Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

28. — l^Then led they Jesus from Caiaplias.'] A careful reader of tlie Gospels will not fail to observe here, that John entirely passes over the examination of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim of the Jews, which is so f ally described by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Specially he omits our Lord's confession, when adjured, that He was the Christ. He takes it all for granted, as a thing well known, and passes on to dwell on his far more important examination before Pilate, the Roman Governor. In this he brings out many striking particulars, which, for wise reasons, Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not record. Writing, as John did, long after the other three, and writing more especially for Gentile readers, we can well understand that he would give far more prominence to the proceedings before the Gentile Governor, than to those before the Jewish Ecclesiastical Court. Yet it cannot be denied that there is a remarkable curtness and brevity in his statement of facts at this point. The Greek is literally they " lead," — in the present tense.

[ Unto the hall of judgment.'] This is a Latin word, and admits of two views. The marginal reading, according to Schleusner and Parkhurst, is the correct translation. It is the " Governor's palace," rather than the hall of judgment. According to Josephus, the praetors, or governors of Judaea, who ordinarily lived at Caesarea, when they were at Jerusalem, used Herod's palace, in the upper part of the city, as their residence. Some say it was the famous tower of Antonia.

[And it was early.] The precise time here meant we cannot exactly tell. It cannot have been so early as day-break, because we are especially told by Luke that the elders and chief priests and the Sanhedrim assembled to examine our Lord " as soon as it was day." (Lake xxii. 66.) Considering that the day begins at the equinox about six, we may assume that ' early " cannot mean sooner than seven or eight o'clock.

[And they went not...judgment hall... defiled.'] The meaning of this sentence is, that the Jews would not go within the walls of Pilate's palace, lest by so doing they should contract ceremonial Tincleanness. Pilate was a Gentile. Peter says in the Acts, " It is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation." (Acts x 28.) If the Jews had gone inside Pilate's house, they would have been made ceremonially unclean, and would have considered themselves defiled.

The sentence is an extraordinary example of the false scrupulosity of conscience which a wicked man may keep up, about forms and ceremonies and trifling externals in religion, at the very time when he is deliberately committing some gross and enormous sin. The notorious fact that Italian bandits and murderers will make much of fasting, keeping Lent, confession, absolution, Virgin Mary worship, saint worship, and image worship, at the very time when they are arranging robberies and assassinations, is an accurate illustration of the same principle. The extent to which formality and wickedness can go side by side is frightful, and little known. The Jews were afraid of being defiled by going into a Gentile's house, at the very moment when they were doing the devil's work, and murdering the Prince of life! — Just so, many people in England will attach immense importance to fasting and keeping Lent and attending saints'-day services, while they see no harm in going to races, operas, and balls, at other times! Persons who have very low notions about the Seventh Commandment, will actually tell you that it is wrong to be married in Lent! The very same persons who totally disregard Sunday abroad, will make much ado about saints'-day at home! Absurd strictness about Lent, and excess of riot and licentiousness in carnival, will often go together.

Chrysostom remarks, " Though they had taken up a deed which was unlawful, and were shedding blood, they are scrupulous about the place, and bring forth Pilate unto them."

Augustine remarks, " O impious blindness 1 They would be defiled, forsooth, by a dwelling which was another's, and not be defiled by a crime which was their own. They feared to be defiled by the praetorium of an alien judge, and feared not to be defiled by the blood of an innocent brother."

Bishop Hall remarks, " Woe unto you priests, scribes, elders, hypocrites! can there be any roof so unclean as that of your own breasts? Not Pilate's walls, but your own hearts, are impure. Is murder your errand, and do you stick at a local infection? God shall smite you, ye whited walls! Do you long to be stained with blood — with the blood of God? And do ye

fear to be defiled witli the toucli of Pilate's pavement? Doth so small a gnat stick in your throats, while ye swallow such a camel of flagitious wickedness? Go out of Jerusalem, ye false disbelievers, if ye would not be unclean! Pilate hath more cause to fear, lest his walls should be defiled with the presence of such prodigious monsters of iniquity."

Poole remarks, " Nothing is more common than for persons over zealous about rituals to be remiss about morals."

\^That...eat...passox)eri\ This sentence contains an undeniable difficulty. How could the Jews eat the passover now, when our Lord and His disciples had eaten it the evening before? That our Lord would eat the passover at the right time we may assume as a matter of course, and that time was Thursday evening. WTiat then can be meant by the chief priests, and elders, and leaders of the Jews, eating the passover on Friday? This is a question which has received various answers.

{a) Some think that in our Lord's time the whole Jewish Church had fallen into such disorder, and had so fallen away from original purity, that the passover was not kept strictly according to the primary institution, and might be eaten on almost any day within the passover feast.

(&) Some think that it was considered allowable to eat the passover at any time between sunset one day and sunset the next day, so long as it was eaten within the twenty- four hours.

(c) Some think that the passover eating here mentioned was not the eating of the passover lamb, but the eating of the passover feast, called " chagigah," which took place every day during the passover week. — This is Lightfoot's view.

{d) Some think that as there is no law without an exception, and even the law of the passover admitted of alteration in case of necessity (see Num. ix. 11), so the chief priests persuaded themselves that as they had been occupied by duty — the duty (forsooth!) of apprehending our blessed Lord — throughout the night when they ought to have kept the passover, they were justified in deferring it till the ne^t day.

All these, it must be confessed, are only conjectures. There is probably some explanation which, at this distance of time, we are unable to supply. For the present the third and fourth suggestions seem to me the most reasonable.

Chrysostom observes, " Either John calls the whole feast the passover, or means that they were then keeping the passover; while Jesus delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own sacrifice for His preparation day, when also of old His passion was celebrated."'

One thing at any rate is very plain and noteworthy. The chief priests and their party made much ado about eating the passover lamb and keeping tlie feast, at the very time when they were about to slay the true Lamb of God, of whom thia passover was a type 1 No wonder that Samuel says, " To obey is better than sacrifice." (1 Sam. xv. 22.)

Bullinger calls attention here to the wide difference between inward sanctification of the heart, and outward sanctimoniousness about forms, ordinances, and ceremonies.

Calvin remarks, that it is one mark of hypocrisy, " that while it is careful in performing ceremonies, it makes no scruple of neglecting matters of the highest importance."

29. — [Pilate then went out...said, etc.] This " going out " means that Pilate hearing that the chief priests had brought a prisoner to the courtyard, or open space before his palace, and knowing from experience, as a governor of Judaea, that they would not come into his palace for fear of defilement, but waited for him to come out to them, went out and spoke to them. His first question is one which became his office as a magistrate and judge. He inquires what is the charge or accusation brought against the prisoner before him. " Of what crime do you accuse this man? "

The well-known Valerian law among the Romans made it unlawful to judge or condemn any one without hearing the charge against him stated.

30. — [They answered and said, etc.] The reply of the chief priests to Pilate's inquiry, as given by John, is peculiar and elliptical. They began by saying that the prisoner was a convicted evildoer according to their law, or else they would not have brought Him there. They had found Him, by examination before the Sanhedrim, to be a breaker of the law, and they only came there to have sentence pronounced on Him by Pilate. " If He were not a person guilty and worthy of death, we would not have delivered Him up to thee. We have discovered Him to be such a person, and we now ask thee to sentence Him to death. We have convicted Him, and we ask thee, as our chief ruler, to slay Him." There is a proud, haughty, supercilious tone, we may remark, about this answer, which was not likely to please a Roman Governor.

It is plain, by a comparison with St. Luke's Gospel, that at this point the Jews added a statement which St. John has omitted. " If thou wouldst know the precise nature of this prisoner's evil-doing, we tell thee that we found Him perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that He is a King." (Luke xxiii. 2.) Why St. John omitted this we cannot tell, but he evidently takes it for granted that his readers knew this accusation was made, by telling us in verse thirty-three, that Pilate asked Him if He was " the King of the Jews."

Tholuck remarks, that " if the authorities had not regarded the prisoner as worthy of death, they would not have brought him to the procurator, as none but criminal cases needed confirmation by him."

81. — [Then said Pilate....take... judge...lawl] This sentence indicates a desire on Pilate's part to have nothing to do with the case. From the very first he evidently wished to put it away from him, and, if he could, to avoid condemning our Lord. How this feeling originated, we cannot tell. Matthew and Mark say that he knew Jesus was delivered to him from " envy." Matthew says that his wife warned him to have nothing to do with that "just person." (Matt xxvii. 18; xxvii. 19; Mark xv. 10.) It is quite possible that the fame and character of Jesus had reached Pilate's ears long before He was brought before him. It is hard to suppose that such miracles as our Lord wrought, would never be talked of within the palace of the chief ruler of Judaea. The raising of Lazarus must surely have been reported among his servants. Our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, attended by myriads of people shouting, " Blessed is the King," must surely have been noted by the soldiers and officers of Pilate's guard. Can we wonder that all this made him regard our Lord with something like awe? Wicked men are often very superstitious. His language now before us is that of one who would gladly evade the whole case, and leave the responsibility entirely with the Jews. " If He is, as you say, a malefactor, take Him into your own hands, and condemn Him to death according to your own law. Do as you like with Him; but do not trouble me with the case." The word we render "judge," is literally much stronger in sense. It is rather condemn to death. The only punishment the Jews might inflict, if any (which is more than doubtful), was death by stoning.

The pitiable and miserable character of Pilate, the Roman Governor, begins to come into clear light from this point. We see him a man utterly destitute of moral courage, — knowing what was right and just in the case before him, yet afraid to act on his knowledge, — knowing that our Lord was innocent, yet not daring to displease the Jews by acquitting Him, — knowing that he was doing wrong, and yet afraid to do right. " The fear of man bringeth a snare." (Prov. xxix. 25.) Wretched and contemptible are those rulers and statesmen whose first principle is to please the people, even at the expense of their own consciences, and who are ready to do what they know to be wrong rather than ofiend the mob! Wretched are those nations which for their sins are given over to be governed by such statesmen! True godly rulers should lead the people, and not be led by them, should do what is right and leave consequences to God. A base determination to keep in with the world at any price, and a slavish fear of man's opinion, were leading principles in Pilate's character. There are many like him. Nothing is more common than to see statesmen evading the plain line of duty, and trying to shuffle responsibility on others, rather than give offence to the mob. This is precisely what Pilate did here. The spirit of his reply to the Jews is, ** I had rather not be troubled with the case: cannot you settle it yourselves, without asking me to interfere V

Ellicott remarks, " It seems clear that from the first the sharpsighted Roman perceived that this was no case for his tribunal, that it was wholly a matter of religious difference and religious hate, and that the meek prisoner who stood before him was at least innocent of the political crime laid to his charge with such an unwonted and suspicious zeal." He also quotes the just and pertinent remark of a German writer, " Pilate knew too much of Jewish expectations to suppose that the Sanhedrim would hate and persecute one who would free them from Roman authority."

Calvin thinks that Pilate said this ironically, as he would not have allowed them to inflict capital punishment. Gerhard also regards the saying as sarcastic and sneering. " If this prisoner has done anything against your Jewish superstitions, settle it yourselves." Yet a comparison with Luke makes this rather improbable in my opinion. The Jews there tell him plainly that Christ made Himself a King. (Luke xxiii. 1.) This, even a Roman must allow, was a serious charge.

Henry suggests that perhaps Pilate thought they did not really want to kill Jesus, but only to chastise Him.

[The Jews...not lawful for us...death.'\ This answer of the Jews completely defeated the wretched Pilate's attempt to put away the case before him, and avoid the necessity of judging our Lord. They reminded the Roman Governor that the power of taking away life was no longer in their hands, and that it was impossible for them to do as he suggested, and settle our Lord's case in their own way.

Let us mark here what a striking confession the Jews here - made, whether they were aware of it or not. They actually admitted that they were no longer rulers and governors of their own nation, and that they were under the dominion of a foreign power. They were no longer independent, but subjects of Rome. He that has power of condemning to death, and taking away the life of a prisoner, he is the governor of a country. " It is not lawful for us," said the Jews, " to take away life. You, the Roman Governor, alone can do it, and therefore we come to thee about this Jesus." By their own mouth and their own act they publicly declared that Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled, " that the sceptre had departed from Judali," that they had no longer a lawgiver of their own stock, and that consequently the time of Shiloh, the promised Messiah, must have come. (Gen. xlix. 10.) How unconscious wicked men are that they fulfil prophecy!

The idea of Clirysostom and Augustine, that the sentence only means that the Jews could not put any one to death during the passover feast, looks to me utterly improbable.

32. — [That the saying...fulfiUed, etc.] This verse is one of John's peculiar parenthetical comments, which are so frequent in his Gospel. Here, as in many other instances, the meaning is, " By this the saying of Jesus was fulfilled; " and not " The thing took place, in order that the saying might be fulfilled." What precise saying is referred to, is a point on which commentators have not quite agreed.

(a) Some think, as Theophylact, Bullinger, Musculus, and Gerhard, that St. John refers to the saying recorded in this very Gospel (John xii. 33); and that the expression, " what death," only refers to the particular manner of His death by cruci fixion.

(&) Others think, as Augustine, Calvin, and Beza, that St. John refers to the fuller saying in Matt. xx. 19, where our Lord foretells His own delivery to the Gentiles as well as His cruci fixion.

Of the two views, the second seems to me the preferable one. The previous verse distinctly points to the inability of the Jews to put Jesus to death, and the necessity of the Gentiles doing the murderous work. And John remarks that this was just what Jesus had predicted, — that He would die by the hand of the Gentiles. I think, at the same time, that the crucifixion was probably included, being the death which the Gentiles in ■ flicted, in contradistinction to the Jewish custom of stoning.

33. — [TTien Pilate entered into the judgment hall.'] The meaning of this must be that Pilate, disappointed in his attempt to put away the case from him, retired into his palace again, where he knew the Jews would not follow him, from fear of contracting ceremonial defilement, and resolved to have a private interview with our Lord, and examine Him alone. — It is quite clear that the conversation which follows, from this point down to the middle of the thirty-eighth verse, took place within the Roman Governor's walls, and most probably without the presence of any Jewish witnesses. If that was so, the substance of it could only be revealed to John by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Pilate's soldiers and a few guards of the prisoner may have been present. But it is highly improbable that John, or any friend of our Lord's, could have got inside the Governor's palace. If the beloved Apostle did manage to get in and hear the conversation, it is a striking example of his attachment to his Master. " Love is strong as death." (Cant. viii. 6.)

[And called Jesus^ This expression literally means, that he called Jesus with a loud voice to follow him inside the palace; and came out of the outer court, or area, where he had first met the party which had brought the Prisoner to him. It is as though he said, " Come in hither. Prisoner, that I may speak with thee privately! "

[And said... art Thou... King... Jews?^ The first question that Pilate asked of our Lord, was whether he really admitted that He was what the Jews had just accused Him of being. " Tell me, is it true that Thou art the King of the Jews? Dost thou really profess to be the King of this ancient people, over whom I and my soldiers are now rulers?" — It is far from improbable that Pilate, living so long in Jerusalem, may have often heard of the old Jewish kings, and of the dominion they received. It is far from unlikely, moreover, that he thought it possible he had before him one of those mock Messiahs, who, like Theudas, rose up at this period, and kept the minds of the Jews in agitation. " They accuse Thee of setting up Thyself as a King? Art Thou really a King? Dost Thou lay claim to any royal authority '{ " The humble attire and lowly appearance of our Lord can hardly fail to have struck Pilate. " Can it be true, that Thou, a poor man, with no signs of a kingdom about Thee, art the King of the Jews? "

In order to estimate aright this question which Pilate put, we must remember that Suetonius, the Roman historian, distinctly says that a rumor was very prevalent throughout the East at this period, that a King was about to arise among the Jews, who would obtain dominion over the world. This singular rumor, originating no doubt from Jewish prophecies, had of course reached Pilate's ears, and goes far to account for his question.

It is noteworthy that each of the four Gospel writers distinctly records that this was the first question that Pilate put to our liord. It seems to show that the chief thing impressed on the mind of Pilate about Jesus, was that He was a King. As a King he examined Him, as a King he sentenced Him, and as a King he crucified Him. And one main object that he seems to have had in view in questioning our Lord, was to ascertain what kind of a kingdom He ruled over, and whether it was one that would interfere with the Roman authority. On the whole, the question seems a mixture of curiosity and contempt,

34. — {Jesus answered Jiim, Say est thou, etc.] Our Lord's motive in this answer to Pilate was probably to awaken Pilate's conscience: "■ Dost thou say this of thine own independent self, in consequence of any complaints thou hast heard against Me as a seditious person? Or dost thou only ask it because the Jews have just accused Me of being a King? Hast thou, during all the years thou hast been a Governor, ever heard of Me as a leader of insurrection, or a rebel against the Romans "l If thou hast never heard anytliing of this kind against Me, and hast no personal knowledge of my being a rebel, oughtest thou not to pay very little attention to the complaint of my enemies? Their bare assertion ought not to weigh with thee."

Grotius paraplirases tlie verse tlius: " Thou hast been long a ruler, and a careful defender of tlie Roman majesty. Hast thou ever heard anything that would impeach Me of a desire to usurp authority against Rome? If thou hast never known anything of thyself, but others have suggested it, beware lest thou be deceived by an ambiguous word."

There is undoubtedly some little obscurity around the verse, and it becomes us to handle it reverently. It certainly looks like an appeal to the Roman Governor's conscience. " Before I answer thy question let Me ask thee one. For what reason and from whal motive art thou making this inquiry about my being a King? Canst thou say, from thy own personal knowledge, that thou hast ever heard Me complained of as setting up a kingdom? Thou knowest thou canst not say that. Art thou only asking Me because thou hast heard the Jews accuse Me of being a King to-day? If this is so, judge for thyself whether such a King as I appear to be is likely to interfere with thy authority."

Poole says, " Our Saviour desired to be satisfied from Pilate, whether he asked Him as a private person for his own satisfaction, or as a judge, having received any such accusation against Him. If he asked Him as a judge, he was bound to call others to prove what they had charged Him with."

Burgon remarks that Jesus did not need information in asking this question. He asked, as the Lord asked Adam, " Where art thou? " (Gen. iii. 9) in order to arouse Pilate to a sense of the shameful injustice of the charge.

35. — [Pilate answered, etc.] The answer of Pilate exhibits the haughty, high-minded, supercilious, fierce spirit of a Roman man of the world. So far from responding to our Lord's appeal to his conscience, he fires up at the very idea of knowing anything of the current opinions about Christ. — " Am I a Jew? Thinkest thou that a noble Roman like me knows anything about the superstitions of Thy people. I only know that Thine own countrymen, and the very leaders of Thy nation, have brought Thee unto me as a prisoner worthy of death. What they mean I do not pretend to understand. But I suppose there is some ground for their accusation. Tell me plainly what Thou hast done."

Pilate's answer seems tantamount to an acknowledgment that he knew nothing against our Lord. But as He had been brought before him as a prisoner, and he was pressed to condemn Him, he asks Him what He has done to bring this hatred of the Jews upon Him.

He that would know the depth of scorn contained in that sentence, " Am I a Jew? " should mark the contemptuous way in which Horace, Juvenal, Tacitus, and Pliny speak of the Jews.

Stier remarks, " Tlie Romans were only concerned with what was DONic; not with dreams, like the J(iwa; nor with wisdom, like the Greeks." Pilate's question was characteristic of his nation. 30. — [JeHUH anawfived.. kingdom... not... world.] In this famous sentence our Lord Ije^ins His answer to Pilate's question, "Art 'J'hou the Kin^ of the.Jews V" " Thou askest wlietlK^r I am a Kin^. 1 reply that I certainly have a kingdom, but it is a kingdom entirely unlike the kingdoms of tliis world, it is a kingdom which is n(;ither begun, nor propagated, nor defended by the power of this world, by the world's arms or the world's money. It is a kingdom wliich took its origin from heaven, and not from earth, — a spiritual kingdom, — a kingdom over hearts and wills and consciences, — a kingdom which needs no armies or revenues, — a kingdom which in no way interferes with the kingdoms of this world."

/world." But it evidently means " belonging to, dep(!ndent on, springing from, connected with." It is the same prejjosition that we find in John viii. 2;J: " Ye are from beneath; 1 am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."

That the above was our Lord's j)lain meaning, when He spoke the words before us, is to my mind as evident as the sun at noonday. The favorite theory of certain Christians that this text forbids Governments to have anything to do with religion, and condemns the union of Church and State, and renders all Kstablished Churches unlawful, is, in my judgment, baseless, preposterous, and utterly devoid of common sense. Whether the union of Church and State be right or wrong, it appears to me alwurd to say that it is forbidden by this text. The text declares that Christ's kingdom did not spring from the powers of this world, and is not dependent on them; but the text does not declare tliat the powers of this world ought to have nothing to do with Christ's kingdom. Christ's kingdom can get on very well without them; but they cannot get on very well without Christ's kingdom.

The following leading principles are worth remembering, in looking at this vexed (question: —

(a) Every Government is responsible to God, and no Government can ex[)ect to prosper without God's blessing. Every Government therefore is bound to do all that lies in its jjower to obtain God's favor and blessing. The Government that does not strive to i)romote true religion, has no right to expect God's blessing.

(h) Every good Government should endeavor to promote truth.charity, temperance, honesty, diligence, industry, chastity, among its subjects. True religion is the only root from which these things can grow. The Government that does not labor to promote true religion cannot be called either wise or good.

(c) To tell us that a Government must leave religion alone, because it cannot promote it without favoring one church more than another, is simply absurd. It is equivalent to saying that, as we cannot do good to everybody, we are to sit still and do no good at all.

(d) To tell us that no Government can find out what true religion is, and that consequently a Government should regard all religions with equal indifference, is an argument only fit for an infidel. In England at any rate a belief that the Bible is true is a part of the Constitution; an insult to the Bible is a punishable offence, and the testimony of an avowed atheist goes for nothing in a court of law.

(e) It is undoubtedly true that Christ's kingdom is a kingdom independent of the rulers of this world, and one which they can neither begin, increase, nor overthrow. But it is utterly false that the rulers of this world have nothing to do with Christ's kingdom, may safely leave religion entirely alone, and may govern their subjects as if they were beasts and had no souls at all.

Chrysostom says that our Lord's reply meant, " I am indeed a King; bat not such a King as thou suspectest, but one far more glorious."

[If my kingdom...servants fight...Jews.'] Our Lord proceeds to give proof that His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore not likely to interfere with the Roman authority. " If the kingdom of which I am head, were like the kingdoms of this world, and supported and maintained by worldly means, then my disciples would take up arms and fight, to prevent my being delivered to the Jews. This, as thou mayest know by inquiry, is the very thing which I forbade last night. Thine own soldiers can tell thee that they saw Me reprove a disciple for fighting, and heard Me tell him to put up his sword."

Let as mark that a religion propagated by the sword, of by violence, is a most unsatisfactory kind of Christianity. The weapons of Christ's warfare are not carnal. Even true Christians who have appealed to the sword to support their opinions, have often found themselves losers by it. Taking the sword, they have perished by the sword. Zwingle dying in battle, and the Scotch Covenanters, are examples.

Stier thinks that by " my servants " in this verse our Lord meant the angels! This, however, seems very improbable.

Bullinger makes some good remarks on this sentence, in reply to the Anabaptists of his time. He says, among other things, " Just as it does not follow that the Church is worldly, because we who are flesh and blood, and are the world, are m.embers of the Church, — so no one, unless he wants common sense, will say that the Church is worldly, because in it Kings and Princes serve God, by defending the good and punisliing the bad."

Calvin observes that this sentence " does not hinder Princes

from defending the kingdom of Christ; partly by appointing external discipline, and partly by lending their protection to the Church against wicked men." Beza says mnclx the same.

Hutcheson observes, " This text is not to be understood as if Christ disallowed that they to whom He has given the sword should defend His kingdom therewith; for if magistrates were as magistrates should be, nursing parents to the Church, and ought to kiss the Son, then certainly they may and should employ their power as magistrates for removing idolatry, and setting up the true worship of God, and defending it against violence."

[But now...my kingdom not...hence.'] The true meaning of this little sentence is not very clear. May it not mean, " Now, in this dispensation, my kingdom is not an earthly one, and is not of this world. A day will come by and by, after my second advent, when my kingdom will be a visible one over the whole earth, and my saints shall rule over the renewed world." — This may seem fanciful to some; but I have a strong impression that it is the true meaning. The adverb " now " is very decided and emphatical.

87. — [Pilate therefore...Art TJiou a King f] Here Pilate returns to his question, though he puts it in a different way: " Art Thou in some sense a King, if not such a King as the Kings of this world? Thou speakest of Thy kingdom and Thy servants. Am I to understand that Thou art a King? " We should observe the distinction in the language here, compared with that of verse thirty-three. There it was, " Art Thou the King of the Jews?" Here it is simply, " Art Thou a King? "

[Jesus ansicered, Thou sayest...! am a King.] This sentence is. a direct acknowledgment from our Lord's lips that He is a King; a King only over hearts, consciences, and wills, but still a real true King. " Thou sayest," is equivalent to an affirmation. " Thou sayest truly: I am what thou askest about. I admit that I am a King."

There can be no doubt that this " is the good confession before Pontius Pilate," which St. Paul specially impresses on the attention of the timid disciple Timothy, in his pastoral epistle. (1 Tim. vi. 13.)

[To this end... horn... witness... truth.] Here our Lord informs Pilate what was the great end and purpose of His incarnation. " It is true that I am a King, but not a King after the manner of the world. I am only a King over hearts and minds. The principal work for which I came into the world, is to be a witness of the truth concerning God, concerning man, and concerning the way of salvation. This truth has been long hidden and lost sight of. I came to bring it to light once more, and to be the King of all who receive it."

I think the " truth " in this sentence must be taken in the widest and fullest sense. The true doctrine about man, and God, and salvation, and sin, and holiness, was almost buried, lost, and gone, when Christ came into the world. To revive the dying light, and erect a new standard of godliness in a corrupt world, which neither Egypt, Assyria, Greece nor Rome could prevent rotting and decaying, was one grand end of Christ's mission. He did not come to gather armies, build cities, amass treasure, and found a dynasty, as Pilate perhaps fancied. He came to be God's witness, and to lift up God's truth in the midst of a dark world. He that would know how miserably small is the amount of truth which even the most civilized nations know without Christianity, should examine the religion and morality of the Chinese and Hindoos in the present day.

Some think that " I was born "points to Christ's humanity, and " came into the world," to His divinity.

{Every one...of truth...Tiearetli my voice.'] I think that in this sentence our Lord tells Pilate who are His subjects, disciples, and followers. " Wouldest thou know who are the members of my kingdom? I tell thee that it consists of all who really love the truth and desire to know more of God's truth. All such hear my voice, are pleased with my principles, and subjects of my kingdom." It is like our Lord's words to Nicodemus: " He that doeth truth cometh to the light." (John ill. 21.)

Thus our Lord shows Pilate that His kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, that His business was not to wear a crown and found an earthly monarchy, but to proclaim truth; and that His followers were not soldiers and warriors, but all earnest seekers after truth. Pilate therefore might dismiss from his mind all idea of His kingdom interfering with the authority of Rome.

Let us note that the position of Christ in the world must be the position of all Christians. Like our Master we must be witnesses for God and truth against sin and ignorance. We must not be afraid to stand alone. We must testify.

The expression " every one that is of the truth " is remarkable. It must mean every one that really and honestly desires to know the truth, receives my teaching, and follows Me as a Master. Does it not show that our Lord, when He appeared, gathered around Him all who were true-hearted lovers of God's revealed will, and were seeking, however feebly, to know more of it? (Compare John iii. 20; and viii. 47.) that there were many such, like Nathanael, among the Jews, anxiously looking for a Redeemer, we cannot doubt. " These," says our Lord, "are my subjects and make up my kingdom." Just as when

He speaks of Himself as a sTieplierd, He says, " My sheep hear my voice; " so wlien He speaks of Himself as God's great witness to trutL, He says, " All friends of truth hear my voice."

The wise condescension with which our Lord adapts His language to Pilate's habits of thought as a Roman, is very noteworthy. If He had used Jewish figures of speech, drawn from Old Testament language, Pilate might well have failed to understand Him. But every Roman in high position must have heard the arguments of philosophers about " the truth." Therefore our Lord says, " I am a witness to truth." In speaking to unconverted people, it is wise to use terms which they can understand.

Theophylact suggests that here is an appeal to Pilate's conscience: " If you are a real seeker after truth you will listen to Me."

38. — [Pilate saith... Wliat is truth f] This famous question, in my judgment, can only admit of one interpretation. It is the cold, sneering, sceptical interjection of a mere man of the world, who has persuaded himself that there is no such thing as truth, that all religions are equally false, that this life is all we have to care for, and that creeds and modes of faith are only words and names and superstitious, which no sensible person need attend to. It is precisely the state of mind in which thousands of great and rich men in every age live and die. Expanded and paraphrased, Pilate's question comes to this: — " Truth indeed 1 What is truth? I have heard all my life of various philosophical systems, each asserting that it has found the truth, and each differing widely from the others. Who is to decide what is truth and what is not? " — The best proof that this is the right view of the sentence is Pilate's behavior when he has asked the question. He does not, as Lord Bacon remarked two centuries ago, wait for an answer, but breaks off" the conversation and goes away. — The supposition that he asked a question, as an honest inquirer, with a real desire to get an answer, is too improbable and unreasonable to require any comment. The right way to understand Pilate's meaning is to put ourselves in his place, and to consider how many sects and schools of philosophers there were in the world at the time when our Lord appeared,— some Roman, some Grecian, and some Egyptian, — all alleging that they had got the truth, and all equally unsatisfactory. In short Gallio, who thought Christianity a mere " question of words and names," — Festus, who thought the dislike of the Jews to Paul arose from " questions of their own superstition," — and Pontius Pilate, • were all much alike. The worldlyminded Roman noble speaks like a man sick and weary of philosophical speculations; — " What is truth indeed? Who can tell? " — Nevertheless truth was very near him. If he had waited he might have learned!

Lightfoot alone thinks that Pilate only meant, " What is the true state of affairs? How can one so poor as Thou art be a King? How canst Thou be a King and yet not of this world! "

[And when...said this...went out...Jews.'] The meaning of this sentence is that Pilate " went out " of the palace where he had been conversing with our Lord apart from the Jews, and returned to the courtyard, or open space at the gate, where he had left the Jews at the thirty-third verse. He broke off the conversation at this point. Very likely the mention of " truth " touched his conscience, and he found it convenient to go out hurriedly, and cover his retreat with a sneer. A bad conscience generally dislikes a close conversation with a good man.

Augustine says, " I suppose that when Pilate said, ' What is truth? ' the Jews' custom, that one should be released at the passover, came into his mind at that instant, and for this reason he did not wait for Jesus to tell him what truth was, that

no time might be lost! " This, however, seems rather improbable.

[And saith...l find...no fault at all.] In this sentence comes out the true impression of Pilate about our Lord. — " After examining this man I can discern in Him no guilt, and nothing certainly to warrant me in condemning Him to death. He says, no doubt, and does not hesitate to avow it, that He is a King. But I find that His kingdom is not one which interferes with the authority of Caesar. Such Kings as this we Romans do not care for, or regard as criminals. In short, your charge against Him entirely breaks down, and I am disposed to dismiss Him as not guilty."

Our Lord, we may remember, came to be a sacrifice for our sins. It was only fitting that he who was one of the chief agents in killing Him, should publicly declare that, like a lamb without blemish, there was " no fault in Him."

89. — [But ye have a custom, etc.] In this verse we see the cowardly, weak, double-minded character of Pilate coming out. He knows in his own conscience that our Lord is innocent, and that if he acts justly he ought to let Him go free. But he fears offending the Jews, and wants to contrive matters so as to please them. He therefore prepares a plan by which he hoped that Jesus might be found guilty and the Jews satisfied, and yet Jesus might depart unhurt, and his own secret desire to acquit Him be gratified. — The plan was this. The Jews had a custom that at passover time they might obtain from the Roman Governor the release of some notable prisoner. Pilate craftily suggests that the paisoner released this passover should be our Lord Jesus Christ. — " Let us suppose that Jesus is guilty," he seems to say: " I am willing to condemn Him, and declare Him a criminal worthy of death, and a malefactor, in order to please you. But having pronounced Him a guilty criminal, what say you to my letting Him go free, according to the passover custom? " — This cowardly and unjust judge Loped in this way to please tlie Jews, by declaring an innocent person guilty, and yet at the same time to please himself by getting His life spared. Such are the ways of worldly and unprincipled rulers. Between the base fear of men, the desire to please the mob, and the secret dictates of their own conscience, they are continually^ doing wicked things, and pleasing nobody at all, and least of all themselves.

About this " custom," and when it began, we know nothing, St. Mark's account would lead us to suppose that as soon as Pilate came out of his palace, the multitude cried out for the usual passover favor to be granted to them. (See Mark xv. 8.) Pilate would seem to have caught at the idea at once, and to have suggested that Jesus should be the person released.

There seems a latent meaning in Pilate's use of the expression " the King of the Jews." Some think that it is a sneer. — *' This miserable, poor, lowly King; will you not have Him let go? " — Others think that Pilate had in view our Lord's claim to be the Messiah. " Would it not be better to release this man who asserts that He is your own Messiah? Would it not be a scandal to your nation to kill Him? " — A desire to release our Lord, side by side with a cowardly fear of offending the Jews by doing what was just and right, runs through all Pilate's dealings. He evidently knows what he ought to do, but does not do it.

Henry thinks Pilate must have heard how popular Jesus was with some of the Jews, and must have known of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days before. " He looked on Him as the darling of the multitude, and the envy of the rulers. Therefore he made no doubt they would demand the release of Jesus; and this would stop the prosecution, and all would be well." But he had not reckoned on the influence of the priests over the fickle multitude.

40. — [Then cried they all, etc.] This verse describes the complete failure of Pilate's notable plan, by which he hoped to satisfy the Jews and yet release Jesus. The fierce and bigoted party of Caiaphas would not listen to his proposal for a moment. They declared they would rather have Barabbas, a notorious prisoner in the hands of the Romans, released than Jesus. Nothing would Content them but our Lord's death. Barabbas, we know from St. Luke (xxiii. 19), was a murderer as well as a roljber. The Jews were asked to decide whether the holy Jesus or the vile criminal should be let go free and released from prison. — Such was their utter hardness, bitterness, cruelty, and hatred of our liord, that they actually declare they would rather have Barabbas set free than Jesus! Nothing in short would satisfy them but Christ's blood. Thus they committed the great sin which Peter charges home on them not long after: " Ye denied Jesus in the presence of Pilate, when lie was determined to let Him go. — Ye denied the Holy One and tlie Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you." (Acts iii. 13, 14.) They publicly declared that they liked a robber and a murderer better than Christ 1

The Greek word rendered " cried," signifies a very loud cry or shout. It is the same word that occurs at the raising of Lazarus. " He cried, Lazarus, come forth! " (John xi. 43.)

The expression " again " must either refer to the loud cries the Jews had raised, when they first brought Jesus to Pilate and demanded His condemnation; or else it must refer to a former cry for Barabbas to be released. According to Matthew they TWICE demanded this, with an interval of time between. (Compare Matt, xxvii. 15 — 26.)

The singularly typical character of all this transaction should be carefully noticed. Even here at this juncture we have a lively illustration of the great Christian doctrine of substitution. Barabbas, the real criminal, is acquitted and let go free. Jesus, innocent and guiltless, is condemned and sentenced to death. So is it in the salvation of our souls. We are all by nature like Barabbas, and deserve God's wrath and condemnation; yet he was accounted righteous and set free. The Lord Jesus Christ is perfectly innocent; and yet He is counted a sinner, punished as a sinner, and put to death that we may live. Christ suffers, though guiltless, that we may be pardoned. We are pardoned, though guilty, because of what C!hrist does for us. We are sinners, and yet counted righteous. Christ is righteous, and yet counted a sinner. Happy is that man who understands this doctrine, and has laid hold on it by faith for the salvation of his own soul.

In leaving this chapter, it is vain to deny that there are occasional difficulties in harmonizing the four different accounts of our Lord's examination and crucifixion. This of course arises from one Gospel writer dwelling more fully on one set of facts, and another on another. But we need not doubt that all is ])erfectly harmonious, and that if we do not see it, the reason lies in our present want of perception. If each Evangelist had told the story in precisely the same words, the whole result would have been far less satisfactory. It would have savored of imposture, concert, and collusion. The varieties in the four accounts are just what might have been expected from four honest independent witnesses, and, fairly treated, admit of explanation.

Augustine remarks, " How all the Evangelists agree together and nothing in any one Evangelist is at variance with the truth put forth by another, — this whosoever desires to know, let him seek it in laborious writings, and not in popular discourses, and not by standing and hearing, but by sitting and reading, or by lending a most attentive ear and mind to him that readeth. Yet let him believe, before he knows it, that there is nothing written by any one Evangelist, tliat can possibly be contrary either to his own or another's narration."

Melancthon suggests that the whole history of the passion, in this chapter, is a vivid typical picture of the history of Christ's Church in every age. He bids us observe what a multitude of portraits it contains! Saints both weak and strong, — enemies of many kinds — traitors, hypocrites, tyrants, priests, rulers, mobs, violence, treachery, the flight of friends, the bitter language of foes. What is it but a kind of prophetic history of Christ's Church?

The character of Pontius Pilate is so ably drawn out by Ellicott, that it may be well to quote it, in concluding this chapter. " Pilate was a thorough and complete type of the later-Roman man of the world. Stern, but not relentless, — shrewd and world-worn, — prompt and practical, — haughtily just, — and yet, as the early writers correctly observed, self-seeking and cowardly, — able to perceive what was right, but without moral strength to follow it out, — the Procurator of Judaea stands forth a sad and terrible instance of a man whom the fear of endangered self-interest drove not only to act against the deliberate convictions of his heart and conscience, but further to commit an act of cruelty and injustice, even after those convictions had been deepened by warnings and strengthened by presentiment."

1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged liim.

2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, aud put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with fheir hands.

4 Pilate therefore went forth again and saith unto them, Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Beiiold the man!

6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying. Crucify Am, crucify Am. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify Jam: for I find no fault in him.

7 The Jews answered him. We have a law, and by our law he ought

to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

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

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

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

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

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

IS "When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King I

15 But they cried out, Away with Mm, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests, answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led Mm away.

These verses exhibit to our eyes a wonderful picture, a picture which ought to be deeply interesting to all who profess and call themselves Christians. Like every great historical picture, it contains special points on which we should fix our special attention. Above all, it contains three life-like portraits, which we shall find it useful to examine in order.

We see the Saviour of mankind scourged, crowned with thorns, mocked, smitten, rejected by His own people, unjustly condemned by a judge who saw no fault in Him, and finally delivered up to a most painful death. Yet this was He who was the eternal Son of God, whom the Father's countless angels delighted to honor. This was He who came into the world to save sinners, and after living a blameless life for thirty years, spent the last three years of His time on earth in going about doing good, and preaching the Gospel. Surely the sun never shone on a more wondrous sight since the day of its creation!

Let us admire that love of Christ which St. Paul declares, " passeth knowledge," and let us see an endless depth of meaning in the expression. There is no earthly love with which it can be compared, and no standard by which to measure it. It is a love that stands alone. Never let us forget when we ponder this tale of suflering, that Jesus sufi*ered for our sins, the Just for the unjusjb, that He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, and that with His stripes we are healed.

Let us diligently follow the example of His patience in all the trials and afflictions of life, and specially in those which may be brought upon us by religion. When He was reviled, He reviled not again; when He suffered. He threatened not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously. Let us arm ourselves with the same mind. Let us consider Him who endured such contradiction of sinners without a murmur, and strive to glorify Him by suffering well, no less than by doing well.

The second portrait in the picture before us, is thai of the unhelieviiig Jews who favored our ILord^s death.

We see them for three or four long hours obstinately rejecting Pilate's offer to release our Lord, — fiercely demanding His crucifixion, savagely claiming His condemnation to death as a right, — persistently refusing to acknowledge Him as their King, — declaring that they had no King but Caesar, — and finally accumulating on their own heads the greater part of the guilt of His murder. Yet these were the children of Israel and the seed of Abraham, to whom pertained the promises and the Mosaic ceremonial, the temple sacrifices and the temple priesthood. These were men who professed to look for a Proi:)het like unto Moses, and a son of David who was to set up a kingdom as Messiah. Never, surely, was there such an exhibition of the depth of human wickedness since the day when Adam fell.

Let us mark with fear and trembling the enormous danger of long-continued rejection of light and knowledge. There is such a thing as judicial blindness; and it is the last and sorest judgment which God can send upon men. He who, like Pharaoji and Ahab, is often reproved but refuses to receive reproof, will finally have a heart harder than the nether mill-stone, and a conscience past feeling, and seared as w^ith a hot iron. This was the state of the Jewish nation during the time of our Lord's ministry; and the heading up of their sin was their deliberate rejection of Him, when Pilate desired to let Him go. From such judicial blindness may we all I)ray to be delivered! There is no worse judgment from God than to be left to ourselves, and given over to our own wicked hearts and the devil. There is no surer w^ay to bring that judgment upon us than to persist in refusing warnings and sinning against light. These words of Solomon are very awful: " Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh." (Prov. i. 24-26.) Never let it be forgotten, that, like the Jews, we may at length be given up to strong delusion, so that we believe lies, and think that we are doing God service while we are committing sin. (2 Thess. ii. 11.)

The thirds and last portrait in the picture before us, is that of Pontius Filate.

We see a Roman Governor, — a man of rank and high position, — an imperial representative of the most powerful nation on earth, — a man who ought to have been the fountain of justice and equity, — halting between two opinions in a case as clear as the sun at noonday. We see him knowing what was right, and yet afraid to act up to his knowledge, — convinced in his own conscience that he ought to acquit the prisoner before him, and yet afraid to do it lest he should displease His accusers, — sacrificing the claims of justice to the base fear of man, — sanctioning from sheer cowardice, an enormous crime, — and finally countenancing, from love of man's good opinion, the murder of an innocent person. Never perhaps did human nature make such a contemptible exhibition. Never was there a name so justly handed down to a world's scorn as the name which is embalmed in all our creeds, — the name of Pontius Pilate.

Let us learn what miserable creatures great men are, when they have no high principles within them, and no faith in the reality of a God above them. The meanest laborer who has grace and fears God, is a nobler being in the eyes of his Creator than the King, ruler, or statesman, whose first aim it is to please the people. To have one conscience in private and another in public, — one rule of duty for our own souls, and another for our public actions, — to see clearly what is right before God, and yet for the sake of popularity to do wrong, — this may seem to some both right, and politic, and statesmanlike, and wise. But it is a character which no Christian man can ever regard with respect.

Let us pray that our own country may never be without men in high places who have grace to think right, and courage to act up to their knowledge, without truckling to the opinion of men. Those who fear God more than man, and care for pleasing God more than man, are the best rulers of a nation, and in the long run of years are always most respected. Men like Pontius Pilate, who are always trimming and compromising, led by popular opinion instead of leading popular opinion, afraid of doing right if it gives offence, ready to do wrong if it makes them personally popular, such men are the worst governors that a country can have. Tliey are often God's heavy judgment on a nation because of a nation's sins.

1. — [TJien Pilate...took Jesus...scourged Him.'] Tlie cruel injury inflicted on our Lord's body, in this verse, was probably far more severe tlian an English reader might suppose. It was a punishment which among the Romans generally preceded crucifixion, and was sometimes so painful and violent that the sufferer died under it. It was often a scourging with rods, and not always with cords, as painters and sculptors represent. Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his " Antiquities," particularly mentions that malefactors were scourged, and tormeuted in every way before they were put to death. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible says, that under the Roman mode of scourging, " the culprit was stripped, stretched with cords or thongs on a frame, and beaten with rods,"

As to Pilate's reason for inflicting this punishment on our Lord, there seems little doubt. He secretly hoped that this tremendous scourging, in the Roman fashion, would satisfy the Jews; and that after seeing Jesus beaten, bleeding, and torn with rods, they would be content to let Him go free. As usual, he was double-minded, cruel and deceitful. He tried to please the Jews by ill-treating our Lord as much as possible, and at the same time he hoped to please his own conscience a little by not putting Him to death. He told the Jews, indeed, according to Luke's account, what he wanted: " I will chastise Him and release Him." (Luke xxiii. 16.) How entirely this weak design failed we shall see by-and-by.

Chrysostom says, " Pilate scourged Jesus, desiring to exhaust and soothe the fury of the Jews. Being anxious to stay the evil at this point, he scourged Him, and permitted to be done what was done, and the robe and crown to be put on Him, in

order to relax their anger." Augustine and Cyril say much the same.

The importance of this particular portion of our Lord's sufferings is strongly shown by the fact that Isaiah specially says, " by His stripes we are healed; " and that St. Peter specially quotes that text in his first epistle. (Isaiah liii. 5. 1 Peter ii. 24.) Our Lord Himself particularly foretold that He would be scourged. (Luke xviii. 33.)

It may seem needless to say that Pilate did not scourge Jesus with his own hands. Any plain reader will at once conclude that the scourging was inflicted by his soldiers or attendants. Yet the venerable Bede thinks that Pilate himself scourged Jesus. And it is worth remembering that a modern sceptical writer has actually argued that the book of Leviticus must be uninspired, because in that book the priest is commanded to lift, and move, and oifer up the bodies of slain sacrifices, which alone he could not do! Surely he might have recollected that a man is said to do things, when he does them by the hands of servants and attendants! It was thus, no doubt, that Pilate Bcourged Jesus. The word " took " probably means, " commanded Him to be seized."

Hengstenberg thinks that the remarkable incident of Pilate's " washing his hands " (Matt, xxvii. 24), and declaring his innocence of Christ's blood, comes in between this verse and the preceding chapter. I would rather place it after the fifteenth verse of this nineteenth chapter.

The place where this horrible indignity was inflicted on our Lord's holy person (according to St. Matthew xxvii. 27) was the prtetoriura, or common hall, which was probably a kind of guard-room, where the Roman soldiers used to spend their time, and keep themselves in readiness to do anything the Governor wished. What kind of a place the guard-room of a body of rough Roman soldiers can have been we can hardly conceive, even if we visit the worst regimental guard-rooms of modern days.

Some think that our Lord was scourged twice; once at the beginning of Pilate's examination, and once after His final condemnation. This however seems to me very doubtful. The idea probably arises from not carefully observing that the proceedings before Pilate, after the scourging recorded here, are peculiar to St. John's Gospel, and omitted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Besser remarks, " Before the message, ' Christ our righteousness ' was revived, and the Lutheran • Christ for us ' was again the refreshment of weary souls, men could not draw much refreshment from Christ's scourging. Before the Reformation whole hosts of self-bewailing penitents came forth from Italy and spread over Germany. They were called 'Flagellants;' and naked to the waist they roamed through towns and villages, singing penitential hymns like Dies Irse, and flogging one another."

2. — [And...soldiers... crown.. Morns...7iead.] About the object of the soldiers in this act there can be no doubt. It was done in mockery and ridicule of our blessed Lord, and to pour contempt on the idea of His being a King. These rude men would show how they defied such a King. We can well believe that rough heathen soldiers, like Roman legionaries, were expert and trained by practice in the best way of torturing a prisoner.

Thorns, according to Tristram, are so common in Palestine, that the soldiers would have no difficulty in finding materials for weaving this crown. Hasselquist, quoted in Smith's Dic-

tionary, says, " The plant called ' nebk ' (zizyphus spina Christi) Was very suitable for the purpose, as it has many sharp thorns, and its flexible, pliant, and round branches, might easily be plaited in the form of a crown; and what, in my opinion, seems the greatest proof is, that the leaves most resemble those of ivy, as they are of a very deep green. Perhaps the enemies of Christ would choose a plant like that witli which Emperors and Generals used to be crowned, that there might be calumny

even in the punishment." How painful and irritating such a crown of thorns would be, sticking into the forehead or head of one whose hands were bound, we can easily imagine.

Here, as in every step of Christ's passion, we see His complete and perfect substitution for sinners. He, the innocent sin-bearer, wore the crown of thorns, that we, the guilty, might wear a crown of glory. Vast is the contrast which there will be between the crown of glory that Christ will wear at His second advent, and the crown of thorns which He wore at His first coming.

Lightfoot remarks that " it was a most unquestionable token that Christ's kingdom was not of this world, when He was crowned only with thorns and briars, which are the curse of

the earth." It was, moreover, a striking symbol of the consequences of the fall being laid on the head of our divine Substitute. In Leviticus it is written that Aaron shall lay his hands " upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat." (Lev. xvi. 21.)

History says that in the Crusades, when Godfrey of Bouillon, the Christian General, was made King of Jerusalem, he refused to be crowned with a golden crown, — saying that " it did not become him to wear a crown of gold, in the city where his Saviour had worn a crown of thorns."

Rollock observes, " Ye shall find these soldiers even worse inclined than Pilate was. This falls out: if the master command them to do one evil deed, often the servants will do two."

When John Huss, the martyr, was brought forth to be burned, they put a paper over his head, on which were pictured three devils, and the title " heresiarch." When he saw it, he said, " My Lord Jesus Christ, for my sake, did wear a crown of thorns: why should not I, therefore, for His sake, wear this ignominious crown? "

[And tJiey put...purple rohe.] This again was done as a mark of contempt and derision. A mock royal robe was thrown over our Lord's shoulders, in order to show how ridiculous and contemptible was the idea of His kingdom. The color, " purple," was doubtless meant to be a derisive imitation of the wellknown imperial purple, the color worn by Emperors and Kings. Some have thought that this robe was only an old soldier's cape, such as a guard-house would easily furnish. Some, with more show of probability, have thought that this " robe " must be the " gorgeous robe " which Herod put on our Lord mentioned by St. Luke, wlien he sent Him back to Pilate (Luke xxiii. 11), a circumstance which Jolin has not recorded. In any case we need not doubt that the " robe " was some shabby, castoff garment. It is worth remembering that this brilliant color, scarlet or purple, would make our blessed Lord a most conspicuous object to every eye, when He was led through the streets from Herod, or brought forth from Pilate's house to the assembled multitude of Jews. — Once more we should call to mind the symbolical nature of this transaction also. Our Lord was clothed with a robe of shame and contempt, that we might be clothed with a spotless garment of righteousness, and stand in white robes before the throne of God.

d.~-[And said, Hail, King of the Jews/] This again was evidently done to pour contempt upon our Lord, The words of the soldiers were spoken in contemptuous imitation of the words addressed to a Roman Emperor, on his assuming Imperial power: "Hail, Emperor! aoe Imperator / " It was as much as saying, " Thou a King indeed 1 Thou and thy kingdom are alike base and contemptible."

Hengstenberg observes, " It was the kingdom of the Jews itself that »,he soldiers laughed at. They regarded Jesus as the representative of the Messianic hope of the Jews. They would turn to ridicule tliese royal hopes, which were known far in the heathen world, more especially as they aspired to the dominion of the whole earth."

Let us not fail to remark at this point that ridicule, scorn, and contempt, were one prominent portion of our blessed Master's suiferings. Any one who knows human nature, must know that few things are more difficult to bear than ridicule, especially when we know that it is undeserved, and when it is for religion's sake. Those who have to endure such ridicule may take comfort in the thought that Christ can sympathize with them; for it is a cup which He Himself drank to the very dregs. Here again He was our Substitute, He bore contempt, that we might receive praise and glory at the last day.

Henry remarks, " If at any time we are ridiculed for welldoing, let us not be ashamed, but glorify God; for thus we are partakers of Christ's sufferings,"

[And they smote...hands.] The words so rendered would be equally well translated, " they gave Him blows with a rod or stick." The same Greek word in the singular is so translated in the marginal reading of John xviii, 23, When we compare Matt, xxvii. 27, 30, where it says the soldiers took a reed and smote Him with it on the head, it seems highly probable that this was the action here recorded. According to Matthew, the soldiers put the reed in our Lord's hand as a mock sceptre; and when, as Lampe observes, " He refused to retain it in His right hand, because He came to suffer indignities, but not to perform them," they snatched it out of His hand, and brutally struck

Him witli it on tlie bead. This appears to me a reasonable and Batisfactory supposition, and makes it most likely that the blowhere was not " with the hand."

If the blows were inflicted on the head, whether with hand or reed, we can readily conceive what acute bodily pain they might occasion to a head crowned with thorns. The thorns would be driven into the skin, till the blood ran down the face and forehead and neck of our Lord. Truly " He was bruised for our iniquities." (Isaiah liii. 5.)

4,,— [Pilate therefore went forth, etc.] This verse opens a new ' scene of the painful story of the passion. The scourging being over, and the mockery of the soldiers having gone on as long as Pilate thought it worth while, the Roman Governor went forth outside the palace where he lived, to the Jews, who were waiting to hear the result of his private interview with our Lord. We must remember that, under the influence of hypocritical scrupulosity, they would not go inside the Gentile Governor's house, lest forsooth they should be " defiled," and were therefore waiting in the court outside. Now Pilate comes out of his palace and speaks to them. The words of the verse seem to show that Pilate came out first, and that our Lord was led out behind him. — "Behold I am bringing Him oui side again, that you may know that I can find no fault or cause of condemnation in Him, and no ground for your charge that He is a stirrer up of sedition and a rebel King. He is only a weak, harmless fanatic, who lays claim to no kingdom of this world, and I bring Him forth to you as a poor, contemptible person worthy of scorn, but not one that I can pronounce worthy of death. I have examined Him myself, and I inform you that I can see no harm in Him."

It seems to me quite plain that Pilate's private interview with our Lord has completely satisfied the Gov^ernor that He was a harmless, innocent person, and made him feel a strong desire to dismiss Him unhurt; and he secretly hoped that the Jews would be satisfied when they saw the prisoner whom they liad accused brought out beaten and bruised, and treated with scorn and contempt, and that they would not press the charge any further. How thoroughly this cowardly double-dealing man was disappointed, and what violence he had to do to his own conscience, we shall soon see.

It is very noteworthy that the expression, " I find no fault in Him," is used three times by Pilate, in the same Greek words, in St. John's account of the passion. (John xviii. 88; xix. 4-6.) It was meet and right that he who had the chief hand in slaying the Lamb of God, the Sacrifice for our sins, should three "times publicly declare that he found no spot or blemish in Him. He was proclaimed a Lamb without spot or fault, after a searching examination, by him that slew Him.

5.—[Then...Jesusfort7i...t7i07'7is...robe.'] The language of this sentence appears to me to show tliat Pilate went outside the palace first, and announced that he was goino- to bring out the prisoner, and that then our Lord followed him. The word " forth," both in this and the preceding verse, means literally, " outside," or " without." It is the same that is used in the texts, " His brethren stood without " (Matt. xii. 46); and " Without are dogs." (Rev. xxii. 15.)

That our blessed Lord, the eternal Word, should have meekly submitted to be led out after this fashion, as a gazing-stock and an object of scorn, with an old purple robe on His shoulders and a crown of thorns on His head, His back bleeding from scourging and His head from thorns, to feast the eyes of a taunting, howling, blood-thirsty crowd, is indeed a wondrous thought! Truly, " though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor." (2 Cor. viii. 9.) Since the world began, the sun never shone on a more surprising spectacle both for angels and men.

[And PUate...BeJiold the Man.] This famous sentence, so well known as " Ecce Homo," in Latin, admits of two views being taken of it. Pilate may have spoken it in contempt: " Behold the Man you accuse of setting Himself up as a King! See what a weak, helpless, contemptible creature He is." — Or else Pilate may have spoken it in pity: " Behold the poor feeble Man whom you want me to sentence to death. Surely your demands may be satisfied by what I have done to Him. Is He not punished enough? " — Perhaps both views are correct. In any case there can be little doubt that the latent feeling of Pilate was the hope that the Jews, on seeing our Lord's miserable condition, would be content, and would allow Him to be let go. In this hope, again, we shall find he was completely deceived.

Pilate probably threw a strong emphasis on the expression " Man," indicative of contempt. This may have led to the Jews saying so strongly, in the seventh verse, that the prisoner " made Himself the y6'o/i of God," and claimed to be Divine, and not a mere " man," as Pilate had said. He probably also meant the Jews to mark that he said, " Behold the man," not " your King," but a mere common man.

6. — [Wlien the chief priests... crucify Rim.] We see in this verse the complete failure of Pilate's secret scheme for avoiding the condemnation of our Lord. The pitiful sight of the bleeding and despised prisoner had not the effect of softening down the feel ings of His cruel enemies. They would not be content with any thing but His death, and the moment He appeared they raised the fierce cry, " Crucify Him, crucify Him."

Let it be noted that the chief priests wer6 the foremost in raising the cry for crucifixion. It is a painful fact that in every age, none have been such hard, cruel, unfeeling, and bloodyminded persecutors of God's saints, as the ministers of religion.

Tlie conduct of Bisliop Bonner, in the reign of bloody Mary, towards some of our martyred Reformers, is a melauclioly proof of this.

The " officers " here mentioned were the attendants, and servants, and immediate followers of the priests, who would naturally take up any cry raised by their masters.

The word rendered " cried out," means a loud shout or clamorous cry, and is peculiar to John's account of this part of the passion. It is the same word that is used of our Lord at the grave of Lazarus: " He cried, Lazarus, come forth." (John si. 43.) It is the same that is u?ed of the multitude at Jerusalem, when they would no longer listen to Paul speaking to them on the stairs: " They cried out, and cast ofE their clothes, and threw dust into the air." (Acts xxii, 23.)

The cry " Crucify " was equivalent to a demand that our Lord might be put to death after the Roman manner.

Cyril remarks, " When the multitude would perhaps have blushed with shame at the sight of what had been done, remembering Christ's miracles, the priests are the first to cry out, and so inflame and stir up the mob."

He who would know to what an extraordinary degree of blood-thirstiness a mob may be stirred up when once excited, should study the history of the Reign of Terror at Paris, during the first French revolution.

[Pilate saith...Take ye... in Him.'] This, as Cyril justly argues, is the language of one vexed, and irritated,' and made impatient by the pertinacity with which the priests stuck to their point. " Do your bloody work yourselves, if you must needs have it done. Take your prisoner away, and do not trouble me with the case. I find no fault in Him, and I dislike being made, your tool in this matter." It seems impossible to put any other construction on Pilate's words. He could not have meant gravely and seriously that he would allow the Jews to put the prisoner to death, and thus admit the precedent of letting them inflict capital punishment. Temper, vexation, and irony, seem to lie at the bottom of his words; and the chief priests seem to have taken his words in this sense. We cannot doubt that they would gladly have taken away our liord and crucified Him at once, if they had thought Pilate really meant they should do so.

For the third time we should notice Pilate's emphatic declaration: " I find no fault in Him." Three times he vainly tried to evade condemning our Lord, or to make the Jews desist from their bloody design: once by asking the Jews to choose between Christ and Barabbas, — once by sending Him to Herod, —once by scourging Him, and exhibiting Him in a contemptible light before the people. Three times he failed utterly.

Burkitt remarks, " Hypocrites within tlie pale of the visible Church may be guilty of sucli monstrous acts of wickedness, as even the consciences of heathens without the Church may boggle at and protest against."

7. — \_The Jews answered him, etc.] In this verse we find the priests taking up a new ground of accusation against our Lord. They saw that their political accusation had failed. Pilate would not condemn Him as a King, and refused to see any fault in Him on that score. They, therefore, charge our Lord with blasphemy, and committing an offence against their law. As to Pilate's ironical words, " Take yd Him and crucify Him," they made no remark on them, as though they knew they were not meant to be taken seriously. The whole sense must be filled up in some such way as this, — " It is no use telling us to crucify this prisoner ourselves, because you well know that it is not lawful for us to put any man to death; but seeing that you will not condemn Him as a political offender, we now charge Him with an offence against our religion, which, as our Governor, you are bound to defend and protect. We call upon you to condemn Him to death for claiming to be the Son of God, which, according to our law, is blasphemy, and a capital crime." This is a lengthy paraphrase, undoubtedly, but one which is necessary, if we would fill up the sense of the verse, and understand what the Jews meant.

The " law " referred to by the Jews is probably Levit. xxiv. 16. But it is curious that " stoning " is the punishment there mentioned, and not a word is said of crucifixion. This they do not tell Pilate. There is, perhaps, more fullness in the expression " a law " than appears at first. It may mean, " we Jews have a law given us by man from God, which is our rule of faith in religion. It is a law, we know, not binding on Gentiles, but it is a law which we feel bound to obey. One of the articles of that law is, that " He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be stoned.' We ask that this article may be enforced in the case of this man. He lias blasphemed by calling Himself the Son of God, and He ought to be put to death. We, therefore, demand His life." There certainly seems aa emphasis in the Greek on the word " we," as if it meant " we Jews," in contradistinction to Gentiles.

The expression " He ought " is literally, " he owes it," he is a debtor, he is under an obligation or penalty of death, according to the terms of our code of law.

The expression " Son of God " meant far more to a Jewish mind than it does to us. We see in John v. 18 that the Jewa considered that when our Lord said that God was His Father He made Himself " equal with God." See also John x. 33.

One tliino; at any rate is very clear: whatever Socinians maysay, our Lord distinctly laid claim to divinity, and the Jews distinctly understood Him to mean that He was God as well as man.

Cyril well remarks that if the Jews had dealt justly, they would have told the Gentile ruler that the person before him had not only claimed to be the Son of God, but had also done many miracles in proof of His divinity.

Rollock observes, " Look, wliat blinds them! The Word of God that should make them see, blinds them so that they use it to their ruin. The best things in the world, yea, the Word of God itself, serve to wicked men for nothing else but their induration. The more they read, the blinder they are. And why? Because they abuse the word, and make it not a guide to direct their affections and actions."

— [ When Pilate..Jieard... was afraid.'] In this verse we see Pilate in a different frame of mind. This new charge of blasphemy against our Lord threw a new light over his feelings. He began to be really frightened and uncomfortable. Tlie thought that the meek and gentle Prisoner before him might after all be some superior Being, and not a mere common man, filled his weak and ignorant conscience with alarm. What if he had before him some God in human form? What if it should turn out that he was actually inflicting bodily injuries on one of the Gods? As a Roman he had doubtless heard and read many stories, drawn from the heathen mythology of Greece and Rome, about Gods coming down to earth, and appearing in human form. Perhaps the prisoner before him was one! The idea raised new fears in his mind. Already he had been made very uncomfortable about Him. Our Lord's calm, dignified, and majestic demeanor had doubtless made an impression. His evident innocence of all guilt, and the extraordinary malice of His enemies, whose characters Pilate most likely knew well, had produced an effect. His own wife's dream had its influence. Even before the last charge of the Jews the Roman judge had been awe-struck, and secretly convinced of our Lord's innocence, and anxious to have Him set free, and actually " afraid " of his prisoner. But when he heard of His being the " Son of God," he was made more afraid.

Burgon remarks, " Like Gamaliel in the Acts, Pilate was seized with a salutary apprehension, lest haply he be found even to fight against God."

The " saying " referred to must mean the expression, " Son of God."

The word "more " deserves attention. It shows clearly that from the first Pilate had been " afraid," and uneasy in conscience. He had never liked the case being brought before him at all. To have such an extraordinary preacher, and a worker of sucli miracles as our Lord, brought to his bar, frightened him. But now when he heard that He laid claim to divinity, he was " more afraid." We must never forget that Pilate, as Roman Governor of Judaa, charged with the management of a most turbulent and troublesome province, was doubtless informed by spies, as well as by the officers of his army, of everything that went on in J udsea. Can we doubt for a moment that he must have heard many accounts of our Lord's ministry, and specially of His miracles and astonishing power over the sick and the dead? Can we doubt that he heard of the raising of Lazarus at Bethany, within a walk of Jerusalem? Remembering all this, we may well suppose that lie regarded the whole case brought before him by the Jews with much anxiety from the very first, and we can well understand that when he heard that Jesus was " the Son of God," he was more than ever alarmed. Unprincipled rulers have an uneasy position.

Bishop Hall thinks that tlie cause of Pilate's fear was only the increased rage and excitement of the people. He was afraid of a riot and tumult!

9. — \And went again...judgment hall.] This means, that, on hearing this fresh charge of blasphemy, Pilate retired again from the outside of the palace into the inner part, where he had before conversed with our Lord, once more leaving the Jews outside. This new charge was so serious that he did not care to enter into it publicly, and preferred examining our Lord about it privately.

[And saitJi... Whence art T7iou?] This qaestion I think can admit of only one meaning. It meant, — " Who art Thou? What art Thou? Art Thou from heaven? Art Thoa one of the gods come down to earth, of whom I have heard the priests talk? What is Thy real nature and history? If Thou art some superior being, more than a common man, tell me plainly, that I may know how to deal with Thy case. Tell me privately, while these Jews are not present, tliat I may know what line to take up with Thine enemies." — We may well believe that Pilate caught at the secret hope that Jesus might tell him something about Himself, which would enable Him to make a firm stand and deliver Him from the Jews. In this hope, again, the Roman Governor was destined to be disappointed.

[But Jesus gave him no answer.'] Our Lord's silence, when this appeal was made to him by Pilate, is very striking. Hitherto He had spoken freely and replied to questions; now He refused to speak any more. The reason of our Lord's silence must be sought in the state of Pilate's soul. He deserved no answer, and therefore got none. He had forfeited his title to any further revelation about his Prisoner. He had been told plainly the nature of our Lord's ki7igdom, and the purpose of our Lord's coming into the world, and been obliged to confess publicly his innocence. And yet, with all this light and knowledge, he had treated our Lord with flagrant injustice, scourged Him, allowed Him to be treated with the vilest indignities by his soldiers, and held Him up to scorn, knowing in his own mind all the time that He was a guiltless person. He had, in short, sinned, away his opportunities, forsaken his own mercies, and turned a deaf ear to the cries of his own conscience. Hence our Lord would have nothing more to do with him, and would tell him nothing more. " He gave him no answer."

Here, as in many other cases, we learn that God will not force conviction on men, and will not compel obstinate unbelievers to believe, and will not always strive with men's consciences. Most men, like Pilate, have a day of grace, and an open door put before them. If they refuse to enter in, and choose their own sinful way, the door is often shut, and never opened again. There is such a thing as a " day of visitation," when Christ speaks to men. If they will not hear His voice, and open the door of their hearts, they are often let alone, given over to a reprobate mind, and left to reap the fruit of their own sins. It was so with Pharaoh, and Saul, and Aliab; and Pilate's case was like theirs. He had his opportunity, and did not choose to use it, but preferred to please the Jews at the expense of his conscience, and to do what he knew was wrong. We see the consequence. Our Lord will tell him nothing more.

In saying all this, I think we must not forget that Pilate's wicked refusal to listen to his own conscience, and our Lord's consequent refusal to speak to him any more, were all overruled by the eternal counsels of God to the carrying out of His purpose of redemption. In handling such a point we must speak with reverence. But it is plain that if our Lord had revealed to Pilate who He was, and forced Pilate to see it, the crucifixion might perhaps never have taken place, and the great sacrifice for a world's sins might never have been oflered up on the cross. Our Lord's silence was just and well merited. But it was also part of God's counsels about man's salvation.

Let us note that there is " a time to be silent," as well as " a time to speak." This is a matter in the social intercourse of daily life, about which we all need to pray for wisdom. To be always saying to everybody everything we know, is not the line of a wise follower of Christ.

Let us note that if we do not make a good use of light and opportunities, — and if we resist Christ speaking to our conscience,— a time may come when, like Pilate, we may speak to Christ, and ask things of Him, and He may give us no answer. It is written in a certain place, " They would none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof; therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way." " Then shall they call upon Me, but I will not answer." (Pro v. i. 24 — 32.)

Chrysostom observes, " Christ answered nothing, because He knew that Pilate asked all the questions idly."

IJciHHrsr r«itriarlcH, "A pc^iilion tr> (!liriHt for onll^liieninont, even wIkmi olTorrrI ii[) in a iidim'h IhhI iiiodkwiIh from u (IcutJi bed, n(iv<!r failH of Ixiin/jf JiiiHW<!nMl, if odiiirod in Hiiwmrity arid from Mid iHriirt,; mid ol>l,uinH for tlio Hiippliunl/UH iniich ^rn,c() art Ih ucodtul for Kalva,l,loii. Jiiit to a l?ilato Johuh iu Hiloiit."

10. — \Tlirn itaUli. PilfUc, ctn.] In tiiiw vf'.rHo w(j h(!o tlio iinprriouH, lUivt'A'i, liRiif.,'lil.y, arrogant, i(im|)(!r of tim ltoiiia,n (Jovcriior bnuiii- 'u\^ oiiL AccuHl.omod to hc-o priHonorH <;riii^''iii<,'' Ixiforo him, an(i willing to do aiiytliiii/^ to (thl.aiii ITih favor, Ik; could not undctr- Htand our liord'H Hilonc-o. lie, addrcrH.Sf^H him in a tono of an^j^tir and MurpriHo comhincd: - " Why doMtThou not annwrr my (jn(!H lion? l)(»Ht'rii<>n know whn.t Thou art doin;^ in olliuidin;^ nioV J)o.Mt 'I'hou not know tha,t Thou art at my nntrcy, and that I liavn pow(!r to criic-ify Thno or ndnaHo Thoo, according an I. think ri^htV" — I mu hoo no othnr n',a,H(»nahl() ('.onHtniction that can he put on Pihito'H wordn. Tho ichia that ho wan only p(!r- Huadin^ onr Lord, and ^i^cntly romindin/!^ I lirti of hin own pow»!r, nH nttfirly iinr<!aHonal)h!,a,n(l incoiiHiMtcnt witli tho followin;^

It Ih only fair to ronunidxir tluit the (J rook word nMuh^n^d " ])Ovv«ir," mi^clit l>n nmchinMl "authority," or " <',ommiHnion; " and in thin hcuho I'ihito mi^^lif, only nmaji, " 1 have (*,ommiMHion from tho lionnin (iovtu-nnntnt to Hontonco prinoncrH to <l(taih or lot them /,^o frcio: would it not 1x5 rorThinn inlrrc.st to npoak to mo V "

11. — [Jrsns (inmncrcd, cic,.^ Our Ijonl'rt reply to I*ilat(5 in thirt vcrHo JM rcinarkiihly calm and di^niliod, thou^j^h not without Homo «liHicull1(^H, hecauHo of itn «dlipticn,l conntrucLion. It may ho piiraplirMHc<l thuH: "Thou HpcakcHt of power, 'riieii do.st not know that hoth thou and the.)ew.M are only tool.s in tlie hand of a hi;^;her Hein;!f,and t.ha,t iIkmi couldHt have no power whatever a/j;ninHt M(!, if it wei-e not;^^iven theel)y(h)(l. 'I'his, h<»W(iVer, tlM>u <h)Ht not underHtH,nd, and a,rt therefore h^Hrt guilty than the JinvH. 'IMio.lewH who (hdiven^l Me into thine hand, do know that all power iH from (Jod. 'IMiuH their knowledge nuikciH I hem morci K"'''y than 'i'hou. Hoth thou and they are committing a /j;r()a,t Hin; hut their nin in a nin a/^ainnt knowh-di^e, and ihino JH <"(unpa.ra,t,ively at-in uf i/j^n(U'a.nc.e. Vou a,re hol.h uncouMcioiiMly nnu't) in.sti'umentM in the hand of (Jod, and you could <lo nothinuf uyainnt Me, if (Jod did not ixrmit and overrule it." The loijical connection of tlie former and latter parts of the verse is hy no means clear. The precise object of " therefore," and the reason why God's overruling providence made the Jews more guilty than the Gentiles, are things which it is not easy to explain. But I must think that the latent idea of our Lord was to remind Pilate how ignorantly he was acting, and how little he knew what he was about compared to the Jews.

That the possession of superior knowledge increases the sinfulness of a sinner's sin, seems taught by implication in this verse. It was more sinful in the Jews, with all their knowledge of the law and the prophets, to deliver up Christ to be crucified, than it was in Pilate, an ignorant heathen, to condemn llim and put Him to death.

The word " he " is differently interpreted. Some think that it must refer to Caiaphas, as the high priest and chief actor in the whole affair of our Lord's murder. Some even think it refers to Judas Iscariot. Tlie more probable idea is that it refers to the whole Jewish people, personified by " he," and repre senied by their high priest.

One thing, at any rate, is very certain. This was the last word that Jesus spoke during His trial. Henceforth He was "like a lamb before his shearers, dumb."

Hengstenberg remarks, that in apportioning the comparative guilt of Pilate and of the Jews, our Lord shows Himself even at this crisis the true Judge of mankind.

Lampe remarks, " The sin of the Jews was heavier than that of Pilate. Pilate was a Gentile, ignorant alike of the Messiah and His distinguishing marks: the Jews liad read the prophecies about Him. Pilate could only have heard sometbing about our Lord's great miracles by rumor and report: they were all done under the very eyes of the Jews. Pilate injured Jesus unwillingly, and from cowardice: they injured Him from hatred and envy. Finally, Pilate was only the instrument: the Jews were the impelling cause. Thus our Lord pronounces His opinion concerning His judges, an opinion according to which He will one day judge them."

The expression " therefore," or literally " on account of this,'* is rather a difficult one. Markland says it means, "Because he has not this power from above, which thou hast, the Jew has the greater sin." Pearce takes much the same view.

Rollock observes, speaking of the inquisition in Spain, " The Papists, when they have caught a Christian who confesseth Jesus Christ, after trying him, put him in the hands of the Emperor or King of Spain. Then they wash their hands, as clean of His blood; and who took his life but tlie King of Spain? But the wrath of God persecutes them, and the blood of the innocent lies on them, because they delivered them into their hands to be tormented."

Hutclieson observes, tliat " tlie greatest height of impiety ia found within the visible Church," where there is most knowledge.

When all has been said, we must admit that there is proba bly something in the verse more deep than we have line to fathom. The two propositions of the verse are both quite intelligible; but the connecting link, " therefore," is a hard knot, which has not yet been fairly untied.

Augustine paraphrases this sentence thus: " He sins worse

who of ill-will delivers up the innocent to tlie power to be put to death, than doth the power itself, if for the fear of another greater power it puts to death the innocent. The Jews delivered Me unto the power, as having ill-will aga,iust Me; but thou art about to exercise thy power against Me, as being afraid for thyself. Not that a man has a right to put to death an innocent person from fear; but to put to death out of hatred is much more evil than to put to death out of fear." Cyril says

One thing, at any rate, is very clear. There are degrees in Bin. All are not equally sinful. The servant who knew his master's will and did it not, was more guilty than he who knew it not.

13, — [And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him.] This is a remarkable sentence. It evidently means that from this point of the case Pilate sought more diligently than ever to have our Lord acquitted and set free. Before he wished it: now he really took pains to effect it. Whether this was occasioned by our Lord's manner and demeanor in speaking the words of the preceding verse, or by some meaning which He attached to the words, we cannot tell. But so it was.

How and in what manner Pilate " sought to release " Jesus, we are not told by John. But it is evident that he left our Lord in the hall, where he had been asking Him, " Whence art Thou? " and went out alone to the Jews, to tell them he could make nothing of their charge of blasphemy, and wished to let the prisoner go. This must have taken place outside the doors, because the Jews scrupulously refused to go inside. Moreover, the Jews could not have known of this fresh desire to release Jesus, if Pilate had not come forth and communicated it to them. In this verse, therefore, be it remembered, we have Pilate and the Jews alone, outside the palace, and our Lord left inside. Pilate proposes to release Him, and the Jews protest against it. Then we shall find Pilate goes in again, and brings Jesus out for the last time,

[But the Jews cried out...Caesar.'] In these words we see the Jews stopping Pilate short, in his weak efforts to get our Lord released, by an argument which they well knew would weigh heavily on a Roman mind. They tell him plainly that they will accuse him to Caesar, the Roman Emperor, as a governor unfriendly to the Imperial interests. — " You are no friend to Caesar if you let o.T this prisoner. Every one who sets himself up as a king, be his kingdom what it may, is usurping part of Caesar's authority, and is a rebel. If you pass over this man's claim to be a king, and set Him at liberty, we shall complain of you to Caesar." — This was a settling and clinching argument. Pilate knew well that his own government of Judaea would not bear any investigation. He also knew well the cold, suspicious, cruel character of Tiberius Caesar, the Emperor of Rome, which is specially mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, the Roman historians, and he might well dread the result of any appeal to him from the Jews. From this moment all his hopes of getting rid of this anxious case, and letting our Lord go away unharmed, were dashed to the ground. He would rather connive at a murder to please the Jews, than allow himself to be charged with neglect of Imperial interests and unfriendliness to Caesar.

It is hard to say which was the more wretched and contemptible sight at this point of the history, — Pilate trampling on his own conscience to avoid the possible displeasure of an earthly monarch, or the Jews pretending to care for Caesar's interests, and warning Pilate not to do anything unfriendly to him I It was a melancholy exhibition of cowardice on the one side, and duplicity on the other; and the whole result was a foul murder!

13. — [ When Pilate heard that saying, etc.] The " saying " here refers to the Jews' saying about Caesar in the preceding verse. When Pilate heard the dreaded name of Caesar brought up, and found himself threatened with a possible complaint to Rome as a neglecter of Imperial interests, he saw plainly that nothing more could be done, and that he must give way to the demands of the Jews and sacrifice an innocent prisoner. He therefore returned to the palace, brought forth Jesus again, and for the first time took his seat on the throne of judgment outside the palace, in the courtyard, or paved area adjacent to it. The case was now over. Pilate's weak eiForts to deliver an innocent prisoner from unjust accusation were useless. He dared no longer oppose the bloody demands of the Jews. There remained nothing to be done but to take his seat publicly on the throne of judgment and pronounce the sentence.

The word " forth " here, as in the fourth and fifth verses, means literally " outside." Pearce remarks, that " this is the fifth time that Pilate came forth and tried to prevail with the Jews that Jesus might not be crucified."

provinces, justice was administered in the open air, the presiding judge sitting on a tribunal, on a raised ground covered with marble."

The " pavement " means tlie marble, or Mosaic levelled space on wLicli the judge's chair was placed. Parkhurst says that Roman Governors used sometimes to carry with them tlie materials to form such a pavement.

The word "Gabbatha," according to Hammond, is more Syriac than Hebrew; " According to the custom of the New Testament, which calls Syriac, at that time the vulgar language of the Jews, Hebrew." Parkhurst says that the word means literally a raised place; and remarks that John does not mean in this verse that Gabbatha means pavement, — but that the same place which in Greek was called " pavement," was called in Hebrew " the raised place."

[And it was...preparation of the passover.] This remarkable expression cannot mean that " this was the hour for preparing the passover meal," for it was not. It means, " this was the day before the great sabbath of the passover week, a day well known among the Jews as the preparation, or day of preparing for the passover sabbath, which was peculiarly a high day." St. Mark expressly says this in his account of the passion. (Mark xv. 42.) That all the Jewish feasts had their " eves," or preparation days, is quite clear from Rabbinical writers.

We should observe how accurately and precisely John marka the day of the crucifixion.

[And about the sixth hour.] This expression raises a grave difficulty, and one which in every age has perplexed the minds of Bible readers. The difficulty lies in the fact that Mark in his Gospel expressly says, " it was the third hour, and they crucified Him " (Mark xv. 25); while John in this place says our Lord was only condemned at the sixth hour! Yet both Evangelists wrote by inspiration, and both were incapable of making a mistake. How then are we to reconcile and harmonize these two conflicting statements. The solutions of the difficulty suggested are many and various.

{a) Some say, as the rationalistic writers, that one of the two Evangelists made a blunder, and that one of the accounts therefore is false. This is a solution which will satisfy no reverentminded Christian. If Bible writers could make blunders like this, there is no such thing as inspiration, and there is an end of all confidence in Scripture as an infallible guide.

(&) Some say, as Theophylact, Beza, Nonnus (in his poetical paraphrase), Tittman, Leigh, Usher (vol. vii. 176), Kuinoel, Bengel, Pearce, Alford, Scott, and Bloomfield, that the discrepancy has probably been caused by an error of the manuscript writers, and that the true reading in St. John should be ** third," and not " sixth hour." This, however, is a very shortcut road out of the difficulty, and the immense proportion of old manuscripts are flatly against it.