Matthew Chapter 27 verse 37 Holy Bible

ASV Matthew 27:37

And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
read chapter 27 in ASV

BBE Matthew 27:37

And they put up over his head the statement of his crime in writing, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
read chapter 27 in BBE

DARBY Matthew 27:37

And they set up over his head his accusation written: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.
read chapter 27 in DARBY

KJV Matthew 27:37

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
read chapter 27 in KJV

WBT Matthew 27:37


read chapter 27 in WBT

WEB Matthew 27:37

They set up over his head the accusation against him written, "THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS."
read chapter 27 in WEB

YLT Matthew 27:37

and they put up over his head, his accusation written, `This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.'
read chapter 27 in YLT

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 37. - Set up over his head his accusation written. This was the titulus. A wooden tablet smeared with gypsum, had on it, written in black letters, the charge on which the prisoner was condemned. This, which had been hung round the criminal's neck or carried before him on the way to execution, was now affixed to the upper portion of the cross over his head. THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. The title had been prepared by Pilate (John 19:19, 22), and was conceived in terms studiously offensive to the Jews, with whom he was deeply indignant. It was written in three languages, so that all of whatever nationality might read it - in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek (for the order, see Westcott on John 19:20); i.e. the national Aramaic, familiar to all Jews; the official Latin,understood by the soldiers and Romans; the current Greek, the dialect of Hellenistic Jews, and largely used by all classes. "These three languages gathered up the results of the religious, the social, the intellectual preparation for Christ, and in each witness was given to his office" (Westcott). The title is given by the four evangelists with some verbal variations, which are owing in part to the actual differences existing in the three versions of the inscription. They run thus: "'This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matthew); "The King of the Jews" (Mark); "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke); "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John). Of these titles, those given by Mark and Luke probably represent the Latin; that of Matthew, the Greek; while that of John was intended for the national population, who alone would understand the veiled sneer contained in the addition, "of Nazareth." The legend of the finding of the cross and its inscription is given by Butler, 'Lives of the Saints,' on 'The Invention of the Holy Cross.' A supposed fragment of the title is preserved at Rome, in the Church of the Holy Cross, and declared by a papal bull to be authentic. In this case infallibility has rather overstepped its limits.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(37) THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.--This was what was technically known as the titulus--the bill, or placard, showing who the condemned person was, and why he was punished. Each Gospel gives it in a slightly different form--Mark (Mark 15:26), "The King of the Jews;" Luke (Luke 23:38), "This is the King of the Jews;" John (John 19:19), "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." The variations are, perhaps, in part, explicable on the assumption of corresponding differences in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin forms of the inscription, which reproduced themselves in the reports upon which the Gospel narratives were based. But in part also they may reasonably be ascribed to the natural variations sure to arise even among eye-witnesses, and a fortiori among those who were not eye witnesses, as to the circumstantial details of events which they record in common. On grounds of ordinary likelihood St. John's record, as that of the only disciple whom we know to have been present at the crucifixion (John 19:25), may claim to be the most accurate.There was, apparently, a kind of rough tenderness towards the Man whom he had condemned in the form which Pilate had ordered. He would at least recognise His claims to be in some sense a King. The priests obviously felt it to imply such a recognition, a declaration, as it were, to them and to the people that One who had a right to be their King, who was the only kind of King they were ever likely to have, had died the death of a malefactor, and therefore they clamoured for a change, which Pilate refused to make (John 19:20). . . .