Luke 23 commentary

LUKE 23 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off
to Pilate.
CLARKE, "The whole multitude - It seems most probable that the chief
priests, elders, scribes, and captains of the temple, together with their servants,
dependents, and other persons hired for the purpose, made up the multitude
mentioned here. The common people were generally favourers of Christ; and for this
reason the Jewish rulers caused him to be apprehended in the night, and in the
absence of the people, Luk_22:6, and it was now but just the break of day, Luk_
22:66.
GILL, "And the whole multitude of them,.... Of the chief priests, Scribes, and
elders; the whole of the sanhedrim, excepting Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea,
having in their court condemned Christ to death:
arose; from the council chamber, where they sat in judgment upon him:
and led him unto Pilate, the Roman governor, and into the praetorium, or
judgment hall, where causes were tried by him; hither they brought Jesus, having
bound him as a prisoner and a malefactor, that their sentence might be confirmed by
civil authority, and that he might be put to the death of the cross, which was a Roman
punishment.
HENRY, "Our Lord Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer in the spiritual court,
but it was the most impotent malice that could be that this court was actuated by;
for, when they had condemned him, they knew they could not put him to death, and
therefore took another course.
I. They accused him before Pilate. The whole multitude of them arose, when they
saw they could go no further with him in their court, and led him unto Pilate, though
it was no judgment day, no assizes or sessions; and they demanded justice against
him, not as a blasphemer (that was no crime that he took cognizance of), but as one
disaffected to the Roman government, which they in their hearts did not look upon
as any crime at all, or, if it was one, they themselves were much more chargeable with
it than he was; only it would serve the turn and answer the purpose of their malice:
and it is observable that that which was the pretended crime, for which they
employed the Roman powers to destroy Christ, was the real crime for which the
Roman powers not long after destroyed them.
BARCLAY, "TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND SILENCE BEFORE HEROD
(Luke 23:1-12)
23:1-12 The whole assembly rose up and brought Jesus to Pilate. They began to
accuse him. "We found this man," they said, "perverting our nation and trying
1

to stop men paying taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is the anointed
one, a king." Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He answered,
"You say so." Pilate said to the chief priests and to the crowds, "I find nothing to
condemn in this man." They were the more urgent. "He is setting the people in
turmoil," they said, "throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee to this
place." When Pilate heard this, he asked if the man was a Galilaean. When he
realised that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he referred him to Herod, who
was himself in Jerusalem in these days. When Herod saw Jesus he was very glad,
because for a long time he had been wishing to see him, because he had heard
about him; and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. He questioned him
in many words; but he answered him nothing. The chief priests and the scribes
stood by vehemently hurling their accusations against him. Herod with his
soldiers treated Jesus contemptuously, and after he had mocked him and
arrayed him in a gorgeous dress, he referred him back again to Pilate. And
Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that same day, for previously
they had been at enmity with each other.
The Jews in the time of Jesus had no power to carry out the death sentence. Such
sentence had to be passed by the Roman governor and carried out by the Roman
authorities. It was for that reason that the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate.
Nothing better shows their conscienceless malignity than the crime with which
they charged him. In the Sanhedrin the charge had been one of blasphemy, that
he had dared to call himself the Son of God. Before Pilate that charge was never
even mentioned. They knew well that it would have carried no weight with him,
and that he would never have proceeded on a charge which would have seemed
to him a matter of Jewish religion and superstition. The charge they levelled
against Jesus was entirely political, and it has all the marks of the minds and
ingenuity of the Sadducees. It was really the aristocratic, collaborationist
Sadducees who achieved the crucifixion of Jesus, in their terror lest he should
prove a disturbing clement and produce a situation in which they would lose
their wealth, their comfort and their power.
Their charge before Pilate was really threefold. They charged Jesus (a) with
seditious agitation; (b) with encouraging men not to pay tribute to Caesar; (c)
with assuming the title king. Every single item of the charge was a lie, and they
knew it. They resorted to the most calculated and malicious lies in their well-nigh
insane desire to eliminate Jesus.
Pilate was not an experienced Roman official for nothing; he saw through them;
and he had no desire to gratify their wishes. But neither did he wish to offend
them. They had dropped the information that Jesus came from Galilee; this they
had intended as further fuel for their accusations, for Galilee was notoriously
"the nurse of seditious men." But to Pilate it seemed a way out. Galilee was
under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who at that very time was in Jerusalem
to keep the Passover. So to Herod Pilate referred the case. Herod was one of the
very few people to whom Jesus had absolutely nothing to say. Why did he believe
there was nothing to be said to Herod?
(i) Herod regarded Jesus as a sight to be gazed at. To Herod, he was simply a
2

spectacle. But Jesus was not a sight to be stared at; he was a king to be submitted
to. Epictetus, the famous Greek Stoic teacher, used to complain that people came
from all over the world to his lectures to stare at him, as if he had been a famous
statue, but not to accept and to obey his teaching. Jesus is not a figure to be
gazed at but a master to be obeyed.
(ii) Herod regarded Jesus as a joke. He jested at him; he clothed him in a king's
robe as an imitation king. To put it in another way--he refused to take Jesus
seriously. He would show him off to his court as an amusing curiosity but there
his interest stopped. The plain fact is that the vast majority of men still refuse to
take Jesus seriously. If they did, they would pay more attention than they do to
his words and his claims.
(iii) There is another possible translation of Luke 23:11. "Herod with his soldiers
treated Jesus contemptuously." That could be translated, "Herod, with his
soldiers behind him, thought that Jesus was of no importance." Herod, secure in
his position as king, strong with the power of his bodyguard behind him,
believed that this Galilaean carpenter did not matter. There are still those who,
consciously or unconsciously, have come to the conclusion that Jesus does not
matter, that he is a factor which can well be omitted from life. They gave him no
room in their hearts and no influence in their lives and believe they can easily do
without him. To the Christian, so far from being of no importance, Jesus is the
most important person in all the universe.
COFFMAN, "Here is Luke's record of the final trials of Jesus before Pilate
(Luke 23:1-7), before Herod (Luke 23:8-12), and before Pilate again (Luke
23:13-25), Simon of Cyrene bearing the cross, the prophecy to the daughters of
Jerusalem, and the crucifixion of the malefactors (Luke 23:26-32), the crucifixion
of our Lord, three sayings from the cross, the inscription, and the death of Jesus
(Luke 23:33-49), and the entombment (Luke 23:50-56).
And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate. (Luke
23:1)
Pilate was the fifth procurator of Judea, holding office from 28-36 A.D. In view
of all that is known of this evil ruler from the writings of Philo, and from the
New Testament itself, it is incredible that one would say that "There is not
enough information about him to make a valid judgment of the kind of man he
was"![1] Luke recorded that Jesus himself mentioned Pilate's mingling the blood
of Galilean worshipers with the blood of their sacrifices in the temple itself (Luke
13:15); and what is in this chapter alone provides ample information upon which
to form a definitive judgment regarding what kind of man Pilate was.
The Sanhedrin had just concluded the formal daylight trial at which they had
condemned Jesus to death; but since they were prohibited by the Romans from
the execution of such a sentence (John 18:31), they were compelled to pursue
their objective in the court of the pagan governor.
ENDNOTE:
3

[1] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher,
1973), p. 294.
BURKITT, "In this chapter we have a relation of the blackest and saddest
tragedy that ever was acted upon the stage of the world, namely, the barbarous
and bloody murder of the holy and innocent Jesus, by the Jews his own
countrymen, the best of kings put to death by his own subjects. And the first step
towards it, is his arraignment before Pilate and Herod; they post him from one to
another; Pilate sends him to Herod; and Herod having made sufficient sport with
him remands him to Pilate; neither of them find any fault in him worthy of
death, yet neither of them would release him.
Here observe, that our Saviour, being before Pilate, answers him readily and
cautiously; Art thou the King of the Jews? says Pilate. Thou sayest it, says our
Saviour. Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? He replied, I am. Hence
says the apostle, That Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good
confession. 1 Timothy 6:13
Teaching us, that though we may, and sometimes ought, to hold our peace, when
our reputation is concerned, yet we must never be silent, when the honor of God
and his truth may be effectually promoted by a free and full confession.
Yet it is farther observable, that our Saviour being before Herod, would neither
answer him to any question, nor work any miracle before him. This was an
instance and evidence of our Lord's great humility, in refusing to work miracles
before Herod, who desired it only to gratify his curiousity. Thus do vile men
abuse the power of God, desiring to see it exerted for admiration and pastime;
not to be convinced or converted by it, but only to please thier foolish fancy. And
as admirable was the patience and humility of Christ, and his present silence,
who neither at Herod's request, nor at the Jews importunity and false
accusations, could be moved to answer anything.
Observe farther, that though Herod had murdered Christ's forerunner, John the
Baptist, and our Saviour's own life was in danger by Herod heretofore, yet now
he has him in his hands, he lets him go; only he first abuses him, and mocks him,
and arrays him in a gorgeous robe, like a mock-king. Thus were all the marks of
scorn imaginable put upon our dear Redeemer; yet all this jeering and sportful
shame did our Lord undergo, to show what was due unto us for our sins; and
also to give us an example to bear all the shame and reproach imaginable for his
sake; who, for the joy that was set before him, despised the shame, Hebrews 12:2
Observe lastly, the wicked accusation brought in against our blessed Redeemer;
We found (say they) this fellow perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute
to Caesar. Oh hellish untruth! How directly contrary to the whole curse and
tenor of Christ's life was this accusation! By his doctrine he preached up
subjection to governors and government; saying, Render to Caesar the things
that are Caesar's. And by his practice he confirmed his own doctrine, working a
miracle to pay tribute to Caesar. Satan could help them to draw up an
4

indictment as black as hell, against the innocent Jesus, but all the powers of hell
and darkness could not prove a tittle of it.
COKE, “Luke 23:1-2. And the whole multitude—arose, &c.— At break of day
Christ was brought before Pilate, and charged with three capital crimes,—
perverting the nation,—forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,—and saying that he
himself was Christ, a king.They did not chargehim with calling himself the Son
of God, knowing very well that Pilate would not have concerned himself with
such an accusation, which no way affected the state. All the three crimes with
which the Jews charge him, were only inferences of theirs from the saying that
he was the Son of God; (Ch. Luke 22:70.) They themselves drew imaginary
consequences from his doctrine, which he had expresslydenied; nay, and taught
the contrary: they who oppose his followers, still use the same method. Pontius
Pilate finding this, (for it is most probable that he examined them as to the
precise words which Christ had spoken,) their accusation had no weight with
him.
PETT, "The Sanhedrin as a whole then brought Him to Pilate. ‘Whole company’
is probably not to be taken literally. It may not have included dissenters, and
Pilate would certainly not have been happy to see them all at once. Luke’s point
is rather to involve ‘the whole Sanhedrin’ as a group (although in Luke 23:51 he
mentions at least one member who did not agree with the verdict. There may
well have been others). All were responsible for Him being brought to Pilate.
The chief priests remembered how He had hit at the Temple revenues by casting
the traders from it, were angry at what they had heard of His suggestions that
the Temple would be destroyed, and possibly feared that He might disturb the
equilibrium with the Romans which was so much to their advantage (John
11:48-50). The Scribes and Pharisees were bitter because He showed up their
teaching and refused to side with them and accept their complete authority on
religious matters. The rich laymen were probably concerned lest anything be
done that might disturb the maintenance of the status quo, securing their wealth
and position. They would not feel that they could get involved in religious
matters when the recognised religious experts, the ‘scholars’, were all seemingly
against Jesus. Thus all for their own reasons were agreed that it was a good idea
that He should be got rid of.
Verses 1-7
Jesus Is Brought before Pilate (23:1-7).
Having convinced themselves of His blasphemy the majority of the court now
acted and brought Him to Pilate. But once again their perfidy is revealed. For
they did not bring against Him the charge of blasphemy, or of claiming to be the
Son of God, rather they twisted what He had said and turned it into a political
charge. And in doing this they also twisted other evidence. They probably hoped
that Pilate would give in to their request without taking too much trouble over it.
After all, they were the recognised Jewish authorities, and Pilate had no reason
for doubting their word. But for some reason Pilate was not compliant. One
reason was probably because he was not on the best of terms with these Jewish
5

leaders, and rather despised them, and was delighted to have the opportunity to
annoy them. And secondly he appears to have sensed that there was something
that was not quite right about the whole affair. For we do have to take into
account the impression that Jesus would make on him.
Pilate would not seem a very good candidate to act as one who would defend
Jesus. Philo describes him as unbending and callous in nature and speaks of him
as, ‘a man of inflexible disposition, harsh and obdurate’. He makes clear that in
his view he totally failed in the fulfilment of his official duties. But even such men
occasionally come face to face with something that for a moment pierces their
hard shell, and that was what, unknown to him, was about to happen to Pilate.
Analysis.
a And the whole company of them rose up, and brought Him before Pilate (Luke
23:1).
b 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 (Luke 23:2).
c And Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Luke 23:3 a).
d And He answered him and said, “You say so” (Luke 23:3).
c And Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no fault in this man”
(Luke 23:4).
b But they were the more urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching
throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even to this place” (Luke
23:5).
a But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And when
he knew that He was of Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself
also was at Jerusalem in these days (Luke 23:6-7).
Note that in ‘a’ He is brought before Pilate, and in the parallel He is brought to
Herod. In ‘b’ an accusation is made against Him, and in the parallel a further
accusation is made against Him. In ‘c’ Pilate questions Jesus and in the parallel
says that he finds no fault in Him. While centrally in ‘d’ Jesus agrees that He is
the King of the Jews.
MACLAREN, "‘THE RULERS TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER’
Luke’s canvas is all but filled by the persecutors, and gives only glimpses of the silent
Sufferer. But the silence of Jesus is eloquent, and the prominence of the accusers and
judges heightens the impression of His passive endurance. We have in this passage
the Jewish rulers with their murderous hate; Pilate contemptuously indifferent, but
perplexed and wishing to shirk responsibility; and Herod with his frivolous curiosity.
They present three types of unworthy relations to Jesus Christ.
I. We see first the haters of Jesus.
So fierce is their hatred that they swallow the bitter pill of going to Pilate for the
execution of their sentence. John tells us that they began by trying to get Pilate to
decree the crucifixion without knowing Jesus’ crime; but that was too flagrant
injustice, and too blind confidence in them, for Pilate to grant. So they have to
manufacture a capital charge on the spot, and they are equal to the occasion. By the
6

help of two lies, and one truth so twisted as to be a lie, they get up an indictment,
which they think will be grave enough to compel the procurator to do as they wish.
Their accusation, if it had been ever so true, would have been ludicrous on their lips;
and we may be sure that, if it had been true, they would have been Jesus’ partisans,
not His denouncers.’ The Gracchi complaining of sedition’ are nothing to the
Sanhedrim accusing a Jew of rebellion against Rome. Every man in that crowd was a
rebel at heart, and would have liked nothing better than to see the standard of revolt
lifted in a strong hand. Pilate was not so simple as to be taken in by such an
accusation from such accusers, and it fails. They return to the charge, and the ‘more
urgent’ character of the second attempt is found in its statement of the widespread
extent of Christ’s teaching, but chiefly in the cunning introduction of Galilee,
notoriously a disaffected and troublesome district.
What a hideous and tragic picture we have here of the ferocity of the hatred, which
turned the very fountains of justice and guardians of a nation into lying plotters
against innocence, and sent these Jewish rulers cringing before Pilate, pretending
loyalty and acknowledging his authority! They were ready for any falsehood and any
humiliation, if only they could get Jesus crucified. And what had excited their
hatred? Chiefly His teachings, which brushed aside the rubbish both of ceremonial
observance and of Rabbinical casuistry, and placed religion in love to God and
consequent love to man; then His attitude of opposition to them as an order; and
finally His claim, which they never deigned to examine, to be the Son of God. That,
they said, was blasphemy, as it was, unless it were true,-an alternative which they did
not look at. So blinded may men be by prejudice, and so mastered by causeless
hatred of Him who loves them all!
These Jewish rulers were men like ourselves. Instead of shuddering at their crime, as
if it were something far outside of anything possible for us, we do better if we learn
from it the terrible depths of hostility to Jesus, the tragic blindness to His character
and love, and the degradation of submission to usurpers, which must accompany
denial of His right to rule over us. ‘They hated Me without a cause,’ said Christ; but
He pointed to that hatred as sure to be continued towards Him and His servants as
long as ‘the world’ continues the world.
II. We have Pilate, indifferent and perplexed.
Luke’s very brief account should be supplemented by John’s, which shows us how
important the conversation, so much abbreviated by Luke, was. Of course Pilate
knew the priests and rulers too well to believe for a moment that the reason they gave
for bringing Jesus to him was the real one, and his taking Jesus apart to speak with
Him shows a wish to get at the bottom of the case. So far he was doing his duty, but
then come the faults. These may easily be exaggerated, and we should remember that
Pilate was the most ignorant, and therefore the least guilty, of all the persons
mentioned in this passage. He had probably never heard the name of Jesus till that
day, and saw nothing but an ordinary Jewish peasant, whom his countrymen, like the
incomprehensible and troublesome people they were, wished, for some fantastic
reason, to get killed.
But that dialogue with his Prisoner should have sunk deeper into his mind and heart.
He was in long and close enough contact with Jesus to have seen glimpses of the
light, which, if followed, would have led to clear recognition. His first sin was
indifference, not unmingled with scorn, and it blinded him. Christ’s lofty and
wonderful explanation of the nature of His kingdom and His mission to bear witness
to the truth fell on entirely preoccupied ears, which were quick enough to catch the
faintest whispers of treason, but dull towards ‘truth.’ When Jesus tried to reach his
conscience by telling him that every lover of truth would listen to His voice, he only
7

answered by the question, to which he waited not for an answer, ‘What is truth?’
That was not the question of a theoretical sceptic, but simply of a man who prided
himself on being ‘practical,’ and left all talk about such abstractions to dreamers. The
limitations of the Roman intellect and its characteristic over-estimate of deeds and
contempt for pure thought, as well as the spirit of the governor, who would let men
think what they chose, as long as they did not rebel, spoke in the question. Pilate is
an instance of a man blinded to all lofty truth and to the beauty and solemn
significance of Christ’s words, by his absorption in outward life. He thinks of Jesus as
a harmless fanatic. Little did he know that the truth, which he thought moonshine,
would shatter the Empire, which he thought the one solid reality. So called practical
men commit the same mistake in every generation. ‘All flesh is as grass;. . . the word
of the Lord endureth for ever.’
Further, Pilate sinned in prostituting his office by not setting free the prisoner when
he was convinced of His innocence. ‘I find no fault in this man,’ should have been
followed by immediate release. Every moment afterwards, in which He was kept
captive, was the condemnation of the unjust judge. He was clearly anxious to keep his
troublesome subjects in good humour, and thought that the judicial murder of one
Jew was a small price to pay for popularity. Still he would have been glad to have
escaped from what his official training had taught him to recoil from, and what some
faint impression, made by his patient prisoner, gave him a strange dread of. So he
grasps at the mention of Galilee, and tries to gain two good ends at once by handing
Jesus over to Herod.
The relations between Antipas and him were necessarily delicate, like those between
the English officials and the rajahs of native states in India; and there had been some
friction, perhaps about ‘the Galileans, whose blood’ he ‘had mingled with their
sacrifices.’ If there had been difficulties in connection with such a question of
jurisdiction, the despatch of Jesus to Herod would be a graceful way of making the
amende honorable, and would also shift an unpleasant decision on to Herod’s
shoulders. Pilate would not be displeased to get rid of embarrassment, and to let
Herod be the tool of the priests’ hate.
How awful the thought is of the contrast between Pilate’s conceptions of what he was
doing and the reality! How blind to Christ’s beauty it is possible to be, when
engrossed with selfish aims and outward things! How near a soul may be to the light,
and yet turn away from it and plunge into darkness! How patient that silent prisoner,
who lets Himself be bandied about from one tyrant to another, not because they had
power, but because He loved the world, and would bear the sins of every one of us!
How terrible the change when these unjust judges and He will change places, and
Pilate and Herod stand at His judgment-seat!
III. We have the wretched, frivolous Herod.
This is the murderer of John Baptist-’that fox,’ a debauchee, a coward, and as cruel as
sensuous. He had all the vices of his worthless race, and none of the energy of its
founder. He is by far the most contemptible of the figures in this passage. Note his
notion of, and his feeling to, Jesus. He thought of our Lord as of a magician or
juggler, who might do some wonders to amuse the vacuous ennui of his sated nature.
Time was when he had felt some twinge of conscience in listening to the Baptist, and
had almost been lifted to nobleness by that strong arm. Time was, too, when he had
trembled at hearing of Jesus, and taken Him for his victim risen from a bloody grave.
But all that is past now. The sure way to stifle conscience is to neglect it. Do that long
and resolutely enough, and it will cease to utter unheeded warnings. There will be a
silence which may look like peace, but is really death. Herod’s gladness was more
awful and really sad than Herod’s fear. Better to tremble at God’s word than to treat
8

it as an occasion for mirth. He who hates a prophet because he knows him to be a
prophet and himself to be a sinner, is not so hopeless as he who only expects to get
sport out of the messenger of God.
Then note the Lord’s silence. Herod plies Jesus with a battery of questions, and gets
no answer. If there had been a grain of earnestness in them all, Christ would have
spoken. He never is silent to a true seeker after truth. But it is fitting that frivolous
curiosity should be unanswered, and there is small likelihood of truth being found at
the goal when there is nothing more noble than that temper at the starting-point.
Christ’s silence is the penalty of previous neglect of Christ’s and His forerunner’s
words. Jesus guides His conduct by His own precept, ‘Give not that which is holy
unto the dogs’; and He knows, as we never can, who come into that terrible list of
men to whom it would only add condemnation to speak of even His love. The eager
hatred of the priests followed Jesus to Herod’s palace, but no judicial action is
recorded as taking place there. Their fierce earnestness of hate seems out of place in
the frivolous atmosphere. The mockery, in which Herod is not too dignified to join
his soldiers, is more in keeping. But how ghastly it sounds to us, knowing whom they
ignorantly mocked! Cruelty, inane laughter, hideous pleasure in an innocent man’s
pain, disregard of law and justice-all these they were guilty of; and Herod, at any rate,
knew enough of Jesus to give a yet darker colouring to his share in the coarse jest.
But how the loud laugh would have fallen silent if some flash had told who Jesus was!
Is there any of our mirth, perhaps at some of His servants, or at some phase of His
gospel, which would in like manner stick in our throats if His judgment throne blazed
above us? Ridicule is a dangerous weapon. It does more harm to those who use it
than to those against whom it is directed. Herod thought it an exquisite jest to dress
up his prisoner as a king; but Herod has found out, by this time, whether he or the
Nazarene was the sham monarch, and who is the real one. Christ was as silent under
mockery as to His questioner. He bears all, and He takes account of all. He bears it
because He is the world’s Sacrifice and Saviour. He takes account of it, and will one
day recompense it, because He is the world’s King, and will be its Judge. Where shall
we stand then-among the silenced mockers, or among the happy trusters in His
Passion and subjects of His dominion?
BI 1-7, "Then said Pilate
The conduct of Christ contrasted with the conduct of other public
characters
I.
Amongst the philosophers of the heathen world not one can be named, who did not
admit some favourite vice into his system of good morals; and who was not more
than suspected of some criminal indulgence in his own practice; not one, whose
public instructions were without error, and whose private conduct was without
reproach. In the character of Jesus Christ no such imperfection can be traced. In His
addresses to His followers, He taught virtue unpolluted by impurity: and in His
practice He exemplified what He taught.
II. In the most distinguished of our contemporaries, we always find some weakness
to pity or lament, or only some single and predominant excellence to admire. In each
individual the learning or the activity, the counsel or the courage, only can be
praised. We look in vain for consistency or perfection. The conduct of Christ betrays
no such inequality. In Him no virtue is shaded by its correspondent infirmity. No
pre-eminent quality obscures the rest. Every portion of His character is in harmony
with every other. Every point in the picture shines with great and appropriate lustre.
9

III.
In the heroes, which our fables delight to pourtray, we are continually
astonished by such exploits as nothing in real life can parallel; by the
achievements of sagacity that cannot be deceived, and of courage that
cannot be resisted.
We are either perplexed by the union of qualities and endowments
incompatible with each other, or overpowered by the glare of such
excellencies and powers, as nature with all her bounty never bestowed
upon man.
Jesus Christ has surpassed the heroes of romance.
In contemplating His character we are not less surprised by the variety of
His merits, than delighted by their consistency. They always preserve
their proportion to each other. No duty falls below the occasion that demands it. No
virtue is carried to excess.
IV. In the most exalted of our fellow-creatures, and even in the practice of their most
distinguished virtues, we can always discover some concern for their personal
advantage; some secret hope of fame, of profit, or of power; some prospect of an
addition to their present enjoyments. In the conduct of Christ none of the weakness
of self-love can be discovered. “He went about doing good,” which He did not appear
to share, and from which He did not seem to expect either immediate or future
advantage. His benevolence, and His alone, was without self-interest, without
variation and without alloy.
V. It is a very general and a very just complaint, that every man occasionally neglects
the duties of his place and station. The character of Christ is exposed to no such
imputation. The great purpose of His mission indeed, appears to have taken, entire
possession of his thoughts.
VI. The pretended prophet of Arabia made religion the sanction of his
licentiousness, and the cloak of his ambition.
VII. An impostor, of whatever description, though he has but one character to
support, seldom supports it with such uniformity as to procure ultimate success to
his imposition. Jesus Christ had a great variety of characters to sustain; and He
sustained them all without failure and without reproach.
VIII. Men in general are apt to deviate into extremes. The lover of pleasure often
pursues it till he becomes its victim or its slave. The lover of God sometimes grow
into an enthusiast, and imposes upon himself self-denial without virtue, and
mortification without use or value. From such weakness and such censure the
character of Christ must be completely exempted. He did not disdain the social
intercourse of life, or reject its innocent enjoyments.
IX. While we are displaying the various merits which adorned the personal character
of Christ, one excellence more must not be passed in silence; the rare union of active
and passive fortitude; the union of courage with patience; of courage without
rashness, and patience without insensibility.
X. Such, then, is the unrivalled excellence of the personal character of Jesus Christ.
Such is the proof which it affords that He was “a teacher sent from God”; and such is
“ the example which He has left us, that we should follow His steps. (W. Barrow.)
10

Pontius Pilate
I. PILATE WAS WEAK—MORALLY WEAK. He sinned in spite of his better self. He
was thoroughly convinced of the innocence of his prisoner. His conscience forbad
him to inflict punishment. He made strenuous efforts to save Him. And yet, after all,
He gave Him up to death, and furnished the soldiers needed for carrying out the
sentence. How many in our day resemble him! Are not some of you as weak as he
was? Have you not had convictions of duty as strong as his, and maintained them for
a while as stoutly as he did, and yet failed at last to carry them out? Remember that
convictions of sin and duty do not keep men from sin; nor do they excuse sin. Beware
of substituting religious knowledge or sentiment for religious principle.
II. PILATE WAS WORLDLY. This explains his weakness. His feelings were
overpowered by a selfish regard to his own interest.
III. PILATE WAS IRRELIGIOUS. Here was the secret of that fatal power which the
world exerted upon him. He was worldly because his life was not guided and
governed by true religion. “This is the victory that overcometh the world—even your
faith.” (R. P. Pratten, B. A.)
Pontius Pilate
Let us consider, then, the strange behaviour of Pontius Pilate after our Lord’s formal
acquittal.
I. HE DECLARES THE SAVIOUR TO BE INNOCENT, BUT HE DOES NOT SET
HIM FREE.
II. HE DOES NOT SET HIM FREE, BUT ENDEAVOURS TO BE FREE FROM
HIM—to get rid of Him.
III. HE ENDEAVOURS TO GET FREE FROM HIM, BUT RECEIVES HIM AGAIN
AND AGAIN.
1. “I find no fault in this Man”—Pilate has minutely and thoroughly investigated
the case of Him who was so eagerly accused by the people, and the result of this
examination was the Lord’s acquittal. Well done, Pilate! you have taken the right
way; only one step more, and the case will be honourably concluded! As a just
judge you are bound to follow up your verdict by release. The little bit of
nobleness which Pilate showed on his first appearance was fast declining, as
generally happens when it is not founded on the fear of God. When a man has
gone as far as to question what truth is, he will soon follow up his questioning
with, What is justice? what is faith? what is virtue? The inevitable result of a
perverse state of heart is that it must daily beget new perversities. Because Pilate
was not moved by love of truth, it was impossible for him to be moved for any
length of time by a sense of justice. He declares the Saviour to be free from guilt,
but he does not set Him free. Even since the times have become Christian, and
since men have become members of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is an universal
fact that Pilate’s conduct has been repeated. Men have declared the Saviour free,
but have not set Him free. Pilate was a Roman, and a Roman maxim it has ever
been in Christianity to pay every possible outward respect to the Saviour, but not
to set Him free. The Romish Church especially bound what ought especially to be
free—the Word of Jesus Christ—the Bible—the gospel. They declare the Word of
the Saviour to be free, but do not set it free. In the Middle Ages, under plea of its
preciousness, they bound it with iron chains. At present they bind it by the
approval of bishops, by episcopal approbation. Even in these days this Church
11

has dared to brand Bible Societies as plague sores. Pontius Pilate was a Roman to
whom truth was nothing, justice little, his own interest everything; therefore he
did not set the Saviour free, though he declared Him to be entitled to freedom.
And a Roman maxim it bus been to this very day to declare the Saviour free, but
not to free Him. It is to the glorious Reformation that the honour belongs of
having broken the chains by which Rome bound the Saviour. In the Church of the
Reformation, our dear evangelical Church, Jesus is not only declared to be free,
but is free. Freely He governs our Church; freely He communicates with every
believing soul. May we, therefore, say that Pilatism exists no longer in evangelical
Christianity? Ah! no, dearly beloved, we must sorrowfully confess that Satan did
not fail to find an entrance again through a back door. For, among the numerous
Christians who glory in Protestant freedom, many do not allow the Saviour to
speak except at church on Sunday. He is not allowed to raise His voice during the
week, nor in their own homes. What is this but declaring the Saviour to be free,
and keeping Him bound? They bind Him to altar and pulpit; they hear Him every
week or fortnight, but further advance is denied their Saviour. He is not
permitted to leave the church nor go with them to their home. Mere church
attendance is Pilatism; the Saviour is declared to be free, but He is not set free.
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear My voice, and open the
door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” But, my
friends, tot us who have given up our heart to the Saviour, to occupy a place in
His throne-room, would it not be a subtle Pilatism if we lock the Saviour within
the heart, and not set Him free for the whole life? Not only in the heart is the
Saviour to have free range, but in the home, in your nursery and drawing-rooms,
in your workshop, in your society, in your dally life and conversation, He is to be
free, and the free ruler of your life. Oh, my friends, strive against Pilatism! Do not
lock your Saviour in your church, nor in your heart, but allow Him to dispose of
you how He will and where He will. The more He is allowed to shape a man’s life,
the more freedom will that man enjoy. Therefore, once again, away with Pilatism!
Do not only declare the Saviour to be free, but set Him free indeed!
II. PILATE DOES NOT SET THE SAVIOUR FREE, BUT ENDEAVOURS TO GET
FREE FROM Him He does not give Jesus His liberty, for fear of the people. He
endeavours to get free from Jesus because he fears Jesus. The quiet dignity of the
King of Truth grows more and more painful to him. The whole matter, which at first
he thought a great ado about nothing, is taking such a turn that he feels quite uneasy.
“Is He a Galilaean?” he asks. The Saviour was no Galilaean. It is from Bethlehem of
Judaea that the Messiah of Israel has come! but the people say He is a Galilaean. This
is sufficient for Pilate. He had oftentimes trenched upon Galilee, and had thereby
become the bitter enemy of Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee. But now it is most
opportune to him, that Galilee is a province beyonds his jurisdiction. Let Herod burn
his fingers in this affair. At least, he, Pilate, will be rid of a case which is getting more
and more troublesome. Do you know those people that practise in our day the most
contemptible kind of Pilatism? They cannot explain the powerful impression which
the exalted personage of the God-man makes upon man. The pale beauty of His cross
appears an unnatural rebuke to the frivolous ideal of life which they have
entertained. His stretched-out pierced hands are quivering hints and points of
interrogation, and signs of pain and sorrow. His humiliating crucifixion bears so loud
an evidence against their pride of ancestry, pride of culture, and pride of riches, that
they endeavour to get free from Him at any cost. “He is a Galilaean”: thus runs the
old Jewish lie, which history confuted long ago. A Galilaean Rabbi could never—no,
never—become so potent, that eighteen centuries would circle around him like
planets round the sun. But those men who endeavour to get free from the God-man,
will always grasp at this straw of a miserable fiction. He is a Galilaean! He is a
12

Galilaean, and they think they have discovered the magic spell by which they can
with some show of reason get rid of their belief in the God-man, who has given His
life a ransom for a sinful world. “He is a Galilaean,” they say, and with that they send
the Saviour away. They send Him to sceptical philosophers, urging, “Natural
philosophy has explained this, and teaches us that miracles are impossible.
Philosophy is a competent judge of the person of Jesus Christ, and of His miracles;
and philosophers, not we, have to decide. And we submit to their judgment.” It
makes them somewhat uneasy to know that there are likewise believing
philosophers; that a Copernicus begged from the Crucified no other mercy than was
received by yonder malefactor; that a Kepler, a Newton were true followers of Jesus,
and believed in His miracles, and had faith in His words. On this point, therefore,
they maintain a silence as deep as that of the tomb. Or they send the Saviour to
sceptical historians, saying, “It is by history that the authenticity of the Bible is to be
tested, and this science has broken a staff over the Scriptures.” It is nothing to their
purpose that believing historians place a high value on the Bible, that one of them
has pronounced Jesus Christ to be the very key of history. This testimony, however,
they care fully overlook. Or they send the Lord Jesus to sceptical theologians, saying,
“There are so many theologians who deny the divinity of Jesus, and theologians
ought certainly to be possessed of the true knowledge.” They overlook the believing
divines who exist too, and who ought to know at any rate as well as they. In short,
fidelity and justice concerning the Lord Jesus are quite out of the question with those
people. They will get free from the Lord Jesus at any hazard; therefore they seek for
Herods wherever they may be found.
III. IMPOTENT STRUGGLING! Foolish prudence! After all, they will not get free
from the Saviour. Having entered a man’s life, Jesus comes again and again, this way
or that way, whatever may have been the turnings and windings of that life. Pilate
endeavours to get free from the Saviour, but gets Him again and again. Pilate gets
Jesus again from Herod, and receives Herod’s friendship besides. Pilate, on his part,
to be sure would fain have renounced his friendship for Herod, if by so doing he had
only got rid of the Lord Jesus. But his new friend had sent back the Saviour, and thus
Pilate was obliged, much against his will, to concern himself further with the Saviour,
and bring to an end a case which to himself was becoming more and more painful.
And in the same condition in which Pilate was will all those who think and act like
him ever be. Having once met the Saviour, they never get entirely free from Him,
however they may struggle and whatever cunning devices they may make to
accomplish this end. In the end they will avail nothing. Jesus comes again. His form
assumes a more and more sorrowful aspect. His face becomes more grave and
clouded. Jesus comes again. Each sound of the church bell reminds them, each
Sunday admonishes them of Him. Jesus comes again. They do not get free from Him.
They anxiously debar their home, their family, from His influences. Nevertheless,
since the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, they cannot prevent their wives, nor
daughters, nor sons from being converted; and every converted one is a living
reproach to the unconverted. They cover, as it were, their heart with a coat of mail;
they palisade their conscience; they fall into the habit of smiling at holy things; they
affect the utmost indifference towards the God-man. Thus they live, thus they die;
and when they are dying, again Jesus Christ is there; and in their dying moments His
word sounds: Son of man, how often would I have drawn thee unto Me, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not! (Emil Quandt.)
The character of Pilate
The estimate which history has put upon Pilate is fair. We talk of artistic
13

combinations and poetical justice. But no art and no poetry can come up to that
dramatic intensity of contrast in which history makes such a man as Pilate judge and
executioner of Jesus Christ. It is as in another generation when such a man as Nero
sits as judge of such a man as St. Paul. We know Pilate by ten years of his
jurisdiction. A cruel Roman viceroy, he had created and had quelled more than one
rebellion by his hard hand. He is one of a type of men such as you find in Napoleon’s
history, who have their eye always on the Emperor, and always mean to win his
favour. For the Pilates of the world this backward look to their chief supplies the
place of law. Does Tiberius wish it? Then one answers “Yes.” Does Tiberius dislike it?
Then one answers “No.” In the long run such a second hand conscience fails a man. It
failed Pilate. Tiberius recalled him. But Tiberius died before Pilate could appear at
court. And, then, neglected by everybody, scorned, I think, by those who knew him
best, Pilate, who had no conscience now he had no Tiberius, killed himself. Was
there, in that loathsome despair of the life of a favourite whose game is played
through, was there always the memory of one face, of one prisoner, of one execution?
Did he remember that day when he tried to wash off guilt with water: Did he
remember how the sky blackened on that day, and men said nature itself testified
against the wrong which that day saw? (E. E. Hall, D. D.)
2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We
have found this man subverting our nation. He
opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims
to be Messiah, a king.”
BARNES, "This fellow - 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.”
Perverting the nation - That is, exciting them to sedition and tumults. This was
a mere wanton accusation, but it was plausible before a Roman magistrate; for,
1. The Galileans, as Josephus testifies, were prone to seditions and tumults.
2. Jesus drew multitudes after him, and they thought it was easy to show that this
was itself promoting tumults and seditions.
Forbidding ... - 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.
Tribute - Taxes.
Caesar - The Roman emperor, called also Tiberius. The name “Caesar” was
common to the Roman emperors, as “Pharaoh” was to the Egyptian kings. “All” the
14

kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh, or “the” Pharaoh; so all the Roman emperors
were called “Caesar.”
CLARKE, "Perverting the nation - The Greek word διαστρεφοντα, signifies
stirring up to disaffection and rebellion. Many MSS. and versions add ᅧµων, Our
nation. They intimated that he not only preached corrupt doctrine, but that he
endeavored to make them disaffected towards the Roman government, for which
they now pretended to feel a strong affection!
Several copies of the Itala add, Destroying our law and prophets. Et solventem
legem nostram et prophetas.
Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar - 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, Mat_
22:21, 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.
GILL, "And they began to accuse him,.... 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:
saying, we have found this fellow perverting the nation; 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 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 Psa_91:10. "Neither shall any
plague come nigh thy dwelling", they have this note;
"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), ‫הנוצרי‬ ‫ישו‬ ‫,כגון‬ "as Jesus the Nazarene".''
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;
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; than which, nothing was more false; see
Mat_22:21 nor does what is after alleged, support this charge:
saying, that he himself is Christ, a King; or Christ the King, or the King Christ;
that is, he whom the Jews so frequently in their writings call ‫המשיח‬ ‫,מלך‬ "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
15

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 ‫למלכות‬ ‫,קרוב‬
"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.
HENRY, "1. Here is the indictment drawn up against him (Luk_23:2), in which
they pretended a zeal for Caesar, only to ingratiate themselves with Pilate, but it was
all malice against Christ, and nothing else. They misrepresented him, (1.) As making
the people rebel against Caesar. It was true, and Pilate knew it, that there was a
general uneasiness in the people under the Roman yoke, and they wanted nothing
but an opportunity to shake it off; now they would have Pilate believe that this Jesus
was active to foment that general discontent, which, if the truth was known, they
themselves were the aiders and abettors of: We have found him perverting the
nation; as if converting them to God's government were perverting them from the
civil government; whereas nothing tends more to make men good subjects than
making them Christ's faithful followers. Christ had particularly taught that they
ought to give tribute to Caesar, though he knew there were those that would be
offended at him for it; and yet he is here falsely accused as forbidding to give tribute
to Caesar. Innocency is no fence against calumny. (2.) As making himself a rival with
Caesar, though the very reason why they rejected him, and would not own him to be
the Messiah, was because he did not appear in worldly pomp and power, and did not
set up for a temporal prince, nor offer to do any thing against Caesar; yet this is what
they charged him with, that he said, he himself is Christ a king. He did say that he
was Christ, and, if so, then a king, but not such a king as was ever likely to give
disturbance to Caesar. When his followers would have made him a king (Joh_6:15),
he declined it, though by the many miracles he wrought he made it appear that if he
would have set up in competition with Caesar he would have been too hard for him.
COFFMAN, "There was no mention by those hypocrites of the true reason for
their condemnation of Jesus, which was this, that he claimed to be the divine
Messiah, the Son of God. Concerning the triple allegations in this verse, Barclay
accurately said:
They charged Jesus: (a) with seditious agitation; (b) with encouraging men not to
pay tribute to Caesar; and (c) with assuming the title king. Every single item of
the charge was a lie, and they knew it.[2]
ENDNOTE:
[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1953), p. 300.
16

PETT, "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 (Luke 20:21-25). Jesus neither sought to arouse an
insurrection, nor did He forbid the payment of taxes.
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.
‘This man.’ We can almost hear the contempt in their voices.
‘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.
‘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.
3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the
Jews?”
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
GILL, "And Pilate asked him, saying,.... Observing that it was said, he had
given himself out to be a king; for as for what regarded religion, he took no notice of
it; he put this question to him,
art thou the King of the Jews? that their prophecies speak of, and they have
expected;
and he answered him and said, thou sayest it; that is, thou sayest well; it is as
thou sayest, I am the King of the Jews; See Gill on Mat_27:11 though he did not leave
this without an explanation; without informing him what sort of a king he was, and
17

what kind of a kingdom he had; see Joh_18:36 which made Pilate perfectly easy, and
desirous to release him, as appears by what follows.
HENRY, "2. His pleading to the indictment: Pilate asked him, Art thou the king
of the Jews? Luk_23:3. To which he answered, Thou sayest it; that is, “It is as thou
sayest, that I am entitled to the government of the Jewish nation; but in rivalship
with the scribes and Pharisees, who tyrannize over them in matters of religion, not in
rivalship with Caesar, whose government relates only to their civil interests.” Christ's
kingdom is wholly spiritual, and will not interfere with Caesar's jurisdiction. Or,
“Thou sayest it; but canst thou prove it? What evidence hast thou for it?” All that
knew him knew the contrary, that he never pretended to be the king of the Jews, in
opposition to Caesar as supreme, or to the governors that were sent by him, but the
contrary.
COFFMAN, "Luke's record, like all of the Gospels, omits some things found in
the others and includes some things not found in the others, the only proper
understanding of such records being found in the composite record of all four
Gospels.
As Spence noted, the very first thing Pilate did was to attempt an avoidance of
condemning Jesus, or even judging him at all.
"Take ye him, and judge him according to your law" (John 18:31); to which the
Sanhedrinists replied that they were not allowed to put any man to death ...
revealing their deadly purpose in the case of Jesus.[3]
Some have understood this verse as indicating Pilate's willingness to accept the
third charge against Jesus (that he laid claim to being a secular king), that being
the reason for the question here; but that simply cannot be true. As Ash
observed: "Pilate knew the Jews would follow a king, not deliver him up."[4]
Thus, the third charge was as clearly false in Pilate's understanding of it, as were
the others. If Jesus had been what the Sanhedrin said he was, a claimant of
secular kingship, they would have followed and supported him unto death. In
fact, some of those very hypocrites had spent an entire day trying to get Jesus to
be the quartermaster of a secular army against Rome (see in John 6). Thus
Pilate's pinpointing the third charge had no reference to his being taken in by
such a lie, but rather shows his astonishment at it.
Thou sayest ... This has been interpreted as noncommittal, a denial, and as an
affirmation of Jesus' kingship, the latter being the true meaning. From John, it is
learned that the Lord explained thoroughly to Pilate that his kingdom was not of
this world. There is no evidence at all that Pilate ever doubted Jesus' word on
this. See under Luke 23:38. This is proved by Pilate's immediate announcement
of Jesus' innocence.
[3] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 235.
[4] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet
Publishing Company, 1972), p. 135.
18

PETT, "‘You?’ The word is emphasised. Pilate had expected them to haul in a
glaring insurrectionist, the type that he knew exactly how to deal with. And now
here was someone who was calm and fearless, who spoke to him quietly as man
to man, who argued philosophy and who had a quality about Him that could not
pass unnoticed. This was not at all what he had expected.
“Are you the King of the Jews?” This is very much an abbreviation of all that
was said, but deals with the essential point. What Pilate overall wanted to know
was what claims He did make, and whether it was true that He was claiming to
be a King in opposition to Caesar and his appointee. Jesus replied by pointing
out that it was all something that had arisen from people’s own ideas. The claim,
in the way in which the court meant it, had not come from Him, it had come
from Pilate himself, via the Sanhedrin. While then there was a sense in which He
was a King, it was not in the way that everyone was saying. Whatever else was
said (see John 18:33-38) it convinced Pilate, who was very experienced and no
fool, that the charge was baseless. This man may be a clever arguer. He might
even be more. But He was no revolutionary.
4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and
the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against
this man.”
BARNES, "I find no fault - I see no evidence that he is guilty of what you charge
him with. This was after Pilate had taken Jesus into the judgment-hall by himself and
examined him “privately,” and had been satisfied in regard to the nature of his
kingdom. See Joh_18:33-38. He was “then” satisfied that though he claimed to be “a
king,” yet his kingdom was not of this world, and that “his” claims did not interfere
with those of Caesar.
CLARKE, "I find no fault in this man - According to Joh_18:36, Joh_18:38,
Pilate did not say this till after our Lord had declared to him that his kingdom was
not of this world; and probably not till after he had found, on examining witnesses,
(Luk_23:14), that all their evidence amounted to no proof, of his having set up
himself for a temporal king. See Bishop Pearce.
GILL, "Then said Pilate to the Chief priests, and to the people,.... Both to
the sanhedrim, and to the mob that were gathered together about the governor's
palace on this occasion; and who were standing without the judgment hall, into
which they would not enter, lest they should be defiled, and be unfit to eat the
passover: wherefore Pilate came out to them; and this was the second time of his
coming out to them, when he said the following words, Joh_18:28.
I find no fault in this man; no cause, or reason, why any punishment should be
19

inflicted on him, and especially he be put to death; no crime that can be fastened on
him, or accusation proved against him, or any thing that amounts to a charge of
sedition: the man is an harmless and innocent man, that has done nothing against
Caesar, or the government, and good of the nation; and therefore is not worthy of
death, or of stripes, but should be discharged. This was Pilate's sense.
HENRY, "3. Pilate's declaration of his innocency (Luk_23:4): He said to the chief
priests, and the people that seemed to join with them in the prosecution, “I find no
fault in this man. What breaches of your law he may have been guilty of I am not
concerned to enquire, but I find nothing proved upon him that makes him obnoxious
to our court.”
JAMISON, "Luk_23:1-5. Jesus before Pilate.
(See Mar_15:1-5; and see on John 18:28-19:22.)
CALVIN, "Luke 23:4.And Pilate said to the chief priests and scribes. As Christ
was come to bear the punishment of our sins, it was proper that he should first
be condemned by the mouth of his judge, that it might afterwards be evident that
he was condemned for the sake of others, and not for his own. But as Pilate, from
a dread of exciting a tumult, did not venture absolutely to acquit him, he
willingly availed himself of the opportunity which presented itself, of submitting
him to the jurisdiction of Herod. This Herod was he who bears the surname of
Antipas to whom was left the tetrarchy of Galilee, when Archelaus was a
prisoner at Vienna, and when Judea had been annexed to the province of Syria.
Now though we shall shortly afterwards find Luke relating that this mark of
respect pacified Herod, who had formerly been enraged against Pilate, still his
design was not so much to obtain Herod’s favor, as to get quit of a disagreeable
affair under an honorable excuse, and thus to avoid the necessity of condemning
Christ.
COFFMAN, "This is another effort of Pilate to avoid condemning Jesus, there
having been at least seven of these in all. See my Commentary on Matthew,
Matthew 27:13-24. This was the point at which Pilate should have dismissed the
charges, called out the soldiers in the tower of Antonio, and dismissed the mob;
but in the meantime he had a brilliant idea, prompted by what the Sanhedrinists
next said. See under Luke 23:5.
PETT, "So Pilate went out to the chief priests and the crowds (for they would
not enter his residence as it would have been seen as defiling at Passover time)
and declared that as far as he could see the charges were baseless, and Jesus was
innocent.
‘The chief priests.’ They were the ones who were now representing the whole
Sanhedrin. The High Priest himself was a government appointee, with
recognised, if limited, authority, and his relatives, those who ran the Temple
which was of such importance to Jews everywhere, would be accepted by Pilate
(however much he disliked them) as men of political importance. They had
therefore been made the chief spokesmen.
20

‘The crowds.’ It should be emphasised that these ‘crowds’ were not composed of
the people who had listened to Jesus in the Temple, or of Galileans. Those were
still in their camps or lodgings, unaware of what was going on. These were
probably local Jerusalemites who had gathered after the news got around of an
emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin, suggesting that an interesting case was in
process, and very probably included supporters of the insurrectionists who were
in custody and awaiting execution, who had come hoping to take advantage of
Pilate’s regular release at Passover time of one ‘popular’ criminal in order to
please the people.
5 But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all
over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee
and has come all the way here.”
BARNES, "The more fierce - The more urgent and pressing. They saw that
there was a prospect of losing their cause, and they attempted to press on Pilate the
point that would be most likely now to affect him. Pilate had, in fact, acquitted him of
the charge of being an enemy to Caesar, and they, therefore, urged the other point
more vehemently.
Stirreth up the people - Excites them to tumult and sedition.
All Jewry - All Judea.
From Galilee to this place - To Jerusalem - that is, throughout the whole
country. It is not merely in one place, but from one end of the land to the other.
CLARKE, "Saying, He stirreth up the people, etc. - In the Codex
Colbertinus, a copy of the ancient Itala or Antehieronymian version, this verse stands
thus: He stirreth up the people, beginning from Galilee, and teaching through all
Judea unto this place; our wives and our children he hath rendered averse from us,
and he is not baptized as we are. As the Jews found that their charge of sedition was
deemed frivolous by Pilate, they changed it, and brought a charge equally false and
groundless against his doctrine.
GILL, "And they were the more fierce,.... Or urgent to have him put to death;
so the Hebrew word ‫חזק‬ is rendered in Exo_12:33 which answers to that here used.
"They cried out", as the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read; they were more
clamorous and noisy; they cried out louder, and exerted themselves with great fury
and violence, and added strength to their clamour, and increased their charges:
saying, he stirreth up the people; to sedition and rebellion:
21

teaching throughout all Jewry; or "Judea"; not in one, or a few places only, but
every where:
beginning from Galilee; where indeed our Lord did begin his ministry, and where
he chiefly taught; see Mat_4:12 and which they rather chose to mention, because that
the Galilaeans were reckoned a seditious people, and had been drawn into rebellion,
and had suffered for it; see Act_5:37
to this place; the city of Jerusalem, the metropolis of the nation; suggesting, that he
taught seditious principles not only in Galilee, but all the way from thence
throughout Judea, and even in their chief city, and had drawn many disciples after
him every where; so that it was a notorious case, as well as of great consequence, and
much danger, and ought not to be trifled with.
HENRY, "4. The continued fury and outrage of the prosecutors, Luk_23:5.
Instead of being moderated by Pilate's declaration of his innocency, and considering,
as they ought to have done, whether they were not bringing the guilt of innocent
blood upon themselves, they were the more exasperated, more exceedingly fierce. We
do not find that they have any particular fact to produce, much less any evidence to
prove it; but they resolve to carry it with noise and confidence, and say it, though
they cannot prove it: He stirs up the people to rebel against Caesar, teaching
throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place. He did stir up the people,
but it was not to any thing factious or seditious, but to every thing that was virtuous
and praiseworthy. He did teach, but they could not charge him with teaching any
doctrine that tended to disturb the public peace, or make the government uneasy or
jealous.
6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a
Galilean.
BARNES, "Whether he were a Galilean - He asked this because, if he was, he
properly belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, who reigned over Galilee.
GILL, "When Pilate heard of Galilee,.... "The name of Galilee", as the Syriac
and Persic versions read when that was mentioned,
he asked; the Ethiopic version says, the "Galilaeans"; some of which might be
present, being come to the feast of the passover, and were very proper persons to
inquire of:
whether the man were a Galilean; so Jesus was reputed to be: for though he
was born at Bethlehem of Judah, he was brought up at Nazareth in Galilee, where he
spent the greater part of his private life, and his public ministry was chiefly exercised
in those parts; hence the Jews thought, that he came out of Galilee, and was a
Galilean, Joh_7:41 and so he used to be called by Julian the apostate; and it seems,
22

that the answer returned to Pilate was, that he was a Galilean; and so the Persic
version adds, and they said, yes; for it follows,
HENRY, "II. They accused him before Herod. 1. Pilate removed him and his cause
to Herod's court. The accusers mentioned Galilee, the northern part of Canaan.
“Why,” saith Pilate, “is he of that country? Is he a Galilean?” Luk_23:6. “Yes,” said
they, “that is his head-quarters; there he was spent most of his time.” “Let us send
him to Herod then,” saith Pilate, “for Herod is now in town, and it is but fit he should
have cognizance of his cause, since he belongs to Herod's jurisdiction.” Pilate was
already sick of the cause, and desirous to rid his hands of it, which seems to have
been the true reason for sending him to Herod. But God ordered it so for the more
evident fulfilling of the scripture, as appears Act_4:26, Act_4:27, where that of David
(Psa_2:2), The kings of the earth and the rulers set themselves against the Lord and
his Anointed, is expressly said to be fulfilled in Herod and Pontius Pilate.
JAMISON, "
COFFMAN, "Tinsley, after observing that this incident appears only in Luke,
said, "Some scholars have doubted whether this trial before Herod ever took
place.[5] It may be assumed that Tinsley is among that group of scholars.
However, such opinions lose their force when it is recalled that "some scholars"
deny God; some scholars deny the New Testament; some scholars deny the
supernatural; some scholars deny the existence of angels, or prophecy, or the
resurrection of the dead, or any such things as heaven and hell or the final
judgment. The sheep of God, however, know their Shepherd's voice. Every word
in the sacred Gospels is historical truth.
Pilate's maneuver here, in sending the Lord to Herod, was a skillful political
ploy, resulting in a reconciliation between these contemporary Roman subalterns
(see under Luke 23:12).
ENDNOTE:
[5] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969), p. 198.
7 When he learned that Jesus was under
Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who
was also in Jerusalem at that time.
BARNES, "Herod’s jurisdiction - Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great.
This was the same Herod that put John the Baptist to death. Jesus had passed the
most of his life in the part of the country where he ruled, and it was, therefore,
23

considered that he belonged to his jurisdiction - that is, that it belonged to Herod,
not to Pilate, to try this cause.
CLARKE, "Herod’s jurisdiction - The city of Nazareth, in which Christ had
continued till he was thirty years of age, and that of Capernaum, in which he
principally resided the last years of his life, were both in Lower Galilee, of which
Herod Antipas was tetrarch. Pilate was probably glad of this opportunity to pay a
little respect to Herod, whom it is likely he had irritated, and with whom he now
wished to be friends. See Luk_23:12.
GILL, "And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's
jurisdiction,.... The country which was under his power, and he had the
government of; for Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, Luk_3:1. This was Herod Antipas,
the son of Herod the great, and the same that beheaded John the Baptist; wherefore
as soon as Pilate found that Jesus was one of his province, immediately he sent him
to Herod: to be examined, and to have his cause tried before him: and this he did
partly, that he might be rid of this troublesome business; and partly that he might
show to Herod what a regard he had to his jurisdiction, and power; and that he was
unwilling to break in upon it, or usurp that to himself, which did not belong to him:
the way from Pilate's hall, to the place where Herod was, is computed, by
Adrichomius, to be about three hundred and fifty steps:
who himself was also at Jerusalem at that time; or "in those days"; the days of
the passover; for Herod being born a Jew, and the son of a proselyte, was come to
Jerusalem, at this time, to keep the feast of the passover.
JAMISON, "sent him to Herod — hoping thus to escape the dilemma of an
unjust condemnation or an unpopular release.
at Jerusalem ... at that time — to keep the passover.
COKE, "Luke 23:7. He sent him to Herod,——Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of
Galilee, who had beheaded St. John the Baptist. Pilate probably sent Christ to
Herod, with a design to pay him a compliment, and as the means of
reconciliation, which it accordingly proved, Luke 23:12. Another reason likewise
for Pilate's doing this might be to oblige his wife, who had cautioned him by a
message to have nothing to do with that just man. Matthew 27:19. And he might
be further induced to it, in order to ease his own conscience, as being convinced
of our Saviour's innocence; and at the same time to gratifythe Jews, if Herod had
thought fit to comply with their solicitations. The Roman governors indeed were
empowered to punish any persons for crimes committed by them within thelimits
of their respective provinces, even though they belonged to other states and
jurisdictions; but yet there appears no irregularity in this procedure of Pilate,
nor any thing but what was customary on some occasions, as we learn from the
Roman law.
24

8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly
pleased, because for a long time he had been
wanting to see him. From what he had heard
about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign
of some sort.
GILL, "And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad,.... For though
he had been brought up in his country, and had so frequently preached, and wrought
miracles there, he had never seen him before; and to have a sight of him, was a great
indulgence to his curiosity:
for he was desirous to see him of a long season; perhaps ever since he had
heard of his fame, and had entertained a notion that Christ was John the Baptist
risen from the dead, whom he had beheaded; and therefore was desirous of seeing
him, that he might know whether he was John or not:
because he had heard many things of him; concerning his doctrine, and
miracles, and especially the latter; how that he cast out devils, and healed all manner
of diseases, and even raised the dead to life:
and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him; which would have still
more gratified his curiosity, and have been the subject of further inquiry and
conversation.
HENRY, " Herod was very willing to have the examining of him (Luk_23:8): When
he saw Jesus he was exceedingly glad, and perhaps the more glad because he saw
him a prisoner, saw him in bonds. He had heard many things of him in Galilee,
where his miracles had for a great while been all the talk of the country; and he
longed to see him, not for any affection he had for him or his doctrine, but purely out
of curiosity; and it was only to gratify this that he hoped to have seen some miracle
done by him, which would serve him to talk of as long as he lived. In order to this, he
questioned with him in many things, that at length he might bring him to something
in which he might show his power. Perhaps he pumped him concerning things
secret, or things to come, or concerning his curing diseases. But Jesus answered him
nothing; nor would he gratify him so much as with the performance of one miracle.
The poorest beggar, that asked a miracle for the relief of his necessity, was never
denied; but this proud prince, that asked a miracle merely for the gratifying of his
curiosity, is denied. He might have seen Christ and his wondrous works many a time
in Galilee, and would not, and therefore it is justly said, Now he would see them, and
shall not; they are hidden from his eyes, because he knew not the day of his
visitation. Herod thought, now that he had him in bonds, he might command a
25

miracle, but miracles must not be made cheap, nor Omnipotence be at the beck of the
greatest potentate.
JAMISON, "And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad,.... For
though he had been brought up in his country, and had so frequently preached, and
wrought miracles there, he had never seen him before; and to have a sight of him,
was a great indulgence to his curiosity:
for he was desirous to see him of a long season; perhaps ever since he had
heard of his fame, and had entertained a notion that Christ was John the Baptist
risen from the dead, whom he had beheaded; and therefore was desirous of seeing
him, that he might know whether he was John or not:
because he had heard many things of him; concerning his doctrine, and
miracles, and especially the latter; how that he cast out devils, and healed all manner
of diseases, and even raised the dead to life:
and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him; which would have still
more gratified his curiosity, and have been the subject of further inquiry and
conversation.
CALVIN, "8And when Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad. Hence it is evident
how greatly wicked men are intoxicated, or rather bewitched, by their own
pride; for though Herod did not acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, he at
least reckoned him to be a prophet. It was therefore most unreasonable cruelty
to take pleasure in seeing him treated with contempt and disdain. But as if an
injury had been done to him, so long as he had not obtained a sight of Christ,
when he now sees him placed in his power, he triumphs as if he had obtained a
victory. We see also what kind of love is cherished by wicked and irreligious men
for prophets, in whom the power of God shines brightly. Herod had long wished
to see Christ. Why then did he not wish to hear him, that he might profit by his
doctrine? It was because he chose rather to amuse himself in beholding the
divine power, than to view it, as he ought to have done, with devout and humble
reverence. And this is the disposition of the flesh, so to desire to see God in his
works, as not to submit to his authority; so to desire to see his servants, as to
refuse to hear him speaking by them. And even Herod, though he hoped that
some miracle would be performed by Christ, chose to have him placed at his feet
as a malefactor rather than to receive him as a teacher. We need not wonder,
therefore, if God conceal his glory from wicked men, who wished that he should
contribute to their amusement, like some stage-player.
COFFMAN, "Luke alone recorded the "friendly" warning of the Pharisees to
Jesus that "Herod would fain kill thee" (Luke 13:31); and it was fully in keeping
with Luke's thoroughness and dependability as a historian that he should have
included this incident, proving, absolutely, that the Pharisees who thus
addressed Jesus were lying. Herod indeed wanted to see Jesus, but it was from
curiosity, not from intent to murder. As Frank L. Cox commented: "The
frivolous Herod, looking upon Jesus as a juggler or magician, was eager for him
to satisfy his vulgar curiosity."[6]
ENDNOTE:
26

[6] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation
Publishing House, 1941), p. 7O.
PETT, "Verse 8
‘Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was very, very glad, for he had for a long time
been desirous to see him, because he had heard about him, and he hoped to see
some miracle done by him.’
Instead of seriously going about the business of ascertaining the truth, Herod is
revealed as more interested in seeing a show. The charges against Jesus meant
little to him, but he had heard much about Him and had for a long time wanted
to see Him for himself. After all He had something of a reputation in Galilee and
Peraea over which Herod ruled. So his hope now was to see Jesus ‘perform’ and
relieve the monotony of the hour.
Verses 8-12
The Hearing Before Herod (23:8-12).
In a few rapid strokes Luke brilliantly brings out what the hearing before Herod
involved. Rather than being concerned about the rights and wrongs of the matter
Herod is depicted as being more interested in getting Jesus to perform some
wonders before him, than in arriving at a conclusion. Thus his questioning was
apparently on a superficial scale, rather than a genuine attempt to arrive at the
truth. Jesus in return knew exactly what was going on and treated him with
contemptuous silence, and said nothing. He was not there to provide a spectacle,
nor to perform wonders at Herod’s whim. (Had Luke just invented this hearing
for the reasons suggested by some he would have made it very different)
The mention of the Scribes is significant. They had been irrelevant to Pilate, but
they hoped to have greater influence on Herod. He was after all a half-Jew. He
would be more likely, they hoped, to listen if they were present. But they did not
really know their man.
Analysis.
a Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was very, very glad, for he had for a long time
been desirous to see Him, because he had heard things about Him, and he hoped
to see some miracle done by Him (Luke 23:8).
b And he questioned Him in many words, but He answered him nothing (Luke
23:9).
c And the chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him (Luke
23:10).
b And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying
him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:11).
a And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before
they were at enmity between themselves (Luke 23:12).
Note that in ‘a’ Herod was delighted to see Jesus because he hoped that He
would perform a miracle in front of him, and in the parallel a ‘miracle’ was
27

performed because Pilate and Herod became friendly. In ‘b’ Jesus treated Herod
and His accusers with disdain, and in the parallel He is in turn treated with
disdain. Centrally in ‘c’ are the chief priests and scribes trying desperately to
have Him accused. Here Luke is bringing out who is really to blame for all this.
BI 8-12, "When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad
Divine reserve; or, Christianity in relation to our mental moods
I.
THAT ALL SUBJECTS REVEAL THEMSELVES ACCORDING TO THE MENTAL
MOOD IN WHICH THEY ARE EXAMINED. That which is looked for, is found or
thought to be found. The same person or principle examined through the respective
media of sympathy and antipathy, will reveal aspects the most different. It is of vital
importance to remember this fact in all our investigations of creeds, or balancings of
contradictory evidence, so that we may escape both the traductions of prejudice and
the blindings of partiality. The non-recognition of this truth has induced the grossest
misrepresentations of social life, of individual belief, and of denominational doctrine.
II. THAT THE DIVINE BEING DISCRIMINATES OUR MENTAL MOODS.
Apparently, Herod was in a pleasing state of mind. Superficial observers would have
been delighted with his animated and cordial bearing. What could be more gratifying
to Christ than that Herod was “exceeding glad” to see Him? There was no royal
hauteur, no cold rebuff, no vengeful triumph. Why, then, that awful silence? Could
Herod have done more to conciliate the favour of his renowned prisoner? Was it not
an act of incomparable condescension for Herod to wear a smile in the presence of a
reputed blasphemer and seditionist? For Christ’s significant reserve there must be
some peculiar but satisfactory reason. It was not fear of the judge, for He was the
judge’s Creator and Sovereign; it was not contempt, for He entertains a just regard
for all the creatures of His hand; it was not constitutional sullenness, for none could
be more open and engaging than He; it was not consciousness of guilt, for His most
rancorous foes failed in their attempts at crimination. Why, then, did Christ thus
treat a man who was “exceeding glad” to “see Him”? The only satisfactory answer
which we can suggest is that Herod’s gladness did not arise from a proper cause; or,
in other words, was no true index to his mental mood. Christ looked deeper than the
smile which lighted Herod’s countenance, or the mere blandishment of his manner;
He discriminated the mood of mind, and acted accordingly.
III. THAT CERTAIN MENTAL MOODS DEPRIVE MEN OF THE RICHEST
BLESSINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. Why that solemn silence on the part of Christ?
Because of Herod’s mental mood. The judge wished his curiosity gratified, he had
heard of the great wonder-worker, and longed to behold His feats of skill, or His
displays of power. Christ knew the treatment proper for the oblique-minded judge,
and acted accordingly: He would not work miracles to gratify a king; He would smile
on a child, or dry the tear of misery, but He would not court the applause or solicit
the patronage of royalty. To whom, then, will the Lord Jesus deign to reveal Himself
in tender speech or loving vision? Is there any intellect on whose conflicts with
scepticism He will bestow His attention? Is there any heart on whose strugglings
with sin He will lift up the light of His countenance? Since He was silent before
Herod, will He be communicative to any of His creatures? He shall answer for
Himself, “To this man will I look.” Suppose the Divine speaker had paused here, what
inquisitiveness and suspense would have been occasioned! “To this man”; to which
man, blessed Lord, wilt Thou look? to the man who has slain kings, and wandered to
the throne of power through the blood of the warrior and the tears of the widow? to
28

the man who has enrolled his name among the proudest of conquerors? to the man
who boasts attachment to the cold exactitudes of a heartless theology? to the man
arrayed in purple, and enshrined in the splendour of a palace? is this the man to
whom Thou wilt look? Nay! ‘Tis a grander spectacle which attracts the Divine eye—to
the man “that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at My word” (Isa_
66:2).Here, then, we have two conditions of Divine communion, viz., contrition and
reverence: apart from these there can be no spiritual fellowship. In Herod these
conditions were not found; hence Christ was dumb i So with us: if we would truly
worship God we must fulfil the conditions herein demanded. To be more distinct on
this part of the subject, I may enumerate a few classes of hearers, whose mental
moods deprive them of spiritual enjoyment:
1. Men of violent personal antipathies. Such persons confound the minister with
his message; so that if any whim has been assaulted, or any favourite dogma
contravened, they forthwith resort to misinterpretation, they turn every appeal
into a personality, and that which was intended as a blessing they pervert into a
curse! God will not commune with them: they fulfil not the conditions of
fellowship—they are neither contrite nor reverent—and Christ answers them
nothing!
2. Men of large speculative curiosity. Herod belonged to this class. They wish to
pry into the secrets of the Infinite: not content with the ample disclosures which
the Divine Being has graciously granted, they would penetrate into the deepest
recesses of His nature, and scale the loftiest altitudes of His universe. They
conceive a philosophic dislike for the common-place truths of Christianity; and
regard with patronising pity the minister who lingers on the melancholy hill of
Calvary. Such men would understand all mystery: they would break the silence of
the stars, or detain the whirlwind in converse: they would summon angels from
their high abode and extort the secrets of heaven, they would even dare to cross-
examine the Deity Himself on the propriety of His moral government! God will
answer them nothing.
3. Men who accept rationalism as their highest guide. They reject all that reason
cannot comprehend. Their own intellect must see through every subject,
otherwise they consider it as worthy only of repudiation. They read the New
Testament as they would read a work on mathematics, or a treatise on physical
science, expecting demonstration of every point. Such men leave the Bible with
dissatisfaction. Christ treats them with silence: their flippant questions elicit no
response: their feeble reason plunges in hopeless confusion—Infinitude refuses to
be grasped in a human span, and Eternity disdains to crowd into one little
intellect its stupendous and magnificent treasures.
4. Men who delight in moral darkness. Such men have no objection to theological
discussion; they may even delight in an exhibition of their controversial powers,
and, at the same time, hate the moral nature and spiritual requirements of the
gospel. So long as attention is confined to an analysis of abstract doctrines they
listen with interest, but the moment the gospel tears away the veil from their
moral condition—reveals their depravity—upbraids their ingratitude—smites
their pride—and shakes their soul with the assurance of judgment and eternity,
they sink back into sullenness, they take refuge in infidelity, or they curse and
blaspheme! Your Herods care not for moral betterance; they wish their fancies
gratified—they desire their questions answered, but they persist in following
thedevices of their imagination, and imprisoning themselves in the bond-house
of bestial passion. The text suggests—
IV. THAT MEN SO DEPRIVED RESORT TO OPPOSITION. “And Herod with his
29

men of war set Him at naught, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous
robe, and sent Him again to Pilate.” This is a striking illustration of the manner in
which the truth has been treated in all ages. Men have approached the Bible with
foregone conclusions, and because those conclusions have not been verified they
have revolted, and assumed an antagonistic attitude. Ample illustration of the
proposition might be adduced from the history of infidelity, bigotry, and persecution:
but instead of lingering on this department of the subject we hasten to indicate the
practical bearing of the thesis on the matter more immediately in hand. As an
assembly of men responsible in some degree for the dissemination of Christian truth,
it is important to understand how we can best fulfil our mission. In prosecuting this
inquiry let me remind you of three things:
1. That the Bible is God’s appointed representative. What Christ was to Herod,
the Scriptures are to us, viz., the embodiment of Divine truth and love. The very
fact of our having the Bible, involves a tremendous responsibility.
2. That the Bible must be approached in a sympathetic spirit.
3. That we are responsible for our manner of reproducing the Bible. (J. Parker,
D. D.)
Imitating the silence of Christ
There lived in a village near Burnley a girl who was persecuted in her own home
because she was a Christian. She struggled on bravely, seeking strength from God,
and rejoicing that she was a partaker of Christ’s sufferings. The struggle was too
much for her, but He willed it so; and at length her sufferings were ended. When they
came to take off the clothes from her poor dead body, they found a piece of paper
sewn inside her dress, and on it was written, “He opened not His mouth.” (W.
Baxendale.)
Remarkable reticence
Moltke, the great strategist, is a man of lowly habits and few words. He has been
described as a man “who can hold his tongue in seven languages!” (H. O. Mackay.)
Herod Antipas: religious curiosity
Most of us will admit that this is an age of much curiosity about religion. The phrase
would seem to include three things. First, curiosity about religion as an interesting
phase of human thought. Then, curiosity about religion as exhibited in the
picturesque and commanding personages who have founded new faiths. But yet
again there may be curiosity about religion as a possible manifestation of the extra-
natural or supernatural. Revivalism and spiritualism make the flesh creep not
altogether unpleasingly. August and ancient ceremonials haunt the imagination with
their weird magnificence. The verses which I have read bring before us the very type
of irreligious or non-religious curiosity about religion, and of the punishment which
awaits it.
I. In the passage itself let us note, in the first place, THE DEALINGS OF HEROD
ANTIPAS WITH JESUS.
1. Herod did not take any active part in the greatest tragedy of time.
30

2. It will be necessary for our purpose to consider, secondly, Herod’s position in
the religious world of his day. That he was a Sadducee would seem to be certain
from profane history, and from a comparison of St. Matthew with St. Mark.
3. The character of Herod Antipas may be thought too black to contain even a
warning for any of us. He was but a promising pupil in the school of which
Tiberius was a master; a meaner trickster, a punier liar, a feebler murderer. He
was “the fox,” as our Lord called him, not the wolf. Yet in one respect he was not
so unlike some of us. A mist of superstition hung over the unclean pool of lust
and hatred which he had made his soul. He was alternately repelled and attracted
by Christ. That he was not incapable of religious curiosity the text sufficiently
witnesses. Some in our day might exclaim that it was perhaps unfortunate that an
opportunity was lost of gratifying the curiosity of a person so interesting—as if
Christ was Incarnate to amuse dilettanti. But He who knows all men and what is
in man knew better. The blood-stained hands are held out “half caressingly.” The
voice which commanded the head of John Baptist to be given to the daughter of
Herodias pours forth its flood of superficial questions. He will not waste one
miracle or one word. As they of old loved to teach, the silent Jesus, working no
sign, is a prophecy and a sign to us. “He answered him nothing.”
II. The whole incident thus becomes full of lessons to us. A thoughtful, meditative
reader stops in awe. If we feel the awfulness of that silence, we shall, I think,
recognize the truth of that which I am about to say. There is, no doubt, a sort of
curiosity about religion which is the necessary result of quickened intellectual, nay, of
quickened spiritual life. But the smiting of the people of Beth-shemesh is net
recorded for nothing. Free inquiry is one thing, free-and-easy inquiry is another. If
we play with God, it is at our own risk. The question is—what do you believe? We
stand fronting eternity, not with the many propositions which we affect to believe or
think we believe, but with the few which we do believe. Can we make an act of faith in
God? We see Him standing mute before the curiosity of Herod Antipas, and we say,
“Save us, oh save us, from that silence!” (Bishop Win. Alexander.)
I. HEROD BEFORE JESUS.
Our Lord before Herod
1. See idle curiosity at its best.
2. Idle curiosity disappointed.
(1) Our Lord came not into this world to be a performer.
(2) Herod had already silenced the Voice; no wonder he could not now hear
the Word.
(3) Herod might have heard Christ hundreds of times before if he had chosen
to do so.
(4) Christ had good reason for refusing to speak to Herod this time, because
He would not have it supposed that He yielded to the pomp and dignity of
men.
3. Idle curiosity curdles into derision.
II. JESUS IN THE PRESENCE OF HEROD. Although no blows are recorded, I
greatly question whether our Divine Master suffered anywhere more than He did in
the palace of tiered.
31

1. Fully in earnest for the salvation of souls, and in the midst of His griever’s
passion, He is looked upon as a mountebank and a mere performer, who is
expected to work a miracle for the amusement of an impious court.
2. Then to think of our Lord’s being questioned by such a fop as Herod!
3. Then the ribaldry of the whole thing!
4. It was no small pain to our Lord to be silent.
5. Think of the contempt that was poured upon Him. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The silence of Jesus
I. PREJUDICE, WHATEVER BE ITS SOURCE, GETS NOTHING OUT OF THE
SCRIPTURES. If you bring a full pitcher to a spring, you can get nothing from that
spring.
II. HABITUAL INDULGENCE IN SIN WILL PREVENT US FROM GETTING ANY
ANSWER TO OUR INQUIRIES FROM SCRIPTURE. When you want an answer from
the telephone, you not only put your ear to the instrument, but you also say to those
about you, “Hush! I want to hear.” If you would hear Christ you must say “Hush” to
the murmuring of sin.
III. THE INFLUENCE OF SCEPTICISM MAKES THE SCRIPTURES SILENT. (W.
M. Taylor, D. D.)
9 He plied him with many questions, but Jesus
gave him no answer.
GILL, "Then he questioned with him in many words,.... Or talked very much
to him, inquiring who he was, whether John the Baptist, or no; whether it was true
that he had wrought such miracles he had heard of, and how he wrought them, and
by what power he performed them, and how he came by it; and used many
arguments to persuade him to work a miracle at that time:
but he answered him nothing; would not give him one word in return to his
many words, nor work any miracle in his presence; he answered him neither by
words nor deeds; he would not indulge his curiosity, though he might have obtained
his liberty by it.
COKE, "Luke 23:9. But he answered him nothing.— Herein our Lord followed
the rule observed by him as God in the administration of his moral government.
He bestows on men means, opportunities, and assistances, particularly his Holy
Spirit, such as, if they improve them properly, will lead them to knowledge and
happiness; but these beingslighted by men, he, after waiting the due time,
frequently for wise reasons shuts up from them all the springs of grace, and
32

Luke 23 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Luke 23 commentary

Similar to Luke 23 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Luke 23 commentary