A Class-Book of New Testament History

by G. F. Maclear

It was clearly necessary that he should at least examine the Accused, and, as a procurator[534], he was bound to conduct the examination himself.

Withdrawing, accordingly, with the Redeemer into the interior of the prætorium (Jn. xviii. 33), he began by enquiring, Art thou the King of the Jews? (Jn. xviii. 33; Mtt. xxvii. 11). To this the Holy One replied by asking the governor whether he put this question of himself, or at the suggestion of others (Jn. xviii. 34). Apparently offended at such a rejoinder, and disclaiming all communion with the prejudices of the Jews[535], Pilate responded that he was not a Jew; His own countrymen, and the ruling powers of the nation, had brought Him before his tribunal, what had He done?

Thus interrogated the Saviour replied by an assertion of the real nature of His kingdom: My kingdom, said He, is not of this world; had my kingdom been of this world, then would my servants have contended that I should not be delivered to the Jews: My kingdom is not from hence. Art Thou[536], then, a king? enquired the wondering governor. Thou sayest it, answered the Redeemer; for I am a King. For this purpose was I born, and for this purpose came I into the world, that I might bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth My Voice (Jn. xviii. 37, 38). These mysterious words from the lips of One, whose life seemed to be entirely at his mercy; this denial that He was a king in a worldly sense, and the implication that in another sense He was[537]; this declaration that the object of His birth and of His life was to bear witness to the truth, increased the procurator’s perplexity. What is truth? he asked, partly in sadness, partly in irony, partly from a real inability to discern the connection of such an abstract matter with “the present question, with a question of life and death, with a capital charge brought by the national council before the supreme tribunal[538].” He could connect a kingdom with power, but not with truth.

The only sect Pilate could have ever heard of that believed in such a kingdom was the Stoics[539], and their opinions he would naturally regard as those of visionary enthusiasts. The Accused might be a dreamer, but certainly He was not one who had done anything deserving of the sword of the civil power, and going out to the Jewish deputation standing before the gate (Jn. xviii. 38), he declared his conviction of His innocence; he found no fault in Him (Lk. xxiii. 4).

But this was the signal for a furious clamour on the part of the chief priests and the members of the Sanhedrin. He stirreth up the people, they cried, teaching throughout all Judæa, beginning from Galilee even unto this place (Lk. xxiii. 5). Pilate thereupon turned once more to the Accused, and enquired what answer He had to give to these charges (Mtt. xxvii. 13). But the Holy One continued silent, and answered not a word. This increased still further the astonishment of the procurator (Mtt. xxvii. 14; Mk. xv. 5), but he fancied he had discovered an escape from the dilemma. The word Galilee had not escaped his ears (Lk. xxiii. 6). Galilee was in the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who was now present in the city as a worshipper at the Feast (Lk. xxiii. 7), and by sending the case before him[540], he might at once rid himself of a troublesome responsibility[541], and conciliate one, with whom he had hitherto been on no friendly terms[542] (Lk. xxiii. 12). Having assured himself, therefore, that the Accused was a Galilæan (Lk. xxiii. 6), he sent Him before Herod’s tribunal.

The tetrarch of Galilee[543], as we have seen before, had often heard of the Saviour, and had long desired to see Him[544] (Lk. xxiii. 8). He was highly pleased, therefore, when informed who was awaiting an audience with him, and hoped his curiosity to see some sign of supernatural magical power might be gratified. With this view he put many questions to Him, but the Redeemer maintained an imperturbable silence. Meanwhile the chief priests and scribes, who had followed into the presence of Herod, persisted in their furious accusations. But neither their charges nor the questions of the tetrarch could induce the Holy One to utter a word. Provoked at being thus disappointed of the object of his hopes, Herod’s superstitious curiosity was exchanged for scorn. He did not venture indeed to condemn the Accused to death, and saw that there was nothing He had done which rendered Him liable to punishment, but he did not scruple to insult Him, and therefore handed Him over to his soldiers, amongst whom probably, as in his father’s body-guard[545], were Gaulish and Thracian barbarians, who treated the Holy One with every kind of indignity (Lk. xxiii. 11). This done, he sent Him back to the Roman procurator, clad in a purple robe, and the ill-feeling between the two was from that day exchanged for friendship (Lk. xxiii. 12).

Perplexed, as Pilate probably was, at finding the case thus thrown back upon his hands, he was more than ever convinced that the Holy One was entirely innocent of such grave charges as had been made against Him. He therefore summoned the chief priests and rulers of the people (Lk. xxiii. 13) together, and once more declared his conviction that their accusations could not be sustained, and added that in this he was fortified by the judgment of Herod also. He offered, however, to scourge Him before letting Him go (Lk. xxiii. 16).

This first symptom of weakness and irresolution was not lost upon the Jewish rulers, and their followers assembled before the prætorium, and the proposition merely to scourge the meek Sufferer found little favour with them. Pilate therefore resolved to try another method of making the proposed acquittal more acceptable[546].

It appears to have been a custom, the origin of which is wholly unknown[547], to release at the season of the Passover any prisoner whom the people might select. There was at this time in confinement a celebrated (Mtt. xxvii. 16) bandit, named Barabbas[548], who with others had committed murder in an insurrectionary tumult (Mk. xv. 7) in the city (Lk. xxiii. 18). The procurator therefore, in accordance with this custom, proposed to the Jews that they should select for release one of the two, either Barabbas, a condemned murderer and insurgent, or the Prophet of Nazareth. He saw clearly that it was envy of His fame and popularity (Mk. xv. 10) which had induced the ruling powers to accuse the Holy One, and he hoped by this appeal to the people to procure His release. Indeed so certain does he appear to have been that they would select for release One, whom thousands had so lately welcomed with loud Hosannas as their Messiah, that he ascended and sat down upon the judgment-seat[549] as if to ratify and formally accept their decision (Mtt. xxvii. 19).

But at this moment, as if to increase his perplexity, an attendant approached bearing a message from his wife[550] imploring him to have nothing to do with the just person (Mtt. xxvii. 19) standing before his tribunal. During the night she had probably been roused by the messengers[551] of the high-priest requesting a Roman guard, and a fearful and harrowing morning (Mtt. xxvii. 19) dream concerning the righteous Prophet of Nazareth had induced her thus to appeal to her husband in His behalf.