‘Pilate therefore went out to them and says, “What charge do you bring against this man?” They answered and said to him, “If this man were not an evildoer we would not have delivered him up to you.”

’

Pilate’ is better known as Pontius Pilate. He was the fifth praefectus, later to be called procurators, of Judaea since Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD. The use of this title of Pilate is evidenced in an inscription discovered in the Roman theatre of Caesarea. The term praefectus demonstrates the military nature of the post. These prefects/procurators were of equestrian rank and had semi-independence although being subject to limited oversight from provincial governors, in Judaea’s case from the governor of Syria who was of senatorial rank. They were put in control of countries which were seen as particularly likely to be troublesome, in Judaea’s case because of their extreme religious feeling and subsequent turbulent nature.

Pilate was a mixture. He was a brutal man as his wider exploits clearly show, and he disliked and despised the Jews who only caused him trouble. He had no desire to please them. Yet he had reason to know that they would not hesitate to go to the Emperor if they felt that they had a case.

He also seemingly had a modicum of fairness. It was not such, however, to resist strong pressure when his own self-interest came first. Thus in many ways he was the average selfish man partly brutalised by being a soldier, the methods of the age and the fear of consequences. In other countries his methods may have worked but here he was dealing with emotions that he never really understood.

‘Went out to them’. Pilate yielded to their religious requirements. He was not generally a conciliatory man but he had learned how stubborn these people were when it came to their religion and was prepared to make slight concessions. And Judaism was an officially allowed religion.

When he quite properly asked for the grounds for charging Jesus they were evasive. It was possible they were even taken aback. Having obtained his consent to the arrest they perhaps thought he would give them authority to carry the thing through without interference. Alternately it may be that they said little because they preferred that he find out for himself. Then they could not be accused of anything. So they simply stated that He was obviously a criminal, which was why He was there. There is a strong hint here that, having tried Him, they expected Pilate to ratify their decision without looking at the matter too closely.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 18:29. What accusation bring ye against this man? This was the most natural question imaginable for a judge to ask on such an occasion; nevertheless the priests thought themselves affronted by it. It seems they knew the governor’s sentiments concerning the prisoner, and understood his question as carrying an insinuation along with it, of their having brought one to be condemned, against whom they could find no accusation. Besides, Pilate may have spoken to them with a stern air, so as to signifyhis displeasure. The word malefactor, , in the next verse, implies a notorious offender. As the Jews had still the power of inflicting slighter punishments, their bringing Christ to Pilate was a proof that they judged him to besuch an offender, as to have incurred a capital sentence.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 18:29-30 . In the prudent concessive spirit of Roman policy towards the Jews in the matter of religion, Pilate [230] comes forth to them, and demands first of all, in accordance with regular procedure , a definite accusation , although he knew it, Joh 18:33 ; “sed se scire dissimulabat,” Ruperti. The defiance of the hierarchy, however, uttered in an evil conscience, demands of him, contrary to all forms of legal procedure, that he should assume the delivering-up of the prisoner itself as a warrant of crime. Him who is not a mis-doer, they reply, they would not have delivered up to the procurator . They had in truth themselves sufficient power to punish, although not extending to execution. If, therefore, the offence exceeds this power of theirs to punish, so that the surrender to the procurator takes place, this surrender is sufficient proof that the person is a criminal. The kind and manner of the crime (Tholuck: criminal offence against the citizens) is not yet defined by their words. The idea: “one hand washes the other” (Lange), lies entirely remote.

. ] is, further, uttered with a feeling of indifference , not: “against such a pious and renowned a man,” Luther.

[230] The whole behaviour of Pilate in all the following proceedings is depicted with such psychological truth, that the opinion that his interest in Jesus was ascribed to him only by the evangelist (Strauss, Baur, Schenkel), can appear only as the consequence of presuppositions, which lie quite outside the history. Note particularly how just his suspicion against the Jews , owing to their personal behaviour, must have been from the first; and how, on the other hand, owing to Jesus’ personal bearing, his sympathy for Him must hare developed and increased, so that in the mind of the procurator strength of character and of conscience alone was wanting, to prevent him, after perverted measures and concessions, from yielding ignominiously at last. See also Steinmeyer, Leidensgesch . p. 143 ff.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

Ver. 29. Pilate then went out unto them ] It was much he would gratify them so far in their “Stand further off, for I am holier than thou;” that he would yield to their superstition, which he could not but contemn. But the very Turk, so the Christians pay him his yearly tribute (which is one fourth part of their increase, and a Sultan for every poll), permitteth them the liberty of their religion.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

29. ] Though Pilate, having granted the service of the to the Sanhedrim, must have been aware of the circumstances under which Jesus was brought before him, he demanded a formal accusation on which legally to proceed: “se scire dissimulabat,” Rupert, in Meyer.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 18:29 . The examination began therefore in the open air in front of the building; cf. Joh 19:13 . Pilate opened the case with the formal inquiry, . . .; To this reasonable demand the Sanhedrists evasively and insolently reply (Joh 18:30 ): “Had He not been a we should not have delivered Him to you”. It appears therefore that having already condemned Him to death (see Mat 26:60 . . Mar 14:64 ) they handed Him over to Pilate, not to have their judgment revised, but to have their decision confirmed and the punishment executed. is found in Arist., Eth. , iv. 9, Polybius, and frequently in 1 Peter.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

went out. Greek. exerchomai. All the texts add exo, outside.

accusation = charge. Greek kategoria. Compare Eng. “category”.

against. Greek. kata. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

29.] Though Pilate, having granted the service of the to the Sanhedrim, must have been aware of the circumstances under which Jesus was brought before him, he demanded a formal accusation on which legally to proceed: se scire dissimulabat, Rupert, in Meyer.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 18:29

Joh 18:29

Pilate therefore went out unto them,-It was an act of condescension on the part of Pilate that, to accommodate them, he went out of his courtroom to hear their accusation and proof against Jesus.

and saith, What accusation bring ye against this man?-The accusation had not been sent up with the prisoner, so he asks them for their charge.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

What: Mat 27:23, Act 23:28-30, Act 25:16

Reciprocal: Psa 64:6 – search Mar 15:3 – the chief Act 21:33 – and demanded Act 25:5 – if 1Ti 5:19 – receive

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

9

The Jewish leaders were waiting outside for the reason stated in the preceding verse. What accusation bring ye? Pilate was an officer in the secular government, representing that part of the Roman Empire known as Palestine. It was supposed that when a man was brought bound into a hearing of the penal courts, there was some specific and serious charge to be tried against him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Joh 18:29. Pilate therefore went out unto them, and saith, What accusation bring ye against this man? Pilate was Procurator of Judea under the Roman government; and his character, as described by writers of the time, is that of a skeptical, cold, and cruel man, arbitrary in his acts, and cherishing no feelings but those of contempt for the religion of Israel. He was, however, a Roman judge, and until his passions were excited there is no cause to think that he would not show the usual Roman respect for law. His first question, accordingly, was that of one who would try the prisoner before him with all fairness.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. How Pilate humours these Jews in their superstition.

They scruple to go into the judgment-hall to him; he therefore goes out to them,and demands what accusation they had against Christ.

They charge him here only for being a malefactor, or an evil-doer in the general; but elsewhere (Luk 23:1) they particularly accuse him,

1. “For perverting the nation.”

2. “For forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar.”

3. “For saying that he himself was Christ a king.”

All which was filthy calumny, yet Christ underwent the reproach of it without opening his mouth; teaching us, when we lie under calumny, and unjust imputation, to imitate him who opened not his mouth, but committed his cause to him that judgeth uprightly.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 18:29-32. Pilate then went out and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? This was the most natural question imaginable for a judge to ask on such an occasion; nevertheless the priests thought themselves affronted by it. They answered, haughtily, If he were not a malefactor Greek, , an evil-doer, a notorious offender; we would not have delivered him up unto thee It seems they knew the governors sentiments concerning the prisoner, and understood his question as carrying an insinuation along with it, of their having brought one to be condemned against whom they could find no accusation. Then said Pilate, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law By making this offer to them, the governor told them plainly, that in his opinion the crime which they laid to the prisoners charge was not of a capital nature; and that such punishment as they were permitted by Cesar to inflict, might be adequate to any misdemeanour Jesus was chargeable with. The Jews therefore said, It is not lawful for us It is not allowed, you well know, by the government under which we are; to put any man to death By which they signified, that the prisoner was guilty of a capital crime, that he deserved the highest punishment, and that none but the governor himself could give judgment in the cause. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, &c. That is, in consequence of this procedure of the Jews, there was an accomplishment of the divine counsels concerning the manner of our Lords death, of which Jesus had given frequent intimations in the course of his ministry. Signifying what death he should die For crucifixion was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had he not been condemned by the Roman governor, he could not have been crucified. Thus was the governors first attempt to save Jesus frustrated. He made four other efforts to the same purpose, but was equally unsuccessful in them all. This good effect, however, has flowed from them; they serve to testify how strongly Pilate was impressed with the conviction of our Lords innocence, and at the same time they show to what a height of malice and wickedness the Jewish great men were now risen.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 29-32. Pilate therefore went out to them and said, What accusation do you bring against this man? 30.They answered him, saying, If he were not an evil doer, we should not have delivered him to thee. 31. Pilate therefore said to them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. Whereupon the Jews answered him, It is not permitted us to put any one to death; 32, that the word might be fulfilled which Jesus had spoken,signifying by what death he should die.

The ordinary residence of the governor was Caesarea; but he went to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts. Pilate was fond of displaying before the eyes of the people on these occasions the pomp of Roman majesty. Philo (Leg. ad Caium) represents him as a proud, obstinate, intractable man. Nevertheless, it is probable that the fanaticism of the Jews was also an important element in the contentions which they continually had with him. All the acts of Pilate which are known to us, says Renan, show him to have been a good administrator. This portrait is somewhat flattering; but it is partially confirmed by the picture which Josephus himself has drawn of his government, Antiq. Joh 18:2-4. , therefore: in consequence of the fact that the Jews were unwilling to enter into his palace.

The answer of the Jews to Pilate (Joh 18:30) is skilful; it is dictated by two reasons: on the one hand, they endeavor to keep the largest possible share of their ancient autonomy, by continuing in the main the judges, and leaving to Pilate the part of executioner; and, on the other hand, they undoubtedly are also apprehensive of not succeeding before him with their political and religious grievances. The manoeuvre was well contrived. But Pilate understands them; he refuses the position which they wish to give him. He plays cautiously with them. Entering apparently into their thought, delighted at finding a means of relieving himself of the affair, he replies without hesitation: Very good! Since you wish to be sole judges of the case, be so! Take the accused and punish Him yourselves (, Joh 18:31), of course within the limits of your competency. The Sanhedrim had, in fact, certain disciplinary rights, like that of excommunicating, scourging, etc. There was no need of Pilate in order to inflict these punishments; only this was not death. Some interpreters have thought that Pilate really authorized them to put Jesus to death, but with this understood reservation: If you can and dare (Hengstenberg). But this is to make Pilate say yes and no at the same time. Joh 19:6 proves nothing in favor of this meaning, as we shall see.

This answer did not suit the Jews; for they wished that, at any cost, Jesus might be put to death. It forced them, therefore, to make confession of their dependence, at least in this regard (Joh 18:31). And this circumstance seems to the evangelist significant (Joh 18:32); for, if they had been their own masters, or had allowed themselves to be carried away, as afterwards in the murder of Stephen, to act as if they still were so, Jesus would have undergone the Jewish, and not the Roman punishment; He would have been stoned; this was the punishment of the false prophets, according to the Talmud (see Westcott). But He would not have been lifted up upon the cross, from which, by His calmness, His submission, His patience, His pardon, His love, He incessantly draws all men to Himself as He had announced beforehand (Joh 3:14, Joh 8:28, Joh 12:32); what a difference from the tumultuous punishment of stoning! Comp. also Joh 19:36-37.

The second position taken by the Jews:

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Pilate evidently addressed the Jews who had assembled outside his headquarters, or perhaps in its courtyard, from a balcony or overlook. He wanted to know their formal charge against Jesus. Pilate probably knew something of Jesus’ arrest since Roman soldiers had participated in it (Joh 18:3; Joh 18:12). Moreover Jesus was a popular figure in Galilee and Jerusalem. The high priest may well have communicated with Pilate about Him before Jesus appeared on Pilate’s doorstep.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)