THE PROLOGUE OF THE GOSPEL. THE ETERNAL PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. HIS UNIVERSAL RELATION TO THE WORLD AND MANKIND, AND HIS THEOCRATIC ADVENT IN ISRAEL; OR, THE (OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT) INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS.
Joh_1:1-18
INTRODUCTORY THEOLOGICAL AND HOMILETIC OBSERVATIONS
The Evangelists Matthew and Luke give us the history of the childhood of Jesus, and indicate His divine descent with few nerds in the miraculous story of His birth. But their eye in this is mainly upon the human or, in the narrower sense, historical antecedents of Jesus his pedigree: Matthew from a predominantly theocratic point of view, tracing the line to Abraham; Luke, from the more general human point of view, tracing it to Adam.
As an offset to this exhibition of the human genealogy of Christ, John signalizes his eternal origin, as well as his eternal advent, in the eternal præ-existence of the divine personal Logos. In the two relations together [the human and the divine], we see how the word of Micah concerning the Ruler out of Bethlehem, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, is fulfilled (Mi. Joh_5:2).
John, therefore, has this in common with Mark, that he introduces Christ according to His human nature in His historical maturity and preparation, after John the Baptist, his forerunner. With Matthew he shares the theocratic point of view (Joh_1:11-12); with Luke, the universal (Joh_1:9-10); but lie rises above all in pointing out a Christological theocracy and universality of the incarnate Logos, which in its one manifestation embraces time and eternity, heaven and earth, and unites Deity and humanity.
The Johannean doctrine of the Logos has ever been regarded in the Christian church as one of the most mysterious and important points of doctrine. It ruled incipient theology in the doctrine of the Logos of God down to the beginning of the third century, down to Tertullian, and then exerted also the most decisive influence on the more definite doctrine of the Son of God. The mediæval theology knew better how to gaze at this great page of the Gospel, than to appreciate it, yet the mediæval mysticism was moved by the Johannean spirit (see Tholuck, p. 69). John Wessel, the greatest theologian of all the forerunners of the Reformation, restored the deeper apprehension of the Logos doctrine, and when our Reformers aimed at a more practical apprehension of Christology, this doctrine became thenceforth preeminently a treasure of the evangelical church, which the evangelical mystics in particular were at pains to unlock. The eighteenth century with its humanistic, critical tendency, lost the spirit of insight into the depths of the Johannean theology; yet at a time when the rationalists were disdaining it, speculative philosophers, like Schelling and Hegel, and great poets like Göthe, could not but recall its import, though without a clear apprehension.
The later evangelical theology has applied itself with, appreciative spirit to the Johannean theology, and therefore to the prologue of this Gospel. Testimony of this we have in the sermons of Schleiermacher on the Gospel of John, and Lücke’s Commentary on it, in which the treatise. on the prologue extends from p. 249 to p. 378, (vol. I). By the side of the modern depreciation of the Gospel of John on the part of some critics goes a mistaken realistic doctrine of the Logos in its great import in Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung, p. 7), and Luthardt (pp. 280 sqq.) Exegesis can hardly make this Gospel more real, when it covers the depth by an abstractly realistic interpretation. What is said of the fourth evangelist, is true also of his doctrine of the Logos: It does not die.
The distinction between the divine essence in itself, and its manifestation in its word, is an attribute of the personality of God, and therefore this distinction continually comes out in the Holy Scriptures, which is the word of the personal God (Gen_1:1; Joh_1:26, etc.).
This distinction appears still more clearly defined, after the primal revelation, obscured by sin, comes again into historical operation as a revelation of redemption. From this time, however, it unfolds itself in a two-fold form: there being, first, in the theocratic theology of the Old Testament, the distinction of Jehovah and the Angel of the Lord; then, in the universal theology of the Old Testament, the distinction of Jehovah and His wisdom as the principle of the creation and of Providence, and of the divine administration in Israel.
The manifestation of Jehovah in His Angel, (
îַìְàַêְ éְäåָֹä
) develops itself through three stages: the Angel being designated first as the Angel of the Lord (Gen_16:7-9 sqq.); then as the Presence, or the Angel of the Presence (Exo_32:34; comp. Exo_33:14; Isa_63:9); finally as the Angel of the Covenant (Mal_3:1).
That this Angel is the theophanic præ-exhibition of the God-Man himself, is evident especially from the point of issue of this idea, where the Angel, as the Angel of the Covenant, plainly denotes the Messiah (Mal. l. c.); and the recent objections of Hofmann, Kurtz, and others, who make this person a created angel, are not sufficient to invalidate the church interpretation, and if they were, they would dissolve the central, inmost bond between the Old Testament and the New.
As the personal præ-manifestation of Christ in the theophanies of the Logos, the Angel of the Lord is also characterized by his standing in the closest connection with the honor or glory of God (Luk_2:9); in fact, being identified with it (Exo_16:10; Exo_24:16). With this it is well worthy of notice, that where in the Old Testament Jehovah, or even the Angel of Jehovah, Maleach-Jehovah, is spoken of, He is called instead by the Jewish Targumists
îֵéîְøַà
or even the Shekinah of Jehovah, i.e., the manifestation of God letting itself down into his dwelling (see Tholuck, p. 62).
Now while in the Angel of the Lord we find predominantly the central direction of God, in His revelation, towards Israel and the incarnation expressed as the personal putting forth of the Word, we find in the notion of the Wisdom distinct from God, as the formative power of the divine word, chiefly the universal tendency of His revelation, or the connection of His historical revelation with its basis, His eternal, world-embracing, universal revelation. In this peculiar significance the divine Wisdom appears first in Job (John 28; comp. Schlottmann, Hiob, p. 129). According to Proverbs, John 8, it is the, mediator of the creation, and the personification of it comes nearest to a hypostasis in chap. 9 where it appears as the founder of the theocracy. Also in the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, it first, according to its universal field of revelation, forms the spirit of all life, and then, in a special attitude, as the spirit of the devout in Israel, comes into contrast with the folly of the heathen idolatry. It has here, under the influence of Alexandrian views, an idealistic form; in Sirach, on the contrary, from the universal sphere of the creation which belongs to it, it goes, in a restless search, over to the people of Israel, and fixes on Zion a permanent place, and its concentration is the Book of the Covenant, the Thorah (Sir_24:25). Thus its last embodiment is the Book according to Baruch (Bar_3:37; Bar_4:1). The normal development of the notion proceeds between these extremes of an idealistic and a legal theory of revelation. The sound apprehension of the distinction we find again only on the threshold of the New Testament in the religious contemplations of Zachariah and of Mary (Luke 1) and of John the Baptist. With these the N. T. revelations are most immediately connected.
We get, however, but a one-sided view of the development of the Old Testament idea of revelation, unless we bear in mind also its Messianic complement on the human side, i.e., the development of the idea of the Messiah in the stricter sense. This likewise passes through three stages.
(1) The chosen family; (a) mankind, the seed of the woman, Genesis 3; (b) the race, Semitic, Genesis 9; (c) the people, Israel, and particularly the tribe of Judah, Gen. 12:49.
(2) The chosen line: David and his son, collectively considered; the typical Messiah.
(3) The chosen individual, the ideal Messiah, Isaiah 9 sqq.
Now, as the idea of the revelation of God works towards incarnation, so the idea of the Messiah strives towards union with the divine nature; and at the passage where the ideal Messiah comes to view, the union is effected; the Messiah is become the Angel of the Lord (Isa_61:1-2), the Angel of the Lord is become the Messiah (Dan_7:13; Mal_3:1).
With this synthesis is given also the notion of the Son of God. This has likewise three stages in its development:
(1) The chosen family, Exo_4:22 sqq.
(2) The chosen royal line, 2Sa_7:14.
(3) The chosen individual, the ideal Messiah, Psalms 2; Isaiah 9.
But since the development of revelation is based on the development of redemption and the idea of the former unfolds itself with the idea of the latter, so the Messiah, as personal revelation, is also personal Redeemer. As such he has (1) to fight and conquer; (2) to work and struggle; (3) to suffer, and in sinking to overcome. From this point of view the Son of God is the servant of God, Isaiah 53.
The Solomonic and Apocryphal doctrine of the Wisdom became in Alexandria, in its contact with Platonism, the doctrine of the Logos, as Philo shaped it.
The Logos of Philo, however, is essentially different from that of John, though it agrees with that of John in its being the Mediator between God and the world. It is subordinate to Deity, it stands over the world merely as world-former, demiurge; it shades off pantheistically from the personal character to impersonality; it cannot become flesh; it is different from the Messiah, and the Messiah is only a divine appearance, which leads the devout Jews back to Palestine (see Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, Introduction, p. 49).
However doubtful it may be, that John was acquainted with the writings of Philo, the ideas of Philo were widely diffused in the second half of the first century among the Hellenistic Jews (for they were not a separate philosophy of Philo, but the religious philosophy of Hellenistic Judaism in general), as the angel-worshippers of Colosse prove; so with the system of Cerinthus; and undoubtedly the Evangelist came into intercourse and conflict with them. Nor must the position of the Evangelist towards the Alexandrian idea have been altogether hostile; for the current Logos-doctrine was not pure error; it was affiliative and abrasive, reformatory and evangelizing, to this fundamental idea of the Hellenistic Jews. And the Evangelist could be the more free to use the term Logos in its full emphasis, since he found it already recommended by the Old Testament, and still more distinctly by the Jewish theology. It was no doubt an ambiguity in Philo’s mode of expression, that he transferred the Solomonic and Apocryphal notion of the
óïößá
into the notion of the Logos, in which the Word of God in the Old Testament, the
îֵéîְøָà
of the Jewish theology, seemed to coincide with the
íïῦò
; of Plato, which might easily be confounded with
ëüãïò
.
The Logos of John is related to that of Philo, as Paul’s sermon at Athens to the inscription of the unknown God. John declared the true Logos, who is distinguished from that mixed figment of Old Testament theology and Greek speculation, in that He is equal with God, as the full expression of His being; is the absolute ground of the world, even of its matter; embosoms the universe as its active force, not as an emanating fountain of new emanations from God; is as much life, as light, in the highest sense, and therefore could come in the flesh, as Messiah, to accomplish the absolute redemption.
The Logos-doctrine, even in terms, runs throughout the writings of John (see 1Jn_1:1; Rev_19:13); but in substance it pervades the New Testament, especially Paul (see Col_1:15-19; Heb_1:3; Mat_11:19; Luk_11:49).
On the doctrine of the Logos and on John’s Prologue comp. Lücke, I. p. 365 sqq. [translated by Dr. Noyes in the Christian Examiner for March and May, 1849.—P. S.]; Tholuck, I. p. 61; Meyer, p. 75 [pp. 58–67 in the 5th ed. of 1869.—P. S.]; Adalbert Maier, p. 115; Hölemann, De Evangelii Joannei introitu, introitus Geneseos augustiore effigie, Lips., 1855; Jordan Bucher, Des Apostels Johannes Lehre vom Logos, Schaffhausen, 1856.
[M. Stuart, Examination of JohnJoh_1:1-18, in the Andover Bibliotheca Sacra for 1850, pp. 281–327. Hengstenberg, Com. en John, 1866, vol. I. pp. 6 ff. (where the Old Test, roots of the Logos-doctrine are brought out in opposition to its derivation from Philo). F. Godet, Considérations générates sur le prologue, in his Com. on John, 1864, vol. I. pp. 220–265. T. A. Philippi, Der Eingang des Johannesevangeliums ausgelegt, Stuttgart, 1867. Röhricht, Zur Johanneischen Logoslehre, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken for 1868, pp. 299–315. H. P. Liddon, Bampton Lectures on the Divinity of Christ, London, 1867, Lecture Vth, pp. 310–411. Among English commentators, Alford, on Joh_1:1, gives a condensed summary of the investigations of Lücke, De Wette, Olshausen and Dorner on the Logos-doctrine.—P. S.]
[Additional Remarks on the Prologue, Joh_1:1-18. The Prologue is a condensed statement of the results of John’s contemplation and experience as a faithful witness of the life and work of Christ on earth, and furnishes the key that unlocks the true meaning of the following narrative. It contains the theme and leading ideas of the Gospel, the eternal substratum, as it were, of the temporal history of Jesus, and creates the impression that in approaching the gospel history the reader treads on holy ground; Jesus of Nazareth being none other than the eternal Son of God, in whom we must believe in order to have eternal life (comp. Joh_20:31). The theme is the eternal Logos or personal Word that was with God and of divine essence from the beginning of beginnings, and at last became incarnate for the salvation of the world. The leading ideas are life and light, grace and truth, as emanating from and centering in the Logos. Starting with the divine genealogy or eternal divinity of Christ, the Evangelist presents, in a few bold outlines, the progress of revelation from, the creation to the incarnation, a sort of miniature photograph of the history of preparation for Christ’s coming in the flesh, and states the impression which His workings and personal appearance made upon the unbelieving world and the believing disciples. John the Baptist is mentioned as the representative of the Old Test. revelation, which directly prepared the way for the Christian dispensation.
We have here brought together the characteristic features of the fourth Gospel—its simplicity, sublimity, depth and ideality. We hear the sounds of thunder uttered by the “son of thunder.” Every sentence, every word, is pregnant with meaning, and furnishes inexhaustible material for meditation and reflection. In the whole range of literature, ancient and modern, there is no passage or chapter that can at all compare with this Prologue. It is not poetic in form—yet, like the account of the creation in Genesis, to which it forms the New Testament pendant, it rises, by its calm dignity, simplicity and grandeur, to more than poetic beauty. The theme so far transcends the boundaries of time and sense, that the ordinary arts’ of rhetoric and poetry are struck with the silence of adoration and awe. “In pregnant fullness and purest simplicity,” says the great scholar, Ewald (Comm. on John, p. 111), “the Prologue is unique,” even in this unique Gospel.—The Prologue has ever exerted a mysterious and irresistible charm upon the profoundest thinkers, from Origen and Augustine down to Fichte, Schleiermacher and Schelling.
As to the division of the Prologue, Dr. Lange, with Olshausen and Godet, divides it into three sections: (1) the præ-mundane or eternal being of the Logos, and His relation to God and the world, Joh_1:1-5; (2) His activity from the creation to the incarnation, especially in the Old Dispensation, Joh_1:6-13 (Godet, Joh_1:6-11). (3) His incarnation and activity in the Christian Church, Joh_1:14-18. Ewald (p. 113) adopts a similar view, but closes the first division with Joh_1:3. According to Meyer (in his fifth edition, p. 98), the Prologue represents the Logos—(1) as præ-existent in His creative activity (1–3); (2) as the Fountain of light to men (4–13); (3) in His divine-human manifestation (14–18); the last section returns to the first in identifying the
ëüãïò ἔíóáñêïò
with the
ëüãïò ἄóáñêïò
(“who is in the bosom of the Father”). Lücke, Alford and others make but two divisions: the eternal existence of the Logos, Joh_1:1-5, and His historic manifestation and working, Joh_1:6-18. Luthardt and Hengstenberg substitute for chronological sections three concentric cycles (1–5; 6–13; 14–18), of which each reproduces the same idea of the activity of the Logos, but under new aspects—the first in relation to God and the world at large, the second with special reference to John the Baptist and Jewish unbelief, the third with reference to the blessings which result to true believers.—There is evidently a progress of ideas from eternity to time, from the creation to the Old Testament dispensation, and to the incarnation, but more in the form of comprehensive intuition, which is peculiar to John, than of strict logical order, which was more congenial to the mind and training of Paul. For particulars, see below.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
[Codd. Sin. and Vatic., the two oldest, have simply:
êáôὰ ἸùÜííῃí
(B.—
áíçí
). So Tischend. in the 8th ed. Later MSS. read
åí
̓
áãã
.
êáôὰ
̓
ÉùÜíí
. (so Griesb., Lachm.), or
ôὸ êáôὰ
̓
É
.
åí
̓
áããÝëéïí
, or
ἅãéïí åí
̔
áããÝëéïí
, etc.—P. S.]
[Comp. Chrysostom: “The other evangelists begin with Christ’s incarnation in time; St. John with his eternal gene-ration.” Augustine (Tractatus xxxvi. in Johannis Evang. c. 8, §1.): “The other three Evangelists walked as it were on earth with our Lord as Man (tamquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulabant) and said but little of his divinity. But John, as if he found it oppressive to walk on earth, opened his treatise so to speak with, a peal of thunder…To the sublimity of this beginning all the rest corresponds, and he speaks of our Lord’s divinity as no other.” Godet, Commentaire, I. p. John 143: “Chaque évangelist entre en matière de la manière la mieux appropriée à l'esprt de sa narration. Matthieu veut démontrer le droit de Jésus au trône théocratique: il commence par une généalogie. Marc rédige ses souvenirs: il se jette sans exorde in mediam rem, (in medias res, or medias in res, is the proper phrase). Luc prétend écrire une histoire proprement dite: il rend compte dans son préambule de ses sources et de sa méthods.”—P. S.]
[Even heathen philosophers and heretical Gnostics were captivated by the speculative depth of the Prologue. (Comp. Lampe, Com. Tom. I., 231 sq., 239 sqq.) Göthe, too, connects the deepest mental struggles of Faust with an attempt to fathom the depth of the first sentence of John:
“Geschrieben steht: im Anfang war das Wort!
Hier stock ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort!
Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schützen,
Ich muss es anders übersetzen,
Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin;
Geschrieben steht: im Anfang war der Sinn!
Bedenke wohl die erste Zeile,
Dass deine Feder sich nicht übereile!
Ist es der Sinn, der alles wirkt und schafft?
Es sollte stehn; im Anfang war die Kraft!
Doch, auch indem ich dieses niederschreibe
Schon warnt mich was, dass ich dabei nicht bleibe
Mir hilft der Geist! Auf einmal seh ich Rath
Und schreib getrost: im Anfang war die That!—P. S.]
See Joh_18:1 ff for the passage quote with footnotes.
Joh_19:1. Then therefore Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him [
ἕëáâåí ïὖí ὁ Ðéë
.
ôὸí Ἰçó
.
êáὶ ἐìáóôßãùóåí
].—The second wretched politic attempt of the Roman, according to John. He took, or received, Jesus and scourged Him. The sending of Jesus before Herod’s tribunal, as also the hand-washing, likewise belong in this category. With this attempt he hopes to satisfy the vindictiveness of Jesus’ foes, perhaps even to excite their compassion—and so much the more, since according to his ideas, Jesus by this ignominious treatment, would be stripped of dignity in the eyes of the people and made of nope effect. On the act of scourging see Comm. on Matthew [p. 512]. As also on the different signification assumed by the scourging according to the Synoptists and according to John.
[Pilate probably, subjected Jesus to this disgraceful and horrible punishment in the vain hope of satisfying His accusers and moving them to compassion. The Roman mode of scourging is here meant, which was much more cruel than the Jewish; it was never inflicted upon Roman citizens, but only upon foreigners and slaves whose lives were considered of no account, either as a torture to extort a confession, or as a correction preparatory to crucifixion. The body was stripped, tied in a stooping posture to a low block or pillar, and the bare back lacerated by an unlimited number of lashes with rods or twisted thongs of leather, so that the poor sufferers frequently fainted and died on the spot.—P. S.]
Joh_19:2-3. And the soldiers,etc. [
êáὶ ïἱ óôñáôéῶôáé ðëÝ îáíôåò óôÝöáíïí ἐî ἀêáíèῶí
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.].—See Comm. on Matthew [p. 514]. “The derisive blow on the cheek [
ἐäßäïõí áὐôῷ ῥáðßóìáôá
] is substituted for the kiss.”
Joh_19:4. I bring Him forth to you [
Ἴäå ἄãù ὑìῖí áὐôὸí ἔîù ἵíá ãíῶôå
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.]—According to Matthew, the scourging of the Lord had been consummated before the eyes of the people (not “in the court of the prætorium”). For after the scourging, the soldiers had led Him into the prætorium, probably in a mocking procession as though the king were brought into his castle. The scene probably took place in the fortress-court or in a hall. Therefore we read here: “I bring Him forth unto you.”—That ye may know.—The Jews not possessing the right of capital punishment, the return of the person of Jesus to them was a declaration that He was free from the offence with which they charged Him. Pilate, however, utters his testimony unconditionally: no fault [
ïὐäåìßáí áἰôßáí
].—The leading forth has been in different ways misinterpreted in regard to its intention,—by Gerhard, for instance: they should see how compliant he would be in punishing Him, if he found any fault in Him.
Joh_19:5. Behold, the man. [
Ἴäå
, or rather
Ἰäïὺ ὁ ἄíèñùðïò
, see Text. Notes].—Ecce Homo! “But from the Lord cometh what the tongue shall speak.” (Pro_16:1 [Luther’s Bible. “The preparation of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.” E. V.]). Pilate’s words, unconsciously to himself, assume, like his superscription and the sentence of Caiaphas, a significance corresponding to the great situation. [An involuntary prophecy of heathenism, as the word of Caiaphas (Joh_11:51-52) was an involuntary prophecy of hostile Judaism.—P. S.] The word seems to express compassion; at all events it is designed to excite that emotion. There is no doubt as to the sense: there ye have Him again, and what a pitiable object! Take Him thus and let Him go. He forebodes not that Jesus is indeed the Man
êáô
’
ἐîï÷Þí
[the one perfect Man], who, through his wicked pliancy, steps forth so outraged in His outward appearance.
Joh_19:6. The high-priests and the officers.—They cried as leaders—which does not exclude the joint crying of the assembled populace.
Take Him yourselves and crucify Him.—Pilate still makes a stand at the present stage, with a feeling of his own authority that causes him to deride the impotence of the Jews.
Joh_19:7. We have a law [
ἡìåῖò íüìïí ἔ ÷ïìåí
].—The political accusation having borne no fruit, they now come out with the religious accusation in pursuance of which Jesus, at least according to their law, must die (as a blasphemer of God, namely, Lev_24:16, doubtless also as a false prophet, Deu_18:20). The
ἡìåῖò
, etc., defiantly arrayed against the
ἐãþ
—
áἰôßáí
of Pilate. They feel confident of Pilate’s obligation to respect their law. See Joseph. Antiq., XVI, 2, 3.
Joh_19:8. When Pilate—he was the more afraid [
ìᾶëëïí ἐöïâÞèç
].—Their saying, in the first place, entirely missed the designed effect; it was productive of the opposite effect. Hitherto Pilate had been restrained by a fear of conscience or of law alone; now religious fear supervened, in connection with a fear of Jesus’ personality itself, of which latter sentiment he now became fully conscious. According to Matthew, the message of his wife has already been received, hence is jointly influential.
Joh_19:9. Again into the pretorium [
êáὶ åἰóῆëèåí åἰò ôὸ ðñáéôþñéïí ðÜëéí
]—We must supply in imagination the leading of Jesus before Pilate, in order to a fresh, private examination.—Whence art Thou? [
ðüèåí åἶ óý
].—The inquiry after the whence of Christ is indefinitely framed, in accordance with the Jews’ accusation and Pilate’s fear. Meyer: He pictures to himself the
õἱὸò èåïῦ
after the analogy of the heathen heroes, and fears the vengeance of the Jewish God Jehovah. Religious awe, in a moment of superstitious excitement, pictures to itself all manner of things, however, and nothing quite distinctly. Whether He were a Magus or a hero, an angel, after the religion of the land, or a divine apparition,—it now seemed very possible to him that there might be something super-terrestrial in the appearance of the Man;—and he had so unconcernedly caused Him to be scourged. In any case, celestial vengeance seemed to threaten him. Whether the
ðüèåí
, etc., is timid (Meyer) or cautiously sifting, is difficult to decide; fear and prudence may be united in it.
No answer [
Ὁ äὲ Ἰçóïῦä ἀðüêñéóéí ïὐê ἔäùêåí áὐôῷ
].—Luthardt: He would not answer him, in order that He might not step in the way of God’s will. An abstractly supernaturalistic view. If the answer had been a moral duty, no religious duty would have stood in the way of it. God had power, notwithstanding any answer of His, to accomplish His will. Under such a supposition as Luthardt’s, Jesus would in no case have dared answer anything. He was silent, “as also before Herod and Caiaphas, because He had already testified enough for the susceptible; and for him who had turned his back upon the King of truth, neither could another testimony avail.” Tholuck. Jesus could foresee that this transaction led to nothing. Pilate, with his question, abandoned his judicial position, for he was bound to acquit Jesus not on account of His danger-menacing Godhead, but on account of His protection-demanding human innocence. [Alford: “This silence was the most emphatic answer to all who had ears to hear it,—was a reference to what He had said before, Joh_18:37, and so a witness to His divine origin. Would any mere man, of true and upright character, have refused an answer to such a question, so put? Let the modern rationalist consider this.”—P. S.]
Joh_19:10. Dost Thou not speak unto me? [
ἐìïὶ ïὐ ëáëåῖò
].—Himself full of fear, he exacted considerations of fear from Jesus. He boasts of his power [
ἐ îïõóßáí ἔ÷ù
] instead of remembering his duty, and of his freedom to release Jesus [
ἀðïëῦáß óå
], while the weight of temptation, drives him in his impotence resistlessly forward.
Ἐìïß
has the emphasis of offended authority [pride of office], making efforts at once terrifying and alluring. Crucify, release, a more probable sequence than the converse. See the Textual Notes. [The opposite order is better attested by external authority (
à
. A. B., etc.), and more natural, as releasing appeals more to the prisoner, and crucifying follows as the other alternative.—P. S.]
Joh_19:11. No power over Me unless it had been given,etc. [
ïὐê ἔ÷åéò ἐîïõóßáí ïὐäåìßáí êáô
’
ἐìïῦ
,
åἰ ìὴ ἦí óïé äåäïìÝíïí ἄíùèåí
].—
äåäïìÝíïí
. Namely, the exercise of power—if that had not been given thee. [The neuter is more general than
äåäïìÝíç
, and includes, as Meyer says,
ôὸ ἐîïõóéÜæåéí êáô
’
ἐìïῦ
.—P. S.].—From above.—Not: from the Roman emperor (Usteri), or from the Sanhedrin (Semler), but from God (Joh_3:3; Joh_3:31). [Grotius aptly: inde scilicet, unde ortus sum;
ἄíùèåí
is a precise anwer to the
ðüèåí
of Pilate (Joh_19:10). It is equivalent to
ἐê èåïῦ
or
ἐê ôïῦ ðáôñüò ìïõ
, but this Pilate would not have understood.—P. S.].—No power.—
Ἐîïõóßá
is interpreted:
1. As judicial authority, by Luther, Calvin, Baur and others. Thus, because thou hast this authority from above, the misuse of it is sin; the authors of this offence, however, the Jews, have the greater guilt.
2. Actual power, Beza, Gerhard, Tholuck: It is the providence of God that I, through the obduracy of My people, have fallen into thy hands. With this interpretation the
äéὰ ôïῦôï
[on this account, because of the power being given thee] is certainly better explained, yet this actual power rests upon the magisterial authority.
He that delivereth Me unto thee;
ὁ ðáñáäéäïýò
[the present, because the act is just going on].—Bengel, Meyer [Lampe, Alford, Ewald, Hengstenberg]: The high-priest [Caiaphas]; Tholuck collectively: The hardened Jewish nation. [Still others the Sanhedrin; some, unaptly, Judas who is now out of sight]. The declaration of Pilate Joh_19:35 is pertinent: Thy nation and the high-priests have delivered Thee unto me. Wherefore has the deliverer (
ὁ ðáñáäéäïýò
) the greater sin [
ìåßæïíá ἁìáñôßáí ἔ÷åé
]? Explanations:
1. Euthymius: Pilate’s guilt rests more upon softness and weakness.
2. Grotius: Because he could not know, as well as the Jews, who Christ was.
3. Lampe: Because the Jews had not received this power from God.
4. Meyer: Because thou hast the disposal of Me not from any sovereign power of thine own, but by divine authorization.
But the abuse of his judicial authority does not excuse him. Decisive in the first place is the fact that Pilate is an ignorant Gentile, the deliverer Jewish; then, that the Jews claim, with a certain legal title, that he has but to execute their sentence. Pilate found himself in no clear position. He had to do, not with a Roman, but with a Jew, and not with a civil law, but with a religious accusation in regard to which the Jewish tribunal had already decided. This might readily mislead him in his simple judicial duty, and it was his fatality. His guilt would be still less than it really was, had he not been aware that they had delivered Jesus for envy, had not Jesus made so strong an impression on him, and had he not really known it to be his duty to release Him. Even in the case of the Jews there was also taken into account a consideration of excuse because of ignorance, which consideration exhibited the guilt of many of them as other than final obduracy. See Act_3:17; comp. Luk_23:34. Meyer, in a note [p. 621], has with reason set aside the interpretation of Baur.
Joh_19:12. For the sake of this;
ἐê ôïýôõ
.—Not: from thenceforth [E. V. and most commentators], but: for the sake of this saying [Meyer, Stier, Luthardt, comp. Joh_6:66.—P. S.]. It cast a bright accidental light upon his obscure, fateful, perilous situation, that for an instant marked the path of duty as a path of deliverance.—Pilate sought to release Him.—
ἘæÞôåé
certainly cannot denote simply an increased striving (Lücke), it being expressive of a distinct act immediately provocative of the most excited outburst on the part of the Jews. But the interpretation: he demanded that He should be released (Meyer), gives rise to the supposition that Pilate must needs ask the Jews’ sanction to the release of Jesus. This word, to which not sufficient regard is paid, means rather: he was really on the point of ordering the release of Christ. Perhaps he caused the guard to fall back, or he may hare stated to the Jews that they might go home, that he would leave Jesus behind in the prætorium, under his own protection. At all events, here it is that the tragic knot was tied. The liberation of Jesus seems already decided.
But the Jews cried out, saying.—Now, in the uproar of the Jews, the whole storm of hell rises. At first the high-priests and officers led the voices,—now the entire mass is full of excitement and needs no starter. The demoniacal syllogism with which they debauch Pilate, scarcely originates, however, in the brain of the populace. The hierarchs take refuge in the political accusation, declaring Jesus is a revolutionist against the emperor, and if thou let Him go, thou comest thyself under suspicion of treason to the emperor. Now the emperor was—Tiberius. The threat of being accused to this man of treason fells the weak courtling. On Pilate as manifoldly guilty, especially of extortions and outrages: Joseph., Antiq. XVIII. 3, 1 ff.; Philo, De leg. ad Caj., 1033, on the suspicious character of Tiberius, Sueton., Tib., 58; Tacit., Ann., III.38. Majestatis crimen omnium accusationum complementum erat.—
ößëïò Êáß óáñïò
, a predicate of honor, since the time of Augustus conferred, by the emperor himself and by others, partly upon prefects and legates, partly upon allies (Ernesti, Suetonius, Excurs. 15).” Tholuck. According to Meyer [and Alford], the term means simply: loyal to the emperor; unfavorable to this view is the technical use of the predicate: amicus Cæsaris. Even if Pilate did not formally possess the title, it is alluded to.—Speaketh against—is at variance with—the emperor (
ἀíôéëÝãåé
). Meyer: He declareth against the emperor, not: he rebelleth (Kuinoel), etc. But rebelling is exactly what declaring against the sovereign means.
Joh_19:13. When Pilate therefore heard these words.—Pilate’s playing with the situation is past; now the situation plays with him. First he said—not asked—: what is truth? Now his frightened heart, to which the emperor’s favor is the supreme law of life, says: what is justice? “He who fears not God above all things, is condemned to fear man.” Tholuck.—He brought Jesus forth.—Since the last examination, Joh_19:8 ff., he had left Him in the pretorium.—And sat down in the judgment-seat [
ἐêÜèéóåí ἐðὶ âÞìáôïò åἰò ôüð íëåãüìåíïí ëéèüóôñùôïí
].—“Sentence was pronounced sub divo, not ex æquo loco, but superiore; there stood the judgment-seat on a floor of mosaic: pavimentum, tessellatum (Sueton. Cæsar, chap. 46).” Tholuck. [Such a tesselated pavement Julius Cæsar carried about on his expeditions, Suet. Cæs., c. 46.]—But in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.—“The name
Ôáââ
. must not be derived from
âִáְòָä
, hill [so Hengstenberg],—against which derivation the double
â
would militate (comp.
ôáâáèᾶ
, Jos. Antiq. V. 1, 29), but from
âַּá
, ridge, hump.” Meyer. Is it not, perhaps, still more probably an Aramaic modification of
âָּáֹäַּ
, altum, altitudo? [Alford from
ðָּáָä
, altus fuit, Ewald from the root
âָּáַò
with a signification similar to
ëéèüóôñùôïí
—P. S.]
Joh_19:14. It was the preparation-day,—
Ðáñáóêåõἠ ôïῦ ðÜó÷á
, see Comm. on Matt. [pp 455, 468]; John on chap. 13 [p. 405].
1. Friday in the passover-season, or paschal week, as a day of preparation for the Sabbath. Wieseler, p 336 f; Wichelhaus, p. 209 f. Only apparently a modification is Tholuck’s explanation: The Paschal preparation-day as the preparation for the Sabbath falling in the Paschal season; since the terms Friday and Sabbath preparation-day were of necessity synonymous to the Jews, just as to the Germans the terms Samstag and Sonnabend are.
[This is the correct view, and is maintained also by Olshausen, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Riggenbach, Robinson (Harmony, p. 219). The term
ðáñáóêåõÞ
here does not correspond (as Meyer, Lücke, Alford and others assert) to the Hebrew
òֶøֶá äַôֶּñַç
, “the vigil of the Passover,” “passover-eve” (mentioned in the Talmud, see Buxtorf, Lex., p. 1765, but nowhere in the Bible), but to
òַøåּáְúָà
, eve, as being the
òֶøֶá äַùַׁáָּú
, eve of the Sabbath (see Buxtorf, Lex., p. 1659). It is equivalent to
ðñïóÜââáôïí
, fore-sabbath (Mar_15:42; Jdt_8:6), or
ðñïåüñôéïí
, as Philo (De vita contempl., p. 616) calls it. In other words, it is a technical Jewish name for Friday, just as the corresponding terms in the Syriac and Arabic, and as the German Sonnabend (Sunday-Eve) is used for Samstag (Saturday). It was so called from the Jewish habit of preparing the meals (
äëéï
,
ðáñáóêåõÜæåéí
) on Friday for the Sabbath, since it was forbidden to kindle a fire on the Sabbath (Ex. xvi.5; Joseph. Antiq. XVI. 6, 2). This is the uniform meaning of
ðáñáóêåõÞ
in all other passages of the New Testament where it occurs, viz., in this very chapter, Joh_19:31-32; Mat_27:62; Luk_23:54; Mar_15:42 (where it is expressly explained for non-Jewish readers, as being=
ðñïóÜââáôïí
). Why should our passage be an exception? The addition
ôïῦ ðÜó÷á
, which John always uses in the wider sense for the whole feast (not for the eating of the paschal lamb), makes no difference: it is simply the PaschalFriday, or Easter-Friday, as we speak of Easter-Sunday, Easter-Monday, Easter-Tuesday. We have here a very significant hint that after all John is in perfect harmony with the Synoptists on the day of Christ’s death, which was not the 14th, but the 15th of Nisan, or the first day of the paschal festival. John, probably chose this very term to expose the awful inconsistency and crime of the Jews in putting the Lord and Saviour to death on the day when they should have prepared for the holy Sabbath—doubly sacred now as being at the same time the first day of the great passover.—P. S.]
John 2 : Meyer following Lücke, Bleek, etc. [p. 623, comp. pp. 600 seq., 5th ed., where the discussions are]: “In order that the
ðáñáóêùõÞ
might not be apprehended as the weekly one, referable to the Sabbath (Joh_19:31; Joh_19:42; Luk_23:54; Mar_15:42; Mat_27:62; Joseph. Antiq. XVI. 6, 2 al.), but that it might be regarded as connected with the feast-day of the Passover, John expressly adds
ôïῦ ðáó÷á
. Undoubtedly it was a Friday, consequently Preparation-day for the Sabbath also—this reference, however, is not the one to be pointed out here; the true reference is to the paschalfeast coming in on the evening of the day,—of which feast the first day fell, according to John, upon the Sabbath.” [So also Alford.]
This view is contradicted:
(1) By the fact that in that case John would, shortly after, Joh_19:31 [
ἐðåὶ ðáñáóêåõÞ ἦí
, and Joh_19:42,
äéὰ ôὴí ðáñáóêåõὴí ôῶí Ἰïõä
.], have used the word
ðáñáóêåõὴ
in another sense.
(2) That he then in Joh_19:31 would have been obliged to write
ðáñáóêåõὴ ôïῦ óáââÜôïõ
in order to distinguish between the two senses.
(3) That, therefore, according to Joh_19:31; Joh_19:42,
ðáñáóêåõÞ
had a thoroughly fixed signification and denoted the day of preparation for the Sabbath, in consequence of which fact, therefore, the
ðáñáóêåõÞ ôïῦ ðÜó÷á
is also to be interpreted as the day of preparation for the Sabbath of the paschal season.
(4) That John elsewhere uses the word
ðÜó÷á
as a term for the
ἑïñôÞ
, the paschal season. So, expressly, Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4; Joh_11:55-56; Joh_18:39. And hence, assuredly, also here.
It was going on towards the [es war gegen die] sixth hour [
ὤñá ἦí ὡò ἕêôç
. This is the correct reading instead of
ὤñá äå ὡóåὶ ἕêôç
—P. S.]—See Note on Joh_1:39 [p. 93]; Comm. on Matthew at this passage [Mat_27:45, p. 525, Am. ed.]; Mark [Joh_15:25, p. 152]. According to Jewish reckoning it was on the way to 12 o’clock, i.e., between 9 and 12 o’clock. On the difficulty of this notice, see the passages cited. [The difficulty is this, that according to John the hour of crucifixion was the sixth, i.e., (counting with the Jews from sunrise) 12 o’clock of our time; while according to Mar_15:25 it was the third, i.e., 9 o’clock, A. M., with which the statement of Mat_27:45, and Luk_23:44, agrees, that at the sixth hour or noon, when Jesus had already for some time been hanging on the cross, darkness covered the land for three hours, and that Jesus died about the ninth hour (i.e., 3 P.M.); consequently according to the Synoptists the Saviour suffered for nearly six hours on the cross, according to John only about three hours.—P. S.] Solutions of the apparent contradiction:
1. Assumption of a writing-error (Euseb. and others):
ò
[6], instead of
ã
[3].
[So also Theophylact, Severus, Beza (ed. 5th), Bengel, Alford, Robinson, Harmony, p. 226, where Robinson says: “The
ὥñá ôñßôç
of Mark, as the hour of crucifixion, is sustained by the whole course of the transactions and circumstances; as also by the fact stated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had already for some time hung upon the cross. The reading
ἕêôç
in John is, therefore, probably an early error of transcription for
ôñßôç
(
ò
for
Ã
). Indeed, this last reading is found in Cod. Bezæ and Cod. Reg. 62, as well as several other authorities; so that its external weight is marked by Griesbach as nearly or quite equal to that of the common reading, while the internal evidence in its favor is certainly far greater.” But
ἕêôç
is undoubtedly the correct reading as far as external authority goes. See Text. Note, and Tischend. ed. VIII. in loc.—P. S.]
2. Roman reckoning is employed=6 A. M. (Rettig, Tholuck, Hug, and others). [So also Olshausen, Wieseler, Ewald, Townson, Wordsworth.—P. S.] But after the examination before Caiaphas, the first examination before Pilate, the examination before Herod (Luk_23:9), the further proceedings in Pilate’s presence, the scourging and mocking, it is impossible that it was only approaching or about 6 o’clock in the morning, since the final session in presence of Caiaphas did of itself presuppose the dawn of day, to make it legal. [Besides, this view creates the difficulty of too long a period (three hours) intervening between the sentence of death and the crucifixion. It is also very unlikely that John, with the Synoptical statements before him, should without any notice have introduced a different mode of reckoning, and with it an element of confusion rather than rectification.—P. S.]
3. It was about the sixth hour of the paschal feast, reckoned from midnight (Hofmann, Lichtenstein). The passover, however, did not begin at midnight, but on the previous evening at about 6 o’clock; irrespective of the fact that this “would be an unprecedented way of reckoning hours, namely as belonging to the feast, not to the day (in opposition to Joh_1:39; Joh_4:6; Joh_4:52).” Meyer.
4. “Again a difference from the Synoptists, according to whom (see Mar_15:25, with which Mat_27:45; Luk_23:44 agree) Jesus is crucified as early as 9 o’clock in the morning.” (Meyer and others.)
5. The third hour of Mark is the third quarter of the day (Aret., Grot. [Calvin, Wetstein], and others), against which Mar_15:33. [“And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried,” etc.]
6. An indefinite computation of hours, according to which the sections of time between the third, sixth and ninth hours are indefinitely stated. Thus the third hour in Mark may mean: nine o’clock was past,—it was between nine and twelve o’clock when the crucifixion of Christ began; and this is the more probable since Mark regards the scourging as the prelude to the crucifixion, which, when the former took place, was really already decided (see Joh_19:15). And so the words of John: it was towards the sixth hour: it was past nine o’clock and approaching noon when Pilate—the scourging being accomplished, and the Scourged One having been presented to the populace—spoke the final words upon which the procession to Golgotha immediately followed. John’s employment of the later indefinite hour-date is accounted for by the thought; they now hastened to the close, because, with noon, the second, already more Sabbatic, half of the
ðáñáóêåõÞ
was approaching. Mark’s choice, on the other hand, of the earlier indefinite hour-date is accounted for by the significant antithesis which he wishes to institute between the third and the sixth hour.
[This solution of the difficulty has been adopted by Godet, who remarks that the apostles did not count with the watch in their hands. So also Hengstenberg, who, however, very mechanically splits the difference and fixes the crucifixion at half-past ten! In this case the statements both of Mark and John would be wrong. Meyer rejects all attempts at reconciliation and gives John the preference over the Synoptists. But Lange’s view has a strong support in the
ὡò
or
ὡóåὶ
of John, which excludes strict accuracy on his part and leaves room for some approach at least towards the third hour of Mark. At noon Christ must certainly have been already hanging on the cross; for this is the unanimous testimony of the Synoptists.—P. S.]
Behold, your king [
Ἴäå ὁ âáóéëåὺò ὑìῶí
]!—Pilate, inwardly overcome, designs, by this mocking of the Jews, not only to mask his disgrace but also to avenge it; it may be that these words unfold even this threatening thought: your King, then, shall first be crucified, and after Him, yourselves. At all events, he shifts the guilt to their shoulders.
Joh_19:15. Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him [
Ἆñïí ἆñïí
,
óôáý ñùóïí áὐôüí
]!—The words:
ἆñïí
,
ἆñïí
! present to us something more than the meaning: Away with Him! away with Him! At this last moment there is still a mutual effort to shuffle off the legal responsibility upon each other. Pilate’s meaning is: if He is to be executed, ye may execute Him. The meaning of the Jews is: thou shalt have Him, thou shalt crucify Him! It was only in this way that they could be assured of Pilate’s inability to institute later a review of the proceedings. The Hierarchs make the same claim again at the present day: the rude State, the Pilate of the Middle Ages, adjusted the terrors of the Inquisition in accordance with the laws then existing. The brief, passionate exclamation is likewise expressive of the bitterness called forth by the word of Pilate: Behold, your King!
Shall I crucify your king?—This question of Pilate is an intimation of his last wavering in resolve—a wavering in all probability particularly induced by the message of his wife. See Comm. on Matthew. Not merely a “reverberation” of the preceding derisive words, but also a distincter expression of the same idea: If He is to be crucified as your King in your sense, He must, according to your law, die as a religious criminal. Hence the high-priest’s reply.
We have no king but the emperor [
Ïὐê ἔ÷ïìåí âáóéëÝá åἰ ìὴ Êáßóáñá
].—i.e. He shall and must die as a political seditionary. At the same time it is the consummation of the godless perfidy with which they disclaim their own Messianic hope, deny the Messianic claims, traduce the Lord as a seditionary, whilst they themselves feign a zeal of the most loyal fidelity demonstrable by subjects, with which they would fain shame and terrify even the Roman governor. [Some of these very men who here made a hypocritical show of loyalty to carry their point and to make a tool of Pilate, perished afterwards miserably in rebellion against Cæsar. Bengel: Jesum negant usque eo, ut omnino Christum negant. Alford: “A degrading confession from the chief priests of that people of whom it was said, ‘The Lord your God is your King,’ 1Sa_12:12.”—P. S.]
Joh_19:16. Then therefore he delivered Him up unto them, to be crucified.—The repeated threatening hint of the high-priest completes the conquest of Pilate. A compromise results, in pursuance of which Christ is delivered (
ðáñÝäùêåí
not simply yielded, after Grotius and others) to the high-priests, to be taken to their place of execution, and is, nevertheless, crucified by Roman soldiers, according to Roman criminal law. It is to be presumed that Pilate combined the delivery of Jesus to the Jews with the symbolical act of washing his hands (according to Matthew). This compromise is one of the many legal contradictions in the history of the crucifixion, by means of which contradictions the summum jus of the ancient world is converted into the summa injuria. Comp. Comm. on Matthew, Mat_27:22 [pp. 512, 514, Am. Ed.]. Other contradictions: Declared innocent, and yet sent before another tribunal, and yet scourged. Scourged in order that He might be released, and yet afterwards crucified. Contradictions of the forum, of sentence, of cognizance, of the degree of punishment, of the form of punishment.
They therefore took Jesus [
ðáñÝëáâïí ïὖí ôὸí Ἰçóïῦí
. Joh_19:16 ought to close with
óôáõñùèῇ
, and
ðáñÝëáâïí
begin the next section. So Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort.—P. S.] The high-priests, not (as De Wette thinks) the soldiers.—And led Him away [
êáὶ ἀðÞãáãïí
Very doubtful, see Text. Notes.—P. S.] The taking was also consummated with the declaration: His blood be upon us, etc. (see Comm. on Matt.). On the site of Golgotha, outside of the city, see Comm. on Matt. [520 ff.] “The site of the place, without the city, is likewise attested by Heb_12:12.” Tholuck.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. By many supplementary touches John presents us with the clearest view of the incidents of the secular trial undergone by Jesus. To these supplementary traits belongs, above all, the gradation of the Jews’ accusation.
(1) They charge Jesus with being an ecclesiastical criminal whom they have already sentenced, and whose sentence Pilate has but to confirm. (2) In the most ambiguous sense: With making Himself the King of the Jews. (3) With being an ecclesiastical criminal,—because He had made Himself the Son of God. (4) With being a political revolutionist,—because He claimed to be the King of the Jews.
These form two accusations which they alternately bring forward: a Jewish one and a Roman political one. The first time each is couched in ambiguous and innuendo-like terms; the second time each is formulated in calumnious audacity.
Another of these supplementary traits is the conflict maintained between Pilate and the high-priests throughout the entire procedure—a conflict in which the personal character of Pilate, as well as that of the high-priests, is most clearly reflected; as is also the more general character of a vain, worldly state-craft in its haughty and nevertheless impotent struggle with a crafty hierarchical power and its fanatical tools in the popular life. Then those moments also stand out clearly, in which Christ is, as a delinquent, by the Jews delivered to, or pressed upon, Pilate; by Pilate delivered to, or pressed upon, the Jews,—down to the moment when a kind of compromise is effected. From Joh_18:28-31 Pilate refuses judgment. From Joh_18:32-38 he receives the Accused, granting Him a pre-examination; then, however, he does not simply acquit Him, but seeks to entrap the Jews and, by the offer of presenting Jesus to them for their paschal procession, which was annually graced by some recipient of governmental pardon, to move them to acquit Him with éclat. Pilate then for the second time receives Jesus, in order, for the gratification of the Jews, to perpetrate upon Him a police execution that was destitute of all judicial grounds,—viz. the scourging.
The expression Ecce Homo contains another return of the person of Jesus to the Jews. For the third time Pilate enters into judgment with Jesus upon the accusation: He made Himself the Son of God. He now designs setting Him free himself, but the Jews weaken his purpose by a threat accompanied with tumult; and he is now inwardly so discomfited that the last time he does not simply deliver the Accused to the Jews—he delivers Him under sentence of crucifixion, purposing a formal participation in the affair himself, while the Jews are to assume, and really do assume, the actual execution and responsibility of it. Both these facts are summed up in the words: “He delivered Him unto them that He might be crucified.” As regards the contrasts of conduct, the stately, artificial repose of Pilate is overcome by cringing sub-missiveness; his political calculation by demoniacal craft and pertinacity; his effort of conscience by audacious menace; his attempt to turn the accusers into ridicule by treating them scornfully and mocking them, by fanatic popular agitation and a revolutionary, tumultuous petition, masking itself in pure zeal for the authority of the emperor.
The individual items for which, as new disclosures, thanks are due to John, are
a. The competence strife in regard to the trial;
b. The analysis of the ambiguous expression, King of the Jews, by the wisdom of the Lord—making manifest the vileness of the high-priests and the felony to the Messianic idea, of which they are guilty;
c. The antithesis of the Kingdom of Truth and the kingdom of this world, and the utterance of Pilate;
d. The circumstance that it is pre-eminently the Jews who are guilty of bringing the Lord into juxtaposition with Barabbas;
e. The real purpose of the scourging;
f. The effect which the charge that Jesus made Himself the Son of God, produced upon the soul of Pilate—the anguish of superstition, following hard upon the self-upliftment of unbelief;
g. The innuendo-like threat of the Jews to accuse Pilate to the emperor—as the weapon that prostrates him (Pilate);
h. The double masking: The rebellion of the Jews against their King and against the emperor’s governor, in the mask of the most faithful Jewish piety and Roman subjection; Pilate’s dejection, in the mask of a stately session for judgment, and a derisive treatment of the accusers and the whole Jewish nation;
i. The share of both—Pilate and the Jews—in the crucifixion.
John, in the close unity of his presentation, has however passed over, together with minor features, the trial in the morning (Mat_27:1); the dream of Pilate’s wife (Mat_27:19); Pilate’s washing of his hands, and the self-execration of the Jews (Mat_27:24-25); the reed (Mat_27:29); and the bespitting on the part of the soldiers (Mat_27:30). Similarly, the sending of Jesus to Herod, and the resultant friendship of Herod and Pilate (Luk_23:6-12); finally, the notice that Barabbas had perpetrated a sedition in the city (Mark, Luke).
2. The joint implication of a hierarchical Church and a despotic State in the guilt of Christ’s execution under pretext of His being a religious criminal:
(1) In losing the right of inflicting capital punishment, the hierarchs should have recognized the fact that their discipline could extend no further than to excommunication (Mat_18:17). (2) With the assumption of rule over different national religions, the Roman State should have been constrained to penetrate to a purely political position and a distinction of matters religious and political,—to a principle of which the better men already had a presentiment (Act_18:14-15). The two principles, however, the religious and the political, continue, on the one hand, involved, and, therefore, on the other hand, strained, because the Jewish hierarchy has not purified itself to a pure conception of the Church, nor the Roman power to a pure conception of the State.
This mingling of State and Church has been repeated from the time of Constantine, increasing more and more in the Middle Ages until the arrival of the Reformation. It still continues in the Greek economy of State and Church (Cæsaropapism), likewise in the Roman Ecclesiastical State, as, partially, in the other Catholic States (Papal-Cæsarism). Christ and Christianity have always had to suffer under this confusion, the ground of which is a want of respect for the religious conscience.
(2) In taking for granted that disagreeable religious tendencies are to be punished, the hierarchy is fain to shuffle off the execution of punishment upon the despotism, the latter to shift the responsibility of punishment upon the hierarchy.
(3) Afterwards they both seek to excuse themselves; Pilate writes: “The King of the Jews,” i.e. a religious motive has brought Him to the cross. The hierarchs wish the inscription to read: “He said that,” i.e. He is a misleader of the people, and a disturber;—the motive is a political one.
In a similar manner ultramontane authors now try to impute the execution of heretics to the State of the Middle Ages.
(4) Pilate constituted himself and his Roman authority constable of the hierarchy, and from this time forth he rushes to perdition. Similar was the fate of the Maccabean house, and, since then, of several European dynasties. The clean sunderment of Church and State is a vital impulse of the spirit of Christianity, one of the greatest tasks of Christian times. See the author’s essay: Ueber die Neugestaltung des Verhältnisses zwischen Kirche und Staat. Heidelberg, 1.
3. The fearful treason of the Jews to their Messianic idea, consummated in the ambiguous accusation: “Jesus is the King of the Jews.” A similar felony was committed by Josephus in applying the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament to Vespasian, De Bello Jud., VI. 5, 4. See Gieseler, p. 47.
4. The world-historical encounter of the Spirit of Christ with the genius of the Roman nation on the occasion of the discourse concerning His kingdom (see Exeg. Notes; and my Leben Jesu, II. 1508); analogous to His encounter with the genius of the Greek nation, Joh_12:20 ff.
5. Christ’s kingdom not of this world, but in this world, for it and over it. Christ the King in the Kingdom of Truth.
6. The question of Pilate no question, but a frivolous, unbelieving utterance. Characteristic of the Græco-Roman world-culture of his time.
7. Pilate surrendered truth first, and afterwards justice,—in consequence.
8. Ecce Homo. The scourging of Christ is intended by Pilate to save His life and, hence, to be an act of humanity. But as that governor’s official administration is without consistency, his justice without any foundation of truth, his wit without wisdom, so his humanity is destitute of the fear of God, of strength and of blessing. Such a humanitarian idea gave issue to the African slave trade.
9. Pilate’s superstitious fear at the saying: “Jesus made Himself the Son of God,”—a characteristic trait of the unbeliever. The indissoluble connection between unbelief and superstition. But after all, unbelieving Pilate is more believing than the superstitious high-priests in the consummate unbelief with which they reject Christ. Of the threefold terror of Pilate: his terror at the law, his terror of conscience, his religious terror—there appears no trace in these practical atheists, who have donned the mask of the holiest zeal.
10. The greater sins of the high-priests. Christ’s sympathy with the judicial fate of the weak Pilate. In this, Christ’s sentence upon Pilate, there lies a stronger Ecce Homo! than in the exclamation of Pilate. Ecce Homo—who believes he is administering divine government and justice, and stands impotent—the tool of divine judgment, destined himself to be the prey of judgment.
11. Ecclesiastical and political masks. See No. 1.
12. The hierarchy here begets a revolution and allies itself to the same, with a view to shaking the political authority. Hierarchy, popular insurrection, and political authority, in wicked alliance, sentence the King of the Kingdom of God and Protector of all holy order and authority, the High-priest and true Friend of the people, to death upon the cross, as a kindler of rebellion. See Leben Jesu, II. 1533.
13. No King but the Emperor. In that hour the besotted nation did, with hypocritical fanaticism, renounce, not its Messiah only, but also its Messianic hope, cherishing in its heart meanwhile rebellion against the emperor and the hope of a political Messiah. Yet even this judgment of hardening must, according to Romans 9, redound to the salvation of the world—the Gentile world, primarily.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See the Doctrinal Notes, and Comm. on Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Christ at once being judged by, and judging, the world.—Christ at the bar of the Roman State.—Christ before Pilate, and Pilate before Christ.—How Christ’s glance pierced through all the mazes of judgment: 1. Through all entanglements, to the right; 2. through all concealments and misrepresentations, to the bottom; 3. through all ambiguities, to the purpose; 4. through all waverings, to the issue.—How the judgment upon the Lord judgeth itself: 1. In its accusations; 2. in its examinations; 3. in the motives for its sentence.—The grave sign in the fact that the great prospect that existed of Christ’s acquittal was immediately blighted: 1. The great prospect: a. Pilate at first repulses the accusers. b. He nevertheless holds the examination and declares the innocence of Jesus, c. He tries to adjust the matter with the scourging. d. He is convulsed with religious awe and already proceeds to release Jesus. 2. Blighted: a. By the stratagem of hypocrites; b. the audacity of fanaticism; c. the impotence and guilty consciousness of Pilate; d. the rule of Tiberius; e. the plots of Satan; f. the providence and judgment of God. 3. The grave sign: a. Of the depravity of the world; b. of the magnitude of human unrighteousness; c. of the majesty of divine righteousness; d. of the fixedness and depth of the Redemption.—As Roman State-spirit delivered the Lord Christ Himself to the will of the Hierarchy, so it subsequently pursued the same course with Christianity.—The light of the calm majesty of Christ alone illumines the dark scene of His condemnation.
Section First—Joh_18:28-40. The cunningly calculated appearing of the accusers: 1. Hypocritical: they keep the legal Passover holy, to the end that they may the more surely deliver up the true Paschal Lamb to the Gentiles; 2. Dissembling, naïve: they make as if the sentence were already decided; Pilate has nothing to do but to set the great seal to it; 3. Truckling: “we may not put any man to death;” 4. Slanderously and disclaimingly shameless: they design to entrap Pilate with the ambiguous phrase: “the King of the Jews;” 5. Crafty, bold: they choose a mob-hero, Barabbas, who has made a sedition (probably against the Roman authorities).—The competence conflict, or the embroilments between the Hierarchy and the despotic State, and the ultimate, wicked peace.—The counter-question of Christ (Joh_18:34) a word of the heavenly Judge (for instruction): 1. For the elucidation of the matter; 2. for the warning of Pilate; 3. for the illumination of the accusers.—The Roman interrogation: What hast Thou done?—The declaration of Jesus: My kingdom is not of this world: 1. As defence; 2. as accusation.—The kingdom of Christ in its spiritualness and heavenliness: 1. How it differs from the kingdom of the Romans 2. but also from the government of the Priests.—The royal confession: A King Amos 1.—The royal Kingdom of Truth: l. The Kingdom of the King: Truth in its profoundest essence, as a revelation of God; in its highest power, as the Gospel; in its broadest extent, as the uniting bond of all life; in its bodily appearance, as the Person of Christ. 2. The King of the Kingdom: Christ personal Truth itself, as the light centre of all life, thoroughly at one with itself, and therefore the Light of the world. 3. The title of the King: Perfect agreement of His birth and His mission (His office); His ideal and His historical vocation. 4. His government: The faithful Witness, with His testimony; the Host-leader of all faithful witnesses (martyrs). 5. Increase of the Kingdom: The Word received as His voice by all who are of the truth.—The word of Pilate: What is truth? 1. How word might have become the saving of his life (if he had spoken inquiringly and submitted himself to the answer); 2. How it became the judgment of his life (because he spoke it triflingly and scornfully, going out immediately.—What is truth? This question may be considered according to its divine meaning; 1. As the sneering exclamation of the impious scoffer; 2. as the mere declaration of a frivolous worldling (Pilate); 3. as the doubting question of an earnest investigator; 4. as the vital question of a longing heart.—The Pilate-question of the Roman spirit of tradition. (We must abide by the tradition, cried the Roman pagans to the Christians. How can ye think of such a thing as proclaiming new truths?) Pilate’s declaration without: I find no fault in Him; in connection with the preceding utterance: What is truth?—Pilate’s testimony to the innocence of Jesus. First attempt to release the Accused.—But it is your custom; How Pilate, with the first deviation from the right, had entered upon the road of calamity. Barabbas, see the Synoptists.
Section Second, Chap, Joh_19:1-16. The scourging of Christ, in respect to its two-fold signification: 1. In respect to Pilate’s intention (made prominent by John), it was to avert the crucifixion. 2. In respect to the actual result, it formed (according to the statement of the Synoptists) the beginning of the crucial sufferings of Christ.—Second attempt to release the Accused.—Lo there, the Man! 1. The word in the sense of Pilate. 2. The word in respect of its higher signification.—The second accusation in respect to its contradiction of the first in the sense of the accusers.—Pilate’s fear. Close connection between unbelief and superstition.—Second examination by Pilate, by reason of the charge: He made Himself the Son of God.—Jesus’ silence in the second examination by Pilate compared with His silence before Caiaphas.—The haughtiness in Pilate’s reproof (Joh_19:19), and the august-ness in the answer of Christ.—Christ sees even in the power of Pilate and its misuse, pre-eminently an instrument and a work of Divine Providence.—The greater and the less great sinners, or Jesus Himself in judgment, the holy Judge in righteousness and clemency.—Pilate’s resolution to release Jesus; or the last attempt, frustrated by the bold menace of the Jews. Why was it possible for this menace so to disturb him? 1. Because he was Pilate (on account of his extortions, destitute of a good conscience and of trust in God, and setting his earthly self-preservation above all things). 2. Because his sovereign was the emperor Tiberius (the cruel and suspicious tyrant who lent a ready ear to denunciations of all kinds). 3. Because he knew the Jewish priests (their deceitful cunning and fanatical boldness).—The priestly revolutionists with the bugbear of revolution in their mouths: 1. Revolutionists against the emperor (in their hearts;—against the authority of the governor). 2. Declaring Christ to be a revolutionist; And Pilate himself to be open to suspicion of this crime.—Gabbatha and Golgotha.—Pilate wraps himself in all the pomp of a judge, while his judicial dignity is drabbled in the dust.—The priests put on the mask of devotion to the emperor while they condemn their King to the cross.—The scoffs of a Pilate cannot break the power which the priests exercise over the blind populace.—Gentile-Roman policy overcome by the Jewish hierarchy.—The glory of Jerusalem and the glory of Rome sink away in one ordeal in which they judge the Lord of the world;—and with them the glory of Judaism and the glory of heathenism—the glory of the whole old world.—Agreement (concordance) of Pilate and the priests.—The suffering of the Lord in Pilate’s tribunal: 1. In view of Pilate tottering to his fall; 2. in view of the priests of His nation in their obduracy and craftiness; 3. in view of the delusion of the infatuated, ragi
