2.<\/strong> We found<\/em> ] A word intended to excite prejudice.<\/p>\n perverting the nation<\/em> ] The technical Jewish name for an offender of this sort was Mesith,<\/em> ‘seducer’ or ‘impostor,’ Act 13:8-10<\/span>. This was their first<\/em> head of indictment, and had the advantage of being perfectly vague.<\/p>\n forbidding to give tribute to Cesar<\/em> ] This was a complete falsehood; <\/em> but a political<\/em> accusation was necessary for their purpose, since a heathen would not have listened to any religious accusation. The mixture of religion with politics is always perilous to truth and sincerity. This was their second<\/em> charge.<\/p>\n that he himself is Christ a King<\/em> ] The word ‘King’ is an explanation to bring the case under the head of treason. Yet they must have been well aware that this charge was all the more false in spirit from being true in the letter; for Christ had always refused and prevented every effort to make Him a temporal king (Joh 6:15<\/span>). This was their third <\/em> charge.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This fellow – <\/B>The word fellow is not in the original. It conveys a notion of contempt, which no doubt they felt, but which is not expressed in the Greek, and which it is not proper should be expressed in the translation. It might be translated, We found this man.<\/P> Perverting the nation – <\/B>That is, exciting them to sedition and tumults. This was a mere wanton accusation, but it was plausible before a Roman magistrate; for,<\/P> <\/p>\n Forbidding … – <\/B>About their charges they were very cautious and cunning. They did not say that he taught that people should not give tribute – that would have been too gross a charge, and would have been easily refuted; but it was an inference which they drew. They said it followed from his doctrine. He professed to be a king. They inferred, therefore, if he was a king, that he must hold that it was not right to acknowledge allegiance to any foreign prince; and if they could make this out, they supposed that Pilate must condemn him of course.<\/P> Tribute – <\/B>Taxes.<\/P> Caesar – <\/B>The Roman emperor, called also Tiberius. The name Caesar was common to the Roman emperors, as Pharaoh was to the Egyptian kings. All the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh, or the Pharaoh; so all the Roman emperors were called Caesar.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. Perverting the nation<\/B><\/I>] The Greek word , signifies stirring up to disaffection<\/I> and rebellion<\/I>. Many MSS. and versions<\/I> add , OUR nation<\/I>. They intimated that he not only preached corrupt doctrine, but that he endeavoured to make them disaffected towards the Roman government, for which they now<\/I> pretended to feel a strong affection!<\/P> <\/P> Several copies of the Itala<\/I> add, Destroying our law and<\/I> prophets<\/I>. Et solventem legem nostram et prophetas<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar<\/B><\/I>] These were the falsest slanders that could be invented. The whole of our Lord’s conduct disproved them. And his decision in the case of the question about the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar, Mt 22:21<\/span>, was so fully known that we find Pilate paid not the least attention to such evidently malicious and unfounded accusations. Neither Christ nor any of his followers, from that day until now, ever forbade the paying tribute to Caesar; that is, constitutional taxes to a lawful prince.<\/P><\/p>\n And they began to accuse him<\/strong>,…. After they found that Pilate would not receive him as a malefactor upon their word, and delivery of him to him as such; but insisted on knowing what they had to charge him with, and what accusation they had to bring against him:<\/p>\n saying, we have found this fellow perverting the nation<\/strong>; the nation of the Jews. Three of Beza’s copies read, “our nation”; and so do the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions; and it is to be understood, either of his perverting the nation from the true doctrine of Moses and the prophets; by spreading among them new notions, and false principles of religion; whereby he was a troubler of God’s Israel, as Ahab charged Elijah, 1Ki 18:17<\/span> where the Septuagint use the same word as here; and so is a charge of heresy, or innovation in religion against Christ: and thus Jesus stands charged in their writings o; on those words in Ps 91:10<\/span>. “Neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling”, they have this note;<\/p>\n “that thou mayest not have a son, or a disciple, that corrupts his food publicly (i.e. his doctrine, who departs from the true doctrine and worship, to heresy and idolatry, and propagates the same), , “as Jesus the Nazarene”.”<\/p>\n Which last clause, in some later editions of the Talmud, is left out: or it may be understood of his perverting the nation in their politics, and so is a charge of sedition against him, as follows;<\/p>\n forbidding to give tribute to Caesar<\/strong>; than which, nothing was more false; see Mt 22:21<\/span> nor does what is after alleged, support this charge:<\/p>\n saying, that he himself is Christ, a King<\/strong>; or Christ the King, or the King Christ; that is, he whom the Jews so frequently in their writings call , “the King Messiah”, for so he might be, and was, without any hurt to Caesar’s dignity, or revenue; for though he was a king, yet not an earthly one; and though he had a kingdom, yet not of this world: indeed they would insinuate by this, that he set himself up as an earthly king, in opposition to Caesar, to draw off the people from him, and their allegiance and duty to him; and so the Jews say of Jesus of Nazareth, that he was put to death, and had no mercy shown him, because he was , “near to the kingdom” p. The whole of this charge was untrue; he was so far from perverting the nation with false doctrine and worship, that he taught the true doctrine, and right way of worship, and refuted the false glosses of the Pharisees, and opposed the vain traditions of the elders, by which both were corrupted; and so far was he from any seditious principles and practices, or doing any injury to Tiberius Caesar, the then reigning emperor, that he taught the people to give Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, and he himself paid the tribute money; and when the people would have took him by force, and have made him a king, he avoided it by getting out of the way, Joh 6:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n o T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 103. 1. & Beracot, fol, 17. 2. p T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 43. 1.<\/p>\n Began to accuse <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). They went at it and kept it up. Luke mentions three, but neither of them includes their real reason nor do they mention their own condemnation of Jesus. They had indulged their hatred in doing it, but they no longer have the power of life and death. Hence they say nothing to Pilate of that.<\/P> We found <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel <\/SPAN><\/span>. Probably they mean that they had caught Jesus in the act of doing these things (in flagrante delicto<\/I>) rather than discovery by formal trial.<\/P> Perverting our nation <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb to turn this way and that, distort, disturb. In the N.T. only here and Ac 13:10<\/span>. The Sanhedrin imply that the great popularity of Jesus was seditious.<\/P> Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar <\/B>, ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Note object infinitive <\/SPAN><\/span> after the participle <\/SPAN><\/span>. Literally, hindering giving tribute to Caesar. This was a flat untruth. Their bright young students had tried desperately to get Jesus to say this very thing, but they had failed utterly (Lu 20:25<\/span>).<\/P> Saying that he himself is Christ a king <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Note the indirect discourse here after the participle <\/SPAN><\/span> with the accusative (<\/SPAN><\/span> where <\/SPAN><\/span> could have been used), and the infinitive. This charge is true, but not in the sense meant by them. Jesus did claim to be the Christ and the king of the kingdom of God. But the Sanhedrin wanted Pilate to think that he set himself up as a rival to Caesar. Pilate would understand little from the word “Christ,” but “King” was a different matter. He was compelled to take notice of this charge else he himself would be accused to Caesar of winking at such a claim by Jesus. <\/P> <\/p>\n We found. In a judicial sense : as the result of their examination before the council.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And they began to accuse him, saying,” <\/strong>(erksanto de kategorein autou legontes) “They then began to accuse him saying,” again and again, to make a strong impression on Pilate, Zec 11:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “We found this fellow perverting the nation,” <\/strong>(touton heuramen diastrephonta to ethnos hemon) “We found this man perverting the nation,” When and where? The term “we found” is used by the Sanhedrin court members in a legal sense, claiming to have legally tried and concluded in their court to be guilty as follows: “Of deceiving and seducing our nation,” the Jews, an issue that had not even been before them.<\/p>\n 3) “And forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,” <\/strong>(kai koluonta phorous Kaisari didonai) “And he was forbidding to give tribute to Caesar;” This was a fabrication, an outright- falsehood, and they, as a court, knew it, Luk 20:20-26<\/span>; Mat 17:27<\/span>; Mat 22:21<\/span>; Mar 12:17<\/span>. These judges became false witnesses, Luk 20:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Saying that he himself is Christ a King.” <\/strong>(kai legonta heauton Christon basilea einai) “And saying (claiming) himself to be Christ a king.” They translated the term Christ or anointed one as “King” for the benefit of Pilate, Psa 27:12<\/span>; Joh 18:33-36<\/span>; Joh 19:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n (2) Perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute . . .<\/strong>St. Lukes report of the accusation is more definite than that in the other Gospels. The question asked in Luk. 20:20-26<\/span>, was obviously intended to lead up to this; and though then baffled by our Lords answer, the priests now brought, backed by false witnesses, the charge for which they had hoped to find evidence in His own words. It seems probable that these facts came to the writers knowledge in the same way as those that immediately follow. (See Note on Luk. 23:6<\/span>.) It may be noted that the charge in the Greek is slightly enlarged. The question had referred, as reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark, to one form of tributethe census,<\/em> or poll-tax. The charge speaks of taxes in the plural, and uses the most general words. In Luk. 20:22<\/span> the same word is used as in this verse, but in the singular. St. Paul, in a passage which may well have been based upon St. Lukes report of our Lords words, uses the same term as St. Luke (Rom. 13:6-7<\/span>), first generically in the plural, and then in the singular as contrasted with customs duties.<\/p>\n 2<\/strong>. <\/strong> We found<\/em> Using a judicial term to indicate that their finding <\/em> was the result of a legal proceeding. Yet the present charge, so far from being a former legal finding, is absolutely new. Blasphemy <\/em> was the former charge. Sedition is the present one. The former was likely to be fatal before a Jewish court; the latter prejudicial before a Roman tribunal. <\/p>\n Forbidding to give tribute<\/em> So far from this, our Lord had laid down the maxim, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. <\/p>\n Christ a king<\/em> Verbally true; for the word Christ, <\/em> signifying anointed, <\/em> does imply king. <\/em> But it also signifies Messiah; <\/em> and so the Jews made even the true Messiah a criminal.<\/p>\n ‘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 (the Messiah) a king.’<\/p>\n The charge, based on what has gone before, is a travesty of misrepresentation. It was they who had said that He was Messiah the King, as He had pointed out to them. He had certainly not misled the nation, nor had they been able to prove so. And we actually know the basis on which He was being accused of forbidding the giving of tribute to Caesar, and that that charge was therefore totally false (Luk 20:21-25<\/span>). Jesus neither sought to arouse an insurrection, nor did He forbid the payment of taxes.<\/p>\n But the charge was clever. All three counts were of a kind that would disturb Pilate. They probably thought that when challenged about the giving of tribute to Caesar Pilate might not like His theological reply. Pilate would not appreciate any suggestion of reluctance in the matter of taxes. That might thus count as a point against Him. The thought that He was stirring up trouble among the people would certainly be enough to disturb Pilate, and he might well think, why should they say such a thing if it did not have some truth in it? And claiming kingship was a charge that Pilate dare not be seen to treat lightly. They were in many ways astute men and were playing on his fears.<\/p>\n ‘This man.’ We can almost hear the contempt in their voices.<\/p>\n ‘Perverting our nation.’ From their point of view this was true, for He had only too successfully rebutted their teaching, but it was certainly not politically true. What they nevertheless wanted Pilate to think was that He was constantly stirring up trouble among the masses.<\/p>\n ‘Christ (Messiah) a king.’ The last words are added for Pilate’s sake lest he fail to realise the political implications of a claim to Messiahship.<\/p>\n XXVII<\/p>\n<\/p>\n CHRIST BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Harmony, pages 196-206 and Mat 27:3-30<\/span><\/strong> ; Act 1:18-19<\/span><\/strong> ; Mar 15:1-19<\/span><\/strong> ; Luk 23:2-25<\/span><\/strong> ; Joh 18:28-19:16<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n You will understand that our Lord was tried before the Sanhedrin, as we saw in the last chapter, on the charge of blasphemy, penalty for which was stoning. We will find in this discussion that Jesus is first tried before the court of Pilate on the charge of treason, and then differently charged with sedition, the penalty of these two charges being crucifixion, and on the same two charges he was tried before the Galilean court of Herod. We have yet to consider his trial before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical and spiritual death, and finally, we will consider his trial before the court of hell on the charge of sin, with the penalty of passing under the power of the devil.<\/p>\n So that this discussion commences at the last verse on page 196 of the Harmony, Mat 27:2<\/span> , “And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate, the governor”; or, as Mark puts it, Mar 15:1-2<\/span> , “They bound Jesus and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate”; or, as Luke expresses it, Luk 23:1<\/span> , “And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate”; or, as John has it, Joh 18:28<\/span> , “They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace; and it was early.”<\/p>\n We have seen in the preceding discussion that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, on the charge of blasphemy, and condemned. We have seen that in every step of the proceedings they violated their own criminal law. Just now the important thing to note is that they also violate the Roman law. In this particular they had no right to even try a capital offense. Of course, we know that a capital offense is one of which the penalty is death. That is, capital offense comes from the word caput<\/em> (root, “cap,” connected with kephala)<\/em> , meaning “the head.” And capital offense is one in which one loses his head. The right to-try-such an-offense Rome never granted to the conquered provinces. The position is untenable that any conquered province might try and condemn, but the Roman representative had to execute.<\/p>\n On this point Mr. Greenleaf says, “If they (the Sanhedrin) had condemned him, they had not the power to pass sentence, this being a right which passed from the Jews by conquest of their country, and really belonged to’ the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of the Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercises of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and municipal regulations.” They had not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty which the Romans took care to reserve to themselves always, whatever else might be neglected. Tacitus says that the imperial right among the Romans was incapable of being transmitted or delegated, and that right was the jurisdiction of capital cases, belonging ordinarily to the Roman governor or general. The word is praeses<\/em> , answering to our word president, or governor of the province, the procurator, having for his principal duties charge of the annual revenue and the cognizance of capital cases. Some procurators, like Pontius Pilate, had the jurisdiction of life and death, but it could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance of any matter not pertaining to the Roman law, which consists of an alleged offense against the God of the Jews, and was neither acknowledged nor even respected by the Romans. Of this the chief priests and elders were well aware.<\/p>\n To show that Mr. Greenleaf is right in that contention, I will give three instances from the New Testament upon that point. The first is Act 18<\/span> , in the city of Corinth, and under the Roman governor Gallic. When Paul was accused under him, and brought before the judgment seat, Gallic says: “If indeed, it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these matters.” So a little later, when the mob treated the chief of the synagogue with indignities, it is said, “But Gallic cared for none of these things,” i.e., as a Roman officer he had nothing to do with them. So it was impossible for Pilate to take cognizance of anything brought against any matter of the Jewish religion, such as the accusation of blasphemy.<\/p>\n The next case that I cite is in Act 23<\/span> , where the chiliarch, or military tribune, called Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to Felix, who at that time was governor (Act 23:27<\/span> ) : “This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down into their council; whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.”<\/p>\n The next case that I cite is from Act 25<\/span> ) when Festus was governor in place of Felix. So we see we have Pilate, Felix, Festus, and Gallic, all testifying upon the point to which I am now speaking. Festus cited Paul’s case to King Agrippa (Act 25:14<\/span> ): “There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him. To whom I answered, that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him. When, therefore, they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought. Con-erning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own religion.” And he declined to take any jurisdiction of such a question.<\/p>\n Further upon this point, I now give what the great French lawyer, Dupin, says: Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him (p. 88), “the Jews had reserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of the procurator alone that the executive power was invested; every culprit must be put to death by his consent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.” No; the Jews had not reserved the right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of the conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should become impatient of the yoke. It was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, which would have left the judiciary and legislative power in the hands of the conquered people he was not simply an officer appointed to give an exequatur<\/em> or mere approval (visa) to sentences passed by another authority, the authority of the Jews. When the matter in question was a capital case, the Roman authorities not only ordered the execution of a sentence, but also took cognizance ( coynito<\/em> ) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdiction a pnon, and that of passing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation, vice praesdis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred; but in any event we hold it to be clear that the Jews had lost the right of condemning to death any person whatsoever, not only so far as respects the execution, but the passing of the sentence. M. DUPIN, Testimony of the Evangelists, pages 601-602.<\/p>\n We must not forget that Judea was a conquered country, and to the Roman governor belonged the right of taking cognizance of capital cases. What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? The Jews had not the right reserved of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the Roman senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries, but that Rome might have charge of all cases of life and death. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, he having left the judiciary in the hands of the Jews; not simply an officer appointed to execute a Jewish sentence passed by any authority, but when the matter in question was a capital case the Roman authorities could not only order the execution of the sentences, but they also claimed the right of passing upon the crime itself, with the right of jurisdiction over the question, and of passing judgment in the last resort. The Jews had lost the right to try a man for a capital offense, or to condemn to death any person whatever. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.<\/p>\n If the Jews had the right of trial in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate the proceedings would have been after this fashion: “Jesus has violated the Jewish law of blasphemy, and we have condemned him to death, and do bring him to you that you may approve and execute the sentence.” But what are the facts? When they bring Jesus before Pilate they say not one word about the offense of blasphemy, but bring a new charge. Pilate puts the question, “What accusation bring you against this man?” 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.”<\/p>\n That is the charge they prefer against him before the Roman Court. That is the new case. And Pilate examines whether Jesus Christ was guilty of treason against the Roman governor in claiming to be a king. So he examines the case by asking questions of Jesus himself: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” And after Pilate had finished his investigation he brought in his verdict of the case before him. He has heard the people and he has heard Jesus, and now here is his sentence: “And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man.” (Top of page 200 in the Harmony.) That is the decision.<\/p>\n The decision having been rendered upon that charge of treason, they bring another charge (Luk 23:5<\/span> , Harmony page 200) : “But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.” This is what we call sedition, that is, stirring up a tumult; so they changed the accusation. When they bring that charge against him before Pilate he merely notes the fact that they have spoken of Galilee, and as Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, happened to be in Jerusalem at this time, and as the offense, according to this charge, commenced in Herod’s territory, Pilate wishing to avoid the responsibility of deciding the case, refers it to Herod.<\/p>\n We will see how it goes before Herod. On page 201 of the Harmony we find that Herod, after maltreating him, sends him back to Pilate. Page 203 shows that Pilate announces Herod’s verdict: “I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accused Him; no, nor yet Herod: for he sent Him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by Him.” So there we have a double verdict, that under the second charge Herod finds no offense against the Roman law, and Pilate says the same thing that he hath done nothing worthy of death. No fault in him under either of the accusations. So that is the third verdict of equivalence that has been pronounced twice by Pilate and once by Herod.<\/p>\n Pilate now wishes to smooth things, for he knew that the Jews were very turbulent, and that the position of the Roman officer in Judea was always a hazardous one, since accusations could be made against him to Rome. Pilate had been moved by a message from his wife. She had had a dream. So she sends to Pilate while on his judgment throne, and says, “Have thou nothing to do with this man.” Now, the Jews were urging Pilate on from one side, and his wife restraining him on the other. Burns, in “Tam O’Shanter,” says, about the attitude of men toward the good counsel of their wives: Ah, gentle dames! it gars me greet To think how many counsels sweet, How many lengthened, sage advices, The husband frae the wife despises!<\/p>\n Therefore, Pilate proposes an expedient. He says, “There is a custom among you that at feast time some guilty man shall be pardoned. Now, you have a man here, a murderer and a robber, whose name is Barabbas, and it is within my province to pardon a man. Suppose you let me pardon Jesus, or, would you prefer that I pardon Barabbas?” It is a strange thing to the lover of justice that after Pilate had twice acquitted this Man he now proposes to pardon him. He could not pardon a man that had been acquitted. The Jews make their choice; they say: “Not this man, but Barabbas; release that robber to us; don’t you release this man.” Pilate then has Jesus crowned with thorns to show his contempt for their accusation that he would be a king, and invests him with purple, and brings him before the Jews, and exclaims (in words, that, put together, make a great text for a sermon: “Ecce homo”;<\/em> “Behold the man!” “Ecce Rex!”<\/em> “Behold the King!” When the Jews persisted that they preferred that Barabbas should be released to them, then Pilate put this question, which has been the theme of many sermons, “What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?”<\/p>\n Very many years ago at a meeting of the old General Association, Dr. A. E. Clemmons, pastor at Marshall, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, preached a sermon from that text, and made this stirring application: This question comes to every man. Every man is under obligation to accept Jesus Christ as King, and if he rejects Christ then the question arises, “What shall I do with Jesus? He is in the world; he is preached in ten thousand pulpits; I cannot ignore him; I must make some disposition of him; what shall I do with him? Shall I count him as an impostor, or shall I accept him as my Saviour?”<\/p>\n Having made that point clear, Dr. Clemmons then passed to his last question: “In not trying to dispose of Jesus Christ you reject him. Then later the question will come to you in this form, ‘What will Jesus, who is called the Christ, do with me?’ ” Showing that there would come a time when the despised Nazarene would occupy the throne of eternal judgment, and according to the manner in which you disposed of him when the question was up to you, so will he dispose of you when the question is up to him.<\/p>\n Their answer to the question was, “Crucify him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate says, “Why don*t you take him and crucify him yourselves?” Then they said, “We have no jurisdiction; we have not this power of life and death; you have. We bring the case to you, and we tell you now that we charge him with being an enemy of Caesar, claiming himself to be a King; and if you let this man go, you are not Caesar’s friend.” It was a favorite custom of the Jews to prefer charges against the governors of Judea before the Roman court at Rome itself, and many a governor of Judea was recalled on charges preferred against him at Rome. When Pilate heard that, he was terrified. He knew that it was an easy thing to shake the confidence of Caesar in any of his subordinates, and he was afraid. He therefore fell upon another expedient. He washed his hands, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this man; I wanted to let him go; you forced me to put him to death; you are responsible.” Then they said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”<\/p>\n When you see Pilate go through that form of washing his hands, as if by washing his hands he could divest himself of the responsibility to render just judgment, you are reminded of the incident in the play of Shakespeare’s Macbeth,<\/em><\/strong> in which Lady Macbeth, having instigated the death of the king, Duncan, and stirred up her husband to usurp that king’s throne, her conscience and her imagination were always washing off the blood spots on her hands. The great author relates how she became insane; and she was all the time going to the basin and washing her hands, then looking at them and saying, “This blood on my hands would make the sea red; all of the ocean cannot wash it the stain of blood on this lily-white hand.”<\/p>\n Pilate never recovered from his cowardly betrayal of his trust. History and tradition both tell us that he was pursued by undying remorse, and there is a tradition that when he was banished to the foot of the Alps, every time a storm was about to come a dark mist would gather over a mountain named after Pilate. There is a very thrilling reference to that in one of Scott’s novels. Whenever the people looked up and saw Mount Pilatus wrapped in mist they would cross themselves and say, “Avoid thee, Satan.” So tradition and history have tied the name of Pilate to that cloud-covered mountain.<\/p>\n And Pilate finally signs the death warrant of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had twice acquitted, and concerning whom he had said, “I find no fault in him; he is guilty of no crime.” On page 206 of the Harmony we have an account of the indignities Christ suffered at the hands of the soldiers. Let the reader study that for himself.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n QUESTIONS <\/strong> 1. Who brought the case of Jesus before Pilate and what great illconsistency in the Jews manifested at the palace?<\/p>\n 2. In what particular did they violate the Roman law in the trial of Jesus?<\/p>\n 3. What was the testimony of Tacitus on this point?<\/p>\n 4. Was it the province of Pilate under Roman law to merely execute a sentence of the Sanhedrin concerning an offense against Jewish law or must he assume original and complete jurisdiction and try the case brought before him solely in view of an offense against Roman law?<\/p>\n 5. What three special cases in the Acts illustrate this fact and what the point in each case?<\/p>\n 6. What was the testimony of Dupin?<\/p>\n 7. If the Jews had the right in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate, what would have been the proceedings?<\/p>\n 8. But what are the facts in the case?<\/p>\n 9. What, therefore, was Pilate’s first demand and what was their answer?<\/p>\n 10. What was Pilate’s second demand and their reply?<\/p>\n 11. Would he have counted within his jurisdiction a charge of blasphemy against the Jewish God?<\/p>\n 12. What threefold accusation against Roman law, therefore, did the Sanhedrin substitute for the charge of blasphemy and wherein consisted the atrocious malice of their accusation?<\/p>\n 13. What one word covers all these accusations?<\/p>\n 14. Was this threefold charge within Pilate’s jurisdiction?<\/p>\n 15. What question, therefore, did Pilate ask Jesus, what was his answer, then what question did he ask Pilate and why?<\/p>\n 16. What explanation did Christ here make to Pilate as to the nature of his kingdom and what was Pilate’s first verdict in the case?<\/p>\n 17. What new charge did his accusers now prefer against him?<\/p>\n 18. What was the legal term of this offense, was it a punishable offense against Roman law and was it within Pilate’s jurisdiction?<\/p>\n 19. What circumstance in the new charge enabled Pilate to evade trying the case by referring it to another tribunal?<\/p>\n 20. In referring a case from one Roman court to another, was it customary and necessary to make a formal statement of the case? (See Act 23:26-30<\/span> ; Act 25:25-27<\/span> .)<\/p>\n 21. Would such a statement in this case include the charge of treason, of which Pilate himself had acquitted Jesus, as well as the new charge of sedition and why?<\/p>\n 22. How did Herod receive Christ, what interest did he manifest in our Lord, what was the procedure of the trial before Herod and how did this incident affect the relation of Herod and Pilate?<\/p>\n 23. Under Roman law in this case would Herod announce his verdict directly to the Sanhedrin or would he send it through Pilate, and why?<\/p>\n 24. What was Herod’s verdict on both counts as announced through Pilate?<\/p>\n 25. What was Pilate’s verdict on the new charge?<\/p>\n 26. What is now the legal status of the case?<\/p>\n 27. What was, therefore, Pilate’s plain duty?<\/p>\n 28. What Latin proverb of law would now be violated if the defendant’s life is again placed in jeopardy on either of these adjudicated cases?<\/p>\n 29. Why, then, does Pilate hesitate and parley with the accusers?<\/p>\n 30. What admonition came to Pilate on the judgment seat?<\/p>\n 31. Cite the reference in Burns’ “Tarn O’Shanter” to a husband’s disregard of wifely admonitions.<\/p>\n 32. What expedient does Pilate now suggest in order to save the life of Jesus and vet placate his proud accusers?<\/p>\n 33. What was the infamy of this proposal?<\/p>\n 34. Under Pilate’s proposal what deliberate choice did the Sanhedrin make?<\/p>\n 35. How do the apostles subsequently bring home to them with terrific effect this unholy and malicious choice? (See Act 3:14-15<\/span> .)<\/p>\n 36. How did Pilate again seek to appease their wrath?<\/p>\n 37. What text for a sermon cited, what is the application and what was their answer to Pilate’s question?<\/p>\n 38. How does the Sanhedrin now confess their mere pretense in making charges against Roman law and terrify Pilate by stating the case under Jewish law?<\/p>\n 39. What were the circumstances of Pilate’s reopening of the case, what examination followed, what effort did Pilate again make and what was the result?<\/p>\n 40. Why could not Pilate render a formal verdict on this count?<\/p>\n 41. To what old charge do the Jews recur and thereby bully the cowardly Pilate into once more occupying the judgment seat, thereby reopening the case under Roman law?<\/p>\n 42. What time in the day was it now, reconciling John’s sixth hour with the time in the other Gospels?<\/p>\n 43. Why does Pilate now say, “Shall I crucify your king”?<\/p>\n 44. By what dramatic form does Pilate now seek to divest himself of responsibility and guilt in the judicial murder of one whom he still declares innocent, but condemns, what incident in the classics referred to, and what the tradition concerning Pilate?<\/p>\n 45. In what awful words do the bolder Jews assume the responsibility for Christ’s death?<\/p>\n 46. To what indignities was Jesus then subjected?<\/p>\n 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow<\/em> perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 2. Perverting the people<\/strong> ] Gr. , turning them upside down, wreathing them from their right minds. So Luk 23:5<\/span> ; “He stirreth up the people,” Gr. , he maketh an earthquake in them; rectum tollit de cardine mentem, <\/em> he throws them off the hinges. <\/p>\n 2.<\/strong> ] This charge was intended to represent the result of their previous judgment, <\/strong> ;<\/strong> whereas, in fact, no such matter had been before them:<\/em> but they falsely allege it before Pilate, knowing that it was the point on which his judgment was likely to be most severe. The words themselves which they use are not so false, as the spirit, and impression which they convey. The <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> was, however, false entirely<\/em> (see ch. Luk 20:22<\/span> ff.); and is just one of those instances where those who are determined to effect their purpose by falsehood, do so, in spite of the fact having been precisely the contrary to that which they assert.<\/p>\n Luk 23:2<\/span> . , perverting, causing disaffection and disloyalty to Rome. , doing His best to prevent (people from paying tribute to Caesar); false, and they probably knew it to be so, but it was a serviceable lie. : in apposition with = saying that He was Christ a King!<\/p>\n We found. As the result of our examination. <\/p>\n perverting = agitating. Not the same word as in Luk 23:14. Compare Luk 9:41. <\/p>\n Christ = Messiah. App-98. <\/p>\n 2.] This charge was intended to represent the result of their previous judgment, ;-whereas, in fact, no such matter had been before them: but they falsely allege it before Pilate, knowing that it was the point on which his judgment was likely to be most severe. The words themselves which they use are not so false, as the spirit, and impression which they convey. The . . . was, however, false entirely (see ch. Luk 20:22 ff.); and is just one of those instances where those who are determined to effect their purpose by falsehood, do so, in spite of the fact having been precisely the contrary to that which they assert.<\/p>\n Luk 23:2. , we have found) An invidious expression [one calculated to excite odium against Him]. [But yet neither Pilate nor Herod found any fault or cause of death in Him, Luk 23:4; Luk 23:14; Luk 23:22.-V. g.]- ) The term , the people, is applied to the Jews as contrasted with the Gentiles; but the term , nation, is applied to both Jews and Gentiles. , the people, is used in a political sense, and at the same time a sacred sense: , nation, is used in a genealogical or physical sense: Joh 11:50; Joh 11:52 [It is expedient that one man should die for the people (), and that the whole nation () perish not]. Comp. Rev 5:9, note [Thou hast redeemed us-out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (, )].-, forbidding) as a kind of Anticsar.-, to Csar) By nothing else were they so much bound in devotion to Csar as by their hatred of Christ. The transition from spiritual to political matters is fraught with dangers.-, saying) By this they give an illustration of the words , perverting, and , forbidding. From the appellation, Christ a King, they infer a double calumny as the consequence. Dismissing the latter, Pilate inquires concerning the former: [viz. the appellation, Christ the King.]<\/p>\n they: Zec 11:8, Mar 15:3-5, Joh 18:30 <\/p>\n perverting: Luk 23:5, 1Ki 18:17, Jer 38:4, Amo 7:10, Act 16:20, Act 16:21, Act 17:6, Act 17:7, Act 24:5 <\/p>\n forbidding: Luk 20:20-25, 1Ki 21:10-13, Psa 35:11, Psa 62:4, Psa 64:3-6, Jer 20:10, Jer 37:13-15, Mat 17:27, Mat 22:21, Mat 26:59, Mat 26:60, Mar 12:17, Mar 14:55, Mar 14:56, Act 24:13, 1Pe 3:16-18 <\/p>\n that: Luk 22:69, Luk 22:70, Mar 14:61, Mar 14:62, Joh 18:36, Joh 19:12 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 39:14 – he came Exo 5:4 – wherefore 1Sa 22:13 – Why have 1Ki 21:13 – the king 2Ch 18:26 – this fellow Ezr 4:12 – rebellious Neh 2:19 – will ye rebel Neh 6:6 – that thou mayest Psa 31:13 – I have Psa 69:12 – They Psa 119:23 – Princes Mic 5:2 – that is Mat 12:10 – that Mat 26:61 – This Mat 27:1 – all Mat 27:63 – that deceiver Mar 10:33 – deliver Mar 12:14 – is it Mar 15:1 – and delivered Mar 15:12 – whom Luk 20:24 – Caesar’s Luk 23:10 – and vehemently Luk 23:14 – as one Luk 23:19 – General Luk 23:25 – for Joh 9:29 – as for Act 25:7 – and laid Rom 13:6 – pay<\/p>\n And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. <\/p>\n [We found this fellow perverting the nation.] “A disciple corrupting his food publicly, as did Jesus of Nazareth.” ‘To corrupt their food publicly,’ is a phrase amongst the Rabbins to denote a mingling of true doctrine with heresy, and the true worship of God with idolatry. This was the accusation they framed against our Saviour at this time, that he taught heterodox and destructive principles, such especially as would tend to turn off and alienate the people from their obedience to the Romans. Aruch recites this passage of the Talmud more cautiously; for instead of as Jesus of Nazareth did; he hath it, as Jeroboam did.<\/p>\n Luk 23:2. Began to accuse him. The first approach to Pilate is narrated by John only, but Luke gives this charge with most precision.<\/p>\n We found. This implies investigation they had never made.<\/p>\n Perverting, giving a false direction to, our nation. They thus represent themselves as genuine friends of the people.<\/p>\n Forbidding, etc. This was a downright falsehood.<\/p>\n And saying, etc. This involved what was true. But from this single element of truth they deduced certain political results, which had never occurred, and by putting these false inferences in the foreground sought to obtain sentence of death against our Lord.<\/p>\n CXXIX. <\/p>\n FIRST STAGE OF THE ROMAN TRIAL. JESUS <\/p>\n BEFORE PILATE FOR THE FIRST TIME. <\/p>\n (Jerusalem. Early Friday morning.) <\/p>\n aMATT. XXVII. 11-14; bMARK XV. 2-5; cLUKE XXIII. 2-5; dJOHN XVIII. 28-38. <\/p>\n 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]<\/p>\n [FFG 704-708]<\/p>\n Verse 2 <\/p>\n To accuse him. They changed the accusation, now that they had brought him before Pilate. The charge before their council was blasphemy; now, it is disaffection towards the Roman government. <\/p>\n 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] {a} perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.<\/p>\n (a) Corrupting the people, and leading them into errors.<\/p>\n And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. 2. We found ] A word intended to excite prejudice. perverting the nation ] The technical Jewish name for an offender of this sort was Mesith, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 23:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"