Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 19

John 19:3. καὶ ἔλεγον] B. L. U. X. Λ. Π. א. Curss., most Verss. Cyr. Nom. Aug.: καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον. Rightly adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta originated in a mechanical way, just as readily through an erroneous transition from the first αὐτόν to the second, as through the apparently unnecessary, indeed unsuitable, character which ἤρχ. πρ. αὐτ. might possess.

ἐδίδουν] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐδίδοσαν. But see on John 15:22.

John 19:4. Elz. Scholz: ἐξῆλθεν οὖν. Lachm.: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν. The witnesses are very much divided, but there is preponderant testimony in favour of καὶ ἐξῆλθ. (A. B. K. L. X. Π. Curss. Syr. Aeth. Cyr.). Nevertheless, considering the frequency of such insertions, the omission of the particle (Griesb. Tisch.) is sufficiently justified by D. Γ. א. Curss. Verss.

ἐν αὐτ. οὐδ. αἰτ. εὑρ.] Very many variations, amongst which the simple αἰτ. οὐχ εὐρ. would, with Tisch., be preferable, if it were not that it has only א.* in its favour.

John 19:6. αὐτόν] is omitted after the second σταύρ. in Elz. Tisch., but has the preponderance of testimony in its favour, for amongst the Uncials only B. L. omit it. Nevertheless, the addition was so easily suggested of itself, and through Luke 23:21, Mark 15:13, John 19:15, that it is to be regarded as a supplement.

John 19:7. ἡμῶν] is wanting in B. D. L. Δ. א. Vulg. It. Or. Hil. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But how easily might its omission have been caused, partly by the preceding syllable MON, partly by its being apparently superfluous!

John 19:10. After λέγει, Elz. Lachm. have οὖν, which, indeed, is wanting only in A. א. Curss. Syr. Perss. Copt. Arm. Slav. Cyr. (deleted by Tisch.); considering, however, the appropriateness of the connection which it expresses, it would hardly have been omitted had it been genuine. The copyists can scarcely have felt that there was anything cumbrous (in answer to Lücke, De Wette) in the expression.

John 19:11. εἶχες] A. D. L. X. Y. Λ. Π. א. Curss.: ἔχες. Defended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 485 ff., adopted by Tisch. An old copyist’s mistake, which is supported by none of the Verss. except Copt., and by none of the Fathers, which, however, crept in readily enough after the shortly preceding ἔχω.

John 19:12. ἔχραζον] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐχραύγαζον, according to important witnesses, indeed, but derived from John 19:6; John 19:18; John 19:40, whence B. D. Curss. have directly repeated ἐκραύγασαν.

John 19:13. τοῦτον τὸν λόγον] The genit. plur., and that either τούτων τῶν λόγων, or, more strongly still, τῶν λόγων τούτων, is so decisively attested, that the latter, with Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted. The Recepta is derived from John 19:8.

John 19:14. Instead of δέ after ὥρα, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἦν, on decisive testimony; δέ is a stylistic correction.

ἕκτη] D. L. X. Δא.** Curss. Chronic, alex. (the latter appealing to the ἀκριβῆ ἀντίγραφα, nay, even to the ἰδιόχειρον of John!) Nonn. Sev. ant. (appealing to Euseb.) Ammon. Theophyl.: τρίτη. An old harmonistic alteration in conformity with Mark 15:25 (comp. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).

John 19:16-17. Instead of ἤγαγον, Elz. has ἀπήγαγον, against decisive testimony. But B. L. X. Curss. Codd. N. Copt. Cyr. entirely omit καὶ ἤγαγον. So Lachm. and Tisch. But if the continuation had here been supplied from the parallel passages, not ἤγαγον, but ἀπήγαγον (comp. Matthew 27:31; Luke 23:26), would have the preponderance of testimony. καὶ ἤγαγον, however, might easily have disappeared in the course of transcription, owing to a transition having been at once made from the first καί to the second.

τὸν σταυρ. αὑτοῦ] Lachm.: αὐτῷ τ. στ. (B. X.); ἑαυτῷ τ. στ. (L. א. Or.). The latter, in favour of which D. also testifies with ἐαυτοῦ, is to be preferred. The reflexive pronoun was frequently neglected. The Recepta is an alteration in conformity with the most current mode of expression.

John 19:20. The order of the words Ἐβρ., Ῥωμ., Ἐλλ. (so Tisch., according to B. L. X. א. Curss. Copt. Sah. Aeth. Cyr.) has probability, considering the standpoint of Pilate, in its favour.

John 19:26-27. Instead of ἰδού, we should, in conformity with important testimony, read both times with Lachm. and Tisch. ἴδε, frequent in John (he has ἰδού only in John 4:35, John 16:32, and from the LXX. John 12:15), though we are not to assume any difference of meaning between the two forms.

John 19:29. οὖν] is wanting in A. B. L. X. Codd. It., whilst a few other witnesses (including א.) have δέ. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Tisch.

οἱ δὲ πλήσ. σπόγγ. ὀξ. καί] Lachm.: σπόγγ. οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὅξους, according to B. L. X. א. Curss. Verss. Cyr. Hilar. So also Tisch., but without τοῦ, which X. א. do not contain. The Recepta is shaped in conformity with Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36, where οἱ δέ was readily suggested as an insertion on account of the change of persons.

John 19:31. Instead of ἐκείνου, Elz. has ἐκείνη, against decisive testimony.

John 19:35. καὶ ὑμεῖς] Elz. has merely ὑμεῖς. But καί is so strongly attested, and might be so readily omitted as being without reference, that it must be preserved.

John 19:40. ἐν ὀθον.] The mere ὀθον. (Elz. Lachm.) is very strongly attested (B. K. L. X. Y. Π. א.), but the superfluous ἐν might readily be passed over, comp. John 12:44, especially as the preponderance of parallel passages present the mere dative.

John 19:1-3. Οὖν] After the miscarriage of this attempt at deliverance, Pilate will at least make this further venture to see whether the compassion of the Jews is not to be awakened. Hence he causes the scourging to be carried out on Jesus’ person, to which punishment He in any case, if He were to be crucified, must be subjected; and hopes, in the folly of his moral vacillation, by means of such maltreatment, although inflicted without sentence and legality, to satisfy the Jews, and avert something worse. Comp. on Matthew 27:26. With a like purpose in view, he also gives Him up to the contumelious treatment of the soldiers, who deck Him out as king (John 18:39) with a crown of thorns (see on Matthew 27:29) and a purple mantle (comp. on Matthew 27:28; Mark 15:17).

ἔλαβεν] shows the simple style of the narrative.

κ. ἤρχ. πρ. αὐτ.] See the critical notes. It is a pictorial trait. He stands arrayed before them; they go up to Him and do obeisance to Him!

ῥαπίσματα] As in John 18:22. Codd. of It. add in faciem.

John 19:4-5. Πάλιν] For, according to John 18:40, Pilate has returned into the praetorium, and has caused Jesus to be scourged, John 19:1. The scourging was certainly carried out so that the Jews could see it. The prisoner, scourged and arrayed like the caricature of a king, he causes to be led forth in his train.

ὑμῖν] Vobis; what follows gives the more exact explanation of this reference.

ἵνα γνῶτε, κ.τ.λ.] For had he found Him guilty, he would certainly not make the repeated attempt, implied in this leading forth and presentation of Jesus to them, to change the mind of the Jews, but would dispose of the matter by ordering execution.

John 19:5. ἐξῆλθεν … ἱμάτιον is not a parenthesis, but the narrative, according to which Jesus comes forth in the train of Pilate, proceeds without interruption, in such a manner, however, that with λέγει (Pilate) the subject suddenly changes; see Heindorf, ad Plat. Euthyd. p. 275 B; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8.

φορῶν] Not φέρων; for the kingly attire is now to the close of the proceedings His permanent garb (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 585).

The short significant ecce homo! behold the man, whose case we are condemning! has its eloquent commentary in the entire manifestation of suffering in which the ill-treated and derided one was set forth. This suffering form cannot be the usurper of a throne! The words are gently and compassionately spoken, and ought to excite compassion (comp. already Chrysostom); it is in John 19:14 that he first says with bitterness: ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν.

John 19:6-8. Of the presence of the people (who perhaps kept silence, Lücke thinks; comp. Luthardt, according to whom the high priests desired to forestall any possible expressions of compassion on the part of the people) the text says nothing; the Ἰουδαῖοι, John 18:31; John 18:38, were just pre-eminently the ἀρχιερεῖς of the present passage.

ὅτε οὖν εἶδον] The spectacle, instead of calming their bitterness, goads them on.

λάβετε αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς, κ.τ.λ.] A paradox, amounting to a peevish and irritated refusal, since the Jews did not possess the right of execution, and crucifixion was certainly not a Jewish capital punishment. Crucify him yourselves, if you will have him crucified!

Now, however, they introduce the authority of their law, according to which Jesus (as being a blasphemer, namely, of God, Leviticus 24:16; Matthew 26:63-64) must die. They thus prudently give to their demand another legal basis, to be respected by the procurator in conformity with Roman policy, and to the accusation the corresponding religious sanction. An admission, however, that their political suspicion of Jesus had only been a pretext (Steinmeyer), is not contained in this; it is only another turn given to the charge.

ἡμεῖς] With haughty emphasis, opposed to the preceding ἐγὼ … αἰτίαν. On ὅτι υἱὸν, κ.τ.λ., comp. John 5:18, John 10:33.

μᾶλλον ἐφοβ.] His fear only became the greater (μᾶλλ., see John 5:18), namely, of suffering Jesus to be executed. To the previous fear of conscience was now, in truth, added the fear of the vengeance of a God, namely, of Jehovah, the God of the Jews, in case the assertion mentioned should turn out to be true. He explained to himself the υἱὸς θεοῦ after the analogy of pagan heroes, like the centurion, Matthew 27:54. That he was moved by the idea of the unity of God (Hengstenberg) has nothing to support it; nay, viewed in the light of the wanton words, John 18:38, very improbable.

John 19:9-10. He therefore took Jesus again away with him into the praetorium for a private audience.

πόθεν] asks after His origin, but not in the sense of the place of birth (Paulus), but in the sense occasioned by υἱὸν θεοῦ, John 19:7, in order to obtain a declaration from Jesus on this point, whether He were of human or divine origin. Comp. on John 8:14; Matthew 21:25.

ἀπόκρ. οὐκ ἔδωκ. αὐτῷ] Both this observation, as well as the peculiarity of Pilate’s question, betraying a certain timidity, πόθεν εἶ σύ (how entirely different is his question, John 18:33; while here he shrinks from asking directly), has the stamp of originality. Jesus is silent; for what He would have had to say would only have been misunderstood by Pilate, or not understood at all (John 17:25; Matthew 7:6). Moreover, He had already in truth sufficiently indicated His heavenly origin, John 18:36-37, had Pilate only possessed susceptibility for the truth. But as it was, he was unworthy of further discussion, and in the silence of Jesus it is precisely the self-assurance and greatness of the Son of God which are implied. Luthardt explains it from the assumption that Jesus will not give Pilate occasion to release Him from motives of fear, and thereby to interfere with the will of God. But on that supposition He must also have withheld the great and bold words, John 19:11. A resolute opposition on the part of the sceptical man of the world to the desire of the Jews, Jesus assuredly neither hoped nor feared.

John 19:10. Καὶ φοβεῖται καὶ φοβεῖ, Euth. Zigabenus.

ἐμοὶ οὐ λαλεῖς;] ἐμοί bears the emphasis of mortified power, which then also attempts alike to terrify and to entice. To mention at first the σταυρῶσαί σε, and then, not before, the ἀπολῦσαί σε, corresponded to the state of the procedure. But A. B. E. א. Lachm. Tisch. have the converse order, which would, however, more readily suggest itself to the mechanical copyist. The repetition of ἐξουσ. ἔχω is solemn.

John 19:11. With a clear and holy defiance, to defend against this expression of personal power at least, the supremacy of the Father, Jesus now speaks His last word to Pilate. He points the latter, with his ἐξουσία which he has put forward, by the reference σταυρῶσαί σε, to the highest authority which has invested him with that ἐξουσία, but at the same time, with conciliatory mildness, deduces from it a standard to diminish the guilt of the judge. The saying breathes truth and grace.

οὐκ εἶχες] Thou wouldst not have.[235] “Indicativus imperfecti sine ἄν h. l. in firmissima asseveratione longe est aptissimus,” Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 21. See also Stallbaum, ad Plat. Sympos. p. 190 C; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. IV. p. 438 ff.; Winer, p. 286 [E. T. p. 383].

δεδομένον] Namely, the ἐξουσιάζειν κατʼ ἐμοῦ. See Kühner, II. sec. 421; Bernhardy, p. 335. Not: the definite act of condemnation (Steinmeyer).

ἄνωθεν] i.e. from God, John 3:3; John 3:31. That even the heathen could understand. Had Jesus said ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου, he would not have understood it. Pilate stands before Jesus with the ἐξουσία to destroy Him; but he has this power from God, and he would not possess it if God had not appointed him for the fulfilment of His destiny concerning Jesus. For this reason, however (διὰ τοῦτο), that is, because he here acts not in independent self-determination, but as the divinely-ordained organ of the procedure which is pending against Him, he is not indeed free from sin, since he condemns Jesus contrary to his own conviction of His innocence; but greater is the guilt of him who delivered Jesus into Pilate’s hands, since that divinely-bestowed ἐξουσία is wanting to the latter. The logical connection of the διὰ τοῦτο rests on the fact that the παραδιδούς μέ σοι is the high priest, to whom, consequently, no power is given by God over Him, the Messiah, who in truth is higher than the high priest; to Pilate, on the other hand, the Roman potentate, this power is lent, because, as bearer of the highest magisterial authority, he derives his warrant from God (comp. Romans 13:1), to decide concerning every one who is brought before his court, and therefore also concerning the Messiah, who has been accused and delivered up as a pretender to a crown. This power Pilate possessed simply as a Roman potentate; hence this point of view does not confuse the matter (Luthardt), but makes it clear. As δεδομ. is not to be transmuted into the notion of permission (Chrysostom), so also there is nothing to be found in διὰ τοῦτο which is not yielded by the immediate context. Hence we are not to understand with Euth. Zigabenus (comp. Theophylact): διότι ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις καὶ οὐκ ἀπολύεις με, so that the lesser degree of guilt rests on the weakness and timidity of Pilate (comp. Luther); nor with Grotius (comp. Bengel, Baeumlein, and already Ruperti): because thou canst not know so well as the Jews (to whom ὁ παραδ. is referred) who I am; nor even with Lampe: because the Jews have received no such power from God, have rather assumed it to themselves (Luthardt); but solely in harmony with the context: because thou hast the disposal of me, not from thy proper sovereignty, but from having been divinely empowered thereto.

ὁ παραδιδούς] he who delivers me up to thee; the affair is still in actu, those who deliver Him up stand without; hence the pres. The expression itself, however, cannot, as elsewhere in John (John 18:2, John 13:2, John 11:21, John 12:4, John 6:64; John 6:71; comp. Mark 14:21), mean Judas, who here lies entirely remote from the comparison, especially since σοι is used with it, nor even (so most interpreters) be understood collectively of the Jews. It is rather the chief of the Jews, the high priest Caiaphas, who is meant (so also Bengel, and now Ewald; comp. Luthardt, Baumgarten, p. 388, Hengstenberg), who ought to have recognised the Messiah, and not to have assumed to himself any power over Him.

μείζονα] compares the sin of the παραδιδούς with that of Pilate, not with itself, so that its guilt is designated as aggravated by the misuse of the ἐξουσία of Pilate (Calvin, Wetstein, Godet, also Baur).[236] The guilt which belonged to the παραδιδούς in and by himself, was in truth not aggravated by the delivering over into the hands of the regular magistracy, which was rather the orderly mode of procedure.[237]

[235] Buttmann, on account of the absence of ἄν, would interpret the reading εἶχες as follows: “Thou hadst, i.e. when thou didst receive the accusation, against me … no power over me, unless it was given to thee by God for that purpose.” See Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 501. But irrespective of the dragging in, in this necessitous manner, of this exacter definition of time in εἶχες, it is in truth precisely the undoubted possession of the ἐξουσία which forms the presupposition of the διὰ τοῦτο κ.τ.λ. that follows. With the reading ἔχεις, which Buttmann prefers, he explains: “thou hast no power over me, if it had not been given thee from above,” p. 494. But why in that case should the pluperf. ἦν δεδομένον stand? Instead of ἦν, ἐστί must have been used, in conformity with the sense.

[236] Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 283: “Since thou hast in my case the magisterial power over life and death, those who surrender me to thee, incur by their action, in itself immoral, all the greater guilt, if they abuse the magisterial authority given to thee for their own objects.”

[237] According to Steinmeyer, p. 156, Jesus would say: “Thy power, on the other hand, to release me, is already as good as wrested from thee on the part of the παραδιδ. μέ σοι; but on that very account thy sin is the less.” But this interpretation of διἀ τοῦτο is in truth altogether untextual, as the entire conception to which it would refer is first imported.

John 19:12. ʼΕκ τούτου] Not: from this time forward (so usually); for ἐζήτει, κ.τ.λ., is a particular act, which is immediately answered by the Jews with loud outcries; but: on this ground, as John 6:66, occasioned by this speech of Jesus (so also Luthardt and Lange).

ἐξήτει, κ.τ.λ., he sought to release Him (John 10:30; Luke 5:18; Luke 13:24; Luke 19:3; Acts 27:30, et al.). In what this attempt, which, though made, yet remained unaccomplished (hence imperf.), may more definitely have consisted, John does not say, and therefore it was, probably, only in renewed representations which he made. That which is usually supplied, as though μᾶλλον, as in John 15:18, were expressed therewith: he sought still more, he sought most earnestly (“previously he appears to John rather to have played with the matter,” Lücke), and the like, is capriciously imported, as also the rendering: now he demanded peremptorily, etc. (Steinmeyer).

With ἐὰν τοῦτον, κ.τ.λ., the Jews cunningly enough again return to and fasten upon the political side of the accusation, ὡς οὐ παροπτέον τῷ Πιλάτῳ διὰ τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Καίσαρος φόβον, Euth. Zigabenus. How greatly must he, who in so many features of his administration had anything but clean hands (Josephus, Antt. xviii. 3. 1 ff.; Philo, de legat. ad Caj. p. 1033), have desired to see avoided an accusation before Tiberius, so suspicious and jealous of his authority! (Suetonius, Tib. 58; Tacitus, Ann. iii. 38.) Comp. Hausrath, Christl. Zeitgesch. I. p. 312 ff.

φίλος τοῦ Καίσ.] Not in the titular sense of amicus Cacsaris, as high officials bore this title (see Wetstein; Grimm on 1Ma 2:18), in which, however, the sense of confidant (counsellor) of Caesar exists; but faithful to the emperor, friendly to him, and readily devoted to his interests (Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 5).

He who makes himself a king, by the fact, that is, of declaring himself to be such (comp. John 10:33), thereby declares himself (ἀντιλέγει) against the emperor. Accordingly, ἀντιλέγει is not generally: he opposes (Grotius, De Wette, Maier); but the emphasis lies upon the correlates βασιλέα and Καίσαρι.

John 19:13. These speeches penetrate the mind of Pilate, dismayed at the thought of Rome and the emperor. He will now, formally and solemnly, deliver the final sentence, which must be done, not in the praetorium, but outside in the open air (see Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 3, ii. 14. 8); he therefore causes Jesus to be brought out, and seats himself, taking his place on the judicial seat, at the place which is called Lithostroton, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.

ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος] Modal definition of ἐκάθ. εἰς τόπον.

Since τόπος here denotes a definite and distinguished place, the article is as little required as with πόλις, ἀγρός, and the like in such cases. Comp. Matthew 27:33; Kühner, II. p. 129.

The place where the tribunal stood, before the praetorium in Jerusalem, bore the Greek name, derived from its Mosaic floor (see Wetstein and Krebs, p. 158 f.) of Λιθόστρωτον, i.e. stone-joining, but in the Aramaic dialect that of גּבְּתָא, arising from its elevated position; two different names, therefore, derived from different properties[238] of the same place. Further, this place is mentioned neither in Josephus nor in the Rabbins. The name ΓΑΒΒ. is not to be derived from גִּבְעָה, hill (Hengstenberg), against which would be the double β (comp. Γαβαθᾶ, Josephus, Antt. v. 1. 29, vi. 4. 2), but from גַּב, ridge, hump. See generally Fritzsche, Verdienste Tholuck’s, p. 102; Tholuck, Beitr. p. 119 ff.

[238] Ewald attempts to refer Γαββαθᾶ also back to the signification of λιθόστρωτον by assuming a root גבע, but in the signification of קבע (Aram.: insert). Too bold an hypothesis. In the LXX. λιθοστρ. (Song of Solomon 3:10; 2 Chronicles 7:3; Esther 1:7) corresponds to the Hebr. רצף.