But when Pilate heard Galilee mentioned, he asked if the man was a Galilean. When he found out that he was in Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem during those days.
Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad, for he had wanted to see him for a long time, because he had heard many things about him. He hoped to see some miracle done by him. He questioned him with many words, but he gave no answers. The chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him. Herod with his soldiers humiliated him and mocked him. Dressing him in luxurious clothing, they sent him back to Pilate. Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before that they were enemies with each other.
Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said to them, “You brought this man to me as one that perverts the people, and behold, having examined him before you, I found no basis for a charge against this man concerning those things of which you accuse him. Neither has Herod, for I sent you to him, and see, nothing worthy of death has been done by him.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 11, 12, 13 Christ is a laughingstock to princes, but to their…
Christ is a laughingstock to princes, but to their great smart.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv6–15 6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether…
6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
Ver. 6. He asked] As desirous to rid his hands of him.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v13 Observe here, 1. How unwilling, how very unwilling, Pilate…
Observe here, 1. How unwilling, how very unwilling, Pilate was to be an instrument of our Saviour’s death; one while he expostulates with the chief priests, saying, What evil hath he done? No, St. Luke here declares, Pilate came forth three several times, professing that he found no fault in him.
Where note, how much more justice and equity Christ me with from Pilate, an heathen, than from the chief priests and people of the Jews, professing the true religion! Oh how desperate is the hatred that grows upon the root of religion!
Read full note →
Learn hence, that hypocrites within the church, may be guilty of such tremendous acts of wickedness, as the consciences of infidels and pagans without the church may boggle at, and protest against. Pilate, a pagan, absolves Christ, while the hupocritical Jews, that heard his doctrine, and saw his miracles, do condemn him.
Observe, 2. How Pilate at last suffers himself to be overcome with the importunity of the Jews, and delivers the holy and innocent Jesus, contrary to his judgment and conscience, to the will of his murderers. It is a vain apology for sin when persons pretend, that they are not committed with their own consent, but at the instigation and importunity of others; for such is the frame and constitution of man’s soul, that none can make a person wicked without his own consent: it was no extenuation of Pilates’s sin, no alleviation of his punishment, that to please the people he delivered our Saviour, contrary to the directions of his own conscience, to be crucified.
Observe, 3. The person whose life the wicked Jews preferred before the life of the holy Jesus, Barabbas: We will that thou release Barabbas, and deliver Jesus. Mark these hypocritical high priests, who pretended such zeal for God and religion; they prefer the life of a person guilty of the highest immoralities and debaucheries, even murder and sedition, before the best man that ever lived in the world.
But whence sprang the malice and hatred of the high priests and of the Jews, against our Saviour?
Why plainly from hence, Christ interpreted the law of God more strictly than their lusts can bear; and he lived a more holy, useful, and excellent life, than they could endure.
Now nothing enrages the men of the world more against the professors, but especially the preachers of the gospel, than holiness of doctrine, and strictness of life and conversation. Such as preach and live well, let them expect such enmity and opposition, such malice and persecution, such sufferings and trials, as will shock an ordinary patience and constancy of mind. Our Master met with it, let his zealous ministers prepare for it.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v13 We have here the blessed Jesus run down by…
We have here the blessed Jesus run down by the mob, and hurried to the cross in the storm of a popular noise and tumult, raised by the malice and artifice of the chief priests, as agents for the prince of the power of the air.
I. Pilate solemnly protests that he believes he has done nothing worthy of death or of bonds. And, if he did believe so, he ought immediately to have discharged him, and not only so, but to have protected him from the fury of the priests and rabble, and to have bound his prosecutors to their good behaviour for their insolent conduct. But, being himself a bad man, he had no kindness for Christ, and, having made himself otherwise obnoxious, was afraid of displeasing either the emperor or the people; and therefore, for want of integrity, he called together the chief priests, and rulers, and people (whom he should have dispersed, as a riotous and seditious assembly, and forbid them to come near him), and will hear what they have to say, to whom he should have turned a deaf ear, for he plainly saw what spirit actuated them (Luk 23:14): "You have brought," saith he, "this man to me, and, because I have a respect for you, I have examined him before you, and have heard all you have to allege against him, and I can make nothing of it: I find no fault in him; you cannot prove the things whereof you accuse him."
Read full note →
II. He appeals to Herod concerning him (Luk 23:15): "I sent you to him, who is supposed to have known more of him than I have done, and he has sent him back, not convicted of any thing, nor under any mark of his displeasure; in his opinion, his crimes are not capital. He has laughed at him as a weak man, but has not stigmatized him as a dangerous man." He thought Bedlam a fitter place for him than Tyburn.
III. He proposes to release him, if they will but consent to it. He ought to have done it without asking leave of them, Fiat justitia, ruat coelum - Let justice have its course, though the heavens should be desolated. But the fear of man brings many into this snare, that, whereas justice should take place, though heaven and earth come together, they will do an unjust thing, against their consciences, rather than pull an old house about their ears. Pilate declares him innocent, and therefore has a mind to release him; yet, to please the people, 1. He will release him under the notion of a malefactor, because of necessity he must release one (Luk 23:17); so that whereas he ought to have been released by an act of justice, and thanks to nobody, he would have him released by an act of grace, and not be beholden to the people for it. 2. He will chastise him, and release him. If no fault be to be found in him, why should he be chastised? There is as much injustice in scourging as in crucifying an innocent man; nor would it be justified by pretending that this would satisfy the clamours of the people, and make him the object of their pity who was not to be the object of their envy. We must not do evil that good may come.
IV. The people choose rather to have Barabbas released, a wretched fellow, that had nothing to recommend him to their favour but the daringness of his crimes. He was imprisoned for a sedition made in the city, and for murder (of all crimes among men the least pardonable), yet this was the criminal that was preferred before Christ: Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas, Luk 23:18, Luk 23:19. And no wonder that such a man is the favourite and darling of such a mob, he that was really seditious, rather than he that was really loyal and falsely accused of sedition.
V. When Pilate urged the second time that Christ should be released, they cried out, Crucify him, crucify him, Luk 23:20, Luk 23:21. They not only will have him die, but will have him die so great a death; nothing less will serve but he must be crucified: Crucify him, crucify him.
VI. When Pilate the third time reasoned with them, to show them the unreasonableness and injustice of it, they were the more peremptory and outrageous (Luk 23:22): "Why? What evil hath he done? Name his crime. I have found no cause of death, and you cannot say what cause of death you have found in him; and therefore, if you will but speak the word, I will chastise him and let him go." But popular fury, the more it is complimented, the more furious it grows; they were instant with loud voices, with great noises or outcries, not requesting, but requiring, that he might be crucified; as if they had as much right, at the feast, to demand the crucifying of one that was innocent as the release of one that was guilty.
VII. Pilate's yielding, at length, to their importunity. The voice of the people and of the chief priests prevailed, and were too hard for Pilate, and overruled him to go contrary to his convictions and inclinations. He had not courage to go against so strong a stream, but gave sentence that it should be as they required, Luk 23:24. Here is judgment turned away backward, and justice standing afar off, for fear of popular fury. Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter, Isa 59:14. Judgment was looked for, but behold oppression; righteousness, but behold a cry, Isa 5:7. This is repeated in Luk 23:25, with the aggravating circumstance of the release of Barabbas: He released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, who hereby would be hardened in his wickedness, and do the more mischief, because him they had desired, being altogether such a one as themselves; but he delivered Jesus to their will, and he could not deal more barbarously with him than to deliver him to their will, who hated him with a perfect hatred, and whose tender mercies were cruelty.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv6–15 When Pilate heard of Galilee,.... "The name of Galilee",…
When Pilate heard of Galilee,.... "The name of Galilee", as the Syriac and Persic versions read when that was mentioned,
he asked; the Ethiopic version says, the "Galilaeans"; some of which might be present, being come to the feast of the passover, and were very proper persons to inquire of:
Read full note →
whether the man were a Galilean; so Jesus was reputed to be: for though he was born at Bethlehem of Judah, he was brought up at Nazareth in Galilee, where he spent the greater part of his private life, and his public ministry was chiefly exercised in those parts; hence the Jews thought, that he came out of Galilee, and was a Galilean, Joh 7:41 and so he used to be called by Julian the apostate; and it seems, that the answer returned to Pilate was, that he was a Galilean; and so the Persic version adds, and they said, yes; for it follows,
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 11, 15 He sent him to Herod - As his proper…
He sent him to Herod - As his proper judge.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv7, 10, 11, 12, 15 Verse 7. Herod's jurisdiction] The city of Nazareth, in…
Verse 7. Herod's jurisdiction] The city of Nazareth, in which Christ had continued till he was thirty years of age, and that of Capernaum, in which he principally resided the last years of his life, were both in Lower Galilee, of which Herod Antipas was tetrarch. Pilate was probably glad of this opportunity to pay a little respect to Herod, whom it is likely he had irritated, and with whom he now wished to be friends. See Lu 23:12.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv10, 13 Luk 23:10-12. And the chief priests and scribes —…
Luk 23:10-12. And the chief priests and scribes — Whose malice had brought them to attend him thither; stood — In the presence of the king; and vehemently accursed him — Doubtless as an enemy to Cesar, and guilty of seditious practices, crimes which they had laid to his charge before Pilate. Observe, reader, it is no new thing for good men and good ministers, who are real and useful friends to the civil government, to be falsely accused as factious and seditious, and enemies to the government. Herod, with his men of war — Namely, those of his soldiers who now attended him as his life-guard; set him at naught — Treated him in a very contemptuous manner, as a despicable person beneath their notice; and who no way answered the account they had heard of him, as he neither said nor did any thing to gratify their curiosity. And arrayed him in a gorgeous robe — Herod, finding himself disappointed in his expectation of seeing Jesus work miracles, ordered him to be clothed with a robe, in colour like those which kings used to wear, and permitted his attendants to insult him. Thus Herod, who had been acquainted with John the Baptist, and had more knowledge of Christ too, and of religion, than Pilate had, was more abusive to Christ than Pilate was: for knowledge without grace does but make men more ingeniously wicked. Our Lord’s being dressed in this manner by Herod’s order, shows, that here also the priests had accused him of having assumed the titles and honours belonging to the Messiah; for the affront put upon him was plainly in derision of that pretension. The other head of accusation, his having attempted to raise a sedition in Galilee, on account of the tribute, they durst not touch upon, because Herod could not fail to know the gross falsehood of it. Herod’s usage of our Lord was exceedingly insolent, but, perhaps, the remorse of conscience, which he had felt on account of the murder of John the Baptist, might render him cautious how he joined in any attempt on the life of Jesus, which we do not find that he ever did. The expression, εσθητα λαμπραν, which we render, a gorgeous robe, is translated in the Vulgate, veste alba, a white garment, and by Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, and in the Zurich translation, veste splendida, a shining garment. “Though the Greek word may be rendered either way,” says Dr. Campbell, “I prefer the latter, as denoting that quality of the garment which was the most remarkable; for this epithet was most properly given to those vestments, wherein both qualities, white and shining, were united. Such white and splendid robes were worn in the East by sovereigns.” And he sent him again to Pilate — Without further injury, thereby intimating, that he left him to do what he pleased with his prisoner, but that, for his own part, he apprehended his pretensions to royalty worthy of derision rather than serious resentment. And the same day Herod and Pilate were made friends together — Whatever Pilate’s real intentions were, in sending Jesus to Herod to be examined by him, his doing this was so well taken by the latter; and Herod’s sending him back to the Roman governor was, on the other hand, such a public instance of regard to him, that this mutual obligation, with the messages that passed between them on this occasion, brought them to a better understanding one of another, than there had been of late between them. For before they were at enmity between themselves — The cause of this enmity can only be conjectured: perhaps it might be the slaughter which Pilate had made of some of the Galileans, who had come up to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem, spoken of Luk 13:1; or, perhaps, Pilate had encroached upon Herod’s jurisdiction, by giving judgment in causes which concerned his subjects: and therefore Herod, looking upon the sending of Jesus to him to be judged, because he was a Galilean, as a reparation for former offences, was forthwith reconciled to Pilate. Observe, reader, how those who quarrelled with one another, could yet unite against Christ, as Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek, though divided among themselves, were confederate against the Israel of God, Psa 83:7.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15 Whether he were a Galilean - He asked this…
Whether he were a Galilean - He asked this because, if he was, he properly belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, who reigned over Galilee.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv7, 11, 15 He sent him away to Herod. Pilate, in this…
He sent him away to Herod. Pilate, in this instance, not only extricated himself from the importunities of the Jewish priests, (ver. 5) but moreover obeyed the Roman law in that particular, which forbade any one to be condemned by a governor to whom he was not the subject. (Theophylactus)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v13 c. FRUITLESS ENDEAVORS OF PILATE TO LIBERATE JESUS (Luk_23:13-25)
c. FRUITLESS ENDEAVORS OF PILATE TO LIBERATE JESUS (Luk_23:13-25)
(Parallel with Mat_27:15-26; Mar_15:6-15; Joh_18:39-40.)
Read full note →
13And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth [turneth away] the people [i.e., from Cesar]; and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: 15No, nor yet [even4] Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is [has been] done unto [by] him. 16I will therefore chastise him, and release 17him. (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.5) 18And they cried out all at once [πανπληθεί], saying, Away6 with this man, and release unto us 19Barabbas: (Who7 for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was [hadbeen] cast into prison.) 20Pilate therefore, willing [wishing] to release Jesus, spake again to them. 21But they cried [against it, ἐπεφώνουν], saying, Crucify him, crucify him. 22And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him. and let him go. 23And they were instant [urgent, ἐπέκειντο] with loud voices, requiring [demanding] that he might be crucified: and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. 24And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required [their demand should go into effect]. 25And he released unto them [om., unto them8] him [the one] that for sedition and murder was [had been] cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Luk_23:13. And Pilate, when he had called together … the people.—It is not enough for Pilate to communicate his peculiar views merely to the Sanhedrists. He calls also the people together, the number of whom has considerably increased during the sending of our Lord back and forth, and who take a lively interest in the matter. He assembles them in order to communicate to them also his mind and will, which he wished to be regarded as definitive. He introduces his communication now by a more or less official address, in which the motives of the sentence to be uttered are stated. The judge sums up the acta before he declares them concluded. He comes back to the first charge (Luk_23:2), that this man perverts the people (ὡς ἀποστρέφοντα). On this charge he had heard Him in their presence. See Luk_23:3; comp. Mat_27:12-14; Mar_15:3-5, which is not in conflict with Joh_18:38 seq. (De Wette, Meyer), if only we distinguish between the private interview and the public audience, of which latter Pilate here speaks. They see, therefore, that he has taken up the matter in earnest, but in direct opposition to their εὕρομεν, Luk_23:2, he is obliged to declare himself, for his part, to have found nothing which could be maintained before the secular judge, as legal ground of an accusation. Respecting the peculiar construction of this passage, see Meyer. Nay, not even Herod, who, as Tetrarch of Galilee, would yet undoubtedly have known if there had existed ground for a serious accusation, not even he has been able to discover anything tenable in their charge. On the contrary, they are both convinced that, whatever reports may have been circulated abroad, this man has, in fact, neither committed anything (πεπραγμένον) nor brought about anything that could be called criminal. After this introduction, there appears to be scarcely any other final judgment possible than a simple release, but—“hic cœpit nimium concedere Pilatus.” Bengel.
Luk_23:16. Chastise Him and release Him.—“Chastise.” Although the word “scourge” is not yet uttered, Pilate can scarcely have had any other chastisement in mind. He makes this proposition that he may not, on the one hand, too heavily load his own conscience, on the other hand, because he must not let the Jews go wholly unsatisfied. A light punishment of the kind, at all events, the enthusiast probably deserves in his eyes, who, harmless as He is for the Roman authority, has yet given Himself out for a King. The alleged confusion with Joh_19:1-4 (De Wette) is by no means real, but Luke in his summary notices, relates only a plan of the scourging, the execution of which the three other Evangelists relate. It is remarkable, moreover, how in the connection of the two words: Chastise and Release, Pilate begins already evidently to show either that he is disposed to do too much or too little. Hitherto he has done three good things: he began a careful investigation, he has made a solemn declaration of Jesus’ innocence, he has taken an admissible way to gain more particular information. The word “release” would set the crown on all this, if it were not that the illegal chastisement announced simultaneously with this prepared the way for three opposite measures, by which his weakness passes over into crime. A dishonoring comparison, a painful scourging, a mournful spectacle (Mat_27:24) are the steps which make way for that most unrighteous judgment. Luke has only described the first.
Luk_23:17.For of necessity he must release one.—Although it is unquestionably possible that this verse was omitted quite early, because it appeared to be placed with more or less incorrectness, and interrupted the course of the narrative (De Wette), it is, however, more probable that it is not genuine. It is wanting in A., B., K., L., [retained by Cod. Sin., see notes on the text.—C. C. S.] Copt., Sahid., Vers., and is placed after Luk_23:19, by D., Æth., Cant., while, besides this, many variations appear in the details. It appears, therefore, after having seemed suspicious to Griesbach and Lachmann, to have been omitted with reason by Tischendorf, although the clause must be tolerably old, since it has found its way into by far the greatest number of manuscripts and versions. But, however this may be, the fact itself, namely, that the governor at the Passover was under obligation to release a prisoner, cannot be doubted, although the origin of this usage is veiled in obscurity. To us everything appears to favor the opinion that this had grown up rather on Jewish than on heathen soil. Even the expression of Pilate, ἔστι δὲ συνήθεια ὑμῖν, Joh_18:39, appears to point to the former; the connection of this custom with the Passover was far more likely to be a Jewish than a heathen idea. The coincidence with the Roman Lectisternia and [the Greek] Thesmophoria, which are referred to, is exceedingly slight, and it was much more in the spirit of the Roman policy to leave the inhabitants of a province in possession of a national privilege than to press on them a foreign benefit, especially when they had such an aversion to foreign manners as the Jews. They could the more easily assume to themselves the jus gladii if they still at least one day of the year, did not bestow, but left yet with the nation, a seemingly free disposal over life and death. And although the Scripture, no more than the Talmud, brings this usage into connection with the signification of the Passover, yet with a people who, like the Jewish, were accustomed to symbolical actions, this connection struck the eye at once. In this manner it is, at the same time, intelligible why the people attached so great a value to this their prerogative, Mar_15:6-8, that it was from them first that the demand proceeded, which gave Pilate occasion to the most dreadful comparison. Finally, this voice of the people furnishes one convincing proof the more, that to-day was really already the first day of the Passover, since the prayer would have come very much out of season if the feast had not yet had a beginning.
Luk_23:18. Away with this man.—Here, also, we first gain a clear conception of the fact, when we complement Luke from the other gospels. The wild cry αῖ̓ρε presupposes that our Lord already stands before the eyes of the multitude, together with the hideous Barabbas. But how matters had gone so far is described especially by Mark, while Matthew, by the narrative of the dream of Pilate’s wife, solves for the reader the difficulty how it had been possible that the people in so short a time could have been filled with so fanatical a fury. The short absence of the Procurator is used by the priests most energetically to work the people over to their mind, and very soon does the clue to this labyrinth slip out of Pilate’s hands.
Luk_23:19. Who for a certain sedition.—Respecting the character of Barabbas, see Lange on the parallel in Matthew. In all the gospels, but especially in Luke, Luk_23:19; Luk_23:25, there is expressed the deepest displeasure at the blindness and hardened temper of the Jews, who could make such a choice. An echo of this tone of righteous resentment we still hear in the declaration of Peter, Act_3:14.
Luk_23:20. Spake again to them, προσεφώνησε, which is used, Act_21:40, of a longer address, here, however, probably consisted only of a few words, and those not essentially different from the ones which are communicated to us a little before and a little later. In all this the good intention of Pilate cannot possibly be entirely lost sight of. His proposal had sprung from a laudable principle, had a laudable end in view, and appeared, at the same time, to offer for its accomplishment an exceedingly fitting means. In the persuasion that personal hatred impelled the chief priests, he seeks to win the voice of the people in favor of Jesus, and believes that he may expect nothing else than that the result will fully correspond to his wishes. But still his conduct remains worthy of reprobation, not only before the judgment-seat of strict righteousness, but even before that of wise considerateness. All the words with which he now, after this, seeks to conjure down the rising storm, signify little or nothing, because he does not yet come to the one act which he has already indicated as his purpose—ἀπολύσω!
Luk_23:21. Crucify Him, Crucify Him.—For the first time the terrible cry is here heard, which, as the secret wish and thought of the chief priests, is now by these placed upon the people’s lips, and with fanatical rage raised by these. According to John, Luk_18:40, they cry again, πάλιν: “Not this man but Barabbas” must be released, although the Evangelist has not mentioned a previous cry,—a new proof how admissible and necessary it is to complement the statements of the fourth Evangelist from the narratives of the Synoptics, which were familiar to him. This cry was the direct answer to the question which Mat_27:22, and Mar_15:12, communicate.
Luk_23:22.The third time.—To Luke alone we owe the remarkable, and of itself probable, account, that the governor at this point of the trial raises for the third time his voice in favor of our Lord. No wonder, he feels that if he here gives way, the death of Jesus is as good as decided, and that all further endeavors which he might, perhaps, yet make for the discharge of his official duty, would, after this great concession, be fruitless. He repeats, therefore, essentially what he has already said, Luk_23:14; Luk_23:16, and assumes outwardly a demeanor so much the firmer the more he is inwardly beginning to waver.
Luk_23:23. And they.—It is as if the one word, “Release,” which he has once more ventured to utter, filled them with all the more furious rage. Now the chief priests also join in the impetuous cry of the raging people for blood. “Etiam decori immemores cum plebe clamabant.” Bengel. These voices obtain the upper hand, κατίσχυον. The same word which, Mat_16:18, is used of the gates of hell over against the church.
Luk_23:24. And Pilate gave sentence, ἐπέκρινεν, 2Ma_4:47. In contrast with the provisional judgment which the Sanhedrim had already passed, the final judgment is here spoken of, without our, however, being required by Luke to understand a formally uttered sentence. On the contrary, the distinction in the demeanor of Pilate in reference to Barabbas and Jesus is not to be mistaken. The former—Luke, in righteous displeasure, does not even mention his name, but only discloses to us a view into the disgraceful history of Barabbas—he expressly releases: apparently the murderer is unfettered before his eyes, so that he after a few moments hastens free through the streets of Jerusalem. The other he delivers up, παρὲδωκεν, not by a solemn ibis ad crucem, but by simply letting go the weak hand with which he had hitherto vainly sought to protect the victim of priestly hate. Not to the will of the judge or the requirement of the law, but to the judgment of the people, τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν, is the Prisoner surrendered. On this account, also, it is not even necessary to inquire into the genuineness of the old record of the sentence: Jesum Nazarenum, subversorem gentis, &c., which Adrichomius, Theatr. terrœ sanctœ, Colon.1593, p. 163, has, it is said, taken from old annals, and which Friedlieb, ad loc., communicates in a note entire.
Since we here have to do, not with the history of the Passion in general, but with the narrative which Luke has given us of the same, we also pass over the particulars which he does not communicate expressly. As respects, however, the sequence of the different scenes in the trial before Pilate, we believe that a correct harmony requires the following arrangement: 1. The Leading Away to Pilate, which Luke relates with its particulars; 2. The First Public (Synoptics), and immediately after that the First Private (John), Examination of our Lord by the Procurator; 3. More Vehement Accusation by the Jews after Pilate’s first declaration of innocence, followed then by the sending to Herod; 4. First Decision of Pilate, in which his wavering first becomes visible (Luk_23:13-16); 5. His proposal to select Barabbas or Jesus (all the Evangelists); 6 Delay by the communication of the dream of Pilate’s wife (Matthew), during which the people are persuaded over; 7. Decision of the question, “Barabbas or Jesus,” in favor of the former (all the Evangelists); 8. The Scourging, as the customary, yet not indispensably necessary, preliminary of crucifixion, which, however, according to Luke, is used as a measure of compromise, as well as in order, by presentation of the pitiably maltreated Prisoner, to dispose the people to compassion (John); 9. In consequence of this, the Crucifixion decidedly refused, and a new accusation brought up by the disappointed priests (Joh_19:6-7); 10. Further, but fruitless, endeavors even yet to deliver Jesus (Joh_19:6-12); 11. The Washing of Pilate’s hands (Mat_27:24-25), which Matthew, in view of his objective representation of the Scourging as the preparation for Crucifixion (which it, considered a posteriori, in fact became), places before this maltreatment, but which, as evidently appears, has only sense and significance if we conceive it as a concluding act; finally, 12. The scene described in Joh_19:13-16, for which we may with more right assume a place after than before the washing of the hands (as is proposed by Sturm). Immediately after this, the Leading Away to Calvary, which Luke communicates most in detail.—It appears, therefore, that Luk_23:24-25 cannot be attached immediately to the choice of Barabbas, but is to be regarded as the concluding act of the trial before Pilate, some intervening scenes of which Luke has passed over. As to the actual point of time of our Lord’s Delivery to Crucifixion, which Luke also leaves unmentioned, comp. also Lange on Matt., ad loc., and on Mar_15:25. It is noticeable that Luke, with the exception of Luk_23:44, refrains in his account of the Passion from almost any attempt to give any particular notes of time.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. By the unequivocal declaration of Pilate after our Lord’s return from Herod, not only did His innocence appear in the most brilliant manner, but it thereby, at the same time, became evident also how unreasonable the opinion of Christians and theologians was, who, like the older Deists and Rationalists, ventured to invent for our Lord political views. Pilate and Herod do not yet know anything of that which in the last century was hatched out by the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist concerning this. Even the Jews are not able to destroy Him by political charges. They must immediately, Joh_19:7, proceed further to an accusation founded on religious grounds.
2. The sad observation how Pilate with every moment sinks deeper and deeper, gives us a powerful contribution to Anthropology and Hamartology; but at the same time, there is implied therein, not less than in the direct testimonies borne to the innocence of our Lord, a striking argument for the immaculate purity of Jesus. Soon, also, does it appear that weakness, as well as hatred, may mislead man to the most terrible crime. Pilate, who first only becomes Herod’s friend, will at last also remain Tiberius’ friend, and becomes therewith a confederate of the chief priests and of the people, nay, the accomplice of Caiaphas. Then how is the truth of the saying here proved: “He that is not with Me is against Me.”
3. In the transaction respecting the choice between Jesus and Barabbas, it appears very plainly how dangerous it is to let the popular voice decide upon the highest questions of life, upon truth and right. The history of the Passion raises a terrible protest against the familiar maxim: Vox populi, vox Dei; while, on the other hand, it powerfully confirms the truth of the poet’s sentence:—
Was ist Mehrheit? Mehrheit ist ein Unsinn,
Verstand ist stets bei Wen’gen nur gewesen;
Der Staat muss untergehn, früh oder spät,
Wo Mehrheit siegt und Unverstand entscheidet.
[What is majority? Majority is absurdity. Understanding has ever been with few only; the state must perish early or late, where majority prevails and folly decides.] In church history, also, we see how often ecclesiastical and political democracy have led to genuine Parabbas-choices. Compare the admirable dissertation by Ullmann, Die Geltung der Majoritäten in der Kirche, Hamburg, 1850.9
4. For the typical significance of that which here took place with Barabbas, the Mosaic law, Lev_16:6-10, must, in particular, be compared. The importance of this part of the history of the Passion is only comprehended perfectly when we find represented to the very sight therein, in historical symbols, the idea of representation, and behold in the released Barabbas the image of the sinner, who, in consequence of the death of this immaculately Holy One ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ, is acquitted of the guilt and punishment of sin. [The release of a murderer, without the slightest sign that he was changed for the better, is a rather equivocal type of the justification of the sinner.—C. C. S.] In this way, moreover, we learn also to understand the significance of the unshaken silence which our Lord in these awful moments of decision, during which He remains so entirely passive, maintains. It is here, in the full sense of the word, the silence of the Lamb of God, on whom the sins of the world were laid, Isa_53:6.
5. The choice between Jesus and Barabbas is the striking type of the choice which, through all the centuries, is proposed to mankind, the choice, namely, between life and death, between blessing and cursing, Gen_2:16-17; Deu_30:18-19; Jos_24:16, &c. The motives which here misled the people to so perverted a choice are the same as those which now, as ever, induce most of men to choose the appearance instead of the reality, and the curse instead of the blessing.
6. The moment of the popular choice between Jesus and Barabbas is the decisive moment, not only in the history of the Passion, but also in the history of Israel and the world, Rom_9:30-33.
7. “It is something yet other and worse to reject the Lord after He was there rejected, and first became the foundation of our salvation. These Jews had, at all events, at that time not yet rejected Him who in infinite love had ascended the cross for our redemption. Woe to the betrayers of the Crucified!”
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established, 2Co_13:1, even where our Lord’s innocence is declared.—Whoever complains that Christ and the gospel pervert the world in a political respect, stands in principle even below Pilate and Herod.—Pilate the man who wishes to serve two masters.—The false lust of compromise condemned in the person of Pilate.—The mournful triumph of persistent wickedness over hesitating weakness.—Jesus over against Barabbas a picture of universal history.—The fatal choice of the Jews a primitive and yet eternally new history.—Whoever prefers sin to Christ, he chooses like them: 1. A robber instead of the wealthiest Distributor of grace; 2. a rebel instead of the King of peace; 3. a murderer instead of the Prince of life.—The choice of the service of the world instead of the service of Christ, how it: 1. Bears the same character; 2. betrays the same origin; 3. deserves the same judgment; 4. needs the same atonement, as the fatal choice of the Jews.—The fatal choice even yet, as then, a fruit: 1. Of heedlessness; 2. of misleading influence; 3. of weakness; 4. of the enmity of the flesh.—The inconstancy of popular favor and of human honor [There is no certainty that the masses who hung on Jesus’ lips as He taught were the same that here demanded His blood. There were surely men enough in Jerusalem to furnish crowds for this purpose, without of necessity involving one of those who had so recently heard Him with delight.—C. C. S.].—The cry of Crucify Him ! over against the Hosannas of the throngs.—The first cry for murder considered in reference: 1. To the judge who elicits it; 2. to the people that utter it; 3. to the Saviour who hears it; 4. to the Father who accepts it; 5. to the world which yet in all manner of forms repeats it.—“O, My people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee?” Mic_6:3.—The highest activity of the love of Christ in the midst of seemingly complete passivity.—The murder of Messiah the suicide of Israel.—Whither concessions and compromises may at last lead.—The blind policy of Pilate, who will: 1. Deliver our Lord by evil means; 2. give up our Lord to save himself.—Jesus: 1. Reckoned with the transgressors, Isa_53:12; Isaiah 2. humbled among the transgressors; 3. by that very means given up for transgressors, 2Co_5:21.—Jesus most deeply humiliated: 1. By comparison with a malefactor; 2. with a malefactor like Barabbas; 3. with a malefactor that, moreover, is preferred to Him.—The diverse departure of the Prince of life and of the murderer from Gabbatha.—The fearful defeat of wickedness even in a seeming victory.—For every man there appears, as once for Pilate, an hour when he must decide for or against Christ.
Starke:—Brentius:—Christ had to pass from one unrighteous judge to another; be content, my brother, if without cause the like of this befalleth thee, 1Pe_2:21.—Cramer:—The gospel of Christ must be true, for the heathen, His enemies, testify of His innocence.—Christ’s innocence has given to the whole Passion the just weight before the judgment of God, Heb_7:26.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Innocence at last breaks through all imputations.—Sinful and evil usages must not be furthered by the magistrate, but disregarded, especially when they take place on Sundays and feast days.—A malefactor who, according to God’s law, has deserved death, must be allowed right and judgment.—Unrighteous judgment of the world: the murderer shall live, the Prince of life die.—Canstein:—The world loveth her own, it is a den of murderers.—Human wisdom goes with the tide and is partial.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Hatred and envy is something utterly devilish.—Of evil things, too, there are wont to be three, Luk_23:22 [an allusion to the German proverb, Aller guten dinge sind drei, “All good things go in threes.”—C. C S.]—“I will, I will,” is indeed the speech of godless people too, but woe to them if they rest satisfied therewith.—Where the people have more power than the government, there is a dish spoiled and a most unhappy state.—The world judges not according to right, but according to favor.—Osiander:—It is nature’s view of the world for the vicious to escape punishment and the innocent to be punished, Psa_73:12.—Brentius:—The issue demonstrates ever how far human wisdom reaches, and what we can promise ourselves therefrom.—Arndt:—The choice between Jesus and Barabbas; 1. What determines Pilate to this choice; 2. on what rock it splits; 3. how it turns out for the salvation of the world.—Krummacher:—Pilate our advocate, who frees us from the threefold imputation of seditious tendencies, of senseless teachings, and exaggerated consolations.—Jesus and Barabbas, the great picture.—The release of Barabbas: 1. How this was effected; 2. how the joyful tidings was received on the part of Barabbas.—The conclusion of the process.—Tholuck:—The dreadful illusion which unbelieving Israel is under, inasmuch as it, instead of Jesus the Son of God chooses Jesus Barabbas; 2. which the unbelieving world is under, inasmuch as it, instead of Jesus the Son of God and man, chooses Jesus the child of man (Predigten, i. p. 127 seq., together with an appendix very well worth reading, p. 156). [Calmet has this statement: “Origen says that in many copies Barabbas is called Jesus likewise. The Armenian has the same reading: ‘Whom … will ye that I deliver unto you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?’ This gives additional spirit to the history, and well deserves notice.”—C. C. S.]—In Barabbas Pilate released the murderer of his soul; in the Lord Jesus he rejected the deliverer of his soul.
[4]Luk_23:15.—The ἀλλ̓ οὺδέ implies that if even Herod, though well acquainted with the Jewish law, and, as the sovereign of the accused, especially solicitous that he might not be allowed to stir up the people against the Romans, Herod’s patrons, if even he could find no matter of complaint, the case might be looked upon as decided. Herod, it is true, does not appear to have instituted any formal inquiry, but Pilate is willing so to represent it, to support his intended release of the prisoner by Herod’s authority.—C. C. S.]
[5]Luk_23:17.—Respecting the grounds on which the genuineness of this verse is doubtful, see Exegetical and Critical remarks. [Omitted by A., B., K., L.; retained by Cod. Sin. Omitted by Tischendorf, Meyer, Tregelles; bracketed by Lachmann; approved by Bleek; retained by Alford.—C. C. S.]
[6]Luk_23:18.—Αῖ̓ρε “Make away with,” “E medio tolle.”—C. C. S.]
[7]Luk_23:19.—Ὅστις ἧν, κ.τ.λ.,quippe qui as Meyer remarks, not equivalent to the simple qui, but, as ὅστις always denotes category, “a man of such a sort as to have been,” &c.; the form of the relative reflecting unconsciously the indignation of the Evangelist at so hideous a preference.—C. C. S.
[8]Luk_23:25.—The αὐτοῖς, which Griesbach adds to the ἀπέλυσε, is from Matthew and Mark.
[9][A crime which was forced on a populace that, left to itself, would not have committed it, by a corrupt and implacable aristocracy, is a curious text for this diatribe against popular government. However, this, like all similar expressions of our author, must be judged in view of the dislike which he has to a democracy so deeply infected with infidelity as the European democracy, even though that infidelity is in no small measure owing to the tyrannies and frauds of priests and Most Christian kings. Dr. Van Oosterzee, however, has expressed his most unqualified sympathy with our national cause.—C. C. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv8–11 some miracle--Fine sport thou expectedst, as the Philistines with…
some miracle--Fine sport thou expectedst, as the Philistines with Samson (Jdg 16:25), O coarse, crafty, cruel tyrant! But thou hast been baulked before (see on Luk 13:31-33), and shalt be again.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 § 136.—JESUS SENT TO HEROD, vv. AND RETURNED BY…
§ 136.—JESUS SENT TO HEROD, vv. AND RETURNED BY HEROD TO PILATE, Luk_23:6-12.
7. Herod’s jurisdiction—The authority of Herod Antipas extended over Galilee and Peraea.
Read full note →
At Jerusalem—Doubtless to keep the Passover. For a full account of Herod Antipas see our notes on Mat_14:1-11, and on Luk_13:31-32.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv7–15 7. he sent him to Herod] The word used…
7. he sent him to Herod] The word used is technical—anepempsen, the Lat. remisit—and means the remission of a question to a higher court (Act_25:1; comp. Phm_1:11; Jos. B. f. II. 20, § 5). St Luke alone preserves this interesting incident. He seems to have had special in ormation about Herod’s court. Pilate’s object may have been (1) to get rid of the responsibility—or at least to divide it—by ascertaining Herod’s opinion; (2) to do a cheap act of courtesy which might soothe the irritation which Herod, as well as the Jews, felt against him. Vespasian paid a similar compliment to Agrippa. Jos. B. J. iii. 10, § 10.
who himself also was at Jerusalem] “also,” i.e. as well as Pilate. Herod lived at Tiberias, and Pilate at Caesarea. During the immense assemblages of the Jewish feasts the two rulers had come to Jerusalem, Pilate to maintain order, Herod to gain popularity among his subjects by a decent semblance of conformity to the national religion. At Jerusalem Herod occupied the old palace of the Asmonaean princes (Jos. B. J. ii. 16; Antt. xx. 8, § 11).
Read full note →
at that time] Rather, in those days (of the Feast).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 (6) When Pilate heard of Galilee.—The incident that follows…
(6) When Pilate heard of Galilee.—The incident that follows is peculiar to St. Luke, and may have been obtained by him from Manaen or other persons connected with the Herodian household with whom he appears to have come in contact. (See Introduction.) It is obvious that Pilate catches at the word in the hope of shifting on another the responsibility of con demning One whom he believed to be innocent and had learnt to respect, while yet he had not the courage to acquit Him.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv6, 8, 11, 12, 13 Vers. 6, 7. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he…
Vers. 6, 7. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the Man were a Galilaean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod"s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time . Now, Pilate dreaded lest these Jews should make his clemency towards the Prisoner a ground of accusation against him at Rome. Pilate had enemies in the capital. His once powerful patron Sejanus had just fallen. His own past, too, he was well aware, would not bear examination; so, moved by his cowardly fears, he refrained from releasing Jesus in accordance with what his heart told him was just and right; and yet he could not bring himself to condemn One to whom he was drawn by an unknown feeling of reverence and respect. But hearing that Jesus was accused among other things of stirring up sedition in Galilee, he thought he would shift the responsibility of acquitting or condemning, on to the shoulders of Herod, in whose jurisdiction Galilee lay. Herod was in Jerusalem just then, because of the Passover Feast. His usual residence was Capernaum.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad
Luk_23:8-12
When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad
Read full note →
Divine reserve; or, Christianity in relation to our mental moods
I.
THAT ALL SUBJECTS REVEAL THEMSELVES ACCORDING TO THE MENTAL MOOD IN WHICH THEY ARE EXAMINED. That which is looked for, is found or thought to be found. The same person or principle examined through the respective media of sympathy and antipathy, will reveal aspects the most different. It is of vital importance to remember this fact in all our investigations of creeds, or balancings of contradictory evidence, so that we may escape both the traductions of prejudice and the blindings of partiality. The non-recognition of this truth has induced the grossest misrepresentations of social life, of individual belief, and of denominational doctrine.
II. THAT THE DIVINE BEING DISCRIMINATES OUR MENTAL MOODS. Apparently, Herod was in a pleasing state of mind. Superficial observers would have been delighted with his animated and cordial bearing. What could be more gratifying to Christ than that Herod was exceeding glad to see Him? There was no royal hauteur, no cold rebuff, no vengeful triumph. Why, then, that awful silence? Could Herod have done more to conciliate the favour of his renowned prisoner? Was it not an act of incomparable condescension for Herod to wear a smile in the presence of a reputed blasphemer and seditionist? For Christs significant reserve there must be some peculiar but satisfactory reason. It was not fear of the judge, for He was the judges Creator and Sovereign; it was not contempt, for He entertains a just regard for all the creatures of His hand; it was not constitutional sullenness, for none could be more open and engaging than He; it was not consciousness of guilt, for His most rancorous foes failed in their attempts at crimination. Why, then, did Christ thus treat a man who was exceeding glad to see Him? The only satisfactory answer which we can suggest is that Herods gladness did not arise from a proper cause; or, in other words, was no true index to his mental mood. Christ looked deeper than the smile which lighted Herods countenance, or the mere blandishment of his manner; He discriminated the mood of mind, and acted accordingly.
III. THAT CERTAIN MENTAL MOODS DEPRIVE MEN OF THE RICHEST BLESSINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. Why that solemn silence on the part of Christ? Because of Herods mental mood. The judge wished his curiosity gratified, he had heard of the great wonder-worker, and longed to behold His feats of skill, or His displays of power. Christ knew the treatment proper for the oblique-minded judge, and acted accordingly: He would not work miracles to gratify a king; He would smile on a child, or dry the tear of misery, but He would not court the applause or solicit the patronage of royalty. To whom, then, will the Lord Jesus deign to reveal Himself in tender speech or loving vision? Is there any intellect on whose conflicts with scepticism He will bestow His attention? Is there any heart on whose strugglings with sin He will lift up the light of His countenance? Since He was silent before Herod, will He be communicative to any of His creatures? He shall answer for Himself, To this man will I look. Suppose the Divine speaker had paused here, what inquisitiveness and suspense would have been occasioned! To this man; to which man, blessed Lord, wilt Thou look? to the man who has slain kings, and wandered to the throne of power through the blood of the warrior and the tears of the widow? to the man who has enrolled his name among the proudest of conquerors? to the man who boasts attachment to the cold exactitudes of a heartless theology? to the man arrayed in purple, and enshrined in the splendour of a palace? is this the man to whom Thou wilt look? Nay! Tis a grander spectacle which attracts the Divine eye--to the man that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at My word (Isa_66:2).Here, then, we have two conditions of Divine communion, viz., contrition and reverence: apart from these there can be no spiritual fellowship. In Herod these conditions were not found; hence Christ was dumb i So with us: if we would truly worship God we must fulfil the conditions herein demanded. To be more distinct on this part of the subject, I may enumerate a few classes of hearers, whose mental moods deprive them of spiritual enjoyment:
1. Men of violent personal antipathies. Such persons confound the minister with his message; so that if any whim has been assaulted, or any favourite dogma contravened, they forthwith resort to misinterpretation, they turn every appeal into a personality, and that which was intended as a blessing they pervert into a curse! God will not commune with them: they fulfil not the conditions of fellowship--they are neither contrite nor reverent--and Christ answers them nothing!
2. Men of large speculative curiosity. Herod belonged to this class. They wish to pry into the secrets of the Infinite: not content with the ample disclosures which the Divine Being has graciously granted, they would penetrate into the deepest recesses of His nature, and scale the loftiest altitudes of His universe. They conceive a philosophic dislike for the common-place truths of Christianity; and regard with patronising pity the minister who lingers on the melancholy hill of Calvary. Such men would understand all mystery: they would break the silence of the stars, or detain the whirlwind in converse: they would summon angels from their high abode and extort the secrets of heaven, they would even dare to cross-examine the Deity Himself on the propriety of His moral government! God will answer them nothing.
3. Men who accept rationalism as their highest guide. They reject all that reason cannot comprehend. Their own intellect must see through every subject, otherwise they consider it as worthy only of repudiation. They read the New Testament as they would read a work on mathematics, or a treatise on physical science, expecting demonstration of every point. Such men leave the Bible with dissatisfaction. Christ treats them with silence: their flippant questions elicit no response: their feeble reason plunges in hopeless confusion--Infinitude refuses to be grasped in a human span, and Eternity disdains to crowd into one little intellect its stupendous and magnificent treasures.
4. Men who delight in moral darkness. Such men have no objection to theological discussion; they may even delight in an exhibition of their controversial powers, and, at the same time, hate the moral nature and spiritual requirements of the gospel. So long as attention is confined to an analysis of abstract doctrines they listen with interest, but the moment the gospel tears away the veil from their moral condition--reveals their depravity--upbraids their ingratitude--smites their pride--and shakes their soul with the assurance of judgment and eternity, they sink back into sullenness, they take refuge in infidelity, or they curse and blaspheme! Your Herods care not for moral betterance; they wish their fancies gratified--they desire their questions answered, but they persist in following thedevices of their imagination, and imprisoning themselves in the bond-house of bestial passion. The text suggests--
IV. THAT MEN SO DEPRIVED RESORT TO OPPOSITION. And Herod with his men of war set Him at naught, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate. This is a striking illustration of the manner in which the truth has been treated in all ages. Men have approached the Bible with foregone conclusions, and because those conclusions have not been verified they have revolted, and assumed an antagonistic attitude. Ample illustration of the proposition might be adduced from the history of infidelity, bigotry, and persecution: but instead of lingering on this department of the subject we hasten to indicate the practical bearing of the thesis on the matter more immediately in hand. As an assembly of men responsible in some degree for the dissemination of Christian truth, it is important to understand how we can best fulfil our mission. In prosecuting this inquiry let me remind you of three things:
1. That the Bible is Gods appointed representative. What Christ was to Herod, the Scriptures are to us, viz., the embodiment of Divine truth and love. The very fact of our having the Bible, involves a tremendous responsibility.
2. That the Bible must be approached in a sympathetic spirit.
3. That we are responsible for our manner of reproducing the Bible. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Imitating the silence of Christ
There lived in a village near Burnley a girl who was persecuted in her own home because she was a Christian. She struggled on bravely, seeking strength from God, and rejoicing that she was a partaker of Christs sufferings. The struggle was too much for her, but He willed it so; and at length her sufferings were ended. When they came to take off the clothes from her poor dead body, they found a piece of paper sewn inside her dress, and on it was written, He opened not His mouth. (W. Baxendale.)
Remarkable reticence
Moltke, the great strategist, is a man of lowly habits and few words. He has been described as a man who can hold his tongue in seven languages! (H. O. Mackay.)
Herod Antipas: religious curiosity
Most of us will admit that this is an age of much curiosity about religion. The phrase would seem to include three things. First, curiosity about religion as an interesting phase of human thought. Then, curiosity about religion as exhibited in the picturesque and commanding personages who have founded new faiths. But yet again there may be curiosity about religion as a possible manifestation of the extra-natural or supernatural. Revivalism and spiritualism make the flesh creep not altogether unpleasingly. August and ancient ceremonials haunt the imagination with their weird magnificence. The verses which I have read bring before us the very type of irreligious or non-religious curiosity about religion, and of the punishment which awaits it.
I. In the passage itself let us note, in the first place, THE DEALINGS OF HEROD ANTIPAS WITH JESUS.
1. Herod did not take any active part in the greatest tragedy of time.
2. It will be necessary for our purpose to consider, secondly, Herods position in the religious world of his day. That he was a Sadducee would seem to be certain from profane history, and from a comparison of St. Matthew with St. Mark.
3. The character of Herod Antipas may be thought too black to contain even a warning for any of us. He was but a promising pupil in the school of which Tiberius was a master; a meaner trickster, a punier liar, a feebler murderer. He was the fox, as our Lord called him, not the wolf. Yet in one respect he was not so unlike some of us. A mist of superstition hung over the unclean pool of lust and hatred which he had made his soul. He was alternately repelled and attracted by Christ. That he was not incapable of religious curiosity the text sufficiently witnesses. Some in our day might exclaim that it was perhaps unfortunate that an opportunity was lost of gratifying the curiosity of a person so interesting--as if Christ was Incarnate to amuse dilettanti. But He who knows all men and what is in man knew better. The blood-stained hands are held out half caressingly. The voice which commanded the head of John Baptist to be given to the daughter of Herodias pours forth its flood of superficial questions. He will not waste one miracle or one word. As they of old loved to teach, the silent Jesus, working no sign, is a prophecy and a sign to us. He answered him nothing.
II. The whole incident thus becomes full of lessons to us. A thoughtful, meditative reader stops in awe. If we feel the awfulness of that silence, we shall, I think, recognize the truth of that which I am about to say. There is, no doubt, a sort of curiosity about religion which is the necessary result of quickened intellectual, nay, of quickened spiritual life. But the smiting of the people of Beth-shemesh is net recorded for nothing. Free inquiry is one thing, free-and-easy inquiry is another. If we play with God, it is at our own risk. The question is--what do you believe? We stand fronting eternity, not with the many propositions which we affect to believe or think we believe, but with the few which we do believe. Can we make an act of faith in God? We see Him standing mute before the curiosity of Herod Antipas, and we say, Save us, oh save us, from that silence! (Bishop Win. Alexander.)
I. HEROD BEFORE JESUS.
Our Lord before Herod
1. See idle curiosity at its best.
2. Idle curiosity disappointed.
(1) Our Lord came not into this world to be a performer.
(2) Herod had already silenced the Voice; no wonder he could not now hear the Word.
(3) Herod might have heard Christ hundreds of times before if he had chosen to do so.
(4) Christ had good reason for refusing to speak to Herod this time, because He would not have it supposed that He yielded to the pomp and dignity of men.
3. Idle curiosity curdles into derision.
II. JESUS IN THE PRESENCE OF HEROD. Although no blows are recorded, I greatly question whether our Divine Master suffered anywhere more than He did in the palace of tiered.
1. Fully in earnest for the salvation of souls, and in the midst of His grievers passion, He is looked upon as a mountebank and a mere performer, who is expected to work a miracle for the amusement of an impious court.
2. Then to think of our Lords being questioned by such a fop as Herod!
3. Then the ribaldry of the whole thing!
4. It was no small pain to our Lord to be silent.
5. Think of the contempt that was poured upon Him. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The silence of Jesus
I. PREJUDICE, WHATEVER BE ITS SOURCE, GETS NOTHING OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. If you bring a full pitcher to a spring, you can get nothing from that spring.
II. HABITUAL INDULGENCE IN SIN WILL PREVENT US FROM GETTING ANY ANSWER TO OUR INQUIRIES FROM SCRIPTURE. When you want an answer from the telephone, you not only put your ear to the instrument, but you also say to those about you, Hush! I want to hear. If you would hear Christ you must say Hush to the murmuring of sin.
III. THE INFLUENCE OF SCEPTICISM MAKES THE SCRIPTURES SILENT. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv6, 13 Luk 23:6-12. “Pilate, hearing of Galilee, asked if He…
JESUS BEFORE HEROD
Luk 23:6-12. “Pilate, hearing of Galilee, asked if He is a Galilean man. And learning that He is from Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him up to Herod, he also being in Jerusalem in those days.” As Jesus had been; reared in Galilee, He was known everywhere as a citizen of that country, which belonged to the kingdom of Herod, who made it a rule to be in Jerusalem during the great convocations, having also a judgment-hall there for the convenience of business which might be encumbered on him during the festivals. Already has Pilate seen that terrible trouble is brewing in the case, as, he finds the Man utterly innocent, and yet the chief priests, followed by the howling mob, clamor for His blood and are determined on His execution. Consequently Pilate is delighted with the prospect of getting rid of the case, which is already becoming truly formidable.
Read full note →
“And Herod, seeing Jesus, rejoiced exceedingly; for he was a long time wishing to see Him, because he was hearing of many things concerning Him, and he hoped to see some miracle wrought by Him. And he asked Him in many words, and He responded to him nothing. The chief priests and scribes stood by, accusing Him vehemently.” Though they just lied on Him by wholesale and by false accusation did their utmost to induce Herod to sign His death-warrant, Jesus answered not a word, treating Herod and his clamorous accusers with profound silence. Will you not do likewise? Though people tell a thousand lies on you, keep your mouth shut, thus following the example of your Lord, who, when reviled, reviled not again. When under strong temptation, and especially false accusation, you see, reticence is the true policy. Let your enemies do all the talking, and they will break down and get ashamed before you are aware.
“And Herod having treated Him with contempt, and mocked Him, along with his soldiers, putting on Him a scarlet robe, sent Him back to Pilate.” As high treason against Caesar was the climax of all their vociferous accusations, Herod regarded Him as a visionary enthusiast, deluded with the idea that He was King of the Jews, which he thought as utterly preposterous, since He was alone, not only without an army to defend Him, but apparently friendless and homeless; therefore he concluded to humor the joke by investing Him with an old royal robe, and sending Him back to Pilate in the habit and attitude of a King, saying to him, “O yes, I have recognized His royal dignity, and now clothe Him in a purple robe, and send Him back to you.”
“And they both, Pilate and Herod, became friends with each other that same day; for they were formerly accustomed to be in hostility either to other.” O how frequently do we see this historic item verified, the belligerent sects laying down their cudgels, becoming friendly, and uniting against the holiness people!
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv9, 10, 13
Luke
‘THE RULERS TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER’
Read full note →
A SOUL’S TRAGEDY
Luk 23:9.
Four Herods play their parts in the New Testament story. The first of them is the grim old tiger who slew the infants at Bethlehem, and soon after died. This Herod is the second-a cub of the litter, with his father’s ferocity and lust, but without his force. The third is the Herod of the earlier part of the Acts of the Apostles, a grandson of the old man, who dipped his hands in the blood of one Apostle, and would fain have slain another. And the last is Herod Agrippa, a son of the third, who is only remembered because he once came across Paul’s path, and thought it such a good jest that anything should be supposed capable of making a Christian out of him.
There is a singular family likeness in the whole of them, and a very ugly likeness it is. This one was sensual, cruel, cunning, infirm of purpose, capricious like a child or a savage. Roman policy amused him with letting him play at being a ruler, but kept him well in hand. And I suppose he was made a worse man by the difficulties of his position as a subject-prince.
Now I wish to put together the various incidents in this man’s life recorded in the Gospels, and try to gather some lessons from them for you.
I. First, I take him as an example of half-and-half convictions, and of the inner discord that comes from these.
I do not need to remind you of the shameful story of his repudiation of his own wife, and of his disgusting alliance with the wife of his half-brother, who was herself his niece. She was the stronger spirit, a Biblical Lady Macbeth, the Jezebel to this Ahab; and, to complete the parallel, Elijah was not far away. John the Baptist’s outspoken remonstrances of course made an implacable enemy of Herodias, who did all she could to compass his death, but was unable to manage that, though she secured his imprisonment. The reason for her inability is given by the Evangelist Mark, in words which are very inadequately rendered by our Authorised Version, but may be found more correctly translated in the Revised Version. It is there said that King ‘Herod feared John’-the gaoler afraid of his prisoner!-’knowing that he was a just man and a holy’-goodness is awful. The worst men know it, and it extorts respect. ‘And kept him safe’-from Herodias, that is. ‘And when he heard him he was perplexed’-drawn this way and that way by these two magnets, alternately veering to lust and to purity, hesitating between the kisses of the beautiful temptress at his side and the words of the prophet. And yet, with strange inconsistency, in all his vacillations ‘he heard him gladly’; for his better part approved the nobler voice. And so he staggered on, having religion enough to spoil some of his sinful delights, but not enough to shake them off.
That is a picture for which in its essence many a man and woman among us might have sat. For I suppose that there is nothing more common than these half-and-half convictions which, like inefficient bullets, get part way through the armoured shell of a ship, and there stick harmless. Many of us have the clearest convictions in our understandings, which have never penetrated to that innermost chamber of all, where the will sits sovereign. It is so about little things, it is so about great ones. Nothing is more common than that a man shall know perfectly well that some possibly trivial habit stands in the way of something that it is his interest or his duty to pursue; but the knowledge lies inoperative in the outermost part of him. It is so in regard to graver things. The majority of the slaves of any vice whatsoever know perfectly well that they ought to give it up, and yet nothing comes of the conviction.
‘He was much perplexed.’ What a picture that is of the state of unrest and conflict into which such half-and-half impressions of duty cast a man. Such a one is like a vessel with its head now East, now West, because there is some weak or ignorant steersman at the helm. I know nothing more sure to produce inward unrest and disturbance and desolation than that a man’s knowledge of duty should be clear, and his obedience to that knowledge partial. If we have John down in the dungeon, if conscience is not allowed to be master, there may be feasting and revelry going on above, but the stern voice will come up through the grating now and then, and that will spoil all the laughter. ‘When he heard him, he was much perplexed.’
The reason for these imperfect convictions is generally found, as Herod shows us, in the unwillingness to get rid of something which has fastened its claws around us, and which we love too well, although we know it is a serpent, to shake off. If Herod had once been man enough to screw himself up, and say to Herodias, ‘Now you pack, and go about your business!’ everything else would have come right in time. But he could not make up his mind to sacrifice the honeyed poison, and so everything went wrong in time. My friend, how many of us are prevented from following out our clearest convictions because they demand a sacrifice? ‘If thine eye cause thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee.’
And then, further, note that these irresolute convictions and shirking of plain duty are not atoned for by, though they are often accompanied with, a strange acquiescence in, and approval of, God’s truth. Herod fancied, inconsistently enough, that he was making some kind of compensation for disobedience to the message, by liking to listen to the messenger. And there are a great many of us, all whose Christianity consists in giving ear to the words which we never think of obeying. I wonder how many of you there are who fancy that you have no more concern with this sermon of mine than approving or disapproving of it, as the case may be; and how many of us there are who, all our lives long, have substituted criticism of the Gospel as ministered by us poor preachers-be it approving or disapproving criticism-for obedience to the Christ and acceptance of His salvation.
II. We see in Herod an example of the utter powerlessness of such partial convictions and reformation.
I am not going to tell over again the ghastly story of John’s death, which no other words than the Evangelist’s can tell half so powerfully. I need only remind you of the degradation of the poor child Salome to the position of a dancing girl, the half-tipsy generosity of the excited monarch, the grim request from lips so young and still reddened by the excitement of the dance, Herod’s unavailing sorrow, his fantastic sense of honour which scrupled to break a wicked promise, but did not scruple to kill a righteous man, and the ghastly picture of the girl carrying a bleeding head-such a gift!-to her mother.
But out of that jumble of lust and blood I desire to gather one lesson. There you have-in an extreme form, it is true-a tremendous illustration of what half-and-half convictions may come to. Whether or no we ever get anything like as far on the road as this man did matters very little. The process which brought him there is the thing that I seek to point to. It was because he had so long tampered with the voice of his conscience that it was lulled into silence at that last critical moment. And this is always the case, that if a man is false to the feeblest conviction that he has in regard to the smallest duty, he is a worse man all over ever after. We cannot neglect any conviction of what we ought to do, without lowering the whole tone of our characters and laying ourselves open to assaults of evil from which we would once have turned shuddering and disgusted. A partial thaw is generally followed by intenser frost. An abortive insurrection is sure to issue in a more grinding tyranny. A soul half melted and then cooled off is less easy to melt than it was before. And so, dear brethren, remember this, that if you do not swiftly and fully carry out in life and conduct whatsoever you know you ought to be or do, you cannot set a limit to what, some time or other, if a strong and sudden temptation is sprung upon you, you may become. ‘Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?’ Yes! But he did it. No mortal reaches the extreme of evil all at once, says the wise old proverb; and the path by which a man is let down into depths that he never thought it was possible that he should traverse is by the continual neglect of the small admonitions of conscience. Neglected convictions mean, sooner or later, an outburst of evil.
John’s murder may illustrate another thing too-viz. how simple, facile weakness of character may be the parent of all enormities. Herod did not want to kill John. He very much wanted to keep him alive. But he was not man enough to put his foot down, and say, ‘There! I have said it; and there is to be no more talk about slaying this prophet of God.’ So the continual drop, drop, drop, of Herodias’ suggestions and wishes wore a hole, in the loose-textured stone at last; and he did the thing that he hated to do and had long fought against. Why? Because he was a poor weak creature.
The lesson from this is one that I would urge upon all you young people especially, that in a world like this, where there are so many more voices soliciting us to evil than inviting us to good, to be weak is, in the long run, to be wicked. So do you cultivate the wholesome habit of saying ‘No,’ and do not be afraid of anything but of hurting your conscience and sinning against God.
III. Once more, we have in Herod an example of the awakening of conscience.
When Jesus began to be talked about beyond the narrow limits of the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and especially when He began to organise the Apostolate, and His name was spread abroad, some rumours reached even the court, and there were divergent opinions about Him. One man said, It is Elias; and another said, It is a prophet, ‘and Herod said, It is John, whom I beheaded. He has risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him.’
Ah, brethren! when a man has, away back in the chambers of his memory, some wrong thing, be it great or be it little, he is at the mercy of any chance or accident to have it revived in all its vividness. It is an awful thing to walk this world with a whole magazine of combustibles in our memories, on which any spark may fall and light lurid and sulphurous flames. A chance thing may do it, a scent, a look upon a face, a sound, or any trifle may bring all at once before the wrongdoer that ancient evil. And no lapse of time makes it less dreadful when it is unveiled. The chance thrust of a boat-hook that gets tangled in the grey hairs of a corpse, brings it up grim to the surface. Press a button, by accident, upon a wall in some old castle, and a door flies open that leads away down into black depths. You and I have depths of that sort in our hearts. Then there are no more illusions about whose fault the deed was. When Herod killed John, he said, ‘Oh! It is not I! It is Herodias. It is Salome. It is my oath. It is the respect I bear to the people who heard me swear. I must do it, but I am not responsible.’ But when, in ‘the sessions of silent thought,’ the deed came back to him, Salome and Herodias, the oath, and the company were all out of sight, and he said, ‘I! I did it.’
That is what we all shall have to do some day, in this world possibly, in the next certainly. Men sophisticate themselves with talk about palliations, and excuses, and temptations, and companions and the like. And philosophers sophisticate themselves nowadays with a great many learned explanations, which tend to show that a man is not to blame for the wrong things he does. But all that rubbish gets burned up when conscience wakes, and the doer says, ‘Whom I beheaded.’
Brethren, unless we take refuge in the great sacrifice for the sins of the world which Jesus Christ has made, we shall, possibly in this life, and certainly hereafter, be surrounded by a company of our own evil deeds risen from the dead, and every one of them will shake its gory locks at us, and say, ‘Thou didst it.’
IV. The last lesson that I gather from this man’s life is the final insensibility which these half-and-half convictions tend to produce.
Jesus Christ was sent by Pilate to Herod as a kind of peace-offering. The two had been squabbling about some question of jurisdiction; and so, partly to escape from the embarrassment of having to deal with this enigmatical Prisoner, and partly out of a piece of politic politeness, Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, because He was in his jurisdiction. Think of the Lord of men and angels being handed about from one to the other of these two scoundrels, as a piece of politeness!
When Christ stands before Herod, note that all its former convictions, partial or entire, and all its terrors superficial or deep, have faded clean away from this frivolous soul. All that he feels now is a childish delight in having this well-known Man before him, and a hope that, for his delectation, Jesus will work a miracle; much as he might expect a conjurer to do one of his tricks! That is what killing John came to-an incapacity to see anything in Jesus.
‘And he asked Him many questions, and Jesus answered him nothing.’ He locked His lips. Why? He was doing what He Himself enjoined: ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Cast not your pearls before swine.’ He said nothing, because He knew it was useless to say anything. So the Incarnate Word, whose very nature and property it is to speak, was silent before the frivolous curiosity of the man that had been false to his deepest convictions.
It is a parable, brother, of what is being repeated over and over again amongst us. I dare not say that Jesus Christ is ever absolutely dumb to any man on this side of the grave; but I dare not refrain from saying that this condition of insensibility to His words is one that we may indefinitely approach, and that the surest way to approach it and to reach it is to fight down, or to neglect, the convictions that lead up to Him. John was the forerunner of Christ, and if Herod had listened to John, to him John would have said: ‘Behold the Lamb of God!’ To you I say it, and beseech you to take that Lamb of God as the Sacrifice for your sins, for the Healer and Cleanser of your memories and your consciences, for the Helper who will enable you joyfully to make all sacrifices to duty, and to carry into effect every conviction which His own merciful hand writes upon your hearts. And oh, dear friends, many of you strangers to me, to whom my voice seldom comes, let me plead with you not to be content with ‘hearing’ any of us ‘gladly,’ but to do what our words point to, and to follow Christ the Saviour. If you hear the Gospel, however imperfectly, as you are hearing it proclaimed now, and if you neglect it as-must I say?-you are doing now, you will bring another film over your eyes which may grow thick enough to shut out all the light; you will wind another fold about your hearts which may prove impenetrable to the sword of the Spirit; you will put another plug in your ears which may make them deaf to the music of Christ’s voice. Do what you know you ought to do, yield yourselves to Jesus Christ. And do it now, whilst impressions are being made, lest, if you let them sleep, they may never return. Felix trembled when Paul reasoned; but he waved away the messenger and the message, and though he sent for Paul often, and communed with him, he never trembled any more.
‘There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood,’
would lead us into the haven of rest in Christ; and, if allowed to pass, may leave us, stranded and shipwrecked, among the rocks.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv6, 13 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXX. Second Stage…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXX. Second Stage of Roman Trial].
CXXX. SECOND STAGE OF THE ROMAN TRIAL. JESUS BEFORE HEROD ANTIPAS. (Jerusalem. Early Friday morning.) cLUKE XXIII. 6-12.
Read full note →
c6 But when Pilate heard it [when he heard that Jesus had begun his operations in Galilee], he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. 7 And when he knew that he was of Herod's jurisdiction [Herod was tetrarch of Galilee-- Luk_3:1], he sent him unto Herod, who himself also ["also" includes both Pilate and Herod, neither of whom lived at Jerusalem] was at Jerusalem in these days. ["These days" refers to the passover season. Pilate had come up from his residence at Cæsarea to keep order during the passover, and Herod had come from Tiberias to keep in favor with the Jews by showing his respect to their festival. Hearing that Jesus was a citizen of Herod's province, Pilate saw an opportunity to do two things: first, by sending Jesus to Herod he would either shift or divide the grave responsibility in which he was placed; second, he would show a courtesy to Herod which might help to remove Herod's enmity toward him, a courtesy which perhaps might be the reverse of the discourtesy which likely caused the enmity-- Luke xiii. 1.] 8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was of a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning him; and he hoped to see some miracle done by him. [As to Herod's previous knowledge of Christ, see Luke ix. 7-9.] 9 And he questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing. 10 And the chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him. [The rulers felt that their case had well-nigh failed before Pilate, so they became the more urgent in the presence of Herod, since Herod had less reason to fear them than Pilate. In the midst of this, Jesus stood silent, answering [709] neither question nor accusation. Herod, as sated ruler, adulterer, and murderer, wished Jesus to turn juggler for his amusement; but the Son of God had nothing but silence for such a creature. The only contemptuous word which Jesus is recorded to have spoken had reference to this ruler-- Luke xiii. 31, 32.] 11 And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate. [Herod took vengeance upon the silence of Christ by treating him with abusive contempt. But finding nothing in Jesus worthy of condemnation, he returned him to Pilate.] 12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day: for before they were at enmity between themselves. [Thus Pilate gained but half his desire: Herod was now his friend, but the case of Jesus was still on his hands.]
[FFG 709-710]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v7 See margin ref., (See Scofield "Mat 14:1"). Also Luk…
Herod
See margin ref., (See Scofield "Mat 14:1"). Also Luk 23:8; Luk 23:11; Luk 23:12; Luk 23:15; Luk 3:1
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv6, 13 Jesus before Herod:
Jesus before Herod:
v. 6. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the Man were a Galilean.
Read full note →
v. 7. And as soon as he knew that He belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
v. 8. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see Him of a long season because he had heard many things of Him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him.
v. 9. Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing
v. 10. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him.
v. 11. And Herod with his men of war set Him at naught, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate.
v. 12. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together; for before they were at enmity between themselves.
As soon as Pilate heard the word Galilee, he became intensely interested. Calm, judicious reasoning had told him from the start that Jesus was innocent, but his weak, vacillating nature feared an uprising of the Jews, which might have become a serious matter with the city full of pilgrims. Here was a chance to get rid of the entire unpleasant matter. At once he inquired and received the information that Jesus belonged to the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. Without a moment’s delay, the governor of Judea, to whose court the case had been brought and by whom it should be decided, sent the prisoner to Herod, who had also come up for the feast and resided in the fine palace of the Herodian family in the western part of the city. That was cowardice on the part of Pilate, combined with legal quibbling. He tried to evade the issue, to escape a disagreeable situation. He had not been so careful of jurisdiction when he had caused the Galileans to be killed in the Temple, Luk 13:1. If anyone holds an office, he should perform the work of that office, even though it occasionally be disagreeable. And, above all, everyone should be honest and true in his work. Herod was highly pleased when Jesus was brought before him. He had heard many things concerning Him even in Galilee, Luk 9:7-9, and had been anxious to see Him for a long time. He now had the opportunity without a special effort on his part. Here was a new amusement to keep him occupied, to provide an agreeable change in the monotony of life, for the prisoner might be able to delight him and his courtiers with some clever tricks or even perform a miracle for his special benefit. As soon as Jesus. was brought into his palace, therefore, he plied Him with questions of many kinds. But he. was sadly disappointed, for Jesus did not answer him with so much as a word. Herod had had opportunity enough to hear the truth, out of the mouth of that fearless witness, John the Baptist, but he had hardened his heart against the truth and had killed the preacher of righteousness. And even now it was not the desire for the preaching of salvation that was actuating him, but mere curiosity. That is a terrible punishment of God when He no longer addresses Himself to a person in His Gospel, but ignores him entirely. The chief priests and scribes, fearing that their case might take an unfavorable turn in their absence, had followed the soldiers with the prisoner to the palace of Herod and there renewed their vehement charges. But Herod paid no attention to their crying. His hope of amusement had been spoiled by the unwillingness of the prisoner to respond. He and the soldiers of his body-guard, therefore, treated Him with every sign of contempt, mocked Him, had Him clothed in a costly or shining robe, "probably a cast-off royal mantle of his own," and then sent Him back to Pilate. His action indicated that he considered Jesus a helpless, irresponsible fool, a mock king, a man to be laughed at, not to be feared or punished. Pilate and Herod had before this, probably due to the governor’s cruel action, been on bad terms; there had been enmity between them. But now the disagreement was forgotten. Herod had had his sport, such as it was, but would not try the case, which he referred back to Pilate as the proper judge. Jesus was the plaything of unprincipled men. There is really no difference in kind, whether: the children of the world accuse Christ and the disciples of Christ as rebels and perverters of morals or despise them as innocuous fools. And where enmity toward Christ is concerned, former enemies become the best of friends.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv6, 8, 11, 13, 15 heard this
heard this
"heard that Jesus began to teach in Galilee"
Read full note →
he asked whether the man was a Galilean
Pilate wanted to know from which area Jesus came because he wanted to have a lower-ranking government official judge Jesus. If Jesus were from Galilee, Pilate could have Herod judge Jesus because Herod had authority over Galilee.
the man
This refers to Jesus.
he discovered
"Pilate found out"
he was under Herod's authority
The passage does not state the implied fact that Herod was the ruler of Galilee. AT: "Jesus was under the authority of Herod because Herod ruled over Galilee" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
he sent
"Pilate sent"
who himself
This refers to Herod.
in those days
"at that time"
translationWords
Pilate
Galilee
Herod Antipas
authority
Jerusalem
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv6, 8, 9, 12, 14 23:6-7 Realizing that Jesus was a Galilean and thus…
23:6-7 Realizing that Jesus was a Galilean and thus under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, Pilate saw an opportunity to get out of this sticky situation without condemning an innocent man or angering the religious leaders.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.