of the Jews by Pilate related in Joh_19:14-15; Joh_19:20; Joh_19:22. The Edinb. edition entirely misunderstands this sentence in translating: “The conclusion of all being the ironical conduct of the Jews, as if they wished to throw a cloak over His indignities.” Here the word Behandlung was probably mistaken for Handlung, and the subject changed.—P. S.]

[31][The Edinb. translation reads: “This stood, unfortunately, upon a stone foundation.” It is as difficult to see the connection of the German üblicher Weise (usually) with unfortunately, as the connection of misfortune with a stone foundation, unless some one happens to fall on it. It is hardly conceivable that the translator should have derived so plain a word as üblich, customary, usual, from Uebel, evil, instead of üben, to practise.—P. S.]

[32][Not: namely, as the Edinb. translation reads, which uniformly confounds namentlich (especially) with nämlich (namely), although in this case the preceding many (viels in German, for which the Edinb. trsl. substitutes some) should have prevented the mistake.—P. S.]

[33][The verb φραγελλόω, which occurs twice in the N. T., here and Mar_15:15, and the noun φραγέλλιον, which occurs once, Joh_2:15, are Latin terms (flagello, flagellum), introduced into the later Greek for the more usual μαστίζω or μαστιλόω, and μάστιξ or ἱμάι (a whip, a scourge). Luke (Mat_23:16) uses in this connection the more general term παιδεύσας αὐτόν, having chastised Him, John (Mat_19:1), the more usual word ἐμαστίλωσεν, scourged Him.—P. S.]

[34][Jerome says on Mat_27:26 : “Sciendum est Romanis eum (Pilatum) legibus ministrasse, quibus sancitum est, ut qui crucifigitur, prius flagellis verberetur. Traditus est itaque Jesus militibus verberandus, et illud sacratissimum corpus pectusque Dei capaœ ftagella secuerunt,” etc. He then says this was done “that by His stripes we might be healed” (Isa_53:5).—P. S.]

[35][This sentence, as well as the whole quotation, and the following passage, is entirely mistranslated in the Edinb. edition: “and so he rejects the statement here contained as false.” De Wette (on Mat_27:26) as here quoted by Lange (and correctly quoted), ascribes to Paulus of Heidelberg no denial of the fact of scourging asserted by Matthew, but a false interpretation of φραγελλώσας as expressing an action which occurred at a previous stage according to Joh_19:1. He says: “Paulus halt den Bericht des Johannes für maassgebend und erklärt daher unsere Stella (i.e., Mat_27:26) falsch: nachdem er ihn vorher schon hatte geisseln lassen.” The words in italics are quoted from Paulus. Some commentators assume that Jesus was scourged twice: but this is improbable and unnecessary, as the chronological difficulty can be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner proposed by Dr. Lange in the text.—P. S.]

[36][The Edinb. translation magnifies the company to 4,606 men! The original has “4–600 Mann;” the dash being always employed in such cases for bis, to. The number of men constituting a Roman legion varied at different times and according to circumstances from 3,000 to 6,000 or more. Consequently a σπεῖρα (spira),or cohort, which was the tenth part of a legion, embraced from 300 to 600 men or more. In Joseph. Bell. Jdg_3:4; Jdg_3:2, of eighteen σπεῖραι five are said to contain each 1,000 men, and the others 600. But in Polybius ἡ σηεῖρα is only the third part of a cohort, a maniple, manipulns. Sec Classical Dictionaries.—P. S.]

[37][Not: “Charles the Fifth,” as the Edinb. translation reads; for he belongs no more to the middle ages, but to the modern age, being a contemporary of the Reformation. Dr. Lange means Frederic II. German emperor of the famous house of Hohenstanfen in Würtemberg, who conquered Jerusalem, but quarrelled with Pope Gregory ix., was twice excommunicated by him, and deposed by the council of Lyons, and was supposed to be an unbeliever, although he died reconciled to the Church, A. D. 1250.—P. S.]

[38][In the original: “wider die Kleiderpracht,” which the Edinb. edition turns into: “upon the clothing of Jesus.”—P. S.]

[39][Gossner was originally a Roman Catholic priest, and suffered much persecution for his evangelical opinions.— P. S.]

[40][In German: “Wie ist das volk so verführbar!” The Edinb. edition turns this again into the opposite meaning: “How misleading are the masses.” It probably confounded verführbar with verführerisch. But the connection plainly shows that the Jewish hierarchy are here meant as the Instigators and seducers who led the people astray. The masses never lead, but are generally under the control of a few, as the body is ruled by the head. Hence the vox populi is not always the vox Dei, but, when influenced by political demagogues or apostate priests, it is the vox Diaboli Witness the Crucify Him of the Jews, the popular outcry of the Athenians against Socrates, the mad fury of the French during the reign of terror, etc. Then the people are tamed into a lawless mob with which it would be vain to reason, although it can be intimidated by brute force. Yet even in such cases the voice of the people is overruled for good by an all-wise Providence. So the crucifixion of Jesus became the salvation of the world.—P. S.]

[41]Mat_27:32.—[This is the proper translation of the Greek verb ἀγγαρεύειν, which, like the noun ἄγγαρος a mounted, courier, is of Persian origin, and is a technical term for pressing horses or men into public service by authority Comp. Crit Note on Mat_5:41, p. 118. The escort was under the command of a Roman officer who had official authority for this act according to Roman law. The Authorized Version makes the act falsely appear as an arbitrary assumption of power.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 27:11-31.

Jesus Tried By Pilate

Found also in Mar 15:2-20 Luk 23:2-25 Joh 18:28 to Joh 19:16. Luke here gives a good deal, and John still more, of matter not found in Matt. and Mark; while Matt. has two remarkable points not found in the others, viz., Joh 19:19 and Joh 19:24 f. This section in Matthew divides into Joh 19:11-14, Joh 19:15-18, Joh 19:19, Joh 19:20-23, Joh 19:24; Joh 19:26-31.

I. Mat 27:11-14. Pilate Finds No Grounds Of Condemnation

And Jesus stood before the governor, viz., Pilate. (Mat 27:2)

The time was early morning. (Mat 27:1; Joh 18:28) The place was either in the Castle of Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple area, or at the grand palace of Herod the Great, on the western side of the city, near the present Jaffa gate; it does not seem possible at present to decide between the two localities. The Greek word translated "governor" is a general term signifying leader, ruler, governor in general, as in Mat 10:18, 1Pe 2:14, and frequently applied to a Roman procurator, as throughout this and the following chapters, and in Act 24:1 to Act 26:32; so sometimes in Josephus.

When Archelaus was banished in A. D. 6 (compare above, end of ch. 2), Judea and Samaria were made a Roman province, governed by a procurator, who resided at Cesarea as the political capital, and visited Jerusalem upon occasion, especially at the time of the great feasts. The sixth procurator, A. D. 26-36, was Pontius Pilatus, who, besides New Testament and Jos., is mentioned by Tacitus ("Ann.," 15, 44), "Christus, in the reign of Tiberius, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilatus." We know nothing of Pilate’s history before entering upon office. In the probably four years he had now been holding it, he had made himself very odious to the Jews, by disregarding their religious convictions and feelings. We find mention of four instances, all apparently belonging to this early period. (a) In removing his army from Cesarea to Jerusalem for winter quarters, he sent in by night some ensigns bearing busts of Cesar, while former governors had used other ensigns in entering Jerusalem, out of regard for Jewish feeling against graven images. Multitudes of the people went to Cesarea and continued for five days and nights their incessant entreaties for the removal of these images, which he refused because it would seem an insult to Cesar. On the sixth day he let in soldiers threatening the suppliants with slaughter; but they prostrated themselves and bared their throats before the drawn swords, saying that they would gladly die rather than allow transgression of the law; so he yielded, and ordered back the images (Josephus,"Ant.," 18, 3, 1; "War," 2 9, 2-4). (b) Philo, in urging upon Caius Caligula the example of Tiberius, tells that Pilate once offered up in the palace of Herod some golden shields, without figures, but inscribed, and after long obstinately refusing the entreaties of the people, received orders from Tiberius at Rome to remove them. See that curious work, written soon after A. D. 40, Philo’s "Embassy to Caius," sec. 38. (c) He used the sacred treasure called Corban, (Mar 7:11) to build an aqueduct near fifty miles long. On his return to Jerusalem the people gathered about his tribunal with loud clamours, and he sent among them soldiers, who beat them savagely with staves, killing many, while others were trodden to death in the flight; and so in that case he triumphed (Josephus "War," 2, 3, 9). (d) He slew certain Galileans while engaged in offering sacrifices at the temple, so that their blood mingled with the blood of their sacrifices—to Jewish feeling a horrible combination of cruelty and profanation. (Luk 13:1) We need not wonder that Josephus has no account of this, for Philo speaks of Pilate’s "successive murders without trial," declaring that he feared any appeal to Tiberius, lest the embassy should also accuse his "acceptance of bribes, plunderings, outrages, and wanton insults, continual and most grievous cruelty," and characterizing him as "unbending, selfwilled, harsh, and malignant." These facts and statements will prepare us to understand the relations of the accusers and the judge in the trial of Jesus before Pilate. It should be added that six years later the proconsul of Syria, who was the procurator’s superior, upon complaint of his cruelty towards certain Samaritans, ordered him to Rome, where he arrived after the death of Tiberius ("Ant." 18, 4, 1 f.). Eusebius says ("Hist." II, 7), that "in the time of Caius (A. D. 37-41) Pilate fell into so great misfortunes that he committed suicide." It is stated by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Euseb., that Pilate made an official report to Tiberius concerning his trial of Jesus; but this is now represented only by unquestionably spurious writings.

John relates how Pilate came out from the praetorium, because the rulers were unwilling to enter, and inquired "What accusation bring ye against this man?" They replied that he was an evil-doer. Upon Pilate’s bidding them take him and judge him themselves, they said "We (emphatic) are not permitted to put any one to death;" and, so Pilate knew that they designed a grave accusation. He must have repeatedly heard of Jesus during the last three years, of the great crowds that followed him, and the reported miracles, but also that he seemed to have no political aims. Luke (Rev. Ver.) tells that they said, "We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." They kept the purely religious question in reserve, (Joh 19:7) and put forward political accusations, such as alone properly concerned a Roman governor, (compare Act 18:12-17) and these of the most serious kind. Now, in Roman trials (Keim), great importance was attached to a confession by the accused. Accordingly, Pilate asked the question given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John, Art thou the king of the Jews? This in Matthew and Mark requires something said by the Jews as accounting for it, which John and Luke afford. ’Thou’ is emphatic, being separately expressed in the Greek. Thou sayest, viz., sayest what is true (compare on Mat 26:25). John shows that this question and answer were spoken in private within the praetorium, (Joh 18:33) and that Jesus explained, "My kingdom is not of this world." We have seen on Mat 25:34 how our Lord had of late been speaking of himself to the disciples as king, and on Mat 26:64 how before the Sanhedrin he avowed himself the Messiah, and thus a king. It is probably to this confession that he was the king of the Jews that Paul refers in 1Ti 6:13, Rev. Ver.: "Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession."

When he was accused, or, ’while he was being accused.’ By the chief priests and elders, first one speaking, and then another. This was probably both before and after Pilate’s private interview with him. To never, or, not even to one word, is the literal translation. Pilate’s remonstrance (Mat 27:13) appears to have been kindly meant. The utter silence of the accused seemed wonderful. (Mat 27:14). A Roman writer says, "Silence is a kind of confession." Did Jesus mean thus to confess the charge as true? There was something about him which disinclined the governor to think so. How many things. The Greek may mean either how many or how great, indeed may include both—what a mass of things. Can we see reasons for this remarkable silence, before the Roman as well as the Jewish tribunal? (Mat 26:63) (1) He has already been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy. His death is a foregone conclusion with them, and Pilate is fettered by his own past wrongdoing, and must yield to their wishes. It will do no good to speak; it would be casting pearls before swine. The only charge that needed explanation to Pilate he did explain to him in private. (2) The crisis of his ministry has arrived, his ’hour’ is now come. For two years he has prudently avoided exciting the hostility of his enemies, and the fanaticism of his friends. But there is no occasion for further delaying the inevitable collision. He has finished his work of teaching, his life of humiliation, and the hour is come that he should be glorified. (Joh 12:23, Joh 17:4) (3) His death is not only inevitable, but necessary, and he now voluntarily submits to it. (Joh 10:17 f.) One prayer to the Father might stop it, but he will not so pray. (Joh 12:27 Mat 26:53) The thought of this hour has long been a burden to his soul, (Luk 12:50) and last night its approach cost him a long and painful struggle in the garden; but now he is ready to endure the cross, despising the shame, for the joy that is set before him. (Heb 12:2)

Luke and John here relate that Pilate declared he found no fault in the accused. (Luk 23:4 Joh 18:38) So the trial before him was thus far a failure. But the Jewish rulers (Luk 23:5, R.V.) "were the more urgent, saying, lie stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place." Thus Pilate learned that the accused was a Galilean. He seized upon this fact as affording a prospect of an escape from this unpleasant trial, and at the same time of conciliating Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, with whom he had been at enmity. So he sent Jesus to Herod, who had come to Jerusalem for the feast. (Luk 23:7-12) This formed the second stage in the Roman trial. But while he succeeded in conciliating Herod, the governor failed to escape the responsibility of the investigation. Jesus was utterly silent before Herod also, and was sent back, nothing having been accomplished.

II. Mat 27:15-18. Pilate Attempts To Release Jesus

Mar 15:6-10 Luk 23:13-16 Joh 18:39 f.

Summoning the rulers and the people, the procurator declared (Luke) that he, and likewise Herod, had found no fault in this man concerning the matters of accusation. So he proposed a sort of compromise, "I will therefore chastise him, and release him." He hoped that this amount of punishment might satisfy the hostility of the accusers. At that feast, Rev. Ver., the feast, feast by feast, whenever a feast occurred; but the reference is probably to the passover, and not all the feasts. The governor was wont to release unto the people, multitude. This was more likely a Roman than a Jewish custom, but its origin is quite unknown. Despots have often found some release of prisoners to be popular with the many. A, one, prisoner. This is clearly a numeral, and not an indefinite article, compare on Mat 26:69. They had, viz., the governor and those associated with him in such matters. Barabbas. The insurrection against the Romans when a procurator was first appointed had left some popular robbers, who were regarded as patriots (compare on Mat 22:17). It is not unlikely that Barabbas was one of those. He was not only "a robber ", (Joh 18:40) but had excited an insurrection in the city, during which he and his followers had committed murder. (Mar 15:7 Luk 23:19) These facts account for Matthew’s calling him a notable prisoner, or ’a prisoner of mark.’ It is also probable that the two robbers crucified with Jesus were Barabbas’ followers, so that the Saviour literally ’took his place. Jesus was falsely accused of sedition, and a man really guilty of sedition was released. The name Barabbas occurs frequently in the Talmud, and signifies ’son of Abba,’ or ’son of a teacher,’ it being common to call a rabbi ’father.’ (Mat 23:9) Compare Barjonah, (Mat 16:17) Bartholomew. (Mat 10:2)

The name might mean simply ’son of his father,’ but not so probably. A few documents give in Mat 26:16 and Mat 26:17, or in Mat 26:17 alone, ’Jesus Barabbas.’ Every one feels this to be an interesting reading, but the evidence is too slight to warrant accepting it, as is done by Fritz., Meyer, Farrar, and others. Tregelles has shown how it might have arisen through a mistake in copying; see also Tisch. and W. H., App. Whom will ye that I release unto you? John also states, and Luke implies, that Pilate suggested the release of Jesus. Mark (Mar 15:8) at first seems to make it come from the people. But he only states that the thronging multitude at that point reminded Pilate of the custom, a very natural thing upon coming before the tribunal early on the first day of the feast, and Pilate took up the idea and asked whether they wished him to release Jesus. For envy they had delivered him. Mark carefully distinguishes—Pilate addressed "the multitude," and "perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up," R.V. Their jealousy arose from the fear that a person claiming to be the Messiah would interfere with their popularity and power. Pilate might well enough suppose that the multitude would have little sympathy with this feeling. Or Jesus, which is called Christ. We usually find ’the Christ,’ the Messiah, see on "Mat 2:4"; but here, as in Mat 1:1, Mat 1:16, and probably in Mat 16:20, it is simply ’Christ,’ a proper name.

III. Mat 27:19. Message From Pilate’s Wife

This is found in Matthew only. The judgment seat was a special chair, often carried about by a Roman official of rank, and placed as a seat of justice in front of his tent or house, upon an elevated ’pavement,’ tessellated or mosaic.

The Romans were ostentatious of publicity in trials, as opposed to secret investigations. Compare (Keim) the case of the procurator Florus, who in A. D. 66, after spending the night in Herod’s palace, "the next day placed in front of the palace a judgment seat, and sat down; and the chief priests and men of power and all that was most distinguished in the city stood beside the judgment seat." (Josephus, "War," 2, 14, 8.) This curious interruption from Pilate’s wife gave time for the rulers to move about among the crowds and persuade them to ask for Barabbas. (Mat 27:20.) It is suggested by Edersh. (compare above on Mat 26:47) that so large a force as a cohort, commanded by a chiliarch, could not have been furnished to the rulers for the apprehension of Jesus without authority from Pilate. This would account for the fact that Pilate’s wife knew what was going on, and felt distressed and anxious. Have thou nothing to do with that just man; the same Greek construction as in Mat 8:29 Joh 2:4. This day in the Jewish sense, beginning at sunset. There is nothing here to indicate a divine influence in connection with the dream, and it can be accounted for by natural causes. The message would naturally increase the governor’s reluctance to condemn the accused. A tradition, with but slight support, gives to Pilate’s wife the name of Procla, or Claudia Procula. In like manner, the two robbers, the centurion, etc., have received traditional names, which interest some minds, but are of no real value. In A. D. 21, it was proposed in the Roman Senate that no provincial magistrate should be accompanied by his wife, as had been growing common; but the motion failed. Tacitus ("Ann.," III., 33-35) gives a summary of arguments on both sides.

IV. Mat 27:20-23. The People Choose Barabbas Rather Than Jesus

Mar 15:11-14 Luk 23:18-23 Joh 18:40. The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude, while Pilate was occupied with the message from his wife, Notice that great throngs of people were gathered in front of the praetorium. The Jews have always been skilful politicians. The popular zeal about Jesus as the Messiah had evidently cooled, and probably because now for five days since the triumphal entry he had done nothing towards establishing himself as king. The wily demagogues could say that the highest court had tried Jesus, and found him an impostor and a blasphemer, who deserved to die, and they hoped Pilate would crucify him. If Barabbas was associated with patriotic traditions, as we have supposed (on Mat 27:16), it was easy to excite popular good-will towards him. Compare the modern Greek robbers under Turkish rule. Mark, Rev. Ver., says, "the chief priests stirred up the multitude," a strong term, indicating that they roused them to excited feeling, for Barabbas or against Jesus, or probably both. ’Persuaded that they should ask’, is a non-final construction, explained on Mat 5:29. —Alexander: "This deliberate preference of a bad man to a good one, of a justly condemned criminal to one whom even Pilate recognized as innocent, would have been enough to brand the conduct of the priests with infamy. But when to this we add that they preferred a murderer to the Lord of life, a rebel and a robber to a prophet, to their own Messiah, nay, to the incarnate Son of God himself, this perverseness seems almost incredible and altogether irreconcilable with rectitude of purpose and sincere conviction." Compare the striking statement by Peter in Act 8:13-15.—In consequence of this skilful persuasion from the rulers, the multitudes ’cried out’ (Luke and John), shouted the request. What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? He wishes them to observe (Alex.) that the effect of their choosing Barabbas is to leave Jesus in danger, hoping that this thought may lead them to change the request. They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. The hint to this effect had probably been given the crowd by the rulers. They could thus make his death ignominious, so as to break his hold on popular admiration; and could also have an excuse for saying in future, if complained of, that it was not their act but that of the Romans—as some Jews anxiously maintain now. They knew not that under an overruling Providence they were bringing about a form of death most suitable to atonement, as involving "shedding of blood," and causing wounds that would be marks of identification after resurrection, without the distressing mutilations caused by stoning. As to the term, ’crucified,’ see on "Mat 16:24", and see on "Mat 27:35". Why, what evil hath he done? Pilate had no liking for the rulers, and understood their jealousy of Jesus. (Mat 27:18.) And where his own interests or passions were not involved, he had some sentiment of Roman justice. So he remonstrates with the crowd. Luke tells us that he declared, "I find no cause of death in him," B. U. Ver., and a second time proposed, (Luk 23:16, Luk 23:22) as a sort of compromise that might satisfy the enemies of Jesus, "I will therefore chastise him and let him go." All this, as Chrys. says, was weak and unmanly conduct; see on "Mat 27:24". But they cried out the more, or exceedingly. An excited throng is often more boisterous in proportion as it has less reason. Compare Act 19:34.

Mat 26:24. Pilate tries to shift the responsibility, and the people assume it. This is recorded by Matt. only.—Saw that he could prevail nothing, that he did no good by his suggestions. Why was the man of power thus powerless? Why could he not say, Fiat justitia, ruat caelum? [Let justice be done, if the heavens fall]. He was evidently very anxious to avoid condemning the innocent, for he made in all six distinct efforts to escape the difficulty: (1) sending Jesus to Herod; (2) suggesting that he might be released according to the custom; (3) proposing to compromise by scourging and releasing, Luk 23:22 f.; (4) washing his hands and disclaiming responsibility; (5) proposing to turn the case over to the Jewish rulers, Joh 19:6; (6) appealing and remonstrating before he pronounced judgment, Joh 19:14 f. Pilate was not a man of heroic mould, but he was "self-willed and obstinate." Why could he not do what he so greatly desired? He was entangled by his own previous wrong-doing, see on "Mat 27:11". He had made rulers and people hate him thoroughly, so that they would be glad of an excuse for reporting him to Tiberius; and he knew that the suspicious and jealous emperor would be slow to pass over the charge that he let go one who claimed to be king. Pilate was weak now because he had formerly been wicked. Like many a politician, his record was in the way of his conscience. A tumult was made, or, was arising. The Romans desired two things in the provinces, tribute and peace. A successful governor was one who kept everything quiet, and popular tumult was greatly disliked, as being troublesome and expensive, if not dangerous. Washed his hands before the multitude. The law of Moses had directed this ceremony in a peculiar case of real innocence; (Deu 21:6-9) an image was drawn from it in Psa 26:6. Pilate might easily become acquainted with this Jewish custom, which was in itself a very natural symbol. Innocent of the blood of this just person, or righteous man. The shorter text of margin Rev. Ver. is quite probably correct, ’innocent of this blood’; there is no important difference, for Pilate elsewhere declares him to be righteous, Luk 23:14; Joh 19:4. But the governor was; not innocent. Plump.: "One of the popular poets of his own time and country might have taught him the nullity of such a formal ablation "—

’Too easy souls, who dream the crystal flood

Can wash away the fearful guilt of blood.’

—Ovid, ’Fast’: ii. 48.

And he himself felt that he was not innocent, for it was afterwards that he made the two new efforts in Joh 19:4-16 to overcome the opposition of the Jews. Then answered all the people. Not simply some; it was a general cry. His blood be on us and on our children. Jerome : "A fine inheritance the Jews leave to their children." Josephus tells that in the insurrection against Florus, about A. D. 65, "many of the Jews were apprehended and brought before Fiorus, who first scourged and then crucified them." And Titus, during the siege, A. D. 70, caused many captured fugitives, sometimes five hundred a day, to be "scourged and tortured in every form, and then crucified in front of the ramparts.... And so great was their number that there was no space for the crosses, nor were there crosses for the bodies." ("War," 2, 14, 9; 5, 11, 1.)

V. Mat 27:26. Jesus Delivered To Be Crucified

Mar 15:15 Luk 23:24 f.; Joh 19:1. Scourged. The terrible Roman scourging carried with it into the provinces the Latin word, which is here borrowed into the Greek of Matt. and Mark, and so into the Syriac (Pesh.) and Coptic (Memph.) Jerome here remarks that it was according to the Roman laws that one who is crucified shall first be scourged. Wet. quotes Greek, Roman, and Jewish writers as showing that it was common to scourge before crucifying; compare Jos. above. The sufferer was stripped and bound to a pillar or post, bending forward so as to expose his back completely; the heavy whip or strap often contained bits of bone or metal, and tore the quivering flesh into one bloody mass. The law of Moses had provided, (Deu 25:3) that a scourging should not exceed forty stripes, and Jewish custom made sure of this by stopping at "forty save one’"; (2Co 11:24) but the Roman scourgers were restricted by nothing but strength and inclination. We ought to feel a shuddering gratitude at our inability to conceive the consequences of this cruel infliction. Delivered, to some of his soldiers. (Mat 27:27.)

VI. Mat 27:27-31. Jesus Mocked By The Soldier, And Led Away To Be Crucified

Mar 15:16-20; Joh 19:2-16. The soldiers of the governor, the Roman soldiers in immediate attendance. These were seldom Italians, (Act 10:1) but drawn from all parts of the empire. They may in this case have been Syrians, or may have been Germans. Took Jesus into the common hall. In Rev. Ver., palace was used by English Revisers. This is not the word rendered ’palace’ in Com. Ver. of Mat 26:3, Mat 26:58, Mat 26:69, but another term, the Roman praetorium (borrowed in the Greek), denoting the proctor’s tent or abode, the general’s head-quarters. The American Revisers wisely preferred to render proetorium. The trial and the scourging had taken place in front of the praetorium, in a broad open space where the judgment seat was placed and the crowds assembled. The mocking that follows occurred within the praetorium, and afterwards the sufferer was again led out by Pilate, for another appeal to the people. (Joh 19:5, Joh 19:13) And gathered unto him the whole band, or ’cohort’ (margin, Rev. Ver.), compare on Mat 26:47. The expression (Meyer) is of course popular, not necessarily implying that every soldier of the cohort was present; but it was a large number. And they stripped him. There can be little doubt that this is the correct text; that of margin, Rev. Ver. (differing in the Greek by only one letter) would mean that having previously stripped him for the scourging, (Act 16:22) they now replaced his garments and then put round him the scarlet cloak. A scarlet robe. Mark and John, ’purple.’ The ancients did not so carefully discriminate colours as we do, and royal purple is believed to have included all tints from sky-blue to crimson. The term here rendered ’robe’ denotes a short red cloak worn by Roman military and civil officials. The soldiers would naturally take this as a mocking substitute for a king’s purple robe; indeed, a Roman emperor might wear it. A crown of thorns. So Mark and John. The crown would simply be a garland. The plant employed cannot certainly be determined, but was most probably the nubk of the Arabs, "a tree which is found in all the warmer parts of Palestine, and about Jerusalem.... The flexible boughs are tough, and well suited to form a garland, and the thorns are numerous and sharp" (Tristram, "Nat. Hist."). The thorns were of course unpleasant to the brow, but not excessively painful, and were probably used more in derision than in cruelty. A reed in his right hand, as a mock sceptre. Hail, King of the Jews! The Jews had mocked him as a pretended prophet; (Mat 26:68) here the Romans mock him as a pretended king. Spit upon him (Mark likewise), as the Jews had done in their mocking. (Mat 26:67) And took the reed and smote him on the head. So Mark. The tense of ’smote’ is imperfect, a continued smiting, and so in Mark as to the spitting also. Then restoring his own garments, they led him away to crucify him. So Mark, Luke, John. John interposes an account not given by the other Evangelists, of a renewed effort made by Pilate once and again, to excite popular compassion and change the result. But the wily Jewish rulers knew his weak point and their advantage, and said, (Joh 19:12) "If thou let this man go, thou art not Cesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cesar." We have seen (on Mat 27:24) why Pilate felt helpless in presence of this thought. And so his last efforts had failed.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 27:11 f. Henry: "Many oppose Christ’s holy religion, upon a mistake of the nature of it; they dress it up in false colours, and they fight against it." Griffith: "So always a true he-art will speak out boldly, indifferent to circumstances,—will not endeavour to clip and tear and file the form of its utterances, in order to avoid collision with misconception and prejudice."

Mat 27:14. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent.—Mat 27:19. Henry: "It is an instance of true love to our friends and relations to do what we can to keep them from sin."

Mat 27:21. Barabbas. (1) The son of a religious teacher sometimes becomes very wicked. (2) People often choose some evil person or thing in preference to Christ. (3) A man guilty and condemned may escape death because of Christ’s dying in his place.

Mat 27:22. Alas! for the fickle multitude who shout "Hosanna" today, and ere a week has passed cry out, "Crucify him." The vox populi is sometimes vox diaboli.

Mat 27:23. Henry: "The Lord Jesus suffered as an evil-doer, yet neither his judge nor his prosecutors could find that he had done any evil."

Mat 27:25. Chrys.: "Passion and wicked desire suffer not men to see anything of what is right. For be it that ye curse yourselves; why do you draw down the curse upon your children also?" Calvin: "There is no doubt that the Jews felt secure in devoting themselves, supposing their cause to be just in the sight of God; but inconsiderate zeal drives them headlong to cut off from themselves all hope of pardon for their wickedness. Hence we learn how anxiously in all judgments we should avoid headlong rashness."

Mat 27:26. Lessons from the case of Pilate. (1) Scepticism and superstition often go together—"What is truth?" and the dream. (2) Scepticism will sometimes turn away from the richest sources of instruction and the amplest evidence. (3) A man feebly anxious to do right may be sorely embarrassed by previous wrong doing. (4) A man cannot make a decision and evade the responsibility of it. (5) Others may voluntarily share a man’s guilt, and not lighten it.—the greatest of all instances of God’s bringing good out of evil is the fact that because of Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate. and Barabbas, the Divine Redeemer was lifted up that he might draw all men unto himself.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

27:11-26 The Roman trial included an initial hearing before Pilate (27:11-14), one before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6-16), and a second hearing before Pilate (Matt 27:15-26).

27:11 king of the Jews: The Sanhedrin’s original charge of blasphemy (26:65-66; 27:1) held no interest to the Romans, who saw it as a Jewish religious question (cp. Acts 25:18-20). The charge was therefore changed to incriminate Jesus in Roman eyes as a political rebel (see Luke 23:2).

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

Mat 27:11. Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, the King of the Jews) Jesus before Caiaphas confesses Himself to be Christ, before Pilate, King.—σὺ λέγεις, thou sayest) An open and holy confession.[1180] Jesus shows that His subsequent silence would not be from want of freedom of speech, and immediately answers Pilate, after having previously informed the Jews when adjured by Caiaphas. St Mark and St Luke also record the expression, “Thou sayest;” and this is clearly the sum of all that St John records to have been said by our Lord to Pilate in ch. Joh 18:34; Joh 18:36-37.[1181]

[1180] Cf. 1Ti 4:13.—E. B.

[1181] Mat 27:12. οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο, answered nothing) As the accusers brought forward nothing new, the silence of Jesus was a subsequent confirmation of those things which He had already said.—Harm., p. 547.

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

Mat_27:11 f. Continuation, after the episode in Mat_27:3-10, of the narrative introduced at Mat_27:2. The accusation preferred by the Jews, though not expressly mentioned, may readily be inferred from the procurators question. See Luk_23:2. In appearing before Pilate, they craftily give prominence to the political aspect of the Messianic pretensions of Jesus.

σὺ λέγεις] There is nothing ambiguous in such a reply (which was not so framed that it might be taken either as an affirmative or as equivalent to ἐγὼ μὲν τοῦτο οὐ λέγω, σὺ δὲ λέγεις, Theophylact), but such a decided affirmative as the terms of the question: Art thou, etc., were calculated to elicit, Joh_18:37. Comp. Mat_26:64.

οὐδὲν ἀπεκρ.] Comp. on Mat_26:62. The calm and dignified silence of the true king.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 27:11-26 . Jesus before Pilate (Mar 15:2-15 , Luk 23:2-7 ; Luk 23:13-25 ).

Mat 27:11 . ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς : δὲ resumes an interrupted story (Mat 27:2 ). σὺ εἶ , etc.: Art Thou the King of the Jews? The question reveals the form in which the Sanhedrists presented their accusation. They had translated “Christ” into “King of the Jews” for Pilate’s benefit, so astutely giving a political aspect to what under the other name was only a question of religion, or, as a Roman would view it, superstition. A most unprincipled proceeding, for the confession of Jesus that He was the Christ no more inferred a political animus than their own Messianic expectations. σὺ λέγεις = yes. One is hardly prepared for such a reply to an equivocal question, and there is a temptation to seek escape by taking the words interrogatively = dost thou say so? or evasively, with Theophy. = you say, I make no statement. Explanations such as are given in Joh 18:33-37 were certainly necessary.

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

11–26. THE TRIAL BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE

St Mar 15:2-15; St Luk 23:2-5; Luk 23:13-24; St Joh 18:29 to Joh 19:16

St Luke states the threefold charge most clearly: ‘We found this [fellow] (1) perverting the nation; (2) and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar; (3) saying that he himself is Christ a King.’

Pilate, true to the Roman sense of justice, refused merely to confirm the sentence of the Sanhedrin. ‘He asked, what accusation bring ye against this man?’ (Joh 18:29), being determined to try the case. This accusation amounted to a charge of treason—the greatest crime known to Roman law. Of the three points of accusation, (2) was utterly false; (1) and (3) though in a sense true, were not true in the sense intended. The answer or defence of Jesus is that He is a King, but that His ‘kingdom is not of this world,’ therefore (it is inferred) the ‘perversion of the people’ was not a rebellion that threatened the Roman government; see note Mat 27:11. The defence was complete, as Pilate admits: ‘I find no fault in him.’

11. Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς κ.τ.λ.; The answer of Jesus to this question, and His explanation to Pilate of the Kingdom of God are given at length, Joh 18:33-37; observe especially that the servants of the kingdom would fight, if they fought at all, not against Rome but against Israel who had rejected the Messiah: ‘If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews.’

Σὺ λέγεις. See note, ch. Mat 26:25.

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.

Christ holdeth his peace when he is accused, that we may not be accused: acknowledging our guiltiness, and therewithall his own innocence.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 11. Before the governor] My old MS. English Bible translates ηγημων Meyr cheef justyse, Presedent.

Art thou the Xing of the Jews?] The Jews had undoubtedly delivered him to Pilate as one who was rising up against the imperial authority, and assuming the regal office. See on Mt 27:2.

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

(11) And Jesus stood before the governor.—We may infer from the greater fulness with which St. John relates what passed between our Lord and Pilate, that here, too, his acquaintance with the high priest gave him access to knowledge which others did not possess. We learn from him (1) that in his first conversation with the accusers, Pilate endeavoured to throw the onus of judging upon them, and was met by the ostentatious disavowal of any power to execute judgment (Joh_18:28-32); (2) that the single question which St. Matthew records was followed by a conversation in which our Lord declared that, though He was a King, it was not after the manner of the kingdoms of the world (Joh_18:33-38). The impression thus made on the mind of the Governor explains the desire which he felt to effect, in some way or other, the release of the accused.

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

And Jesus stood before the governor,.... Pilate who sat; for so was the custom for the judge to sit, and those that were judged, to stand, especially whilst witness was bore against them (f).

"Says R. Bo, in the name of Rab Hona, the witnesses ought to stand whilst they bear witness. Says R. Jeremiah, in the name of R. Abhu, also , "those that are judged ought to stand", whilst they receive their witness.''

And again (g),

"how do they judge? the judges sit, , and "they that are judged stand".''

Think what a sight was here, the eternal Son of God in human nature, the Lord of life and glory, the Prince of the kings of the earth, standing before an Heathen governor! he before whom Pilate must stand, and even all men, small and great, another day; all must appear, and stand before the judgment seat of Christ; he himself stands at the bar of men! the reason of this was, because he stood in the legal place, and stead of his people: he became their substitute from everlasting, was made under the law in time, and was subject to its precept, and its penalty: and though he had no crimes of his own to answer for, he had the sins of his people on him; on account of which he stood before the governor, to receive the sentence of condemnation on himself; that so sin being condemned in his flesh, the whole righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in them: he stood here, that they might stand before God, and at the throne of his grace with boldness and intrepidity; a new, and living way to it being opened for them, through his blood and sacrifice; and that they might stand before him, the judge of all the earth, with confidence, and not be ashamed at his coming.

And the governor asked him, saying, art thou the king of the Jews? for the Jews had suggested to Pilate, that Jesus had given out that he was Christ a king; and he being Caesar's procurator, it became him strictly to inquire into this matter, lest there should be any encroachment made on his master's dignity, authority, and dominions, and he himself should suffer blame; wherefore, he does not ask Jesus, whether he said he was the king of the Jews, or others said so of him, but whether he was their king: he knew he was not in fact; but his question was, whether he was so in right; or if he thought he was, what claim he made, and what he did to support it:

and Jesus said unto him; thou sayest; which is all one as if he had said, "I am"; see Mat 26:25, compared with Mar 14:62, and that this was the sense of his answer is clear from Joh 18:36, though, at the same time, he let him know that his kingdom was not of this world; that he was not a temporal king, nor did he lay any claim to any earthly dominions; and therefore neither he, nor his master Caesar, had anything to fear from him: he was only a king in a spiritual sense, over the Israel of God; such as received him, as the Messiah, and believed in his name.

(f) T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 43. 2, 3. (g) Ib. Sanhedrin, fol. 21. 2.

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

11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Ver. 11. And Jesus stood before the governor] The best therefore and most innocent may be brought before magistrates, and accused of high treason, which ever was, as Lipsius observeth out of Tacitus, Unicum crimen eorum qui crimine vacabant. Elijah was held the king’s enemy. Jeremiah laid by the heels for a traitor to the State. Paul styled a pest. Luther a trumpet of rebellion. Beza a seedsman of sedition, &c. Christ’s accusers here shamelessly appeal him of matters that were evidently untrue. This Pilate saw, and therefore sought so many ways to deliver him.

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.

And Jesus stood before the governor - Many things are omitted by Matthew, in the account of this trial, which are recorded by the other evangelists. A much more full account is found in Joh 18:28-40.

And the governor asked him ... - This question was asked On account of the “charge” which the Jews brought against Jesus, “of perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,” Luk 23:2. It was on this charge that, after consultation, they had agreed to arraign him before Pilate. See the notes at Mat 27:1. “They” had condemned him for “blasphemy,” but they well knew that Pilate would altogether disregard an accusation of that kind. They therefore attempted to substitute a totally different accusation from that on which they had professed to find him guilty, to excite the jealousy of the Roman governor, and to procure his death on a charge of treason against the Roman emperor.

Thou sayest - That is, thou sayest right, or thou sayest the truth. We may wonder why the Jews, if they heard this confession, did not press it upon the attention of Pilate as a full confession of his guilt. It was what they had accused him of. But it might be doubtful whether, in the confusion, they heard the confession; or, if they did, Jesus took away all occasion of triumph by explaining to Pilate the “nature” of his kingdom, Joh 18:36. Though he acknowledged that he was a king, yet he stated fully that “his kingdom was not of this world,” and that therefore it could not be alleged against him as treason against the Roman emperor. This was done “in the palace,” apart from the Jews, and fully satisfied Pilate of his innocence, Joh 18:23.

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

Jesus stood before the governor. By comparing the four evangelists together Pilate condescended to come out to the priests, and asked them, what accusations they brought against this man? They replied first in general terms: (John xviii. 30.) If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee. Take him you, said Pilate, and judge him according to your law. They answered: It is not permitted us to put any one to death. After this they accused him of raising tumults, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar; (Luke xxiii. 2; a manifest falsehood; see Matthew xxii,) and that he said, he is Christ, the king. Upon this Pilate called him into the palace before him, and said: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus owned he was: but first asked Pilate, if he said this of himself, or by the suggestion of others; which was to insinuate, that this information of his being a king came from his malicious adversaries; and that Pilate, having been so long governor, could not but know that he had never set himself up for king, or pretended to any kingly power. However, Pilate replied somewhat peevishly: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done? Jesus then told Pilate, that his kingdom was not of this world. This abundantly satisfied Pilate: who needed not trouble his head about any spiritual kingdom, or such as was not of this world. Jesus speaking of truth, Pilate asked him after a slight manner, what is truth? but perhaps, without waiting for any answer, went presently out, and told the Jews, that he found no cause nor crime in Jesus. (Witham) --- The Judge of every living creature was arraigned by permission of his heavenly Father, before the petty judge of Judea, and suffers himself to be interrogated by him, though every question proposed was either put out of ridicule, or some equally base motive. (Origen) --- Our divine Saviour confessed himself to be a king; but that he might give no umbrage either to Jew or Gentile, he at the same time declared, that his kingdom was not of this world. (St. John Chrysostom)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Mark hath the same, Mar 15:2; so hath Luke, Luk 23:3. John relates it more distinctly, Joh 18:29-32; Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. 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 man to death: that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

The other evangelists seem to have given us the story of this our Saviour’s first appearance before Pilate summarily. John seems to have given us it more orderly and particularly. It is the course of all judicatures to require the accusers to speak first. Pilate therefore asketh what accusation they had brought against him. Their answer was very malapert, If he had not been a malefactor, &c. What was this to the purpose? Suppose him never so great a malefactor, must it not appear he is so before a judge condemns him? These accusers (as it seemeth) were of the same mind that the papists are, that the civil magistrate is to be executioner to the church; and when the ecclesiastical power hath condemned a man for heresy or blasphemy, the civil magistrate hath nothing to do, but without his own hearing the cause to put the person to death. But they met with a more equal judge, though he were a heathen. Say ye so, saith he, Take him, then, and judge him according to your law. This he either speaks as deriding them, and scorning what they would have put him upon; or else not thinking he had deserved any thing worthy of death, knowing they might without him scourge him, or inflict some lighter punishments. They reply, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. It is very questionable in what sense they spake this. Those that affirm that the power of judging and determining in capital causes was before this time taken from the Jews, must affirm that Stephen was put to death in a popular tumult, for he was after this stoned to death by the Jews, Act 7:59; which is not probable, considering what we read of him, Act 6:13,15, called before the council, and witnesses used against him, and have no record of any notice the civil magistrate took of the fact as a disorder. I therefore rather think their meaning was, This is with us a feast day, on which it is not lawful for us to put any to death without thy consent. Or, it is not lawful for us to put any to death for any civil cause, for saying he is our king; for it is manifest by the question which Pilate first put to him upon his second coming into the hall, mentioned Joh 18:33, in which all the other three evangelists agree, that they had charged him with saying, that he was the King of the Jews; to which all that he replied, which is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is, Thou sayest it. I am not bound to accuse myself; who witnesses this against me? But John saith that our Saviour said, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Our Saviour, by this answer to Pilate’s question, seems to vindicate his right not to be condemned without witness, which, if others had told Pilate this, they were bound to have produced. Pilate tells him, he had it not of himself, he was no Jew, but they were those of his own nation who had delivered him to him; and therefore asketh him what he had done. Then our Saviour openeth himself, not denying that he was the King of the Jews, but telling him he was no king of this world; his kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, and he might know what King he was by his retinue, and those who took his part; for if he had laid claim to any secular kingdom, he should have had some appearing to take his part, and to fight for him to deliver him from his enemies, but he saw he had none. Pilate laying hold of his words, replies, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? Our Saviour still useth prudence, and keeps himself upon a close guard. It had been dangerous for him directly to have owned himself a king. He therefore only tells Pilate, that he said he was a king, and that he came into the world to bear testimony to the truth; and further adds, that every one who was of the truth did hear his voice. This poses Pilate, who had no notion of that truth which Christ spake of; he goes out as it were deriding him, saying, What is truth? Presently he goeth out to the Jews, Mat 27:38, and tells them he found in him no fault at all, and offers to release him; but this we shall meet with in our evangelist by and by: the passages hereto mentioned are only related by John; excepting only the question,

Art thou the King of the Jews? and our Saviour’s answer,

Thou sayest it, which is reported by all.

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

Vers. 11-14. Jesus examined by Pilate. (Mar_15:2-5 Luk_23:2-5 Joh_18:29-38)

Jesus stood before the governor. St. Matthew omits here many details which the other evangelists, and especially St. John, supply. Pilate from the first had shown much reluctance to proceed, not being satisfied with the vague accusation that Jesus was a malefactor, and proposing that the Sanhedrists should try him according to Jewish Law, as if the question was merely a religious one. This treatment forced the priests to formulate a charge of which the roman authorities must take cognizance. They therefore stated unblushingly that Jesus had said that he was himself Christ a King. (Luk_23:2) At this point St. Matthew"s account steps in. Art thou (su ei) the King of the Jews? This examination took place within the Praetorium, where Christ was detained in the custody of some guards. The accusation of the Jews had been made outside, as they had scruples about entering the building. Jesus had never actually (so far as recorded) called himself King, though the appellation had been applied to him by Nathanael, (Joh_1:49) and the hosannahs of the multitudes had virtually so greeted him. His accusers had added the charge that he perverted the nation, and forbade to give tribute to Caesar. There is scorn and surprise, mingled with some awe, in Pilate"s interrogation, "Thou such a one as thou art the King of the Jews?" Thou sayest. What thou sayest is true. A strong affirmation. Christ accepts in its fullest sense that which the governor puts as a question. (comp. Mat_26:25, Mat_26:64) St. Paul alludes to this scene in 1Ti_6:13, "Christ Jesus, who before Pilate witnessed the good confession.

Vers. 11-25. Christ before Pilate.

I THE ACCUSATION.

1. Pilates question. Pilate was proud and cruel; he despised and hated the Jews. But he had something of the old Roman love of justice he would not condemn the Lord unheard, as the Jews at first desired. (Joh_18:30, Joh_18:31) He rejected their request contemptuously, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your Law." They kept back at first the charge of blasphemy, which they knew Pilate would dismiss at once, as Gallio afterwards dismissed a similar accusation. They invented fresh charges in their cruel injustice charges which would, they thought, force Pilate to act as they wished. "We found this fellow," they said, "perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King." The first two charges were utterly and manifestly false; the third had some show of truth. Pilate put the question to the accused, "Art thou the King of the Jews?

2. The Lord"s answer. "Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest." It is an emphatic affirmation; he was the King of the Jews; he is the King of the Israel of God. At his nativity the Wise Men came from the East, asking, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" At the beginning of his ministry he permitted Nathanael to address him as the King of Israel; at his solemn entry into Jerusalem he would not listen to the Pharisees when they bade him rebuke those who were welcoming him as "the King that cometh in the Name of the Lord." He would not conceal the great and solemn truth; but neither would he leave Pilate in ignorance of the true nature of his claims. "My kingdom is not of this world," he said. (Joh_18:36) Pilate understood the hollowness of the charge of sedition; he was not deceived by the clamour of the Jews, "If thou let this Man go, thou art not Caesar"s friend; whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." He understood enough of the Lord"s words and position to feel that the kingdom which he claimed was of a spiritual character, not opposed to the rule of Caesar; he felt that the accusation was false and malicious.

3. The Lord"s silence. He had answered Pilate; he would not answer the false charges of the chief priests and elders. Pilate had some sense of justice; they had none. Their one object was to compass his death; they cared not for truth or justice, but only for the accomplishment of their wicked purpose. They brought charge alter charge, all alike untrue. The Saviour heeded them not. "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth." He stood before them in calm majestic silence. Pilate, anxious, it seems, to hear his defence, pressed him to answer; but still "he answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." He had never seen such a Prisoner before, so calm and collected in the immediate prospect of a death of agony, so meek and yet so dignified; he felt the nobleness of Christ, and he strove to deliver him.

II JESUS OR BARABBAS.

1. The choice offered to the Jews. Pilate was, as St. Peter afterwards said, (Act_3:13) determined to let the Saviour go. He tried every expedient. At first he declined to hear the case: "Take ye him, and judge him. Then, when forced to hear it, he declared himself convinced of his innocence: "I find in him no fault at all." Then he sent him to Herod. Now he appeals to the people, hoping, perhaps, that they would reverse the judgment of the chief priests, or possibly wishing to shift the responsibility of the decision from himself. He was ready, according to custom at the Passover, to release a prisoner. There was a prisoner called Barabbas, probably a mere robber and murderer; (Act_3:14) possibly, as some have thought, a leader of a band of patriots, who sought to do what Christ was accused of seeking to put down the Roman power and to restore the Jewish kingdom. Pilate waited till a multitude was gathered together. He gave them the choice between the two prisoners Jesus the Christ or Barabbas the robber. He had heard, perhaps had seen, how the Lord had been welcomed into the city five days before; he thought that the people would ask for his release, and that so he should be saved from the ungrateful task of condemning One whom he knew to be innocent.

2. Pilate"s wife. She had had a dream that morning. She saw in a vision the holy and innocent Saviour. It may be she saw his awful sufferings; it may be she saw him in his majesty sitting on the throne of his glory to judge the world. Whatever the dream was, it caused her much anxiety. She sent at once to Pilate. He was sitting on the judgment seat, awaiting the decision of the multitude. The message was, "Have thou nothing to do with that just Man." It seems, then, that something was known of the Lord Jesus in the household of Pilate. The governor had heard, perhaps, of his miracles; probably of the great influence which he had possessed in Galilee. He had heard also of his innocence; he was no leader of sedition, no conspirator against Caesar. Pilate"s with had no hesitation, no fears of consequences, such as her husband had. She bade him deliver the falsely accused, the Innocent One. Happy would it have been for him if he had followed her advice!

3. Barabbas chosen. The people, left to themselves, might, perhaps, have chosen rightly. We are not told what was the composition of the crowd; whether there was a large Galilaean element in it; whether or no many were present out of those great multitudes which had received the Lord on Palm Sunday with so much enthusiasm. Some of them, surely, must have been there; they must at least have felt an interest in the fate of One who a few days ago had been so conspicuous; curiosity, if no better motive, would have brought them there. But however this may have been, the chief priests and rulers, who ought to have guided the people aright, led them astray. They mingled with the crowd, they stirred them, they appealed to their Jewish prejudices, they used all the arts of persuasion; and they succeeded in turning the current of popular opinion. The voice of the people is by no means always the voice of God. Crowds are apt to be led by sudden impulse, by a cry, by ignorant party spirit. Alas! for a nation, when its clergy or its chief men guide it into error. The chief priests must have been astonished at the rapidity the completeness of their own success. Five days before, the Pharisees had "said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after him." But now, when after a pause for consideration, the governor put the question to the multitude, "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?" they all said, "Barabbas." They denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them. And when Pilate asked again, "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?" the fierce cruel answer burst from the crowd, "Let him be crucified!" It was the first mention of the cross, save in the prophetic language of the Lord himself. It was known, perhaps, that that fearful punishment awaited Barabbas and the two other malefactors; and the chief priests, it may be, thought that by bringing about that mode of death they would both satisfy their own cruel hatred and exhibit the Lord as a raiser of sedition, a conspirator against the Roman government. The question had shown Pilate"s want of courage. A judge should not devolve his responsibility upon the populace. He made now a weak attempt to check the violence of the crowd. "What evil hath he done?" he asked. But the fierce cry only gathered fresh strength. Stimulated alike by the persuasions of the chief priests, by the faint opposition of Pilate, and by the excitement of numbers and noise, it became every minute more and more violent and menacing, "Crucify him! crucify him!

4. Pilate washes his hands. His defence of the Lord had been only halfhearted. He knew that he was absolutely innocent; he evidently had some vague undefined awe of him. He would have saved him if he could have done so without endangering himself. But Pilate feared a Jewish mob. It was at all times formidable, but especially so at the seasons of the great national festivals. His previous experience gave him reason to fear an accusation at Rome. He began to yield; but he made a weak attempt to throw the responsibility of the crime upon the people. He washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person: see ye to it." He thus at the same moment pronounced the innocence of the Accused, and his own guilt; for by this symbolical action he declared that it was out of fear of the people that he delivered Jesus to their will. Cowardice often leads to guilt. Very earnestly we ought to pray for holy courage and strength of purpose to persevere in the path of rectitude. Pilate, who despised the Jews, now used a significant act prescribed on certain occasions by the Mosaic Law, (Deu_21:6, Deu_21:7) and shared apparently some of the feelings which led the Jews to attach so much importance to ceremonial washings. But as the outward washings of the Jews could not cleanse the heart, so Pilate"s act could not remove the guilt which rested on him. He condemned the Innocent through selfish fear; his hands were full of blood. No mere outward rite can purge the soul. There is only one fountain opened for sin and uncleanness the precious blood of Christ, which applied by faith can cleanse the conscience and make the penitent sinner whiter than snow. The people understood the meaning of Pilate. They were willing, in their wild infatuation, to take the guilt upon themselves; they answered and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children!" A fearful imprecation, and fearfully fulfilled. Some doubtless of those who uttered it, very many of their children, were sharers of the dreadful calamities which attended the siege and capture of Jerusalem less than forty years afterwards. They had said, "His blood be on us!" the streets of Jerusalem were deluged in blood. They had cried, "Crucify him! crucify him!" they perished in thousands by the cross. Still the guilt of his blood rests on that outcast race; and only that blood can wash away the stain. For the blood of Christ could cleanse even those who shed it. It is "the one full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." It could cleanse Pilate, Caiaphas, the fierce bloodthirsty multitude, the Roman soldiers, who indeed were obeying the orders of the governor, but plainly took an evil pleasure in the cruel deed. "His blood be on us!" the crowd shouted in their frenzy. The guilt of that blood must rest even now in a greater or less degree upon all who sin wilfully against the light of the knowledge of Christ; who, knowing what the Lord most holy suffered for them, live as though the cross had never been, as though the blessed Saviour had never suffered there for them that they might live. And the holy influence of that blood is upon the hearts of those who come to Christ in faith and love, who live under the shadow of the cross, walking in the royal way of the cross, seeking ever to realize in all its depth and fulness the precious and stupendous truth that "the Son of God loved me, and gave himself for me." Pirate knew that that blood was innocent blood; but he knew not its sanctity and exceeding preciousness. He quailed before the wild clamour of the multitude; he gave sentence that it should be as they required; and he released Barabbas unto them, whom they had desired.

LESSONS.

1. Silence is sometimes golden. The Lord was silent amid false accusations. Let us learn of him.

2. Selfish fear often leads to great sin. Pray for holy courage.

3. The favour of the multitude is uncertain. Trust not in popularity,

4. We must wash our hands in innocency. Outward rites will not cleanse the impure soul.

Vers. 11-31. The actors in a momentous tragedy.

The scene is laid in Jerusalem, in the palace of the Roman governor. The occasion is the trial of the Lord Jesus for his life. The whole human race and all the ages are interested. Behold

I THE PRISONER AT THE BAR.

1. Now Jesus stood before the governor.

(1) But who is this Jesus? Immanuel! The Creator and Upholder of all things, mysteriously enshrined in human nature.

(2) Then what a miracle of condescension is here! The stoop was wonderful from the throne of glory to the manger of Bethlehem. But what a marvel that he should submit to be arraigned before a mortal!

(3) The condescension will be set in its strongest light by a grand reversal of this scene. He wilt yet appear as Judge of all. Pilate will then have to answer at his bar. The accusers also will then have to give account of their accusations.

(4) We shall all do welt to keep that solemnity evermore in mind. (see Psa_50:3, Psa_50:22)

2. Listen to his confession.

(1) To implicate him with the Romans, he is accused of claiming to be the King of the Jews. (see Luk_23:2) He shrinks not from the avowal without explanation or qualification. He is King over Jews and Romans, over angels and devils, over heaven, earth, and hell.

(2) But he explains the spiritual nature of the kingdom he came there to establish. (see Joh_18:33-37) While asserting his royalty without qualification, he takes care that Pilate should not proceed it, ignorance upon the malicious suggestions of the priests.

(3) Caesar, then, evidently, had nothing to fear from Jesus. In the face of this "good confession" (1Ti_6:13) the accusation was utterly broken down.

3. Mark his silence.

(1) When accused of the chief priests he answered nothing. There was nothing to refute. Lo, here the dignity of innocence!

(2) This might well astonish Pilate, that One whose life was sought by charges so manifestly false should not utter a word to repel them. It was a new thing in the experience of the governor. Such conduct plainly showed that Jesus was no common person.

(3) To Pilate still he answers nothing. The written Word, like the Lord, does not accept the challenge of the unbeliever. It leaves every man to work out his own conviction, as it leaves him to work out his own salvation.

(4) Innocence is its own vindication. It can afford to wait for justice. Hence we must not render railing for railing. (see 1Pe_2:23)

II THE WITNESSES IN COURT.

1. The leaders were the rulers of the Jews.

(1) They were those hypocrites whose enormities Jesus had so unsparingly rebuked in his preaching. Of this hypocrisy they never repented, but nursed their resentment against him.

(2) They had vindicated the truth of the account he gave of them, by the manner in which they proceeded against him.

(a) In their plot to destroy him.

(b) Their bribery of Judas.

(c) The indecent haste in which they gathered the council in the night.

(d) Their false accusation against him of blasphemy.

(3) They vindicated it still in their proceeding. In accusing him before Pilate they proceed under a new accusation. They artfully concluded that the charge of sedition would be that by which the Roman governor might be moved. Rank, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is no security against rascality.

2. The multitude were under their inspiration.

(1) They are moved by them to clamour for Barabbas.

(a) At the Paschal Feast, which commemorated the release of the Hebrews from the bondage of Egypt, it became a custom, probably of Roman origin, to release some criminal. (see Mat_26:5) At our gospel Paschal Feast sinners are liberated from the bondage of sin

(b) In accordance with this custom, Pilate gave them the option of releasing Barabbas, a notable offender, guilty at once of treason, murder, and felony, (see Luk_23:19 Joh_18:40) or Jesus. Note: Barabbas was really guilty of the particular crime of which they falsely accused Jesus. (see Mar_15:7) Here, then, is the choice between good and evil, between which every man has to decide.

(c) They preferred Barabbas. "Not this man, but Barabbas!" is still the cry of every one who hates good and loves evil. Herein the Jews violated their Law, which inflicts death "without mercy" upon criminals. (see Heb_10:28)

(d) How their injustice here proclaims the innocency of Jesus! The guilty Barabbas thus released that Jesus might die, was a fitting representation of that countless multitude of pardoned sinners to whom his death brings everlasting life.

(2) The multitude, moved by the rulers, demand the crucifixion of Jesus. They did this against reason. They did it against the expostulation of Pilate. What an opportunity they had of defeating the purposes of the rulers! They fatally preferred the evil to the good.

(3) They are moved to take the guilt of his blood upon them.

(a) This was intended to indemnify Pilate, who wavered between justice and expediency. It is a bold undertaking to be bound for a sinner to the Almighty. None but Christ can effectually bear another"s sin.

(b) But they shared Pilate"s guilt by sharing his sin.

(c) They cruelly involve their children also; and without limiting the terrible entail. By this act they renounced that ancient charter, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed." Wicked men are the natural enemies of their own children.

(4) How dreadfully this imprecation was verified! Within forty years they suffered with singular resemblance to the manner in which they caused Jesus to suffer. Josephus says, "When they the Romans had scourged them the Jews, and tormented them before death all manner of ways, they crucified them over against the wall of the city." He proceeds to describe the horrors that he witnessed, and says they were crucified by Titus, five hundred in a day, till "room was wanting for crosses, and crosses for bodies.

III THE GOVERNOR IN THE JUDGMENT SEAT.

1. He was convinced of the innocency of Jesus.

(1) His good sense showed him that nothing was proved against him. The best men often have been accused of the worst crimes. He saw that "envy" had instigated the rulers. This is worse than hatred; for it is hatred without a cause. Hatred presumes the imputation of a fault, but envy acknowledges an excellence. The eye of the ruler was evil because Jesus was good.

(2) In this judgment he was confirmed by his wife"s dream. It was clearly a Divine testimony to the innocence of Jesus. It was probably of such a nature as to fill her with apprehensions of the consequences of her husband"s consenting to the death of Jesus. (cf. Gen_20:3) The "suffering" of Pilate"s wife on this account was creditable to her conscience. Tradition calls her Claudia Procula, and she is canonized in the Grecian Church. Note: This reference to Pilate"s wife marks the time of the event, and proves the veracity of the narrative, for we learn from Tacitus that in the reign of Tiberius the wives of governors had permission to attend them in the provinces.

(3) He therefore sought to release Jesus. He declared that he "found no fault in him." In naming such a wretch as Barabbas as the alternative to Jesus, in the release at the feast, he hoped to secure that of Jesus. He pleaded with the multitude against their clamour for the blood of Jesus.

2. Yet he sacrificed justice to expediency.

(1) He knew that Tiberius was jealous and sanguinary, and he feared the malignity of the Jews. Philo describes Pilate as "naturally inflexible, rigid, and self-willed." But he had already had to contend with two insurrections of the Jews, viz. when he attempted to bring the Roman standard into Jerusalem, and when he applied the wealth of the sacred treasury to secular uses.

(2) He ought never to have appealed to the people; but he loved power rather than justice. He was prepared to do unscrupulous things rather than risk his procuratorship, if not his liberty or life. There are occasions in every life to test character.

(3) He would fain relieve himself of his responsibility. He tried to devolve it upon Herod. (see Luk_23:5, etc.) He then tried to devolve it upon the people (ver. 24). No ceremony of washing the hands can free them from the stains of blood guiltiness. To protest innocence, while practising crime, is to sin against conscience. "Sin is a brat nobody is willing to own" (Henry). The priests threw it upon Judas; Pilate now throws it upon them. "See ye to it.

(4) Still God finds it at the sinner"s door. (see Act_4:27) Not long after this, Pilate was deprived of his office through the accusations of that very people, and, being banished to Gaul, ended his life by suicide.

IV THE SOLDIERS IN THE PRAETORIUM.

1. They were in the pay of Caesar. They were by their profession jealous of the honour of their master. But there is a King of kings, to whom subjects of earthly sovereigns owe the first allegiance. In mistaken zeal:

2. They mock the royalty of Jesus.

(1) They invest him with a scarlet robe, in derision, as though he wore the crimson or purple of kings. (cf. Mar_15:17 Joh_19:2) They crown him with plaited thorns. The frail reed is made to serve as his sceptre. (cf. Mat_11:7 Psa_45:6)

(2) In this character they pay him insolent homage. They spat upon him, as he had been before abused in the high priest"s hall. (see Mat_26:27) They smote him with the reed, making his ensign of mock royalty an instrument of cruelty.

(3) The soldiers seem to have taken their cue from Herod. (see Luk_23:11) It was ordained that the contempt of men should in all this signally confess the truth of God.

(4) The evangelists record no word of Christ"s during these tortures. He sustained them with unresisting submission. (see Isa_53:7) How completely is he left alone! The Jews persecute him, Judas betrays him, Peter denies him, the rest forsake him; and now the Roman is with his enemies. No plot could have been better contrived to show the moral grandeur of a hero, not braving but enduring the accumulated wrongs of an evil world with the dignity of meekness. J.A.M.

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

Art thou the king of the Jews? - Jesus before Caiaphas avows himself to be the Christ, before Pilate to be a king; clearly showing thereby, that his answering no more, was not owing to any fear.

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

The Trial before Pilate.

The beginning of the trial:

v. 11. And Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

v. 12. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.

v. 13. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest Thou not how many things they witness against Thee?

v. 14. And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marveled greatly.

Matthew’s story of the events of this Friday morning brings out very strongly the dignity, the divinity, the deity of the Lord, accused before the governor as being a criminal. Upon the question of the procurator as to His being the King of the Jews, He gives him an emphatic answer in the affirmative, explaining incidentally to the unappreciative Pilate the nature of His kingdom, Joh 18:33-37. But with reference to all the other charges which the chief priests invented against Him, the Lord maintained a baffling silence. "The accusations were by His silence stamped as groundless, and this majesty of silence filled Pilate with wonder and amazement. " All the efforts of the governor to make Him answer the taunts of the Jews availed him nothing. Why waste breath when the Jews and Pilate knew very well that the charges were altogether unfounded! The wonder, but also the superstition of Pilate grew apace in the course of the trial.

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

Observe here, 1. That our Saviour readily anwsers Pilate, but refuses to answer the chief priests, and to all that they laid to his charge before Pilate. Pilate asks him, Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus readily answers, Thou sayest; or, it is as thou sayest. But to all the accusations of the chief priests, and to all that they laid to his charge before Pilate, our Saviour answered never a word: probably for these reasons; because his innocency was such as needed no apology; because their calumnies and accusations were so notoriously false, that they needed no confutation; to show his contempt of death, and to teach us, by his own example, patience and silence, when for his sake we are slandered and traduced.

Learn thence, that although we are not obliged to answer every captious and ensnaring question, nor to refute every slander and false accusation, yet are we bound faithfully thereunto. Our Saviour, as a deaf man, hears not, answers not the calumnies of the chief priests; but when Pilate asks him, Art thou the king of the Jews? or as St. Mark has it, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? Jesus said, I am; though he knew that answer would cost him his life.

Hence the apostle, says That Christ before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession. 1Ti 6:13. Teaching us sometimes to hold our peace when our reputation is concerned; but never to be silent when the honour of God, the glory of his truth, the edification and confirmation of others, may effectually be promoted by our open confession: then must we with Christ give a direct, plain, and sincere answer. For whoever denies him, or any truth of his, knowingly and wilfully, him will Christ deny in the presence of his Father, and before all his holy angels.

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

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXIX. First Stage of Roman Trial].

CXXIX. FIRST STAGE OF THE ROMAN TRIAL. JESUS BEFORE PILATE FOR THE FIRST TIME. (Jerusalem. Early Friday morning.) aMATT. XXVII. 11-14; bMARK XV. 2-5; cLUKE XXIII. 2-5; dJOHN XVIII. 28-38.

dand they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. [See Joh_12:33, Joh_12:34), but he also gave the details of his trial-- Mat_20:18, Mat_20:19, Mar_10:33, Mar_10:34.] c2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. [The Jews now profess to change their verdict into a charge, they themselves becoming witnesses as to the truth of the matter charged. They say "We found," thereby asserting that the things which they stated to Pilate were the things for which they had condemned Jesus. Their assertion was utterly false, for the three things which they now mentioned had formed no part whatever of the evidence against Jesus in their trial of him. The first charge, that Jesus was a perverter or seducer of the people, was extremely vague. The second, that he taught to withhold tribute from Cæsar, was a deliberate falsehood. See Joh_6:15.] d33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, a11 Now Jesus stood before the governor [Jesus is called from the guards who have him in custody and stands alone before Pilate that the governor may investigate his case privately]: b2 And Pilate athe governor [705] asked him, dand said unto him, asaying, Art thou the King of the Jews? [The Gospels are unanimous in giving this question as the first words addressed by Pilate to Jesus. The question expresses surprise. There was nothing in the manner or attire of Jesus to suggest a royal claimant. The question was designed to draw Jesus out should he chance to be a fanatical or an unbalanced enthusiast.] And Jesus banswering saith canswered him and said, bunto him, Thou sayest. dSayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? [Using the Hebrew form of affirmative reply (see Joh_12:19). They objected to his kingly claims ( Mat_21:15, Mat_21:16, Luk_19:38, Luk_19:39), but Jesus shows Pilate that these kingly claims, however distasteful to the Jews, were no offense to or menace against the authority of Rome. Further than this, Jesus did not define his kingdom, for Pilate had no concern in it beyond this. It was sufficient to inform him that it made no use of physical power even for purposes of defense. Such a kingdom could cause no trouble to Rome, and the bare fact stated by Jesus proved that it was indeed such a kingdom.] 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. [See Joh_19:7, Joh_19:8.] 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? [This question has been regarded as an earnest inquiry (Chrysostom), the inquiry of one who despaired (Olshausen), a scoffing question (Alford), etc. But it is evident that Pilate asked it intending to investigate the case of Jesus further, but, suddenly concluding that he already knew enough to answer his purpose as a judge, he stifles his curiosity as a human being and proceeds with the trial of Jesus, leaving the question unanswered.] And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, cunto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man. dno crime in [707] him. [The pronoun "I" is emphatic; as if Pilate said, "You, prejudiced fanatics, demand his death, but I, the calm judge, pronounce him innocent."] b3 And the chief priests accused him of many things. a12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. [When Pilate left the Prætorium to speak with the Jewish rulers, it is evident that Jesus was led out with him, and so stood there in the presence of his accusers.] b4 And a13 Then bPilate again asked him, asaith unto him, bsaying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of. aHearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? b5 But Jesus no more answered anything; a14 And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: binsomuch that Pilate athe governor bmarvelled. agreatly. [Pilate was irritated that Jesus did not speak in his own defense. He had already seen enough of our Lord's wisdom to assure him that it would be an easy matter for him to expose the malicious emptiness of these charges--charges which Pilate himself knew to be false, but about which he had to keep silent, for, being judge, he could not become our Lord's advocate. Our Lord's silence was a matter of prophecy ( Isa_53:7). Jesus kept still because to have successfully defended himself would have been to frustrate the purpose for which he came into the world-- Joh_12:23-28.] c5 But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place. [The Jews cling to their general accusation of sedition, and seek to make the largeness of the territory where Jesus operated overshadow and conceal the smallness of their testimony as to what his operations were.] [708]

[FFG 704-708]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. Now Jesus stood before the governor. In the judgment hall (John 18:28), which the Sanhedrim did not enter for fear of defilement. It was probably about seven A.M. that they presented themselves to Pilate, hoping that he would order their condemned prisoner to death without inquiry, but on his demand for charges they accuse Jesus of seeking to make himself King of the Jews. This charge causes Pilate to ask: Art thou the King of the Jews? They had condemned Jesus for blasphemy, but now make a political charge, and Pilate's question is whether Jesus is claiming a temporal kingdom. Thou sayest. Jesus was King, not of the Jews only, but men, and he admits the charge. He was King, however, in a spiritual sense, as he explained to Pilate (John 18:36).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

This continues the story of Jesus' trial before Pilate, which began in Matthew 27:2.

Now

If your language has a way of continuing a story after a break from the main story line, you may want to use it here.

the governor

"Pilate"

You say so

Possible meanings are 1) by saying this, Jesus implied that he is the King of the Jews. AT: "Yes, as you said, I am" or "Yes. It is as you said" or 2) by saying this, Jesus was saying that Pilate, not Jesus, was the one calling him the King of the Jews. AT: "You yourself have said so" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders

This can be stated in active form. AT: "But when the chief priests and elders accused him" (See: Active or Passive)

Do you not hear all the charges against you?

Pilate asks this question because he is surprised that Jesus remains silent. AT: "I am surprised that you do not answer these people who accuse you of doing bad things!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

did not answer even one word, so that the governor was greatly amazed

"did not say even one word; this greatly amazed the governor." This is an emphatic way of saying that Jesus was completely silent.

translationWords

govern

King of the Jews

chief priests

Pilate

word

amazed

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

11-14.] He is examined by Pilate. Mar 15:2-5.Luk 23:2-5Luk 23:2-5.Joh 18:29-38Joh 18:29-38. Our narrative of the hearing before Pilate is the least circumstantial of the four—having however two remarkable additional particulars, vv. 19 and 24. John is the fullest in giving the words of our Lord. Compare the notes there.

11.] Before this Pilate had come out and demanded the cause of his being delivered up; the Jews not entering the Prætorium.

The primary accusation against Him seems to have been that He ἔλεγεν ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι. This is presupposed in the enquiry of this verse.

σὺ λέγεις is not to be rendered as a doubtful answer—much less with Theophylact, as meaning, ‘Thou sayest it, not I:’ but as a strong affirmative. See above on ch. 26:64.

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

11-26. From Mar 15:2-15.

(M E) 11. And Jesus stood still before the governor: and the governor asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said, Thou sayest.] Mk. has: “And Pilate asked Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And He answered and saith to him, Thou sayest.”—ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος] With this connecting link Mt. returns to Mk.’s narrative.—λέγων] is inserted also in Lk.—ἔφη] So Lk. Mk. has λέγει. For σὺ λέγεις, cf. σὺ εἶπας, 26:25, 64.

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