them had shamefully perverted and prevaricated; but, notwithstanding, it was seized by the high priest from his false notions of Messiah as an acknowledgment of the charge preferred. Stoning was the mode of death which the Law appointed for that crime; but though the Jews could pass sentence, they could not execute it. One of the signs of Messiah’s advent thus stared them in the face; “the sceptre had [thus] departed from Judah, and a lawgiver from between his feet.” Accordingly, they were obliged to have recourse to the Roman procurator, Pilate; but then they knew that he would not interfere with their relicious controversies. What now is to be done? They take new ground; they change the accusation from blasphemy to treason, in order to subject their Prisoner to the secular power. 2, Charges preferred. The charge was really constructive treason, but their indictment as first advanced consisted of three articles. ‘They charged him (1) with perverting the nation ; (2) with forbidding to give tribute to Cesar; and (3) with affirming that he himself was Christ, a King. Pilate pays no attention to the first and second, and only notices the third. His mode of procedure was in accordance with the Roman respect for law and sense of justice. He refused to confirm the sentence of the Sanhedrim, and proceeded to hold a private and preliminary examination (avaxpiois: as we read in Luke xxiii. 14, avaxpfvas), having removed Jesus into the Preetorium, or governor’s palace. This examination Pilate conducted in person, as he had no questor ; and was satisfied of the harmless- ness of the title of King by the Saviour’s explanation that his kingdom was not of this world. Pilate was convinced of our Lord’s innocence, but hearing Galilee mentioned, he at once caught at the idea of shifting the responsibility, or at least sharing it with Herod Antipas, and at the same time of conciliating the tetrarch by an act of courtesy; and in consequence remitted (dvéweuWev) the accused to Herod’s as the higher court, or technically from the court apprehensionis to the court origints. Herod, having been disappointed by seeing no miracle performed by the reputed miracle-worker, and dis- satisfied by his dignified silence, sent him back to Pilate, arrayed in a white or gorgeous (Aaumpay, from Adw, to see) robe, thus caricaturing his candidateship or claim to royalty, and thereby hinting to Pilate that instead of a punishable offence, it was rather a matter of contempt and ridicule. Pilate is perplexed, and no wonder; his vacillation now begins to take effect. He sins against his sense of justice asa Roman magistrate ; he sing against conscience; he proposes a most unjust and unlawful compromise, namely, the chastisement (wa:devoas) of an innocent person. But this concession, unrighteous as it was, did not satisfy ; and again he tried to avail himself of the custom of releasing one at the feast in compliance with the clamour of the multitude; but the cry of the populace, instigated by the agents of the priests, was, “ Not this man, but Barabbas,” By a symbolic act, this weak judge seeks to transfer the guilt to the infuriate mob, and still clinging to the hope that the multitude would be content with a compromise, he delivered Jesus to be scourged, and that, not with the rods of the lictors, but with the horrible scourge tipped with bone and lead (¢payeAAdoas). 3. Retrospect at the indignities. The first act of insult and violence was, as we have seen, during the inquisition by Annas, who sought to entangle him by insidious interrogatories, when one of the officers struck Jesus with his hand or with a rod (fdmioya), as St. John informs us. The next was in the course of the second Jewish trial, which was conducted by Caiaphas, and by which the confession of being “the Christ, the Son of God,” was extorted. In describing this sad scene, no less than five forms of beating are mentioned by the Evangelists Matthew and Mark and Luke. The latter has (1) déporres, properly to skin or flay, and then beat severely ; (2) €rvwrov, imperfect, they kept smiting him; (8) ratoas, to inflict blows or strike with violence; St. Matthew has (4) ékoadpway, they buffeted with clenched fist; and (5) ¢ppdmoav, they struck with open palms or rods; while St. Mark has fawiopoow... €BadAdov, they received him with blows of the hands or strokes of rods. It was on this occasion they did spit in his face and blindfold him, derisively bidding him “prophesy, who is it that smote thee?” with many other vilifications, in some or all of which the members of the council, as well as the menials of the court, took part. We now hasten from such a disgraceful scene—from the scornful spitting, the shameful scofling, the savage smiting, the ribald revilings, the shocking cruelties, and the savage barbarities of the miscreants of the Sanhedrim—and pass on to his treatment by Herod. He joins with his men of war in setting him at nought and mocking bim, and arrays nim in a gorgeous robe, as if to caricature
1
on. xv. 1—47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 835