John 18:39Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Concerning involuntary homicide it is written: If someone, not out of enmity and without a special intention to harm his neighbor, throws an object or a stone, and the falling thing strikes a passerby and that man dies, such a killer is involuntary. The whole synagogue, that is, the assembly, shall judge concerning this. They shall free him from death, because he killed without malice, but they shall place him in a city of refuge, that is, punish him with exile. From this, perhaps, as we conjecture, they took occasion and introduced such a custom, to release one of those condemned for murderous intent. The law commands that this matter be conducted by the Jewish synagogue. But because the Jews were under Roman power, they entrusted the right of releasing prisoners to the Roman authorities, as now to Pilate. “Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” For he did not say, “Although He has sinned and deserves death, pardon Him for the feast.” Rather, he first declared Him free from every fault. Only then did he propose His release to them. Therefore, if Jesus is released, He owes them nothing, for they have released an innocent man. If they condemn Him, their malice will be proved, because they condemned an innocent man. See also that the title “King of the Jews” has its own meaning. By it Pilate clearly says that Jesus is in no way guilty. They accuse Him in vain, as though He were seeking kingship. A Roman governor would not release someone who declares himself king and rises against Roman dominion. Therefore, by saying, “I will release the King of the Jews,” Pilate declares Jesus decisively innocent and mocks the Jews. He speaks as though saying, “The One whom you slander as declaring Himself king, the One whom you call a rebel and insurgent, I consider it necessary to release. Clearly, this is because He is not such.”

Indeed, a Roman commander would never have proposed to release someone accused of violence and rebellion against the Romans. Therefore, by the very fact that he proposes to release Him, he bears witness to His complete innocence. I think this is the meaning contained in the passage. But when I considered and reasoned within myself whence the Jews had the custom of demanding the release of one man, whether robber or murderer, a thought occurred to me. Not everything among them was still done according to the divine law. Rather, they seem to have used their own customs more, and to have turned to a vain life not fully in accord with the ordinances of Moses. Yet when I examined divine Scripture and sought everywhere the reason for this custom, I encountered one passage of Scripture. It brings to my mind the conjecture that the Jews, though very self-willed, demanded the release of a criminal in fulfillment of one ordinance. At the end of the book called Numbers, such a law is set forth concerning a murderer, both voluntary and involuntary. After the punishment for a willful murderer is clearly defined, the discourse immediately passes to the law concerning an involuntary murderer. Then, among other things, it says: “But if suddenly, without enmity against him, he pushes him, or throws any object at him without lying in wait, or any stone by which one may die, without seeing him. And it falls upon him and he dies, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances. The congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge to which he had fled” (Num 35:22-25). Since such a commandment existed, if anyone fell into crimes of this kind, the Jews probably demanded one such offender when they gathered in multitude. They did this so that they might not appear to disregard this ordinance completely. For the law required that this be the act of the whole congregation. Yet according to the sense of the law, they themselves were able to release him. Instead, they ask Pilate to do it. The reason is that, having once accepted Roman authority over themselves, they had already entrusted most of their affairs to Roman laws. Thus, although they could put to death one condemned for certain transgressions, they bring Jesus to Pilate as such a man, saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” Even if they perhaps hypocritically hid behind purification because of the holiness of Passover. They undoubtedly flatter the Romans especially by entrusting to Roman laws even what the divine ordinance from above had prescribed to them.

The answer to Pilate’s question was not given at once, but after some time, when Pilate addressed the people a second time. Therefore one must suppose that, if the people wished to ask for Barabbas, it was only because they did not know that Jesus had been handed over to the judgment of the Sanhedrin and Pilate. When they learned from Pilate himself that they could ask for Jesus instead of Barabbas, the people fell into thought.

Will the Jews really prefer an insurgent and murderer to Jesus?” The latter seemed wholly incredible. For Pilate knew that the people did not share the chief priests’ hatred for Jesus. On the contrary, the people’s love for Him was the cause of their envy and ill will. Having instantly weighed all this, the governor turned to the people. “Good,” he said, “I am ready to fulfill your demand. I hear that you wish to ask freedom for Barabbas. I do not prevent it. However, I offer you another along with him for your choice. Do you want me to release to you Jesus, called Christ, the King of the Jews?” (Mt 27:17; Mk 15:9). Pilate said nothing more in praise of Jesus Christ. Praise from his lips could more likely have had the opposite result. It could seem an encroachment upon the freedom of choice so dear to the people, who sighed for their ancient rights. Yet what he might have said in praise was already contained, in a certain way, in the name given to the Prisoner as Christ, the King of the Jews. Pilate seems to have said this as a gesture of condescension. Indeed, with this name were joined all the pleasant memories and all the flattering hopes of the Jewish people. They had once had their own kings and now impatiently awaited the Messiah-King from David’s descendants. The very honor of the nation required that freedom and life be given to the Man whose whole crime consisted in calling Himself King of the Jews. Only in the mouth of the Roman procurator could the title “King of the Jews” appear ambiguous and even mocking. If not the people themselves, then the Lord’s enemies could interpret his words as though the governor were mocking them by asking freedom for the King of the Jews. In any case, Pilate’s proposal to the people concerning the choice of Jesus Christ was very extraordinary. “See,” Chrysostom remarks, “how the order has been changed. The people should ask Pilate for freedom for a criminal, but now the procurator himself asks it of the people.” The chief priests and the people withdrew a little for consultation. Pilate remained on the judgment seat, in the middle of the Lithostrotos, to conduct judgment over the other prisoners.

According to an established custom, most likely introduced by the Romans themselves to flatter the self-love of the subject people and thereby make them more readily accept the bitterness of political slavery, the Roman governor released some prisoner at Passover according to the people’s desire and choice. This custom, in any case, was not a national Jewish one. Knowing that the whole accusation against Jesus was the work of the chief priests and elders, he formed a plan. He knew that the common people had recently shown enthusiastic attachment to Christ at His final entry into Jerusalem. He decided to propose two prisoners for festive release, Jesus of Nazareth and the hardened robber and murderer Barabbas. According to one tradition, Barabbas was also called Jesus. Pilate hoped the people would prefer the One whom only days before they had greeted with delight as the Son of their famous King David, their national pride and glory.

He turns to another measure. The people expected from Pilate that, for the feast of Passover, the prefect would pardon one of the criminals (Mk 15:8). So Pilate offers the people a choice between two men, Barabbas or Christ Jesus. Everything shows that Pilate wants to free Jesus. He is convinced that Jesus was handed over to judgment only out of envy (Mk 15:10). Why, then, does Pilate have only a desire for good, and no deed? Why does he have knowledge of the truth, and no firm defense of truth? Because there is no sincere love for truth in his soul. Because love of the world was stifling the voice of conscience in him. Pilate betrayed truth also by this. While declaring to the Sanhedrin his conviction of Jesus’ innocence, he promised, contrary to his conviction, to punish innocent Jesus. He had gone far along the road of falsehood and unrighteousness when, while recognizing the innocence of Jesus Christ, he placed Him on the same level as Barabbas. Who was Barabbas? A rebel and robber (Lk 23:15), imprisoned with other insurgents who had committed murder during the uprising (Mk 15:7). And with such a criminal Pilate compares innocent Jesus. What calculation is Pilate making? Did he not think that they could prefer an obvious criminal to innocent Jesus? So it was. But is he a judge? Is he Caesar’s representative? No. He himself has removed his rights from himself and placed them in another’s hands. And to whom has he handed over his rights? To the mob. The proud Roman falls lower and lower. Even now one can foresee that Pilate will become a friend of Caiaphas, as he became friends with Herod. It is already clear that sinners of every kind and rank are taking their stand against Jesus Christ. Malicious hypocrites and shameless Sadducees, men of strong character and men weakened by corruption, representatives of mighty Rome and representatives of weak royal power, educated and uneducated, soldiers and servants all stand against Him. The people too will appear on the side of Jesus’ enemies, the same people who recently cried to Him in ecstasy, “Hosanna.”

Yet in this whole episode Pilate's weakness of character stands out vividly. He turns to the crowd, hoping that it will give him the courage to withstand the wish of those who, as he knew for certain, "had delivered Jesus up out of envy" (Mt 27:18).

We ask: would an old Roman have acted this way, unspoiled by imperialism, rough but honest, a representative of the severe virtues of ancient Rome?

Pilate's appeal to the crowd was not only a mistake and a failure to understand the nature of a crowd, especially a Jewish crowd. It was also a shameful admission that he did not dare act according to conscience.

The chief priests, Pharisees, and members of the Sanhedrin who directed the people had, of course, already prepared the people to demand the Lord's death with frenzied cries.

It is very likely that they foresaw even the possibility that Pilate would propose releasing the Lord Jesus to the people according to the custom at the feast. On the custom of releasing one prisoner at Passover, see Mt 27:15 and Mk 15:11.

In all probability the Romans themselves introduced this custom, since it was also practiced among them on the pagan feast of the Lectisternia. They prepared the demand that Barabbas be released, whom the Evangelist characterizes as a robber, lestes.

Why Pilate, when coming out to the people, uses the title of king in speaking of the Lord is not entirely clear. Most likely he addresses the people subject to Rome with bitter irony.

Later he continues this same cruel mockery in the inscription he placed on the Cross (Jn 19:19).

But who was this Barabbas, for whom the people cried out so passionately? According to Luke the Evangelist (Lk 23:19), he "had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city and for murder."

Probably, as often happened, he concealed his crime under the mask of a political plan to liberate Judea from the yoke of foreigners. Compare Acts 5:36 and Acts 21:38.

For this reason, in Luke and Mark (Mk 15:7), the disturbance he caused is called a rising, stasis, or a rebellion against authority.

But it was complicated by murder, committed most likely for the purpose of robbery. Therefore John the Evangelist directly calls Barabbas a robber.

Lestes means a robber by armed force. This was the name chiefly given to pirates, for whom robbery was a regular trade.

The people crying before Pilate for Barabbas's release were vividly portrayed before the eyes of the Jews by the Apostle Peter in the temple after the healing of the lame man.

"You denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked that a murderer be granted to you, and killed the Author of life" (Acts 3:14-15).

The Lord accepted the repentance of those persons among the Jews who believed in the Lord Jesus, were baptized, and became sheep of His flock. But the Jewish people, as a people, were in those minutes passing through the last phase of their existence.