XIII. WHEN HEROD WAS AT JERUSALEM

Luke 23:6.—“When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilgæan. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself Also was at jerusalem at that time.”

The fair inference from this last clause is, that Jerusalem was not the common place of abode either of Herod or Pilate. Such is certainly the force of the emphatic expression, “who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time,” applied, as it is, directly to Herod, but with a reference to the person of whom mention had been made in the former part of the sentence. The more circuitous this insinuation is, the stronger does it make for the argument. Now that Herod did not reside at Jerusalem, may be inferred from the following passage in Josephus.

“This king” (says he, meaning the Herod who killed James, the brother of John, Acts 12.) “was not at all like that Herod who reigned before him” (meaning the Herod to whom Christ was sent by Pilate), “for the latter was stern and severe in his punishments, and had no mercy on those he hated: confessedly better disposed towards the Greeks than the Jews: accordingly, of the cities of the strangers, some he beautified at his own expense with baths and theatres, and others with temples and corridors; but upon no Jewish city did he bestow the smallest decoration or the most trifling present. Whereas the latter Herod (Agrippa) was of a mild and gentle disposition, and good to all men. To strangers he was beneficent, but yet more kind to the Jews, his countrymen, with whom he sympathised in all their troubles. He took pleasure, therefore, in constantly living at Jerusalem, and strictly observed all the customs of his nation.”—Antiq. xix. 7. § 3. Thus does it appear from the Jewish historian, that the Herod of the Acts was a contrast to the Herod in question, inas-much as he loved the Jews and dwelt at Jerusalem. Nor is St. Luke less accurate in representing Pilate to have been not resident at Jerusalem. Cæsarea seems to have been the place of abode of the Roman governors of Judæa in general. (See Antiq. xviii. 4. § 1.— xx. 4. § 4.) Of Pilate it certainly was; for when the Jews had to complain to him of the profanation which had been offered to their temple by the introduction of Cæsar’s image into it, it was to Cæsarea that they carried their remonstrance. (Bell. Jud. ii. c. 9. § 2.)

It was probably the business of the Passover which had brought Pilate to Jerusalem for a few days, the presence of the Governor being never more needful in the capital than on such an occasion.