The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 379

preted in ita nntur11I sense: the Jewa were 11!\Y, with Rrnan, thut ,John baR S11h~tH11t,ed unwilling to contract oeromoninl defilement, the foot-washing fnr the sn,crame,ntlll fenst. becrmse they were o.bont to oo.t the Pnssover, (On tho principle of his omisirions, see Intro- e.nd so with respoct to the other roforcnces duction, pp. c.-cv.) In John's Gospel, whiob nll,primllfacie, sug- Ver. W.-Pile.te therefore, becauRe of gl'et the enme chronologionl nrrnngemcnt. their rooted ne.tional prejudice, went out 1 (2) A very powerful Mgument has been con- unto them beyond his court, to some open structed, however, which brings John's o.c- apnce convenient for bearing the case. count hero, o.a well o.s olecwbere, into har· Pilate is introduced here without any pre- mony with the supposed nesortinn of e. liminary statement or title, ne though the synoptio nnrrative, tlmt tbo Pascbnl men! position of the man were well known to hie preceded tho trinl of Jesus. It is snid by ree.dere-anotber proof that the synoptic Hengstonberg, l\1'Clellnn, Edersheim, nnd narrative is presupposed. This scrupulous- others that this unwillingness to defile ness contrasts with the summary proceed- themselves wna because they were anticipat- ing of Herod Agrippa (Acts xii. 1, 2), and ing their midday meal, at which sncrificial with the conduct of the Roman authorities offerings o.nd thank offerings, nlao called (Acts xxii. 24). The very question he asks chagigah, were i-ego.rded e.e "enting the PD.SB- implies that something had conspired to over" (Dent. xvi. 2, 8; 2 Chron. x:u. 22; provoke a certain sympathy ou his part xxxv. 7-9). It is ILI"gned the.t, if the Jews with Jesus, and to excite e.dditional sus- were thinking of o. meal which would not picion of the Jews. The statement of come off till sundown, their fear of defile- Matt. xxvii. 1!) may aceo=t for the former. meut WBB illusory. But examination of The fact tl ,e.t he WD.B ready to hear the case these passages shows that there is a distinc• o.t this early hour shows that he moat have tion drawn between the Pe.schal lamb o.nd been prepared for the scene, and even the catlle which might form part of the primed for it. Pilate (the wanuscripb genenil sacrificial feasting of the following vary between Pei'latos and Pilatos) was the days, e.nd that the term "Passover" is fifth governor of Judaia under the Romans, strictly limited to the Paschal lamb. More- o.nd held office from A.D. 26-36. He is over, the duration of the defilement thus represented by Philo (' Legatio ad Caium,' contrnctcd would certainly have prevented 38) as a proud, nngovernable wan ; and, in them from o.ny participation in the Blaying his conflicts with the Jews, he had especial of the PD.Behal lamb "bP.tween the even- reason to detest their obstinate ceremonial ings" of the 14th and 15th of Nisan. Dr. and religious prejudices. Philo speaks of Moulton has made the ingenious suggestion Pilate's "ferocious passions,'' says that he that John's statement here is brought into we.s given to fits of furious wrat!J, and that he.rmony with the synoptic narrative, by the be he.d reason to fear that complaints In.id supposition that the chief priests had been before Tiberius for "his acts of insolence, disturbed in their Passover preparntiom, his habit of insulting people, for h.is cruelty, o.nd were intending to complete their meal and murders of people untried and uncon- as eoon e.s the decision of the Roman demned, e.nd his ne1·er-ending inhumanity," governor be.d been given. This very sup- might bring upon him the rebuke which position reveals the exceeding unlikelihood ultimately the emperor gave him, in con- that all the hiemrcha o.nd chief scribes, sequence of his endeavour to fore., from the Phe.risees, and elders of the people had con• Jews D.Bsent to his placing gilt shields in the sented to forego the dne solemnization of po.lace of Herod. Josephus(' Ant.,' xviii. 2. their natione.1 rite on that previous evening. 4) gives a better account of Pilate, and ,hows This B11ppoeition involves o. much greater that a portion of his administration Wll8 not violation of Passover regule.tion than that without beneficent purpose, thw1LI"ted by Jesus and the twelve should have antici- the fanatical opposition of the ,Tews. On pated the ceremony by a few hours. If the this occasion ho asked first of the mob of day is the 14th of Nise.n, all, so far as John's priests, Who.t accusation do ye bring e.gainst account is concerned, is obvious. I am there- this Man l He may have k-nown, probably fore disposed to agree with Meyer, Keim, did know, but cho,e to give formality to De Presseriee, Baur, Neo.ndor, De Wctte, the charge, o.nd not simply to register their Ebre.rd, Ewald, Westcott, Godet, e.nd Liicke, decrees. ago.inst Hengetenberg, Wieseler, Tholuck, Vere. SO, 81.-They &D8Wered and said, If Lutbo.rdt, M 1 Clelle.n, and mo.ny others. 'fhe 1 ~E,., is here introduced by Tischendorf full interprete.tion of the synoptic narrative is discussed elsewhere (Introduction, p. xcii.). (8th edit.), Tregelles, Alford, Westcott Certainly John makes no reference to the o.nd Hort, and R.T., on the 11,uthority of ~. Passover in his account of tho Last Supper, B, C, L, eto., 1, 27, 33, Syriac, against T.R., neither does he refer to the institution of which omits it, with A, C', D, o.:itl som~ Uio Lord's Supper. It will not be just to versions.  89B THE GOSPEL AOOORDING TO ST, JOHN. [cm. xvm. 1-40.