A verse by verse commentary on the Gospel of Mark chapter 15 dealing with Jesus before Pilate and the soldiers mocking him. Then comes the account of the crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus.

1. MARK 15 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Jesus Before Pilate
1 Very early in the morning, the chief priests,
with the elders, the teachers of the law and the
whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they
bound Jesus, led him away and handed him
over to Pilate.
BARNES, "See the principal events in this chapter explained in the notes at Matt.
27.
CLARKE, "And straightway in the morning,.... As soon as it was break of day,
or daylight appeared:
the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and Scribes; who were
the principal men in the sanhedrim:
and the whole council; which, on this extraordinary occasion, was convened; the
result of which was, to bind Jesus, and deliver him up to the Roman governor, to be
put to death by him, as a seditious person, and an enemy to Caesar, and accordingly
they did so:
and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. The
Syriac and Persic versions add, "the governor"; See Gill on Mat_27:1, Mat_27:2.
GILL, "And straightway in the morning,.... As soon as it was break of day, or
daylight appeared:
the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and Scribes; who were
the principal men in the sanhedrim:
and the whole council; which, on this extraordinary occasion, was convened; the
result of which was, to bind Jesus, and deliver him up to the Roman governor, to be
put to death by him, as a seditious person, and an enemy to Caesar, and accordingly
they did so:
and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. The
Syriac and Persic versions add, "the governor"; See Gill on Mat_27:1, Mat_27:2.
1

2. HENRY, "Here we have, I. A consultation held by the great Sanhedrim for the
effectual prosecution of our Lord Jesus. They met early in the morning about it, and
went into a grand committee, to find out ways and means to get him put to death;
they lost no time, but followed their blow in good earnest, lest there should be an
uproar among the people. The unwearied industry of wicked people in doing that
which is evil, should shame us for our backwardness and slothfulness in that which is
good. They that war against Christ and thy soul, are up early; How long then wilt
thou sleep, O sluggard?
II. The delivering of him up a prisoner to Pilate; they bound him. He was to be the
great sacrifice, and sacrifices must be bound with cords, Psa_118:27. Christ was
bound, to make bonds easy to us, and enable us, as Paul and Silas, to sing in bonds. It
is good for us often to remember the bonds of the Lord Jesus, as bound with him
who was bound for us. They led him through the streets of Jerusalem, to expose him
to contempt, who, while he taught in the temple, but a day or two before, was had in
veneration; and we may well imagine how miserably he looked after such a night's
usage as he had had; so buffeted, spit upon, and abused. Their delivering him to the
Roman power was a type of ruin of their church, which hereby they merited, and
brought upon themselves; it signified that the promise, the covenant, and the oracles,
of God, and the visible state church, which were the glory of Israel, and had been so
long in their possession, should now be delivered up to the Gentiles. By delivering up
the king they do, in effect, deliver up the kingdom of God, which is therefore, as it
were, by their own consent, taken from them, and given to another nation. If they
had delivered up Christ, to gratify the desires of the Romans, or to satisfy and
jealousies of theirs concerning him, it had been another matter; but they voluntarily
betrayed him that was Israel's crown, to them that were Israel's yoke.
JAMIESON, "Mar_15:1-20. Jesus is brought before Pilate - At a second hearing,
Pilate, after seeking to release Him, delivers Him up - After being cruelly entreated,
He is led away to be crucified. ( = Mat_26:1, Mat_26:2, Mat_26:11-31; Luk_23:1-6,
Luk_23:13-25; John 18:28-19:16).
See on John 18:28-19:16.
BARCLAY, "THE SILENCE OF JESUS (Mark 15:1-5)
15:1-5 Immediately, early in the morning, the chief priests, together with the
elders and the experts in the law--that is to say, the whole Sanhedrin--held a
consultation. They bound Jesus and took him away and handed him over to
Pilate. Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered, "It is
you who say so." The chief priests made many accusations against him. Pilate
again questioned him, "Have you no answer to make?" he said. "See how many
accusations they have made against you." Jesus answered nothing further, and
Pilate was amazed.
As soon as it was light, the Sanhedrin met to confirm the conclusions they had
arrived at during their meeting in the night. They themselves had no power to
carry out the death penalty. That had to be imposed by the Roman governor and
carried out by the Roman authorities.
It is from Luke that we learn how deep and determined the bitter malice of the
Jews was. As we have seen, the charge at which they had arrived was one of
blasphemy, of insulting God. But that was not the charge on which they brought
2

3. Jesus before Pilate. They knew well that Pilate would have had nothing to do
with what he would have considered a Jewish religious argument. When they
brought Jesus to him they charged him with perverting the people, forbidding
them to give tribute to Caesar and calling himself a king (Luke 23:1-2). They had
to evolve a political charge or Pilate would not have listened. They knew the
charge was a lie--and so did Pilate.
Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus gave him a strange
answer. he said, "It is you who say so." Jesus did not say yes or no. What he did
say was, "I may have claimed to be the King of the Jews, but you know very well
that the interpretation that my accusers are putting on that claim is not my
interpretation. I am no political revolutionary. My kingdom is a kingdom of
love." Pirate knew that perfectly well. Pilate went on to question Jesus more, and
the Jewish authorities went on to multiply their charges--and Jesus remained
completely silent.
There is a time when silence is more eloquent than words, for silence can say
things that words can never say.
(i) There is the silence of wondering admiration. It is a compliment for any
performance or oration to be greeted with thunderous applause, but it is a still
greater compliment for it to be greeted with a hushed silence which knows that
applause would be out of place. It is a compliment to be praised or thanked in
words, but it is a still greater compliment to receive a look of the eyes which
plainly says there are no words to be found.
(ii) There is the silence of contempt. It is possible to greet someone's statements
or arguments or excuses with a silence which shows they are not worth
answering. Instead of answering someone's protestations the listener may turn
on his heel and contemptuously leave them be.
(iii) There is the silence of fear. A man may remain silent for no other reason
than that he is afraid to speak. The cowardice of his soul may stop him saying the
things he knows he ought to say. Fear may gag him into a shameful silence.
(iv) There is the silence of the heart that is hurt. When a person has been really
wounded he does not break into protests and recriminations and angry words.
The deepest sorrow is a dumb sorrow, which is past anger and past rebuke and
past anything that speech can say, and which can only silently look its grief.
(v) There is the silence of tragedy, and that is silent because there is nothing to be
said. That was why Jesus was silent. He knew there could be no bridge between
himself and the Jewish leaders. He knew that there was nothing in Pilate to
which he could ultimately appeal. He knew that the lines of communication were
broken. The hatred of the Jews was an iron curtain which no words could
penetrate. The cowardice of Pilate in face of the mob was a barrier no words
could pierce. It is a terrible thing when a man's heart is such that even Jesus
knows it is hopeless to speak. God save us from that!
3

4. BENSON, "Mark 15:1. And straightway in the morning — Succeeding the
dismal night in which the Jewish rulers had been so busily engaged in the horrid
transactions related in the preceding chapter; the chief priests — As soon as it
was day; held a consultation with the elders and scribes — What method they
should take to execute the sentence they had passed against Jesus, and how they
might contrive to put him to death in the most severe and contemptuous manner.
And because the sanhedrim, which, indeed, had the power of trying and
condemning men for crimes which the Jewish law had made capital, yet had not
the power of putting such sentences in execution without the approbation of the
civil magistrate, or Roman governor; therefore they determined to bind Jesus
and deliver him to Pilate, which they accordingly did, while it was yet early, John
18:28. They had indeed bound him when he was first apprehended, but, perhaps,
he had been loosed while under examination, or else they now made his bonds
stricter than before; the better, as they might think, to secure him from a rescue
as he passed through the public streets in the day-time. See note on Matthew
27:1-2. The observation of Theophylact here is worthy of notice. “The Jews
delivered up our Lord to the Romans, and they, for that sin, were themselves
given up into the hands of the Romans!”
COKE, "Mark 15:1. And straightway in the morning— The horrid transactions
of this dismal night being over, it was no sooner day, than the Jews hurried the
blessed Jesus away to the Roman governor; for though the Sanhedrim had the
power of trying and condemning men for crimes which the Jewish law had made
capital; yet, like the court of inquisition, they had not the power of putting such
sentences into execution, without the approbation of the civil magistrate, or
Roman governor;—for nothing but necessity could have brought the Jewish
rulers to Pilate on this occasion. They had bound Jesus when he was first
apprehended; but perhaps he had been loosed while under examination, or else
they now made his bonds stricter than before; the better, as they might think, to
secure him from a rescue, as he passed through the public streets in the day-time.
See Matthew 27:1-2. Doddridge, and Biscoe's Boyle's Lectures, p. 113. Instead of,
And the whole council, we may read, Even, &c.
COFFMAN, "Final events leading up to the crucifixion, burial and resurrection
of Christ are unfolded in this chapter. Mark's record is far more brief than the
other Gospels, and it is refreshing for a scholar like Cranfield to admit that this
record is obviously later than the Gospel of Matthew.[1] With regard to some of
the subjects treated at greater length in the other Gospels, reference is made to
this writer's Commentary on Matthew for the following:
The Six Trials of Jesus (Matthew 26:57ff); Pilate's Efforts to Release Jesus
(Matthew 27:14-23); The Mockery (Matthew 27:27-28); The Via Dolorosa
(Matthew 27:32); Regarding the Inscriptions (Matthew 27:37); The Calvary
Miracles (Matthew 27:53); Pilate's Order to Break Jesus' Legs (Matthew 27:56);
Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57); and The Seven Words from the Cross
(Matthew 27:66).
ENDNOTE:
4

5. [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1966), p. 458.
And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and
the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away,
and delivered him up to Pilate. (Mark 15:1)
This was the third trial of Jesus, evidently convened for the purpose of lending
some aura of legality to the all-night circus of a trial conducted in the palace of
the high priests. It did not last long; but it may be assumed that the same
witnesses testified, the same questions were asked of Jesus, and the same replies
(perhaps in different words) were given. This accounts for the fact that in one
Gospel the key aspects of the trial are related as occurring in the all-night trial,
and in another as occurring in the more legal trial in the morning. All thought of
contradictions disappears in the light of the obvious truth that the trial was
repeated in the session mentioned here, for the sake of appearances. Here too is
the obvious reason that Jesus' reply to Caiaphas' question has a different form,
but the same substance, in the Markan and Matthew accounts.
Despite the intentions of the hierarchy to dress up their kangaroo trials of the
Lord with some semblance of respectability through the device of having a legal
trial after daylight, they were not at all successful. As Sanner noted, regarding
the all-night trial:
The Sanhedrin broke most of its own laws ... fourteen such violations have been
totaled. The council was not permitted to meet at night, nor on a feast day. The
death penalty could not be carried out until a night had passed ... each member
of the court had to be polled individually, etc.[2]
Likewise, the trial in view in this verse was illegal. As Bickersteth said:
For form's sake, they tried afresh; but another law was violated; it was now the
Preparation (making this illegal) ... also, a condemnation could not be announced
on the day of the trial; yet our Lord was condemned and crucified in the same
day.[3]
And delivered him to Pilate ... Mark's omission of any explanation whatever of
who Pilate was is very significant. It has the effect of an admission on his part
that Matthew had long ago been published, that it was well known throughout
the Christian world, and that therefore it would have been superfluous for him
to have wasted any space on explaining that Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judea,
who was in power between 26,36 A.D., was at that time the governor with
jurisdiction in the case of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Markan theory receives in
this verse a mortal blow.
The reason why the Sanhedrin did not go ahead and stone Jesus to death lies in
the fact that they did not have at that time the authority to execute the death
penalty. This has been disputed; but John 18:31 is the only proof a Christian
needs of the fact that they could not.
[2] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill
5

6. Press, 1964) p. 400.
[3] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 303.
LIGHTFOOT, "[In the morning they held a consultation...and the whole
council.] "At what time do the judges sit in judgment? The lesser Sanhedrim and
the bench of three sit, after morning prayers are ended, until the end of the sixth
hour. But the great Sanhedrim sits after the morning daily sacrifice to the
afternoon daily sacrifice. And on sabbaths and feast days" [as this day was that
is here spoken of], "it sat in Beth-midrash" (or the chapel), "in the Court of the
Gentiles."
"The Sanhedrim of one-and-seventy elders, it is not necessary that they all sit in
their place, which is in the Temple. But when it is necessary that all meet
together, let all meet together (the whole council)."
"But in other times, he that hath business of his own, let him attend his own
business, and then return. With this proviso, that nothing be wanting of the
number of three-and-twenty upon the bench continually during the whole time
of the session (the consultation). If any must go out, let him look round, whether
his colleagues be three-and-twenty: if they be, let him go out: but if not, let him
wait till another enter in."
BURKITT, "The foregoing chapter gave us an account of Judas's treason, in
delivering our Saviour into the hands of the chief priests. In this chapter we find
our Lord brought by the chief priests unto Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor,
in order to his condemnation.
Whence observe, That it has been the old policy of corrupt church-governors to
abuse the power of the civil magistrate, in executing their cruel and unjust
censures and sentences upon holy and innocent persons. The chief priests and
elders do not kill our Saviour themselves, for it was not lawful for them to put
any man to death, being themselves under the power of the Roman government;
accordingly they deliver Christ over to the secular power, and desire Pilate, the
civil magistrate, to sentence and condemn him.
CONSTABLE, "Matthew and Mark described this meeting as though it was
separate from the earlier one (Mark 14:53-65). They probably did so to bring the
reader back from the courtyard to the upper room in Caiaphas' house. Yet the
decision seems to have been a separate one from the conviction for blasphemy.
The Roman authorities would not have prosecuted Jesus as a blasphemer.
Consequently the Sanhedrin, evidently now at full strength or close to it, decided
to charge Jesus with treason against the Roman government. This verse does not
explain that decision, but Pilate's examination of Jesus that follows shows that
was the charge the Sanhedrin had made against Him.
"Jesus, who is, indeed, king of the Jews in a deeply spiritual sense, has refused to
lead a political uprising. Yet now, condemned for blasphemy by the Jews
6

7. because of his spiritual claims, he is accused by them also before Pilate by [sic]
being precisely what he had disappointed the crowds for failing to be-a political
insurgent." [Note: Moule, p. 124.]
Mark did not explain who Pilate was, as Matthew did, evidently because his
Roman readers knew about Pilate.
"Pilate belonged to a special group of imperial administrators, consisting of men
beneath the rank of senator, the so-called equestrian class or Roman 'knights.'
These magistrates, who owned a moderate minimum of property, were used to
govern relatively small areas that required careful supervision. Their official title
in the period prior to Claudius was not procurator but prefect (praefectus). ...
Pilate came to Judea in the year A.D. 26 as the fifth of the provincial prefects and
remained in office ten years. He showed himself a harsh administrator who
despised the Jewish people and their particular sensitivities." [Note: Lane, pp.
548-49.]
When Pilate visited Jerusalem from his provincial capital of Caesarea, he
normally stayed in Herod's palace on the northwest corner of the city or in the
Fortress of Antonia just northwest of the temple. [Note: Hiebert, p. 379.] It was
apparently to one of these places that the guards led Jesus in the early morning
hours of Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan (April 3). Christian tradition favors the
Fortress of Antonia, but modern commentators usually favor Herod's palace.
"As Friday morning arrives and the death of Jesus approaches, Mark will slow
time from days to hours. Such slowing of time is yet another way of calling
attention to the pivotal importance of Jesus' death." [Note: Kingsbury, p. 49.]
The Sanhedrin involved the Romans in Jesus' trial because the Romans did not
allow the Jews to execute anyone without their permission, though the Sanhedrin
could pass a death sentence. The Jews probably bound Jesus to make Him look
like a dangerous criminal. He would not have tried to escape.
MACLAREN, "CHRIST AND PILATE: THE TRUE KING AND HIS
COUNTERFEIT
The so-called trial of Jesus by the rulers turned entirely on his claim to be Messias;
His examination by Pilate turns entirely on His claim to be king. The two claims are
indeed one, but the political aspect is distinguishable from the higher one; and it was
the Jewish rulers’ trick to push it exclusively into prominence before Pilate, in the
hope that he might see in the claim an incipient insurrection, and might mercilessly
stamp it out. It was a new part for them to play to hand over leaders of revolt to the
Roman authorities, and a governor with any common sense must have suspected that
there was something hid below such unusual loyalty. What a moment of degradation
and of treason against Israel’s sacredest hopes that was when its rulers dragged Jesus
to Pilate on such a charge! Mark follows the same method of condensation and
discarding of all but the essentials, as in the other parts of his narrative. He brings
out three points-the hearing before Pilate, the popular vote for Barabbas, and the
soldiers’ mockery.
I. The true King at the bar of the apparent ruler (Mar_15:1 - Mar_15:6).
The contrast between appearance and reality was never more strongly drawn than
when Jesus stood as a prisoner before Pilate. The One is helpless, bound, alone; the
other invested with all the externals of power. But which is the stronger? and in
7

8. which hand is the sceptre? On the lowest view of the contrast, it is ideas versus
swords. On the higher and truer, it is the incarnate God, mighty because voluntarily
weak, and man ‘dressed in a little brief authority,’ and weak because insolently
‘making his power his god.’ Impotence, fancying itself strong, assumes sovereign
authority over omnipotence clothed in weakness. The phantom ruler sits in judgment
on the true King. Pilate holding Christ’s life in his hand is the crowning paradox of
history, and the mystery of self-abasing love. One exercise of the Prisoner’s will and
His chains would have snapped, and the governor lain dead on the marble
‘pavement.’
The two hearings are parallel, and yet contrasted. In each there are two stages-the
self-attestation of Jesus and the accusations of others; but the order is different. The
rulers begin with the witnesses, and, foiled there, fall back on Christ’s own answer,
Pilate, with Roman directness and a touch of contempt for the accusers, goes straight
to the point, and first questions Jesus. His question was simply as to our Lord’s regal
pretensions. He cared nothing about Jewish ‘superstitions’ unless they threatened
political disturbance. It was nothing to him whether or no one crazy fanatic more
fancied himself ‘the Messiah,’ whatever that might be. Was He going to fight?-that
was all which Pilate had to look after. He is the very type of the hard, practical
Roman, with a ‘practical’ man’s contempt for ideas and sentiments, sceptical as to
the possibility of getting hold of ‘truth,’ and too careless to wait for an answer to his
question about it; loftily ignorant of and indifferent to the notions of the troublesome
people that he ruled, but alive to the necessity of keeping them in good humour, and
unscrupulous enough to strain justice and unhesitatingly to sacrifice so small a thing
as an innocent life to content them.
What could such a man see in Jesus but a harmless visionary? He had evidently
made up his mind that there was no mischief in Him, or he would not have
questioned Him as to His kingship. It was a new thing for the rulers to hand over
dangerous patriots, and Pilate had experience enough to suspect that such unusual
loyalty concealed something else, and that if Jesus had really been an insurrectionary
leader, He would never have fallen into Pilate’s power. Accordingly, he gives no
serious attention to the case, and his question has a certain half-amused, half-pitying
ring about it. ‘Thou a king? ‘-poor helpless peasant! A strange specimen of royalty
this! How constantly the same blindness is repeated, and the strong things of this
world despise the weak, and material power smiles pityingly at the helpless
impotence of the principles of Christ’s gospel, which yet will one day shatter it to
fragments, like a potter’s vessel! The phantom ruler judges the real King to be a
powerless shadow, while himself is the shadow and the other the substance. There
are plenty of Pilates to-day who judge and misjudge the King of Israel.
The silence of Jesus in regard to the eager accusations corresponds to His silence
before the false witnesses. The same reason dictated both. His silence is His most
eloquent answer. It calmly passes by all these charges by envenomed tongues as
needing no reply, and as utterly irrelevant. Answered, they would have lived in the
Gospels; unanswered, they are buried. Christ can afford to let many of His foes alone.
Contradictions and confutations keep slanders and heresies above water, which the
law of gravitation would dispose of if they were left alone.
Pilate’s wonder might and should have led him further. It should have prompted to
further inquiry, and that might have issued in clearer knowledge. It was the little
glimmer of light at the far-off end of his cavern, which, travelled towards, might have
brought him into free air and broad day. One great part of his crime was neglecting
the faint monitions of which he was conscious. His light may have been dim, but it
would have brightened; and he quenched it. He stands as a tremendous example of
possibilities missed, and of the tragedy of a soul that has looked on Jesus, and has
8

9. not yielded to the impressions made on him by the sight.
II. The people’s favourite (Mar_15:7 - Mar_15:15),
‘Barabbas’ means ‘son of the father,’ His very name is a kind of caricature of the ‘Son
of the Blessed,’ and his character and actions present in gross form the sort of
Messias whom the nation really wanted. He had headed some one of the many small
riots against Rome which were perpetually sputtering up and being trampled out by
an armed heel. There had been bloodshed, in which he had himself taken part (‘a
murderer,’ Act_3:14). And this coarse, red-handed desperado is the people’s
favourite, because he embodied their notions and aspirations, and had been bold
enough to do what every man of them would have done if he had dared. He thought
and felt, as they did, that freedom was to be won by the sword. The popular hero is as
a mirror which reflects the popular mind. He echoes the popular voice, a little
improved or exaggerated. Jesus had taught what the people did not care to hear, and
given blessings which even the recipients soon forgot, and lived a life whose ‘beauty
of holiness’ oppressed and rebuked the common life of men. What chance had truth
and kindness and purity against the sort of bravery that slashes with a sword, and is
not elevated above the mob by inconvenient reach of thought or beauty of character?
Even now, after nineteen centuries of Christ’s influence have modified the popular
ideals, what chance have they? Are the popular ‘heroes’ of Christian nations saints,
teachers, lovers of men, in whom their Christ-likeness is the thing venerated? The old
saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God receives an instructive
commentary in the vote for Barabbas and against Jesus. That was what a plebiscite
for the discovery of the people’s favourite came to. What a reliable method of finding
the best man universal suffrage, manipulated by wirepullers like these priests, is! and
how wise the people are who let it guide their judgments, or still wiser, who fret their
lives out in angling for its approval! Better be condemned with Jesus than adopted
with Barabbas.
That fatal choice revealed the character of the choosers, both in their hostility and
admiration; for excellence hated shows what we ought to be and are not, and
grossness or vice admired shows what we would fain be if we dared. It was the tragic
sign that Israel had not learned the rudiments of the lesson which ‘at sundry times
and in divers manners’ God had been teaching them. In it the nation renounced its
Messianic hopes, and with its own mouth pronounced its own sentence. It convicted
them of insensibility to the highest truth, of blindness to the most effulgent light, of
ingratitude for the richest gifts. It is the supreme instance of short-lived,
unintelligent emotion, inasmuch as many who on Friday joined in the roar, ‘Crucify
Him!’ had on Sunday shouted ‘Hosanna!’ till they were hoarse.
Pilate plays a cowardly and unrighteous part in the affair, and tries to make amends
to himself for his politic surrender of a man whom he knew to be innocent, by taunts
and sarcasm. He seems to see a chance to release Jesus, if he can persuade the mob
to name Him as the prisoner to be set free, according to custom. His first proposal to
them was apparently dictated by a genuine interest in Jesus, and a complete
conviction that Rome had nothing to fear from this ‘King.’ But there are also in the
question a sneer at such pauper royalty, as it looked to him, and a kind of scornful
condescension in acknowledging the mob’s right of choice. He consults their wishes
for once, but there is haughty consciousness of mastery in his way of doing it. His
appeal is to the people, as against the priests whose motives he had penetrated. But
in his very effort to save Jesus he condemns himself; for, if he knew that they had
delivered Christ for envy, his plain duty was to set the prisoner free, as innocent of
the only crime of which he ought to take cognisance. So his attempt to shift the
responsibility off his own shoulders is a piece of cowardice and a dereliction of duty.
His second question plunges him deeper in the mire. The people had a right to decide
9

10. which was to be released, but none to settle the fate of Jesus. To put that in their
hands was an unconditional surrender by Pilate, and the sneer in ‘whom ye call the
King of the Jews’ is a poor attempt to hide from them and himself that he is afraid of
them. Mark puts his finger on the damning blot in Pilate’s conduct when he says that
his motive for condemning Jesus was his wish to content the people. The life of one
poor Jew was a small price to pay for popularity. So he let policy outweigh
righteousness, and, in spite of his own clear conviction, did an innocent man to
death. That would be his reading of his act, and, doubtless, it did not trouble his
conscience much or long, but he would leave the judgment-seat tolerably satisfied
with his morning’s work. How little he knew what he had done! In his ignorance lies
his palliation. His crime was great, but his guilt is to be measured by his light, and
that was small. He prostituted justice for his own ends, and he did not follow out the
dawnings of light that would have led him to know Jesus. Therefore he did the most
awful thing in the world’s history. Let us learn the lesson which he teaches!
III. The soldiers’ mockery (Mar_15:16 - Mar_15:20).
This is characteristically different from that of the rulers, who jeered at His claim to
supernatural enlightenment, and bade Him show His Messiahship by naming His
smiters. The rough legionaries knew nothing about a Messiah, but it seemed to them
a good jest that this poor, scourged prisoner should have called Himself a King, and
so they proceed to make coarse and clumsy merriment over it. It is like the wild beast
playing with its prey before killing it. The laughter is not only rough, but cruel. There
was no pity for the Victim ‘bleeding from the Roman rods,’ and soon to die. And the
absence of any personal hatred made this mockery more hideous. Jesus was nothing
to them but a prisoner whom they were to crucify, and their mockery was sheer
brutality and savage delight in torturing. The sport is too good to be kept by a few, so
the whole band is gathered to enjoy it. How they would troop to the place! They get
hold of some robe or cloth of the imperial colour, and of some flexible shoots of some
thorny plant, and out of these they fashion a burlesque of royal trappings. Then they
shout, as they would have done to Caesar, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ repeating again
with clumsy iteration the stale jest which seems to them so exquisite. Then their
mood changes, and naked ferocity takes the place of ironical reverence. Plucking the
mock sceptre, the reed, from His passive hand, they strike the thorn-crowned Head
with it, and spit on Him, while they bow in mock reverence before Him, and at last,
when tired of their sport, tear off the purple, and lead him away to the Cross.
If we think of who He was who bore all this, and of why He bore it, we may well bow
not the knee but the heart, in endless love and thankfulness. If we think of the
mockers-rude Roman soldiers, who probably could not understand a word of what
they heard on the streets of Jerusalem-we shall do rightly to remember our Lord’s
own plea for them, ‘they know not what they do,’ and reflect that many of us with
more knowledge do really sin more against the King than they did. Their insult was
an unconscious prophecy. They foretold the basis of His dominion by the crown of
thorns, and its character by the sceptre of reed, and its extent by their mocking
salutations; for His Kingship is founded in suffering, wielded with gentleness, and to
Him every knee shall one day bow, and every tongue confess that the King of the
Jews is monarch of mankind.
BI, "And bound Jesus.
The Lamb of God
It is interesting to observe the remarkable resemblance which is found to exist in
several particulars between the ceremonial of the daily sacrifice of the lamb on the
altar in the Temple and the sacrifice of the true, spotless Lamb of God. After the lamb
had been kept under watch for four days, and had been examined by an inquisition of
10

11. the priests on the evening before, to make sure that it was without spot or blemish, it
was brought forth early in the morning as soon as it was light. At the cockcrow the
altar had been swept clear of ashes to prepare it for the victim. Then “the president
said to the other priests, ‘Go out and see if it be time to slay the lamb.’ If it was, the
observer said, ‘There are bright streaks of light in the east.’ The president asked, ‘Do
they stretch as far as to Hebron?’ If he answered that it was so, then he said, ‘Go ye
and bring the lamb from the prison of the lamb.’” Now, in like manner, on the fourth
day after Jesus had come to Jerusalem to be offered up as “the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world,” when the morning was come after the night
inquisition into the spotlessness of the Lamb of God, He is brought forth from His
prison to he re-examined and ordered to be slain. The lamb of the daily sacrifice,
before being laid on the altar, was bound. “Those priests,” we read, “whose lot it is to
attend to the pieces (with the view of laying them upon the altar) took hold of the
lamb and bound it.” So in the Antitype, “they bound Jesus, and carried Him away.”
Christ is bound when He is in the hands, the power, of men. So is it always with the
world. It desires to have not a free, but a bound Jesus. As the servants covered His
face, so does the world desire to have a not all-seeing God. The world strives to
emancipate itself from the bonds of obedience to the will of God. Let us break, they
say, the bonds which the Lord God and His Christ lay on us; and even the very cords
of love whereby they would draw us, let us cast away. There is a cry for freedom.
Freedom is the most perfect blessing man can have. Freedom from what? Freedom to
do what? Among the many, the desire is to be freed from responsibilities caused by
duty, and to do their own will unrestrained by any obligations. That is, indeed, the
great cry of the day. All duties are irksome, all obligations intolerable. No man can
develop his individuality except in absolute freedom. But at the same time that the
world seeks freedom from the bonds of Christ, it tries to impose bonds on Christ.
Providence is to be bound with laws. Science imposes rules on the Most High, and
lays down principles by which God must act-if there be a God-or science will do
without Him. Prayer is declared to be worthless, because man cannot alter the course
of Nature. God is fettered by self-imposed laws. He is not a free agent. Not only so,
but God’s Church must not be free. It also must be hampered and restricted in every
way-prevented from doing all it may for the cause of Christ. (S. Baring Gould, M. A.)
EBC, "PILATE
"And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the
whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried Him away, and
delivered Him up to Pilate."
". . . And they lead Him out to crucify Him." Mar_15:1-20 (R.V.)
WITH morning came the formal assembly, which St. Mark dismisses in a single
verse. It was indeed a disgraceful mockery. Before the trial began its members had
prejudged the case, passed sentence by anticipation, and abandoned Jesus, as one
condemned, to the brutality of their servants. And now the spectacle of a prisoner
outraged and maltreated moves no indignation in their hearts.
Let us, for whom His sufferings were endured, reflect upon the strain and anguish of
all these repeated examinations, these foregone conclusions gravely adopted in the
name of justice, these exhibitions of greed for blood. Among the "unknown
sufferings" by which the Eastern Church invokes her Lord, surely not the least was
His outraged moral sense.
As the issue of it all, they led Him away to Pilate, meaning, by the weight of such an
accusing array, to overpower any possible scruples of the governor, but in fact
11

12. fulfilling His words, "they shall deliver Him unto the Gentiles." And the first question
recorded by St. Mark expresses the intense surprise of Pilate. "Thou," so meek, so
unlike the numberless conspirators that I have tried, -- or perhaps, "Thou," Whom
no sympathizing multitude sustains, and for Whose death the disloyal priesthood
thirsts, "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" We know how carefully Jesus disentangled
His claim from the political associations which the high priests intended that it
should suggest, how the King of Truth would not exaggerate any more than
understate the case, and explained that His kingdom was not of this world, that His
servants did not fight, that His royal function was to uphold the truth, not to expel
conquerors. The eyes of a practiced Roman governor saw through the accusation very
clearly. Before him, Jesus was accused of sedition, but that was a transparent pretext;
Jews did not hate Him for enmity to Rome: He was a rival teacher and a successful
one, and for envy they had delivered Him. So far all was well. Pilate investigated the
charge, arrived at the correct judgment, and it only remained that he should release
the innocent man. In reaching this conclusion Jesus had given him the most prudent
and skillful help, but as soon as the facts became clear, He resumed His impressive
and mysterious silence. Thus, before each of His judges in turn, Jesus avowed
Himself the Messiah and then held His peace. It was an awful silence, which would
not give that which was holy to the dogs, nor profane the truth by unavailing protests
or controversies. It was, however, a silence only possible to an exalted nature full of
self-control, since the words actually spoken redeem it from any suspicion or stain of
sullenness. It is the conscience of Pilate which must henceforth speak. The Romans
were the lawgivers of the ancient world, and a few years earlier their greatest poet
had boasted that their mission was to spare the helpless and to crush the proud. In
no man was an act of deliberate injustice, or complaisance to the powerful at the cost
of the good, more unpardonable than in a leader of that splendid race, whose laws
are still the favorite study of those who frame and administer our own. And the
conscience of Pilate struggled hard, aided by superstitious fear. The very silence of
Jesus amid many charges, by none of which His accusers would stand or fall, excited
the wonder of His judge. His wife’s dream aided the effect. And he was still more
afraid when he heard that this strange and elevated Personage, so unlike any other
prisoner whom he had ever tried, laid claim to be Divine. Thus even in his desire to
save Jesus, his motive was not pure, it was rather an instinct of self-preservation
than a sense of justice. But there was danger on the other side as well; since he had
already incurred the imperial censure, he could not without grave apprehensions
contemplate a fresh complaint, and would certainly be ruined if he were accused of
releasing a conspirator against Caesar. And accordingly he stooped to mean and
crooked ways, he lost hold of the only clue in the perplexing labyrinth of
expediencies, which is principle, and his name in the creed of Christendom is spoken
with a shudder --: crucified under Pontius Pilate!"
It was the time for him to release a prisoner to them, according to an obscure
custom, which some suppose to have sprung from the release of one of the two
sacrificial goats, and others from the fact that they now celebrated their own
deliverance from Egypt. At this moment the people began to demand their usual
indulgence, and an evil hope arose in the heart of Pilate. They would surely welcome
One who was in danger as a patriot: he would himself make the offer; and he would
put it in this tempting form, "Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?"
Thus would the enmity of the priests be gratified, since Jesus would henceforth be a
condemned culprit, and owe His life to their intercession with the foreigner. But the
proposal was a surrender. The life of Jesus had not been forfeited; and when it was
placed at their discretion, it was already lawlessly taken away. Moreover, when the
offer was rejected, Jesus was in the place of a culprit who would not be released. To
the priests, nevertheless, it was a dangerous proposal, and they needed to stir up the
12

13. people, or perhaps Barabbas would not have been preferred.
Instigated by their natural guides, their religious teachers, these Jews made the
tremendous choice, which has ever since been heavy on their heads and on their
children’s. Yet if ever an error could be excused by the plea of authority, and the duty
of submission to constituted leaders, it was this error. They followed men who sat in
Moses’ seat, and who were thus entitled, according to Jesus Himself, to be obeyed.
Yet that authority has not relieved the Hebrew nation from the wrath which came
upon them to the uttermost. The salvation they desire was not moral elevation or
spiritual life, and so Jesus had nothing to bestow upon them; they refused the Holy
One and the Just. What they wanted was the world, the place which Rome held, and
which they fondly hoped was yet to be their own. Even to have failed in the pursuit of
this was better than to have the words of everlasting life, and so the name of
Barabbas was enough to secure the rejection of Christ. It would almost seem that
Pilate was ready to release both, if that would satisfy them, for he asks, in hesitation
and perplexity, "What shall I do then with Him Whom ye call the King of the Jews?"
Surely in their excitement for an insurgent, that title, given by themselves, will awake
their pity. But again and again, like the howl of wolves, resounds their ferocious cry,
Crucify Him, crucify Him.
The irony of Providence is known to every student of history, but it never was so
manifest as here. Under the pressure of circumstances upon men whom principle has
not made firm, we find a Roman governor striving to kindle every disloyal passion of
his subjects, on behalf of the King of the Jews, -- appealing to men whom he hated
and despised, and whose charges have proved empty as chaff, to say, What evil has
He done? and even to tell him, on his judgment throne, what he shall do with their
King; we find the men who accused Jesus of stirring up the people to sedition, now
shamelessly agitating for the release of a red-handed insurgent; forced moreover to
accept the responsibility which they would fain have devolved on Pilate, and
themselves to pronounce the hateful sentence of crucifixion, unknown to their law,
but for which they had secretly intrigued; and we find the multitude fiercely
clamoring for a defeated champion of brute force, whose weapon has snapped in his
hands, who has led his followers to the cross, and from whom there is no more to
hope. What satire upon their hope of a temporal Messiah could be more bitter than
their own cry, "We have no king but Caesar"? And what satire upon this profession
more destructive than their choice of Barabbas and refusal of Christ? And all the
while, Jesus looks on in silence, carrying out His mournful but effectual plan, the
true Master of the movements which design to crush Him, and which He has
foretold. As He ever receives gifts for the rebellious, and is the Savior of all men,
though especially of them that believe, so now His passion, which retrieved the erring
soul of Peter, and won the penitent thief, rescues Barabbas from the cross. His
suffering was made visibly vicarious.
One is tempted to pity the feeble judge, the only person who is known to have
attempted to rescue Jesus, beset by his old faults, which will make an impeachment
fatal, wishing better than he dares to act, hesitating, sinking inch by inch, and like a
bird with broken wing. No accomplice in this frightful crime is so suggestive of
warning to hearts not entirely hardened.
But pity is lost in sterner emotion as we remember that this wicked governor, having
borne witness to the perfect innocence of Jesus, was content, in order to save himself
from danger, to watch the Blessed One enduring all the horrors of a Roman
scourging, and then to yield Him up to die.
It is now the unmitigated cruelty of ancient paganism which has closed its hand upon
our Lord. When the soldiers led Him away within the court, He was lost to His
13

14. nation, which had renounced Him. It is upon this utter alienation, even more than
the locality where the cross was fixed, that the Epistle to the Hebrews turns our
attention, when it reminds us that "the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought
into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned without the
camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own
blood, suffered without the gate." The physical exclusion, the material parallel points
to something deeper, for the inference is that of estrangement. Those who serve the
tabernacle cannot eat of our altar. Let us go forth unto Him, bearing His reproach.
(Heb_12:10-13).
Renounced by Israel, and about to become a curse under the law, He has now to
suffer the cruelty of wantonness, as He has already endured the cruelty of hatred and
fear. Now, more than ever perhaps, He looks for pity and there is no man. None
responded to the deep appeal of the eyes which had never seen misery without
relieving it. The contempt of the strong for the weak and suffering, of coarse natures
for sensitive ones, of Romans for Jews, all these were blended with bitter scorn of the
Jewish expectation that some day Rome shall bow before a Hebrew conqueror, in the
mockery which Jesus now underwent, when they clad Him in such cast-off purple as
the Palace yielded, thrust a reed into His pinioned hand, crowned Him with thorns,
beat these into His holy head with the scepter they had offered Him, and then
proceeded to render the homage of their nation to the Messiah of Jewish hopes. It
may have been this mockery which suggested to Pilate the inscription for the cross.
But where is the mockery now? In crowning Him King of sufferings, and Royal
among those who weep, they secured to Him the adherence of all hearts. Christ was
made perfect by the things which He suffered; and it was not only in spite of insult
and anguish but by means of them that He drew all men unto Him.
2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
GILL, "And Pilate asked him, art thou the king of the Jews?.... Which either
he had heard before that it was said by him, and his followers; or was what the Jews
now suggested to him as his crime, which they desired sentence of death might pass
upon him:
and he answering, said unto him, thou sayest it; which is all one as if he had
said, I am; See Gill on Mat_26:25; for so he was in a sense, in which he explained
himself to Pilate's satisfaction, Joh_18:36; See Gill on Mat_27:11.
HENRY, "III. The examining of him by Pilate upon interrogatories (Mar_15:2);
“Art thou the king of the Jews? Dost thou pretend to be so, to be that Messiah whom
the Jews expect as a temporal prince?” - “Yea,” saith Christ, “it is as thou sayest, I am
that Messiah, but not such a one as they expect.” He is the king that rules and
protects his Israel according to the spirit, who are Jews inwardly by the circumcision
14

15. of the spirit, and the king that will restrain and punish the carnal Jews, who continue
in unbelief.
BENSON, "Mark 15:2-5. Pilate asked him, Art thou the king of the Jews? —
These verses are explained in the notes on Matthew 27:11-14. But Jesus yet
answered nothing — This is not an accurate translation of the original, (which is,
ουκετι ουδεν απεκριθη,) implying, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, “that he had
answered nothing to the former question, the reverse of which is the fact, as
appears, Mark 15:2. All the Latin translators say rightly, Nihil amplius
respondit, he answered nothing more, or what is manifestly equivalent. All the
foreign translations give the same sense. Yet, to show how difficult it is to
preserve a uniform attention, and how liable at times even judicious persons are
to run blindfold into the errors of their predecessors; it may be observed, that
Wesley is the only modern translator who has escaped a blunder not more
repugnant to the fact, as recorded in the verses immediately preceding, than
contradictory to the import of the Greek expression here used. His version is,
Answered nothing any more. The rest without exception say, Still answered
nothing, or words to that purpose. Yet, in the translation commonly used in
Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the sense was truly exhibited, Answered no more at
all.”
COFFMAN, "There were many details Mark omitted, such as the other charges,
which the Sanhedrin alleged against Jesus, these being: that he perverted the
nation, stirred up the country all the way to Galilee, etc. Mark remembered that
Pilate here focused on their charge that Jesus was making himself King. Mark
omitted the event of Pilate's sending Jesus to Herod.
Art thou the King of the Jews ... The deceit of the Sanhedrin was never more
diabolical than here. The popular and erroneous conceit that the divine Messiah
would be a literal King of Israel was their allegation, not that of Jesus. It was
precisely because our Lord would not consent to be such a King that they so
thoroughly hated him. If our Lord had accepted such a view of his Messiahship,
the Sanhedrin would have supported him and aided him in every possible
manner against the Romans.
Pilate's question centered upon the charge of greatest interest to the governor
who was charged with protecting Caesar's interests. Jesus' reply has the effect of
"Yes, I am the King of the Jews, but not in the sense meant by the accusers."
Pilate accepted Jesus' answer as proof of his innocence.
BURKITT, "It is very observable, how readily our Saviour answers before
Pilate; Pilate said, Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered, Thou sayest it;
or, it is as thou sayest. But to all the accusations of the chief priests, and to all
that they falsely laid to his charge before Pilate, our Saviour answered never a
word. He answered Pilate, but would not answer the chief priests a word before
Pilate, probably for these reasons, because his innocency was such as needed no
apology; because their calumnies and accusations were so notoriously false, that
they needed no confutation: to shew his contempt of death, and teach us, by his
example, to despise the false accusations of malicious men, and to learn us
15

16. patience and submission, when for his sake we are slandered and traduced; for
these reasons our Saviour was a deaf man, not answering the calumnies of the
chief priests; but when Pilate asks him a question, which our Saviour knew that
a direct answer to would cost him his life, Art thou the king of the Jews? He
replies, I am.
Hence, says the apostle, that Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good
confession 1 Timothy 6:13. Teaching us, That although we may, and sometimes
ought to hold our peace, when our own reputation is concerned, yet must we
never be silent when the honour of God and his truth may effectually be
promoted by a full confession: For, says Christ, whosoever denies me before
man, him will I deny in the presence of my Father, and before all his holy angels.
CONSTABLE, "Pilate had absolute authority over Jesus' fate under Roman law.
Customarily trials such as this one took place in public. [Note: Grassmick, p.
185.] They also took place "as soon after dawn as possible because the working
day of a Roman official began at the earliest hour of daylight." [Note: Lane, p.
549.] First, the plaintiffs or accusers made their charges against the defendant.
Then the prosecutor, in this case Pilate, examined the defendant who could speak
in his own defense, and he heard the testimony of any witnesses. Next, the
prosecutor consulted with his legal advisers and finally pronounced his verdict.
The execution of the sentence followed immediately. [Note: Grassmick, p. 185.]
Pilate's question shows that the Jews had charged Jesus with claiming to be a
king. Claiming to be a king was tantamount to treason against Caesar and was a
capital offense. Jesus admitted that He was the King of the Jews, but He implied
that He was a different kind of king than Pilate thought (cf. Matthew 27:11).
John wrote that Pilate discussed the nature of Jesus' kingship with Him further
and concluded that Jesus was not guilty of treason (John 18:34-38).
3 The chief priests accused him of many things.
GILL, "And the chief priests accused him of many things,.... As that he was
a magician, and a blasphemer, and gave out that he was the Son of God; and that he
made himself a king, and even forbad the people to give tribute to Caesar, and moved
discord, sedition, and rebellion throughout the land;
but he answered nothing. This clause is wanting in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac,
Arabic, and Persic versions; but is in the Greek text of the Complutensian edition,
and in the Ethiopic version, and agrees with Mat_27:12; see Gill on Mat_27:12.
HENRY, "IV. The articles of impeachment exhibited against him, and his silence
under the charge and accusation. The chief priests forgot the dignity of their place,
when they turned informers, and did in person accuse Christ of many things (Mar_
15:3), and witness against him, Mar_15:4. Many of the Old Testament prophets
16

17. charge the priests of their times with great wickedness, in which well did they
prophesy of these priests; see Eze_22:26; Hos_5:1; Hos_6:9; Mic_3:11; Zep_3:4;
Mal_1:6; Mal_2:8. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans is said to be for
the iniquity of the priests that shed the blood of the just, Lam_4:13. Note, Wicked
priests are generally the worst of men. The better any thing is, the worse it is when it
is corrupted. Lay persecutors have been generally found more compassionate than
ecclesiastics. These priests were very eager and noisy in their accusation; but Christ
answered nothing, Mar_15:3. When Pilate urged him to clear himself, and was
desirous he should (Mar_15:4), yet still he stood mute (Mar_15:5), he answered
nothing, which Pilate thought very strange. He gave Pilate a direct answer (Mar_
15:2), but would not answer the prosecutors and witnesses, because the things they
alleged, were notoriously false, and he knew Pilate himself was convinced they were
so. Note, As Christ spoke to admiration, so he kept silence to admiration.
CONSTABLE, "Verses 3-5
The chief priests, speaking for the Sanhedrin, brought many other charges
against Jesus, some of which Luke mentioned (cf. Luke 23:2). Jesus' failure to
defend Himself against so many accusations amazed Pilate (cf. Isaiah 53:7).
Ironically Pilate himself declared who Jesus was with his inscription over His
cross: the king of the Jews (Mark 15:28). Jesus did not need to tell Pilate who he
was. Pilate was going to give Him His proper title anyway. This is another
indication of Jesus' authority in the political realm. [Note: Edwards, p. 224.]
Mark used a double negative in the Greek text (ouketi ouden) to describe Jesus'
absolute silence. In English two negatives make a positive, but in Greek two
negatives strengthen the force of the negative. Mark recorded Jesus replying
only briefly to Caiaphas (Mark 14:62) and to Pilate. This is consistent with
Mark's emphasis on Jesus as the Servant of the Lord.
Only Luke recorded that Pilate now sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, who was also
in Jerusalem for the feast, since Jesus was a Galilean and Herod ruled over
Galilee (Luke 23:6-12). Herod then sent Jesus back to Pilate.
BI, "But He answered nothing.
The silence of our Lord
From our Lord’s sublime silence we may learn-
1. That the manifestation of anger and temper is inconsistent with a Christian
spirit. Again, anger is said to rest “in the bosom of fools,” a mortifying fact, which
should be a corrective to this tendency. Socrates, when kicked by a profligate
person, said to those who would have him retaliate, “Had an ass kicked me,
would you have me kick back in return?” It requires no intellect to be angry. It is
rather a sign of mulishness. You give an advantage to your adversary. Men get the
fruit of the cocoanut tree by exasperating the monkeys that live among the
branches, so that the animals hurl down the fruit. The assailants keep up the
altercation until their end is gained and their baskets are full. But to be patient is
to be godlike. Here, then, are two mirrors. In which is your face reflected? Are
you easily irritated, or are you able to patiently stand, like your Lord, answering
not a word?
17

18. 2. No one grace more glorifies God than the spirit shown in the silence of Christ.
The following incident is related of that eminent minister, Dr. Hopkins: A
brother-in-law who was a sceptic, said that his pious kinsman would bear
exasperating circumstances no better than anyone else, and, to try him, stated to
him some facts peculiarly aggravating. Dr. H. went away very angry, and the
remark was made, “I told you so.” The night, however, was spent in prayer, and
with the morning Dr. H. came and confessed his sin of unholy passion,
whereupon his brother was deeply affected, and admitted that this was a spirit
which he did not possess. The infidel was led to re-examine the grounds on which
he stood. He became a humble follower of Christ and a minister of the gospel. But
the objector says, I cannot control myself: what is the remedy? In general, we
may answer, Watch and pray. God will do His part, we must do ours. More
specifically: Keep yourself from temptations. Again, your physical condition is to
be cared for. Late hours, bad ventilation, and improper diet affect the temper. If
you eat mince pie, fruit cake, and lobster salad at night, you will have dyspepsia,
If you have dyspepsia, you will be cross. Think, again, how belittling to you are
these spurts of ill-temper, and let it shame you. Think, too, how trivial are these
annoyances, and how transitory life is. Look at Christ, whose whole nature was
sweet to the depths of His being, and so was not obliged continually to curb the
risings of unholy emotion. Commit your cause unto Him who judgeth
righteously, and answer not a word. (American Homiletic Review.)
4 So again Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going
to answer? See how many things they are
accusing you of.”
GILL, "But He answered nothing.
The silence of our Lord
From our Lord’s sublime silence we may learn-
1. That the manifestation of anger and temper is inconsistent with a Christian
spirit. Again, anger is said to rest “in the bosom of fools,” a mortifying fact, which
should be a corrective to this tendency. Socrates, when kicked by a profligate
person, said to those who would have him retaliate, “Had an ass kicked me,
would you have me kick back in return?” It requires no intellect to be angry. It is
rather a sign of mulishness. You give an advantage to your adversary. Men get the
fruit of the cocoanut tree by exasperating the monkeys that live among the
branches, so that the animals hurl down the fruit. The assailants keep up the
altercation until their end is gained and their baskets are full. But to be patient is
to be godlike. Here, then, are two mirrors. In which is your face reflected? Are
you easily irritated, or are you able to patiently stand, like your Lord, answering
not a word?
2. No one grace more glorifies God than the spirit shown in the silence of Christ.
The following incident is related of that eminent minister, Dr. Hopkins: A
18

19. brother-in-law who was a sceptic, said that his pious kinsman would bear
exasperating circumstances no better than anyone else, and, to try him, stated to
him some facts peculiarly aggravating. Dr. H. went away very angry, and the
remark was made, “I told you so.” The night, however, was spent in prayer, and
with the morning Dr. H. came and confessed his sin of unholy passion,
whereupon his brother was deeply affected, and admitted that this was a spirit
which he did not possess. The infidel was led to re-examine the grounds on which
he stood. He became a humble follower of Christ and a minister of the gospel. But
the objector says, I cannot control myself: what is the remedy? In general, we
may answer, Watch and pray. God will do His part, we must do ours. More
specifically: Keep yourself from temptations. Again, your physical condition is to
be cared for. Late hours, bad ventilation, and improper diet affect the temper. If
you eat mince pie, fruit cake, and lobster salad at night, you will have dyspepsia,
If you have dyspepsia, you will be cross. Think, again, how belittling to you are
these spurts of ill-temper, and let it shame you. Think, too, how trivial are these
annoyances, and how transitory life is. Look at Christ, whose whole nature was
sweet to the depths of His being, and so was not obliged continually to curb the
risings of unholy emotion. Commit your cause unto Him who judgeth
righteously, and answer not a word. (American Homiletic Review.)
HENRY, "
JAMIESON, "
COFFMAN, "There was an extensive interview between Jesus and Pilate
recorded by John, but omitted here, the extreme likelihood of just such an
occurrence adding corroboration to John's account. In John's Gospel, it is clear
why Jesus answered nothing. First of all, it was unnecessary in the light of all
absence of any proof of the Sanhedrin's charges and the further fact that Herod
too had agreed upon Jesus' innocence. In the second place, Pilate was of a strong
mind to have released Jesus, and there is no doubt that Christ could easily have
persuaded him to do so. Also, he could have performed one little miracle and
have scared the wits out of the pagan governor. Here, more than anywhere else,
the act of Jesus laying down his life of his own accord is in view.
5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was
amazed.
GILL, "But Jesus yet answered nothing,.... He still continued silent, and made
no defence for himself, which the governor was willing to give him an opportunity to
make, and, as his friend, urged him to it:
19

20. so that Pilate marvelled; what should be the meaning of his silence, when he was
so capable of defending himself, and was so innocent, as Pilate himself was ready to
believe; and yet the things he was charged with were of, the highest nature, and by
persons of the greatest figure in the nation; so that his silence exposed him to a great
deal of danger, which Pilate thought might easily be avoided by answering for
himself; See Gill on Mat_27:14.
6 Now it was the custom at the festival to release
a prisoner whom the people requested.
GILL, "Now at that feast,.... The feast of the passover, which was at that instant;
see Joh_18:39. The Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, "at every
feast"; as if the following custom was used at every feast in the year, at the feasts of
pentecost and tabernacles, as well as at the passover; whereas it was only at the
latter:
he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired; of this
custom See Gill on Mat_27:15.
BARCLAY, "THE CHOICE OF THE MOB (Mark 15:6-15)
15:6-15 At the time of the Feast, it was the custom for the governor to release to
the people a prisoner, whom they were accustomed to choose. There was a man
called Barabbas, confined with the revolutionaries, who had committed murder
during the insurrection. The crowd approached Pilate's judgment seat and
began to request that he should carry out the customary procedure for them.
Pilate answered, "Do you wish me to release to you the King of the Jews?" For
he knew that the chief priests had handed him over to him through sheer malice.
The chief priests stirred up the mob to demand the release of Barabbas all the
more. Pilate again asked them, "What shall I do to the man you call the King of
the Jews?" Again they shrieked, "Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "What
harm has he done?" They shrieked the more vehemently, "Crucify him!" Pilate
wished to please the mob, and he released Barabbas for them, and, when he had
scourged Jesus, he handed him over to them to be crucified.
Of Barabbas we know nothing other than what we read in the gospel story. He
was not a thief, he was a brigand. He was no petty pilferer but a bandit, and
there must have been a rough audacity about him that appealed to the crowd.
Perhaps we may guess what he was. Palestine was filled with insurrections. It
was an inflammable land. In particular there was one group of Jews called the
Sicarii (Greek #4607), which means the dagger-bearers, who were violent,
fanatical nationalists. They were pledged to murder and assassination. They
carried their daggers beneath their cloaks and used them as they could. It is very
likely that Barabbas was a man like that, and, thug though he was, he was a
brave man, a patriot according to his lights, and it is understandable that he was
popular with the mob.
20

21. People have always felt it a mystery that less than a week after the crowd were
shouting a welcome when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, they were now shrieking for
his crucifixion. There is no real mystery. The reason is quite simply that this was
a different crowd. Think of the arrest. It was deliberately secret. True, the
disciples fled and must have spread the news, but they could not have known
that the Sanhedrin was going to violate its own laws and carry out a travesty of a
trial by night. There can have been very few of Jesus' supporters in that crowd.
Who then were there? Think again. The crowd knew that there was this custom
whereby a prisoner was released at the Passover time. It may well be that this
was a crowd which had assembled with the deliberate intention of demanding
the release of Barabbas. They were in fact a mob of Barabbas' supporters. When
they saw the possibility that Jesus might be released and not Barabbas they went
mad. To the chief priests this was a heaven-sent opportunity. Circumstances had
played into their hands. They fanned the popular clamour for Barabbas and
found it easy, for it was the release of Barabbas that that crowd had come to
claim. It was not that the crowd was fickle. It was that it was a different crowd.
Nonetheless, they had a choice to make. Confronted with Jesus and Barabbas,
they chose Barabbas.
(i) They chose lawlessness instead of law. They chose the law-breaker instead of
Jesus. One of the New Testament words for sin is anomia (Greek #458), which
means lawlessness. In the human heart there is a streak which resents law, which
desires to do as it likes, which wants to smash the confining barriers and kick
over the traces and refuse all discipline. There is something of that in every man.
Kipling makes the old soldier say in Mandalay:
"Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the
worst,
Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a
thirst."
There are times when most of us wish there were no Ten Commandments. The
mob was the representative of men when it chose lawlessness instead of law.
(ii) They chose war instead of peace. they chose the man of blood instead of the
Prince of Peace. In almost three thousand years of history there have been less
than one hundred and thirty years where there has not been a war raging
somewhere. Men in their incredible folly have persisted in trying to settle things
by war which settles nothing. The mob were doing what men have so often done
when they chose the warrior and rejected the man of peace.
(iii) They chose hatred and violence instead of love. Barabbas and Jesus stood for
two different ways. Barabbas stood for the heart of hate, the stab of the dagger,
21

22. the violence of bitterness. Jesus stood for the way of love. As so often has
happened, hate reigned supreme in the hearts of men, and love was rejected.
Men insisted on taking their own way to conquest, and refused to see that the
only true conquest was the conquest of love.
There can be hidden tragedy in a word. "When he had scourged him" is one
word in the Greek. The Roman scourge was a terrible thing. The criminal was
bent and bound in such a way that his back was exposed. The scourge was a long
leathern thong, studded here and there with sharpened pieces of lead and bits of
bone. It literally tore a man's back to ribbons. Sometimes it tore a man's eye out.
Some men died under it. Some men emerged from the ordeal raving mad. Few
retained consciousness through it. That is what they inflicted on Jesus.
BENSON, "Mark 15:6-10. Now at that feast he released unto them one
prisoner — The passover being celebrated by the Jews in memory of their
deliverance from Egypt, it was agreeable to the nature of the feast to make this
release at that time, and therefore customary. See Whitby, and note on Matthew
27:15-18. There was one named Barabbas, bound with them that had made
insurrection — A crime which the Roman governors, and Pilate in particular,
were more especially concerned and careful to punish; who had committed
murder in the insurrection — He seems to have been the head of the rebels. The
multitude, crying aloud, &c. — Greek, αναβοησας ο οχλος ηρξατο αιτεισθαι,
With great clamour, the multitude demanded of Pilate what he used to grant
them. So Campbell. But Pilate answered, Will ye that I release unto you the King
of the Jews? — If Pilate made this proposal with a view to preserve the life of
Jesus, it is hard to say which he discovers most, his want of justice, or of courage,
or of common sense. While in a most mean and cowardly manner he sacrifices
justice to popular clamour, he enrages those whom he seeks to appease, by
unseasonably repeating that title, The King of the Jews, which he could not but
know was highly offensive to them. For he knew that the chief priests had
delivered him — To be put to death, not from a regard to justice, but merely for
envy at his popularity and goodness; and that these things, and no crime of his,
either real or suspected, had made them his enemies. Pilate ought, therefore,
certainly rather to have lost his own life than to have delivered Jesus to their
will. See note on Matthew 27:24-25.
LIGHTFOOT, "[At that feast he released, &c.] The Syriac reads,...; and so the
Arab, every feast: Beza, at each of the feasts, which pleases me not at all. For it is
plainly said by Pilate himself, "that I should release unto you one at the
Passover," John 18:39: and the releasing of a prisoner suits not so well to the
other feasts as to the Passover; because the Passover carries with it the memory
of the release of the people out of Egypt: but other feasts had other
respects...according to the nature and quality of the feast, which was a
monument of release...
BURKITT, "Now at that feast, that is, at the feast of the passover, which by way
of eminency is called the feast, the governor used to release a prisoner; possibly
by way of memorial of their deliverance out of Egypt; accordingly Pilate makes a
motion that Christ may be the prisoner set at liberty in honour of their feast; for
22

23. he was sensible that what they did was out of envy and malice.
Observe here, 1. What were the sins which immediately occasion the death of
Christ; they were covetousness and envy. Covetousness caused Judas to sell him
to the chief priests, and envy caused the chief priests to deliver him up to Pilate
to crucify him. Envy is a killing and murdering passion; Envy slayeth the silly
one Job 5:2, That is, it slayeth the silly person who harbours this petilent lust in
his breast and bosom; being like a fire in his bones, continually preying upon his
spirits; and it is also the occasion of slaying many an holy and innocent person;
for who can stand before envy? The person envying wishes the envied out of his
way, yea, out of the world; and if need be, will not only wish it, but lend a lift
upon occasion towards it also. Witness the chief priests here, whose envy was so
conspicuous and barefaced, that Pilate himself takes notice of it; he knew that
the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
Observe, 2. How unwilling, how very unwilling, Pilate was to be the instrument
of our Saviour's death. One while he expostulates with the chief priests, saying,
What evil hath he done? Another while he bids him while he bids them, Take
him, and judge him according to their law. Nay St. Luke says, that Pilate came
forth three several times, professing, That he found no fault in him, Luke 23.
From whence note, That hypocrites within the visible church may be guilty of
such tremendous acts of wickedness, as the consciences of infidels and pagans
without the church may boggle at, and protest against. Pilate a pagan, absolves
Christ, whilst the hypocritical Jews, that heard his doctrine, and saw his
miracles, do condemn him.
Observe, lastly, How Pilate suffers himself to be overcome with the Jews
importunity, and, contrary to the light of his own reason and judgment, delivers
the holy and innocent Jesus, first to be scourged, and then crucified, It is a vain
apology for sin, when persons pretend that it was not committed with their own
consent, but at the instigation and importunity of others; such is the frame and
constitution of man's soul, that none can make him either wicked or miserable
without his own consent. Pilate, willing to content the people, When he had
scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.
Here observe, That as the death of the cross was a Roman punishment, so it was
the manner of the Romans first to whip their malefactors and then crucify them.
Now the manner of the Romans scourging is said to be thus: "They stripped the
condemned person, and bound him to a post; two strong men first scourged him
with rods of thorns, then two others scourged him with whips of cords full of
knots, and last of all two more with whips of wire, and therewith tore off the very
flesh and skin from the malefactor's back and sides."
That our blessed Saviour was thus cruely scourged by Pilate's command, seems
to some not improbable, from that of the psalmist, The ploughers ploughed upon
my back, and made long furrows Psalms 129:3 : which if spoken prophetically of
Christ, was literally fulfilled in the day of his scourging. But why was the
precious and tender body of our holy Lord thus galled, rent, and torn with
23

24. scourging? Doubtless to fulfil that prophecy, I gave my back to the smiters, and
my cheeks to them that pluck off the hair; that by his stripes we might be healed
Isaiah 50:6;
and from his example, learn, Not to think it strange, if we find ourselves
scourged with the tongue, with the hand, or with both, when we see our dear
Redeemer bleeding by stripes and scourges before our eyes.
CONSTABLE, "Evidently this custom served to improve relations between the
Roman ruler and his subjects. Dictatorial governments such as Rome sometimes
imprison popular rebel leaders. The Roman governor of Egypt practiced a
similar custom. [Note: Taylor, p. 580.]
"Amnesties at festival times are known in many parts of the world and in
various periods." [Note: S. E. Johnson, A Commentary on the Gospel According
to St. Mark, p. 249.]
"Two forms of amnesty existed in Roman law, the abolitio or acquittal of a
prisoner not yet condemned, and the indulgentia, or pardoning of one already
condemned. What Pilate intended in the case of Jesus, who at this stage of the
proceedings had not yet been sentenced by the court, was clearly the first form."
[Note: Lane, p. 552.]
"The historicity of the paschal amnesty has been disputed often, primarily
because Josephus offers no evidence that such a custom ever existed. There is,
however, a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate
could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the
populace." [Note: Ibid., pp. 552-53.]
BI, "He released unto them one prisoner whomsoever they desired.
Barabbas or Christ
It affords the most vivid illustration in the New Testament of just two great moral
lessons: Pilate’s behaviour shows the wicked wrong of indecision, and the chief
priests’ choice of Barabbas’ release shows the utter rain of a wrong decision. These
will become apparent, each in its turn, as we study the story.
I. Earliest of all, let us group together the incidents of the history, so that their order
may be seen.
1. Observe the rapid action of the priests (Mar_15:1). It must have been very late
on Thursday night when the great council finished the condemnation of Jesus.
But the moment that was over, the priests hurried Him at dawn into the presence
of the Roman governor. Their feet ran to evil, and they made haste to shed
innocent blood (Isa_59:7).
2. Now comes the providential moment for Pilate. For the wisdom of God so
orders it that this man shall be able to meet his tremendous responsibility
unembarrassed by a mob for his audience. These zealots, like all creatures who
have the form of godliness but deny the power thereof, are so emphatically pious
that even in the midst of murder they pause on a punctilio; they will not enter the
judgment hall lest they should be so defiled that they could not eat the passover
(Joh_18:28). This left Pilate the chance calmly to converse with Jesus alone.
3. Then succeeds the pitiable period of subterfuge which always follows a shirked
24

25. duty. Convinced of our Lord’s innocence, Pilate proposed that his official
authority should just be counted out in this matter. He bade the chief priests take
their prisoner themselves, and deal with Him as they pleased. To this he received
a reply which showed their savage animosity, and at the same instant disclosed
the use they meant to make of his power. They cried out that the only reason why
they had consulted him at all was found in the unlawfulness of killing a man
without due form of procedure (Joh_18:30-31).
4. Next to this is recorded the attempt of the governor to shift his responsibility.
Pilate learned from the mere chance use of a word that Jesus was from Galilee;
and as this province was in the jurisdiction of Herod, the titular monarch of the
Jews, he sent his prisoner under a guard over to the other palace (Luk_23:7). The
king was quite glad to see this Nazarene prophet, and tried to get Him to work a
miracle, but did not succeed in evoking so much as a word from His lips (Isa_
53:7). But before the return, he put a slight on Jesus’ kingly claims, so that Pilate
might know how much in derision he held them. The soldiers mocked Him,
arraying Him in a gorgeous robe, and then led Him back into the presence of the
governor again.
5. At his wits’ end, Pilate at last proposes a compromise. He remembered that
there was a custom, lately brought over from Italy into Palestine, of freeing
someone of the State’s prisoners every year at Passover as a matter of
proconsular clemency (Mar_15:6). He offered to let Jesus go under this rule.
Such a procedure would be equivalent to pronouncing him technically a criminal,
but thus His life would be spared. But the subtle priests put the people up to
refuse this favour flatly.
6. The governor’s wife now meets him with a warning from a dream. He had
returned to the judgment seat, and was just about to pronounce the decision. His
wife interrupted: “Have thou nothing to do with that just man” (Mat_27:19). This
threw Pilate into a frantic irresolution once more. A second time he left the room,
and went forth to reason and expostulate with the infuriated crowd at the door.
With renewed urgency he pressed upon their consideration the half-threat that
he would let loose on them this wretch Barabbas, if they persisted in demanding
Jesus’ death (Luk_23:18). This only exasperated them the more.
7. Finally, this bewildered judge gave his reluctant consent to their clamours. But
in the act of condemnation he did the foolishest thing of all he did that awful day.
He took water and washed his hands before the mob, declaring thus that he was
innocent of the blood of the just person he was delivering up to their spite (Mat_
27:24).
II. So we reach the crisis of events in the spiritual career of that ruler and of that
nation.
1. Observe the singular picture. It is all in one verse of the Scripture (Mar_15:15).
Two men, now in the same moment, appear in public on the steps of the
Praetorium: Jesus and Barabbas. One of them was the Son of God, the Saviour of
men. “Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe.
And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!” (Joh_19:5). Art has tried to
reproduce this scene. Dore has painted the whole of it; Guido Reni has painted
the head with thorns around the forehead. Others have made similar attempts
according to their fancy or their ability. It is a spectacle which attracts and
discourages. Beyond them all, however, lies the fact which each Christian will be
likely to fashion before his own imagination. Jesus comes forth with His reed and
His robe: Ecce Homo! Barabbas alongside! This creature has never been a
favourite with artists. He was a paltry wretch any way, thrust up into a fictitious
25

26. importance by the supreme occasion. We suppose him to have been quite a
commonplace impostor. Bar means son; Abba, which some interpret as father.
Very likely he chose his own name as a false Messiah, “Son of the Father;” indeed,
some of the ancient manuscripts call him “Jesus Barabbas.” He does not poise
picturesquely; look at him!
2. The moral of this scene turns upon the wilful choice made between these two
leaders, the real and the pretended Christ. Now let it be said here that the whole
history is often repeated even in these modern times. It is unwise to lose the
lesson taught us by rushing off into pious execration of those bigoted Jews. Men
had better look into their own hearts. In his introduction to the study of
metaphysics, Malebranche remarks very quietly, “It is not into a strange country
that such guides as these volumes of mine will conduct you; but it is into your
own, in which, not unlikely, you are a stranger.” It will be well to bear in mind
that the decision is offered and made between Jesus and Barabbas whenever the
Lord of glory is represented in a principle, in an institution, in a truth, in a
person.
3. So let us pause right here to inquire what this decision involves for those who
make it. The illustration is helpful, and we can still employ it. Dwell a moment
upon the deliberateness of the choice which the multitude made that day. The
exhibition was perfectly intelligible: it always is. There is Barabbas! there is
Christ! When a sharp moral crisis is reached, men generally know the side they
ought to choose. Right and wrong, truth and error, sin and holiness, the world or
God-this is just the old Jerusalem scene back again. Such a choice fixes character.
“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” When one wills strongly, he moulds
himself in the likeness of the thing he chooses. The old Castilian proverb says,
“Every man is the son of his own work.” Then observe the responsibility of the
choice between Barabbas and Christ. The chief priests declared they would take it
(Mat_27:25). Pilate could ruin no soul but his own. In the end Jesus’ blood rested
upon the nation that slew Him. Oh, what a history! a land without a nation-a
nation without a land! All the vast future swung on the hinge of that choice. Note,
therefore, the reach of this decision. It exhausted all the chances. Once-on that
Friday morning early-those two men stood side by side, and Pilate asked the
question, “Whether of the twain?” (Mat_27:21). It was never possible after that to
traverse the same spiritual ground of alternative again. Whoever chooses the
wrong must go and fare for good or ill with the thing he has chosen. The thief
becomes master, the murderer lord.
III. We are ready now to receive the full teaching of the story: our two lessons appear
plainly.
1. We see the wicked wrong of indecision. We are agreed that Pilate wished to let
Jesus go. But when he gave Him up to the spite of His murderers, he himself
“consented” and so shared the crime (Psa_50:18). Thus he destroyed his
character. Trimming, injustice, cruelty: step by step he went down, till he added a
scourging which nobody demanded. “The facility with which we commit certain
sins,” says Augustine, “is a punishment for sins already committed.” Thus he also
destroyed his reputation. One man there has been whose name was put in an
epistle just for a black background on which to write a name that was white (1Ti_
6:13). The same was put in the Apostles’ Creed that all Christendom might hold it
in “everlasting fame” of infamy: “crucified under Pontius Pilate.”
2. We see also the utter ruin of a wrong decision. Do not waste any more thought
on Pilate or the Jews. Think of yourself. See life and death, blessing and cursing;
choose life (Deu_30:15; Deu_30:19). Do not forfeit what may be your soul’s last
26

27. chance. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
Not Barabbas but Jesus
Tremellius was a Jew, from whose heart the veil had been taken away, and who had
been led by the Holy Spirit to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.
The Jews who had condemned our Saviour had said, “Not this man, but Barabbas;”
Tremellius, when near his end, glorying in Christ alone, and renouncing whatever
came in competition with Him, used very different words, “Not Barabbas, but Jesus.”
(Baxendale’s Dictionary of Anecdote.)
Barabbas preferred to Christ
I. This implies a history.
II. It records a choice. The choice involves two things-first, what was repudiated;
next, what was approved. Here was the repudiation of One who was absolutely
faultless. Here was the repudiation by the world of One who had wrought for the
world the greatest wonders of material kindness. Here was the repudiation of One
who loved them, knowing their lack of love to Himself. Here was the repudiation of
One who had at His command power destroy as well as to save. From what was
repudiated, turn to what was approved, “Not this man, but Barabbas.”
III. It suggests a parallel. If you prefer any passion or habit, any thing or man, any
person or personification, to Christ, that is your Barabbas. If you prefer any treasure
to Him wile is “value,” that is your Barabbas. If you prefer any company to His
company, any love to His love, that object of preference is your Barabbas. If you
prefer any given sin to the grace that would conquer it, that sin is your Barabbas. If,
though you ought to know that this sin is destructive, that the blood of souls is on it,
that it is a robber, and that it still lurks in darkness to rob you of your nobility, of
your peace, of your spiritual sensitiveness, of your liberty to have fellowship with the
Infinite One, and still refuse to give the vile thing up to be crucified, but will rather
give up Christ, that vile thing is your Barabbas. If, refusing Christ, you trust
something else to be the “Jesus” of your souls, that false righteousness, false
foundation, false comfort, false hope, is your “Jesus Barabbas.” Of all the faculties
with which God has enriched man, there is not one so mysterious in its nature and
awful in its working as the choosing faculty. (Charles Stanford, D. D.)
7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the
insurrectionists who had committed murder in
the uprising.
GILL, "And there was one named Barabbas,.... A prisoner of that name at
Jerusalem;
27

28. which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him: he had
been at the head of a seditious mob, and he and his accomplices were taken and put
in prison:
who had committed murder in the insurrection; which may be connected
either with Barabbas, and read in the singular number, as it is in the Vulgate Latin
version, "he had committed"; or with the seditious persons he lay bound with, and be
read in the plural number, "they had committed murder", as it is in the Syriac,
Arabic, and Persic versions; and so in the ancient copies; and the Ethiopic renders it,
"he was bound with seditious persons and murderers"; though, no doubt, he was
guilty of murder as well as they; and so Peter calls him a murderer, Act_3:14. About
this time murders were very frequently committed: the Jews say (r) that
"from the time that murderers increased, the slaying of the red heifer ceased; (the
reason the commentators (s) give, is, because they were known who were accustomed
to commit murder;) and that was from the time that Eleazar ben Dinai came, and
Techinah ben Perishah he was called; and they called him again the son of a
murderer;''
See Gill on Mat_27:16.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Barabbas.] Let us mention also with him a very famous rogue
in the Talmudists, Ben Dinai, whose name also was Eleazar. Of whom they have
this passage worthy of chronological observation; "From the time that
murderers were multiplied, the beheading the red cow ceased; namely, from the
time that Eleazar Ben Dinai came; who was also called Techinnah Ben Perishah:
but again they called him, The son of a murderer." Of him mention is made
elsewhere, where it is written Ben Donai. See also Ben Nezer, the king of the
robbers.
CONSTABLE, "This verse and the next provide more background information.
Barabbas was one of the popular Jewish freedom fighters whom the Romans had
imprisoned for participating in an uprising against Rome. Later a large number
of these revolutionaries organized and became known as the Zealots. Barabbas
had also committed robbery, probably as part of his insurrection (John 18:40).
Mark's use of the definite article before his name implies that his original
readers had heard of Barabbas.
8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for
them what he usually did.
28

29. CLARKE, "The multitude crying aloud - Αναβοησας. The word itself strongly
marks the vociferations, or, to come nearer the original word, the bellowing of the
multitude. It signifies, properly, a loud and long cry, such as Christ emitted on the
cross. See the whole history of these proceedings against our Lord treated at large, on
Matthew 27 (note).
GILL, "And the multitude crying aloud,.... The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic
versions read, and when the "multitude", or "people went up", to the place called the
pavement, where the judgment seat was; and so it is read in Beza's most ancient
copy; but the former reading is to be preferred:
began to desire him to do as he had ever done to them: that is, release a
prisoner to them, as he had done at every passover, since he had been a governor
over them.
HENRY, "V. The proposal Pilate made to the people, to have Jesus released to
them, since it was the custom of the feast to grace the solemnity with the release of
one prisoner. The people expected and demanded that he should do as he had ever
done to them (Mar_15:8); it was not an ill usage, but they would have it kept up. Now
Pilate perceived that the chief priests delivered up Jesus for envy, because he had got
such a reputation among the people as eclipsed theirs, Mar_15:10. It was easy to see,
comparing the eagerness of the prosecutors with the slenderness of the proofs, that it
was not his guilt, but his goodness, not any thing mischievous or scandalous, but
something meritorious and glorious, that they were provoked at. And therefore,
hearing how much he was the darling of the crowd, he thought that he might safely
appeal from the priests to the people, and that they would be proud of rescuing him
out of the priests' hands; and he proposed an expedient for their doing it without
danger of an uproar; let them demand him to be released, and Pilate will be ready to
do it, and stop the mouths of the priests with this - that the people insisted upon his
release. There was indeed another prisoner, one Barabbas, that had an interest, and
would have some votes; but he questioned not but Jesus would out-poll him.
COFFMAN, "Regarding the identity of this crowd, Turlington said:
They may have been friends of Barabbas, who had come to ask for his release.
This would be, as Rawlinson says, "a strangely dramatic historical coincidence";
but it accords with what happened.[4]
If such was the case, the coincidence would have been one of Satan's
"providences," such as Jonah's finding a ship ready to sail; but this interesting
and speculative interpretation does not have the ring of truth. If that crowd had
indeed been friends of Barabbas, they could not have known Jesus, nor would
there have been any motivation for them to shout, "Crucify him!" As the
Gospels attributed such a demand for Jesus' death to the fact of the priests
"stirring up the multitude," it is not unlikely that they were the ones who "got
the crowd out" in the first place, having no doubt anticipated the governor's
customary clemency at Passover and making sure that it should not be extended
to Jesus. It was one of those pat demonstrations that rabble-rousers, through
their followers, know how to produce.
ENDNOTE:
29

30. [4] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1946), p. 394.
CONSTABLE, "Evidently a large crowd of Jews had come to request the
customary amnesty from Pilate. There is no indication in the text that they had
come because they knew of Jesus' arrest or because they wanted to observe the
outcome of His trial. They appear to have been there for reasons unrelated to
Jesus. [Note: Swete, p. 371.]
9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of
the Jews?” asked Pilate,
GILL, "But Pilate answered them; saying,.... Being satisfied of the innocence
of Jesus, and being willing to dismiss him:
will ye that I release unto you the king of the Jews? he who is called so; and
which he either said by way of derision both of Christ, and them; or else in order to
prevail upon them to ask his release, it being scandalous and reproachful to put their
king to death.
COFFMAN, "The extreme brevity of Mark here leads to the conclusion, as
supported by Matthew, that Pilate had seized upon this device of a Passover
clemency in another of his seven efforts to release Jesus, and that he, not the
multitude, had introduced this question of clemency. The notion that Pilate
confronted a mob asking for the release of Barabbas and asked them to accept
Jesus instead is wild and irresponsible. The priests knew that when Pilate
proposed two names, those of our Lord and of Barabbas, the multitude would
have chosen Jesus if left to themselves, which they would not have done if they
were friends of Barabbas; hence, it was necessary for the priests to stir up the
multitude to make the decision for Barabbas. See Mark 15:11.
CONSTABLE, "Verse 9-10
Pilate responded to this crowd's request by asking if they wanted him to release
Jesus, whom he contemptuously called "the King of the Jews" (cf. Mark 15:2).
He recognized the chief priests' motives in arresting Jesus as being self-seeking
rather than loyalty to Rome. He hoped to frustrate the chief priests by getting the
people to request the release of someone Pilate viewed as innocent. He could
thereby retain real criminals such as Barabbas. Matthew wrote that Pilate gave
the people the choice of Jesus or Barabbas (Matthew 27:17). He evidently
believed that Jesus had the greater popular following and would be the people's
choice.
30

31. 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the
chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.
GILL, "For he knew that the chief priests,.... The Persic version reads in the
singular, "the chief of the priests", or the high priest, Caiaphas,
had delivered him for envy; at his popularity through his doctrine and miracles,
and not from any principle of equity and justice, or from any regard to Caesar; See
Gill on Mat_27:18.
COFFMAN, "One thing to keep in view throughout is that Pilate was never for a
moment deceived into believing that Jesus was a seditionist. He knew the
essential facts of the whole dramatic event thoroughly, being insufficient only in
his failure to see Jesus as God in the flesh. The inscription he affixed to the cross
did not deny Pilate's knowledge of Jesus' innocence, but it was a sadistic joke on
the Sanhedrin, from his point of view.
BI, "Had delivered Him for envy.
Envy and malevolence
Mutius, a citizen of Rome, was noted to be of such an envious and malevolent
disposition, that Publius, one day, observing him to be very sad, said, “Either some
great evil is happened to Mutius, or some great good to another.”
Envy and malevolence
Dionysius the tyrant, out of envy, punished Philoxenius the musician because he
could sing, and Plato the philosopher because he could dispute, better than himself.
Envy in a Christian
“Who is this elder son?” was once asked in an assembly of ministers at Elberfeldt.
Daniel Krummacher made answer: “I know him very well; I met him yesterday.”
“Who is he?” they asked eagerly; and he replied solemnly, “Myself.” He then
explained that on the previous day, hearing that a very ill-conditioned person had
received a very gracious visitation of God’s goodness, he had felt not a little envy and
irritation.
Envy punishes itself
A Burmese potter, says the legend, became envious of the prosperity of a washerman,
and, in order to ruin him, induced the king to order him to wash one of his black
elephants white, that he might be lord of the white elephant. The washerman replied
that, by the rules of his art, he must have a vessel large enough to wash him in. The
king ordered the potter to make him such a vessel. When made, it was crushed by the
first step of the elephant in it. Many trials failed, and the potter was ruined by the
very scheme he had devised to crush his enemy.
31