Burkitt remarks, " Hypocrites within tlie pale of the visible Church may be guilty of sucli monstrous acts of wickedness, as even the consciences of heathens without the Church may bog- gle at and protest against."
7. — \_The Jews answered him, etc.] In this verse we find the priests taking up a new ground of accusation against our Lord. They saw that their political accusation had failed. Pilate would not condemn Him as a King, and refused to see any fault in Him on that score. They, therefore, charge our Lord with blasphemy, and committing an offence against their law. As to Pilate's ironical words, " Take yd Him and crucify Him," they made no remark on them, as though they knew they were not meant to be taken seriously. The whole sense must be filled up in some such way as this, — " It is no use telling us to crucify this prisoner ourselves, because you well know that it is not lawful for us to put any man to death ; but seeing that you will not condemn Him as a political offender, we now charge Him with an offence against our religion, which, as our Governor, you are bound to defend and protect. We call upon you to condemn Him to death for claiming to be the Son of God, which, according to our law, is blasphemy, and a capital crime." This is a lengthy paraphrase, undoubtedly, but one which is necessary, if we would fill up the sense of the verse, and understand what the Jews meant.
The " law " referred to by the Jews is probably Levit. xxiv. 16. But it is curious that " stoning " is the punishment there mentioned, and not a word is said of crucifixion. This they do not tell Pilate. There is, perhaps, more fullness in the expres- sion " a law " than appears at first. It may mean, " we Jews have a law given us by man from God, which is our rule of faith in religion. It is a law, we know, not binding on Gen- tiles, but it is a law which we feel bound to obey. One of the articles of that law is, that " He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be stoned.' We ask that this article may be enforced in the case of this man. He lias blasphemed by call- ing Himself the Son of God, and He ought to be put to death. We, therefore, demand His life." There certainly seems aa emphasis in the Greek on the word " we," as if it meant " we Jews," in contradistinction to Gentiles.
The expression " He ought " is literally, " he owes it," he is a debtor, he is under an obligation or penalty of death, accord- ing to the terms of our code of law.
The expression " made Himself," must mean appointed, con- stituted, or declared Himself the Son of God. Compare Mark iii. 14, John vi. 15 — viii. 53, Acts ii. 36, Heb. iii. 2, Rev. i. 6.
The expression " Son of God " meant far more to a Jewish mind than it does to us. We see in John v. 18 that the Jewa considered that when our Lord said that God was His Father He made Himself " equal with God." See also John x. 33.