Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the word Galilee; and he makes that the occasion of shifting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus—you are a Galilean then? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Cæsar, was then tetrarch of Galilee, he sent him to Herod. Luke xxiii. 6, 7.
But Herod, who, as St. Luke says, had been long desirous of seeing Jesus and had hoped to see some miracle done by him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and putting several questions to him, which Jesus did not deign to answer,—Herod, notwithstanding the presence of the priests, (who had not yet gone off, but stood there with their scribes,) and notwithstanding the pertinacity with which they continued to accuse Jesus, perceiving nothing but what was merely chimerical in the accusation of being a king, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate, after having arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, in order to show that he thought this pretended royalty was a subject of ridicule rather than of apprehensions. Luke xxiii. 8, &c., and De Sacy. Ib.
Section X.—The Last Efforts before Pilate.
No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared that he found nothing criminal in him.
But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.
The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said to them again: “Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people—and, behold, I, having [pg 564] examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod; for I sent you to him, and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.” Luke xxiii. 14, 15.
After “chastising” him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he considered him to be innocent?[415] But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.
“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.” John xix. 1. And, supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time, Behold the man! Ecce homo. John xix. 5.
Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is true; but sufficient to avail as a legal bar to any new proceedings against Jesus for the same act. Non bis in idem, no man shall be put twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the Romans.
Accordingly, “from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Jesus.” John xix. 12.