Luke 23:13-19

Not having succeeded in this way, Pilate finds himself reduced to seek another expedient. Two present themselves to his mind: first, the offer to chastise Jesus, that is to say, to scourge Him; then the proposition to release Him as a pardoned malefactor, according to the custom of the feast. The penalty of scourging strictly formed part of the punishment of crucifixion; it was the imperative preliminary. Jerome says (in Matt. xxvii.): Sciendum est Pilatum romanis legibus ministrasse, quibus sancitum erat ut qui crucifigeretur, prius flagellis verberetur (Langen, p. 281). This previous punishment was often mortal. In this case Pilate offered it to the Jews in place of crucifixion, not as the first act of that punishment. He hoped that at the sight of this the more moderate would be satisfied, and that the last act would not be demanded of him. But to secure the certainty of this means, he combines it with the other. The time was come for releasing a state prisoner, as was common at the feast. He reckons on the numerous adherents of Jesus who had welcomed Him with acclamations on Palm Day, and whose voices, in spite of the rulers, would make themselves heard in demanding His release.

At Luke 23:15, Tischendorf prefers the Alex. reading: “For he sent him to us,” instead of, “For I sent you to him.” But this reading has arisen from an entire misunderstanding of the following phrase. It was translated, “And, lo! nothing is done unto him (at Herod's court) to show that he has been judged worthy of death;” while the Greek expression signifies, according to a well-known construction, “And, lo! he is found to have done nothing (He, Jesus) which was worthy of death [in Herod's conviction as well as in mine].” The received reading is therefore indisputably the true one.

Pilate declares aloud that the result of this whole series of inquiries has been to establish the innocence of Jesus. But why in this case conclude, as he does (therefore, Luke 23:16), by offering to scourge Him, thereafter to release Him? It was already a denial of justice to send Jesus to Herod after having acknowledged His innocence; it is a more flagrant one still to decree against Him, without any alleged reason, the penalty of scourging. This first concession betrays his weakness, and gives him over beforehand to his adversaries, who are more decided than he.

If Luke 23:17 is authentic, and if it is to be put here (see the critical note), the most natural connection between Luke 23:16-17 is this: “I will release him; for I am even under obligation to release unto you a prisoner.” Pilate affects to have no doubt that, when the liberation of a prisoner is offered to the people, they will claim Jesus. But if this verse is rejected as unauthentic, we must recognise in the ἀπολύσω, I will release, Luke 23:16, a positive allusion to the custom of releasing a prisoner. At Luke 23:18, the Jews, understanding in a moment Pilate's idea, would reply to him by putting themselves at his view-point. But this explanation is somewhat forced, and the omission of Luke 23:17 may have arisen in the Alex. from confounding the two AN...which begin the two Luke 23:17-18.

In John, Pilate, while reminding the people of this custom, directly offers them the deliverance of Jesus. This was probably the real course of events. In Matthew, he puts the alternative between Jesus and Barabbas, which is less natural. In Mark, it is the people who, interrupting the deliberation relative to Jesus, all at once claim the liberation of a prisoner, which is less natural still.

The origin of the custom here mentioned is not known. It is far from probable that it was introduced by the Romans. Langen justly quotes against this supposition the words of Pilate (John 18:39), “ Ye have a custom.” Perhaps it was a memorial of the great national deliverance, of the escape from Egypt, which was celebrated at the feast of Passover. The Romans, who took a pride in respecting the usages of conquered peoples, had fallen in with this custom.

But before Pilate had carried out the scourging, the people had already made their choice. This choice is presented, Luke 23:18, as unanimous and spontaneous (παμπληθεί), while Matthew and Mark, more accurate on the point, ascribe it to the pressure exercised by the rulers and their underlings, which harmonizes with John 19:6.

Mark and Luke characterize Barabbas as one who had been guilty of murder in an insurrection; he was therefore a representative of the same revolutionary spirit of which the Sanhedrim were accusing Jesus. To give up Jesus to the cross, and to demand Barabbas, was to do at the same moment two significant acts. It was to repudiate the spirit of submission and faith which had distinguished the whole work of Jesus, and which might have saved the people. It was at the same time to let loose the spirit of revolt which was to carry them to their destruction.

The name Barabbas comes from בַּר and אַבָּא (son of the father). This name signifies, according to most, son of Abba, of God. Keim understands son of the Rabbin, taken as spiritual father. The name Jesus, which is also given to this man in 4 Mnn. of Matthew, and which was found, according to the Fathers, in a considerable number of MSS., was probably added to the name of Barabbas, with the desire to render the parallelism the more striking.

The liberation of Barabbas was a judicial act; to carry it out, Pilate must ascend his judgment-seat. It was probably at this moment that the message of his wife, of which Matthew speaks (Luke 23:19, “ When he was set down on the judgmentseat ”), was transmitted to him.