That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death, [ poioo (G4169 ) thanatoo (G2288 ), 'what kind' or 'manner of death'] he should die - that is, the death of the cross, which Jesus had once and again predicted He should die (Matthew 20:19; John 3:14; John 8:28; John 12:32). Had it been left to the Jews to execute their own sentence, it would have been, as their law required in cases of blasphemy, by stoning. (Leviticus 24:16; 1 Kings 21:10; Acts 6:13, with 7:58; and see the notes at John 10:32-33.) But as this would have defeated the divine arrangements, it was so ordered that they should not have this in their power; and the divinely fixed mode of crucifixion, being a Roman mode of execution, could only be carried into effect by order of the Roman Governor. Finding it now indispensable to success to get up a criminal charge against their Prisoner, they proceed with shameless audacity to say that they had found Him guilty of what on His trial they seem not so much as to have laid to His charge. This is recorded only in
Luke 23:2: "And they began" - or 'proceeded' "to accuse Him, saying, We have found this [fellow] perverting the nation" - `our nation' the true reading probably is - "and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King." In two things this speech was peculiarly base. First, It was a lie that He had ever forbidden to give tribute to Cesar; nay, to some of themselves, not many days before this, in reply to their ensnaring question on this very subject, and with a Roman coin in His hands, He had said, "Render to Cesar the things which be Cesar's" (Luke 20:25). Secondly, Their pretended jealousy for the rights and honours of Cesar was so far from being real, that their restless impatience under the Roman yoke was already creating uneasiness at Rome, and ultimately brought ruin on their whole commonwealth; nor can there be any doubt that if our Lord had given the least indication of a willingness to assume royal honours, in opposition to the Roman power, they would have rallied around Him. But how does Pilate treat this charge against the blessed Jesus? It was at least a tangible choose, and whatever suspicion he might have as to the motives of His accusers, it was not to be trifled with. Perhaps rumours of our Lord's regal claims may have reached the Governor's ears; but instead of entering on the subject with the accusers, he resolves to interrogate the Accused Himself, and that alone, in the first instance.