Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 15:2
And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it.]
2. And Pilate asked him ] This was a private investigation within the prtorium, after the Jews, carefully suppressing the religious grounds on which they had condemned our Lord, had advanced against Him a triple accusation of (i) seditious agitation, (ii) prohibition of the payment of the tribute money, and (iii) the assumption of the suspicious title of “King of the Jews.” This was a political charge, and one which Pilate could not overlook. Having no qustor to conduct the examination, he was obliged to hear the case in person.
Thou sayest it ] St Mark does not mention here what we know from St John, ( a) the inquiry of our Lord of Pilate why he asked the question, and ( b) His explanation of the real nature of His kingdom (Joh 18:37-38). He brings out our Lord’s acknowledgment of His regal dignity, though Pilate could not understand His meaning.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This history of our Saviours examination before and condemnation by Pilate, together with the indignities offered him after his condemnation, is recorded in some degree or other by all the four evangelists, by the comparing of which it will appear that Mark hath left out many material circumstances and parts of it. In our notes on Mat 27:11-31, we have compared and considered them all, and shall thither refer the reader; only observing,
1. How much more favour Christ found from a Gentile heathen than from the Jewish high priest, and not favour only, but justice also.
2. How close our Saviour kept upon his guard, not accusing himself.
3. The horrible debauchery of these priests, that they would prefer a murderer, and seditious person, before a most innocent person.
4. The weakness of a corrupt heart to resist an ordinary temptation. Pilate was convinced the prosecution was malicious, that there was no guilt in Christ; yet he must content the people, and is basely afraid of their misrepresenting him to the Roman emperor.
5. That the point upon which Christ was condemned, was his maintaining his spiritual kingdom in and over his church, for he expressly disclaimed any claim to any earthly kingdom before Pilate, as the other evangelists tell us.
6. How punctually the words of Christ are by the providence of God fulfilled; we have now heard how Christ was delivered to the Gentiles, by them mocked, scourged, spit upon, and now going to be killed.
7. How Christ hath made all our bitter waters sweet, sanctifying every cross to us, and taking the curse out of it. He was reviled, imprisoned, mocked, scourged, spit upon, and last of all killed; he hath tasted of all these bitter waters, and by that taste they are made wholesome and medicinal for us; and he hath learned us, that there is no ignominy, shame, and contempt, no indignity and species of suffering, for his sake, in which we may not boast and glory, as being thereby made conformable to the sufferings and death of Christ. And if we suffer with him, we shall be glorified together.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Pilate asked him, art thou the king of the Jews?…. Which either he had heard before that it was said by him, and his followers; or was what the Jews now suggested to him as his crime, which they desired sentence of death might pass upon him:
and he answering, said unto him, thou sayest it; which is all one as if he had said, I am; [See comments on Mt 26:25]; for so he was in a sense, in which he explained himself to Pilate’s satisfaction,
Joh 18:36;
[See comments on Mt 27:11].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Art thou the King of the Jews? ( ;). This is the only one of the charges made by the Sanhedrin to Pilate (Lu 23:2) that he notices. He does not believe this one to be true, but he has to pay attention to it or be liable to charges himself of passing over a man accused of rivalry and revolution against Caesar. Joh 18:28-32 gives the interview with Jesus that convinces Pilate that he is a harmless religious fanatic. See on Mt 26:11.
Thou sayest ( ). An affirmation, though in Joh 18:34-37 there is a second and fuller interview between Pilate and Jesus. “Here, as in the trial before the Sanhedrin, this is the one question that Jesus answers. It is the only question on which his own testimony is important and necessary” (Gould). The Jews were out on the pavement or sidewalk outside the palace while Pilate came out to them from above on the balcony (Joh 18:28f.) and had his interviews with Jesus on the inside, calling Jesus thither (Joh 18:33).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) ”And Pilate asked Him,” (kai eperotesen auton ho Pilatos) “And Pilate questioned Him,” directly asked Him, (Jesus), Mat 27:11.
2) “Art thou the king of the Jews?” (su ei ho basileuston loudaion) “Are you the king of the Jews?” Not “a” king, but “the” king, meaning the one who was to come to them, Mat 27:11; Luk 23:3; Joh 18:33.
3) ”And He answering said unto him,” (ho de apo kritheis auto legei) ”Then Jesus replying to him said,” to the inquiry of Pilate. The early morning Sanhedrin meeting concluded with an agreement to present Jesus to Pilate as a pretender to the throne of Israel and a political danger to Caesar.
4) “Thou sayest it.” (su legeis) “You said it,” rightly, but I have not presented myself as such, for my time for such is not now, Joh 18:33-38; Act 1:6-7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” And he answering says to him, “You say it.” ’
They informed Pilate that Jesus was making Himself out to be the King of the Jews. This title was a loaded one and implied that He was therefore planning rebellion, for many insurrectionists had taken the title ‘king’. There had recently been such an insurrection which had failed, probably at an early stage, and had been put down, and there were at the time prisoners there who had killed during that insurrection and were awaiting punishment, one of whom was called Barabbas. So they no doubt hoped to tie Jesus in with that insurrection or with something similar.
But when Pilate asked Jesus whether He really did claim to be the King of the Jews, instead of finding himself confronting a defiant terrorist he found that he was facing what appeared to be a calm philosopher and became decidedly uneasy about the case.
He was also brought to a halt by Jesus replying, ‘You say it.’ This was an answer acknowledging that it was in some way so, but not in the terms in which Pilate understood it. It calls for such a discussion as we find in Joh 18:33-38 which tells us that Pilate questioned Him further and discovered something of the nature of His kingship. Something like that must have happened for Pilate to behave as he next did, for he then went back to the accusers seeking to discover if they had any better case against Jesus. He was totally unsatisfied with the situation, and had been made to recognise that the charge had little foundation.
However, there is no doubt that Mark intends us to take the title seriously for it will occur a number of times in the narrative. He wants his readers to recognise the Kingship of Jesus.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The hearing before Pilate:
v. 2. And Pilate asked Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And He, answering, said unto him, Thou sayest it.
v. 3. And the chief priests accused Him of many things; but He answered nothing.
v. 4. And Pilate asked Him again, saying, Answerest Thou nothing? Behold how many things they witness against Thee.
v. 5. But Jesus yet answered nothing, so that Pilate marveled. The question of Pilate indicated in what form the accusation of the Jewish authorities against Christ had come before him. Since the enemies had no tangible evidence against the Lord, they construed His confession concerning His Messiahship in such a way as to give it political significance: The Christ, regarding whom every Jew believed that He would establish a temporal kingdom. They insinuated that this Man was a rebel against the Roman government. That was the meaning of Pilate’s question. He may have thought that he here had a case of a periodic Messianic disturbance, although he had the conviction from the start that there was a great deal of jealousy on the part of the Jews involved in the affair. The answer of Jesus to this direct question was just as brief. But the explanation which He afterwards added, as given by Joh 18:36-37, showed Pilate that the accusation had nothing to do with political affairs and dangers to the government. And the chief priests felt the weakness of their position, since they did not insist upon this one point, but kept bringing other accusations, of a more or less vague character, many of them, their idea being to swamp Pilate with the mass of material and thus to cause his assent to their wishes without making a careful examination of the evidence. Pilate felt the vagueness and uncertainty of the accusers, and in the same strain asked Jesus whether He had no answer to all these charges, since they were made with such vehemence and bitterness. But Jesus observed a majestic silence. Why waste breath when it was perfectly obvious to every sane person that these were nothing but trumped-up charges, without the shadow of a foundation which would stand before any real court of justice in the world. Not so much as a single word did He answer, for He knew also very well that Pilate felt the weakness of the accusers and believed Him to be innocent.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mar 15:2-5 . See on Mat 27:11-14 . Comp. Luk 23:2 f. Matthew has here inserted from the evangelic tradition elsewhere the tragical end of Judas, just as Luke has the discussion with Herod; Mark abides simply and plainly by the main matter in hand; nor has he in the sequel the dream of Pilate’s wife, or the latter’s washing of his hands. Doubts, however, as to the historical character of these facts are not to be deduced from this silence; only the tradition had narrower and wider spheres of its historical material.
Mar 15:4 . ] See Mar 15:2 .
Mar 15:5 . ] At Mar 15:2 he had still answered.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(2) And Pilate asked him, Art thou the king of the Jews? and he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. (3) And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.’ (4) And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold, how many things they witness against thee. (5) But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
We have here the LORD of life and glory arraigned at Pilate’s bar, and witnessing, as the HOLY GHOST testifieth, a good confession. 1Ti 6:13 . And in this instance, as in the former, we behold strong mystical representations, in what JESUS suffered, to the circumstances of his people. The silence of CHRIST, to the many accusations of the Chief Priests, is strikingly descriptive of the sinner’s state of guilt, whom JESUS then represented as their surety. It was said of Him, ages before his incarnation, that he should be led as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. Isa 53:7 . In this, CHRIST represented the sinner; silent and abashed, under the sense of sin. For though in himself he knew no sin, yet was he made sin for us. 2Co 5:21 .
Pause Reader, over this view of thy Redeemer! Here is that Great Prophet, which so many ages before had been promised, as coming into the world, whom the LORD said they should hear; and that every one which would not hear that Prophet, should be destroyed from among the people: here he now stands, silent and accused, as a delinquent and malefactor, before Pontius Pilate and the Elders! Mark well, the striking difference, and then ask, in what sense are we to be hold him, but as the surety of his people? Deu 18:15 ; Act 3:22 , and Act 7:37 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it .
Ver. 2. See Trapp on “ Mat 27:1 “ See Trapp on “ Mat 27:2 “ See Trapp on “ Mat 27:3 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mar 15:2 . . Pilate’s question reveals the secret of the morning meeting. The crafty Sanhedrists put a political construction on the confession of Jesus. The Christ , therefore a pretender to the throne of Israel. Vide on Mt.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Pilate asked Him. Matthew and Mark carefully distinguish between this interview with the Lord and the rulers alone, and a subsequent interview with the multitude (Luk 23:4). answering said. See note on Deu 1:41. ct ea eayest = Thou thyself sayest [it).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 2:2, Mat 27:11, Luk 23:3, Joh 18:33-37, Joh 19:19-22, 1Ti 6:13
Reciprocal: Mar 14:61 – Art Mar 14:62 – I am Mar 15:12 – whom Luk 22:70 – Ye say Joh 18:37 – Thou
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
To be a king under the Romans might imply some rivalry, but Pilate restricted his question to the Jews, which would not mean any necessary opposition to the law of the land. To the question of Pilate Jesus merely said thou sayest it.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 15:2-5. See on Mat 27:11-14. The examination before Herod (Luk 23:8-12) occurred next.
Accuse thee of (Mar 15:4). The same word as in Mar 15:3, according to the best authorities.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
It is very observable, how readily our Saviour answers before Pilate; Pilate said, Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered, Thou sayest it; or, it is as thou sayest. But to all the accusations of the chief priests, and to all that they falsely laid to his charge before Pilate, our Saviour answered never a word. He answered Pilate, but would not answer the chief priests a word before Pilate, probably for these reasons, because his innocency was such as needed no apology; because their calumnies and accusations were so notoriously false, that they needed no confutation: to shew his contempt of death, and teach us, by his example, to despise the false accusations of malicious men, and to learn us patience and submission, when for his sake we are slandered and traduced; for these reasons our Saviour was a deaf man, not answering the calumnies of the chief priests; but when Pilate asks him a question, which our Saviour knew that a direct answer to would cost him his life, Art thou the king of the Jews? He replies, I am.
Hence, says the apostle, that Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession 1Ti 6:13. Teaching us, That although we may, and sometimes ought to hold our peace, when our own reputation is concerned, yet must we never be silent when the honour of God and his truth may effectually be promoted by a full confession: For, says Christ, whosoever denies me before man, him will I deny in the presence of my Father, and before all his holy angels.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mar 15:2-5. Pilate asked him, Art thou the king of the Jews? These verses are explained in the notes on Mat 27:11-14. But Jesus yet answered nothing This is not an accurate translation of the original, (which is, ,) implying, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, that he had answered nothing to the former question, the reverse of which is the fact, as appears, Mar 15:2. All the Latin translators say rightly, Nihil amplius respondit, he answered nothing more, or what is manifestly equivalent. All the foreign translations give the same sense. Yet, to show how difficult it is to preserve a uniform attention, and how liable at times even judicious persons are to run blindfold into the errors of their predecessors; it may be observed, that Wesley is the only modern translator who has escaped a blunder not more repugnant to the fact, as recorded in the verses immediately preceding, than contradictory to the import of the Greek expression here used. His version is, Answered nothing any more. The rest without exception say, Still answered nothing, or words to that purpose. Yet, in the translation commonly used in Queen Elizabeths reign, the sense was truly exhibited, Answered no more at all.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CXXIX.
FIRST STAGE OF THE ROMAN TRIAL. JESUS
BEFORE PILATE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
(Jerusalem. Early Friday morning.)
aMATT. XXVII. 11-14; bMARK XV. 2-5; cLUKE XXIII. 2-5; dJOHN XVIII. 28-38.
dand they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. [See Joh 12:33, Joh 12:34), but he also gave the details of his trial– Mat 20:18, Mat 20:19, Mar 10:33, Mar 10:34.] c2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. [The Jews now profess to change their verdict into a charge, they themselves becoming witnesses as to the truth of the matter charged. They say “We found,” thereby asserting that the things which they stated to Pilate were the things for which they had condemned Jesus. Their assertion was utterly false, for the three things which they now mentioned had formed no part whatever of the evidence against Jesus in their trial of him. The first charge, that Jesus was a perverter or seducer of the people, was extremely vague. The second, that he taught to withhold tribute from Csar, was a deliberate falsehood. See Joh 6:15.] d33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, a11 Now Jesus stood before the governor [Jesus is called from the guards who have him in custody and stands alone before Pilate that the governor may investigate his case privately]: b2 And Pilate athe governor [705] asked him, dand said unto him, {asaying,} Art thou the King of the Jews? [The Gospels are unanimous in giving this question as the first words addressed by Pilate to Jesus. The question expresses surprise. There was nothing in the manner or attire of Jesus to suggest a royal claimant. The question was designed to draw Jesus out should he chance to be a fanatical or an unbalanced enthusiast.] And Jesus banswering saith {canswered him and said,} bunto him, Thou sayest. dSayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? [Using the Hebrew form of affirmative reply (see Joh 12:19). They objected to his kingly claims ( Mat 21:15, Mat 21:16, Luk 19:38, Luk 19:39), but Jesus shows Pilate that these kingly claims, however distasteful to the Jews, were no offense to or menace against the authority of Rome. Further than this, Jesus did not define his kingdom, for Pilate had no concern in it beyond this. It was sufficient to inform him that it made no use of physical power even for purposes of defense. Such a kingdom could cause no trouble to Rome, and the bare fact stated by Jesus proved that it was indeed such a kingdom.] 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. [See Joh 19:7, Joh 19:8.] 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? [This question has been regarded as an earnest inquiry (Chrysostom), the inquiry of one who despaired (Olshausen), a scoffing question (Alford), etc. But it is evident that Pilate asked it intending to investigate the case of Jesus further, but, suddenly concluding that he already knew enough to answer his purpose as a judge, he stifles his curiosity as a human being and proceeds with the trial of Jesus, leaving the question unanswered.] And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, cunto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man. dno crime in [707] him. [The pronoun “I” is emphatic; as if Pilate said, “You, prejudiced fanatics, demand his death, but I, the calm judge, pronounce him innocent.”] b3 And the chief priests accused him of many things. a12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. [When Pilate left the Prtorium to speak with the Jewish rulers, it is evident that Jesus was led out with him, and so stood there in the presence of his accusers.] b4 And a13 Then bPilate again asked him, {asaith unto him,} bsaying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of. aHearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? b5 But Jesus no more answered anything; a14 And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: binsomuch that Pilate athe governor bmarvelled. agreatly. [Pilate was irritated that Jesus did not speak in his own defense. He had already seen enough of our Lord’s wisdom to assure him that it would be an easy matter for him to expose the malicious emptiness of these charges–charges which Pilate himself knew to be false, but about which he had to keep silent, for, being judge, he could not become our Lord’s advocate. Our Lord’s silence was a matter of prophecy ( Isa 53:7). Jesus kept still because to have successfully defended himself would have been to frustrate the purpose for which he came into the world– Joh 12:23-28.] c5 But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place. [The Jews cling to their general accusation of sedition, and seek to make the largeness of the territory where Jesus operated overshadow and conceal the smallness of their testimony as to what his operations were.] [708]
[FFG 704-708]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 2
Art thou, &c.; referring to their accusation, Luke 23:2.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2. Jesus’ Roman trial 15:2-20
During the Jewish trial Jesus had affirmed His messiahship and the Sanhedrin had condemned Him for blasphemy. During His Roman trial He affirmed His kingship and Pilate condemned Him for treason. The Roman trial, like the Jewish trial, had three stages: an interrogation before Pilate, an attempted interrogation before Herod, and an arraignment and sentencing before Pilate. [Note: For helpful insights into Roman law as it affected Jesus’ trial, see R. Larry Overstreet, "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Jesus’ first appearance before Pilate 15:2-5 (cf. Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:1-5; John 18:28-38)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Pilate had absolute authority over Jesus’ fate under Roman law. Customarily trials such as this one took place in public. [Note: Grassmick, p. 185.] They also took place "as soon after dawn as possible because the working day of a Roman official began at the earliest hour of daylight." [Note: Lane, p. 549.] First, the plaintiffs or accusers made their charges against the defendant. Then the prosecutor, in this case Pilate, examined the defendant who could speak in his own defense, and he heard the testimony of any witnesses. Next, the prosecutor consulted with his legal advisers and finally pronounced his verdict. The execution of the sentence followed immediately. [Note: Grassmick, p. 185.]
Pilate’s question shows that the Jews had charged Jesus with claiming to be a king. Claiming to be a king was tantamount to treason against Caesar and was a capital offense. Jesus admitted that He was the King of the Jews, but He implied that He was a different kind of king than Pilate thought (cf. Mat 27:11). John wrote that Pilate discussed the nature of Jesus’ kingship with Him further and concluded that Jesus was not guilty of treason (Joh 18:34-38).