Bible Commentaries
John 18

Verse 1

XXV

JESUS IN GETHSEMANE

Harmony, pages 183-186 and Matthew 26:30; Matthew 26:36-48; Mark 14:26-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1; Hebrews 5:7-8.

This section commences on page 183 of the Harmony, introducing us at once to the Gethsemane scene. It is of vital importance that the interpreter of the Bible should know what significance to attach to this scene in the garden. We have four accounts – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. You will observe that while John touches the other historians on some things, he has nothing to say about this garden scene. His Gospel was written so much later than the others, and the others had so clearly set forth all the necessary facts about the garden of Gethsemane that he does not mention it at all. And when we confine ourselves to the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, we get at results about which I will now speak in their order.

The word, "Gethsemane," means an oil-press. The word, "place," as Matthew calls it – "He came to a place" – means an "enclosed place." In this were olive trees, other trees, and flowers. Just as you cross the brook Kidron, which separates that part of Jerusalem near the Temple from Mount Olivet, and right at the base of Mount Olivet, was this enclosed space. If you were there now you would see about an acre of ground with old olive trees in it, centuries old, but you are not to understand that this enclosure represents the enclosure of the text, or that these very trees were there when Christ spent this night of agony in that garden. We know from history, Josephus among others, that all of the trees of every kind for miles were cut down by the Romans when they were besieging Jerusalem about forty years after Christ’s entrance into the garden of Gethsemane.

Right at the foot of the mountain three roads went over or around Mount Olivet. They centered in that garden, and Jesus was accustomed to stop there. Our record tells us that he was accustomed to stop in that garden, either going to Jerusalem from Bethany; or going to Bethany from Jerusalem; and Judas, we learn, was sure that there Jesus could be found, if he had left the upper room where the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. You will remember that just at the close of the Passover supper, Judas "went immediately out," and gathered the crowd unto whom he wished to betray him. He knew he would find Jesus either where he left him, in that upper chamber, or in that garden on his way back to Bethany, which was his headquarters. So much, then, for the place.

The next item is that when he came to that garden he stopped eight of the apostles at the gate: "You stay here." He took three with him – Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and with these three he entered deeper into the garden. Then he stationed the three, and went deeper still into the garden, as far as you can throw a stone – say fifty paces. Those at the gate, and particularly these three, were commanded to watch and pray; to watch, because he wanted to be informed when his betrayer was coming; to pray, lest they should enter into temptation when they saw him openly captured by his enemies. He knew that it would greatly shake them, and that they ought to be praying.

It was very late in the night, and being in the time of the Passover, it was full moon, but they were weary and sleepy. As he said of them, "The flesh is weak; your spirit is ready, but your flesh is weak." These three that entered with him are mentioned on two other special occasions in the Gospels. Peter, James, and John were selected from the twelve apostles to be witnesses of his power when he raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead, as we learn from Mark 5. Peter, James, and John were selected to witness his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, as we learn from Matthew 17, and now Peter, James, and John are selected to witness his agony in this garden. They became very important witnesses to all of these events.

We notice the next point. He said, as Matthew expresses it, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Mark says the same thing. This language evidently teaches that Jesus really had a human soul. There is an old heresy to the effect that he had only a human body, and that the Deity inhabited that body. But Jesus was a man in the true sense of the word. He took upon himself our nature, apart from any sin, but yet it was fully human nature, soul and body. Or, if you want to express it in a trichotomous way – body, soul, and spirit. He was fully human. This sorrow proves that he was human in every true sense of the word. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." The agony described here is mental and spiritual. The effect is shown in his body, in that he sweats, as it were, great drops of blood. This is the most thrilling description in literature of the intensity of spiritual suffering under the preparation of the coming evil, and how that suffering evidences itself in the body. The body and the soul are intimately connected. When Belshazzar saw the handwriting on the wall, his knees shook, the terror in his soul was connected with his body. Or, as a man in reading a letter, or receiving a telegram of awful news, becomes so transfixed with pain that he has a tendency to faint. That is the reaction of the inner man on the outer man.

The next thought is – what caused that sorrow even unto death? A young preacher, and a very brilliant one, preached a sermon on this subject in which he took the position that the devil, as a person – a visible, tangible person – that night tried to kill Jesus, as he had first tried to have Jesus killed when he was a baby. So there was a wrestle between Christ and Satan, and that when Jesus prayed, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," he meant, "If it be possible, don’t let the devil kill me before I go to the cross and expiate human sin."

It was a very ingenious thing that young preacher preached, but it was very unscriptural. The sorrow that came over Jesus – the trouble of his soul, of his spirit, was that he was very near the time of dying on the cross, not as a martyr – for a martyr has no such sorrow as that; not as a guilty person in view of pending execution, for he was without sin; but it was a sorrow caused by the thought that in dying he was to die alienated in soul from God; to die as a sinner, though no sinner; to die the death of a felon, and, for the time being, pass under the power of Satan. He knew that when that sacrifice was made the Father would forsake him; that he would have to die the spiritual death, and the spiritual death is absence of the soul from God.

You get at a fine idea of the thought – a very fine idea indeed – when you consider the petition of Major John Andre to George Washington, commander-in-chief of the American armies. He prayed that he might be shot as a soldier, and not hanged as a spy. His agony was not the thought of death, for he was a very brave man, but the thought of a felon’s death. To die by a hangman – that constituted the agony of Major Andre. He did not want to die that death.

The humanity of Jesus, not merely his body, but his soul and spirit, suffered vicariously the spiritual death. His soul shuddered unspeakably at the thought of passing away from God and going under the power of Satan, and to feel the stroke of the punitive sword of the divine law won him. That was his trouble.

Paul’s statement of the case is thus expressed: "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:7-8).

The next thought is this – that in that agony of approaching separation from his Father, he prays to his Father, that if it be possible, to let this cup pass from him. That means this: "I came to the earth to save men; to do anything that is necessary to their salvation, and the means appointed for their salvation is that I should take the sinner’s place; die the sinner’s death; die under God’s judgment; die under the sword of the divine law." Now when he says, "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me," he means this: "If there is any other way to save men, then let this cup pass from me; it is so bitter."

The theology involved in that prayer has a depth that has never yet been sounded. It is the strongest possible proof of the sinner’s destiny; of the enormity of the sinner’s death. It is the strongest proof that I know that the only available way to save men was by substitution.

In other words, the law of God, which is holy, just, and good, must be vindicated. That law says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." "Man has sinned. If I came to redeem man, and to take the place of man, I must pay man’s debt to the law. I must die the death of the sinner, or God can never be just in justifying man – in forgiving man." The claim of the law must be met, and if you just think a moment, when a man talks about your being saved without the expiation of sin by Jesus Christ upon the cross, remember that Jesus prayed: "If it be possible, i.e., if there be any other way under heaven among men whereby man can be saved, apart from vicarious and substitutionary death in his behalf, then let this cup pass from me." And the cup was not allowed to pass.

Let us suppose that some one takes the position: "I believe in God; I believe in his love and in his mercy, but I reject this idea of Jesus Christ as a Saviour, and whenever I come to stand before the judgment bar of God my petition will be: ’Lord have mercy on me and save me.’ " The answer will be: "If it had been possible for man to have been saved in that way, then the petition of Jesus would have been answered." The omniscience of God could see no other way; the omnipotence of God could work out no other way; the omnipresence of God could get in touch with no other way; the holiness and justice of God could find no other way. And, therefore, Peter, who witnesses this, says, "There is no other name given among men whereby we can be saved, but by the name of Jesus," and the name of Jesus avails only as Jesus died in our behalf. "God made him to be sin, though he knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." In the Old Testament we have his words, as given, not by these Gospel historians, but by prophetic historians, and one of his words is, "Save me from the sword," not the sword of man, but the sword of divine justice. And the reply that came to that petition was: "Awake, O sword, and smite the shepherd." Another one of his prayers, as given by the prophetic historian, is, "Lord, save me from the lion." The lion is the devil. He is the one who goeth about like a roaring lion. He was not saved from the lion. In other words, he was to be the live goat; the goat laden with the sins of the people; the goat that was to be sent into the wilderness to meet Azazel; he was "set alive before Jehovah to make atonement for him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness." So Jesus must meet the prince of evil and there fight out the battle in which Jesus would be bruised in the heel and Satan would be crushed in the head, and in which Jesus’ body would die, but his soul would be triumphant and Satan be cast out.

The devil knew that Christ was near the cross; he knew that if Christ got to the cross and died on the cross, what would be the effect of that death. And what he was trying to effect here (for this was a real temptation of Jesus), was not to bring about the physical death of Jesus, as that young preacher taught, but it was to get Jesus to so shrink back from this suffering that he would not undertake it. That was his point. And Jesus felt all of the agony, so deeply felt it that he prayed, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me." But he said, "Not my will, but thine be done." It was the will of God that the sufferer for sinners must die for sinners.

It is noticeable in all cases of this kind, that the great internal fight is made before we get to the actual reality. I never undertook a great enterprise that I did not first pass through all of the agony before I started out. I had my battle then, and after I had fought the battle out, I never fought it the second time. And when Jesus fights it out here in Gethsemane, he is as serene and equable from this time on as he ever was in his earlier life, when this dark shadow was yet a long way off. Notice that while the Father does not remove the curse, and could not remove it and save man, that he does send an angel to strengthen Jesus – to hold up his fainting head.

I ask the reader to notice in the next place that these prayers of Jesus were threefold. He prayed, and the hardest of the fight was in the first prayer; he prayed again, a prayer which was not such a terrible prayer as the first one; he prayed the third time, and in the last prayer peace came to him. He had asked these men to watch, and they slept; he had asked them to pray, not for him, but lest they enter into temptation when they saw their Captain taken, and their hopes, as they understood them, blasted, but they slept. And how pathetic were his words to Peter: "Simon, could not you have watched with me one hour? You have been up a good deal and it is now midnight; the flesh is weak, but your Lord is going through a death agony. Could you not hold out just one more hour?" What a great text! He felt the need of human sympathy. But he was alone in Gethsemane, as we will see him later alone on the cross.

I ask the reader to notice also three prayers of Jesus: First, the prayer that he taught his disciples to pray, commencing, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name." Next, the prayer that we discussed in our last chapter, in which he prayed for the disciples. And now this prayer in which he prays for himself. From these prayers we learn what he prayed for, and how he prayed for himself.

I also note in this connection, the three gardens: The garden of Eden, in which the first Adam was tempted and fell; the garden of Gethsemane, in which the Second Adam resisted all of the wiles of the devil, the weakness of the flesh, and the mental despondency that comes from the contemplation of the felon’s death, and, finally, the garden of Paradise, in the last chapter of the Bible – that as Adam in the first garden of Paradise turned it into a desert of sin, Jesus in Gethsemane turned the desert into a garden of flowers; that by the preparation here for that which must be accomplished for man’s redemption, viz., to die on the cross, he made possible our entrance into the garden of Paradise. The last chapter in the Bible says, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city."

Please notice again in what the essence of prayer consists: "Not my will, but thine be done." As it is expressed later: "If we ask anything according to his will," and John got the thought right here, when witnessing that agony; so he afterward wrote, "If ye ask anything according to the will of God, he heareth us." This shows the limit there is upon prayer. I could not pray that God would enable me to steal from a man, or kill a man. I could not rightfully pray for anything in order that I might consume it upon my lusts and passions. James says that is asking amiss; that is asking not according to the will of God. That is the limitation upon all prayer. And Jesus hedged upon that point, "Not my will, but thine be done."

I heard Major Penn one hundred times, standing up before great crowds of people, when he had invited hundreds not to come and take -the mourner’s bench, but to come up as inquirers to investigate; and he would stand up, and pointing his finger at them, say, "Now have you come to this point: the will of the Lord be done? Have you come to the point that you can say, I want that to be undergone because it is the will of God?’ Are you willing for the will of God to prevail in regard to your conversion, whoever should be the instrument? Or, do you say, I will be converted if a certain preacher should come; or, if it be at home; or, if God shall convert me some night when they shout; or, when they do not shout?’ Are you ready for the will of God to be done?"

The next point is – who were coming to capture him? A statement in John in the original Greek says, "These saw the band, and the chief captain." "The band," with the definite article is, in the Greek, "the cohort," which was that special cohort of Roman soldiers quartered in the tower of Antonio, which sat over the Temple; and the chief captain there, in the Greek, chiliarch (chiliarchos), means "chief of the thousand." The Roman legion usually, at this time, consisted of 6,000 men; there would be six chiliarchs, six men each over one thousand; and each chiliarch would have under him ten men, centurions, each over one hundred. The chiliarch was one who occupied an office similar to our colonel – commander of a regiment; and the legion answered somewhat to our brigade, or division, more to a division than to a brigade. When it says, "the chief captain," or chiliarch, was there, it means the most important Roman officer in the city – a man of great dignity and power – and while the legions were not always full, and therefore the band or number commanded by the chiliarch was not always full in number, yet it meant that hundreds of trained Roman soldiers had here come; the colonel of the regiment, and the captains of several companies. That shows that there was a strong realization, that even in the night people might wake up and that an attempt might be made to rescue him. For fear of that very thing the Sanhedrin would not arrest him in the day time. The chiliarch and the cohort came not to arrest, but merely to prevent a tumult of the people when the Temple officers arrested Jesus. It is quite important to note not only the presence of the cohort and the reasons therefore negatively and positively, and the fact that they did not arrest Jesus, nor carry him to Pilate, nor to anybody else, but were present to prevent possible disorder. Then the text also says that the officers of the Sanhedrin, and the partially armed rabbis that attended them, and their followers carrying staves, were there. The soldiers, of course, had their swords. The short sword of the Roman soldier was a very deadly weapon. So that at least, counting the representatives of the Sanhedrin and the rabbis, and that disciplined band of Roman soldiers, who could not have been sent without the consent of Pilate, at night were all apparently coming to arrest a man that never carried a weapon in his life; coming to arrest a man whose constant followers were twelve, or eleven in this case, unarmed men; coming by night to arrest a man who had taught every day openly in their Temple and in their city. Hence his question: "Do you bring out this army here as if you are going to capture a robber or a thief? Why do you come by night when you could have found me any time by day in the very heart of the city?"

And notice the traitor: Though it was full moon, this man brought lanterns and torches. They wanted to identify the Person, and while the lanterns were shining and their torches throwing out a lurid glare, Jesus says, "Whom do you seek?" And as he stepped out and said, "Whom do you seek?" they fell, just as if they were shot. That was a supernatural event. It showed how easily he could have blotted the whole band out of existence. And when they got up he repeated his question, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answers them, "I am he: you have not said you have come seeking these followers of mine. Let them go; do not arrest them."

QUESTIONS
1. Who are the historians of the Gethsemane scene and why, in all probability, was it omitted by John?

2. What is the meaning of the word "Gethsemane," what is the meaning of the word "place" as used by Matthew in his account and how is Gethsemane described as to location, its contents, etc.?

3. What was the access to this garden and what made it easy for Judas to find our Lord here on the night of his betrayal?

4. Upon entering this garden on the night of his betrayal how did our Lord station the disciples, what command did he give them; why watch and why pray?

5. What hour of the night, who were with him and on what occasions were they admitted to special privileges with Jesus?

6. What does the expression, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, etc.," teach, what heresy mentioned, was Jesus dichotomous or trichotomous, what proof, what was the nature of the agony which Christ suffered, and what is the reaction of the inner man on the outer man? Illustrate.

7. What was the young preacher’s theory as to the sorrow of Christ in. Gethsemane, what was the real cause of the sorrow, how does the case of Major Andre illustrate this? what was the nature of Christ’s death and how does Paul express this Gethsemane suffering?

8. What is the meaning of Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane and of what is it a proof?

9. What is the judgment test of this idea of our salvation, what is the answer from the standpoint of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, holiness, and justice? What was Peter’s testimony? Paul’s? the prophetic historian’s? What Old Testament type of this vicarious work of our Lord?

10. What was the devil’s real temptation of our Lord in Gethsemane"

11. What notable fact about this Gethsemane conflict of our Lord?

12. What relief did the Father send to our Lord in this very intense agony?

13. How is Christ’s need of human sympathy revealed in this scene, what three prayers of Jesus cited and what do they teach?

14. What 3 gardens are mentioned here, what were the points of correspondence and what was the condition of entrance into the garden of Paradise?

15. In what does the essence of prayer consist, what was John’s testimony on this point, what does this show, what was James’s testimony, and what practical illustration of the application of this principle given?

16. Who arrested Jesus, why this great band of Roman soldiers, and in what consists the ridiculousness of their course?

17. Why did Judas carry lanterns and torches, what supernatural event happened at this arrest, what does it show and what request did he make for his disciples?

Verses 2-28

XXVI

JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN

Harmony, pages 186-196 and Matthew 26:47-75; Matthew 26:59-75; Matthew 27:1-2; Mark 14:48-15:1; Luke 22:47-23:1; John 18:2-28.

In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (John 18:2-14), certain facts are evidenced:

Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, "received the Roman cohort," usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.

They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:

First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.

Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. "We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws." Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Acts 21:30), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.

As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.

Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.

The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:

The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: "Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?" That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.

Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.

He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.

Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.

Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.

The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.

The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.

In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.

In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.

All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.

Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.

It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: "And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked" (Mark 14:51-52). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.

It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mark 14:51 f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev. 16). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.

The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: "When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want." Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, "Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss," that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.

The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luke 22:22 with Matthew 26:51-55; Luke 22:51; John 18:10-11; John 18:24. The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Matt. 10), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.

Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.

When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the "Herod party," or "Roman party." The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.

Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night – that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me." So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.

Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.

Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. "Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together" (John 18:24; Matthew 26:57). That constituted the Sanhedrin – chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two – twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, "We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law." That is, when Pilate had said to them, "Why do you not try him before your own law?" they said, "We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law." That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: "Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus." They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: "We heard him say, ’I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ "

That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again." He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.

But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: "I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath – put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." To that Jesus responded.

Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.

I preached a sermon once from this text: "I adjure thee by the living God." A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what "Messiah" meant – that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.

When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.

Another great violation of the law takes place: "What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?" And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, "Prophesy who hit you."

I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve – the first one and the last one on the list.

That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.

The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, "from the beginning," and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, "he says that he himself is King"; the second is, "he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar"; and third, "he stirreth up the people," which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: "He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar," interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and "he stirreth up the people." We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.

QUESTIONS
1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?

2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?

3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?

4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?

5. What question do they answer?

6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?

7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?

8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?

9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?

10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mark 14:51-52, and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?

11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?

12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?

13. How do you reconcile Luke 22:22 with Matthew 26:51-55; Luke 22:51; John 18:10-11; John 18:24?

14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?

15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?

16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?

17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.

18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?

19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.

20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?

21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?

22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?

23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?

24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?

25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?

XXVII

CHRIST BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD

Harmony, pages 196-206 and Matthew 27:3-30; Acts 1:18-19; Mark 15:1-19; Luke 23:2-25; John 18:28-19:16.

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.

So that this discussion commences at the last verse on page 196 of the Harmony, Matthew 27:2, "And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate, the governor"; or, as Mark puts it, Mark 15:1-2, "They bound Jesus and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate"; or, as Luke expresses it, Luke 23:1, "And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate"; or, as John has it, John 18:28, "They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace; and it was early."

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 (root, "cap," connected withkephala), 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.

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, 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.

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 Acts 18, 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.

The next case that I cite is in Acts 23, where the chiliarch, or military tribune, called Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to Felix, who at that time was governor (Acts 23:27) : "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."

The next case that I cite is from Acts 25) 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 (Acts 25:14): "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.

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 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) 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.

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.

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."

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.

The decision having been rendered upon that charge of treason, they bring another charge (Luke 23:5, 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.

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.

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!

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"; "Behold the man!" "Ecce Rex!" "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?"

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?"

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.

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."

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, 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."

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.

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.

QUESTIONS
1. Who brought the case of Jesus before Pilate and what great illconsistency in the Jews manifested at the palace?

2. In what particular did they violate the Roman law in the trial of Jesus?

3. What was the testimony of Tacitus on this point?

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?

5. What three special cases in the Acts illustrate this fact and what the point in each case?

6. What was the testimony of Dupin?

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?

8. But what are the facts in the case?

9. What, therefore, was Pilate’s first demand and what was their answer?

10. What was Pilate’s second demand and their reply?

11. Would he have counted within his jurisdiction a charge of blasphemy against the Jewish God?

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?

13. What one word covers all these accusations?

14. Was this threefold charge within Pilate’s jurisdiction?

15. What question, therefore, did Pilate ask Jesus, what was his answer, then what question did he ask Pilate and why?

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?

17. What new charge did his accusers now prefer against him?

18. What was the legal term of this offense, was it a punishable offense against Roman law and was it within Pilate’s jurisdiction?

19. What circumstance in the new charge enabled Pilate to evade trying the case by referring it to another tribunal?

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 Acts 23:26-30; Acts 25:25-27.)

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?

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?

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?

24. What was Herod’s verdict on both counts as announced through Pilate?

25. What was Pilate’s verdict on the new charge?

26. What is now the legal status of the case?

27. What was, therefore, Pilate’s plain duty?

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?

29. Why, then, does Pilate hesitate and parley with the accusers?

30. What admonition came to Pilate on the judgment seat?

31. Cite the reference in Burns’ "Tarn O’Shanter" to a husband’s disregard of wifely admonitions.

32. What expedient does Pilate now suggest in order to save the life of Jesus and vet placate his proud accusers?

33. What was the infamy of this proposal?

34. Under Pilate’s proposal what deliberate choice did the Sanhedrin make?

35. How do the apostles subsequently bring home to them with terrific effect this unholy and malicious choice? (See Acts 3:14-15.)

36. How did Pilate again seek to appease their wrath?

37. What text for a sermon cited, what is the application and what was their answer to Pilate’s question?

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?

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?

40. Why could not Pilate render a formal verdict on this count?

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?

42. What time in the day was it now, reconciling John’s sixth hour with the time in the other Gospels?

43. Why does Pilate now say, "Shall I crucify your king"?

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?

45. In what awful words do the bolder Jews assume the responsibility for Christ’s death?

46. To what indignities was Jesus then subjected?